Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

Molal · May 19, 2008

Cross Section of Symmetrical Ripples:

Actual photograph of symmetrical ripples in cross-section:

Source.

In these diagrams you can see that ripples are not sudden events. Each ripple has an associated layer-cake stratigraphy - indicating formation over time.

RobertByers · May 21, 2008

ChordatesLegacy said:
Rob Byers wrote:

Even chordateslegacy pictures here prove my point that ripples (a sudden event) if found in fossil are about a sudden event and not grafualism.

Ripples are not a sudden event; they are formed by wave action; most are destroyed by the following tide, but a few are covered by sand and therefore their structure remains.

For the ripples to be fossilised they have to undergo diagenetic processes, i.e. burial and cementation. If these ripples are then to be seen at the surface there must be uplift and erosion. These processes have to be gentle and gradual, if they were sudden and violent they would be destroyed.

Too much replies here.
Ripples are a sudden event. The ripples come into being and then must be fossilized. This is a unique event unless your saying it happens all the time on earth now. The ripples indeed must withstand further damage but in parts of the world during the flood this happened.

Your list on another post of ages fits fine with a single flood year. Just fluid dynamics moving around with different sediment loads including the fossils within. No intervals of time are needed.

Lastly I said its up to your crowd to show solid evidence, by geology, of why someone should see the unlikelyness of old ages on earth having occured and you retreat to atomic concepts. A telling point.

ChordatesLegacy · May 21, 2008

The first Dinosaur footprints are found in Arabia.

Dinosaur footprints

All good evidence the flood never happened

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 21, 2008

RobertByers said:
Too much replies here.
Ripples are a sudden event. The ripples come into being and then must be fossilized. This is a unique event unless your saying it happens all the time on earth now. The ripples indeed must withstand further damage but in parts of the world during the flood this happened.

So are you saying that all layers that show rippled deposits, including multiple layers of aeolian deposits were somehow put down by the global flood?

Your list on another post of ages fits fine with a single flood year. Just fluid dynamics moving around with different sediment loads including the fossils within. No intervals of time are needed.

This is complete nonsense. Fluid dynamics can't begin to explain the geologic column or the fossil record. It certainly can't explain trace fossils such as dino tracks. There should have even been anything alive to make tracks in deposits such as the Navajo Sandstones and Wingate formations that sit on top of thousand of feet of other supposed flood deposits. Perhaps you could explain how termintes made a nest in Morrison formation that also contains dinosaur tracks, dinosaur coprolites (fossilized droppings), dinosaur nests and eggs and dinosaur body fossils. Did these things get sorted together by fluid dynamics?

From this site.

Lastly I said its up to your crowd to show solid evidence, by geology, of why someone should see the unlikelyness of old ages on earth having occured and you retreat to atomic concepts. A telling point.

This makes no sense. A telling point.

Molal · May 21, 2008

RobertByers said:
Too much replies here.
Ripples are a sudden event.

You could not be more wrong. Superficial examination of any ripples, symmetric, asymmetric, etc. will yield evidence to the contrary. I think you are ignoring the evidence.

The ripples come into being and then must be fossilized. This is a unique event unless your saying it happens all the time on earth now. The ripples indeed must withstand further damage but in parts of the world during the flood this happened.

Your list on another post of ages fits fine with a single flood year. Just fluid dynamics moving around with different sediment loads including the fossils within. No intervals of time are needed.

Lastly I said its up to your crowd to show solid evidence, by geology, of why someone should see the unlikelyness of old ages on earth having occured and you retreat to atomic concepts. A telling point.

I think the lurkers would agree - you have provided no evidence so support your assertions. The ideas you postulate are devoid of content and reason.

The evidence is overwhelming yet you choose to ignore it....why? Out of sight, out of mind does not work here.......evidence your claims......I bet you won't, because you can't - a most telling point.

