How do YECs explain the dinosaurs?

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Either something looks ancient or it doesn't. And the earth looks extraordinarily old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify for the group:

Age is subjective, not an "is" or "is not", black-and-white concept. Evidence of this is that when we were 5 yrs old we thought people our age were "old", but not that we are this age, people 30 or 40 yrs older are now "old". Also, ever have someone in their 70's, 80's, or 90's refer to you, at your current age, as "young" or be called a "young pup". Age is not an absolute, it is relative/subjective.

Setting aside the subjectivity of age; logically, we cannot perceive "old" if we don't know what "young" looks like. Anyone here know what the Earth or universe looked like when it was "young"? No? So, this further invalidates the idea that something just "looks ancient".

In the absence of knowing what a young Earth looks like, the only way one can (logically) perceive that the earth is old is to believe it is old (whether that belief is valid or not). Again, this is setting subjectivity aside as this is just an exercise of comparing and contrasting an object that is young next to an older version of itself.

Geologists believe the earth is "ancient" on the assumption that the earth has been continually undergone slow gradual geological processes (gradualism / uniformitarianism). This if "affirmed" using radiometric dating of unstable elements, which this method has a number of assumptions: 1) That the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) that the system has always been closed (no contamination), and 3) that the initial starting count of parent and daughter atoms is known.

Radiometric (and isochron) dating has often been shown to be incorrect on rocks of known age, yet mysteriously is believed to be correct for rocks of unknown age. Further, radiometric dating of different elements has not always been shown to be concordant as they produce different ages. Further, the current decay rates of the commonly used elements have very long rates of decay (Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years) so even small errors will result in large ages given.

At best, the plethora of assumptions made, coupled with the known errors make these long ages questionable. Alternatively God's word is known to be true, and always true, which I'll agree does not give an exact age; however, does give us the lineage from Adam to Christ and we know Adam was created on day 6, and within close approximation how long ago Jesus lived. Whether we're talking about Dinosaurs, the age of the earth, evolution, etc... the Bible is not invalidated by the beliefs held within scientific circles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
In the absence of knowing what a young Earth looks like, the only way one can (logically) perceive that the earth is old is to believe it is old (whether that belief is valid or not).

Komatiite showed you an example of evidence confirming an ancient Earth.

This if "affirmed" using radiometric dating of unstable elements, which this method has a number of assumptions: 1) That the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) that the system has always been closed (no contamination), and 3) that the initial starting count of parent and daughter atoms is known.

No, that's false. And we know it works. The eruption that buried Pompeii was accurately dated by argon/argon analysis.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nothing in the above post addresses anything that I've said.

If anything it just seems to be a poor attempt to change the topic from the angular unconformity.
Topic is actually about how YEC's explain dinosaurs.

Supporting unfalsifiable conclusions with more unfalsifiable conclusions seems to be a poor attempt to disprove the Bible.
==================================================
Is anyone else seeing this? Komatiite, you seem to think that unfalsifiable assumptions of unobserved events are somehow on par with the word of God and just keep bringing these things up as if someone doesn't bring up a secular scientific explanation that satisfies an explanation for a young earth then God's word must be wrong. How absurd.

Oh and by the way... notice how NOBODY is responding to provide you such answer? It's because everyone can see what you keep missing and that is that none of us can truly know what happened in the past (and Geologists know that and so that's why they make uniformitarian assumptions).

Just to save everyone here the trouble and time otherwise wasted, in the past I've provided Komatiite with scientific explanations, citing published research from highly credentialed geologists for things like the geological column, radiometric dating, fossils... and angular unconformities. If he disagrees with the explanation/assessment of the other scientist(s) - which he always does, he just parrots what he's been taught how to interpret the evidence and says the other scientist(s) are wrong. It's that simple, and yes it's that inane. He's been through this circular loop many times.

Komatiite, what you have done very well for everyone though is successfully confirmed that your faith has nothing to do with God's word and everything to do with what you believe is true about geology. Hebrews 11:6 is the verse for you brother:

"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

I've poked and prodded you to get you to link what you believe and tie it to God's word as a demonstration of faith, but alas I have never been successful. Without faith it is impossible to please God, and you've demonstrated your faith is in geological assumptions, not His word. You are like the church of Laodicea: lukewarm. No one here has reason to doubt your faith that God exists, but you've made it clear you do not fully have faith in His word.
==================================================
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oh and by the way... notice how NOBODY is responding to provide you such answer? It's because everyone can see what you keep missing and that is that none of us can truly know what happened in the past

It's pointless to argue that we can't know anything we didn't observe happen. No one really believes that.

