A Creationist Creed

[USincognito]

You'll need to provide an example.

I'm not sure you understand what subaerial igneous intrusions are or why they're important yet. When you demonstrate you have some comprehension of the issue, I'll find an example. Can you do that?

 

[-57]

The way layers of sedimentary strata are dated is by layers volcanic ash distributed throughout the geologic column. That can't happen with a flood.

Still no reference....

 

[-57]

I'm not sure you understand what subaerial igneous intrusions are or why they're important yet. When you demonstrate you have some comprehension of the issue, I'll find an example. Can you do that?

You need to present your example. How can I address your claim without an example to address?
Personally I think you cut and pasted the list...and now have discoverd you can't support it.

No example...no discussion.

 

[USincognito]

Also, why do we have sedimentary strata thicker than the elevation of Mount Everest and why is there a layer of terrestrial sediment in the Grand Canyon, never mind explaining the formation of limestone.

Once again more from a list with no references.

Rick, I wonder what evasive tactic he'll try when we do provide him with examples. I'm inclined towards goal post shifting, but I suspect he will only be able to hand wave.

 

[USincognito]

You need to present your example. How can I address your claim without an example to address?
Personally I think you cut and pasted the list...and now have discoverd you can't support it.

No example...no discussion.

You have yet to exhibit an iota of understanding of the issues on my list. And yeah, I copy and pasted it from a Word document that I have saved from my computer. It's my list which I put together because I know what the heck I'm talking about.

You don't.

 

[-57]

Rick, I wonder what evasive tactic he'll try when we do provide him with examples. I'm inclined towards goal post shifting, but I suspect he will only be able to hand wave.

I doubt you can provide an example....all you have presented so far is a claim.

 

[-57]

You have yet to exhibit an iota of understanding of the issues on my list. And yeah, I copy and pasted it from a Word document that I have saved from my computer. It's my list which I put together because I know what the heck I'm talking about.

You don't.

Untill you can provide example that support your claim...your cut and paste list appears to be copied from the strawman handbook.

 

[RickG]

Once again more from a list with no references.

Sediment thickness comes from NOAA. I didn't include a link because the NOAA site is currently down. But when it comes back up here's your link. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html

As for the Grand Canyon, the Coconino Sandstone is a layer of terrestrial sandstone complete with vertebrate foot prints. http://resweb.llu.edu/lbrand/pdf/fi...ts_and_their_paleoecological_implications.pdf

 

[RickG]

Untill you can provide example that support your claim...your cut and paste list appears to be copied from the strawman handbook.

Actually -57, we have yet to see any science validating anything you say concerning geology. And if you are going to link a creation science article, make sure it provides scientific evidence to back their claims. Just voicing an opinion or saying its a different interpretation doesn't get it. Show the physical evidence.

 

[RickG]

Rick, I wonder what evasive tactic he'll try when we do provide him with examples. I'm inclined towards goal post shifting, but I suspect he will only be able to hand wave.

He'll shift the goal posts about something to do with evolutionists which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[USincognito]

Let's see if -57 can handle this simple page.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984usgs.nasa...82S

>> Primitive strontium-isotopic composition and overall bimodal distribution of silica in upper Paleocene and Eocene subalkalic tholeiitic to calc-alkaline basalt and low-potassium rhyolite of the Matanuska Valley and southern Talkeetna Mountains suggest that these rocks were derived from the mantle with little contamination by continental crust. The volcanic rocks consist of rhyolite tuff and ash flows, as well as basalt flows and dikes, in the nonmarine Arkose Ridge Formation of the southwestern Talkeetna Mountains; of subaerial basalt and andesite flows, tuff, and mafic intrusions in the southeastern Talkeetna Mountains; and of felsic and mafic dikes, sills, and small plutons in the Matanuska Valley. <<

There's your citation. Now let's see if your substance can match your bluff and bluster.

