Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[Tomk80]

Do dinosaurs and humans co-exist today?

non-avian dinosaurs do not, and those are what we are talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do dinosaurs and humans co-exist today?

non-avian dinosaurs do not, and those are what we are talking about.

It hurts to say "yes," doesn't it? --- (It must be hard being an evolutionist.)

 

[AintNoMonkey]

It hurts to say "yes," doesn't it? --- (It must be hard being an evolutionist.)

You understand the intent, but you choose to argue about wording and semantics. It's because you don't know enough to do any better. So you can have your semantic arguments, because they don't mean anything to anybody but you.

 

[Tomk80]

It hurts to say "yes," doesn't it? --- (It must be hard being an evolutionist.)

AV, you know as well as I do what we are talking about here. Please stop derailing. We've gone over this before. Whenever people talk about dinosaurs where they mean the non-avian types, there is no need to confuse the situation with cladistics. Yes, birds are also dinosaurs but those animals are not under discussion here.

You and I know that the discussion here talks about the non-avian dinosaurs, ie not about birds.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

It hurts to say "yes," doesn't it? --- (It must be hard being an evolutionist.)

Actually, it's quite easy, especially since he -rightfully- did not say yes.

 

[RobertByers]

This is going nowhere.
The whole world shows evidence of the flood. Sedimentary rock(most0 is from the flood.
As i said 80% of present dry land was admitted to have been under water. In order to lay the sed rock. Other rock with it of volcanic origin is from the effects of the moving continents and the natural outpouring from this event.
All sediment/life that was fossilized below trhe k-t boundary (this creationist says) is from a single year. Pressurized water and moving lands.
This is the exact evidence one would expect from a overpowering flood event and over throw of the foundations of the earth.
The great mountain ranges and fossilized life/oil/gas and rock depths saturated with water stil to this day is fantastic evidence for the biblical position of a great flood event. The bible alone is evidence for this truth. However some take it on and cl;aim evidence in geology goes against what the bible says.
It doesn't.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Rob Byers Wrote:

This is going nowhere.

No; you are going nowhere.

The whole world shows evidence of the flood.

No; the whole world shows no evidence for the biblical flood

Sedimentary rock(most0 is from the flood.

No; there are absolutely no biblical flood deposits anywhere in the world.

Remember, coal measures with root systems, terrestrial burrows, palaeosols, mud cracks, dino foot prints, the list goes on and on, all excellent evidence that the biblical flood never occurred.

Large Igneous Provinces through the geological record, all terrestrial, all evidence that the biblical flood never happened.

As i said 80% of present dry land was admitted to have been under water.

That’s what you say, geological investigation says that the biblical flood never occurred.


In order to lay the sed rock.

There is more than enough water on the plant to account for all we see in the geological record.

Other rock with it of volcanic origin is from the effects of the moving continents and the natural outpouring from this event.

Wrong; LIP occur right through the geological record, all are terrestrial and all have trap sequences that would have taken 100,000s years to form, all good evidence that the biblical flood never occurred.

All sediment/life that was fossilized below trhe k-t boundary (this creationist says) is from a single year.

Impossible; these sediments are full of coals with root systems, palaeosols, terrestrial burrows, animal track, mud cracks, evaporates, the list is endless, all indicating dry land and all good evidence that the biblical flood never occurred.

Pressurized water and moving lands.

Never happened, the world would still be a molten ball, has as been shown to you aready.

This is the exact evidence one would expect from a overpowering flood event and over throw of the foundations of the earth.

No at all, as 99.9% of geologist have found through research of all geological systems, the Earth’s geology only supports Uniformiatrianism.




The great mountain ranges and fossilized life/oil/gas and rock depths saturated with water stil to this day is fantastic evidence for the biblical position of a grea flood event. The bible alone is evidence for this truth. However some take it on and cl;aim evidence in geology goes against what the bible says.
It doesn't.

Everything in geology goes against the bible, only in the delusional mind and then with the help of magical mysticisms does geology show anything else.

 

[AV1611VET]

No; the whole world shows no evidence for the biblical flood

If it's the lack of evidence that bothers you about the Flood, I invite you to take this challenge.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If it's the lack of evidence that bothers you about the Flood, I invite you to take this challenge.

