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

[createdtoworship]

I know you by the fruit you bear.

I have now provided several peer reviewed articles on this along with the text references and university webpages. Yet you keep DENIGRATING my efforts.

I think you might wish to check the beam in your own eye, "christian".

Seems like your bible love only extends to Noah.




oh you mean the numerous articles on how varves form?

For someone who DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PALEONTOLOGY AND BIOLOGY (and yes it is spelled paleOntology, not "paleantology" as you repeatedly write it), you talk awfully big.

Are you a "PHD"? Lol.




that was explicitly spelled out for you with just about every citation.

If you are going to demand this stuff AT LEAST BE DECENT ENOUGH TO READ THE ABSTRACTS!



it is spelled " non sequitUr". Your spelling is so attrocious it is difficult to read your posts!



"relEvant"



I have seen you post mostly ICR and the like. Trust me when I tell you those carry no real weight in geology circles.



I started off trying to pass along information. The fact that you spit on it is not MY problem.

I know you by the fruit you bear.

wow, bringing my religion into the debate! Thats a new low. However that is fine, I don't mind that at all. We will see how many posts you can speak on religion.

BTW, just because one is stern does not mean they are rude.

I have never once accused you of stupidity, or of a lack of knowlege....etc.

You are the one who has the most to lose in this debate as you have invested immensly into this topic, if we were right it might literally cost you your future job as a (paleantologist, a geologist, etc)

I won't lose my job for being a creationist!

But you might lose yours!

So I don't expect your views to be too..... lets just say....

accurate.

Well got to go to work.

But just so you know, proper debate tactic takes notice of fallacies used.

This may seem judgemental, however nothing in the Bible states that we cannot collect data for use in debate!

 

[TheBear]

wow, bringing my religion into the debate! Thats a new low.

Wow.

Isn't your underlying reasoning on the age of the earth, evolution, etc., based primarily on your religious views? I mean, they're intertwined and inseparable. Be honest - for you, everything gets viewed in light of what the Bible says, (or, more specifically, your interpretation thereof).

That said, your religion will always be brought up, because your opinions are shaped by your religious views. Therefore, your religious views are not off the table for discussion. Feigning offense won't change that.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

wow, bringing my religion into the debate! Thats a new low.

Your religion forms the basis of your "hypothesis" (the Bible). But your actions are anything but what I would call "Christian".

You denigrate the time I take to provide you with peer reviewed literature.

YOU have taken it to a new low, my friend. YOU.

However that is fine, I don't mind that at all. We will see how many posts you can speak on religion.

Believe me, son, I can talk religion too.

BTW, just because one is stern does not mean they are rude.

But you are not "stern". You are rude.

You see, little man, I have gone to some effort here to use scientific research tools at my disposal to find you peer reviewed literature on varves and fossilization processes. After you told us all you had never seen an "evolutionist" provide peer review on this board. Then after I did that you denigrated it and blew it off as unrelated!

Do you not see how that is simply rude?

You are the one who has the most to lose in this debate as you have invested immensly into this topic,

"invested"? Oh, you mean by learning some of this stuff? OK.

if we were right it might literally cost you your future job as a (paleantologist, a geologist, etc)

PaleOntologist, Paleontologist. And, not sure if you caught this, but I'm not a geologist. I'm not a paleontologist (or a "paleantologist"), so it won't cost me anything.

I won't lose my job for being a creationist!

But you could lose your job being a rude jerk.

But you might lose yours!

Unlikely. The industry I work in doesn't much care one way or the other.

So I don't expect your views to be too..... lets just say....

accurate.

Well, again, faint praise from someone who doesn't know the relationship between paleonotlogy and biology and who can't apparently read simple posts which distill abstracts down to show relevance to the topic and who spells worse than a junior high cheerleader.

This may seem judgemental, however nothing in the Bible states that we cannot collect data for use in debate!

