Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

Once you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, then I'll offer an alternative explanation for how megasequences were formed on the east and west coasts of North America, and how how there are complex burrow networks and large tunnels found throughout the geologic column.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

According to Kurt wise, there were 5 to 6 mega waves that deposited the geologic column. Just want to make that clear. So, one wave for example, for each megasequence. So if one wave happened to deposit say, all mesozoic strata, then everything within mesozoic strata was deposited in a single giant wave event. Hypothetically.

Hypothetically, with reservations. Some things have not been ironed out; but there is little doubt that the evolutionary geology/paleontology model is dead.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Well dinosaur tracks and features of life, are found everywhere. In both low elevation areas and high elevation areas.

So this whole idea about an island where thousands of dinosaurs all ran together and Huddle's is just rediculous.

Perhaps, but there are dinosaur graveyards.

Not only that, but you're missing the point that many of these features, such as the dinosaur dance floor" are in fact in the middle of a megasequence. As are many fossil tracks, and nests and tunnel networks etc.

You can't say "oh the dinosaurs just ran to higher ground" also because many features, such as burrow networks, tunnels and nests, can't run.

They're are found throughout the mesozoic, indicating that they were allegedly deposited by a giant wave. But of course a dinosaur nests couldnt be deposited by a giant wave, nor would dinosaurs create nests while under water. The same goes for burrow networks and tunnels.

There are some objections to the theory. This geologist highlights some of his reservations with the model that Wise, Austin and Snelling advocate:

Geological perspective on floating forests - creation.com​

A graphic of "dinosaur peninsula" is included in the article.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps, but there are dinosaur graveyards.



There are some objections to the theory. This geologist highlights some of his reservations with the model that Wise, Austin and Snelling advocate:

Geological perspective on floating forests - creation.com​

A graphic of "dinosaur peninsula" is included in the article.

Dan

This still isn't a response.

Well, when you're ready to respond to my words, I'll be here. Otherwise, I'm going to move on.

I'll keep an eye out for your response, should you decide to make one.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What is an assumption?

Massive megasequences are found superpositionally below mesozoic strata in Bolivia. Therefore, massive waves already passed through bolivia prior to the mesozoic.

Not only that, but Paleozoic mega sequences are found at the highest elevations in Bolivia, which superpositionally pre date the mesozoic.

I now believe I understand your argument. You believe that many layers of strata were already in place, long before the dinosaurs arrived on the scene, rendering it improbable the footprints were made during a global flood. Is that correct?

The town of Sucre, a short distance from the dino tracks, is over 9,000 feet above sea level, situated in the Andes Mountains. Was that area uplifted, and what effect did it have on the strata?

Do you know the current depth of the strata in that area, other than what is in the Lockley paper?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Once you admit that you have no idea what you're talking about, then I'll offer an alternative explanation for how megasequences were formed on the east and west coasts of North America, and how how there are complex burrow networks and large tunnels found throughout the geologic column.

I am all ears.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I now believe I understand your argument. You believe that many layers of strata were already in place, long before the dinosaurs arrived on the scene, rendering it improbable the footprints were made during a global flood. Is that correct?

The town of Sucre, a short distance from the dino tracks, is over 9,000 feet above sea level, situated in the Andes Mountains. Was that area uplifted, and what effect did it have on the strata?

Do you know the current depth of the strata in that area, other than what is in the Lockley paper?

Dan

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...two-cross-sections-at-the-same_fig1_258671479

Looks like at least 10 kilometers. Sections of the Cretaceous are spread out throughout the andes. And yes that is correct. If hypothetically flood waters had laid these sediments down like, then dinosaurs should have been long deceased.

 

[Job 33:6]

And regarding uplift, this is something I've tried to get others to understand. Kurt wise understands the concept that older layers ought to be on the bottom and are older. Generally speaking. Else the younger layers would have nothing to rest upon.

But in addition to this, not only can this simple and logical concept be applied to strata, but it can be applied to things such as...propogating fractures, re activated faults, features of cataclastic metamorphism, and a whole host of features that tell us things about the prehistoc nature of their respective environments.

I'll go into detail on Bolivia, but right now, already we see features, dinosaurs walking around, burrow networks and tunnels, that are evidence for a calm life. At a particular time. Not only that but these features are found throughout these megasequences, and throughout the geologic column, so we have to take this into account when performing further research.

More on this later.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...two-cross-sections-at-the-same_fig1_258671479

Looks like at least 10 kilometers. Sections of the Cretaceous are spread out throughout the andes. And yes that is correct. If hypothetically flood waters had laid these sediments down like, then dinosaurs should have been long deceased.

Is that the same area? It looks to be SE of the Sucre area in a much lower area of the uplift?

