The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[valkyree]

Valkyree makes so. many. claims about geology and sources none of them.

I am finally over 50 posts so I can include links

but few people go to the links

most peole just want to argue

anything i say can be googled and tons of stuff will pop up


what i say I say with knowledge of having seen it in the field in the rocks

the only way to really verify what i say is to see it in the field in the rocks with your own eyes

that's why evolution has made headway - it's accepted validity relies on people not investigating it's claims

 

[valkyree]

Living in the sea will do that though. And plate tectonics can push the sea bed up. We can measure the rate the Indian subcontinent is pushing into the Tibetan plateau and the rate the Himalayas are still being pushed up by it.

.

true - but we do not know if the present rate of uplift was the same in the past

i say the rocks tell us the rate of uplift was much greater in the past than it is today

today we measure a slower remnant uplift in the wake of a cataclysmic event

 

[Incariol]

true - but we do not know if the present rate of uplift was the same in the past

i say the rocks tell us the rate of uplift was much greater in the past than it is today

today we measure a slower remnant uplift in the wake of a cataclysmic event

And you offer no evidence for those conclusions whatsoever...

 

[valkyree]

Actually you have to be a bit more precise here lest your explanation be torn apart. What is important is that after the initial release of water and the flood waters rose there was a period where the level stayed stable. That means that these "voids" were "closed" I could imagine that what happened is that the earth crust broke through -perhaps because of heat pressure and the water gushed out through a relatively small opening emptying the void. Then with all the debris and silt trying to flow back in, the opening could get blocked. Then the debris began to accumulate on top of this thin layer of crust finally coming to a point of total collapse due to the mass on top of it. This would cause a rapid inrush of water and debris causing powerful receeding water forces and forming the basis for the fossil fuel deposits.

Genesis 7:11 tells us the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heavens opened up

the initial release did not contain that much liquid water

molten magma contains tons of steam and other gases - this ancient magma contained much more steam than the magmas of today - water would condense as the steam cooled and would mix with the rains from the window of heaven to eventually cover the earth w water

meanwhile the single pre-flood continent of ancient history broke into pieces and great pieces of crust were thrust up and split apart forming the cratonic cores of the continents now found along both sides of the Atlantic Ocean

a great amount of broken rock was also created when the fountains of the great deep broke

pulses of flood waters broke these rock fragments into smaller n smaller pieces forming great pockets of mud and sand

trillions of dead plants and animals got mixed in with the mud and sand

new mountain ranges rose up as more magma pushed itself up to form great crystalline cores (Himalaya - Alps - Cordillera of North and South America) and lifted up on top of the crystalline cores was the tons of sediment and plant/animal debris created from the flood waters -

these plants/animal fragments later became fossilized as the silica from tons of volcanic ash filtered thru the great piles of sediment and replaced the cellular material with silica molecules - this same silica would act as the cement that solidified the sediment into solid rock

the great deposits of fossil fuels in almost every basin on earth came about as a result of all this buried plant matter also - the plant material was eventually metamorphosed and in some cases was then transported by gravity down into lower elevations

it was not until this great uplift had occurred lifting with it the majority of flood sediment that the ocean basins collapsed - that's why there is no sediment in the great new ocean basins

great amounts of relatively sediment-free flood water rushed in to the collapsed ocean basins and thousands of remnant lakes were left behind - these lakes have been drying up over the centuries and some of them have breached their sediment dams and have caused local flood events such as have occurred in the eastern half of Washington State - local native Americans still remember the stories of such events occurring and the local geology shows a scoured scabland that was ravaged by flood waters

 

[valkyree]

And you offer no evidence for those conclusions whatsoever...

no where on earth today are any deposits being formed of thick mud and/or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death

yet such a sediment cover on all of the continents is here for us to see

how did those sediments get here? not by small local deposits being slowly deposited one thin layer at a time by small floods of small local streams

slow deposition will not preserve cellular matter

slow deposition will not kill trillions of plants ansd animals

slow deposition will not uproot millions of huge trees tearing off the roots

slow deposition will not bury alive billions of clams and small fish and scallops and other sea life

slow deposition will not fill caves with tons of tangled plant debris and broken pieces of saber toothed tiger carcasses and mastodon bones and huge wolf bones and other large animal bones from camels and giant sloths .....and many others


go on some field trips and see for yourself

go to natural history museums and look at the deposits - not the imaginary stories on the walls

La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles - all the animal bones all broken and tangled up w plant debris - how did those animal bones get broken if they walked into tar pits one by one and got stuck - it's ridiculous - all of that material was bounced around and transported for miles and miles and then deposited in the LA Basin by flood water - there was no tar for any animal to walk into!!!! -the tar formed later after the pile of sediment and debris metamorphosed

Dinosaur Fossil Beds in Utah - thousands of dinosaurs buried in tons of volcanic ash - a cataclysmic event!!!!!

every place on earth has something like this to find

google petrified wood and read up!!!

 

[Assyrian]

true - but we do not know if the present rate of uplift was the same in the past

i say the rocks tell us the rate of uplift was much greater in the past than it is today

today we measure a slower remnant uplift in the wake of a cataclysmic event

Actually we can measure the rate in the past because we can date the strata laid down before the various super continents broke up and we have a pretty good idea how far they had to go to get to where they ended up next. continental drift has been going at the present rate for hundreds of million of years. It is only when you get to the very early super continents when the crust was thinner and the earth warmer that we find plate tectonics was running a bit faster than it is now. Since rate of continental drift has no direct connection to radioactive decay rates, the fact they agree with each other give independent corroboration to both.

There is an interesting example of radiometric dating fitting continental drift if you look at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts We have a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are. The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have traveled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.

 

[sfs]

no where on earth today are any deposits being formed of thick mud and/or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death

Every lake bed, river delta and sea bottom on the planet has deposits of mud or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death.

how did those sediments get here? not by small local deposits being slowly deposited one thin layer at a time by small floods of small local streams

Mostly, yes. Why not?

slow deposition will not preserve cellular matter

What fraction of fossils have preserved cellular details? And why won't a local flood, that may wash a foot (or ten feet) of mud over a body preserve cellular details?

slow deposition will not kill trillions of plants ansd animals

What makes you think all of the fossils we find were killed by deposition? You usually can't tell how a fossil died -- it's just an imprint of bones. Hundreds of millions of years of slow deposition will indeed bury trillions of plants and animals.

slow deposition will not uproot millions of huge trees tearing off the roots

Where are there millions of huge fossil trees? And you do realize that when trees die in the normal course of things, they fall over, tearing off their roots? Except for blow-downs, which usually have their roots intact. Both kinds of fossil trees are seen.

slow deposition will not bury alive billions of clams and small fish and scallops and other sea life

And the evidence that they were buried alive is . . .?

slow deposition will not fill caves with tons of tangled plant debris and broken pieces of saber toothed tiger carcasses and mastodon bones and huge wolf bones and other large animal bones from camels and giant sloths .....and many others

Any major river flood will do that.

I'm sorry, but geologists and paleontologists have spent generations studying and learning about fossils and rocks and how they form. A young earth and a global flood simply make no sense at all of that data. This had already become apparent by the late 1700s, as naturalists (many of them Christian ministers) started to examine fossils and geological strata in detail. A young earth and a flood have no explanation for the progression of life forms that one sees as one looks deeper into the earth. They have no explanation for the many soil horizons that lie stacked on top of one another, each the product of many years of erosion and weathering. They have no explanation for the vast deposits of layered stone made of fine marine sediment, interwoven with land deposits. They have no explanation for radioactive dating, or for paleomagnetic data (no consistent explanation, that is).

go on some field trips and see for yourself

go to natural history museums and look at the deposits - not the imaginary stories on the walls

I've been to dinosaur fossil sites, and I've been to the Grand Canyon, and I've been to museums. How anyone could think that they were produced by a few thousand years and a single flood boggles my mind.