 

[-57]

Sediment thickness comes from NOAA. I didn't include a link because the NOAA site is currently down. But when it comes back up here's your link. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html

As for the Grand Canyon, the Coconino Sandstone is a layer of terrestrial sandstone complete with vertebrate foot prints. http://resweb.llu.edu/lbrand/pdf/fi...ts_and_their_paleoecological_implications.pdf

According to Whitmore's reports, the deposit interfingers with other formations of unquestionable marine origin, implying that the Coconino is also marine. It bears fossil trackways and burrows best understood as being related to underwater activity, not to a dry, sand dune environment. Its sand grains are poorly sorted and somewhat angular, not at all like desert sands with well-sorted and rounded grains. We suspect the research will demonstrate that the sand dune interpretation can be confidently rejected in favor of a better supported sub-aqueous interpretation. ref

Leonard Brand,13 who has done the most field work on these footprints, has also done laboratory studies of salamanders walking on various types of sand—dry, wet, and underwater. The experimental tracks that best matched the Coconino tracks were made underwater. Flowing water would also explain the sudden appearance and disappearance of many tracks, as the currents picked up animals and they landed in new places. ref

 

[USincognito]

Untill you can provide example that support your claim...your cut and paste list appears to be copied from the strawman handbook.

Ah, so in addition to not understanding geology, you don't understand what a straw man is.

I can't wait until we try and discuss limestone formation and the heat problem.

 

[-57]

Let's see if -57 can handle this simple page.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984usgs.nasa...82S

>> Primitive strontium-isotopic composition and overall bimodal distribution of silica in upper Paleocene and Eocene subalkalic tholeiitic to calc-alkaline basalt and low-potassium rhyolite of the Matanuska Valley and southern Talkeetna Mountains suggest that these rocks were derived from the mantle with little contamination by continental crust. The volcanic rocks consist of rhyolite tuff and ash flows, as well as basalt flows and dikes, in the nonmarine Arkose Ridge Formation of the southwestern Talkeetna Mountains; of subaerial basalt and andesite flows, tuff, and mafic intrusions in the southeastern Talkeetna Mountains; and of felsic and mafic dikes, sills, and small plutons in the Matanuska Valley. <<

There's your citation. Now let's see if your substance can match your bluff and bluster.

You still haven't showed why this is a problem...instead you keep relying on cut and paste techniques.

Show us the strata surrounding your cut and paste claims.

 

[-57]

Ah, so in addition to not understanding geology, you don't understand what a straw man is.

I can't wait until we try and discuss limestone formation and the heat problem.

...More unsupported claims? Sheeze, you can't even get past your first claim and now you want to move on????

 

[USincognito]

Leonard Brand,13 who has done the most field work on these footprints,

Oh my. Leonard Brand is a Creationist at Loma Linda University (SDA) and the cited paper was published by the Geoscience Research Institute, a Creationist organization at Loma Linda University.

Brand's claims are contradicted by other evidence.

>> A number of studies have found evidence contradicting Brand and Tang's conclusions and Lockley and Hunt's 1995 book Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States suggests an alternative explanation with the tracks being made in air by extinct mammal-like reptiles called caseids. Inconsistencies that contradict the underwater hypothesis include:[19][23]

• tracks demonstrating various running gaits impossible under water, at various angles to the slope;
• tracks made by many forms of invertebrates which would not leave prolific underwater tracks, including some which could only be made on completely dry sand; and
• raindrop impressions. <<

 

[AV1611VET]

Rick, I wonder what evasive tactic he'll try when we do provide him with examples. I'm inclined towards goal post shifting, but I suspect he will only be able to hand wave.

He'll shift the goal posts about something to do with evolutionists which has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Leave it to evolution to unite an atheist with a Christian against a Christian, eh?

Now there's a match made in Hell.

1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

 

[AV1611VET]

Liar.

Ignore this guy, -57.

You're above this.

 

[-57]

Oh my. Leonard Brand is a Creationist at Loma Linda University (SDA) and the cited paper was published by the Geoscience Research Institute, a Creationist organization at Loma Linda University.

Brand's claims are contradicted by other evidence.

>> A number of studies have found evidence contradicting Brand and Tang's conclusions and Lockley and Hunt's 1995 book Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States suggests an alternative explanation with the tracks being made in air by extinct mammal-like reptiles called caseids. Inconsistencies that contradict the underwater hypothesis include:[19][23]

• tracks demonstrating various running gaits impossible under water, at various angles to the slope;
• tracks made by many forms of invertebrates which would not leave prolific underwater tracks, including some which could only be made on completely dry sand; and
• raindrop impressions. <<

That's right...he's a creationist...so he MUST be wrong.

 

[-57]

Liar.



Now, are you going to address why we find subaerial igneous intrusions in Eocene/Paleocene strata that supposedly was laid down during the Flood or are you going to continue to "feign" ignorance.

Show us the strata surrounding your cut and paste claims.