But your Bible asks you to not bear false witness (unilaterally decreeing all the information I posted in regards to this topic from peer reviewed articles as not being germane). And if I'm not very much mistaken you should probably spend a bit of time with Matt 7:3.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Feigning offense won't change that.

I do like the feigning offense! It is ironic coming from one who demanded repeatedly that someone provide just one peer reviewed article. I provided many germane to the topic and even simplified the abstract to point out the highlight of how it was related to gradyll's demands.

And then he slams it and denigrates it.

So when he claims

funny how all available evidence has missed this particular forum!

I haven't seen one person quote a peer review! ...

I have to wonder if, indeed, someone did quote peer review but he treated them similarly.

Again, Matthew Chapter 7 (specifically 7:16) seems amazingly appropriate for the Reverend Gradyll.

 

[StormanNorman]

Wow.

Isn't your underlying reasoning on the age of the earth, evolution, etc., based primarily on your religious views? I mean, they're intertwined and inseparable. Be honest - for you, everything gets viewed in light of what the Bible says, (or, more specifically, your interpretation thereof).

That said, your religion will always be brought up, because your opinions are shaped by your religious views. Therefore, your religious views are not off the table for discussion. Feigning offense won't change that.

And it's the same with his "sources" ... Answers in Genesis, Creation Research, etc. Their conclusions are driven 100% by their religion, period. They already have their answer and will interpret the evidence any way possible to support that answer ...even if it is way out in left field.

Now, his response is that there is this conspiracy among the thousands and thousands of scientists that work at hundreds and hundreds of research institutions, company labs, etc. across many different nations to keep the evolution/old earth myth going, in part, to maintain their jobs. Yeah. Well, I guess if you are a true believer and you're going to delve into the actual science and run up against people like Lucy and others, then you have to come up with something.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Is a PHd bad?

PhD. Please accidentally get it right once! You have 6 permutations of this....how many times do you have to go through it before you get it right?

Thirdly, many of the peer reviews in her list were non sequitor,

Sequitur. It's Latin.

meaning they did not have anything to do with the topic

Do not bear false witness. I attempted to find germane articles. The fact that you didn't like them but you didn't respond to any of their content makes me wonder what your game is.

and were listed as a distraction of fact to gain an audience.

Perhaps an audience that can read?

None had to do specifically with "annual varves",

How about I requote my posts with highlights to help you see, gradyll

Are you as good as your word? Are you really interested in peer reviewed articles? How about this one:

Fischer, A.G., Roberts, L.T., 1991, Cyclicity in the Green River Formation (lacustrine Eocene) of Wyoming, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61 (7) , pp. 1146-1154

Abstract
The lacustrine mode (Tipton and Laney members) accumulated mainly varved oil shale. Here annual cycles are recorded as varves. Variations in varve thickness demonstrate El Nino (ENSO)-type and sunspot cycles. Milankovitch-scale cycles are not obvious in lithic variations, but gamma ray logs record 1) precessional variations with a mean period (varve-timed) of 19.5ka, and 2) a bundling of these in the ca. 100ka eccentricity cycle. In the playa mode (Wilkins Peak Member), the lithic succession oil shale-trona-dolomitic marlstone records the precessional drying up of a lake and is again bundled in sets of five, by the 100 ka eccentricity rhythm.
-------------------------
or this one?

Tylmann, W., Szpakowska, K., Ohlendorf, C., Woszczyk, M., Zolitschka, B., 2012, Conditions for deposition of annually laminated sediments in small meromictic lakes: A case study of Lake Suminko (Northern Poland), Journal of Paleolimnology 47 (1) , pp. 55-70

----------------------------------

Or how about the "annual chronometer" in the laminations in this one?

Shanahan, T.M., Overpeck, J.T., Beck, J.W., Wheeler, C.W., Peck, J.A., King, J.W., Scholz, C.A., 2008, The formation of biogeochemical laminations in Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana, and their usefulness as indicators of past environmental changes, Journal of Paleolimnology 40 (1) , pp. 339-355
----------------------------------

Perhaps you would like the sub-annual structures in the varves studied in this study?

