Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Bible Research Tools]

But the trackways were not straight and in one direction. They were in multiple directions and some tracks changed direction as well.

Oh and you can't say that all the dinosaurs survived prior waters by fleeing to higher ground if there was no uplift.

And there is no evidence for the pteradactyls being injured or weather being too bad for them to fly. Why don't you just admit that they weren't fleeing?

It would be unscientific to claim they were not fleeing when the flood waters were approaching.

The alternative is that the animals made many straight tracks with the current, and the bodies were typically found elsewhere, and in higher layers, if they are found at all; and it was just another day at the water hole.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I don’t read creationist crap science claiming that the Flood occurred.

Really? I read lots of evolutionism crap science that says the flood never happened?

Even in Central Park New York City it’s possible to see where glaciers from the ice ages scraped the tops of huge boulders.

Creation scientists believe there was an ice age following the flood.

I understood some things about plate tectonics at age 10 (which was in 1965 ) which was around the same time that plate tectonics was first becoming generally know to the public.

Creation scientists believe in catastrophic plate tectonics that initiated the flood, followed by the snails-paced movements like we have today

I’ve never believed that Flood myth is a factual event.

I didn't believe it for most of my long life.

Even though I have a biology degree my first love was geology because 1 some rocks were pretty and 2 plate tectonics fascinated me.

Are you familiar with Dr. John Baumgardner's TERRA software? It was his UCLA PhD Dissertation based on plate tectonics, and is quite fascinating. This is a 1997 secular article on Baumgardner's project by Chandler Burr of the U.S. News and World Report:

http://www.globalflood.org/uploads/1/0/4/4/10444187/geophysics_of_god.pdf

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I do. I'll see if I can dig some up. But here are more details on the contact.

Abstract: STRUCTURAL AND STRATIGRAPHIC RELATIONSHIPS NEAR THE MARTINSBURG-SHAWANGUNK CONTACT (Northeastern (46th Annual) and North-Central (45th Annual) Joint Meeting (20–22 March 2011))

File:Angular unconformity Shawangunk Martinsburg Otisville NY.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

The contact is present in both ny and pa, with angular unconformities in both states.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fLhcku_ZGRYflNThqDeSm

The Shawangunk Formation (Upper Ordovician(?) to Middle Silurian) in eastern Pennsylvania - ScienceBase-Catalog

Thanks. This paper by geologist Tim Clarey mentions the Taconic orogeny, and the Tippecanoe megasequence:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_3/j29_3_50-55.pdf​

As you can see, Dr. Clarey has reservations about the coal-forming "Floating Forest Theory" of Dr's Austin and Wise. However, his assumption that the initial tidal surges would transport the floating forests 100's of km inward is weak, at best.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Not sure how they could hope to conclude that when considering fossil footprints. How the heck could footprints in mud remain distinct after immediately being covered in sediment?

How could they remain distinct if they were not? My understanding, based on the literature, is that the flood waters contained some sort of cementing agent that partially hardened each layer shortly after it was deposited. That would give the critter prints time to partially "set" between tidal surges.

Not sure what he means by "randomly", seeing as groups of organisms actually appear with distinct trends. For example, amphibians predate mammals, and you'll never find a mammalian fossil even close to as old as the oldest amphibian fossil. Ever.
. . .
Got a link to where he says the stuff you claim he says? I prefer not to judge a person's words without a source of those words.

He explains it in this video lecture beginning at the 32:22 mark:

I'm kinda pleased that you bring up Kurt Wise, though. He has legitimate academic credentials when it comes to evaluating fossils, a real PhD. He's one of the few YEC's I've seen that on record was willing to debunk a fossil fraud promoted by another creationist as well.

I am not familiar with that. Do you have a link?

For the record, many creation scientists have PhD's. His "partner's in crime", geologists Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin, have PhD's from the University of Sydney and Penn State, respectively.

Dan

 

[pitabread]

like the currently established and suppressive religion of evolutionism.

There's no such thing as a "religion of evolutionism". This is just wacky creationist nonsense to explain away the fact that the natural sciences don't agree with creationist ideas about the world.

The result is that creationists don't know what they're even up against and furthermore don't know why they've already lost.

