Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

dad · Jul 14, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
This is off topic here but microfossils are among the most important for oil exploration. The idea that the fossil record of microfossils is the result of migration out from Eden is just plain silly.

I agree, in most cases, and I never thought such a thing. I have said in other threads that some things were made plants and creatures like trilobites, etc, for the planet at large.
I didn't expect to get too detailed in a paragraph, responding to the poster. I can.

The idea that the fossil record of sessile benthic organisms (they grow attached to the sea bottom) is the result of "migration from Eden" is silly. Other index fossils are Ammonites. The idea that their fossil record is the result of migration from Eden is silly too.

See above, of course it is silly.

Of course the idea that the fossil record of plants is the result of migration out from Eden is also pretty silly.

No, it is not! Plants do and did migrate. Not rocket science, that.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 15, 2006

dad said:
I agree, in most cases, and I never thought such a thing. I have said in other threads that some things were made plants and creatures like trilobites, etc, for the planet at large.
I didn't expect to get too detailed in a paragraph, responding to the poster. I can.

See above, of course it is silly.

No, it is not! Plants do and did migrate. Not rocket science, that.

So it is silly that plants migrated out from Eden because they were made for the planet as whole but not silly because plants do migrate. Hmm. What it amounts to is that you threw out your usual hand waving explanation in response to Steen's post but can't really explain the stratified fossil record of many types of fossils that are used for finding oil.

It is off-topic here. Maybe we should open another thread on all the falsifications of your special YEC interpretation of the fossil record.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Jul 16, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Frumious Bandersnatch said:

So it is silly that plants migrated out from Eden because they were made for the planet as whole but not silly because plants do migrate.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if you purposely misunderstand to try to make another's position look bad, and yours look good.
Let's clear that thing up, as many may not have read things I said on that in other threads.
God apparently made some creatures and plants for all the earth, or much of it that could support them at least.
The bulk of plants and animals were created in Eden.
The ones out and about died, and showed up in the fossil record first. Later, in the process of time, they were joined by the migration from Eden.

....but can't really explain the stratified fossil record of many types of fossils that are used for finding oil.

Click to expand...

Detecting a pattern of where oil is in the record does not involve any real old ages at all. No fossil on earth is loder than Eden. All kinds of creatures were on earth, but not all over the planet in the record, dead yet.

It is off-topic here. Maybe we should open another thread on all the falsifications of your special YEC interpretation of the fossil record.

Click to expand...

Funny you never could touch it while things were being dealt with.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 17, 2006

dad said:
Sometimes I wonder if you purposely misunderstand to try to make another's position look bad, and yours look good.
Let's clear that thing up, as many may not have read things I said on that in other threads.
God apparently made some creatures and plants for all the earth, or much of it that could support them at least.

Click to expand...

So if God made microfossils all over the earth why are some species sorted so well in the fossil record that they can be used as index fossils? If ammonites were created all the earth how did they get sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures during the deposition of the geologic column in your pre-flood fantasy world?

The bulk of plants and animals were created in Eden.
The ones out and about died, and showed up in the fossil record first. Later, in the process of time, they were joined by the migration from Eden.

Click to expand...

This doesn't explain the fossil record of microfossils or that fact that there are early precambrian layers with only bacterial fossils (stromatolites) and the pattern of neither plants nor animals agrees with what one would expect on "migration" from Eden. With plants one would expect flowering plants that produce wind blown seeds to show up quite early, especially since you claim there was so much wind around on your fantasy earth but that is not what is seen.

Detecting a pattern of where oil is in the record does not involve any real old ages at all. No fossil on earth is loder than Eden. All kinds of creatures were on earth, but not all over the planet in the record, dead yet.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Index fossils are used to find oil and your myth doesn't really explain their order.

Funny you never could touch it while things were being dealt with.

Click to expand...

I don't recall discussing it with you before. We have discussed several other falsifications of your myth including tace fossils but I don't recall discussing this one.

I see you still have no explanation for the data in the OP.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Jul 17, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
So if God made microfossils all over the earth why are some species sorted so well in the fossil record that they can be used as index fossils?

It all depends on the kind of microfossil you mean. The fossil record is a pattern of the ones that were there first, and died first. If some evolved from others, and showed up later in some cases, or had a longer lifespan, or etc etc, then they would naturally show up later in the record.

If ammonites were created all the earth how did they get sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures during the deposition of the geologic column in your pre-flood fantasy world?

I could look at the possibility that they adapted, and evolved. Why not?

This doesn't explain the fossil record of microfossils or that fact that there are early precambrian layers with only bacterial fossils (stromatolites) and the pattern of neither plants nor animals agrees with what one would expect on "migration" from Eden.

Oh but it surely does. Why is little things dying first (after death entered, or even before, if they were not made to last forever) some strange concept?

With plants one would expect flowering plants that produce wind blown seeds to show up quite early, especially since you claim there was so much wind around on your fantasy earth but that is not what is seen.

Not if the other types were made for the earth at large, for example.

I don't recall discussing it with you before. We have discussed several other falsifications of your myth including tace fossils but I don't recall discussing this one.

OK, guess you missed it.

I see you still have no explanation for the data in the OP.

The OP addresses folks who claim the flood did it all. I have addressed the key aspects of the issue. Like radiocarbon dating, and plants in the past.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 18, 2006

dad said:
It all depends on the kind of microfossil you mean. The fossil record is a pattern of the ones that were there first, and died first. If some evolved from others, and showed up later in some cases, or had a longer lifespan, or etc etc, then they would naturally show up later in the record.

In other words you have no actual explanation for the stratigraphy of microfossils

FB:If ammonites were created all the earth how did they get sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures during the deposition of the geologic column in your pre-flood fantasy world?

Click to expand...

Dad:I could look at the possibility that they adapted, and evolved. Why not?

If they were created all over the earth at once why don't they show up in the fossil record until the late Silurian?

Oh but it surely does. Why is little things dying first (after death entered, or even before, if they were not made to last forever) some strange concept?

So bacteria "died first" though most of the Proteozoic, which looks to science liike 3.5 billion - 500 million years ago, but in the late Proterozoic some small animals started dying. Then in the Cambrian all the Trilobites started "dying" and died out in an order fashion up until the end of the Permian when they became completely extinct. All these animals just died out in a convenient manner to create what appears to be geologic eras.

