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

[Assyrian]

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!

 

[razeontherock]

Doesn't matter how long it took

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.

These 2 statements contradict. Since the flood only lasted a year, you have to explain how you're going to be able to pinpoint anything that exactly.

Good luck. Basically, what you're demanding, is ridiculous. You're not going to "find no evidence of life anywhere, in the space of a year. And you should not need me to tell you this! It strongly suggests that instead of thinking this through, you've prepared for tests. (That is what the system is designed for, after all)

The problem is, signs of life going on are found all the way through the strata.

Not a problem at all, per above. You could have every year out of 20 being "lifeless," and you'd never know. (Ok, maybe that exaggeration isn't true, but you see the point that the flood is claim is only 1 year total, ever.)

 

[Orogeny]

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

If this is the case, and a global flood explains all of geology, then why don't you describe how a global flood model accounts for the numerous shallow-water bioherms found throughout the rock record? I listed a few examples in this post, and when you later replied to it, you conveniently left out the reply to the bioherms. Explain them now, using your flood model. Include a techinical explanation of why the bioherms better fit your model than the models advanced by modern geologists.

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

A creation event should not come into play here. By your own theory, the entirety of the biosphere should have been mixed up by the flood waters, yet we see a progression of ecology that cannot be explained by hydraulic sorting, which is the dominant process when rapid water movement is in play, as it would be in a tumultuous flood.

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

This is my favorite part of your post, because it truly displays the contortions necessary to make flood geology sound plausible. Unfortunately he's convincing to the untrained eye.

The entire article is based on refuting the presence of paleosols throughout the rock record. Yet instead of providing a systematic reinterpretation of the features found in 'paleosols' and advancing a hypothesis that better explains the origins of these features, the author focuses on two particular locations, attempts to discount these locations as true paleosols, and then broadly applies this 'refutation' to the remainder of the rock record.

In his first example, Dr. (of engineering, not geology) Tas presents a paleosol from Missouri. Only one picture of the paleosol is provided, and it is both distant and grainy. Nevertheless, Tas does a decent job of describing the paleosol for the reader. While we will take his description at face value for the time being, it is poor form to provide just one poor picture of an outcrop when small scale features are key to proper diagnosis. In fact, there is no indication that Tas has even been to the outcrop in question.

Tas' first item of contention is that this paleosol does not contain root traces. Now, we know the age of the paleosol (don't freak out kids, I'm talking about the RELATIVE age, not the absolute age)-- it is, at youngest, Upper Cambrian since it is overlain by the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone.
Here Tas displays either his dishonesty or his incompetence as a stratigrapher: He holds the lack of apparent root traces in the paleosol as the primary reason the deposit must not, in fact, be a paleosol. Now, far be it from me to accuse Tas of dishonesty, so for the time being, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume he's incompetent, and here's why: Every stratigrapher (or paleontologists, or evolutionary biologist, for that matter) worth his salt knows, both from personal observation and from studying the literature, the there were no rooting plants in the Cambrian (SOURCE, SOURCE). Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Cambrian paleosol to contain root traces.

The remainder of Tas' argument relies on his own interpretation of the photograph, in which he goes into rather graphic detail, even though he had already said that "it is not possible to positively identify rocks from a photo at such a distance. One can’t clearly see minerals or textures, or easily discriminate between rock, lichen, mould and shadow." Yet, later on, he goes into fantastic detail both in describing and interpreting the upper sandstone in the picture. Incompetence or dishonesty? You decide. Anyway, based on his own previous claim (with which I agree), the remainder of his argument can be thrown out as speculation.


Now then. On to example #2, Oligocene paleosols developed atop individual basalt flows. In this case, we aren't even presented a photograph- all we have to go on is a line drawing and Tas' word. That's not how I do geology, but then, who am I? Not a doctor of engineering, just a geologist. So since all we have to go on is what he tells us, there's no avenue for independent verification, punting his explanations from the realm of science directly into the land of storytelling. But anyway, there are at least a few of his claims that we can address without a photograph.

