Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[AV1611VET]

Your country is doomed.

By what, exactly? Mothra? Godzilla? Darwin?

Please be scientific-method specific.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

All it takes is one anomaly, such as polystrate fossils, to call into question the whole geologic column. The California whale encased in diatomite is still unexplained by science but supports a massive and sudden flood event. Such anomalies are all over the place and either ignored by science of weakly explained away.

Yes, they have been explained, ad nauseum. It is professional creationists who have lied to you and told you they support a flood.

If you weren't religious/theist, would you be a YEC?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, they have been explained, ad nauseum. It is professional creationists who have lied to you and told you they support a flood.

If you weren't religious/theist, would you be a YEC?

I am an OEC, and a gapper.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I am an OEC, and a gapper.

And a global flood believer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And a global flood believer.

I'm afraid so. It's just too good a story not to be true.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm afraid so. It's just too good a story not to be true.

Right, because drowning 99.9% of all living things is such a cool story.

BTW, there's a lot of cool stories out there, how do you decide which ones to believe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Right, because drowning 99.9% of all living things is such a cool story.

Science says they all should have died -- 99.9% by drowning and .1% by being cooked alive.

Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

BTW, there's a lot of cool stories out there, how do you decide which ones to believe?

Boy, that's hard!

God or Molech?

Hmmm...

 

[Joshua0]

Right, because drowning 99.9% of all living things is such a cool story.

The Cambrian extinction was suppose to be 95%. So are you saying that creation is more effective then evolution? Like Ivory soap is 99.99% pure. Only problem is Noah actually was able to SAVE 100% of what was worth saving. That is what the Ark was all about. God's love for His creation and His desire to save what He had created.

 

[AkiraYamato]

The Cambrian extinction was suppose to be 95%. So are you saying that creation is more effective then evolution? Like Ivory soap is 99.99% pure. Only problem is Noah actually was able to SAVE 100% of what was worth saving. That is what the Ark was all about. God's love for His creation and His desire to save what He had created.

lol

Now serious...

Don´t you know that the Ark is a gigantic megastructure outside the Galaxy? Build from the forerunners? Its called installation 00. The forerunners did build it as a shield world to safe life in the galaxy, as a deadly infection swept through the galaxy, caleld the flood.

The plan was to bring all life from evry planet on Installation 00, the ark, you see it here:

Earth is shown next to it to show comparission.

The other part of the plan were the creation of 7 mega weapons. The Halos. The Halos are ringworld.

Those Halos would fire an impuls that would destroy all life in the galaxy as we know it. After that, the Flood died out. And the Librarian:

Brought all life forms back to their homeplanets.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

All it takes is one anomaly, such as polystrate fossils, to call into question the whole geologic column.

not really. Remember even today we see trees and dead upright trees in swamps and flooded vallies being encompassed in sediment. The key problem many yec have is with their overgeneralization of sedimentology. Geologists don't automatically say layers HAVE to take millions of years to form. There ARE actual LOCALIZED flood deposits forming even today!

Polystrate trees were explained about 140 years ago by J W Dawson describing the Joggins Fm in Canada.

The California whale encased in diatomite is still unexplained by science but supports a massive and sudden flood event. Such anomalies are all over the place and either ignored by science of weakly explained away.

now here is they key:

I am unaware of this whale in datomite example, but whale fossils, oldest ancestors of whales in fact, only seem to go back about 40 million years. But polystrate tree fossils like those in the Joggins Fm are over 280 million years old.

Even if you don't like the numbers there, it is clear they aren't even CLOSE to contemporary with each other.

Can you find whale fossils that correlate with ANY Carboniferous aged coals? Nope. Nowhere.

Not in the same time horizon. Not even close.

So how many Noachian Floods were there?

 

[Split Rock]

okay, I see your point with clay minerals. Now see my point.

okay so your saying that for example the dinasaur graveyard in montana, a sedimentary layer a mile long with 10,000 duckbill dinasaur fossils in it, happened gradually of long periods of time!

there are many like this in US alone!

I have posts of fish giving birth (fossilized)

and fish eating other fish (fossilized in mouth!)

not long ages, but a lone cataclysmic event.

Just out of curiousity, how did a global flood bury 10,000 duckbill dinosurs all together? Where were the elephants? Where were the giraffes? Did God bury them separately?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

not really. Remember even today we see trees and dead upright trees in swamps and flooded vallies being encompassed in sediment. The key problem many yec have is with their overgeneralization of sedimentology. Geologists don't automatically say layers HAVE to take millions of years to form. There ARE actual LOCALIZED flood deposits forming even today!

Polystrate trees were explained about 140 years ago by J W Dawson describing the Joggins Fm in Canada.

Did you review the opposing evidence?