FB:With plants one would expect flowering plants that produce wind blown seeds to show up quite early, especially since you claim there was so much wind around on your fantasy earth but that is not what is seen.

Click to expand...

Not if the other types were made for the earth at large, for example.

Click to expand...

But the "other types" don't just appear on the "earth at large" in the begining of the fossil record. The first land plants don't occur until the Silurian and the pattern of plant fossils is not what one would expect from any possible combination of "creating for the whole earth" and migrating from Eden.

The OP addresses folks who claim the flood did it all. I have addressed the key aspects of the issue. Like radiocarbon dating, and plants in the past.

Click to expand...

You did not explain the correlations in the data. You did not explain why the first 11,000 of the 50,000 varves studied carbon date in agreement with the 11,000 tree rings to make them both appear annual. You did not explain how the first 15,000 of the 50,000 lake varves correlate with the 14C of the 15,000 coral couplets that appear annual by both 14C and U-th dating. The data show a uniformity of process that can't be explained by your "split" fantasy when all of these things have to formed in 4,500 years including 4,400 years of normal physics and the 100 post flood years that your fantasy world supposedly existed. You haven't explained why data from varves from several lakes, corals, tree rings and ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica all correlate to place the end of the Younger Dryas climate changes at 11,000-11,500 years ago.

Even your "Silly Last Thursdayism of the Second Kind" can't explain these data. Your myth is busted.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Jul 19, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Frumious Bandersnatch said:

In other words you have no actual explanation for the stratigraphy of microfossils

Click to expand...

Sure I do, 100%. You name it, I splain it.

If they were created all over the earth at once why don't they show up in the fossil record until the late Silurian?

Click to expand...

It takes time for things to die, more for some than others. Look at the size of some of those babies. Remember we are only talking hundreds of years between layers, or some such. Man lived near a thousand.

So bacteria "died first" though most of the Proteozoic, which looks to science liike 3.5 billion - 500 million years ago, but in the late Proterozoic some small animals started dying.

Click to expand...

Nothing is more than about 6000 years old, that may be confusing you. In general, I expect smaller things to die before giant things. What lives longer, an elephant, or a fly?

Then in the Cambrian all the Trilobites started "dying"

Click to expand...

They sure did. But if we are getting down and dirty here, I allow death before the fall for out of eden creatures. They never had 'souls'. So, even before the fall, things likely died out in the planet at large. By the time the trilobites, and cambrian comes, again, this could be the fall, or that could be later even!!!

and died out in an order fashion up until the end of the Permian when they became completely extinct.

Click to expand...

Extinction was no surprise. Those critters had a job to do. After the fall, jobs changed, some ended, and some things changed. It happens today as well.

All these animals just died out in a convenient manner to create what appears to be geologic eras.

Click to expand...

To the untrained eye, yes, sadly. They spend years and years developing untrained eyes. They call this school. So, the earth had cretaures that died, generally small things first. Eventually, Eden's migration appeared in the fossil record as well. Any more questions?

But the "other types" don't just appear on the "earth at large" in the begining of the fossil record. The first land plants don't occur until the Silurian

Click to expand...

How long does a tree live? How would we expect to see a tree die as fast as some little creatures? If the tree did not die, how is it expected to show up in the record of dead things? How widespread are the known Silurian plants? All over the world? Like where? What types of plants are they? How fast did they migrate, and could they have spread? Either they were Eden's plants, or outer earth plants, all we need to do is look at the evidence. It shold not be hard to determine.

and the pattern of plant fossils is not what one would expect from any possible combination of "creating for the whole earth" and migrating from Eden.

Click to expand...

Is to.

You did not explain the correlations in the data. You did not explain why the first 11,000 of the 50,000 varves studied carbon date in agreement with the 11,000 tree rings to make them both appear annual.

Click to expand...

A pattern of similaritiy in pre split plants and other light dependant things is not a shocker. You only think so because you are hog tied to the present perspective.

...and U-th dating.

Click to expand...

Didn't I ask somewhere for you to show us how that worked, in simple fashion? Did you? No. You lost the right to even mention it. Radioactive decay is a post split thing, universally.

You haven't explained why data from varves from several lakes, corals, tree rings and ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica all correlate to place the end of the Younger Dryas climate changes at 11,000-11,500 years ago.

Click to expand...

Really? Then let me now. There was no 11,000 years ago. I already talked of varves, and the rapid pre split formation. There were climate changes. You just are so PO limited, you can't shake the faulty premised, and bogus dates.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 19, 2006

dad said:
Sure I do, 100%. You name it, I splain it.

Click to expand...

You haven't yet. Desperately morphing your fantasy each time data that show it false are presented is not the same as explaining.

It takes time for things to die, more for some than others. Look at the size of some of those babies. Remember we are only talking hundreds of years between layers, or some such.

Click to expand...

So tell us how long you think there is between each of these layers
Precambrian
Cambrian
Ordovician
Silurian
Devonian
Mississippian
Pennsylvanian
Permian
Triassic
Jurassic
Cretaceous
Paleocene
Eocene
Miocene
Pliocene
Pleistocene
You may have done it before but I don't want to dig it up.

Man lived near a thousand.

Click to expand...

Only in your myth.

Nothing is more than about 6000 years old, that may be confusing you. In general, I expect smaller things to die before giant things. What lives longer, an elephant, or a fly?

Click to expand...

You do realize that plants wouldn't have to die first to be buried as these layers formed at the rapid pace you propose don't you? The same is true of sessile benthic organisms of course.

They sure did. But if we are getting down and dirty here, I allow death before the fall for out of eden creatures. They never had 'souls'. So, even before the fall, things likely died out in the planet at large. By the time the trilobites, and cambrian comes, again, this could be the fall, or that could be later even!!!

Extinction was no surprise. Those critters had a job to do. After the fall, jobs changed, some ended, and some things changed. It happens today as well.

Click to expand...

This is just more classic hand waving.

To the untrained eye, yes, sadly. They spend years and years developing untrained eyes. They call this school. So, the earth had cretaures that died, generally small things first. Eventually, Eden's migration appeared in the fossil record as well. Any more questions?