Komatiite, what you have done very well for everyone though is successfully confirmed that your faith has nothing to do with God's word

Back to disparaging the faith of other Christians? Bad idea.

If you trusted God more, you wouldn't need to do so. It's not a salvation issue. Never has been.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Really there are more than just dinosaurs that young earthers have to contend with. Every geologic period has its own unique animals and plants too. For example, the cenozoic has oddly large mammals, and lots of unique smaller mammals as well. Different sections of the cenozoic have unique animals.

View attachment 246156

For example, proto elephants in the eocene, aren't found in the pleistocene and vise versa.

When dinosaurs roamed, these rocks are generally split into three sections, the Triassic, Jurassic and cretaceous. And these sections themselves have unique dinosaurs and unique reptiles. For example T Rex isn't actually found the majority of mesozoic rocks, just in the cretaceous.

But even still, there is an older section of rock called the Paleozoic which sections identified as the Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, devonian, Carboniferous , and Permian.

And even each of these periods has their own unique fauna. You won't find anomalocaris beyond the Cambrian. The first tetrapods are in the devonian. The first reptiles in the Carboniferous, the first terrestrial vertebrates in the early silurian etc. And these are exaples of unique fauna that aren't found beyond their sections of time.


View attachment 246158

And some ask how we know what rocks are younger or older than others. We use simple concepts such as "the oldest rock is on the bottom". Because if the older rock were on top, it would be floating in space and wouldn't have anything to rest on top of. Nice and simple. View attachment 246159

So in the above images for example, there's yellow glacial till, gray to brown till, and yellow brown till, indicating that at three points in time glaciars had advanced with cooling of the planet and retreated with warming of the planet (multiple ice ages).

View attachment 246160
Then we pull up our map and we can see how some till extended further south than other layers of till.

And we put it together and look at what fossils are in each layer.

In principle it is simple and logical."



---------------
@NobleMouse

What i am proposing is simple and clear.

3 independent layers of glacial till equates to 3 independent glaciers which deposited said till.

We also have glacial striations, which are grooves cut in stone by the weight of ice.

Everything about the physical world indicates long passages of time. Glaciers, as we know, move slowly, so when we see their grooves making moraines across hundreds of miles, then melting back releasing drop stones, over and over and over and over again...

And before you go on thinking that 3 layers of till could form quickly, too bad for you, there are actually more than three independent layers of till, I can think of at least 6 off the top of my head and I know that there is evidence for even more independent ice ages beyond that.

So the logical conclusion is that such environmental changes and glacial advances did not occur in any short period of time.

But even if someone did actually think that this could occur in perhaps 100 years, we have the other 99.99% of geologic history to stack on top I'm addition.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

"Here is a prehistoric burrow of the cenozoic
paleoburrow_santa_catarina_2017_04_19.jpg



We can find burrows and complex burrow networks

220px-ThalassinoidesIsrael.JPG


In every single geologic period and probably the vast majority of epochs as well.

timescl-2018.gif


And nests with eggs, and footprints. Animals were alive and living and doing things, normal things throughout the geologic record.

If continents were being flipped on their side by an apocolyptic global flood, not only does it not make sense for the rocks to exist themselves (as mentioned above in regards to rocks forming under specific temperatures and pressures), but life shouldnt give the appearance as though everything was fine and dandy."

-------
@NobleMouse

Now, simply calling your opposition a heretic doesn't absolve your inability to explain what I am describing.

Above we have complex animal burrows, we have dinosaur nests with eggs in them. We have tracks of animals spaced in ways which tell us that they casually walked the land.

These features found all throughout the geologic column, indicating a normal world, much like our own. Not a chaotic flood which annihilated all life.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But there's more,

Another detail that I have not heard a response for, is in regards to angular unconformities, and more specifically, the one in New York which I have been referring to which resides between the Martinsburg and Tuscarora formations.

In this scenario..

"For example, if dinosaur tracks are found in a location of mudstone, it tells us that at some point in time, time passed in which dinosaurs lived and walked a location of mud.

=====================

If we take those tracks and turn them on a vertical wall of rock. This tells us that time must have passed after the dinosaur walked through mud, in which the mud hardened and then was overturned by geologic mountain building processes.

