Fossil Fish

[dad]

Am I the only one here who realizes that a world-wide flood was an impossibility on many grounds? Like the fact that a global flood would have wiped out all terrestrial vegetation and salted the soil to prevent re-growth?
If there was no global flood, then there was no "pre-flood".

Not if a lot of the salt was formed some other way, and if the world of water was a mix with mostly fresh water. And as far as regrowth, there is some evidence of fantastic growth rates in our future in the bible, as well as in the past.

 

[dad]

Almost everyone here realizes that the idea that the flood Noah was global is falsified by a wide variety of observations. The only exceptions are the YECs. Though many flood falsifications do come from geology we have discussed many other Falsifications of the Worldwide Flood on numerous threads. Mechanical Bliss put together a nice archive of flood and young earth falsifications. One of my favorite non geological falsifications of the flood comes from biogeography. The contorsions that YECs go through to try to answer that one are sometime very amusing.

I started a thread on massive salt deposits more than two years ago. The extensive salt deposits in central Michigan are surrounded by Silurian Reefs.


The salt deposits look exactly like those forming in modern evaporation basins and would have taken a long time to form. Salt is soluble to about 35% in water and sea water is only about 3.5% salt to begin with. In post 71 on page 8 of my thread on salt I show that it must have taken at least tens of thousands of years for these salt deposits to form so there is not time to form them pre or post flood and they couldn't have formed during the "flood year" even if the water was boiling.

YEC try to get around deposits that couldn't have formed during the flood by saying they are either pre or post flood. However you can easily find deposits that some YEC leaders will say are preflood, other will say are flood and others will call post flood. Why can't YEC
flood geologists" agree as to exactly what layers are flood deposits? The obvious answer is that there was no geologically recent global flood.

F.B.

The obvious answer is that not all salt was made by evaporation of seawater. So much for that scenario, all dressed up, and no place to go!

 

[dad]

Your ideas that the body of water called the Cretaceous Inland Seaway is a receding world wide biblical flood is falsifiable simply because the Inland Seaway lasted almost 100 Million years.

Much of the geology in the region is the result of being in a shallow sea for 100 million years


.

Oh, and on what do you base this amusing claim? Creatures found there you think evolved? Geologic colum you think took a long time to form? Or..maybe the good ol belief that there was decay in the pre flood universe-and comparing today's decay rates, to dream up a time? Or..? Preposterous.

 

[dlamberth]

The obvious answer is that not all salt was made by evaporation of seawater. So much for that scenario, all dressed up, and no place to go!

He gave evidence.

Where is your evidence. dad?

.

 

[dad]

He gave evidence.

Where is your evidence. dad?

.

Who was talking about evidence of how salt can be formed now? WE were talking about the past, try to pay attention.

 

[dlamberth]

Oh, and on what do you base this amusing claim? Creatures found there you think evolved? Geologic colum you think took a long time to form? Or..maybe the good ol belief that there was decay in the pre flood universe-and comparing today's decay rates, to dream up a time? Or..? Preposterous.

Please show evidence to your claim that the Cretaceous Inland Seaway did not last 100 million years.

My evidence is the geology of the land forms in that area.

Here are a few links:
http://www.keystonegallery.com/geo.htm
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nhp/nm/geo_cc.htm
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/swgqz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Bryce_Canyon_area
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/tour/ghost_ranch/home.html
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/denver.html

.

 

[dlamberth]

Who was talking about evidence of how salt can be formed now? WE were talking about the past, try to pay attention.

dad, please show evidence of what your taking about.


.

 

[dad]

Please show evidence to your claim that the Cretaceous Inland Seaway did not last 100 million years.

My evidence is the geology of the land forms in that area.

Here are a few links:
http://www.keystonegallery.com/geo.htm
http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nhp/nm/geo_cc.htm
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/swgqz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Bryce_Canyon_area
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/tour/ghost_ranch/home.html
http://www.oceansofkansas.com/denver.html

.