The first is the claim that the basalts were deposited subaqueously. Subaqueous basalts tend to form what are called 'pillow lavas.' As Tas doesn't verify his assertion by indicating the presence of pillows in the basalt layers, we can confidently assume that he is either incorrect or too incompetent to realize this is an important criterion.

Second, he claims that the basalts and paleosols should follow the trends of the 'hilly' Mapelton-Maleny plateau, completely ignoring the law of original horizontality. Incompetence or disohnesty? I wonder.

Tell you what: I'm going bowling, but when I'm done, we'll compare and contrast the qualities of modern soils and paleosols, and then we'll decide together if they're similar. Deal? Deal.

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

Why don't you pick your two favorite arguments and present them to us, providing both the flood and classical geology explanations, detailing why the flood explanation is more accurate than the other.

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

I have asked you repeatedly to detail these 'unproveable assumptions', but you have yet to do so. Do it now.

paleomagnetic reversals are not understood by old earthers or young earthers

Are not YET understood. How this helps your case, I do not know. Care to elaborate?

 

[Orogeny]

These 2 statements contradict. Since the flood only lasted a year, you have to explain how you're going to be able to pinpoint anything that exactly.

False. Most flood advocates state that most or all of the sedimentary record was deposited during the flood year. Thus, the many, many kilometers of sediments are all from the same year. So it's not about the TIME, it's about the thickness of the strata. Let's say that 5km of sediments are deposited in one location during the 'flood year' (which isn't that much, considering there are 20+ km of sediments in some regions). Each day of the flood year would be represented by 13.7 meters of sediment (5000m/365 days) now are you telling me that we shouldn't be able to pinpoint a specific event when over 40 feet of sediment are deposited daily? Nonsense.

Good luck. Basically, what you're demanding, is ridiculous. You're not going to "find no evidence of life anywhere, in the space of a year. And you should not need me to tell you this! It strongly suggests that instead of thinking this through, you've prepared for tests. (That is what the system is designed for, after all)

The maths disagree with you. The sedimentary record disagrees with you. If you've got evidence outside your own personal incredulity, please present it. Otherwise, keep your nonsense.

Not a problem at all, per above.

Well since 'above' has been shown to be blatantly ridiculous, then yes, a problem. See, this is where you young earthers screw up. Even YOU GUYS are incredulous about being able to resolve a year: You can't even stick to your own paradigms! If the flood year was so important and deposited so much sediment, it should be no problem at all to recognize specific days, weeks, months within that year. But even you can't believe that. Hello, irony.

You could have every year out of 20 being "lifeless," and you'd never know. (Ok, maybe that exaggeration isn't true, but you see the point that the flood is claim is only 1 year total, ever.)

 

[razeontherock]

False. Most flood advocates state that most or all of the sedimentary record was deposited during the flood year. over 40 feet of sediment are deposited daily?

I find it interesting that you present as fact that I'm a young earther (I'm not) and that the flood deposited 40 feet of sediment a day. (I don't see how that could be established, even if it might be what a school is advocating)

What song did the strawman sing? You're smarter than this.

 

[Assyrian]

These 2 statements contradict. Since the flood only lasted a year, you have to explain how you're going to be able to pinpoint anything that exactly.

Layers left by tsunami, local floods, volcanoes, asteroid impacts can be identified and they don't exactly last that long.

Good luck. Basically, what you're demanding, is ridiculous. You're not going to "find no evidence of life anywhere, in the space of a year. And you should not need me to tell you this! It strongly suggests that instead of thinking this through, you've prepared for tests. (That is what the system is designed for, after all)

It isn't the length of time it took that is the issue but the uniqueness of the process and amount of material laid down. If the layers laid down by the flood can be many miles thick as creationists claim then it doesn't matter how long it took. Unless you are abandoning the claim that the flood laid down miles of sedimentary rock.

Not a problem at all, per above. You could have every year out of 20 being "lifeless," and you'd never know. (Ok, maybe that exaggeration isn't true, but you see the point that the flood is claim is only 1 year total, ever.)