Dinosaur Fossil Beds in Utah - thousands of dinosaurs buried in tons of volcanic ash - a cataclysmic event!!!!!

Why would that indicate either a young earth or a global flood? We know that volcanoes erupt, and we know that they can bury large areas and many animals? How does this show anything?

Why not listen to the Affiliation of Christian Geologists? Here's their official stance: "Beginning in the mid-1600’s, geologists and astronomers (including many Christians) have consistently found that the scientific evidence clearly favors a vast age for the earth and the universe. Current scientific calculations indicate that the universe began about 13 billion years ago and the earth about 4.6 billion years ago. These conclusions are based on cumulative evidence and are refined with each new study."

 

[sfs]

A

There is an interesting example of radiometric dating fitting continental drift if you look at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts We have a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are. The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have traveled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.

Here's the relationship:

According to the graph, the Pacific plate has been moving over the Hawaiian hotspot at a speed of approximately 8.6 cm/year for the past 60 million years. According to GPS measurements, the plate is currently moving at ~8 cm/year. That, and the fact that the radiometric dates just happen to lie on a nearly perfect line, are an awfully big coincidence.

 

[valkyree]

Actually we can measure the rate in the past because we can date the strata laid down before the various super continents broke up and we have a pretty good idea how far they had to go to get to where they ended up next.

1 continental drift has been going at the present rate for hundreds of million of years.

2 It is only when you get to the very early super continents when the crust was thinner and the earth warmer that we find plate tectonics was running a bit faster than it is now.

3 Since rate of continental drift has no direct connection to radioactive decay rates, the fact they agree with each other give independent corroboration to both.

There is an interesting example of radiometric dating fitting continental drift if you look at the chain of islands from Hawaii to the Emperor seamounts We have a series of volcanic islands that formed as plate tectonics moved the seabed over a mantle plume. The oldest are eroded to seamounts, but the radiometric dating of the series of Islands shows they gradually get older the further from Hawaii they are.

4 The radiometric dates matches the distance they would have traveled at the around the speed Hawaii is moving today. In fact Hawaii is moving slightly faster today. Over the 80 million years since the Emperor sea mounts were formed there hasn't been any significant change in the rate of plate tectonics.

1 - that is an assumption - that is not verified as truth - we know the opening of the Atlantic Ocean split a huge land mass in two pieces moving away from each other because of the many matching features on both sides of the split - but we do not know the speed with which it occurred

a scientist must learn to separate fact from assumption

2 - there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of ''very early super continents'' - this is geological make-believe - it's fun to make believe and get paid for it - but it is NOT science

3 - how do you know they agree with each other? someone else told you so because it fits the model they want to create

We don't know how fast the Atlantic Ocean opened up and we don't know if radiometric dating is accurate because we don't know if the decay rates have been constant for 4.5 billion years!! - so you are taking two statements of unknown value and claiming them to be true - then you are making a third claim of unknown value from them!!

4 yes these seamounts have traveled away from the same hot spot one after the other - this can be found at all hot spots - but this same claim as to radiometric dates is another convenient but unproveable claim from some professor to get govt grant money and keep his job!

 

[valkyree]

Every lake bed, river delta and sea bottom on the planet has deposits of mud or sand full of animals and plants that have seen a violent death.


."

not nearly to the extent that is seen in the fossil record - especially if the earth is younger rather than older and past earth events occurred more rapidly than the old earth model suggests

 

[valkyree]

Mostly, yes. Why not?

