Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No primary research is done without the researcher visiting their field site. It doesn't work that way. And this isn't even about the fact that he didn't visit the sites, it's about the fact that he is either deliberately misleading or massively untalented as a stratigrapher-- there are mistakes and omissions throughout his article, as I pointed out.
And I destroyed it. Sorry.
But he discounted the 'uniformitarian' example using faulty logic and selective omission. He hasn't shown the classic geology interpretations to be wrong, or his interpretations to be better. That has to happen in order for his interpretations to be valid.
It's not about whether one can make multiple interpretations; there are INFINITE interpretations for everything.
It's about the fact that he hasn't shown his interpretation to be BETTER THAN the other. If he cannot do that, his interpretation is of no value.
Nobody denies this. It's just that nothing works better than the 'uniformitarian' approach, so there's no reason to use anything BUT the uniformitarian approach.
you don't want to consider another model for the earth than the one you know - that's your choice but doesn't necessarily make you right
there is plenty of evidence overlooked or unexplainable by your model - way too much in fact
There is an entire thread on polystrate fossils here.
Also, you repeat the assertion that there was a lot of volcanic ash involved in the flood. Could you please explain why, when we see volcanic ashes in the rock record, they often appear to have been deposited by airfall rather than subaqueously?
great uplifts of the crust were the catalyst for the flood
huge volcanic ash formations such as the Morrison Formation in western USA were deposited upon such uplifts at late stage of cataclysm after water had atleast partially run off - though many remnant lakes and general wet conditions would remain
uniformitarianism has had trouble explaining the uplift of the Colorado Plateau - the flood model does not
If the flood was such a tumultuous place, shouldn't the ash have been dispersed, rather than forming very nice, thin, coherent layers ?
you've prob seen the dispursment maps for the Yellowstone caldera eruptions - they are huge - no lack of disbursement
Again, just saying that the ash was deposited during a period of calm isn't enough- even if it was, it should have been reworked when the next high-energy event came about, right?
yes during the cataclysm and we see a lot of reworked volcanics - nearer to the end of the cataclysm not so much - such as Morrison Formation mentioned above
There might be further local unconformities inside the the flood deposits, what you need it a global unconformity between the flood strata and preflood rock. Finding unconformities themselves are not evidence of the flood, because they would also be formed by ordinary geological processes. What would distinguish flood geology from ordinary geology is the global unconformity. Which doesn't exist.
preCambrian / Cambrian boundary
what is ordinary geology?
flood events are big - on a global scale and they take a global picture of sediments to see them
most geologists are used to what you call ordinary geology - geology on such a small scale they can't see the bigger global picture
They don't have to stay covered. Once you have 15 cubit seas washing over the tallest mountains in a region, all the animal there are going to drown. You won't have any left to leave footprints in higher layers of sediment, there with be nothing alive to build nests, dig burrows and plants will not have time to grow roots through the soil before the next layer of flood sediment washes in.
Actually creationists vary considerably over when the flood strata start. Obviously the higher up the geological column you place it, the more sedimentary rock you had befor the flood, either created or formed by preflood geology. But the further back you place it the more life you have to explain in the flood sediments.
Actually once you buy into continental drift, even if it is the creationists superfast model, you buy into underwater sediments forming rock and being pushed to very high altitudes by tectonic movement. A problem with creationism is that they hold onto old arguments for a flood, even if newer ideas contradict it. An old argument was fossilised fish and shellfish found in the mountains. Only possible explanation is being washed there by a flood. Until creationists took plate tectonics on board which completely explains how marine fossils end up as part of mountains. But you still get the old argument being used alongside it.
Actually there is simply too much for one planet to support at one time.
there had to be an immense amount of vegetation to feed the giant animals of all types found in the fossil record
the pre-flood world was very different from our post-flood world
No, it does show what I said, that all life on the face of the earth would have drowned and nothing would have been left to leave footprints nests roots and burrows.
some sea creatures would survive
some birds would survive
some insects would survive
and Noah preserved land animals on the ark
atleast that's what God told us
maybe your footprints nests roots burrows are misinterpreted - it's not an area I know much about but I do know sed structures can look like animals may have left them
No I am not using the old earth model. I am looking at the young earth model and showing that the evidence doesn't fit it.
Sure there is evidence you can make fit. It is the evidence that doesn't fit that is the problem.
It is not being older that is the problem, it is that the ages that different dating methods give are consistent. If our understanding of the rates in the past is wrong, why do they give the same answer?
answered already - they all use the same assumption of constant decay rates - they are consistent by making the same error
If it was only one wrong dating method the the answers would be consistently wrong. But we are talking of wildly different dating methods from nuclear decay to tree rings. There is an infinite number of ways to be wrong, each dating method has its own infinite number of ways to be wrong. How can they give the same answers? Unless the rates we use are the right ones.
dating oldest rocks is only done w radioactive elements and the same assumption is used
No. because there are different ways nuclei decay, alpha decay is very different from electron capture. There is no reason, even if you changed universal constants, for the rates of decay to by the same amount. And how does that make continental drift change at the same rate?
continental drift is measured by sea floor spread using volcanic rocks - same as with dating older volcanic rocks on continents
How would that possibly make tree ring growth change at the same rate, or varves be laid down thousands or millions of time faster? How does a change in the decay rates of isotopes make seasonal deposits of of ice we see in ice cores so much faster in the past?
tree rings and ice cores do not date old rocks
So the rates of decay all changed in just a year?
good question - apparently so - like an explosion w a big burst of destructive energy then it subsides - can't explain it
THe question is why the rates match? answered above
It is only a problem for the model that cannot be tested - like creationism, not for a model that can be tested and passes the tests.