Polystrate Fossil Trees

I am unaware of this whale in datomite example, but whale fossils, oldest ancestors of whales in fact, only seem to go back about 40 million years. But polystrate tree fossils like those in the Joggins Fm are over 280 million years old.

You should read up on this stuff, it's very interesting.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

So how many Noachian Floods were there?

Genesis 1:2 seems to describe a completely flooded earth prior to Noah's flood. I believe God may have used massive flooding several times prior to GenOne.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't see your response to the xenolith
issue or the Daleymple paper from 1969 discussing excess Ar that I
posted earlier. Can you remind me of how the yec find problems with
that as an explanation for anomalous young ages?

Oh it's there, do a thread search.

Also I did a thread search for "daleymple paper" and nothing popped up, are you sure you posted that in this forum?

 

[createdtoworship]

--gasp---numbers??? Oh my!



Starting off strong!



But this isn't all the limestone on earth, is it? Remember your
Dunham classification.

But let's stick with just ocean floor carbonates from oozes.
OK, now you've got a layer of carbonate and let's say you can solidify
it within a couple thousand years.

The rocks at the summit of Everest contain crinoids and carbonate
pellets. (Crinoids lived in the ocean). You've exhausted a great
deal of time just making the carbonate in the oceans since the
flood, so when did Everest "pop up"? Must have been pretty dramatic
to shoot up 29,000 feet in just a few years! The level of destruction
necessary must have been pretty phenomenal. The frictional factors
should have left some pretty nifty marks and melting/recrystallization
along he margins of the Himalaya from this shocking event.




Again, a pseudonym for Jan Peczkis. Just an fyi.



Why make that assumption???



If by "difficult" you mean ignoring all the potential problems that
might arise from the existence of other types of limestone, then
yeah, maybe.

Now here's a bigger question: what about shales? These are
often made up of very fine clay minerals which take an
exceptionally long time to "rain down" out of a body of water
and due to their unique shapes (flat and platy) the water needs to be
exceptionally calm.

Seems to me shales would be more of a problem for flood geologists and
YEC than limestones.

Check out your hjulstrom diagram while you're reviewing Dunham.

seems I missed a few of your posts, so I replied late sorry.,

the only real evidence you provide, worthy of a response, and thats shales. I have already addressed this in this forum as that is an exhausted topic, however once more:

varves are assumed to be annual, however severe storms can also cause varves, so which is it?

We need absolute proof that every single varve is annual.

Do you have peer review proof of this?

And also a peer review of someone with a PHD in related field of study.

And also peer reviewed by a scientific board of no affiliation with the person doing the paper.

These are all items presented to me in the past (by evolutionists criticising the RATE project and other Creationist Peer review articles).. as a for sure way of knowing if your research is legitimate and trustworthy.

so how about it?

got any?

I await your response.

 

[createdtoworship]

It should not be confusing in the
slightest. Not all fossilization occurs in limestone.

And further, nothing I said necessitates some carbonate cementation
without water.



"access sediment" and "access fossilization"? I'm afraid I'm
unfamiliar with those terms.



Hopefully you don't mean all sedimentary rocks, right? When you
start asking for this sort of thing you will run into some severe
problems.

Remember, sedimentary rocks are not just "homogenous chunks of rock".
MOst of them contain a huge amount of information in the fabric
and structures in the sedimentary deposits. Be they dune-deposits
showing aeolian structures or lacustrine deposits with varves, or
ripple marks or raindrop impressions or mud cracks, etc etc etc. The
list is almost inexhaustible.

Further on you can't assume all sedimentary rocks are carbonates.
There's shales hundreds of feet thick indicating a Looooooooong time
of relatively undisturbed water (or at least low enough energy that
the clay minerals can settle out and orient into nice flat plates).

Again, the vastness of sedimentary geology will probably contain many,
many things you will have to explain away and it will require that
your hypothesis be constantly in rework phase as you struggle to
explain this point over here while you nail down that point over
there.



Really? I wasn't aware of this 'water under extreme pressure' caveat.
What about coal? Often times lenses of coal which preserve a great
deal of structure occur in limited areal spots.

Fossilization, or the process of fossilization (technically called
taphonomy) actually contains a large number of different
aspects. And remember there are a wide variety of types of
fossilization mechanisms.

Original material (some shells retain their original composition, say
a CaCO3 shell or a silica spicule etc.)

Replacement fossils and perminerlized where the original material is
removed and replaced with another mineral phase. Silica replacement
is not uncommon, also carbonate replacement, sometimes of other
carbonates!

Molds and Casts: in which the original "thing" is removed altogether
and other material fills in the space.

Carbonization where a thin film of carbon can replace fossils.