."

time is the alibi of old earthers - with enough fabricated time anything is supposedly possible - that is why they must stick to an old earth paradigm at all costs

slow deposition cannot explain thousands of feet of homogeneous sandstone composed of very well rounded and very well sorted quartz grains with no other minerals present -such as at Zion NP- nearly as well as it can be explained by rock fragments being tumbled violently by great amounts of water to create those round quartz grains of uniform size before being deposited

nor can slow deposition explain millions of dead fish piled on top of one another in thick uniform mud deposits of the Green River Formation nearly as well it can be explained by tons of water doing all the required geologic work - it is unlikely that multiple small flooding events would have occurred over and over again at the same location and formed multiple layers of the same exact deposit - nor can small flooding events do enough geologic work

once this concept is understood and seen to make sense at a couple of locations then the same concept can be applied to the majority of locations and the same conclusions can be made

catastrophic events doing a lot of geologic work in a short amount of time are a better explanation for the majority of sedimentary deposits seen on earth than a series of smaller more localized events occurring over great amounts of time that are only capable of minimal amounts of geologic work

and present geomorphologies show what would be expected in the aftermath of such catastrophic events - such as undersized streams in huge canyons

 

[valkyree]

What fraction of fossils have preserved cellular details? And why won't a local flood, that may wash a foot (or ten feet) of mud over a body preserve cellular details?

."

preservation and fossilization of any kind requires rapid and relatively thick burial and a source of silica to replace the cellular material

small local floods causing shallow burial of critters or plants provide neither

 

[valkyree]

What makes you think all of the fossils we find were killed by deposition? You usually can't tell how a fossil died -- it's just an imprint of bones. Hundreds of millions of years of slow deposition will indeed bury trillions of plants and animals.

quote]

they were not killed by deposition - they were killed by being tumbled around in great amounts of turbulent water - the individual fossils don't tell you that but the deposit taken as a whole tells you

trillions of years of slow shallow deposition will not kill, bury deeply and preserve/fossilize nearly as many plants and animals as catastrophic events that occur rapidly with great amounts of water accompanied with massive volcanic eruptions to provide the necessary silica to preserve them

land animal and plant fossils found in the rocks of earth are almost always found as partial and broken pieces and tangled with a variety of other species - like at La Brea Tar pits and many other places

sea life is almost always found in great numbers of like kind often with evidence of being buried while still alive such as being intact - like at Green River or the Grand Canyon or many other places

this is what would be expected if events were rapid and a lot of water caused them to be buried in thick sediments

 

[valkyree]

Where are there millions of huge fossil trees? And you do realize that when trees die in the normal course of things, they fall over, tearing off their roots? Except for blow-downs, which usually have their roots intact. Both kinds of fossil trees are seen.
."

every western state of the USA is full of millions of fossilized tree trunks of all sizes buried in volcanic ash with most branches and tops and the bark and the roots missing - these trees have been tumbled and transported by water before being deposited together all over the west - not one at a time indicating they each died individually and fell down - but in great quantities

they can be seen and collected all over the west and all over many other places on other continents also - always showing the same characteristics of being tumbled and transported before deposited

groups of unfossilized remnant tree root balls with long splinters of wood at their tops have also been found buried in situ in places like Hungary and eastern Canada

monstrous tree trunks have been buried in New Zealand

 

[razeontherock]

It isn't the number or the size of them, it is whether they are all together between two geological horizons, and whether within this region, all signs of life are gone. Unfortunately it isn't and we find signs of life footprints, nests, roots, burrows, soil formation, all though the geological strata.

WHOA. You're trying to tell me that ONE YEAR would leave record of all life being gone, and we'd find it? I know I know, you want to sell me tokens for the tollway through the scablands too?

 

[valkyree]

I'm sorry, but geologists and paleontologists have spent generations studying and learning about fossils and rocks and how they form.

1 A young earth and a global flood simply make no sense at all of that data. This had already become apparent by the late 1700s, as naturalists (many of them Christian ministers) started to examine fossils and geological strata in detail.

2 A young earth and a flood have no explanation for the progression of life forms that one sees as one looks deeper into the earth.

3 They have no explanation for the many soil horizons that lie stacked on top of one another, each the product of many years of erosion and weathering.

4 They have no explanation for the vast deposits of layered stone made of fine marine sediment, interwoven with land deposits.

5 They have no explanation for radioactive dating, or for paleomagnetic data (no consistent explanation, that is).

."

1 yes they do but it cannot be understood and makes no sense using an old earth paradigm - see link below on flood geology

2 yes they do but it requires a Creator and a creation event and not evolution caused by random mutations and unknown naturalistic mechanisms

3 Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology

4 global flooding would cause many things to occur that cannot be explained by old earth / slow deposition models
Flood geology - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

5 radiometric dating is the brainchild of old earthers who have used unproveable assumptions as it's foundation and they fudge the numbers to get what they want

paleomagnetic reversals are not understood by old earthers or young earthers

 

[razeontherock]

They don't die individually, they attract predators who join them.

And play twister, don't forget that part. Hey, what else is there to do when you're dying?

 

[Keachian]

And play twister, don't forget that part. Hey, what else is there to do when you're dying?

Pin the tail on the Donkey!

 

[Assyrian]

1 - that is an assumption - that is not verified as truth - we know the opening of the Atlantic Ocean split a huge land mass in two pieces moving away from each other because of the many matching features on both sides of the split - but we do not know the speed with which it occurred

Not an assumption, I told you how it has been verified by radiometric dating

a scientist must learn to separate fact from assumption

What about your assumptions, that continental drift moved much much faster in the past, that radioactive decay was much much faster in the past, and that for some reason these two separate processes matched each others rates of change?

2 - there is not enough evidence to confirm the existence of ''very early super continents'' - this is geological make-believe - it's fun to make believe and get paid for it - but it is NOT science

That is a pity, because these earlier supercontinents are the only evidence we have that that plate tectonics moved a bit faster in the past. Of course the evidence we have for supercontinents like Ur, Kendorland and Rodinia are the same evidence we have for Pangaea, matching rocks found far apart that can be linked back through a series of supercontinent breakups.

3 - how do you know they agree with each other? someone else told you so because it fits the model they want to create

No someone else told me (another way of saying I keep up to date with science) because the data fits their model. We can measure the rate the Atlantic is widening, we know how wide it is so it isn't a great leap to calculate how long it took at that rate. We can also use radiometric dating to find the age of the rocks formed when the split occurred. How old are the highest layers of rock found both in America and Europe. The ages match.

We don't know how fast the Atlantic Ocean opened up and we don't know if radiometric dating is accurate because we don't know if the decay rates have been constant for 4.5 billion years!! - so you are taking two statements of unknown value and claiming them to be true - then you are making a third claim of unknown value from them!!

No I am taking two independent dating methods and showing they agree. They confirm each other. That is how science works, finding different ways to test a hypotheses.

4 yes these seamounts have traveled away from the same hot spot one after the other - this can be found at all hot spots - but this same claim as to radiometric dates is another convenient but unproveable claim from some professor to get govt grant money and keep his job!

Conspiracy theories and slander are always a great way to deny inconvenient evidence. The fact is, the rate the ocean crust has been moving over the hotspot matches the radiometric dating for 80 million years.

 

[Assyrian]

WHOA. You're trying to tell me that ONE YEAR would leave record of all life being gone, and we'd find it? I know I know, you want to sell me tokens for the tollway through the scablands too?

Doesn't matter how long it took, the issue is the quantity of sedimentary rock that is supposed to have been laid down in the flood. And creationist regularly claim that most of the sedimentary strata we see today are the result of the flood, (though they cannot be pinned down on which strata are supposed to mark the beginning and end of the flood). If the geological strata creationists ascribe to the flood really were caused by the flood then there should be no evidence of life anywhere in these strata apart from the very bottom and the very top.

The problem is, signs of life going on are found all the way through the strata. In fact the problem is so bad some creationists have abandoned searching for the flood in any of the layers you find fossils and shove the flood all the way back to the Hadean, 3.8 billion years ago in conventional dating. Which means they have abandoned any attempt to explain the vast layers of later sedimentary rock by the flood. It isn't just that the Grand canyon wasn't carve out by the flood, all the layers of sedimentary rock that make it up were deposited in the few thousand years after the flood.