So the flood only laid down a single year's worth of sediment indistinguishable from any other layer of sediment in the geological column? You are rejecting an awful lot of creationism there Raze. But it still leaves you with a lot of questions to answer. The reason creation science is so passionately committed to a global flood is because it needs the flood to explain the geology. Where do all the layers of sedimentary rock many miles thick came from? How were they all laid down in a few thousand years? Or did God create the sedimentary rock complete with fossils?

 

[Assyrian]

In his first example, Dr. (of engineering, not geology) Tas presents a paleosol from Missouri. Only one picture of the paleosol is provided, and it is both distant and grainy. Nevertheless, Tas does a decent job of describing the paleosol for the reader. While we will take his description at face value for the time being, it is poor form to provide just one poor picture of an outcrop when small scale features are key to proper diagnosis. In fact, there is no indication that Tas has even been to the outcrop in question...

Bookmarked. Thanks

 

[Assyrian]

Just seen this one:

I find it interesting that you present as fact that I'm a young earther (I'm not) and that the flood deposited 40 feet of sediment a day. (I don't see how that could be established, even if it might be what a school is advocating)

What song did the strawman sing? You're smarter than this.

Let's look back a bit. You joined in my discussion with kalkyree, he was arguing for a young earth and vast layers of geological strata laid down by the flood. I showing him the problem with young earth creationist flood geology. Although your response was worded as though you disagreed with me, you were in fact agreeing. The geological evidence does not support the young earth flood geology, the flood did not lay down vast layers of sedimentary rock, it is not responsible for fossil fuels, fossil trees, the vast beds of fossils were not laid down in the flood, nor were they killed by the flood.

 

[Orogeny]

I find it interesting that you present as fact that I'm a young earther (I'm not)

My sincerest apologies. "Flood advocate" would have been more appropriate.

and that the flood deposited 40 feet of sediment a day. (I don't see how that could be established, even if it might be what a school is advocating)

It is a simple mathematical extrapolation based on a subdued thickness for the sedimentary column. Were my maths wrong? Was I wrong in noting that many flood advocates say the sedimentary column was deposited in a year? If not, whats the problem?

What song did the strawman sing? You're smarter than this.

Not really.

 

[lucaspa]

We are talking about organisms that MUST have evolved at a rate of growth and survival that is greater than the organisms that became extinct. That means that those organisms had to experience birth, growth, and allelic change on the same level as the ones that became extinct with the rate of evolution from one type of organism into another at a greater rate than that which killed off those nature did not 'select'.

Many of those extinctions -- such as the families of birds that became extinct at the KT extinction -- happened at mass extinctions. The rate of new speciation does not have to equal the rate of extinction in that case. Yes, for many millions of years after the KT event, there was a reduced diversity and number of avian species.

Now, for periods of time between mass extinctions, the rate of speciation is equal to or greater than the rate of extinction. Your source simply has his facts wrong. For instance, in the Victoria Lakes in the last 10,000 years, there has been the evolution of hundreds of new species of cichlids. But no extinctions.

Also, what is being ignored is that, for most ecologies most of the time, speciation is much slower than it CAN be. Natural selection can make morphological change up to 10,000 times what we see in the fossil record: Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

Kirkwhisper, there are 3 types of natural selection. You and Sanford are only considering 1: directional selection. This is the type of natural selection that changes populations and what we usually think of when we say "natural selection". Yet once a population is well adapted to its environment, another type of natural selection comes into play: stabilizing selection. When the population is well-adapted, any change in the genetic makeup of an individual is likely going to make the individual less adapted to the niche. So, in this case natural selection will weed out new variations and the population will be stable. Through history large populations are the ones that are well adapted and they don't change much. Changes happen in small peripheral populations isolated from the main population and facing a new environment. Recent studies indicate that this is how the chimps split into 2 species: chimp and bonobo. The Congo divided the ancestral population and chimps don't swim. So here we see an increase in the number of species: there was one species and now there is 2. I can post many other examples of this happening.

