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

[StormanNorman]

Because of the way he acted on this thread I have to wonder when he said that if indeed others in the past have presented peer review...he just denigrated it.

This is his biggest problem. In asking for peer review then never addressing it only denigrating it he has established that he may be less than honest on these things.

It is sad. That is why I have reported his post. I hate reporting posts, but people who act thusly certainly should be held accountable.

That would be my guess. The thing is, Lucy, you can't take these guys too seriously. I've said this before, but they already have their answers and, as we have seen, are very emotionally dependent on them. But, remember, other people (like me) read these forums and appreciate the inputs from you and the other professionals.

 

[Lethe]

well thats your opinion, you have nothing to base your conclusion on, no premises, no arguments, no anything.

Yeah, well that's just your opinion man. (Big Lebowski) - YouTube

Yeah. History of geology. History of biology. History of physics. History of chemistry.

 

[createdtoworship]

Fractal wrongness strikes again.

The Nuatiloid Cephalopods of the Pennsylvanian System in the Mid-Continent Region, Miller, A.K., Dunbar, C.W. Condra, G.E., 1933, Bulletin, Number 9 : 240 pages (LINK)

The cephalopods of the Eagle sandstone and related formations in the western interior of the United States, Reeside, J.B., (LINK)


Miller, A.K., Lane, J.H., Unklesbay, A.G., 1947,A Nautiloid Cephalopod Fauna from the Pennsyvlanian Winterset Limestone of Jackson County, Missouri, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PALEONTOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MOLLUSCA, ARTICLE 2, PAGES 1-11, (LINK)

Teichert, C., Glenister, B., 1952,Fossil Nautiloid Fauna from Australia, J. Paleonotology, v26, pp730-752 (LINK)

Frey, R.C., 1989, Paleoecology of a well-preserved nautiloid assemblage from a Late Ordovician shale unit, southwestern Ohio, J. Paleontology, v63


W. W. Nassichuk, 1971,Permian ammonoids and nautiloids, southeastern Eagle Plain, Yukon Territory Journal of Paleontology, v. 45, p. 1001-1021



Gosh that was just a couple seconds of Googling!!!!

And that doesn't even include just about every standard intro paleontology textbook on the planet!

LOL!

So this quip from Gradyll earlier is starting to make more sense every post!

then explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?

When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.

But please tell the difference between noahs flood, and an ocean?

Then we talked about sedimentary layers forming fossils by injection of chemical under pressure.

And you quote all these abstract fossilization techniques that have nothing to do with the typical sedimentary rock formations in question.

You are building a reputation here.

 

[Loudmouth]

well thats your opinion, you have nothing to base your conclusion on, no premises, no arguments, no anything.

That is a perfect description of every post you have made. You have no evidence, just made up stories.

 

[Loudmouth]

then explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

Another example of you just making stuff up.

but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?

There is nothing to dodge. All you are presenting is stories with no evidence to back them up.

When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.

What evidence did you present that these fossils were produced by a recent global flood? Any?

Are you seeing a pattern here?

 

[StormanNorman]

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?

Peer reviewed???

 

[dad]

I'm always amazed when young earth creationists tell me that this is OBVIOUSLY a "proof" of Noah's Flood. But I would really like to know if that sounds like "common sense" to anyone.

I've also wondered this: Does it seem likely that a FLOOD would leave behind the same kind of environment as an ancient ocean or lake?

Also, if these observation and evidence are "obvious", why are young earth creationists never able to use that evidence to identify THE GEOLOGIC STRATA OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD? That is, if the flood evidence is easy to see, why can't the strata location be named so that I know where I can find the flood evidence wherever I happen to be in the world?

No. The movement of continents pushing up mountains and former seabeds after the flood is probably better.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Peer reviewed???

As far as I can tell Austin's only "publications" on this are a couple of abstracts talks at a GSA conference in 1999 (HERE) and 2002 (HERE). Of course Gradyll may not know that talks and their abstracts are often not peer reviewed.

It looks like Dr. Austin analyzed 160 nautiloids in the 1999 paper. But in the 1999 paper Dr. Austin also draws a conclusion of a "toxic event" that may have lead to this. I also cannot find how many nautiloids were analyzed for the 2002 paper where the 15% figure comes from

So correct me if I'm wrong but we find one area where 15% of some unknown number of nautiloids had their shells preserved in a non-horizontal orientation and reverse grading in a packstone in this formation accompanied by "escape tunnels" (did nautiloids have that capability or are these skolithos burrows????) as evidence that the Noachian Flood is real and the rest of geology, physics and hydrology should be tossed out.

Hmmmm. Maybe Gradyll should describe how this all works in a bit more detail and using his own "requirements" of peer reviewed literature.