///////////////////////////////////

If the rock that is turned on its side vertically, also has sandstone in a horizontal direction on top of it, this tells us that time must have passed after the dinosaur walked through mud, and after the mountains had risen, in which more deposition occurred.

=====================
/////////////////////////////////////

And if the younger sandstone rocks that were layed down horizontally, were then turned vertically, in which case the older mud layers were turned back to horizontal, this tells us that...

1. The dinosaur walked through mud
2. The mud hardened
3. The hardened mudstone was turned on its side by orogenesis
4. The sandstone was deposited on top
5. The sandstone hardened
6. The hardened sandstone and mudstone together were turned sideways again by orogenesis.

=======/////////////
=======/////////////



Simple logic tells us that these processes take time to occur. Continents move at the rate in which our fingernails grow. Rocks solidify under certain temperatures and pressures as well.

Schematic-Barrovian-PTt1.png


Granulite for example, is a rock that forms under high temperatures. So when we see these rocks in the environment, it tells us about nature of their origins.

This is why there is no such thing on earth as a phaneritic intrusive feature (if you dont understand, google it). Rocks form under particular conditions that are observable in todays world.

And so we can derive an old earth, really just by looking at the rocks and seeing the shape of them and what theyve gone through.

Hence this video
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Indeed, my description of an angular unconformity in my last post isnt something I just made up. It is a real life example of something that exists in New York where anyone and everyone can walk up and look at it.

-----------
With that said, we have 3 independent fields of study disproving young earth creationism, that's geomorphology with it's many independent ice ages and unique fauna of the cenozoic.

You have paleontology with the fact that complex burrow networks and nests show us everyday casual life.

We also have our fossil succession, in which you also haven't explained how tiktaalik was predicted to exist in mid devonian rock based on old earth geology

And beyond that structural geology disproves young earth ideas with simple examples like the angular unconformity described above.
-----------
@NobleMouse calling people heretics and saying that age is relative, just doesn't address any of this.

You have numerous glaciations, you have animals walking, living, constructing nests, giving birth, burrowing complex tunnel networks and more. You have orogenic processes, deposition of new layers, lithification, tilt, erosion, more deposition etc.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And all this...this is just the tip of the iceberg, and the only alternate explanation for these features taking time to form, is if God created all the independent layers and all the nests and burrows and all the erosional surfaces and independent glacial till layers....for all practical purposes of this discussion, instantaneously.

Which of course is just absurd. Such a conclusion would be equivelant to suggesting that dinosaurs didn't actually spend time making nests or walking around or making burrows...but in reality, God simply made it look "as if" time had passed.

The only other explanation for the independent layers of glacial till would be if God instantly made all the independent layers with the glacial striations erosion features and independent layers of glacial drop stones...instantaneously. God would have to make it look "as if" glaciers had advanced and carved the ground, but in actuality, no such thing occurred.

And lastly, God would have had to have made angular unconformities with erosional surfaces and regular 90 degree compressive faults to make it look "as if" said rocks underwent regular orogenesis under regular pressures and temperatures as we know them.

Advancing the speed of tectonic motion of course would increase pressure and temperature, thereby changing the chemistry of the subjected rock. But in the real world, regular rocks remain with an appearance as if they have never been subjected to such high pressures and temperatures at all.





Indeed, even if the planet truly is 6000 years old, by all accounts, God has given it the appearance of a planet that is at minimum tens or even hundreds of millions of years old.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Indeed, even if the planet truly is 6000 years old, by all accounts, God has given it the appearance of a planet that is at minimum tens or even hundreds of millions of years old.

And we have Lord Kelvin's calculations showing that the heat flux from the Earth (even in the absence of energy from radioactive decay) would require the Earth to be tens of millions of years old.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And we have Lord Kelvin's calculations showing that the heat flux from the Earth (even in the absence of energy from radioactive decay) would require the Earth to be tens of millions of years old.

Thats true as well.

Really all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Young earth ideas are disproved in science, by countless countless, countless lines of evidence.

Or at least it should be said that, through countless lines of research, the earth has the appearance of being old.

God could hypothetically have made the earth to look old. But i just dont think this idea makes much sense.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thats true as well.

Really all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Young earth ideas are disproved in science, by countless countless, countless lines of evidence.

Or at least it should be said that, through countless lines of research, the earth has the appearance of being old.