No matter. I scanned my library and found this:

"Scientists who study tracks deduce several unusual behavioural characteristics of dinosaurs, such as parallel sets of tracks presume gregarious dinosaurs. However, within the Flood model, such behaviours may be unusual, and mean nothing about normal dinosaur habits. There are also a number of features of the tracks that not only are better understood within a diluvial model, but also tell us some of the unique events that occurred during the Flood. Just the preservation of billions of tracks indicates rapid sedimentation, since studies of modern tracks reveals that footprints deteriorate and are destroyed rapidly (page 18). The tracks are practically always found on bedding planes, generally capping sedimentary units, which suggests a cycle of sedimentation during the Flood followed by a brief exposure above the water. Why wouldn't the tracks be found throughout the beds if the sediment was deposited slowly over long periods of time?" [Michael J. Oard, A Review Of, "Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States." CEN Technical Journal, 1997, p.38] ​

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_1/j11_1_37-39.pdf​

"Also of interest is the author's contradictory interpretation. The tracks are in the Navajo Sandstone, interpreted to be desert sand that lithified (hardened) into rock. So, they postulate a 'desert oasis' or watering hole. If this were the case, why are practically all the tracks going in the same direction? Animals usually mill around a watering hole, making tracks in multiple directions... What are dinosaurs doing in a huge desert, even at an oasis? Desert oases are normally small and could hardly sustain dinosaurs in such large numbers. Moreover, there are 60 other track sites in the Navajo Sandstone, mostly of carnivorous dinosaurs. Just as mysterious from a uniformitarian point of view is that hardly any bones are found in the Navajo Sandstone. One would think that with shifting sands, a huge number of dinosaurs would easily be covered up, which is the first step in fossilization." [Michael J. Oard, "Dancing Dinosaurs? Stony footprints point to something more serious." Creation Ministries International, 2008] ​

Dancing Dinosaurs? - creation.com​

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I had never given it much thought.

BTW, I also found this short 1 minute video on dino tracks which highlights some of Michael Oard's points:

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And regarding uplift, this is something I've tried to get others to understand. Kurt wise understands the concept that older layers ought to be on the bottom and are older. Generally speaking. Else the younger layers would have nothing to rest upon.

But in addition to this, not only can this simple and logical concept be applied to strata, but it can be applied to things such as...propogating fractures, re activated faults, features of cataclastic metamorphism, and a whole host of features that tell us things about the prehistoc nature of their respective environments.

I'll go into detail on Bolivia, but right now, already we see features, dinosaurs walking around, burrow networks and tunnels, that are evidence for a calm life. At a particular time. Not only that but these features are found throughout these megasequences, and throughout the geologic column, so we have to take this into account when performing further research.

More on this later.

I would like someone to explain how a good part of the earth is gradually covered for millions of years by one type of sediment, such as sand, then for millions of years with carbonates, then for millions of years with a different colored carbonate, then for millions of years with shale (mud), then for millions of years with sand, then for millions of years with chalk . . . you get the picture. It is illogical.

And there are frequent anolomies like this:

Why didn't those layers bend, and not break? Could it be that the sediment was still partially pliable -- not completely hardened?

And then there is the commonality of flat coal seams, some with thin mud layers (inches, not feet) between them:

And, of course, there are the many polystrates that extend upward through millions of years of sediment, even through multiple coal seams that were supposedly formed over millions of years.

How do you explain all of that with the concept of gradualism?

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I would like someone to explain how a good part of the earth is gradually covered for millions of years by one type of sediment, such as sand, then for millions of years with carbonates, then for millions of years with a different colored carbonate, then for millions of years with shale (mud), then for millions of years with sand, then for millions of years with chalk . . . you get the picture. It is illogical.

And there are frequent anolomies like this:

Why didn't those layers bend, and not break? Could it be that the sediment was still partially pliable -- not completely hardened?

And then there is the commonality of flat coal seams, some with thin mud layers (inches, not feet) between them:

And, of course, there are the many polystrates that extend upward through millions of years of sediment, even through multiple coal seams that were supposedly formed over millions of years.

How do you explain all of that with the concept of gradualism?

Dan

These are...in my opinion, and likely the opinions of the vast majority of geologists, fairly well understood concepts. For example, how do rocks undergo brittle deformation versus a more viscous/ductile deformation.

And the simple answer is, if you put rocks under extreme heat and pressure, they bend. And there are laboratories that have ran countless tests demonstrating that this happens. Where a bunch of lab nerds put granite inside a machine that puts the granite under super high pressure, and under a lot of heat, and they bend it.

And its really that simple. But, if a rock does not have that heat and pressure, the rock will fracture (brittle deformation).