So, there is a steady background of extinctions. This is countered by a steady background of allopatric speciation. Sometimes there are mass extinctions. This does lower the number of species for a while, but it also opens up new ecological niches which causes the diversification of existing species into new niches, resulting in new species. Sanford seems to have counted higher taxa, like the Struthioforms for birds (and he counts them twice). What he didn't count was species. There are more species of birds now than there were at the end of the Cretaceous. Also notice that there are 14 species of penguins now, and there were no aquatic birds like penguins at the end of the Cretaceous.

Secondly, if the neo-Darwinians claim a list of organisms that have changed on only the species level(minor changes) then they are cheating.

You are talking extinction of species. Yet we are not allowed to post examples of new species?

Why is there a definite empirical list of extinctions but no such list of newly evolved organsms?

LOL! There are! TalkOrigins has a FAQ of transitional species. Each of those are "newly evolved organisms".

Neo-Darwinists tell us that it takes so very long........for an organism to evolve and branch off into other organisms. But that very argument establishes our case for extinction.

Well ... it doesn't have to take long. In terms of the lifetime of an individual, yes, the time of speciation is "long". But in geological terms speciation is very short. In the laboratory new species have been generated in as few as 60 generations:
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie This one completely changed the diet of the species.

But let the critics call Dr. Sanford 'ignorant' or unqualified to speak on this subject as they have suggested that I am. Right.

So you are using the Argument from Authority. Not good. Kirkwhisper, Sanford is just wrong by the only criteria that matter: the data. It would appear that Sanford has 1) distorted some of the data, 2) ignored much of the data and 3) just lied about some of the data.

 

[lucaspa]

yet most ancient histories from all over the world talk about a Great Flood.

Actually, most of them don't. Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.

Notice that "most ancient histories" are derivations from a single ancient history: the Babylonian. No, the vast majority of cultures on the planet do not have a "Great Flood" story.

 

[razeontherock]

My sincerest apologies. "Flood advocate" would have been more appropriate.

No need to apologize. I really hold no position on this. I'm not particularly impressed by any of the theories man has advanced yet, and take notice. I'm in favor of good clear communication, and people not being barred from that by false perception, esp of one another.

It is a simple mathematical extrapolation based on a subdued thickness for the sedimentary column. Were my maths wrong?

Well actually, one of your numbers was off by a factor of 10, but I got the point anyway. Is it safe to say that neither of us see 40' of sediment / day as being a reasonable average over the course of a year?

Was I wrong in noting that many flood advocates say the sedimentary column was deposited in a year?

And here I was wrong. I didn't realize there was someone in our midst who was ok with the above #, of 40' / day. It would be interesting to see that notion defended.

 

[TasManOfGod]

So the flood only laid down a single year's worth of sediment indistinguishable from any other layer of sediment in the geological column? You are rejecting an awful lot of creationism there Raze. But it still leaves you with a lot of questions to answer. The reason creation science is so passionately committed to a global flood is because it needs the flood to explain the geology. Where do all the layers of sedimentary rock many miles thick came from? How were they all laid down in a few thousand years? Or did God create the sedimentary rock complete with fossils?

Creationists do not need geology to believe the Flood happened (the Word of God does that) but the sedimentary nature of the geology sure confirms what they already know as truth.

 

[valkyree]

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


radiometric dating is full of unproveable assumptions!


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?

it is another possible model - also w assumptons yes

both models have assumptions

which model fits the data better?

to know you have to investigate both - not just one

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.

series of break-ups? - maybe or maybe not

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.

all radiometric dating methods share one unproveable assumption of a constant decay rate for elements and have other assumptions too

they are called assumptions because they cannot be proved

if they could be proved they would not be called assumptions

basic

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.

maybe - maybe not - depends which model you use and what assumptions you accept

your statement is not a fact - it's an idea that may or may not be true


it is a common technique to repeat statements often enough so people get used to hearing them and will accept them as fact ---- soon everyone forgets there were unproveable assumptions involved ---- doesn't make them all of sudden become fact!!!