God could hypothetically have made the earth to look old. But i just dont think this idea makes much sense.
I guess we're done then here because all of your posts are just parroted claims you cannot actually demonstrate are true. But it's your God-given freedom to believe what you want and justify it by whatever you place your faith in... and even the atheists are justified in their own eyes in what they believe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I guess we're done then here because all of your posts are just parroted claims you cannot actually demonstrate are true. But it's your God-given freedom to believe what you want and justify it by whatever you place your faith in... and even the atheists are justified in their own eyes in what they believe.

What is there to demonstrate? That there are numerous independent layers of glacial till?

That nests and complex burrow networks are found throughout the geologic column?
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is there to demonstrate? That there are numerous independent layers of glacial till?

That nests and complex burrow networks are found throughout the geologic column?
What there is to demonstrate is: Specifically that the processes you assert took millions of years actually occurred as you say they did and took as long as you say they did. Telling a story that they did does not demonstrate they are true.

As I mentioned, all you do is parrot how you've been taught to interpret geological evidence, but no teacher of yours, their teachers, their teachers' teachers... ever observed the processes and events that took place and so do not really truly know what happened. Remember: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results." We cannot repeatedly test these events from millions of years ago are what happened, or that they took as long as secular geologists say they took, they cannot be verified by applying the scientific method, were not observed, etc... they are not scientific theories, just an imaginative narrative.

So then this assumption-laden and unverified framework is stood up and we are told the events described in creation and the flood of Noah did not really happen, though God said they did.

The unscientific theories within the secular scientific community promulgated to the public as 'truth' with a degree certainty that for many justifies allowing God's word to be disregarded, I believe, is ultimately rooted in the father of lies: "Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?... You will not surely die." And yet we DID die spiritually the moment the fruit was eaten, the covenant with God broken, and like a flower plucked from the ground, we also began to physically die - no longer living out eternity with God in His creation. That was the lie in the garden, but this is our lie today: that we were not created by God from the dust of the ground and made on day 6 of creation, that God did not destroy all life on the face of the earth, that Eve really wasn't made from Adam, that Jonah couldn't have survived in the belly of a great fish, etc...

Secular scientists are among the false teachers of our day, spreading false doctrine. They come with a different message from a different source (man's word, not God's word), they hold a different position and are of different character, with a different appeal (towards intellectualism rather than faith) and bear different fruit (they follow themselves rather than God's word).

As I've said before, it is impossible to please God without faith. It's more than just believing the historical person of Jesus actually existed, though that is part of it (because even the demons know He exists). Jesus is the word made flesh; to believe in Jesus is to believe in the word of God.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What there is to demonstrate is: Specifically that the processes you assert took millions of years actually occurred as you say they did and took as long as you say they did. Telling a story that they did does not demonstrate they are true.

Well, lets think about this then.

slide_10.jpg


Above is our simplified geologic column for reference.

Regarding the pleistocene glaciation, we are talking about really the uppermost shallow layers, predominantly consisting of glacial till and lensed layers of gravel and silt. Thats just what it is.

How fast do glaciers move? They move very slowly by the nature of what they are.

They dont have legs so they wont get up and run at 50 miles per hour.

How fast do glaciers retreat? Pretty slowly as well.

If you have 5 independent glaciations, one would anticipate this taking longer than a single year to unfold.

But even if you hypothetically believed that the planet plummeted in temperature and then shot back up in temperature over and over and over and over and over again...in a brief period of time...and even if you believed that glaciers could travel hundreds and thousands of feet, several times over and over again...

This still is only scratching the surface, literally.

Throughout the cenozoic, we have complex burrow networks.
upload_2018-12-5_8-49-43.jpeg

Schematics-of-the-type-specimen-of-Megaichnus-major-modified-from-Frank-et-al-2013_Q320.jpg

Schematics-of-the-type-specimen-of-Megaichnus-major-modified-from-Frank-et-al-2013_W840.jpg



"In the last ten years, more than 1,500 large burrows have been discovered in southern and southeastern Brazil"

And ya know, large slow mammals, such as giant armadillos, they take time to make these burrows.

They scratch, they claw, they dig.

Armadillos dig slowly. As we know them to exist.

So we have these huge tunnels that likely would take, days or even weeks for these animals to dig. Or even months perhaps, dependending on the animal and the burrow network.

How fast can an armadillo dig? Not very fast, theyre slow animals.

And this is further down in the cenozoic, where the flood allegedly was laying down sediment. So somehow the armadillo would have to hold its breath really long while it did this?