RobertByers · May 27, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
So are you saying that all layers that show rippled deposits, including multiple layers of aeolian deposits were somehow put down by the global flood?
This is complete nonsense. Fluid dynamics can't begin to explain the geologic column or the fossil record. It certainly can't explain trace fossils such as dino tracks. There should have even been anything alive to make tracks in deposits such as the Navajo Sandstones and Wingate formations that sit on top of thousand of feet of other supposed flood deposits. Perhaps you could explain how termintes made a nest in Morrison formation that also contains dinosaur tracks, dinosaur coprolites (fossilized droppings), dinosaur nests and eggs and dinosaur body fossils. Did these things get sorted together by fluid dynamics?

From this site.
This makes no sense. A telling point.

The telling point is that is that you need to get into atomic elements to make geologic substansive claims.

All these dino paws and bits and the sediment encasing them are what they are. A sudden overwhelming of sediment pushed by water power. It all can be seen as from a single event. They were not sorted together in this case but encased together. In the other examples sorting of sediment in different stages of the flood explains columns. In fact it is what it is. Collected material all in a row or a heap.
The flood lasted a year and different flows and so fluid dynamics were at work at different times. Why not? One sees the rsult.

RobertByers · May 27, 2008

Molal said:
You could not be more wrong. Superficial examination of any ripples, symmetric, asymmetric, etc. will yield evidence to the contrary. I think you are ignoring the evidence.

I think the lurkers would agree - you have provided no evidence so support your assertions. The ideas you postulate are devoid of content and reason.

The evidence is overwhelming yet you choose to ignore it....why? Out of sight, out of mind does not work here.......evidence your claims......I bet you won't, because you can't - a most telling point.

Its a simple equation I'm putting forth. The same ability of fossilization, not totally understood, that "froze" sediment and life everywhere likewise "froze" moving sediment. Ripples are a good point of this event. I don't think this happens today anywhere. No ripples have been fossilized in the sight of man. possible it could happen in extreme cases but probably hasn't been observed. A ripple is evidence of water/wind movenment. To fossilize it there must be a instant stop and hold procedure. They are not naturally stable. A fast action must freeze this picture. This freezing froze a great deal of sediment and friends everywhere. Creationist models easily include and love ripples/raindrops/ footstepsetc caught in a instant permanent pose. Just like the people in Pompeii etc where one can see their death pose. Thats volcanic but same law.
Why don't you see it the way observation and first conclusion should lead?

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 27, 2008

RobertByers said:
The telling point is that is that you need to get into atomic elements to make geologic substansive claims.

What? The global flood and young earth were falsified long before radiometric dating, if that is what you mean.

All these dino paws and bits and the sediment encasing them are what they are. A sudden overwhelming of sediment pushed by water power.

Are you saying that water power and an overwhelming of sediment pushed dinosaur tracks, dinosaur coprolites, dinosaur nests with eggs and dinosaur body fossils into the same layer with this termite nest? Do you ever think about how absurd the things you post are before you post them?

Fossil tracks dinosaur tracks are often found on top of thousands of feet of other deposits that YECs also claim as flood deposits. How were there any dinos around to make tracks after all those other layers were deposited?

It all can be seen as from a single event. They were not sorted together in this case but encased together. In the other examples sorting of sediment in different stages of the flood explains columns. In fact it is what it is. Collected material all in a row or a heap.

This is completely ridiculous. There is no way that the fossil record was sorted by hydrodyamics. There are wide range of sizes of Jurassic dinosaurs but they are found together with their nests, tracks and coprolites in Jurassic layers along with things like the termite nest above and primative Jurassic mammals. Huge numbers of fossils of Oligocene and Miocene mammals have been found but never in Jurassic layers with dinosaur even though they overlapped with them in size. These are only two examples of many features of the fossil record that cannot be explained by hydrodynamic or any other form of flood sorting.

The flood lasted a year and different flows and so fluid dynamics were at work at different times. Why not?

Because it makes no sense. One sees the rsult.[/quote]One see the result deposition of fossils and trace fossils over millions of years. The results are in no way consistent with deposition by a single global flood.

