Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

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

Click to expand...

Not absurd.
First the miocene etc formations I see as post flood events. They happened due to local areas like volcanos or other events going on about 4-500 years after the flood.

I have not studies your nests thing. yet it will only be either a whole area fossilized suddenly or a whole area moved downstream and onto other sediment.
What turned the nests etc area into rock is what turned the lower layers into rock. One just needs to fiddle with events here.
I keep coming back however that it is what it is. Frozen sediment suddenly. Details can be worked out through the cause and effect of moving sediment and moving continents , this dropping and this rising. The exact sequence here requires attention but one can always find special cases requiring more attention.

flatworm said:

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.



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



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".



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.

Click to expand...

Its analysis on data.
No I don't know the mechanism but I know it happened by the biblical boundaries and the data from observation and taking geology conclusions and speeding it up. It really is most easily seen as great collections of sediment and this power of collecting pressurized it into rock with a few other details.
I'm sure this peat was created very quickly by the same processes and its only a special case where long time processes are needed today. Peat was then also encased on more flood dynamics.
Layers are just layers. They are not evidence of different ages but different processes layering them. Different currants, backwash during episodes and/or months of the flood year.One mist see it first for what it is and then later bring in the theories.

RobertByers said:

Its analysis on data.
No I don't know the mechanism but I know it happened by the biblical boundaries and the data from observation and taking geology conclusions and speeding it up. It really is most easily seen as great collections of sediment and this power of collecting pressurized it into rock with a few other details.
I'm sure this peat was created very quickly by the same processes and its only a special case where long time processes are needed today. Peat was then also encased on more flood dynamics.
Layers are just layers. They are not evidence of different ages but different processes layering them. Different currants, backwash during episodes and/or months of the flood year.One mist see it first for what it is and then later bring in the theories.

Click to expand...

This whole statement could not be more wrong...even if you tried to be wrong.

Please provide peer reviewed published data for your assertions......I bet you won't.

RobertByers said:

Its analysis on data.

Click to expand...

You haven't shown anything remotely approaching analysis. You simply assert that the biblical account is true and then handwave away the mounds of physical evidence that show it's impossible.

No I don't know the mechanism

Click to expand...

If you didn't see it happen quickly, and you don't know how it could have happened quickly, then you must have some physical clue that tells you it nevertheless had to have happened quickly, right?

...Right?

but I know it happened by the biblical boundaries and the data from observation and taking geology conclusions and speeding it up.

Click to expand...

I.E. you assume the biblical account is correct and mangle/ignore the physical evidence as necessary.

It really is most easily seen as great collections of sediment and this power of collecting pressurized it into rock with a few other details.
I'm sure this peat was created very quickly by the same processes and its only a special case where long time processes are needed today.

Click to expand...

Why? Why are you sure that the mechanisms that operate today, for which we can see nothing 'special', are in fact special cases? Does the same hold for tracks and burrows - are we supposed to believe that at some point in the past animal tracks were made not by animals but by mysterious hydrodynamic forces?

Peat was then also encased on more flood dynamics.
Layers are just layers. They are not evidence of different ages but different processes layering them.

Click to expand...

When there are enough of them together, they become evidence of different ages given the manifest time necessary to switch from one of these processes to another. Lakes do not switch to deserts and back again in seconds or minutes.

Different currants, backwash during episodes and/or months of the flood year.One mist see it first for what it is and then later bring in the theories.

Click to expand...

We have already seen it for what it is- a collection of rock formations formed over eons of deep time. Then we brought in the theories like plate tectonics and hydrodynamics. We gained an understanding of sediment transport, weathering, and the mechanics of rheids.

You, on the other hand, neither recognize these formations for what they are nor advance any coherent theory to explain them.

Flatworm
You don't show why I'm wrong or why your right. you just keep asking for proof of process.
The proof is what one is looking at.
Collected dirt piled and made into rock. Different cycles within this collection event creates different sections or layers.
It looks like this and it fits the biblical model which is the word of God.
Yes dramatic chamges in flow and sediment occured quickly or over the flood year.
Each area must be looked at as a special study.

It comes down to your side show in a persuasive way why a sediment/rock formation was not made instantly as it appears.
You can't do it.
pasty events are difficult to recover. You can't show this is how things happen as your own models require great time.
So what can we do/

RobertByers said:

Flatworm
You don't show why I'm wrong or why your right. you just keep asking for proof of process.
The proof is what one is looking at.
Collected dirt piled and made into rock. Different cycles within this collection event creates different sections or layers.
It looks like this and it fits the biblical model which is the word of God.
Yes dramatic chamges in flow and sediment occured quickly or over the flood year.
Each area must be looked at as a special study.

It comes down to your side show in a persuasive way why a sediment/rock formation was not made instantly as it appears.
You can't do it.
pasty events are difficult to recover. You can't show this is how things happen as your own models require great time.
So what can we do/

Click to expand...

The burden of evidence is upon you. You are the one making a claim that is opposed to the current mainstream theories of geology. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Again, we implore you, provide some peer reviewed published evidence that we can all look at and evaluate.

Asking for peer reviewed published data is not, necessarily a slam. It's a method by which we, as scientists, can review the data and conclusions and see if they are plausible. This is how science is done - evidence is required. So, provide some.

RobertByers said:

Flatworm
You don't show why I'm wrong or why your right. you just keep asking for proof of process.

Click to expand...

You're wrong because lithification does not happen instantaneously, as is clearly seen on any beach, sand dune, sand bar, or mudslide visible on earth today.

You're wrong because shorebirds cannot leave tracks in water miles deep.

You're wrong because in a global flood there's nowhere for the waters to recede and allow for these "stages" you propose.

You're wrong because new forests don't grow instantaneously where flood waters recede.

You're wrong because the microstructure of fossilized wave ripples shows the accumulated effect of wave action over time.

You're wrong because radiometric dating proves these layers are separated by millions of years.

You're wrong because hydrodynamics are incapable of sorting the fossils the way they're sorted.

You're wrong because aelian sandstone forms in desert, which needless to say does not form instantaneously because an area is no longer flooded.

Finally, you're wrong because your only answer to all this is the Bible is correct regardless.

The proof is what one is looking at.
Collected dirt piled and made into rock. Different cycles within this collection event creates different sections or layers.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and pile some dirt in your backyard. Come back when it's rock.

It looks like this and it fits the biblical model which is the word of God.

Click to expand...

Except there is no such thing as a god, so it matters not one lick whether a hypothesis fits a "Biblical" model. Such models are worthless in the real world.

Yes dramatic chamges in flow and sediment occured quickly or over the flood year.

Click to expand...

More blind conjecture in opposition to evidence.

Each area must be looked at as a special study.

Click to expand...

Each such area we've looked at shows deep time, not the biblical account.

It comes down to your side show in a persuasive way why a sediment/rock formation was not made instantly as it appears.
You can't do it.

Click to expand...

We already have, and it's persuaded every human being on the planet with half an education in geology and no pre-existing burden towards religious dogma.

pasty events are difficult to recover. You can't show this is how things happen as your own models require great time.
So what can we do/

Click to expand...

We have shown this is how things happen because we have demonstrated the principles involved in laboratories, and we have watched the formation of new geological features within recorded history.

300 feet of lake varves may take thousands of years to form, but 6mm of lake varves can form in a few years. We know how long it takes forests to regrow. Do you think we don't know how animal tracks are formed?

I know you'd like to believe that the entire edifice of geology is on par with your wild guesses and religious dogma, but I'm afraid this is not the case.

Chordateslegacy
These pictures show what creationism wants to see.
First sediment layered and tilited by moving earth plates. simple.
The teritary(sp) if accurately dated is a post flood events.
All that there is IS horizontal sediment made into rock by the same collection force and then mere moving of that rock by the moving continents.
Hutton was incompetent in not anticapating that other concepts in geology could explain what seemed to a unpracticed eye was long great underground events totaly separated from other events.
In fact it should of been obvious it was all one great event that did all the work in the flood year. Just a lunch break.

Flatworm
Too much stuff. Lets concentrate.
what do you think is so persuasive that great piles of sediment (rock) and these piles then rearranged could only happen from slow and very separate events.?
Whats the big proof?
Could not a single event pile up the dirt and later shift it around? How is this a impossible scenario?

RobertByers said:

Flatworm
Too much stuff. Lets concentrate.
what do you think is so persuasive that great piles of sediment (rock) and these piles then rearranged could only happen from slow and very separate events.?
Whats the big proof?
Could not a single event pile up the dirt and later shift it around? How is this a impossible scenario?

Click to expand...

Did I stutter?

Flatworm said:

You're wrong because lithification does not happen instantaneously, as is clearly seen on any beach, sand dune, sand bar, or mudslide visible on earth today.

You're wrong because shorebirds cannot leave tracks in water miles deep.

You're wrong because in a global flood there's nowhere for the waters to recede and allow for these "stages" you propose.

You're wrong because new forests don't grow instantaneously where flood waters recede.

You're wrong because the microstructure of fossilized wave ripples shows the accumulated effect of wave action over time.

You're wrong because radiometric dating proves these layers are separated by millions of years.

You're wrong because hydrodynamics are incapable of sorting the fossils the way they're sorted.

You're wrong because aelian sandstone forms in desert, which needless to say does not form instantaneously because an area is no longer flooded.

Click to expand...

The fact that there are mounds of evidence against your bare assertion does not in any way allow you to wave it all away as "too much".

RobertByers said:

Hutton was incompetent in not anticapating that other concepts in geology could explain what seemed to a unpracticed eye was long great underground events totaly separated from other events.

Click to expand...

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic to see RB call Hutton "incompetent" and an "unpracticed eye?"

Split Rock said:

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic to see RB call Hutton "incompetent" and an "unpracticed eye?"

Click to expand...

It made me LOL, but it is clear we are arguing with someone who has little knowledge in geology, indeed, in science.

This is no disrespect, I have a specialized area of knowledge and try not to get sucked into debates for which I have little knowledge.

Split Rock said:

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic to see RB call Hutton "incompetent" and an "unpracticed eye?"

Click to expand...

Frankly it sickens me to see someone who appears to be boderline mentally deficient ( judging by his ability to write competent English and construct and follow a debate ) calling one of the greatest human minds of all time incompetant.

It really makes me angry, and it shoudn't, it should make me feel pity for Byers, that he cannot appreciate the simplicity and truth in Hutton's observations.

That is a failing in me and the reason I put him on ignore, I feel like a Christian must do if someone calls their saviour a cheap conman with laughable conjuring tricks, it hits me where it hurts. That along with the fact that I think he is a Poe, I really don't think the character portrayed coiuld function at a level in society that would allow him to purchase and run a computer or even work out how a cyber cafe works.

In fact fuming on Byers' asinine dismissal of Hutton as incompetent sent me back to his work and I remembered this gem:

if an organised body is not in the situation and circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be the most liable to perish, while, on the other hand, those organised bodies, which most approach to the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race." – Hutton Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge

Click to expand...

He independantly discovered the principle of natural selection long before Darwin. In fact there were a number of people, including Erasmus Darwin, who were thinking along these lines, but Hutton, perhaps, crystalised the idea best.

But as a good deist he thoughtthis worked for "micro" evolution ( within a kind )only, he didn't, unlike Darwin, make the massive leap to seeing speciation as a logical outcome of the same process.

But still a great man, a leading light of the Scottish Enlightenment, when Scotland was probably the best educated ( 75% literacy ) nation on earth, and the most scientifically advanced nation on earth -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

Voltaire said "We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation."

Click to expand...

An amazing man, and an amazing period of history.

Baggins.
Well first I read one book on Hutton from your prompting.
It confirmed and surprised me about a few things.

First that the first geologists in the english universe, and almost Europe, were believers in creationism. They were Scots Presbyterians and unlike Anglican England sincerely believed in flood geology. In fact Hutton died before his ideas were accepted in Scottish universities. It was other big names who dominated.
They were not impressed with his ideas.

His observations, while accurate in details, were incompetent in drawing conclusions especially considering the climate he worked in.
He could of seen folded rock as from the same source of layerd rock which was said to be a part of Genesis.
His ideas were simplistic and only notable because these people first did organized geology.
Huton was very wrong in conclusions of time and just didn't see things as they appeared. I suspect he was very hostile to Christianity because he lived a life of immorality including making a kid out of wedlock. Not common in those circles back then.
Anyways his being logical about species is ordinary stuff and not natural selection as the origin of species.

By the way the Scottish rise in intelligence in Protestant Scotland was due to Puritan Protestant origins as it was the origin for the rise in England and colonies of intelligence. Scotland just didn't have anglicans to dumb it down.

In fact many great missionaries came from those years from Scotland.
However it was a religious thing and not a ethnic one.
The people didn't do better because they were more literate but were more intelligent and the literacy was a manisfestation of it. First things first.
It all ended a few decades later.

RobertByers said:

Baggins.
Well first I read one book on Hutton from your prompting.
It confirmed and surprised me about a few things.

First that the first geologists in the english universe, and almost Europe, were believers in creationism. They were Scots Presbyterians and unlike Anglican England sincerely believed in flood geology. In fact Hutton died before his ideas were accepted in Scottish universities. It was other big names who dominated.
They were not impressed with his ideas.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, at that time most were creationists. This includes many of the people that later proved that there was no flood. And while there may well have been holdouts, eventually people recognized the data, and thus was born modern geology.

It was John Playfair and later Charles Lyell who popularised Huttons work.

Hutton was a shy and modest man who didn't even like reading out his treatise to his colleagues at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, he didn't push his work, it was also considered a very long and dense work bythose that supported him.

For those reasons Hutton wasn't widely read and supported before his death, butt hat did not really matter because amongst the people who mattered- the Scottish intelligensia of the Northern enlightenment, the strength of his ideas was taken up. Playfair's Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth

summarised Hutton's ideas and lead to them being taken up by geologists all over Europe. Charle's Lyell took this theory of deep time and uniformitarianism even further and collected vast amounts of new evidence to back it up in Principles of Geology.

Without Playfair I think Hutton's genius would have gone unnoticed for years, but ideas like Uniformitarianism don't die because people are lead to them by evidence so his work would have been rediscovered by later generations without question.

What stopped the early scientists of this period being creationists and believers in the deluge was evidence. They were honest men, honest enough to admit they were wrong unlike present day creationists. One of the last of them to recant YEC was William Buckland. He became OEC and finally recanted the deluge myth by the 1840s.

Since this period no serious geologist has believed in a noachian flood or a young earth.

The reason? The evidence doen't show it. It is incredible hubris to believe that 200 years of geologists have got it wrong and a few bible thumpers who have never looked at a rock in teh field have got it right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ian_Theory_of_the_Earth&action=edit&redlink=1

Baggins said:

It was John Playfair and later Charles Lyell who popularised Huttons work.

Hutton was a shy and modest man who didn't even like reading out his treatise to his colleagues at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, he didn't push his work, it was also considered a very long and dense work bythose that supported him.

For those reasons Hutton wasn't widely read and supported before his death, butt hat did not really matter because amongst the people who mattered- the Scottish intelligensia of the Northern enlightenment, the strength of his ideas was taken up. Playfair's Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth

summarised Hutton's ideas and lead to them being taken up by geologists all over Europe. Charle's Lyell took this theory of deep time and uniformitarianism even further and collected vast amounts of new evidence to back it up in Principles of Geology.

Without Playfair I think Hutton's genius would have gone unnoticed for years, but ideas like Uniformitarianism don't die because people are lead to them by evidence so his work would have been rediscovered by later generations without question.

What stopped the early scientists of this period being creationists and believers in the deluge was evidence. They were honest men, honest enough to admit they were wrong unlike present day creationists. One of the last of them to recant YEC was William Buckland. He became OEC and finally recanted the deluge myth by the 1840s.

Since this period no serious geologist has believed in a noachian flood or a young earth.

The reason? The evidence doen't show it. It is incredible hubris to believe that 200 years of geologists have got it wrong and a few bible thumpers who have never looked at a rock in teh field have got it right.

Click to expand...

Excellent post Baggins, and absolutely true. There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood, none. The Buckland story is quite interesting, Buckland tried and tried to find evidence to support his pet interpretation, but failed and thus recanted (as stated by Baggins).

Thanks for the info Baggins