You're going to have to work on shoehorning all these different
types of fossilization into your hypothesis.

you still haven't shown how all fossils are from sedimentary layers laid down by water under pressure by injecting chemicals rapidly and forcefully sealing out contaminants and sealing in hard tissues, can form without a global flood.

I mean you mention oceans covering the US etc,

but like I said before there is no evidence that these bodies of water are not run off from a global flood.

I am also waiting for your peer review article about every varve in existance being annual varves and not seasonal storms etc.

I meant to post this article for your study on the last post about lack of peer review evidence for your views:

https://www.icr.org/article/do-laminae-green-river-shales-document-millions-ye/

I already provided the RATE project as a peer review, you have provided none. And if you criticize the quality of one peer review well then we will step up to the plate and make all peer reviews only by a PHD in related field, also peer reviewed by people unrelated and unknown to subject of the paper, also it must be peer reviewed by a scientific affiliation that I agree is in fact a legitimate institution. This literally is what evolutionists have said to me on this forum (not this thread), but in this forum. So if you don't like my RATES, then go ahead and dig out some Peer review of the higher caliber. I suspect you will have NOT ONE!.

 

[StormanNorman]

Did you review the opposing evidence?

Polystrate Fossil Trees



You should read up on this stuff, it's very interesting.

CRSQ March 2007 Article - Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition



Genesis 1:2 seems to describe a completely flooded earth prior to Noah's flood. I believe God may have used massive flooding several times prior to GenOne.

CreationLiberty and CreationResearch???? Let me guess .... their research supported the Genesis story ..

 

[OldWiseGuy]

CreationLiberty and CreationResearch???? Let me guess .... their research supported the Genesis story ..

Not entirely.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

you still haven't shown how all fossils are from sedimentary layers laid down by water under pressure by injecting chemicals rapidly and forcefully sealing out contaminants and sealing in hard tissues, can form without a global flood.

your characterization of fossilization is a bit limited there. I have no idea where you got this injection, pressure and sealing aspects.

Fossilization, as noted earliear takes on many different forms. In some cases the original hard parts are preserved, such as you might find with shells. In other cases the parts are replaced by groundwater slowly moving through them for a looooooong time.

As an example there are fossils of some materials that have been replaced by silica. Chemically silica is EXCEPTIONALLY LOW SOLUBILITY i groundwater. That means in ground water moving through the rock it must dissolve the original material and then bring its tiny bit of SiO2 to replace the fossil. This takes a lot of water moving through the rock a long time.

Fossils form in a very wide variety if ways. Sometimes the fossil is nothing more than a cast or mold of the original.

If you would like to learn more about this I highly recommend taking a paleontology course. But a glance through just about any intro level geology text will help quite a bit.

I am also waiting for your peer review article about every varve in existance being annual varves and not seasonal storms etc.

i was unaware that you were waiting for ths from me. You will forgive me if I am unable to post links yet since I do not have the requisite number of posts.

I will try to answer your question.

I am unaware of an article that covers "every varve in existence", but basic geology and lacustrine chemistry shows us that the seasonal effects result in the light/dark couplets that are the varve deposits.

Some references such as Strahler, Arthur N. Science and Earth History, 1987, Prometheus Books, page 232. Describe varve formation. In fact almost any sedimentology textbook will cover this.

Generally speaking the process is pretty staightforward.

Perhaps you could propose a mechanism that would layer repeating couplets in light coarse particle bands alternating with darker fine grained bands. Interestingly enough this sort of thing happens today on an annual cycle, so you will have to show how the most common means we have to explain this isn't applicable in the past.

I already provided the RATE project as a peer review, you have provided none. And if you criticize the quality of one peer review well then we will step up to the plate and make all peer reviews only by a PHD in related field, also peer reviewed by people unrelated and unknown to subject of the paper, also it must be peer reviewed by a scientific affiliation that I agree is in fact a legitimate institution. This literally is what evolutionists have said to me on this forum (not this thread), but in this forum. So if you don't like my RATES, then go ahead and dig out some Peer review of the higher caliber. I suspect you will have NOT ONE!.

I was unaware that the RATE project had any peer reviewed articles. I thought most of their stuff was self published on their website.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Oh it's there, do a thread search.

Also I did a thread search for "daleymple paper" and nothing popped up, are you sure you posted that in this forum?

Post #503 is where I mentioned Dalrymple's study of K Ar dating methodologies.

I am still unable to find your response to the xenolith aspect. Please give me the post number. Thanks.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

You should read up on this stuff, it's very interesting.

.../www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

from what I could find the whale appears to have been encased in a diatomite layer in a roughly horizontal manner parallel to the bedding planes which indicate a slow deposition of the diatoms in an anoxic, quiet setting. No signs of catastrophic turbulence in the diatomite. Later the layer was tilted as rocks in geologically active margins such as California do.