Molal · May 27, 2008

RobertByers said:
Its a simple equation I'm putting forth. The same ability of fossilization, not totally understood, that "froze" sediment and life everywhere likewise "froze" moving sediment. Ripples are a good point of this event. I don't think this happens today anywhere. No ripples have been fossilized in the sight of man. possible it could happen in extreme cases but probably hasn't been observed. A ripple is evidence of water/wind movenment. To fossilize it there must be a instant stop and hold procedure. They are not naturally stable. A fast action must freeze this picture. This freezing froze a great deal of sediment and friends everywhere. Creationist models easily include and love ripples/raindrops/ footstepsetc caught in a instant permanent pose. Just like the people in Pompeii etc where one can see their death pose. Thats volcanic but same law.
Why don't you see it the way observation and first conclusion should lead?

Because the preservation of sedimentary ripples has been and can be observed today across the globe in different 'fluid' environments. These environments include marine, freshwater and aeolian. A cross section of modern and ancient ripples yields evidence suggesting formation over time (sedimentary laminae).

I also think you are confusciating geologic terms. You have confused the notion of fossilization with formation. You have previously stated that ripples are a sudden event - which I argued against. But upon reading your latest installment, I see that you were arguing the preservation of fossils and not their formation was sudden.

Preservation needs to be *relatively* sudden for the actual ripple to be preserved. There are exceptions to the rule - remember ripples move due to sedimentary deposition. This movement is preserved in the fossil record (ancient aeolian dunes vs. modern day dunes - same sedimentary structures preserved). The depositional environment enables these ripple structures to be preserved.

And again we have another bifurcation (pun intended) in understanding ripples. Do I assume you are discussing the preservation of the actual ripple mark (the raised crest of the ripple) or the preservation of the ripple sedimentary structures?

This subject is much more complicated than I think you understand.

flatworm · May 27, 2008

RobertByers said:
In the other examples sorting of sediment in different stages of the flood explains columns. In fact it is what it is. Collected material all in a row or a heap.

You continue to ignore the fact that this is patently impossible, as many of the layers show features that cannot appear underwater, some for extended periods of time. The Noachian flood story does not provide for a series of hundreds of global floods interspersed with dry periods.

I know you wish there were magic words that would make the absurdity of Biblical Literalism go away, but "Stages" definitely isn't one of them.

RobertByers · May 28, 2008

FB
First this creationist sees these mammal fossil asemblages as post flood by centuries.
I know all this fossil eggs , paws, etc stuff.
It is fossilized. The very process that did it creationists just lump into a single year event. Yes a dino could walk on hardening sediment and make prints. The exact method for making the sediment into rock is not fully conquored by anyone. It just is obvious it was fast. All these examples of eggs etc make our case. It shows they were covered/killed in place. Your side also must see it as special events.

Again fluid dynamics sorted it here , smashed it there, and gently collected it over somewhere else. it is what it is. sediment and life frozen in time. Frozen by a event that froze everything everywhere.

RobertByers · May 28, 2008

Molal said:
Because the preservation of sedimentary ripples has been and can be observed today across the globe in different 'fluid' environments. These environments include marine, freshwater and aeolian. A cross section of modern and ancient ripples yields evidence suggesting formation over time (sedimentary laminae).

I also think you are confusciating geologic terms. You have confused the notion of fossilization with formation. You have previously stated that ripples are a sudden event - which I argued against. But upon reading your latest installment, I see that you were arguing the preservation of fossils and not their formation was sudden.

Preservation needs to be *relatively* sudden for the actual ripple to be preserved. There are exceptions to the rule - remember ripples move due to sedimentary deposition. This movement is preserved in the fossil record (ancient aeolian dunes vs. modern day dunes - same sedimentary structures preserved). The depositional environment enables these ripple structures to be preserved.

And again we have another bifurcation (pun intended) in understanding ripples. Do I assume you are discussing the preservation of the actual ripple mark (the raised crest of the ripple) or the preservation of the ripple sedimentary structures?