Click to expand...

You act like you may have answered some of the others. Your hand waving does not constiture answers.

How long does a tree live? How would we expect to see a tree die as fast as some little creatures? If the tree did not die, how is it expected to show up in the record of dead things?

Click to expand...

So what? The trees climbed up out of the thousands of feet of sediments that were being deposited to form each layer in a few hundred years.

How widespread are the known Silurian plants? All over the world? Like where? What types of plants are they? How fast did they migrate, and could they have spread? Either they were Eden's plants, or outer earth plants, all we need to do is look at the evidence. It shold not be hard to determine.

Click to expand...

Lycophytes are common in the Silurian and seed plants first appear in the Devonian.

A pattern of similaritiy in pre split plants and other light dependant things is not a shocker. You only think so because you are hog tied to the present perspective.

Didn't I ask somewhere for you to show us how that worked, in simple fashion? Did you? No. You lost the right to even mention it.

Click to expand...

I explained it as simply as I could in post 140.

Radioactive decay is a post split thing, universally.

Click to expand...

If that were true the correlations in the data discussed on this thread would not exist.

Really? Then let me now. There was no 11,000 years ago. I already talked of varves, and the rapid pre split formation. There were climate changes. You just are so PO limited, you can't shake the faulty premised, and bogus dates.

Click to expand...

This in no way explains the correlations in the data. You have totally failed to come up with an explanation that actually fits the data. Your myth is busted.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

steen · Jul 19, 2006

I don't think you are makign much headway with somebody who refuses scientific evidence and insist that wild, personal fantasies somehow is more accurate than science.

I have followed this tread for some time (one-sidedly, as I have the unscientific poster on ignore), and I have seen your solid refutation of all the creationist wild speculations and "just because I want it to be this way" fantasies.

I think it is amply evidenced that your position is solid, and that ongoing engagement on these issues are futile.

dad · Jul 20, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
You haven't yet. Desperately morphing your fantasy each time data that show it false are presented is not the same as explaining.

Wrong. The powerful new tools are there at our disposal to apply to the past.

So tell us how long you think there is between each of these layers

Basically, all these things are in the last 6000 years. Most in the first 1600 as I see it.
MesozoicCretaceous 7165Jurassic 54136Triassic 35190PaleozoicPermian 55225Carboniferous 65280Devonian 60345Silurian 20405Ordovician 75425Cambrian 100500Precambrian 3,380600
Here we see about 9 layers (somewhere in the Cenozoic I would guess the flood was). If we look at the average depth of each layer, I would think we could more or less divide the 1600 years proportionately. If some layers are thicker, I would lean towards , perhaps a bit more time. If all were equal, say about 200 years each. If some were thicker, then we simply average it out.

You do realize that plants wouldn't have to die first to be buried as these layers formed at the rapid pace you propose don't you? The same is true of sessile benthic organisms of course.

Who says they all did? But in a planet in flux, it would seem that some, alas, did.

So what? The trees climbed up out of the thousands of feet of sediments that were being deposited to form each layer in a few hundred years.

Oh reaaallly? Did they walk as well?

Lycophytes are common in the Silurian and seed plants first appear in the Devonian.

"The lycophytes are a small and inconspicuous group of plants today, but in the Carboniferous some lycophytes were forest-forming trees more than 35 meters tall. "
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/plants/lycophyta/lycophyta.html
Hey did I tell you it was different then, or what?! But, how do these things spread? Spores? What could carry these far and wide? Wind? This is surprising? And seed plants?
"The good news is that deer might facilitate the spread of native plants to habitats recovering from disturbance, where the seeds otherwise wouldn't be able to reach," says Vellend, a Cornell graduate student of ecology and evolutionary biology. Along with Cornell undergraduate Jonathan Myers, the graduate ecologist spent countless hours dissecting deer pellets. ........

Ecologists have long known about the myriad ways seeds are dispersed from plants in eastern North America: Ants carry some seeds and so does the wind, while birds and other vertebrates drop indigestible seeds in their feces. And certain plants with ballistic capabilities can shoot seeds several feet or even yards away.
"http://www.brightsurf.com/news/aug_03/EDU_news_081103.php

I explained it as simply as I could in post 140.

So, radioactive decay. I dealt with this before. There was no universal decay in the past. You cannot show there was. All you do is assume there was, and then proceed from there. Ridiculous. And don't give us the stuff about exceptions, like Gabon. The reactions were not universal, but localized there.

If that were true the correlations in the data discussed on this thread would not exist.

Circular reasoning. ... If there was no decay, things we age by assuming decay would not sync. Absurd.

dad · Jul 20, 2006

steen said:
I don't think you are makign much headway with somebody who refuses scientific evidence and insist that wild, personal fantasies somehow is more accurate than science.

My, you must be a bright one.

I have followed this tread for some time (one-sidedly, as I have the unscientific poster on ignore), and I have seen your solid refutation of all the creationist wild speculations and "just because I want it to be this way" fantasies.

My, father time, you have really done your homework silently in the background. How impressive.

I think it is amply evidenced that your position is solid, and that ongoing engagement on these issues are futile

I think it is amply evidenced you have more than me on ignore.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 20, 2006

dad said:
Wrong. The powerful new tools are there at our disposal to apply to the past.

Delusional fantasies are not powerfull tools.

Basically, all these things are in the last 6000 years. Most in the first 1600 as I see it.
MesozoicCretaceous 7165Jurassic 54136Triassic 35190PaleozoicPermian 55225Carboniferous 65280Devonian 60345Silurian 20405Ordovician 75425Cambrian 100500Precambrian 3,380600
Here we see about 9 layers (somewhere in the Cenozoic I would guess the flood was). If we look at the average depth of each layer, I would think we could more or less divide the 1600 years proportionately. If some layers are thicker, I would lean towards , perhaps a bit more time. If all were equal, say about 200 years each. If some were thicker, then we simply average it out.

Again you show complete ignorance of geology. The thickness of various layers depends on the depositional environment at the time and location they were deposited and their subsequent history in that area. But let's go with your rough estimate. In some places some of these layers are thousands of feet thick, in other places there are unconformities and some layers aren't found. However, the entire column is found in many places around the world as Glenn Morton describes HERE.