Just an idea. I know it won't happen. We are now in the "YEC Whack-a-mole" zone where every 3rd post will bring up a new topic and no topic will be discussed by Gradyll in detail. Just move to the next one.

 

[createdtoworship]

As far as I can tell Austin's only "publications" on this are a couple of abstracts talks at a GSA conference in 1999 (HERE) and 2002 (HERE). Of course Gradyll may not know that talks and their abstracts are often not peer reviewed.

It looks like Dr. Austin analyzed 160 nautiloids in the 1999 paper. But in the 1999 paper Dr. Austin also draws a conclusion of a "toxic event" that may have lead to this. I also cannot find how many nautiloids were analyzed for the 2002 paper where the 15% figure comes from

So correct me if I'm wrong but we find one area where 15% of some unknown number of nautiloids had their shells preserved in a non-horizontal orientation and reverse grading in a packstone in this formation accompanied by "escape tunnels" (did nautiloids have that capability or are these skolithos burrows????) as evidence that the Noachian Flood is real and the rest of geology, physics and hydrology should be tossed out.

Hmmmm. Maybe Gradyll should describe how this all works in a bit more detail and using his own "requirements" of peer reviewed literature.

Just an idea. I know it won't happen. We are now in the "YEC Whack-a-mole" zone where every 3rd post will bring up a new topic and no topic will be discussed by Gradyll in detail. Just move to the next one.

so it's okay for you to submit a different subject for evidence of evolution, but not for me?

point noted.

Also I never mentioned peer review in anything I said regarding steve austins works on nautiloids. I simply asked a question, if they are in fact upright (15%), then why are they upright?
.

 

[createdtoworship]

Peer reviewed???

is what peer reviewed?

the fact that nautiloids exist?

 

[createdtoworship]

Another example of you just making stuff up.



There is nothing to dodge. All you are presenting is stories with no evidence to back them up.



What evidence did you present that these fossils were produced by a recent global flood? Any?

Are you seeing a pattern here?

okay you are right, it would be an argument from silence to assume the duckbill dinasaurs were covered by noahs flood. However, you have not mentioned any alternatives. See the trend here? Either it was an ocean, or it was a huge body of water moving very fast to do this. What we know for certain is that it was a catastophic water event. (some others on this forum, said there were ancient oceans over the US before)

Is there any reason why this could not fit the model of Noahs flood?

 

[Loudmouth]

However, you have not mentioned any alternatives.

I don't know is a fine answer. I don't need an alternate explanation in order to show that you have not supported your claims.

Either it was an ocean, or it was a huge body of water moving very fast to do this.

You are making up stories again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

okay you are right, it would be an argument from silence to assume the duckbill dinasaurs were covered by noahs flood. However, you have not mentioned any alternatives. See the trend here? Either it was an ocean, or it was a huge body of water moving very fast to do this. What we know for certain is that it was a catastophic water event. (some others on this forum, said there were ancient oceans over the US before)

Is there any reason why this could not fit the model of Noahs flood?

If the sediments and fossils came from Noah's Flood we would not see the sediments and fossils we see today. They can be thousands of feet thick, some of them, bioclastic rock for example, made up almost entirely of what was once previously living matter. Look at how much life there is on the Earth today. Even if there was ten times the amount of animal and plant life, which would be frankly impossible, and it all died in a flood, there would only be a very thin layer of living material deposited.

We can see thousands of feet of coral reef based deposits in places. That means there had to be millions and millions of years of growth first. Coral reefs grow extremely slowly. That alone busts the claim that sedimentary rocks came from the flood.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument,

That is a LIE and you know it. I have attempted to present data in support of my points against your claims. REPEATEDLY NOW.

DO NOT LIE.

When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.

Check your facts bub...I didn't even respond to that post!

Please! Get your facts straight and stop lying about people!

Then we talked about sedimentary layers forming fossils by injection of chemical under pressure.

Which I even found an article that listed moderately high pressures for fluid flow, but I also noted that this is not necessary in all fossilization scenarios.

And you quote all these abstract fossilization techniques that have nothing to do with the typical sedimentary rock formations in question.

Another lie! I provided you with basic and standard documentation
as to how fossils are formed.

You are building a reputation here.

As are you. Lying troll seems to be the key.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

then explain why 15% of the grand canyon deposit of nautiloids, are on their heads!

if they were buried gradually would they be lying down?

"15% of these nautiloids were killed and then fossilized standing on their heads. "-(Steve Austin is also the world's leading expert on nautiloid fossils and has worked in the canyon and presented his findings to the park's rangers at the invitation of National Park Service officials.)

quote from
Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

but then again you have dodged every single creationist argument, why start now?

When we claim rapid deposits of 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs, you say it was a sea.

But please tell the difference between noahs flood, and an ocean?

Then we talked about sedimentary layers forming fossils by injection of chemical under pressure.

And you quote all these abstract fossilization techniques that have nothing to do with the typical sedimentary rock formations in question.

You are building a reputation here.

This post has also been reported now. Enjoy your reputation.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know is a fine answer.

none of us know exactly, however theorizing is okay. I theorize a body of water rushing over the surface of the earth, burying 10,000 dinasaurs as it stormed through the area we now call montana.

Unless you can explain why this herd was buried in a 3 mile radius? All at the same time? I understand you don't have any answers, but I think part of the issue is that you don't WANT to find the answer to these issues.

I don't need an alternate explanation in order to show that you have not supported your claims.

as I said they are theories, and to have no theories at all is simply innadequate for an intellectual debate.

So in other words, saying nothing....is losing the debate.

You are making up stories again.

noahs flood is actually a story that has been made up (according to you), in nearly every ancient culture, coming from different languages, cultures etc.

How do you explain that?

here is the details:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf

I haven't read the link but I see some good stuff from Creation.com, and plus I have researched this myself and it's not a myth.

check out the PDF when you have time.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

so it's okay for you to submit a different subject for evidence of evolution, but not for me?

I have provided many, many peer reviewed articles which you have denigrated over and over again.

Now you want me to treat your references with "respect"?

Hypocrisy much?

Also I never mentioned peer review in anything I said regarding steve austins works on nautiloids. I simply asked a question, if they are in fact upright (15%), then why are they upright?
.

15%? How many does that actually represent? Is it formation wide? (You do know what I am referring to when I use the technical term "formation", right?) Any evidence that this would support your "global Noachian Flood" hypothesis? Remember, no one, least of all a geologist would say there are never any catastrophes.

But again we are going on very limited data here. But that doesn't bother you.

Again I'm not entirely certain why you think your points deserve even a modicum of respect! People on here have provided you much more respect than you have earned or deserve.

You are rude. You have been reported a couple times now. Hopefully some of your co-religionists will teach you something like common courtesy.

But I won't count on it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have provided many, many peer reviewed articles which you have denigrated over and over again.

Now you want me to treat your references with "respect"?

Hypocrisy much?

that would technically be poisoning the well. Because even if I treated you rudely, and I don't believe I did. My references have nothing to do with me. So you let that slip a bit.



15%? How many does that actually represent? Is it formation wide? (You do know what I am referring to when I use the technical term "formation", right?) Any evidence that this would support your "global Noachian Flood" hypothesis? Remember, no one, least of all a geologist would say there are never any catastrophes.

But again we are going on very limited data here. But that doesn't bother you.

it's wide open to see

Again I'm not entirely certain why you think your points deserve even a modicum of respect! People on here have provided you much more respect than you have earned or deserve.

telling me I need to go to school and learn the basics of biology, paleantology, and geology is respect?

You are rude. You have been reported a couple times now. Hopefully some of your co-religionists will teach you something like common courtesy.

good job, that is what you should do. If moderators believe this in violation and that you have in fact not flamed as much or more, then it will be a point or two.

 

[Mikecpking]

again, this is misinformation.

How is it 'misinformation? Are you saying I am a liar? Is not one of the 10 commandments, "you shall not bear false witness"? I am merely pointing out there was a trial and the Judge ruled ID is a progeny of creationism.

please see this ID'er who is definately NOT christian! And doesn't ever want to be!....

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design: Bradley Monton: 9781551118635: Amazon.com: Books

One in how many millions? Please..

Just to back Lucy up, you really did not erngage any point and just rubbished anything she posted.

You are just acting exactly like the creationists AronRa describes in his videos.

I was brought up to be a creatioist until the age of 16 when I studied geology, biology etc and after field study realised all what we see could not be produced in 6,000 years. You can see a 3,000 year old ditch around Stonehenge, yet I can see evidence of river capture, the laying down of rocks whcih said river cut through and those rocks were folded, faulted and eroded with an unconformity with more rock laid on top...

Go figure!

 

[Lucy Stulz]

that would technically be poisoning the well. Because even if I treated you rudely, and I don't believe I did. My references have nothing to do with me. So you let that slip a bit.

Your rudeness knows no bounds. I went to some great deal of effort to find you references. WHich you now call "poisoning the well".

You are a piece of work.

telling me I need to go to school and learn the basics of biology, paleantology, and geology is respect?

Spending any amount of time providing you with data and references which you don't even bother to note is respect. But your rudeness was overwhelming to me.

So I treated you as you wish to be treated.

Lk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

good job, that is what you should do. If moderators believe this in violation and that you have in fact not flamed as much or more, then it will be a point or two.

It doesn't matter what I have done. Your actions are sickening.

You have a reputation now.