This subject is much more complicated than I think you understand.

However involved it is not complicated. Its simple dirt and glue.
I thought we were talking about the actual ripples of sediment created by moving water or moving water moving sediment.
So whether a ripple crest or a ripple structure its the same to me in process of preservation.
I think I did think you meant the raised crest of a ripple like on a beach.

Molal · May 28, 2008

RobertByers said:
However involved it is not complicated. Its simple dirt and glue.
I thought we were talking about the actual ripples of sediment created by moving water or moving water moving sediment.
So whether a ripple crest or a ripple structure its the same to me in process of preservation.
I think I did think you meant the raised crest of a ripple like on a beach.

This is the problem of not being sufficiently detailed in an explantation. I still do not understand what you are arguing. You are arguing the preservation of an actual ripple or the sedimentary structures present therein? Obviously, the preservation of an actual ripple will require speedy deposition to preserve the crest. The preservation of the sedimentary structures in a ripple do not require a speedy burial.

So, without clarification on your end - your response makes no sense.

Molal · May 28, 2008

RobertByers said:
FB
First this creationist sees these mammal fossil asemblages as post flood by centuries.
I know all this fossil eggs , paws, etc stuff.
It is fossilized. The very process that did it creationists just lump into a single year event. Yes a dino could walk on hardening sediment and make prints. The exact method for making the sediment into rock is not fully conquored by anyone. It just is obvious it was fast. All these examples of eggs etc make our case. It shows they were covered/killed in place. Your side also must see it as special events.

Again fluid dynamics sorted it here , smashed it there, and gently collected it over somewhere else. it is what it is. sediment and life frozen in time. Frozen by a event that froze everything everywhere.

I would disagree and, based upon the multitude of evidence, all geologists would disagree. Depending upon the environment (we do know these environmental parameters) diagenesis is slow. Not Noachian fast.

Sources:

http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/4/547
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-033/USGS_3D/ssx_txt/diagenes.htm
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6311651

flatworm · May 28, 2008

RobertByers said:
FB
The exact method for making the sediment into rock is not fully conquored by anyone. It just is obvious it was fast.

The preservation of tracks requires rapid burial, but lithification is another matter entirely. Do you have any references for lithification in say, sandstone, occurring within a single year?

All these examples of eggs etc make our case. It shows they were covered/killed in place. Your side also must see it as special events.

Actually it shows they were buried in-place, then in many cases an entire ecosystem flourished on the new soil surface for some time, which was then buried, which was followed by another ecosystem, etc. You continue to simply disregard this point and it's deeply dishonest.

Again fluid dynamics sorted it here , smashed it there, and gently collected it over somewhere else. it is what it is. sediment and life frozen in time. Frozen by a event that froze everything everywhere.

Are you suggesting the Flood lifted (for example) a layer of peat from a bog, several square miles in area but only an inch thick, then transported it entire somewhere else?

RobertByers · May 30, 2008

Molal said:
This is the problem of not being sufficiently detailed in an explantation. I still do not understand what you are arguing. You are arguing the preservation of an actual ripple or the sedimentary structures present therein? Obviously, the preservation of an actual ripple will require speedy deposition to preserve the crest. The preservation of the sedimentary structures in a ripple do not require a speedy burial.

So, without clarification on your end - your response makes no sense.

I just understand from the ripple idea bought up that they are fossilized and so in greater sedimentary formations that fossilized.
The only way to freeze sediment is the make it into rock.
I understood these ripples were from moving sediment pushed by water.

Anyways why are you saying it helps your side to see ripples as not possibly formed by sudden action.?

RobertByers · May 30, 2008

flatworm said:
The preservation of tracks requires rapid burial, but lithification is another matter entirely. Do you have any references for lithification in say, sandstone, occurring within a single year?

Actually it shows they were buried in-place, then in many cases an entire ecosystem flourished on the new soil surface for some time, which was then buried, which was followed by another ecosystem, etc. You continue to simply disregard this point and it's deeply dishonest.