Chutko, K.J., Lamoureux, S.F.,2008, Identification of coherent links between interannual sedimentary structures and daily meteorological observations in Arctic proglacial lacustrine varves: Potentials and limitations, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45 (1) , pp. 1-13


-----------------------------------

OOoh! Here's one with both varve counting and radiometric dating!

Migowski, C., Agnon, A., Bookman, R., Negendank, J.F.W., Stein, M., 2004, Recurrence pattern of Holocene earthquakes along the Dead Sea transform revealed by varve-counting and radiocarbon dating of lacustrine sediments, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222 (1) , pp. 301-314

of particular note is this bit from the abstract:

"...Radiocarbon dating and annual laminae counting yield excellent agreement between disturbed sedimentary structures (identified as seismites) and the historical earthquake record..."

-------------------------------

VARVE FORMATION:
Anderson, R.Y., Dean, W.E. , 1988, Lacustrine Varve formation through time, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 62 (1-4) , pp. 215-235

Abstract:
Studies using sediment traps in lakes reveal that the seasonal flux of sediment regulates both the composition and timing of deposition of materials that reach the bottoms of lakes. If the bottom waters of a lake are partly or totally anoxic, the seasonally deposited materials are preserved as annual groupings of laminae (varves). Common components that form individual laminae consist of allochthonous clastic material derived from the drainage basin, precipitated carbonate minerals, diatom frustules, iron-rich and manganese-rich flocs, autochthonous organic detritus, and autochthonous and allochthonous materials resuspended from the bottom. The "style" of varving has changed over geologic time, reflecting changes in biologic evolution and types of materials available. Precipitated iron-rich laminations were common in the middle Precambrian. Graded sets of clastic organic laminations persisted through the Precambrian, prior to the evolution of bioturbating benthic organisms. Glaciolacustrine varves appear to have retained their distinctive character through time. Carbonate-rich varves occurred sporadically in the Precambrian and Phanerozoic. With the exception of diatoms, major components of modern lacustrine varves were present through the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, and yet varves are rare in strata of these ages, and may have accumulated in marine to brackish-water environments. Diatoms were introduced into lacustrine systems in Early Tertiary time and are common components of varves from then on. Diatom laminae, combined with a greater chance for geologic preservation of younger lake deposits, have increased the number of geologically young occurrences of varved sediments. However, seasonal associations of modern varve components, and the processes they represent, are present in ancient deposits and provide clues to the interpretation of ancient environments. -------------------------------------------------

all she could find was a college essay on it from indiana university I believe.

So you missed all those other ones? Or do you not consider these peer reviewed journals?

Either way you better back up your claims or you will be bearing false witness!

 

[Joshua0]

We can easily see galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away.

No you can not see them. You see the light that left them hundreds of millions of years ago. You can see what the universe looked like 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you can not see them. You see the light that left them hundreds of millions of years ago.

Same thing.

If that is the criteria that you are using, then you can't see anything because you are always seeing how something was in the past, even if it was a nanosecond in the past.

 

[createdtoworship]

PhD. Please accidentally get it right once! You have 6 permutations of this....how many times do you have to go through it before you get it right?



Sequitur. It's Latin.



Do not bear false witness. I attempted to find germane articles. The fact that you didn't like them but you didn't respond to any of their content makes me wonder what your game is.



Perhaps an audience that can read?



How about I requote my posts with highlights to help you see, gradyll






So you missed all those other ones? Or do you not consider these peer reviewed journals?

Either way you better back up your claims or you will be bearing false witness!

wow, you really believe you have legitimate peer reviews don't you?

well, thats fine.

I have several as well.

But for one these peer reviews are not available for all of us to examine and read, for one as you would need a subscription to it.