 

[valkyree]

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.

seriously

a global flood accompanied by tectonic upheavals and tons of lava and volcanic ash which covered the earth w water would be a very dynamic event - creating tons of swirling water full of sediment of all sizes and tons of plant debris and sea life and land animals and plants

the tectonic movements would cause an irregular surface and cause the water/rock materials/other debris to flow in many directions and break apart

the entire surface of the earth may not be under water at all times and what was under water would vary in depth from place to place

some of the sea life would be caught up in turbidity type currents and muddy debris flows and be buried - smaller creatures would be especially vulnerable to this - some of it would escape and survive - especially the larger sea creatures

many of the deposits containing this sea life would not reach land until after the catastrophe was coming to a close and great piles of sediment were accreted to the edges of new land masses thru subduction at convergent margins

land creatures and plants would escape the early upheavals but get caught up as the catastrophe reached full force

when the tectonic upheavals began to slow down permanent deposition would begin to take place - much of the sea life would already be buried - land debris of rock/animal/vegetation mixtures would now get deposited as flood waters ran off higher elevations to the sea

later as all the buried vegetation metamorphosed it would travel by gravity down into lower elevation where it will get trapped as oil and gas and tar - in other places it will form coal seams or remain trapped within shales forming oil shale


in other words there is no way there could be a global flood and not have it affect the animal and plant life

 

[valkyree]

If this is the case, and a global flood explains all of geology, then why don't you describe how a global flood model accounts for the numerous shallow-water bioherms found throughout the rock record? I listed a few examples in this post, and when you later replied to it, you conveniently left out the reply to the bioherms. Explain them now, using your flood model. Include a techinical explanation of why the bioherms better fit your model than the models advanced by modern geologists.

you've asked a lot of questions - i doubt you could or would keep up if someone else was asking so many questions of you

you haven't answered all of mine either

the pre-flood seas were shallow - the earth's crust had not broken up into tectonic plates yet

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


A creation event should not come into play here. By your own theory, the entirety of the biosphere should have been mixed up by the flood waters, yet we see a progression of ecology that cannot be explained by hydraulic sorting, which is the dominant process when rapid water movement is in play, as it would be in a tumultuous flood.


quote]


why not? - sure it could see my previous post #95

 

[valkyree]

The entire article is based on refuting the presence of paleosols throughout the rock record. Yet instead of providing a systematic reinterpretation of the features found in 'paleosols' and advancing a hypothesis that better explains the origins of these features, the author focuses on two particular locations, attempts to discount these locations as true paleosols, and then broadly applies this 'refutation' to the remainder of the rock record.

In his first example, Dr. (of engineering, not geology) Tas presents a paleosol from Missouri. Only one picture of the paleosol is provided, and it is both distant and grainy. Nevertheless, Tas does a decent job of describing the paleosol for the reader. While we will take his description at face value for the time being, it is poor form to provide just one poor picture of an outcrop when small scale features are key to proper diagnosis. In fact, there is no indication that Tas has even been to the outcrop in question.

Tas' first item of contention is that this paleosol does not contain root traces. Now, we know the age of the paleosol (don't freak out kids, I'm talking about the RELATIVE age, not the absolute age)-- it is, at youngest, Upper Cambrian since it is overlain by the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone.
Here Tas displays either his dishonesty or his incompetence as a stratigrapher: He holds the lack of apparent root traces in the paleosol as the primary reason the deposit must not, in fact, be a paleosol. Now, far be it from me to accuse Tas of dishonesty, so for the time being, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume he's incompetent, and here's why: Every stratigrapher (or paleontologists, or evolutionary biologist, for that matter) worth his salt knows, both from personal observation and from studying the literature, the there were no rooting plants in the Cambrian (SOURCE, SOURCE). Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Cambrian paleosol to contain root traces.

The remainder of Tas' argument relies on his own interpretation of the photograph, in which he goes into rather graphic detail, even though he had already said that "it is not possible to positively identify rocks from a photo at such a distance. One can’t clearly see minerals or textures, or easily discriminate between rock, lichen, mould and shadow." Yet, later on, he goes into fantastic detail both in describing and interpreting the upper sandstone in the picture. Incompetence or dishonesty? You decide. Anyway, based on his own previous claim (with which I agree), the remainder of his argument can be thrown out as speculation.