Are you suggesting the Flood lifted (for example) a layer of peat from a bog, several square miles in area but only an inch thick, then transported it entire somewhere else?

Yes the ripples were preserved immediately and so the same event turned them into stone. Thats the evidence. Its the first conclusion.

The idea of a another ecosystem on top of a fossilized sediment is a inaccurate interpretation. It was just from another area swept in and fossilized in that place. fluid dynamics. It is what it is. All frozen sediment at the same tome or almost.
The bog thing is new. The layer of peat itself was from the flood event. The peat was dead life squeezed together and formed peat and deposited somewhere.
Same events all in a single great event.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 30, 2008

RobertByers said:
Yes the ripples were preserved immediately and so the same event turned them into stone. Thats the evidence. Its the first conclusion.

So how did this happen in all those Oligocene and Miocene formations that you claim above are post flood?

The idea of a another ecosystem on top of a fossilized sediment is a inaccurate interpretation. It was just from another area swept in and fossilized in that place. fluid dynamics. It is what it is. All frozen sediment at the same tome or almost.

So dinosaur nests, with the eggs still together, were swept in over thousands of feet of flood deposits.

THEROPOD NEST
and those trackways that we have already discussed were "picked up" and swept over other deposits sorted hydrodynamically into the same layers as dino body fossils and deposited intact. And that termite mound I showed earlier (termite mounds are made of sand) was picked up and swept over other deposits without breaking up. It is truely amazing that you can't see how absurd your claims are.

Molal · May 30, 2008

RobertByers said:
I just understand from the ripple idea bought up that they are fossilized and so in greater sedimentary formations that fossilized.

To preserve the actual ripple so that it can be observed on a bedding plane or bedding laminae would require a fast burial (not diagenesis) just burial. However, most ripples in the rock record are not identified through the direct observation of a ripple on a bedding plane but through the observation of the ripple laminae.

The only way to freeze sediment is the make it into rock.

Let's use the correct term to avoid confusion. The event you are describing is diagenesis. It requires alot of time (usually). Diagenesis utilizes time, heat, pressure and groundwater flow carrying cementing minerals such as silicates and carbonates.

I understood these ripples were from moving sediment pushed by water.

Ripples are also created by the wind - dunes, beach ripples, etc.

Again, a red herring. You are discussing the preservation of ripple marks, not their formation.

Anyways why are you saying it helps your side to see ripples as not possibly formed by sudden action.?

I'm not saying that at all. I am merely pointing out that the evidence does not fit your idea.

Geology is a very well understood science. No where is there evidence for a global flood. The geologic record does not support a global flood. You cling to a biblical interpretation that is clearly erroneous.

flatworm · May 30, 2008

RobertByers said:
Yes the ripples were preserved immediately and so the same event turned them into stone. Thats the evidence. Its the first conclusion.

There is no evidence that lithification happens that quickly. I asked you to provide some, and you have ignored my request. I think your refusal speaks volumes.

The idea of a another ecosystem on top of a fossilized sediment is a inaccurate interpretation. It was just from another area swept in and fossilized in that place.

With intact root systems, burrows, and animal tracks? Sorry, the evidence is that these layers represent the remains of longstanding ecosystems, not random debris.

fluid dynamics. It is what it is. All frozen sediment at the same tome or almost.

Handwaving- it is what it is. Nowhere on earth do we see such things happening today and you have never provided any mechanism by which it can be accomplished. "Fluid dynamics" doesn't do any better at explaining it than "Tea cakes".

The bog thing is new. The layer of peat itself was from the flood event. The peat was dead life squeezed together and formed peat and deposited somewhere.

Peat is the result of specific biomes and requires time to accumulate. If you just throw a forest underwater and compress it, you end up with a very different looking formation.

Again, the evidence shows that significant time passed between the deposition of layers, and no amount of handwaving will make that go away.

Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Regular Member

Senior Member

Contributor

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Regular Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency