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

[Keachian]

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.

One thing I've learnt is that taking things back to the original languages doesn't mean anything to literalists.

 

[Assyrian]

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 erosional surface you have described between surviving pre flood strata and flood deposits, is a geological feature called an unconformity, which should be easily recognisable, and if there was a global flood would be found all around the world .

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

I thought the flood covered the highest mounts by 15 cubits? Anyway, once you have flood sediments lid down in any location, it means the flood has already covered that area and all the animals living there will have died. There is no way footprints, borrows and nests could be found in strata above that, because all the animals you need to create these footprints and nests are dead. It is only in strata laid down after the flood and in the uppermost flood stratum that you wee be able to see any signs of life.

Unfortunately we find these signs of life all through the geological column.

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

I agree. If there was a global flood, it should leave loads of evidence. The evidence isn't there. Sure we have the fossils, oil and sedimentary rock, but not deposited by a flood, because as we have seen life continued on through all the layers. Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, but since the flood would have left unmistakable evidence that we would have found if it existed, the geological evidence shows us there wasn't a global flood.

 

[Assyrian]

radiometric dating is full of unproveable assumptions!

You are not dealing with the fact that any assumptions are confirmed when independent dating methods come up with the same dates, as we have seen with continental drift and radiometric dating. If the assumptions were wrong, different mistaken dating methods should come up with different dates.

What about your assumptions, that continental drift moved much much faster in the past, that radioactive decay was much much faster in the past? How do you explain 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

Clearly the better model is one where the assumptions can be tested by different techniques that arrive at the same conclusion.

series of break-ups? - maybe or maybe not

So do you have any evidence for superfast continental drift?

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

It is creationists who keep calling them assumptions, so that in itself isn't evidence. Science of course is not about 'proof' it is about finding ways to test your ideas. The constant decay rate has been tested again and again by different methods of dating coming up with the same answers. We see it with continental drift rates fitting the dates we get from radiometric dating, with varves, tree rings and ice cores giving the same dates and fitting radiometric dating of volcanic eruptions whose ash is found in the varves and ice cores. Carbon dating depend on the levels of C14 in the atmosphere, which depends on solar activity, but the fact that it is still very close to the dates we get from varves and tree rings shows us not only that C14 in the atmosphere hasn't changed that much in that time, but that the rate of decay cannot have changed much either. The different radioisotopes used in radiometric dating decay by very different nuclear mechanisms. There is no reason for a change in the rate on one mechanism to be matched by changes in others, so different radiometric dating methods confirm each other too. Then we can look at decay rates in distant supernovae, and find the rates haven't changed in the millions of years it took for the light to reach earth.

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

Can your model explain why the rates match?

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

It is a fact that the rates match. It is a fact that two independent methods of dating giving the same result provide confirmation for each other.

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!!!

Perhaps if you could show they were untestable assumptions you might have a case, but they are testable and every test supports them.

 

[Orogeny]

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.

Quite reasonable.

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?

The number has been corrected. And yes, we agree.

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.

Indeed.

 

[Orogeny]

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

Fair enough. But I would like you to consider the bioherm question as one of the most important.

you haven't answered all of mine either

Please link me to the ones I've missed, and I will answer them as quickly as I can.

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

Do you have evidence to back this assumption?

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

But we don't see the bioherms only at convergent margins-- in fact, at the moment I can't think of a single example of a shallow-water bioherm found at a convergent margin, modern or ancient. Bioherms are much more common at passive margins.

But your assertion that the bioherms would be broken up and redeposited is not reasonable in the slightest. Are you telling me that the Capitan Reef

(yes, that entire mountain is a reef), was ripped up, hung around in the water column for a while, and was then deposited in it's current position? Really?
Of course, it wouldn't just be the reef, it would be the reef-derived basinal grainflows, the forereef talus pile, the reef itself, and all of the back-reef lagoonal sediments (which stretch for tens of kilometers behind the reef), that were ripped up as a single coherent block, floated around in the water column, and were then redeposited in their current position. Are you serious?

Here's a map showing the trend of the Capitan Reef complex, both in outcrop and in the subsurface:

Notice the scale. You're talking about a clast about 5000 square miles in size. That's 4 times bigger than Rhode Island!

Come on. I know you can do better.

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

Obviously you don't understand how hydraulic sorting works. In a high-energy environment, as you have described the flood to be, small, light objects (as well as objects with high surface area to weight ratios) stay suspended in the water column. This means things like trilobites, brachiopods, and members of the Ediacaran fauna, all small and light or with large surface area to weight ratios, should remain suspended (as should the fine-grained sediment we find them in), while big things (the bones of already-dead whales, for example, or large clasts) should sink to the bottom. We don't see this! Even if you'd like to say that some of the areas of the flood weren't violent, or the energy waxed and waned multiple times, we should still see upward- fining packages of sediment where large dead things (entombed in large clasts) are at the bottom and small dead things (with accompanying small clasts) are at the top-- and these don't have to represent primary deposition, they can just as easily represent piles of sediment reworked from calm-flood deposits by a more intense period of the flood. But we just don't see this. Hydraulic sorting kills your flood. Sorry.

 

[Orogeny]

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

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.

you want links so I gave you a link

And I destroyed it. Sorry.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Orogeny]

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

I'm sorry i missed these; i'll look for them this afternoon.

 

[Orogeny]

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

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? If the flood was such a tumultuous place, shouldn't the ash have been dispersed, rather than forming very nice, thin, coherent layers ? 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?

 

[razeontherock]

The only alternative is as Raze does, deny the flood left any identifiable evidence.

Leave me out of that one, ok? I never said that. I'm incredulous that you could ID a 1 year layer of sediment as being lifeless, yes.

 

[Assyrian]

Leave me out of that one, ok?

ok

 

[valkyree]

The erosional surface you have described between surviving pre flood strata and flood deposits, is a geological feature called an unconformity, which should be easily recognisable, and if there was a global flood would be found all around the world .

the flood was not one single swoosh wipe everything away event - it was a series of events - upheavals occurred and broke rock - sediment was created and deposited - some of it was then picked up again and reworked and redeposited - many unconformities would be created and this is what is found

I thought the flood covered the highest mounts by 15 cubits?

doesn't mean the mtns stay covered for the duration of the flood event
and they weren't necessarily as high as the Himalaya

in the young earth/global flood model there may not have been much if any pre-flood tectonics raising high mountains such as the Himalaya
in such a model there would be very little sediment in the pre-flood earth
and mountains would not be composed of huge roof pendants composed of ocean and land sediments pushed up by rising magma


the abundance of pre-flood terrestrial plant life and the huge animals that vegetation supported also suggests the pre-flood earth had a lower elevation of mountains as compared to the post-flood earth

Anyway, once you have flood sediments lid down in any location, it means the flood has already covered that area and all the animals living there will have died.

yes - for deeper ocean-areas - smaller bottom-dwelling sea critters would be tumbled about less and have greater likelihood of remaining intact and would be buried sooner and deeper

swimming sea creatures would escape these initial burials - some would later be buried - some would survive - they live in a very large body of water

land life would be swept away in the most violent floods and get the most tumbling and transport and be buried at shallower depths - these deposits would show greater mixing of species

this is what the fossil record shows!!




There is no way footprints, borrows and nests could be found in strata above that, because all the animals you need to create these footprints and nests are dead. It is only in strata laid down after the flood and in the uppermost flood stratum that you wee be able to see any signs of life.

Unfortunately we find these signs of life all through the geological column.


I agree. If there was a global flood, it should leave loads of evidence. The evidence isn't there. Sure we have the fossils, oil and sedimentary rock, but not deposited by a flood, because as we have seen life continued on through all the layers.

you are using the old-earth model when you say this and thinking in terms of slow deposition over millions of years

using the yec flood model all of the fossil record and all fossil fuels etc all represent a series of cataclysmic closely spaced events and in that model it represents tons of evidence for a global cataclysm

Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, but since the flood would have left unmistakable evidence that we would have found if it existed, the geological evidence shows us there wasn't a global flood.

using the old earth model that's correct

using the yec flood model there is tons of evidence

 

[valkyree]

You are not dealing with the fact that any assumptions are confirmed when independent dating methods come up with the same dates, as we have seen with continental drift and radiometric dating. If the assumptions were wrong, different mistaken dating methods should come up with different dates.

assuming constant decay rates for the spectrum of elements used in older date calculations gives consistently older ages across the board

if decay rates were faster in the past then all radiometric age dates are too old by the same amount

the dates would still have value for relative age dating in the yec model - this means the geological column in the yec/gf model represents the order of events of the global flood and related tectonic events and later events such as local floods at remnant lake sites

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

if they both happened slowly at the same rate and the calculations match --then if they both happened quickly at the same rate then why wouldn't they also match?

Clearly the better model is one where the assumptions can be tested by different techniques that arrive at the same conclusion.



.

when dealing w events of the past this will be a problem no matter what the model

 

[valkyree]

So do you have any evidence for superfast continental drift?

.

direct evidence? no

neither do the old earthers for assuming present rates of continental drift have been constant for millions or billions of years

neither side has direct proof of what happened in the past

the past events cannot be observed


indirect evidence? yes

there are two competing models

the entire body of evidence for both models is the indirect evidence for that model

you are probably more familiar w the body of evidence for the old earth model

until you familiarize yourself w the body of evidence for the competing model you cannot make your own judgement as to which model is the best

if there are two cars you like and you want to buy one of them - you need to test drive both of them


i cannot sum up the evidence of the yec/flood model in a few sentences and convince you of anything

 

[valkyree]

It is creationists who keep calling them assumptions, so that in itself isn't evidence. .

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:


K–Ar dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ....list of assumptions for K-Ar dating - not a creationist source


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.

2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.

3) The sample has remained in a closed system.

Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that they are almost immune to change. Most creationists have few qualms in accepting this first assumption.

Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem.
For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed. To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio. They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created. This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium. In fact, about 98% of "common" lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207,208) and only 2% non-radiogenic. 1,2,3,4,5,6

A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system. This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. And since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable.
For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time, leaching would take place. For Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially present would be "leached" out of the rock. Leaching can also cause uranium to be leached into rocks that have little or no uranium in them. Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. This is discussed in great detail by Dr. Snelling in his article on this subject. 4

Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the "original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data. That's because radiometric dating (with the exception of Carbon 14) is almost always performed on igneous rocks (i.e. those that were once in a molten state). Also because, when different substances are in a liquid state, something known as mixing almost always takes place: meaning that whenever a liquid (or molten) rock is erupted out of the earth, both the mother and daughter elements will be "mixed" together, thus making it virtually impossible to determine the time that an eruption took place.

Heat Contamination:
Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating is heat contamination. For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prarie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly. When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method. Their response was that the results:

"WOULD BE MEANINGLESS; it would indicate an age of millions of years BECAUSE HEAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE PETRIFICATION PROCESS." The Mysteries of Creation, by Dennis Petersen, p. 47.
​

Two well-documented examples of "heat contamination" are the 1800 and 1801 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes. Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This is documented in Table 1 below.

This also brings up an important question:

If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?

The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process. And since the only rocks which yield ages in excess of 100,000 years are of volcanic origin, this method of dating the earth is not based on science, but rather speculation and subjecting reasoning

 

[valkyree]

Perhaps if you could show they were untestable assumptions you might have a case, but they are testable and every test supports them.

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

see post 114

 

[valkyree]

But we don't see the bioherms only at convergent margins-- in fact, at the moment I can't think of a single example of a shallow-water bioherm found at a convergent margin, modern or ancient. Bioherms are much more common at passive margins.

But your assertion that the bioherms would be broken up and redeposited is not reasonable in the slightest. Are you telling me that the Capitan Reef

(yes, that entire mountain is a reef), was ripped up, hung around in the water column for a while, and was then deposited in it's current position? Really?
Of course, it wouldn't just be the reef, it would be the reef-derived basinal grainflows, the forereef talus pile, the reef itself, and all of the back-reef lagoonal sediments (which stretch for tens of kilometers behind the reef), that were ripped up as a single coherent block, floated around in the water column, and were then redeposited in their current position. Are you serious?

Here's a map showing the trend of the Capitan Reef complex, both in outcrop and in the subsurface:

Notice the scale.

You're talking about a clast about 5000 square miles in size.

That's 4 times bigger than Rhode Island!


Come on. I know you can do better.


.

you're right!!

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 ........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!!

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

slow earth processes of the old-earth model did not do this!!!!