...These thick chalk beds have been named the Niobrara formation of the late Cretaceous geologic period and date from 80 to 70 million years old.." Funny, no more than a statement here, no reasoning provided. I didn't ask for kindergarden stories, but evidences.
Ist link

2nd link same thing, longer article, no support given, just the stry recited.
3rd link Saw nothing here either, but the story again.
4th link "The rocks exposed in Bryce Canyon are about 100 million years younger than those in nearby Zion National Park, .." Ha.
Same thing, stroy only no support. Do you read links before you add them to your posts?
5th link zip
6th link A list of creatures found fossilized in the US, ????
Nothing here I wouldn't expect, creatures, etc.
What I don't get is how you could conscrew this as some old age evidence. Doesn't even address the issue, just tell stories, and make claims.

 

[dad]

dad, please show evidence of what your taking about.


.

I was talking about salt.
"Sodium chloride ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) or common salt is the chemical compound NaCl, composed of the elements sodium and chloride ( 1 2 3 4 ). Salt occurs naturally in many parts of the world as the mineral ( 1 2 ) halite " http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html
". If sodium gave up the 1 electron in its 3rd shell, this shell would now be empty and the 2nd shell (which is filled with 8 electrons) would become its valence shell. Thus chlorine and sodium are a perfect match for each other. One needs an electron and the other wants to lose an electron. When this transfer takes place, sodium loses an electron and becomes positively charged (the number of protons in an element never changes, so after losing an electron sodium will have one more positively charged proton than it does negatively charged electrons). And since chlorine gains an electron it becomes negatively charged. In this way both atoms now become ions. The opposite charges on the Na+ and Cl- ions will cause them to attract each other and form an ionic bond. Thus Na and Cl react to form the compound NaCl" http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/5-bonds.htm

So, salt can be formed other ways than evaporating sea water. Again, then your point would boil down to that is not the present based observations of how it usually is now formed. Well, I agree, it isn't the norm now. Neither does it necessarily mean an area was covered sky high in water to form it.

 

[dlamberth]

Neither does it necessarily mean an area was covered sky high in water to form it.

Evidence Please. Please show us the evidence that the area in question was not part of a salt water sea with a 100 million year history. Or that evaporation of that salt water was not the source of the salt in question.


.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I was talking about salt.
"Sodium chloride ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) or common salt is the chemical compound NaCl, composed of the elements sodium and chloride ( 1 2 3 4 ). Salt occurs naturally in many parts of the world as the mineral ( 1 2 ) halite " http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html
". If sodium gave up the 1 electron in its 3rd shell, this shell would now be empty and the 2nd shell (which is filled with 8 electrons) would become its valence shell. Thus chlorine and sodium are a perfect match for each other. One needs an electron and the other wants to lose an electron. When this transfer takes place, sodium loses an electron and becomes positively charged (the number of protons in an element never changes, so after losing an electron sodium will have one more positively charged proton than it does negatively charged electrons). And since chlorine gains an electron it becomes negatively charged. In this way both atoms now become ions. The opposite charges on the Na+ and Cl- ions will cause them to attract each other and form an ionic bond. Thus Na and Cl react to form the compound NaCl" http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/5-bonds.htm

So, salt can be formed other ways than evaporating sea water. Again, then your point would boil down to that is not the present based observations of how it usually is now formed. Well, I agree, it isn't the norm now. Neither does it necessarily mean an area was covered sky high in water to form it.

The area probably wasn't covered with sky high water. It was probably an evaporative basin similar to the dead sea where water could flow in and evaporate but not flow out.

The idea that the estimated 30,000 trillion tons of salt under Michigan were formed by the reaction of sodium metal with chlorine gas is beyond absurd as anyone who has ever worked with either of these highly reactive and toxic materials will know. Image what that amount of chlorine would do to the earth's atmosphere, not to mention that about 2 x 10^23 J of heat would be released by the reation and the sodium would react with just about anything else it contacted.

The usual creationist excuse for salt deposits is hydrothermal but this doesn't work in many places as I have explained in the OP of my thread on salt deposits and as Kevin Henke explains in more detail in his page on the subject.