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks. This paper by geologist Tim Clarey mentions the Taconic orogeny, and the Tippecanoe megasequence:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_3/j29_3_50-55.pdf​

As you can see, Dr. Clarey has reservations about the coal-forming "Floating Forest Theory" of Dr's Austin and Wise. However, his assumption that the initial tidal surges would transport the floating forests 100's of km inward is weak, at best.

Dan

As usual you aren't responding to my question regarding the unconformity.

You haven't responded to anything I've said in all the discussions we have had.

Me describing the unconformity has nothing to do with floating forests, yet here you are bringing these ideas up. And you do this over and over again, and you consistently change the subject over and over again.

 

[Job 33:6]

It would be unscientific to claim they were not fleeing when the flood waters were approaching.

The alternative is that the animals made many straight tracks with the current, and the bodies were typically found elsewhere, and in higher layers, if they are found at all; and it was just another day at the water hole.

Dan

Actually it's quite scienctific given that they are tracks of animals walking in various directions. Flying animals are also unlikely to flee on foot when they could fly.

And you won't find these animals beyond the layers in which their tracks are found.

 

[Job 33:6]

All I can really conclude from the above is that you're unable to respond to my critique . @Bible Research Tools

 

[Brightmoon]

"Bible Research Tools, post: 72847427, member: 409605How could they remain distinct if they were not? My understanding, based on the literature, is that the flood waters contained some sort of cementing agent that partially hardened each layer shortly after it was deposited. That would give the critter prints time to partially "set" between tidal surges.

woulda shoulda coulda isn’t evidence

( snip)

For the record, many creation scientists have PhD's. His "partner's in crime", geologists Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin, have PhD's from the University of Sydney and Penn State, respectively.

Austin and Snelling incompetents and/or liars. Take your pick . Snelling the man who dated a 50 year old rock with a technique normally used on billion year old rocks . It’s like trying to measure a bacterium with a yardstick and about as useful. Sorry ......no!

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There's no such thing as a "religion of evolutionism". This is just wacky creationist nonsense to explain away the fact that the natural sciences don't agree with creationist ideas about the world.

The result is that creationists don't know what they're even up against and furthermore don't know why they've already lost.

Evolutionism is not only a faith-based religion, but it is a suppressive religion -- suppressing all scientific theories except that of the orthodoxy -- the priestly class -- by using the power of the sword of the state. It is, for all practical purposes, the religion of the state. It differs from the suppressive Church of England, that many of our forefathers fled from, in name only.

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

Evolutionism is not only a faith-based religion, but it is a suppressive religion -- suppressing all scientific theories except that of the orthodoxy -- the priestly class -- by using the power of the sword of the state. It is, for all practical purposes, the religion of the state. It differs from the suppressive Church of England, that many of our forefathers fled from, in name only.

Dan

So the theory of evolution is not an atheist conspiracy to deny the truth of the Bible, it's an Anglican conspiracy? I had no idea, but we'll gladly take credit for it.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

As usual you aren't responding to my question regarding the unconformity.

You haven't responded to anything I've said in all the discussions we have had.

Me describing the unconformity has nothing to do with floating forests, yet here you are bringing these ideas up. And you do this over and over again, and you consistently change the subject over and over again.

As usual, you are ankle-biting. I really don't know enough about that area, and Clarey's paper is the only one that addresses it from a global flood perspective; and his paper was focused on the possibilities of the floating forest being the source of coal seams. This is part of what he wrote:

"According to secular geologists, and many creation geologists who advocate CPT, there was a pre-Flood ocean along the East Coast of the US called the Iapetus Ocean, separating North America from Baltica (another continental mass). Early in the Flood, ocean lithosphere began to be consumed by runaway subduction along the US East coast, marked by the Taconic orogeny, while Ordovician system rocks (Tippecanoe Megasequence) were being deposited. The destruction of the Iapetus Ocean presumably continued through the Caledonian and Acadian orogenies as Laurentia (North America) collided with Baltica and Avalonia, finally placing continental crust against continental crust from Newfoundland to Pennsylvania. This three-part process completely consumed the Iapetus Ocean lithosphere by the time Upper Devonian system rocks were deposited (Kaskaskia). Later, during deposition of the Mississippian system rocks (Lower Carboniferous), Laurasia (including North America) again collided with the Galatian Superterrane and Gondwana as part of the Hercynian–Alleghenian orogeny, completing the destruction of another segment of ocean (Rheic Ocean) lithosphere, and the formation of Pangaea.This scenario suggests that at least two significant segments of the pre-Flood ocean were completely destroyed through subduction, to the point of placing continent against continent, and all prior to the deposition of the most significant coal deposits. What happened to the presumed floating forests in these oceans?" [Timothy L. Clarey, "Examining the floating forest hypothesis: a geological perspective." Journal of Creation, 2015]​

When, and if other creation geologists address Clarey's concerns, I will let you know. In the meantime, please address some of the more universal anomalies, such as, where did all that sand, carbonate, mud, etc. come from to form all of those continent-wide layers? How do you explain paleocurrents? How about flat coal seams (top and bottom) separated by flat, thin mud benches? And so forth . . .

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

As usual, you are ankle-biting. I really don't know enough about that area, and Clarey's paper is the only one that addresses it from a global flood perspective; and his paper was focused on the possibilities of the floating forest being the source of coal seams. This is part of what he wrote:

"According to secular geologists, and many creation geologists who advocate CPT, there was a pre-Flood ocean along the East Coast of the US called the Iapetus Ocean, separating North America from Baltica (another continental mass). Early in the Flood, ocean lithosphere began to be consumed by runaway subduction along the US East coast, marked by the Taconic orogeny, while Ordovician system rocks (Tippecanoe Megasequence) were being deposited. The destruction of the Iapetus Ocean presumably continued through the Caledonian and Acadian orogenies as Laurentia (North America) collided with Baltica and Avalonia, finally placing continental crust against continental crust from Newfoundland to Pennsylvania. This three-part process completely consumed the Iapetus Ocean lithosphere by the time Upper Devonian system rocks were deposited (Kaskaskia). Later, during deposition of the Mississippian system rocks (Lower Carboniferous), Laurasia (including North America) again collided with the Galatian Superterrane and Gondwana as part of the Hercynian–Alleghenian orogeny, completing the destruction of another segment of ocean (Rheic Ocean) lithosphere, and the formation of Pangaea.This scenario suggests that at least two significant segments of the pre-Flood ocean were completely destroyed through subduction, to the point of placing continent against continent, and all prior to the deposition of the most significant coal deposits. What happened to the presumed floating forests in these oceans?" [Timothy L. Clarey, "Examining the floating forest hypothesis: a geological perspective." Journal of Creation, 2015]​

When, and if other creation geologists address Clarey's concerns, I will let you know. In the meantime, please address some of the more universal anomalies, such as, where did all that sand, carbonate, mud, etc. come from to form all of those continent-wide layers? How do you explain paleocurrents? How about flat coal seams (top and bottom) separated by flat, thin mud benches? And so forth . . .

Dan

This isn't a sufficient response. I gave you several links with technical research on the contact and described to you what is there.

Your inability to repsond just demonstrates a lack of understanding of geology.

 

[Job 33:6]

You see, when working as a scientist , and particularly a geologist "I don't know enough about the area" will get you fired because it demonstrates an inability to read and to do research.

At the very least, you brainstorm solutions to the delimma. You don't just completely change the subject.

You've failed.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Actually it's quite scienctific given that they are tracks of animals walking in various directions. Flying animals are also unlikely to flee on foot when they could fly.

And you won't find these animals beyond the layers in which their tracks are found.

Do you have sources that prove that last statement? The reason I ask is I have read that the Navajo Sandstone has many dino track sites, but very few bones:

"Numerous dinosaur track sites have been found in the western United States, including more than 60 in Navajo Sandstone, where actual dinosaur bones are rare. Unlike other trackways that may have several to dozens of footprint impressions, this particular surface has more than 1,000,"Seiler and Chan wrote. And they say the density of tracks is much greater than it is at even larger track sites, such as the one at Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park in Utah." [Staff, Provided by University of Utah, "A Dinosaur Dance Floor': Numerous tracks at Jurassic oasis on Arizona-Utah border." Phys.Org, 2008]

https://phys.org/news/2008-10-dinosaur-floor-numerous-tracks-jurassic.html​

Dan

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionism is not only a faith-based religion, but it is a suppressive religion -- suppressing all scientific theories except that of the orthodoxy -- the priestly class -- by using the power of the sword of the state. It is, for all practical purposes, the religion of the state. It differs from the suppressive Church of England, that many of our forefathers fled from, in name only.