So since I assume you would never post something you haven't read simply cut and paste a sentence or two that gives premises in support of the conclusion that:

"all varves in the green river formation are annual"

we will not discuss the conclusion but the premises.

this is how debate works.

I am not saying I even accept this peer review as legit, because it is off base.

I am trying to show YOU it's off base since you firmly believe you have legitimate peer reviews.

When you can post the premises, then we will go to your next peer review.

however again, the tactic you use to flood the forum with information to confuse and bewilder the audience is not honest. As it is an attempt to blitz. And hope no one takes the time to call your bluff.

So lets play fair.

We will take one premise at a time, and go slowly so the people here can see that you have not actually answered one single question regarding this matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

The original positive statment about varves was given by her, so the burden of proof lies with her,

If I gave any positive statement about varves, I would have given a peer review.

I only made negative statements, i.e. "not every varve is annual" etc.

the burden of proof still lies in her court.

Extensive evidence demonstrates that they are annual, including radiometric dating of the layers using cesium and 14C:

http://www.climategeology.ethz.ch/education/limnogeology/Zolitschka_2007.pdf

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow.

Isn't your underlying reasoning on the age of the earth, evolution, etc., based primarily on your religious views? I mean, they're intertwined and inseparable. Be honest - for you, everything gets viewed in light of what the Bible says, (or, more specifically, your interpretation thereof).

That said, your religion will always be brought up, because your opinions are shaped by your religious views. Therefore, your religious views are not off the table for discussion. Feigning offense won't change that.

I am being honest.

Biblical creationism is not the same as intelligent design.

if you would like I could describe the difference.

One post asked how old I believe the earth was, I gave my oppinion regarding THAT post. I used a bit of ID and BC both in my answer.

However in describing the age of the earth with everyone else, I have not used on BC tactic in my debate.

So typically this is just an adhominem and redherring to attack someone who is not in fact being "dishonest" at all,

thanks for the comment

 

[Joshua0]

Same thing.

If that is the criteria that you are using, then you can't see anything because you are always seeing how something was in the past, even if it was a nanosecond in the past.

Actually when you walk with God time is not as much of a consideration. Moses went back in time when God showed him the creation events that he wrote about in the Bible. Another example is when you watch a video of a teaching. Sometimes it is as if you make a connection with them, even though they are in a different time then you are. They talk about how some things become timeless. So our physical body can not go back or forward in time. But our soul and spirit sure can. I have had dreams about things that take place in the future.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

wow, you really believe you have legitimate peer reviews don't you?

well, thats fine.

Address just one of them. I'd be happy to talk about just one of them!

If you think that there's something "suspect" about Journal of Sedimentary Petrology or maybe Journal of Paleolimnology then explain yourself. What is illegitimate about these journals.

"all varves in the green river formation are annual"

You love that "all" or "none" aspect. The universal claims. I am personally unaware of non-annual varves (since that is usually how varves are defined as "annual"), so perhaps you can find just one in these articles or other articles that indicate non-annual varves.

I've seen your Morris reference...it isn't even an "article"...it's a posting on the ICR webpage with no references, no data, no nothing.

I am not saying I even accept this peer review as legit, because it is off base.

Wouldn't it require you be able to understand the basic science first? Usually kids start off learning from textbooks the basics and then get enough science under their belts to tackle the harder stuff in the peer review.

I am trying to show YOU it's off base since you firmly believe you have legitimate peer reviews.

What is "illegtimate" about the peer review I've posted. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this I will assume you have nothing.

however again, the tactic you use to flood the forum with information to confuse and bewilder the audience is not honest. As it is an attempt to blitz. And hope no one takes the time to call your bluff.

LOL! OK. But remember, others can read what I've posted and they can see the highlights.

So....

We will take one premise at a time, and go slowly so the people here can see that you have not actually answered one single question regarding this matter.

I would gladly do that with you. But you don't seem able to do so.

