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.
To "explain" the Milankovic cycles would assume that we had agreed on the mechanisms for formation and age of the samples being analyzed. A YEC position would have no problem with periodic variations, but would drastically compress the time horizons.
I anxiously await some facts (names, numbers, etc.).
Do you feel epeiric seas, such as the Western Interior Seaway, were incapable of depositing massive sediment loads along the edges of continenets as they cyclically transgressed and regressed? We see this happening even today (Persian Gulf, Hudson Bay, etc.).
And what would such formations look like? Please don't be ambiguous.
Would "Rapid Changes in Oxygen Isotope Content of Ice Cores Caused by Fractionation and Trajectory Dispersion near the Edge of an Ice Shelf" explain how the same patterns show up in deep-sea sediment cores underneath a few thousand kilometers of sea water?
Actually, I've seen pictures of some of the deformations, etc., and what I've seen looks WAY too little for kilometers thick rock moving over other rock. The YEC model has no problem with strata, etc., moving -- it just wants to see enough evidence to explain it.
Uhhh, no. The transfer you refer to can take a long time - much more than the year or so for the first habitable dry areas. Some of it would be rapid, to be sure, but there is no requirement from the model. Also, I've seen calm regions in huge rivers - there's no requirement that it happen only in small areas.
Not at all. The YEC position allows for some formations to be pre-flood, many to be flood related, and others to be post flood. There is absolutely no requirement that things may only be deposited during the primary flood itself. It is true that the main flood will explain the bulk of the deposits, and also explains the way that such a huge mass of material can be dissolved and transported.
Each of these things have reasonable explanations - and are suitable for discussions. For the moment I have limited time, so I will address what I can. Just because I can't specifically reply to each point raised does not mean there is not an explanation. It also absolutely does not mean that they are not good topics for discussion. The YEC model, like the TE model, can accomodate a wide variety of specific local conditions. It is a straw man to assume that a global flood means one without huge variations.
Actually, virtually all fossil beds are associated with rapid deposition. In order for a fossil to be preserved, it must experience particular conditions -- i.e. burial with particular chemical requirements. If it does not, the critter decays before he can turn into a fossil. Rapid burial does not necessarily mean violent burial, as muds can ooze over things, etc. However, there are a plethora of examples of fossils which represent rapid *and* violent burial. I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that rapid/violent burial localizing fossils into particular areas is the most common occurrence. It is more likely to find a graveyard of fossil bones all jumbled around than an intact skeleton. Paleontologists do amazing work piecing together critters from bones scattered over a local area.
shernren's response to this point was right on the money. I don't think you realize it, pop, but this example you provide actually runs counter to the point you're trying to make.
I don't know if you understand what I'm saying here. The flood was not the same throughout the world. In some parts, it would be very violent. In others it would be relatively quiet. I'm saying that it handles both cases just fine. Yes, in the case of bone graveyards - sometimes it would be collections of critters gathered by the flood, other times it could be collections of bones. no prob.
Yes prob. My point is that occasionally we find terrestrial footprints in the same strata where we find bone beds (out here in Dinosaur Provincial Park, for example). That runs counter to your argument. Clearly the waters that scattered the bones could not have been the same waters that preserved the footprints.
That's a very interesting link discussing lava dams in the Grand Canyon, but it doesn't at all discuss the different layers in the Grand Canyon nor does it even attempt to identify different features that would have been created with different environments. As you claim creationists subscribe to a model that has a widely varying environment (as indeed makes sense assuming a global flood) surely you'll be able to identify a single rather important point in the geology of the Grand Canyon.
Nonsense. I doubt you can find a single article claiming that the flood started at any one point. YEC proponents don't seem to want to make disprovable claims allowing them to simply jump to the next when one is countered. Find JUST ONE article or I will strongly suspect that your claim of "YEC debate" is simply a smoke-screen.
Of course this is nonsense as calcite is constantly precipitating especially in deep ocean environments where the pressure is higher. Of course, they never propose any method by which a flood could create these features -- they just claim that it's different from modern deposition. Actually that is another problem with the article -- they contrast "modern" deposition with coconino sandstones, but they don't define which depositions they consider "modern." Precipitation of very small pure calcite crystals is certainly observed today so the coconino sandstones could very well be said to be deposited by a method that is ongoing today and thus "modern" by their standards. The average reader might not notice such a problem and decide that the Coconino sandstones could not have been depositied by any method we have observed. A scientist trying to evaluate the claim has absolutely nothing to work with as they aren't told what methods are considered modern nor what methods the author thinks created the sandstones. It's yet more obfuscation that makes the article and its claims utterly un-disprovable.
Your tone borders on insulting. From a couple of posts up above:
Close, but no cigar. The article doesn't say "the bottom of the ocean" (which implies depth), it just points out that the footprints were made in silt which was under water and quite wet, as if the animals were escaping a flood. At least quote it accurately.
Right -- this was beyond the scope of the article. So?
Your quote from the article got lost. However, for the readers who have not read the article itself, I will point out that it discussed a number of features which differ from modern slow deposits. I, for one, would rather have a source admit where additional study was appropriate rather than pretending to know everything about everything.
Insulting? I pointed out that the entire model is based on speculation floated by a community of theologians uninterested in (or incapable of?) doing the research necessary to support the claims. I'd certainly be insulted if somebody accused me of unsupported assertions in a paper I published, but then again, I try to base my conclusions solely on evidence I have, not evidence I hope somebody will find for me.
The casual reader might note that most of the paragaphs include something along the lines of, "we don't actually know, we're just guessing." I very much appreciate the honesty, I'm just not impressed with the article as an alternate to standard models of the column formation.
Of course I didn't quote it inaccurately -- if the entire world were covered by water for months (as claimed in the Bible) this could certainly be an ocean.
Interesting how there is no layer or group of layers that do not include animal tracks. Did this flood -- in the process of depositing hundreds of meters of sedement mind you -- only cover a couple of inches so insect tracks could be found throughout each and every layer? Wouldn't you expect to find large deposits WITHOUT tracks if there were cycles of deep water and dry land?
Interesting how the existance of dry dunes with the same angle as Coconino dunes is included as "beyond the scope of the article" when the article devotes a large amount of space to discussing how the angle of the dunes is incompatable with dry deposition.
In trying to support my view I guess I wouldn't cite an article that defended many of its claims (which counter centuries of research by scientists) with a simple, "we'd need to do more research to be able to support this."