If you look at places where the entire column is found or in places like the Grand Canyon where large portions of the column are exposed it is easy to see that the idea that each of these layers was deposited in approximately 200 years is totally absurd.

FB:You do realize that plants wouldn't have to die first to be buried as these layers formed at the rapid pace you propose don't you? The same is true of sessile benthic organisms of course.

Who says they all did? But in a planet in flux, it would seem that some, alas, did.

What? If these organisms were all created at once for the "whole planet" they should be buried under most the rapidly deposited geologic column. You obviously can't explain why they aren't.

FB:So what? The trees climbed up out of the thousands of feet of sediments that were being deposited to form each layer in a few hundred years.

Oh reaaallly? Did they walk as well?

In your fantasy they must have or they would be buried low in the column, that is if they were created for the planet as a whole.

"The lycophytes are a small and inconspicuous group of plants today, but in the Carboniferous some lycophytes were forest-forming trees more than 35 meters tall. "
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/plants/lycophyta/lycophyta.html
Hey did I tell you it was different then, or what?! But, how do these things spread? Spores? What could carry these far and wide? Wind? This is surprising? And seed plants?
"The good news is that deer might facilitate the spread of native plants to habitats recovering from disturbance, where the seeds otherwise wouldn't be able to reach," says Vellend, a Cornell graduate student of ecology and evolutionary biology. Along with Cornell undergraduate Jonathan Myers, the graduate ecologist spent countless hours dissecting deer pellets. ........

But deer weren't around in the Devonian. The point is that seed plants don't show up early, even those whose seeds are spread by all that wind you keep talking about and flowering plants with wind blown seeds show up even later.

Ecologists have long known about the myriad ways seeds are dispersed from plants in eastern North America: Ants carry some seeds and so does the wind, while birds and other vertebrates drop indigestible seeds in their feces. And certain plants with ballistic capabilities can shoot seeds several feet or even yards away.
"http://www.brightsurf.com/news/aug_03/EDU_news_081103.php

That's right. So why do seed plants and especially flowering seed plants show up relatively late in the fossil record? You have refuted you fantasy again.

So, radioactive decay. I dealt with this before. There was no universal decay in the past. You cannot show there was. All you do is assume there was, and then proceed from there. Ridiculous.

No the correlations in the data from tree rings, varves and coral couplets shows there was decay. There are many other things that show radioactive decay but they are off topic here. I do remember your hilarious pseudo explanation for the data from supernova 1987A.

And don't give us the stuff about exceptions, like Gabon. The reactions were not universal, but localized there.

That was when you said that God may have orchestrated some decay.

Circular reasoning. ... If there was no decay, things we age by assuming decay would not sync. Absurd.

It is not circular reasoning. You have shown that you are totally unable to explain the correlations in the data. You can't explain why the first 11,000 of the 45,000 varves dated correlate with the 11,000 tree rings etc. You haven't even come close.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Jul 20, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Delusional fantasies are not powerfull tools.

Thank you, that is why your unsupported past are weak arguements.

..... The thickness of various layers depends on the depositional environment at the time and location they were deposited and their subsequent history in that area.

Of course it does. But part of the history is the rapid seperation, mountain building, uplift, thrusts, actual fossil record, and a plethora of other things. Things which cannot be only explained in the box, or fishbowl of present to past projected beliefs you so fiercely espouse.

But let's go with your rough estimate. In some places some of these layers are thousands of feet thick, in other places there are unconformities and some layers aren't found. However, the entire column is found in many places around the world as Glenn Morton describes HERE.

[SIZE=+0]"The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone): [/SIZE]

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet "

I just added up the layers from the top here. I wanted to check it out. I only got a little way down, to the Mississippian Otter layer, and alreay I see that it would be 62560 feet thick! The claim was just made that they drilled 15,000 some odd feet. How come I didn't even get to the real deep layers in Glen's list, and we are already way down about 47 thoudand feet below that 15,000 feet!!!

If you look at places where the entire column is found or in places like the Grand Canyon where large portions of the column are exposed it is easy to see that the idea that each of these layers was deposited in approximately 200 years is totally absurd.

No, it is not. Look at the bright angel formation.

"Thickness is about 350 ft (107 m) in eastern quarter of map area, thickening to about 500 ft (150 m) in western quarter."
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/lexicon/brightangel.htm

What? If these organisms were all created at once for the "whole planet" they should be buried under most the rapidly deposited geologic column. You obviously can't explain why they aren't.

Right, we just need to determine which organisms those were. If the tree sized plants in question were not, then it sounds like they arrive on the scene later.

In your fantasy they must have or they would be buried low in the column, that is if they were created for the planet as a whole.

If they died, yes. Did some plants have the ability to stay on top of the soil then? If they were created for a planet that was in flux, one would think so. If not, they got there later. Simple. If the waters came UP, to water the plants then, would this actually help possibly rapidly from layers as well? It seems that plants would "gravitate" to where the water was, at the top level of the soil? No?

But deer weren't around in the Devonian.

In your storyland, no. In reality, yes they were somewhere. Obviously not out in the planet at large dying, however. If they were we may see them in the record we don't. But is it possible that things did run around and have droppings? Or fly overhead? Then there was the wind, of course. Even man!!!! Maybe we planted some of those babies! We lived near a thousand years so we would not die and show up in the record at all. We were tops. The top of the food chain in many ways. WE walked right over the fossil record!

The point is that seed plants don't show up early, even those whose seeds are spread by all that wind you keep talking about and flowering plants with wind blown seeds show up even later.

Conditions on the still largely inhabitable parts of the planet likely were not suitable. Maybe it was too watery or something at the time for some things. Some trees are good at living in watery areas. Like the trees in the rainforest, in flood or tidal zones. Once there is some nice areas, centuries later, naturally Edenn's creatures atart to arrive on the scene. This would take over the territory perhaps from things previously there. Maybe man and birds and mammals competed with the dinos for areas, and food, etc and won. Maybe we got some of them to run off a cliff, like the natives did the bison long ago. We are smart you know. Don't mess with man.