Pot, meet kettle.
Care to share that with us? (With links from serious scientific publications, not creationist sites which you're getting your arguments from)
Do you mean the Cretaceous / Tertiary boundary or the K-T boundary?
NO
One thing about this is that there are no fossils of mammals, birds or humans below this boundary
You know that that's an even worse place to suppose aflood boundary right? Instead of not having mammals and birds not present before the flood you have no evidence of vertebrates at all
You know that that's an even worse place to suppose aflood boundary right? Instead of not having mammals and birds not present before the flood you have no evidence of vertebrates at all
2nd Peter King James Bible
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Care to share that with us? (With links from serious scientific publications, not creationist sites which you're getting your arguments from)
What the heck do you think a scientist does when he or she finds a problem with the status quo? And what do you think happens to a scientist who documents such a problem -- other than getting publications, tenure, prestige and grants, that is?How can you possibly not realize that "serious scientific publications" aren't about to disclose the problems with the status quo?
The ability to catch a thrown football seems to have taken a holiday for the Superbowl, at least for the Patriots.Critical thought took a holiday for the Superbowl?
Looking for holes is hardly a full-time scientific occupation, but there are a lot of hungry (metaphorically speaking) young scientists, and not a few older ones as well, out there who would love to make a name for themselves by showing that some well-established idea is wrong. Not to mention that nearly all scientists really do like to know how the world works -- that's why they're scientists -- and that they can't stop talking about what they find.I don't think employed scientists are really looking for holes in everybody's pet theory.
I know!you're right!!
That is correct.i was referring to carbonates in general and i shouldn't have done that because you specifically referred to shallow water bioherms
I said: ''the pre-flood seas were shallow - the earth's crust had not broken up into tectonic plates yet"and you asked: Do you have evidence to back this assumption?''
yes - you just presented it for me
Yes it does. Modern geology provides explanations for the formation, preservation, and exposure of this reef complex, citing specific evidences and detailing specific processes. All you've done so far is make assertions.........using the yec/global flood model that involved huge cataclysmic tectonic movements of the crust of the earth this uplifted reef makes sense - using the old earth/slow process model this deposit makes no sense!!
The Capitan Reef complex isn't on a convergent margin, so is it safe to assume you're retracting this statement? Is it also safe to assume you're retracting the bit about 'breaking up coral reefs and depositing them', since you've directly contradicted this in the post I'm replying to now?valkyree said:a global flood accompanied by great tectonic upheavals which included the opening up a new ocean (Atlantic) would certainly break up coral reefs and at the later stages could deposit them at the convergent margins of continents thru subduction - it doesn't need to be more technical than that
Two unbacked assertions, the first already proven wrong, the second in direct contradiction to a previous post. Yikes.yes bioherms are very common in the fossil record all over the planet
and some of them from the earth's pre-flood shallow seas got uplifted just like this one did
Another unbacked assertion, in the face of the mountains of evidence gathered in support of modern geology's explanation of this feature.slow earth processes of the old-earth model did not do this!!!!
But that's what you claimed. Are you retracting the claim?transported and deposited? ....doubtful even to a flood geologist
More assertions. Please, just once, back your assertions with EVIDENCE!more likely uplifted in place from shallow seas - and erosion from receding flood waters removed surrounding rock
How? Provide a mechanism (something more process-based, more descriptive than 'cataclysm during the flood', please) for uplift of the CP, providing evidence that your assertion is correct.this explains much of the Colorado Plateau - places like Monument Valley
So if you read on a pack of burger 'Made from 100% beef' we cannot test that because we cannot go back in the past and see what the animals were chopped up to make the burgers? You couldn't test a claim about the past with say a DNA test?they are untestable assumptions!!
we cannot test the conditions of the past because we cannot go back there and bring back samples
..........so we have to make assumptions about the past and then proceed
assumptions are by their very nature untestable
oksee post 114
Lets have a look:yes and creationists are correct to do so
losing sight of the assumptions involved in any endeavor is not a good practice - and yet this is what has happened
i looked at the entire category of radiometric dating at wiki and only K-Ar listed the assumptions:
KâAr dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ....list of assumptions for K-Ar dating - not a creationist source
As we have seen this had been tested and confirmed.this link below may be a creationist source but that does not mean the info presented is not valid
Radiometric Dating
Few people realize it but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. These are:
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past.
Isochron dating deals with these.2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system...
How can you possibly not realize that "serious scientific publications" aren't about to disclose the problems with the status quo?
Critical thought took a holiday for the Superbowl?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?