Salt deposits are just another in the long list of features in the earth's geology that are totally inconsisitent with the myth of a recent worldwide flood.

F,B.

 

[HairlessSimian]

I was talking about salt.
"Sodium chloride ( 1 2 3 4 5 ) or common salt is the chemical compound NaCl, composed of the elements sodium and chloride ( 1 2 3 4 ). Salt occurs naturally in many parts of the world as the mineral ( 1 2 ) halite " http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html
". If sodium gave up the 1 electron in its 3rd shell, this shell would now be empty and the 2nd shell (which is filled with 8 electrons) would become its valence shell. Thus chlorine and sodium are a perfect match for each other. One needs an electron and the other wants to lose an electron. When this transfer takes place, sodium loses an electron and becomes positively charged (the number of protons in an element never changes, so after losing an electron sodium will have one more positively charged proton than it does negatively charged electrons). And since chlorine gains an electron it becomes negatively charged. In this way both atoms now become ions. The opposite charges on the Na+ and Cl- ions will cause them to attract each other and form an ionic bond. Thus Na and Cl react to form the compound NaCl" http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/5-bonds.htm

So, salt can be formed other ways than evaporating sea water. Again, then your point would boil down to that is not the present based observations of how it usually is now formed. Well, I agree, it isn't the norm now. Neither does it necessarily mean an area was covered sky high in water to form it.

There you go again posting your high-school level understanding.

What you don't seem to know is that this describes the formation of salt from metallic sodium and elemental chlorine. Neither of which would have existed, certainly not the sodium metal, and no chlorine to any significant extent. Do you know why? Probably not.

Unless you're going to claim that the salt originated by nucleosynthesis or radioactive decay, you will need to admit that the salt was evaporatively deposited from the sea. Because that's how natural salt deposits occured and still occur.

 

[dad]

The idea that the estimated 30,000 trillion tons of salt under Michigan were formed by the reaction of sodium metal with chlorine gas is beyond absurd as anyone who has ever worked with either of these highly reactive and toxic materials will know. .

The way that electrons were exchanged such as in that example, was to illustrate that salt could be made other ways. No one said it was chlorine there that made it. It is absurd to suggest anyone suggested that.

 

[dad]

Unless you're going to claim that the salt originated by nucleosynthesis or radioactive decay, you will need to admit that the salt was evaporatively deposited from the sea. Because that's how natural salt deposits occured and still occur.

It wouldn't have been radioactive decay if no decay existed at the time. But the former process may have been the big factor in making salt. For example, the mist that came up and watered the earth, we do not know was uniform! Some areas may have gotten a lot more water than others. Perhaps some areas were routinely flooded, rich in salt, and drained, reflooded, wtc. The accumulation would be fantastic. Also, if you have seen some areas of earth, we see leeching of some salts, and minerals to the surface. Some lakes get quite a bit of this. Imagine water from the interior of the earth coming up every day! Again, the possibilities are legion. "chloride is readily transported through the soil" http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:T6oSv0YoEiYJ:www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/chlorid7.pdf+Chloride+ground&hl=en

Sulpher is found under the earth. Who knows what was brought up in certain areas?! Could there have been the right combination of things? Who knows? So I can't see how we would expect the only way salt could have been produced, was through large bodies of water, and evaporation on the scope rates, and scale we now see in the post flood present!?

 

[dad]

Evidence Please. Please show us the evidence that the area in question was not part of a salt water sea with a 100 million year history. Or that evaporation of that salt water was not the source of the salt in question.


.

We don't know, now do we? If evaporation was the way, then other things would also have been at work pre flood. As was mentioned there was a daily mist coming up from down below the earth, and heaven knows what it may have carried up in places! Then there is the possibilities a merged world had, on the atomic level! The electron swapping, proton adding or subtracting, and various changes that could have then happened, that now can't are mind boggling. (And of course we all know the present cannot be proved to be the way the world was in the past)

 

[Jet Black]

The rocks being formed underwater are proof that they were formed underwater. While it is true that this could have been from a large lake during the Cretaceous period, is there any indication a flood did not form them? Why is it said a lake, instead of a flood, formed them?

you seem to have missed the variety of deposits. we have the deposits containing that fish, under those is the reef, under that is the salt pans, under that is another reef, under that are some rocks and under those are limestone deposits.