No the correlations in the data from tree rings, varves and coral couplets shows there was decay.

No, your interpretaion, and same past assumptions do that. Nothing at all in this world else.

There are many other things that show radioactive decay but they are off topic here. I do remember your hilarious pseudo explanation for the data from supernova 1987A. That was when you said that God may have orchestrated some decay.

No, that was Gabon. I said God had a reason for the reations there. I hazarded a guess, that it may have been to heat up one of the rivers that went through Eden so they had nice hot water to bathe in. The supernova I explained as possibly a first impacted area in the split process. The light from that got well on it's way to earth before the prcess was completed, in the still merged light in between there and here. That is why it was a PO event we see, and yet the info got carried here.

It is not circular reasoning.

I have never seen a ring that was not circular! ha. But yes, your old age perspective on how it looks is indeed circular. It circles around your fantasy, baseless, unsupportable PO past. Round and round she goes, where she stops, everybody knows. Right at the same past loop de loop.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 21, 2006

dad said:
Thank you, that is why your unsupported past are weak arguements.

Of course it does. But part of the history is the rapid seperation, mountain building, uplift, thrusts, actual fossil record, and a plethora of other things. Things which cannot be only explained in the box, or fishbowl of present to past projected beliefs you so fiercely espouse.

[SIZE=+0]"The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone): [/SIZE]

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet "

I just added up the layers from the top here. I wanted to check it out. I only got a little way down, to the Mississippian Otter layer, and alreay I see that it would be 62560 feet thick! The claim was just made that they drilled 15,000 some odd feet. How come I didn't even get to the real deep layers in Glen's list, and we are already way down about 47 thoudand feet below that 15,000 feet!!!

Those aren't the thicknesses of each layer. They are the depths that each layer is found at in that specific formation.

No, it is not. Look at the bright angel formation.

"Thickness is about 350 ft (107 m) in eastern quarter of map area, thickening to about 500 ft (150 m) in western quarter."
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/lexicon/brightangel.htm

So? The Bright Angel Shale is just one of many formation in the Grand Canyon.

And most of these main layers have many complicated sub-features. A cursory look at geology such as provided on websites such as the on this picture came from here, necessarily overlooks much complexity. To really understand the geology of the Grand Canyon for instance one needs to study a book like Grand Canyon Geology. The Colorado plateau has many addition layers found in other areas

Right, we just need to determine which organisms those were. If the tree sized plants in question were not, then it sounds like they arrive on the scene later.

In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

If they died, yes. Did some plants have the ability to stay on top of the soil then? If they were created for a planet that was in flux, one would think so. If not, they got there later. Simple.

In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

If the waters came UP, to water the plants then, would this actually help possibly rapidly from layers as well? It seems that plants would "gravitate" to where the water was, at the top level of the soil? No?

No! That is just silly. But then everything you post is silly so it fits in with the rest of your fantasy.

In your storyland, no. In reality,

Reality! You wouldn't know reality if it bit you on the ***.

yes they were somewhere. Obviously not out in the planet at large dying, however. If they were we may see them in the record we don't. But is it possible that things did run around and have droppings? Or fly overhead? Then there was the wind, of course. Even man!!!! Maybe we planted some of those babies! We lived near a thousand years so we would not die and show up in the record at all. We were tops. The top of the food chain in many ways. WE walked right over the fossil record!

In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

Conditions on the still largely inhabitable parts of the planet likely were not suitable.

What? First not suitable for plants, then suitable for lycophytes, then for cyads, then for conifers then for flowering plants. In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

Maybe it was too watery or something at the time for some things. Some trees are good at living in watery areas. Like the trees in the rainforest, in flood or tidal zones. Once there is some nice areas,

Like willows and mangroves, trees that appear very late in the fossil record but should be early by this explanation. You'll have morph your fantasy again.

centuries later, naturally Edenn's creatures atart to arrive on the scene. This would take over the territory perhaps from things previously there. Maybe man and birds and mammals competed with the dinos for areas, and food, etc and won. Maybe we got some of them to run off a cliff, like the natives did the bison long ago. We are smart you know. Don't mess with man.

We ran dinos off cliffs? Are you sure we didn't keep them as pets and use them for construction cranes?

No, that was Gabon. I said God had a reason for the reations there. I hazarded a guess, that it may have been to heat up one of the rivers that went through Eden so they had nice hot water to bathe in. The supernova I explained as possibly a first impacted area in the split process. The light from that got well on it's way to earth before the prcess was completed, in the still merged light in between there and here. That is why it was a PO event we see, and yet the info got carried here.

Classic examples of your absurd hand waving.

I have never seen a ring that was not circular!

Cute but irrelevant.

But yes, your old age perspective on how it looks is indeed circular. It circles around your fantasy, baseless, unsupportable PO past.

The correlations are there you can't hand wave them away.

Round and round she goes, where she stops, everybody knows. Right at the same past loop de loop.

In other words you are still totally unable to explain the correlations in the data discussed on this thread. You have failed utterly. Your myth is busted.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Jul 21, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Frumious Bandersnatch said:

Those aren't the thicknesses of each layer. They are the depths that each layer is found at in that specific formation.

Click to expand...

So, then, what you had on offer did not address the average depths. OK.

So? The Bright Angel Shale is just one of many formation in the Grand Canyon.

Click to expand...

So? It isn't 30,000 feet deep is it? Looks like an average depth from your map down to the cambrian here might be, say 350-375 feet. Whoopee do.

And most of these main layers have many complicated sub-features. A cursory look at geology such as provided on websites such as the on this picture came from here, necessarily overlooks much complexity. To really understand the geology of the Grand Canyon for instance one needs to study a book like Grand Canyon Geology. The Colorado plateau has many addition layers found in other areas

Click to expand...

Oh, no. The old age so called understanding is muddied waters that are really not seeing the forest for the trees, resulting in mind bending, complicated attempts to bang it all into the box of the same past.

In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

Click to expand...

You mean acknowledge real evidence. Yes, I do that. Why wouldn't I? Someone has to interpret things better than the mess that old agers made of it.

Reality! You wouldn't know reality if it bit you on the ***.

Click to expand...