Or maybe the flood was over at this point, but then we just have more issues in understanding how it is that cenozoic layers were deposited, if not by the flood. But these animals are long extinct, so presumably they were killed off in the flood?

But this is still just the beginning.

Really we are only a small fraction through the geologic column yet. We are still in the pleistocene which is still very recent in the geologic column.

We still have 80% of the cenozoic to go, 100% of the mesozoic and 100% of the paleozoic, and even still we are only scratching the surface.


And already we have several glaciations and really massive time consuming burrows. Which are now in rock btw, as the rock has had time to lithify.

Ill continue in a bit with the list.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Alright, so we talked a bit about the pleistocene with its multiple ice ages and the late pliocene and early pleistocene with its massive burrows that clearly took a good bit of time to be constructed. The burrows themselves have lithified into rock, so we also have had time for the soil to be compacted and bonded together into stone.

Now lets move further into the oligocene and miocene
slide_10.jpg



We still have things like complex burrows.
668bf8de31b72f1e6c6083fb535ed9d5.jpg


Made by animals like beavers and groundhog type animals. Small burrowing mammals like mice. Now this is stratigraphically independent from the pleistocene. Its deeper and its separate. But this is a regular burrow that an animal would make, as if it had were living a regular life and were digging a regular burrow to live in. It had time to dig and spiral and kick off to the side.

Now lets hop over to some of the structural features we see.

3315866.jpg



Above we have more eocene, oligocene and miocene strata.

But in this case, we see it, not with respect to fossils, but with respect to faults and folds. In which, what we see is compressional faulting in the formation of the petagonian nappe. The hanging wall of the nappe has been thrusted up and over other sections of rock by 10s of kilometers. These are features that take extraordinarily long in todays time, really, they take millions of years in todays time.

Now, we already have burrows of animals just living regular animal lives. We have multiple glaciation advanced and lithification of deposites which were historically burrowed through in the pleistocene and late pliocene.

But all of these events, post date compressional faulting depicted in the imagery above.

With that said, what else do we see here? We also see extensional faulting in which strata was pulled apart. And we have erosion of our ophiolites. Now, these features, the faults we see above, as we know, they dont form in soft sediment. We have things like brecciated fault gouge, fragmented shards of rock, formed from the breaking and scraping of one rock on another.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/breccias
https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1433a-b/report.pdf

And we have displaced fragments from older rocks as well which are also solidified, but we will get there eventually.

Soft sediment, does not fracture, extentionally and compressionally, the way rock does. Its just the nature of physics, brittle fracturing is specific stone.


So to bring it all together, we have animals living casual lives, doing what animals do, but simultaneously we have later lithification of rock, then later still, we have compressional and extensional faulting, which basically means that at one point in time these rocks were pulled tens of kilometers apart in one direction, and then at another time, these rocks were pushed tens of kilometers in the opposite direction. But this all happened after a number of animals had already demonstrated a peaceful life, therein.

But also we have post compression erosion of the ophiolites above.

So lets put it all together here.

We have our ophiolites which predate everything and are superpositionally lower. We have our animal burrows, then lithification of said burrows in the oligocene and miocene, then compression and tectonic uplift over 10s of kilometers in distance, then extension and faulting of the above rock. Then after that, we erosion of our ophiolites, which are rock hard as well and take time to erode, then after that, then we have our numerous independent burrows of the pliocene which also take tons of time to be made, then further lithification of said burrows, then numerous ice ages of the pleistocene. And all of this further isnt even getting into lithologic descriptions of where the sediment is even coming from. Because these occurances involve countless independent layers of strata ranging many different rock types. For example
Fluvio-lacustrine cyclothems from the Oligocene of Hampshire | Geological Magazine | Cambridge Core

Fluvio-lacustrine cyclothems. In which we have patterns in which strata of the oligocene was deposited as sandstone, siltstone then limestone, then back to siltstone, then sandstone and back to siltstone and on and on.

So even the burrows, of each of these independent sections of rock, post dates the deposition of of sediment in which they burrowed into, prior to lithification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And im just scratching the surface and we are only 30 million years in, in a geologic column that spans 600 million years.

There are people that suggest that a global flood did all this in a single year. We would be hard pressed to describe any of these occurrences as having happened in anything less than millions of years, and we haven't even begun to open up anything in the mesozoic or paleozoic or the second half of the cenozoic, or even the proterozoic and beyond.

We are literally just scratching the surface and already, we would very hard pressed to think how this list of features could form in...lets say 1000 years.

And, i didnt even get into discussion about what ophiolites are, and what all they include and why they themselves would take at a minimum thousands of years to form just by the nature of what they are.



----------------------------------------------------------
To cram everything in thus far, into just a thousand years or so, would be like playing the lord of the rings DVD collection in 1000x fast forward to make it all play out in 10 minutes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, lets think about this then.

slide_10.jpg


Above is our simplified geologic column for reference.

Regarding the pleistocene glaciation, we are talking about really the uppermost shallow layers, predominantly consisting of glacial till and lensed layers of gravel and silt. Thats just what it is.

How fast do glaciers move? They move very slowly by the nature of what they are.

They dont have legs so they wont get up and run at 50 miles per hour.

How fast do glaciers retreat? Pretty slowly as well.

If you have 5 independent glaciations, one would anticipate this taking longer than a single year to unfold.

But even if you hypothetically believed that the planet plummeted in temperature and then shot back up in temperature over and over and over and over and over again...in a brief period of time...and even if you believed that glaciers could travel hundreds and thousands of feet, several times over and over again...

This still is only scratching the surface, literally.

Throughout the cenozoic, we have complex burrow networks.
View attachment 246465
Schematics-of-the-type-specimen-of-Megaichnus-major-modified-from-Frank-et-al-2013_Q320.jpg

Schematics-of-the-type-specimen-of-Megaichnus-major-modified-from-Frank-et-al-2013_W840.jpg



"In the last ten years, more than 1,500 large burrows have been discovered in southern and southeastern Brazil"

And ya know, large slow mammals, such as giant armadillos, they take time to make these burrows.

They scratch, they claw, they dig.

Armadillos dig slowly. As we know them to exist.

So we have these huge tunnels that likely would take, days or even weeks for these animals to dig. Or even months perhaps, dependending on the animal and the burrow network.

How fast can an armadillo dig? Not very fast, theyre slow animals.

And this is further down in the cenozoic, where the flood allegedly was laying down sediment. So somehow the armadillo would have to hold its breath really long while it did this?

Or maybe the flood was over at this point, but then we just have more issues in understanding how it is that cenozoic layers were deposited, if not by the flood. But these animals are long extinct, so presumably they were killed off in the flood?

But this is still just the beginning.

Really we are only a small fraction through the geologic column yet. We are still in the pleistocene which is still very recent in the geologic column.

We still have 80% of the cenozoic to go, 100% of the mesozoic and 100% of the paleozoic, and even still we are only scratching the surface.


And already we have several glaciations and really massive time consuming burrows. Which are now in rock btw, as the rock has had time to lithify.

Ill continue in a bit with the list.
Let me save you some time.

We all [here] understand your uniformitarian assumptions and those applied within the study of Geology. Pete and repeat are standing on a building. Pete jumps off, who is left? C'mon Komatiite - you are doing nothing to actually show that what you say is true is ACTUALLY true. History is not an algebraic equation where all you as a geologist need to do is solve for x and when a postulated idea fits x then everything needed to support the idea must also be true.

For example:
"Or maybe the flood was over at this point, but then we just have more issues in understanding how it is that cenozoic layers were deposited, if not by the flood. But these animals are long extinct, so presumably they were killed off in the flood?"

We cannot fully know (no not even Kurt Wise or Andrew Snelling) how the flood affected the geological features of the earth, nor can we assume it had the same effect everywhere - in some areas it may have been violet and others it may have been a very smooth and gradual increase in water. All that is really known is that God destroyed all life that was on the face of the earth, except that which was inside the ark. That's all. Yes, it may be fun to suppose what may have happened and try to develop models to try to reproduce it, but ultimately God's word does not stand on the ability of man to successfully develop a scientific model. Further, God's word is not negated by the misconceptions and assumptions made by scientists, regardless of how long they believe Armadillos can hold their breath, how fast they move, or dig, or how many were digging, etc...

Another example:
"If you have 5 independent glaciations, one would anticipate this taking longer than a single year to unfold."

That may possibly be the rate NOW, but do you know what the rate was just after the flood? Do you? No... you do not. This again is uniformitarianism and assumptions being made to extrapolate a past and a timeline that was never observed.

Repeating yourself missing the mark still does not hit the mark Komatiite. The past, the present, and future are God's story to tell, not you. For you, story time is over.
 
Upvote 0