AV, How many times do you have to be told that not only is there no evidence for a global flood there is massive evidence against it? You bogus challenge is completely irrelevant to points that Chordtest made. We see again that you have no chance to actually address the science that falsifies the global flood and can only make up irrelevant "challenges".

 

[AV1611VET]

We see again that you have no chance to actually address the science that falsifies the global flood and can only make up irrelevant "challenges".

You want me to address the science that falsifies the global flood?

Okie-doke --- according to this, your massive evidence can take a hike.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You want me to address the science that falsifies the global flood?

Okie-doke --- according to this, your massive evidence can take a hike.

Sorry, but what you have produced are alleged arguments against evolution based on the Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Scripture. The evidence that conclusively falsifies the flood of Noah as a global event is completely independant of evolution. Science told the 6,100 year old earth to "take a hike" more than 200 years ago and there is no possibility of it ever returning from that hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science told the 6,100 year old earth to "take a hike" more than 200 years ago and there is no possibility of it ever returning from that hike.

I think geology has something to say to science about that; to wit ---

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Dinosaurs alive and well in YECs so called flood deposits.
170 million year old dinosaur footprints found on a remote beach on the island reveal an adult ornithopod - a bipedal plant-eating dinosaur - walking along a muddy lake edge, with up to 10 smaller individuals.
Quite clearly these Jurassic sediments are not biblical flood deposits but I be the young earthers will again ignore the data.
LINK

 

[AV1611VET]

170 million year old dinosaur footprints found on a remote beach on the island reveal an adult ornithopod - a bipedal plant-eating dinosaur - walking along a muddy lake edge, with up to 10 smaller individuals.

What I'm going to ignore, is what I highlighted in red.

How about you tell me how these specific footprints got dated to 170 million years, and do it in English?

And if you're going to tell me that the rocks they are found in are that old, or try to answer me by addressing anything other than those footprints, consider me offline.

(I love it --- footprints are impressions --- empty air --- yet scientists can date them.)

Oh well --- take your best shot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Was my request too hard? Was it asking you to put it in English that's holding up the answer?

(It's much easier to post pictures and charts and junk, than it is to post explanations --- isn't it?)

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

What I'm going to ignore, is what I highlighted in red.

How about you tell me how these specific footprints got dated to 170 million years, and do it in English?

And if you're going to tell me that the rocks they are found in are that old, or try to answer me by addressing anything other than those footprints, consider me offline.

(I love it --- footprints are impressions --- empty air --- yet scientists can date them.)

Oh well --- take your best shot.

Ok I will avoid radio metric data for the moment.

Skye is part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province and as such is covered in basaltic flows stacked to 1000s of meters in thickness. These flows number in the thousands, each with weathered tops, indicating enough time between eruptions for soils to form, this has already been explained in other posts.

Anyway the rocks the fossils were found in are below these terrestrial igneous rocks which have counterparts in Greenland and Northern Canada, i.e. they all belong to the same LIP, given they are now separated by the north Atlantic and the North Atlantic is opening at between 1 and 10 cm year, so the north Atlantic is at least

This is just a back of a beer mat calculation OK

3000 km = 3 X 10^8 cm

Divide this by 1cm per year you have 3 X 10^8 years

Divide this by 1`0 cm per year you have 3 X 10^7 years

Admittedly this is not very accurate, but it does give minimum values of 30 million years and a maximum of 300 million years. Either way the fossils are older that that.

Skye lava province, with individual lava flows visible and separated by weather soils

 

[thaumaturgy]

How about you tell me how these specific footprints got dated to 170 million years, and do it in English?

Will it really help you if it's in English? Really?

Well, let me take a stab at it.

How to Date A Footprint:

1. Footprints are really hard to make in solid rock, so that's why we find footprints in things like mud and soft sediments.

2. That means if we find a foot print in a rock formation it was made before the rock formation was rock.

3. Sedimentary layers are usually dated initially by relative age dating techniques. They correlate layers with similar layers based on position, type of sediment, fossils, and, ultimately, if they are lucky can assess an absolute age using radiometric dating techniques on a primary rock of some sort. Usually an ash fall or igneous rock that can be dated that way.