It is the same reality we all enjoy. Most of us, anyhow. What is in question is the reality of the past and future. That you truly do not know. Neither can you back uo the core assumption of a same past upon which ALL old age belief rests.

In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

What? First not suitable for plants, then suitable for lycophytes, then for cyads, then for conifers then for flowering plants. In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

Click to expand...

The changing new planet in our past was more suitable as time went on for our spread. Being perhaps quite watery in many areas at first, naturally, some creatures and plants were needed to inhabit them.
You mentioned the Ammonites earlier. I touched on a few things, but never heard any reply from you. Their size, and possible lifespans being more than the little things then earlier in the record for example.
I also notice they were good swimmers, like divers they could use their chambers to rise or sink. Sounds like these things could also get around. If much of the world was watery, all they need to do if they were from Eden's sea, originally, was connect to some waterways. I could see how these could get pretty widespread early on or, perhaps that they were created as planet at large creatures to begin with.

Like willows and mangroves, trees that appear very late in the fossil record but should be early by this explanation. ...

Click to expand...

"
The vascular plants are set apart in two important ways:
...
Water transport happens in either xylem or phloem: xylem carries water and inorganic solutes upward toward the leaves from the roots, while phloem carries organic solutes throughout the plant.
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_plant

"The lycophytes are a small and inconspicuous group of plants today, but in the Carboniferous some lycophytes were forest-forming trees more than 35 meters tall. "
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/plants/lycophyta/lycophyta.html
Some of these earliest 'treese' were amazing.

"Lycophyta and can be found in various places throughout the Earth. Lycopodium usually grow beneath other plants, while the more delicate and more tropical Selaginella usually grow in damp locations. Equisetum is the only genus of Sphenophyta represented today. Widely distributed, the horsetail finds its home in wet-lands, marshes, and anywhere where the soil is drenched with water. "

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/r/e/ref142/seedlessPlants.htm

The evidence seems to show a past that was quite watery and unhabitable by man and Eden's creatures.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 22, 2006

dad said:
So, then, what you had on offer did not address the average depths. OK.

Click to expand...

The "average depths" of geologic strata worldwide is not really known because they vary so in thickness depending on the depositional enviroment and subsequent erosion. The fact that you keep bring it up merely illustrates your ignorance of geologic processes.

So? It isn't 30,000 feet deep is it? Looks like an average depth from your map down to the cambrian here might be, say 350-375 feet. Whoopee do.

Click to expand...

The Tapeats Sandstone(100-325 ft), Bright Angel Shale(300-450 ft), Mauv Limestones (500-1000 ft) are all Cambrian in age. You can see what is actually above the Bright Angel Shale (BAS) in this picture from HERE.

KF = Kaibab Formation. TF = Toroweap Formation. CS = Coconino Sandstone. HS = Hermit Shale. Supai Group: ES = Esplanade Sandstone, Wes = Wescogame Formation, Man = Manakacha Formation, Wat = Watahomigi Formation. SCF = Surprise Canyon Formation. RF = Redwall Formation. TBF = Temple Butte Formation Tonto Group: ML = Muav Limestone, BAS = Bright Angel Shale, TS = Tapeats Sandstone VG = Vishnu Group. From Rockhounds.com,

No one ever said the Cambrian Rocks in the Grand Canyon are 30,000 feet thick. It is the overall depostion of the rocks in the Colorado Plateau and elsewhere in the world, such as in all those places where the complete geologic column is found or in Death Valley where many rock units are exposed or many other places in the world where complex lithography is known that is completely incompatible with the 1,600 year time frame that you allow for the deposition of most of the geologic column in your myth of dadology.

Oh, no. The old age so called understanding is muddied waters that are really not seeing the forest for the trees, resulting in mind bending, complicated attempts to bang it all into the box of the same past.

Click to expand...

Again you show your complete ignorance of geology. There is complex lithography in the Grand Canyon but in most it is not that difficult to explain the changing deposition environments over geologic time. It is only in young earth scenarios that mind bending is required. You scenario has been bent so far that it is shattered.

You mean acknowledge real evidence. Yes, I do that. Why wouldn't I? Someone has to interpret things better than the mess that old agers made of it.

Click to expand...

All you do is morph your fantasy to try to overcome each new falsification and occasionally google up some irrelevancy to try to blow smoke over your failures.

It is the same reality we all enjoy. Most of us, anyhow.

Click to expand...

Most of us think that you mind is located in a different "reality" that only exists in your fantasies.

What is in question is the reality of the past and future. That you truly do not know. Neither can you back uo the core assumption of a same past upon which ALL old age belief rests.

Click to expand...

This thread backs up a past with uniform laws of physics to a point well before you supposed "split" and you have been totally unable to hand wave away the correlations in the data.

In other words you'll just keep morphing your fantasy to try to fit the data.

Click to expand...

Somehow I just knew that you would copy this. We can all see who is morphing fantasy around here and it isn't me.

The changing new planet in our past was more suitable as time went on for our spread. Being perhaps quite watery in many areas at first, naturally, some creatures and plants were needed to inhabit them.

Click to expand...

You mentioned the Ammonites earlier. I touched on a few things, but never heard any reply from you. Their size, and possible lifespans being more than the little things then earlier in the record for example.

I also notice they were good swimmers, like divers they could use their chambers to rise or sink. Sounds like these things could also get around.

Click to expand...

So now are you claiming they did spread out from Eden? Have you morphed your fantasy yet again?

If much of the world was watery, all they need to do if they were from Eden's sea, originally, was connect to some waterways. .

Click to expand...

Eden's seas? I think I missed the seas in the description of Eden.

I could see how these could get pretty widespread early on or, perhaps that they were created as planet at large creatures to begin with.

Click to expand...

Morphing back and forth I see. How did they end up sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures? I suppose you will bring up your goofy hyperevolution even though these animals only existed a few hundred years in your myth.

The vascular plants are set apart in two important ways:

Click to expand...

...

Water transport happens in either xylem or phloem: xylem carries water and inorganic solutes upward toward the leaves from the roots, while phloem carries organic solutes throughout the plant.

"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_plant

"The lycophytes are a small and inconspicuous group of plants today, but in the Carboniferous some lycophytes were forest-forming trees more than 35 meters tall. "
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/plants/lycophyta/lycophyta.html
Some of these earliest 'treese' were amazing.