You're writing creationist fantasy fiction. You've conjured an imaginary enemy so you can fight in an imaginary war.

Good luck with that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, you consisitently change the topic, I address the topic change and then without acknowledging me, you change it again. Over and over and over again.

In one topic, you asked me how rocks bend. I told you about research on brittle and ductile deformation and showed you images of strained trilobite fossils. You just never responded.

You brought up this idea that there was little to no bioturbation in the fossil record, I showed you research of complex tunnel networks and massive tunnels you could literally climb inside, along with plenty of other research papers discussion the obstruction of subsurface lamination. You never retracted your statement. It was as if you couldn't comprehend the fact that you were wrong.

You said fossil tracks of the Cal orcko formation in Bolivia were all in a single direction due to fleeing animals. I told you, no they aren't all in a single direction, and talked about pterodactyl tracks which shouldn't be there because flying animals wouldn't flee by waddling around. And your response? Oh well maybe the wind was too strong.

You just consistently fail over and over and over again and you don't acknowledge it and you just change the subject as if prior conversations never occurred.

You need to be able to own up to your false statements and you need to be a mature adult and accept when you're wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

You're writing creationist fantasy fiction. You've conjured an imaginary enemy so you can fight in an imaginary war.

Good luck with that.

What I am afraid of is that, given the political situation in this country, it will become a real war.

 

[Ophiolite]

Also, you consisitently change the topic, I address the topic change and then without acknowledging me, you change it again. Over and over and over again.

The traditional Gish Gallop.

You just consistently fail over and over and over again and you don't acknowledge it and you just change the subject as if prior conversations never occurred.

Most creationists posting on forums lack professional level knowledge of the relevant fields. They rely upon assertions from others. Such assertions can appear superficially plausible especially as they will be supported by carefully selected evidence that is either misinterpreted or misrepresented. In order to acknowledge those assertions are wrong the creationist poster must first admit it to themselves. That can be challenging for most.

It would be so much simpler for all if the Creationist simply declared "I believe Genesis is a literal account and God created life as we know it in six days. I don't know if the supposed evidence for evolution has just been misunderstood, or if God just made it look that way, but frankly I don't care. It's not relevant to my beliefs."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I agree that other scientists also seek the truth. But evolutionists are not scientists.

Dan

Then it should be easy to prove - why don't you refute the 'non' science of evolution, why hasn't this been done in science already? Instead and in the face of your unfounded assertion, it's probably the most well-supported scientific theory we've ever had.

That's gotta hurt....

How do you tell which scientists are evolutionists and which are not?

Essentially, those that believe they came from monkeys, and further back in time believe they're related to insects and slugs or anything that hatches eggs are evolutionists.

Well apart from your grandiose mischaracterisation of a branching tree of life, that's what the science and evidence indicates, so there's no real delineation between the two then, is there. If you think there is, Prove it. Show why the evidence and observations are wrong.

But this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and it can only survive as a free nation if those principles are maintained.

If you want that to be true you had better be prepared to bring it about by force of arms, because that's the only way it's going to happen.

I fear you may be correct.

Dan

You're writing creationist fantasy fiction. You've conjured an imaginary enemy so you can fight in an imaginary war.

Good luck with that.

What I am afraid of is that, given the political situation in this country, it will become a real war.

But this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and it can only survive as a free nation if those principles are maintained.

Ironically, it's this very sentiment that attracted the religiously persecuted to the colonies, which in turn helped lead to the separation of the American Colonies from the British... and of course the Constitution that separates Church and State!

It seems with his line of extreme thinking, it's only a matter of time before these fundies bring on another civil war that'll kill many, many more Americans...