Now then. On to example #2, Oligocene paleosols developed atop individual basalt flows. In this case, we aren't even presented a photograph- all we have to go on is a line drawing and Tas' word. That's not how I do geology, but then, who am I? Not a doctor of engineering, just a geologist. So since all we have to go on is what he tells us, there's no avenue for independent verification, punting his explanations from the realm of science directly into the land of storytelling. But anyway, there are at least a few of his claims that we can address without a photograph.

The first is the claim that the basalts were deposited subaqueously. Subaqueous basalts tend to form what are called 'pillow lavas.' As Tas doesn't verify his assertion by indicating the presence of pillows in the basalt layers, we can confidently assume that he is either incorrect or too incompetent to realize this is an important criterion.

Second, he claims that the basalts and paleosols should follow the trends of the 'hilly' Mapelton-Maleny plateau, completely ignoring the law of original horizontality. Incompetence or disohnesty? I wonder.

Tell you what: I'm going bowling, but when I'm done, we'll compare and contrast the qualities of modern soils and paleosols, and then we'll decide together if they're similar. Deal? Deal.




?

I agree the article lacks some legitimacy by his not having visited the site personally - but it's not always possible to visit every site - especially if the question is one you can not devote a large amount of time and resources to - many researchers are forced do the same thing and list their references so the same criticism can be made of others also

you want links so I gave you a link

but he does go thru a uniformitarian example then provides an alternative explanation of pseudosols and an alternate flood interpretation

this is enough to show there is more than one interpretation that can be made about the issue of paleosols - uniformitarians prefer one and yec's prefer another because they think differently

my point is not to prove either one but to show there is more than just the uniformitarian approach

to me a pseudosol makes more sense from what I read - but I would have to visit the site and look for myself

 

[valkyree]

I have asked you repeatedly to detail these 'unproveable assumptions', but you have yet to do so. Do it now.


?

I made a long post last night on K-Ar dating listing the assumptions and the problems I have with it ........................but now I can't remember which thread it was in

i also posted a link to a 2 page USGS article on the age of the earth for you to read - did you see it? ..........now it's lost in the shuffle

that's a problem w forums like this

i don't think i have read all your responses to me yet either ---but there's other stuff i gotta go do

 

[valkyree]

Why don't you pick your two favorite arguments and present them to us, providing both the flood and classical geology explanations, detailing why the flood explanation is more accurate than the other.

?

i would use a composite of petrified wood deposits from around the world - i have an extensive collection of articles w pics - when seen all together the similarities are striking and they make a good case for global catastrophe involving lots of water and volcanic ash and involve large land animals and much other plant debris within the same deposits

of course it requires radiometric dating to be falsified which i consider a valid possibility - those who don't will discount it as nonsense

it would be a time consuming venture and then it gets lost in the shuffle and no one comments - sorry - not worth it - but it's a good idea if someone else is interested enough to start a thread on petrified wood - i don't need to make the posts for myself to see

 

[Assyrian]

Creationists do not need geology to believe the Flood happened (the Word of God does that) but the sedimentary nature of the geology sure confirms what they already know as truth.

Unfortunately the geology doesn't confirm a global flood. there is nowhere in the geological strata that marks the beginning of the flood or the end of it, but through out the strata we find, not just dead animals, but signs of life, nests, roots, burrow, footprints, as well as soil formation and sand dunes which you would hardly get in the middle of a flood. The only alternative is as Raze does, deny the flood left any identifiable evidence. But then you really need to go for Old Earth Creationism to have time for natural processes before and after the flood to form the miles and miles of sedimentary strata. Or else claim God created all the rock complete with fossils.

Which leaves you with you first point, your reason to believe in the flood is because of the bible. But as I pointed out in post 42 (and you didn't really address), the bible doesn't tell us the the flood was global. You can certainly interpret the text that way, but the Hebrew fits a local flood just as well. Which is a problem if the only reason to believe in a global flood is the bible.