"Lycophyta and can be found in various places throughout the Earth. Lycopodium usually grow beneath other plants, while the more delicate and more tropical Selaginella usually grow in damp locations. Equisetum is the only genus of Sphenophyta represented today. Widely distributed, the horsetail finds its home in wet-lands, marshes, and anywhere where the soil is drenched with water. "

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/r/e/ref142/seedlessPlants.htm

The evidence seems to show a past that was quite watery and unhabitable by man and Eden's creatures.

Click to expand...

Which still doesn't explain why trees like Mangroves that are very well adapted to living a swamp are not found in early layers. Your myth fails. Morph it again.

You still have not provided any explanation for the correlations in the 14C ages of tree rings and lake varves and their correlation with 14C and U-Th dating of corals or any explanation at to why varves from various lakes, tree rings, coral couplets, Antarctic and Greenland Ice cores all correlate to date the end of the Younger Dryas at 11,000-11,500 years ago. All your blather about "something" that caused different levels of 14C in the brief time between the flood and "split" that just happened to make the 11,000 tree rings, 45,000 varves and 15,000 coral couplets seem to be annual formations even though they all formed in about 100 years has failed to explain the data.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

dad · Jul 22, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
The "average depths" of geologic strata worldwide is not really known because they vary so in thickness depending on the depositional enviroment and subsequent erosion.

Ha. That is funny. So, really you have no idea.

The fact that you keep bring it up merely illustrates your ignorance of geologic processes.

No, it shows I don't buy the claimed processes based on a same past that is pure imagination. See, all we can do is agree on the basic evidence, like, over there there was a massive uplift. How, and when are to be interpreted.

The Tapeats Sandstone(100-325 ft), Bright Angel Shale(300-450 ft), Mauv Limestones (500-1000 ft) are all Cambrian in age. You can see what is actually above the Bright Angel Shale (BAS) in this picture from HERE.

OK, so we have over a thousand feet of cambrian, so?

No one ever said the Cambrian Rocks in the Grand Canyon are 30,000 feet thick.

No, but you said the cretaceous rocks under the green river varves were. I asked you to show how intimate you really were with the stuff, like where were the fossils? 29,000 feet down? How do we know that in the former state, some pilong up did not occur, at the rapid seperation of America? The levels here in the canyon are more in the order of hundreds of feet.

It is the overall depostion of the rocks in the Colorado Plateau and elsewhere in the world, such as in all those places where the complete geologic column is found or in Death Valley

"
Exposed in Butte Valley 1 mile south of this area; 8,000 feet of metasediments and volcanics. " (from your link)
There was hot rocks at the rapid seperation, it seems reasonable that some eneded up places like here. So, really, all this says is that the area saw heat and molten rock. Things need to be looked at more closely, not just hand waving away, making PO claims!

where many rock units are exposed or many other places in the world where complex lithography is known that is completely incompatible with the 1,600 year time frame that you allow for the deposition of most of the geologic column in your myth of dadology.

But it is, that is your problem. It isn't as complex as you thought!

Again you show your complete ignorance of geology. There is complex lithography in the Grand Canyon but in most it is not that difficult to explain the changing deposition environments over geologic time.

But it is less difficult to explain them with the split, and different past, so what? What does the actual evidence really say? Not old age fantasy stories spun to those that think they must be gospel?

It is only in young earth scenarios that mind bending is required. You scenario has been bent so far that it is shattered.

Not at all, the past was so different, and the state of matter, it really is easy to explain. Trying to imagine a same past is where the mind melt comes in.

Most of us think that you mind is located in a different "reality" that only exists in your fantasies.

Typical fishbowl thoughts. I understand. You are locked into assuming the past and future fit into the present reality. Too bad you can't prove it.

This thread backs up a past with uniform laws of physics to a point well before you supposed "split" and you have been totally unable to hand wave away the correlations in the data.

Nonsense, that back up is only 4400 years ago.

So now are you claiming they did spread out from Eden?

Most creatures did, of course. As for the creature here, that hasn't been settled yet. Sounds like it could swim well, and some even were found uncoiled, indicating, possibly an ability to get around on land. You know, like eels do, some creatures may have been able to crawl to the next water body, or river, or lagoon, or sea, etc, and, so, get around. Add the hyper reproduction to the mix, and we can really see some action. A little later, notice that what are called 'transitionals' appear!!! This means the creatures that could do likewise! Get over land to more water. Fantastic.

Have you morphed your fantasy yet again? Eden's seas?

Right, that was brought out in some former conversations I had on this topic. In other words, the sea of Eden was where God made the whales and all sea creatures! They are Eden's creatures as well. They spread out to the planet at large. The only question is which creatures did God make already out on the earth, and which ones were from the migrations of Eden!

How did they end up sorted by the complexity of their shell sutures?

That would need a closed examination. I now assume that the little, planet at large creatures died before the big ones. Later, Eden's creatures appeared on the scene as well. Of course some little things can likely have had a longer lifespan than some bigger things. But generally, I think the pattern is smaller things at the earlier part of the fossil record. Simple, really.

Which still doesn't explain why trees like Mangroves that are very well adapted to living a swamp are not found in early layers. Your myth fails. Morph it again.

No it doesn't fail. That simply indicates that not all trees that are good in water were forst to appear in Eden's migration, or, were made for the planet at large. But the ones that were there seem to have thrived in wet conditions from all I have read.

You still have not provided any explanation for the correlations in the 14C ages of tree rings and lake varves and their correlation with 14C and U-Th dating of corals or any explanation at to why varves from various lakes, tree rings, coral couplets, Antarctic and Greenland Ice cores all correlate to date the end of the Younger Dryas at 11,000-11,500 years ago. All your blather about "something" that caused different levels of 14C in the brief time between the flood and "split" that just happened to make the 11,000 tree rings, 45,000 varves and 15,000 coral couplets seem to be annual formations even though they all formed in about 100 years has failed to explain the data.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

[/quote]

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 24, 2006

dad said:
Ha. That is funny. So, really you have no idea.

The funny thing is that you keep asking a question that reveals your total ignorance of geology.