 

[valkyree]

(yes, that entire mountain is a reef), was ripped up, hung around in the water column for a while, and was then deposited in it's current position? Really?
.

transported and deposited? ....doubtful even to a flood geologist

more likely uplifted in place from shallow seas - and erosion from receding flood waters removed surrounding rock

this explains much of the Colorado Plateau - places like Monument Valley

 

[valkyree]

Obviously you don't understand how hydraulic sorting works. In a high-energy environment, as you have described the flood to be, small, light objects (as well as objects with high surface area to weight ratios) stay suspended in the water column. This means things like trilobites, brachiopods, and members of the Ediacaran fauna, all small and light or with large surface area to weight ratios, should remain suspended (as should the fine-grained sediment we find them in), while big things (the bones of already-dead whales, for example, or large clasts) should sink to the bottom.

yes - but what if they are not dead yet!



We don't see this! Even if you'd like to say that some of the areas of the flood weren't violent, or the energy waxed and waned multiple times, we should still see upward- fining packages of sediment where large dead things (entombed in large clasts) are at the bottom and small dead things (with accompanying small clasts) are at the top-- and these don't have to represent primary deposition, they can just as easily represent piles of sediment reworked from calm-flood deposits by a more intense period of the flood. But we just don't see this. Hydraulic sorting kills your flood. Sorry.

gotta go out to breakfast but here's a rebuttal - i can't read it til i get back

Global Flood - In Six Days

snip.....
What is the alternative to this uniformitarian perspective? It is that a catastrophe, driven by processes in the earth's interior, progressively but quickly resurfaced the planet. An event of this type has recently been documented to have occurred on the earth's sister planet Venus [8]. This startling conclusion is based on high resolution mapping performed by the Magellan spacecraft in the early 1990's which revealed the vast majority of craters on Venus today to be in pristine condition and only 2.5% embayed by lava, while an episode of intense volcanism prior to the formation of the present craters has erased all earlier ones from the face of the planet. Since this resurfacing volcanic and tectonic activity has been minimal.
There is pervasive evidence for a similar catastrophe on our planet, driven by runaway subduction of the pre-catastrophe ocean floor into the earth's interior [9]. That such a process is theoretically possible has been at least acknowledged in the geophysics literature for almost 30 years [10]. A major consequence of this sort of event is progressive flooding of the continents and rapid mass extinction of all but a few percent of the species of life. The destruction of ecological habitats began with marine environments and progressively enveloped the terrestrial environments as well.

Evidence for such intense global catastrophism is apparent throughout the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and much of the Cenozoic portions of the geological record. Most biologists are aware of the abrupt appearance of most of the animal phyla in the lower Cambrian rocks. But most are unaware that the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary also represents a nearly global stratigraphic unconformity marked by intense catastrophism. In the Grand Canyon, as one example, the Tapeats Sandstone immediately above this boundary contains hydraulically transported boulders tens of feet in diameter [11].

That the catastrophe was global in extent is clear from the extreme horizontal extent and continuity of the continental sedimentary deposits. That there was a single large catastrophe and not many smaller ones with long gaps in between is implied by the lack of erosional channels, soil horizons, and dissolution structures at the interfaces between successive strata. The excellent exposures of the Paleozoic record in the Grand Canyon provide superb examples of the this vertical continuity with little or no physical evidence of time gaps between strata. Especially significant in this regard are the contacts between the Kaibab and Toroweap Formations, the Coconino and Hermit Formations, the Hermit and Esplanade Formations, and the Supai and Redwall Formations [12].

The ubiquitous presence of crossbeds in sandstones, and even limestones, in Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and even Cenozoic rocks is strong testimony for high energy water transport of these sediments. Studies of sandstones exposed in the Grand Canyon reveal crossbeds produced by high velocity water currents that generated sand waves tens of meters in height [13]. The crossbedded Coconino sandstone exposed in the Grand Canyon continues across Arizona and New Mexico into Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Kansas. It covers more than 200,000 square miles and has an estimated volume of 10,000 cubic miles. The crossbeds dip to the south and indicate that the sand came from the north. When one looks for a possible source for this sand to the north, none is readily apparent. A very distant source seems to be required.

The scale of the water catastrophe implied by such formations boggles the mind. Yet numerical calculation demonstrate that when significant areas of the continental surface are flooded, strong water currents with velocities of tens of meters per second spontaneously arise [14]. Such currents are analogous to planetary waves in the atmosphere and are driven by the earth's rotation.