This is...metamorphism. This is what metamorphism and metamorphic rocks are. They are super heated, super pressurized rocks. We know a lot about them. And we know a lot about the gradation from ductile deformation to brittle deformation. A lot of it also depends on the minerals present within the rock.

So thats one answer. And, im not going to debate this, nor will i accept anyone telling me that it isnt true, because this is really well understood and its been tested countless times. This is knowledge and more fact based, than it is hypothetical or even theoretical.

Also, we have plenty of evidence of how rocks do become superheated and compressed. Typically it involves subduction. But tectonic collisions also cause deformation in ways that...could only occur when one hard rock runs into another. You dont get brittle deformation or cataclastic metamorphism or even brecciated unconformities in situations where wet sand is running into wet sand.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Bible Research Tools

We can go one topic at a time. I'll wait for your response on the above.

And if you would like me to gather research papers on ductile and brittle deformation and grades and types of metamorphism, just let me know and I can fetch you some.

 

[Job 33:6]

And, of course, there are the many polystrates that extend upward through millions of years of sediment, even through multiple coal seams that were supposedly formed over millions of years.

How do you explain all of that with the concept of gradualism?

Dan

And actually, this isnt true. I am sorry that you have been misinformed.

But, ill tell you what, i will give you the opportunity to provide published research on the existence of such a thing. And if you can, I will be happy to accept it as such.

But lets just be honest here, i already know that you wont be able to. Because such a thing doesnt exist.

 

[Job 33:6]

These are...in my opinion, and likely the opinions of the vast majority of geologists, fairly well understood concepts. For example, how do rocks undergo brittle deformation versus a more viscous/ductile deformation.

And the simple answer is, if you put rocks under extreme heat and pressure, they bend. And there are laboratories that have ran countless tests demonstrating that this happens. Where a bunch of lab nerds put granite inside a machine that puts the granite under super high pressure, and under a lot of heat, and they bend it.

And its really that simple. But, if a rock does not have that heat and pressure, the rock will fracture (brittle deformation).

This is...metamorphism. This is what metamorphism and metamorphic rocks are. They are super heated, super pressurized rocks. We know a lot about them. And we know a lot about the gradation from ductile deformation to brittle deformation. A lot of it also depends on the minerals present within the rock.

So thats one answer. And, im not going to debate this, nor will i accept anyone telling me that it isnt true, because this is really well understood and its been tested countless times. This is knowledge and more fact based, than it is hypothetical or even theoretical.

Also, we have plenty of evidence of how rocks do become superheated and compressed. Typically it involves subduction. But tectonic collisions also cause deformation in ways that...could only occur when one hard rock runs into another. You dont get brittle deformation or cataclastic metamorphism or even brecciated unconformities in situations where wet sand is running into wet sand.

On this, I just want to add a couple pieces of information.

Also when you get metamorphism of rock, you get delineation of mineral lattices.

If hypothetically, a flood caused ductile deformation...well, first off, it wouldnt be physically possible for a global flood to push continents because the continents are far more dense than water and extend perhaps a hundred miles below sea level and would just be blasted into pieces if water strong enough to move them, came into existence.

So, physically, water couldnt move a continent, not without utterly destroying it and blasting mountains into space. Which...obviously if this occurred, there wouldnt be any evidence of anything, certainly no evidence of dinosaur nests right in the middle of it all.

But also, if hypothetically the continents moved and say...pangea split as a product of the flood, you would be suggesting that continents moved hundreds of miles in the span of a single year. Which, would never...ever result in ductile deformation. The physics would just never work out (either the planet would turn into magma, or the mountains would blast off into space). The breaking point for brittle deformation would never allow it. Which is why young earthers never attempt to publish research on how such a thing happened, or perhaps why their attempts have never been accepted or have never made any sense.

Well, ill hold off on responding to more of your questions for now, and will await your response. It is easier to take one topic at a time just for the sake of clarity in the discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

Oh and one last thing @Bible Research Tools

We also have deformed structures such as bilaterally symmetric trilobites, which match deformation of rock.

So its not a matter of bending soft sediments, because trilobites shells are not soft.

So, we know that indeed, these rocks were hard, prehistorically, and then were folded via ductile deformation due to tectonic heat and pressure.

 

[Job 33:6]

Is that the same area? It looks to be SE of the Sucre area in a much lower area of the uplift?

No matter. I scanned my library and found this:

"Scientists who study tracks deduce several unusual behavioural characteristics of dinosaurs, such as parallel sets of tracks presume gregarious dinosaurs. However, within the Flood model, such behaviours may be unusual, and mean nothing about normal dinosaur habits. There are also a number of features of the tracks that not only are better understood within a diluvial model, but also tell us some of the unique events that occurred during the Flood. Just the preservation of billions of tracks indicates rapid sedimentation, since studies of modern tracks reveals that footprints deteriorate and are destroyed rapidly (page 18). The tracks are practically always found on bedding planes, generally capping sedimentary units, which suggests a cycle of sedimentation during the Flood followed by a brief exposure above the water. Why wouldn't the tracks be found throughout the beds if the sediment was deposited slowly over long periods of time?" [Michael J. Oard, A Review Of, "Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States." CEN Technical Journal, 1997, p.38] ​

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_1/j11_1_37-39.pdf​

"Also of interest is the author's contradictory interpretation. The tracks are in the Navajo Sandstone, interpreted to be desert sand that lithified (hardened) into rock. So, they postulate a 'desert oasis' or watering hole. If this were the case, why are practically all the tracks going in the same direction? Animals usually mill around a watering hole, making tracks in multiple directions... What are dinosaurs doing in a huge desert, even at an oasis? Desert oases are normally small and could hardly sustain dinosaurs in such large numbers. Moreover, there are 60 other track sites in the Navajo Sandstone, mostly of carnivorous dinosaurs. Just as mysterious from a uniformitarian point of view is that hardly any bones are found in the Navajo Sandstone. One would think that with shifting sands, a huge number of dinosaurs would easily be covered up, which is the first step in fossilization." [Michael J. Oard, "Dancing Dinosaurs? Stony footprints point to something more serious." Creation Ministries International, 2008] ​

Dancing Dinosaurs? - creation.com​

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I had never given it much thought.

BTW, I also found this short 1 minute video on dino tracks which highlights some of Michael Oard's points:

Dan

You keep quoting the same stuff. Theyre just repeating themselves. But, the fact of the matter is, these tracks that we are discussing are contained within these deposits that were allegedly laid down by a giant wave. Theyre literally in the middle of the same mega sequences where they allegedly shouldnt be.

And no, the dinosaur tracks are not all going in the same direction. Who told you that lie?

In bolivian mesozoic strata, and in the dinosaur dancefloor formation, you indeed have tracks going on many directions. Some to the West, some to the southwest, some to the east, some to the southeast, some to the northeast etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ide-gauge_locomotion_and_gregarious_behaviour


There are even pteradactyl tracks. Imagine that, a dinosaur that could fly, is actually just waddling around.

Now tell me, when you run after say...a pigeon, and it gets scared, does the pigeon waddle away from you? Or does it fly? Well of course it depends on how fast youre moving and how big of a threat you are. If the bird walks a whole 50-100 feet, i suspect you wouldnt be too threatening.

 

[dcalling]

If you're willing to admit that there are transitionals only between groups said to be evolutionarily connected, then you've conceded the point. As you know, there are never transitionals found where evolutionary theory says they shouldn't be.



Even there, there are many, many such transitionals, although we haven't yet found all of them. So let's see what you've got for any two groups said to be evolutionarily connected.

[/QUOTE]
You totally missed my point. If you say B is transation form of A and C, the the question will be what's the transition form of A-B and B-C. It is only assumptions.

 

[dcalling]

There is a difference between discussion of quantum theory and quantum mechanics, and talking about simple geology.

If you really wanted to get technical, aliens living inside black holes might perceive space and time differently than we do. But for basic every day science, such as simple fundamental geology and biology, things are as they are. A rock is hard and there is no real way to perceive such a thing differently in any testable way.

Subatomic particles appear to come in and out of existence as well. But again, we are talking about simple everyday rocks, not subatomic particles and quantum theory.

Just say rock is hard is in correct, as there are different types of hardness under different conditions, so rocks compare to many other mental alloys are soft.

What you describes as reality should be observed evidences, however the moment you put your own interpretation onto those observed evidences, that is no longer reality but your own interpretation, it is the same when those scientists, based on the same evidences and lab tests, argues against each other if light is practice or wave.

 

[The Barbarian]

You totally missed my point. If you say B is transation form of A and C, the the question will be what's the transition form of A-B and B-C. It is only assumptions.

Ah, the Morris Dodge.
"If we find a transitional in the gap between A and B, we then have two more gaps on each side of that transitional."

No, that excuse fell apart as soon as it was used. So let's see what you have. Name us any two groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, for which there is no transitional form.

And feel free to show us two groups, said to not be evolutionarily connected, for which there is a transitional form.

You're on. What do you have?

 

[Job 33:6]

Just say rock is hard is in correct, as there are different types of hardness under different conditions, so rocks compare to many other mental alloys are soft.

What you describes as reality should be observed evidences, however the moment you put your own interpretation onto those observed evidences, that is no longer reality but your own interpretation, it is the same when those scientists, based on the same evidences and lab tests, argues against each other if light is practice or wave.

Youve lost this discussion weeks ago. I'm going to have to.let you go now friend. All the best.