4. Some footprints on Skye discovered in the 1980's (a very beautiful place, my wife and I visited Scotland a few years back and drove a tiny Smart car from Aberdeen over to Skye and back), appear to be in a formation called the Lealt Shale, while the newer ones from 2002 according to THIS write-up were still up for grabs as to which formation they come from. The author, Dr. Neil Clark of the Hunterian Museum, states:

the sediments of the Ostracod Limestone Formation (Kilmaluag Formation) occur in the cliffs above the shore suggesting that the dinosaur footprints are either of Kilmaluag Formation or from the topmost part of the Duntulum Formation (British Geological Survey Edinburgh, archive reference: LSA 212)(ibid)

What you see here is the working of the geologic mind. The rock is hard to determine in age, but this is how it will ultimately be determined.

Note how the author in the link points up to the fossil assemblages in the various rocks. That's important because some fossils are found only in certain bands of time and some aren't. Some are found in rocks of a known age but not in others of an older or younger age. In addition the rocks the footprints are found has a specific lithology that tells what kind of mineral grains and rocks make up the formation. That allows the researchers to correlate this formation with examples in other places on the Isle of Skye.

Now I'm sure there's a good Scottish Geologist on this board who can go into more detail as to Skye Stratigraphy and can help with the details, but this is generally how it is done.

I realize you will not accept, nor will you likely understand the underlying concepts, not only because you have probably never sat in a single geology class, but more importantly because, for all the effort people pour into explaining this sort of thing to you, you don't care about any of it. Not one whit.

You demand people address your questions and you get nasty if they don't toady to your request in a quick fashion, but we all know it's just a chance for you to yell at people. You've said on so many occasions you don't care to learn the science.

Indeed the effort I expended here was likely wasted on you. But it wasn't on me. I got to learn a little more in looking up this stuff. And I got to apply some of the learnings from my past.

(I love it --- footprints are impressions --- empty air --- yet scientists can date them.)

I know you think that statement is clever...but have you ever seen a footprint? Have you ever made a footprint in the ground? What does it tell you about the nature of the surface you are making the footprint in?

Honestly, are you this uneducated and incurious about the world around you that you don't even understand how the age of a footprint relates to a rock the footprint is found in?????

How do you function on a daily basis? It must be hard to remain that oblivious to simple concepts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know you think that statement is clever...but have you ever seen a footprint? Have you ever made a footprint in the ground? What does it tell you about the nature of the surface you are making the footprint in?

I'll tell you want it tells me, Thaumaturgy. It tells me that I have a lump of clay in one hand --- you know --- modeling clay --- the kind we played with in kindergarten?

And in my other hand is, say, a Godzilla action figure that I picked up in the lobby of the theater when I went and saw Godzilla 2000.

Now, I take the action figure in my one hand, and embed its foot into the clay that's in my other hand, making a footprint.

Now I set this clay down, which, by the way, has n-quadrillion years embedded in it. And what happens? Over time it --- what's the technical word --- lithifies? --- solidifies and hardens.

Now, a thousand years, no --- make it 2500 hundred years later, some geologist finds this and what happens?

Tomorrow's headlines ---

• OLDEST KNOWN FOOTPRINT FOUND
• Scientist finds n-quadrillion year old footprint of tiny dinosaur.

I'm not buying you guys' long-age explanations --- period.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I'm not buying you guys' long-age explanations --- period.

Of course not, you prefer the Bronze Aged mans approach, even though their natural science knowledge was non existent.

That’s what indoctrination does for you.

And yes the King James Bible is just a bad translation of an earlier translation of an earlier translation of possibly the original, but alas we will never know, because there is not an original copy of the bible anywhere in the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

That’s what indoctrination does for you.

Does it strike you funny, Chordates, that long before radiometric dating came out, and even before Carbon dating came out, people were saying that this universe was millions (if not billions) of years old? Dinosaurs, of course, came on the scene as "millions of years old."

What I'm saying is, I don't need your radiometric-dating explanations. You're preaching to the choir here.

I'll accept whatever age you say any cubic inch of this earth is --- without question.

In other words, I'll take what you say on faith alone --- solo fideles.

But when you step on the Bible to make a point, you've gone too far.