No, it shows I don't buy the claimed processes based on a same past that is pure imagination. See, all we can do is agree on the basic evidence, like, over there there was a massive uplift. How, and when are to be interpreted.

When is usually pretty clear.

OK, so we have over a thousand feet of cambrian, so?

We have three Cambrian layers totalling about 1,000 feet amongst all those other layers. The idea that they were all deposited in 1,600 years of "different physical laws" is totally absurd.

No, but you said the cretaceous rocks under the green river varves were. I asked you to show how intimate you really were with the stuff, like where were the fossils? 29,000 feet down? How do we know that in the former state, some pilong up did not occur, at the rapid seperation of America? The levels here in the canyon are more in the order of hundreds of feet.

There are no Cretaceous rocks in the Grand Canyon. They were eroded away before the canyon was cut. The main Cretaceous rocks of the Colorado Plateau are in the Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Group shown in my earlier post. There are several thousand feet of other rocks exposed in the canyon and they are only a portion of the sediments of the Colorado Plateau.

Exposed in Butte Valley 1 mile south of this area; 8,000 feet of metasediments and volcanics. " (from your link)

Nobody ever said there hasn't been a lot of volcanic activey in the history of the earth. In fact there has been so much that you can't fit it into your myth. Your handwaving on the supervolcano thread was classic.

There was hot rocks at the rapid seperation.

The rapid separation never occured and in your myth isn't it supposed to be after the flood?

it seems reasonable that some eneded up places like here. So, really, all this says is that the area saw heat and molten rock. Things need to be looked at more closely, not just hand waving away, making PO claims!

Hot This in no way explain the complex sedimentary rock record of the world. Not even close.

But it is, that is your problem. It isn't as complex as you thought!

You again show your total ignorance of geology.

ut it is less difficult to explain them with the split, and different past, so what? What does the actual evidence really say? Not old age fantasy stories spun to those that think they must be gospel?

The evidence is clear and there is none for your fantasy.

Not at all, the past was so different, and the state of matter, it really is easy to explain. Trying to imagine a same past is where the mind melt comes in.

We can all tell whose mind has melted around here and it isn't the minds of modern geologists.

Typical fishbowl thoughts. I understand. You are locked into assuming the past and future fit into the present reality. Too bad you can't prove it.

You don't absolutely prove things in science you falsify alternative hypotheses. The data on this thread do demonstrate a uniformity of process over more than 11,000 years with no evidence of either global flood or magical split and falsify your alternative hypothesis.

Nonsense, that back up is only 4400 years ago.

You have been totally unable to explain the data in the OP with you myth of only 4400 years of normal physics.

Most creatures did, of course. As for the creature here, that hasn't been settled yet. Sounds like it could swim well, and some even were found uncoiled, indicating, possibly an ability to get around on land. You know, like eels do, some creatures may have been able to crawl to the next water body, or river, or lagoon, or sea, etc, and, so, get around.

I don't think that sessil benthic organisms swim very well and they are well sorted.

Add the hyper reproduction to the mix, and we can really see some action. A little later, notice that what are called 'transitionals' appear!!! This means the creatures that could do likewise! Get over land to more water. Fantastic.

Fantastic is certainly the right word for your fantasies.

Right, that was brought out in some former conversations I had on this topic. In other words, the sea of Eden was where God made the whales and all sea creatures! They are Eden's creatures as well. They spread out to the planet at large. The only question is which creatures did God make already out on the earth, and which ones were from the migrations of Eden!

You have added this to the Bible. It says God gathered "the waters under heaven" and later told them to bring forth life. There is nothing in there about an Eden for sea life.

That would need a closed examination. I now assume that the little, planet at large creatures died before the big ones. Later, Eden's creatures appeared on the scene as well. Of course some little things can likely have had a longer lifespan than some bigger things. But generally, I think the pattern is smaller things at the earlier part of the fossil record. Simple, really.

In other words you'll keep morphing your fantasy until you think it fits the data.

No it doesn't fail. That simply indicates that not all trees that are good in water were forst to appear in Eden's migration, or, were made for the planet at large. If trees were made for the planet at large they should be found well before the first trees appear. But the ones that were there seem to have thrived in wet conditions from all I have read.

Conifers are found before willows or mangroves. They tend to thrive on mountains and even some even thrive in deserts. Your fantasy needs more morphing.

I'll just repeat the end of my last post since you didn't answer it.

You still have not provided any explanation for the correlations in the 14C ages of tree rings and lake varves and their correlation with 14C and U-Th dating of corals or any explanation at to why varves from various lakes, tree rings, coral couplets, Antarctic and Greenland Ice cores all correlate to date the end of the Younger Dryas at 11,000-11,500 years ago. All your blather about "something" that caused different levels of 14C in the brief time between the flood and "split" that just happened to make the 11,000 tree rings, 45,000 varves and 15,000 coral couplets seem to be annual formations even though they all formed in about 100 years has failed to explain the data.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Abongil · Jul 25, 2006

Wow... dad is STILL making his absurd claims with absolutely NO EVIDENCE!

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 25, 2006

Abongil said:
Wow... dad is STILL making his absurd claims with absolutely NO EVIDENCE!

And now he is back here doing it again. He has not provided any explanation for the correlations in the 14C ages of tree rings and lake varves and their correlation with 14C and U-Th dating of corals or any explanation at to why varves from various lakes, tree rings, coral couplets, Antarctic and Greenland Ice cores all correlate to date the end of the Younger Dryas at 11,000-11,500 years ago. All his blather about "something" that caused different levels of 14C in the brief time between the flood and "split" that just happened to make the 11,000 tree rings, 45,000 varves and 15,000 coral couplets seem to be annual formations even though they all formed in about 100 years has failed to explain the data.

Dad keeps promoting his failed split/merge model that only he believes in the first place. I guess the really amazing thing is that so many of us spend so much time debating in the face of his unshakable belief in his peculiar fantasy about a different past. At least by now I am finally convinced that he is not a parody trying to make YEC look as stupid as possible because he is an evolutionist in disguise. He seems to really believe the nonsense he is promoting even though his fantasy explanation fails on thread after thread.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Lie Detector

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency