- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,323
- 52,689
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By what, exactly? Mothra? Godzilla? Darwin?Your country is doomed.
All it takes is one anomaly, such as polystrate fossils, to call into question the whole geologic column. The California whale encased in diatomite is still unexplained by science but supports a massive and sudden flood event. Such anomalies are all over the place and either ignored by science of weakly explained away.
Yes, they have been explained, ad nauseum. It is professional creationists who have lied to you and told you they support a flood.
If you weren't religious/theist, would you be a YEC?
I am an OEC, and a gapper.
And a global flood believer.
I'm afraid so. It's just too good a story not to be true.
Science says they all should have died -- 99.9% by drowning and .1% by being cooked alive.Right, because drowning 99.9% of all living things is such a cool story.
Boy, that's hard!BTW, there's a lot of cool stories out there, how do you decide which ones to believe?
The Cambrian extinction was suppose to be 95%. So are you saying that creation is more effective then evolution? Like Ivory soap is 99.99% pure. Only problem is Noah actually was able to SAVE 100% of what was worth saving. That is what the Ark was all about. God's love for His creation and His desire to save what He had created.Right, because drowning 99.9% of all living things is such a cool story.
The Cambrian extinction was suppose to be 95%. So are you saying that creation is more effective then evolution? Like Ivory soap is 99.99% pure. Only problem is Noah actually was able to SAVE 100% of what was worth saving. That is what the Ark was all about. God's love for His creation and His desire to save what He had created.
All it takes is one anomaly, such as polystrate fossils, to call into question the whole geologic column.
The California whale encased in diatomite is still unexplained by science but supports a massive and sudden flood event. Such anomalies are all over the place and either ignored by science of weakly explained away.
okay, I see your point with clay minerals. Now see my point.
okay so your saying that for example the dinasaur graveyard in montana, a sedimentary layer a mile long with 10,000 duckbill dinasaur fossils in it, happened gradually of long periods of time!
there are many like this in US alone!
I have posts of fish giving birth (fossilized)
and fish eating other fish (fossilized in mouth!)
not long ages, but a lone cataclysmic event.
not really. Remember even today we see trees and dead upright trees in swamps and flooded vallies being encompassed in sediment. The key problem many yec have is with their overgeneralization of sedimentology. Geologists don't automatically say layers HAVE to take millions of years to form. There ARE actual LOCALIZED flood deposits forming even today!
Polystrate trees were explained about 140 years ago by J W Dawson describing the Joggins Fm in Canada.
Did you review the opposing evidence?
Polystrate Fossil Trees
I am unaware of this whale in datomite example, but whale fossils, oldest ancestors of whales in fact, only seem to go back about 40 million years. But polystrate tree fossils like those in the Joggins Fm are over 280 million years old.
You should read up on this stuff, it's very interesting.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
So how many Noachian Floods were there?
Genesis 1:2 seems to describe a completely flooded earth prior to Noah's flood. I believe God may have used massive flooding several times prior to GenOne.
I didn't see your response to the xenolith
issue or the Daleymple paper from 1969 discussing excess Ar that I
posted earlier. Can you remind me of how the yec find problems with
that as an explanation for anomalous young ages?
--gasp---numbers??? Oh my!
Starting off strong!
But this isn't all the limestone on earth, is it? Remember your
Dunham classification.
But let's stick with just ocean floor carbonates from oozes.
OK, now you've got a layer of carbonate and let's say you can solidify
it within a couple thousand years.
The rocks at the summit of Everest contain crinoids and carbonate
pellets. (Crinoids lived in the ocean). You've exhausted a great
deal of time just making the carbonate in the oceans since the
flood, so when did Everest "pop up"? Must have been pretty dramatic
to shoot up 29,000 feet in just a few years! The level of destruction
necessary must have been pretty phenomenal. The frictional factors
should have left some pretty nifty marks and melting/recrystallization
along he margins of the Himalaya from this shocking event.
Again, a pseudonym for Jan Peczkis. Just an fyi.
Why make that assumption???
If by "difficult" you mean ignoring all the potential problems that
might arise from the existence of other types of limestone, then
yeah, maybe.
Now here's a bigger question: what about shales? These are
often made up of very fine clay minerals which take an
exceptionally long time to "rain down" out of a body of water
and due to their unique shapes (flat and platy) the water needs to be
exceptionally calm.
Seems to me shales would be more of a problem for flood geologists and
YEC than limestones.
Check out your hjulstrom diagram while you're reviewing Dunham.
It should not be confusing in the
slightest. Not all fossilization occurs in limestone.
And further, nothing I said necessitates some carbonate cementation
without water.
"access sediment" and "access fossilization"? I'm afraid I'm
unfamiliar with those terms.
Hopefully you don't mean all sedimentary rocks, right? When you
start asking for this sort of thing you will run into some severe
problems.
Remember, sedimentary rocks are not just "homogenous chunks of rock".
MOst of them contain a huge amount of information in the fabric
and structures in the sedimentary deposits. Be they dune-deposits
showing aeolian structures or lacustrine deposits with varves, or
ripple marks or raindrop impressions or mud cracks, etc etc etc. The
list is almost inexhaustible.
Further on you can't assume all sedimentary rocks are carbonates.
There's shales hundreds of feet thick indicating a Looooooooong time
of relatively undisturbed water (or at least low enough energy that
the clay minerals can settle out and orient into nice flat plates).
Again, the vastness of sedimentary geology will probably contain many,
many things you will have to explain away and it will require that
your hypothesis be constantly in rework phase as you struggle to
explain this point over here while you nail down that point over
there.
Really? I wasn't aware of this 'water under extreme pressure' caveat.
What about coal? Often times lenses of coal which preserve a great
deal of structure occur in limited areal spots.
Fossilization, or the process of fossilization (technically called
taphonomy) actually contains a large number of different
aspects. And remember there are a wide variety of types of
fossilization mechanisms.
Original material (some shells retain their original composition, say
a CaCO3 shell or a silica spicule etc.)
Replacement fossils and perminerlized where the original material is
removed and replaced with another mineral phase. Silica replacement
is not uncommon, also carbonate replacement, sometimes of other
carbonates!
Molds and Casts: in which the original "thing" is removed altogether
and other material fills in the space.
Carbonization where a thin film of carbon can replace fossils.
You're going to have to work on shoehorning all these different
types of fossilization into your hypothesis.
Did you review the opposing evidence?
Polystrate Fossil Trees
You should read up on this stuff, it's very interesting.
CRSQ March 2007 Article - Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition
Genesis 1:2 seems to describe a completely flooded earth prior to Noah's flood. I believe God may have used massive flooding several times prior to GenOne.
CreationLiberty and CreationResearch???? Let me guess .... their research supported the Genesis story ..
you still haven't shown how all fossils are from sedimentary layers laid down by water under pressure by injecting chemicals rapidly and forcefully sealing out contaminants and sealing in hard tissues, can form without a global flood.
I am also waiting for your peer review article about every varve in existance being annual varves and not seasonal storms etc.
I already provided the RATE project as a peer review, you have provided none. And if you criticize the quality of one peer review well then we will step up to the plate and make all peer reviews only by a PHD in related field, also peer reviewed by people unrelated and unknown to subject of the paper, also it must be peer reviewed by a scientific affiliation that I agree is in fact a legitimate institution. This literally is what evolutionists have said to me on this forum (not this thread), but in this forum. So if you don't like my RATES, then go ahead and dig out some Peer review of the higher caliber. I suspect you will have NOT ONE!.
Oh it's there, do a thread search.
Also I did a thread search for "daleymple paper" and nothing popped up, are you sure you posted that in this forum?
You should read up on this stuff, it's very interesting.
.../www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?