Just take any of the references I've provided and tell me what the biggest problem is.

I will assume you are as good as your word on this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually when you walk with God time is not as much of a consideration.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[Joshua0]

Now you are just making stuff up.

Just what it it that you think I am making up? They say that: truth is stranger then fiction. If I told you that there was a fish with human like teeth would you believe that or would you think that was something that I "made up"? I do not make things up. Although it is common that I do not explain things clear enough so that we have to work on the explanation.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Biblical creationism is not the same as intelligent design.

And ID doesn't require sub-annual varve deposits.

However in describing the age of the earth with everyone else, I have not used on BC tactic in my debate.

Except for constant reference to YEC sources like ICR.

So typically this is just an adhominem and redherring to attack someone who is not in fact being "dishonest" at all,

It is not an ad hominem (two words, not one...please, get just one thing right on this spelling bit). If it were an ad hominem I would simply focus on the person, not the data. So far I've focused largely on the data. That is why I spent time presenting you with information on xenoliths, varve formation, and fossilization. Only rarely do I take an interest in the person (note my point about Woodmorappe was a curiosity about his reliance on a pseudonym...I still took his science points to task.)

It really helps to understand more stuff. A good college education would be helpful. Basic philosophy classes come in handy if you want to sound erudite on things like "adhominems" (sic) or "non sequitors" (sic) or even what a "PHD"/"PHd" (sic) is. This doesn't even begin to plumb the depths of your lack of training in this area as evidenced by this howler:

what does biology have to do with paleantology?

 

[TheBear]

I am being honest.

No. You are being obtuse.

Biblical creationism is not the same as intelligent design.

I'm really not interested in splitting hairs over the subtle differences of the various religious beliefs, and what covers what. My point went to the idea that your religious views and beliefs, whatever they are, shape and influence your opinions on the age of the earth, evolution, etc. So, there's absolutely nothing out of the way in bringing up your religious beliefs while discussing such things.

One post asked how old I believe the earth was, I gave my oppinion regarding THAT post.

Sorry. I must have missed that. How old did you say it was?

 

[Mikecpking]

I am being honest.

Your goal posts must be very narrow, I have never seen such advoidance tactics as you make.

Biblical creationism is not the same as intelligent design.

Not according to a court os law as shown in this abract:

On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

if you would like I could describe the difference.

The Judge at the Dover/Kitzmiller trial certainly did not see any.

One post asked how old I believe the earth was, I gave my oppinion regarding THAT post. I used a bit of ID and BC both in my answer.

However in describing the age of the earth with everyone else, I have not used on BC tactic in my debate.

So typically this is just an adhominem and redherring to attack someone who is not in fact being "dishonest" at all,

thanks for the comment

So, if you believe the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years, I can see why you have to rubbish every shred of evidence presented to you to the contrary.
There is a saying that says 'Those who are presuaded against their will are still not persuaded still'.
In your case, you will never be convinced and not for one minute could I see you doing any serious field work study which could convice you otherwise.

Here is something of interest to everyone here:

12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I am being honest.

Biblical creationism is not the same as intelligent design.

if you would like I could describe the difference.

One post asked how old I believe the earth was, I gave my oppinion regarding THAT post. I used a bit of ID and BC both in my answer.

However in describing the age of the earth with everyone else, I have not used on BC tactic in my debate.

So typically this is just an adhominem and redherring to attack someone who is not in fact being "dishonest" at all,

thanks for the comment

Reality would say otherwise.

cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki

 

[Loudmouth]

Just what it it that you think I am making up?

This:

"Actually when you walk with God time is not as much of a consideration. Moses went back in time when God showed him the creation events that he wrote about in the Bible. Another example is when you watch a video of a teaching. Sometimes it is as if you make a connection with them, even though they are in a different time then you are. They talk about how some things become timeless. So our physical body can not go back or forward in time. But our soul and spirit sure can. I have had dreams about things that take place in the future. "