Perhaps I could better put the question thus; If you were not already positive that there was no flood, what would rule out that possibility?

you are talking about a single event that does the following:

(1) first of all, it must be calm and shallow for a long time in order to to allow the limestone deposits and the rocks above them, then it must be around for a while to allow the sponge reefs to grow, then it must be repeatedly covered with seawater and evaporated many times in order to allow the salt pans to form (there are three hundred feet thick of pure salt there) , and then must be nice and calm again for a long time to allow the corals to form, and so on

First, how is this reef dated to the Cretaceous period?

it doesn't matter how old they are for the moment, the main problem right now is that you have a global flood that in just a few months, lays many feet of limestone, overlaid with rocks, two reefs and three hundred feet of pure salt. limestone and those salt pans particularly are rather difficult to form in the sorts of conditions that you require.

Second, why do you think this had to have formed during the flood? (in the creationist world view.)

I don't. I'm asking you where you think all that lot came from. Creationists typically use the flood to explain all geology, well they have trouble explaining things like this.

Third, how long it takes to form a coral reef is a highly debated subject.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

that is talking about reef formation since the flood. we are talking about reef formation during the flood.

 

[Jet Black]

For the Texas reef, see; http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/catastrophic.asp

regarding this, I am going to defer to OC1's excellent links.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20054519&postcount=221

First of all, you have been suggesting that the aquatic fossils that are on dry land in the middle of texas and kansas got there as a result of the flood. But see now we have the situation where huge amounts of the sediment and geological column underneath texas are all aquatic. does the flood explain all of them? how can the flood explain them?

The Ordovician limestone is a Dolomite and Limestone formation which covers a significant area of texas and consists of a number of features that cannot be deposited rapidly. For example, the dolomite is formed from the limestone, but this does not occur rapidly and occured over massive areas of texas. there are many caves in the texan formation which have formed by fresh water runningthrough them (salt water cannot dissolve caves since it is saturated already) and these caves could not have formed underwater, because stalagmites don't form underwater. Also the limestone has to lithify before these caves can form, since you can't dig an underground hole in loose sediment. now sometimes these caves get so large that they fall in, forming sinkholes, and we see this in texas. But before these sinkholes formed, there had to be enough time to deposit another few thousand feet of sediment and allow that sediment to lithify also. there are a number of other features such as things found in the limestone and so on which do not form rapidly, but what we need for all of this is:

extremely rapid formation of limestone (a marine deposit), extremely rapid lithification, exposure to freshwater in order to carve out the caves and additional time for further sediments to be laid on top and lithify before the cave collapses.

that's just a brief summary, and I hope everything in it is right, here is the source for more info and a few seismic charts:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ellenburger.htm

are these features pre-flood? during the flood or post flood? how did they form in the YEC timescale? remember that all this is underneath the salt pans and those other two reefs and additional sediment that we have been talking about.

 

[Jet Black]

hehhehehe, is dad suggesting that metallic sodium and gaseous chlorine came together underwater to form trillions of tonnes of salt deposits? well lets try that with a few grammes.

#1: take lump of sodium.

#2: use the intervening short time to run away

#3: before it explodes

now that is with water. this will cause sodium hydroxide to form and we don't want . next step is to take some chlorine gas and release it into the atmosphere .

hmm.... billions of tonnes you say?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

hmm.... billions of tonnes you say?

No, not merely billions of tons, thousands of trillions of tons.

F.B.

 

[Jet Black]

No, not merely billions of tons, thousands of trillions of tons.

F.B.

I see dad believes in multiple Big Bangs* then

*a humorous remark; The Big Bang of the famous relativistic theory is not an explosion as this would be.