This sort of dramatic global scale catastrophism documented in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and much of the Cenozoic sediments implies a distinctively different interpretation of the associated fossil record. Instead of representing an evolutionary sequence, the record reveals a successive destruction of ecological habitat in a global tectonic and hydrologic catastrophe. This understanding readily explains why Darwinian intermediate types are systematically absent from the geological record -- the fossil record documents a brief and intense global destruction of life and not a long evolutionary history! The types of plants and animals preserved as fossils were the forms of life that existed on the earth prior to the catastrophe. The long span of time and the intermediate forms of life that the evolutionist imagines in his mind are simply illusions. And the strong observational evidence for this catastrophe absolutely demands a radically revised time scale relative to that assumed by evolutionists....snip


tear it apart!

this is the guy who wrote it

Dr. John Baumgardner, working at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (New Mexico), has used supercomputers to model processes in the earth's mantle to show that tectonic plate movement could have occurred very rapidly, and “spontaneously.”12 This concept is known as catastrophic plate tectonics. At the time of writing, Baumgardner, a creation-scientist, is acknowledged as having developed the world's best 3-D super-computer model of plate tectonics.13

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html

 

[Assyrian]

the flood was not one single swoosh wipe everything away event - it was a series of events - upheavals occurred and broke rock - sediment was created and deposited - some of it was then picked up again and reworked and redeposited - many unconformities would be created and this is what is found

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.

doesn't mean the mtns stay covered for the duration of the flood event

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.

and they weren't necessarily as high as the Himalaya

in the young earth/global flood model there may not have been much if any pre-flood tectonics raising high mountains such as the Himalaya
in such a model there would be very little sediment in the pre-flood earth

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.

and mountains would not be composed of huge roof pendants composed of ocean and land sediments pushed up by rising magma

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.

the abundance of pre-flood terrestrial plant life and the huge animals that vegetation supported also suggests the pre-flood earth had a lower elevation of mountains as compared to the post-flood earth

Actually there is simply too much for one planet to support at one time.

Anyway, once you have flood sediments laid down in any location, it means the flood has already covered that area and all the animals living there will have died.

yes - for deeper ocean-areas - smaller bottom-dwelling sea critters would be tumbled about less and have greater likelihood of remaining intact and would be buried sooner and deeper

swimming sea creatures would escape these initial burials - some would later be buried - some would survive - they live in a very large body of water

land life would be swept away in the most violent floods and get the most tumbling and transport and be buried at shallower depths - these deposits would show greater mixing of species

this is what the fossil record shows!!

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.

I agree. If there was a global flood, it should leave loads of evidence. The evidence isn't there. Sure we have the fossils, oil and sedimentary rock, but not deposited by a flood, because as we have seen life continued on through all the layers.

you are using the old-earth model when you say this and thinking in terms of slow deposition over millions of years

using the yec flood model all of the fossil record and all fossil fuels etc all represent a series of cataclysmic closely spaced events and in that model it represents tons of evidence for a global cataclysm

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.

using the old earth model that's correct

using the yec flood model there is tons of evidence

Sure there is evidence you can make fit. It is the evidence that doesn't fit that is the problem.

assuming constant decay rates for the spectrum of elements used in older date calculations gives consistently older ages across the board

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? 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.

if decay rates were faster in the past then all radiometric age dates are too old by the same amount

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? 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?

the dates would still have value for relative age dating in the yec model - this means the geological column in the yec/gf model represents the order of events of the global flood and related tectonic events and later events such as local floods at remnant lake sites

So the rates of decay all changed in just a year?

if they both happened slowly at the same rate and the calculations match --then if they both happened quickly at the same rate then why wouldn't they also match?

THe question is why the rates match?

Clearly the better model is one where the assumptions can be tested by different techniques that arrive at the same conclusion.

when dealing w events of the past this will be a problem no matter what the model

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.

 

[razeontherock]

doesn't mean the mtns stay covered for the duration of the flood event
and they weren't necessarily as high as the Himalaya

Again, I'm not saying what happened, nor do I take any position on this. I'm glad it's not Salvific!

Regardless what you think about Enoch, inspired or not, authentic or written after 400 BC, he recounts what could be described as our planet changing drastically. Why would some Jew make this up in 398 BC?

OTOH, if over a period of hundreds of years earthquakes and volcanoes somehow "opened the fountains of the deep," all as part of God's Judgment ...

Christians shouldn't be ruling such a suggestion out, as beyond the realm of possibility. It would be nice if experts could consider this, and actually compare such things to physical reality. We don't really see that happening here. Or rather, when anyone does, they make themselves a laughingstock.

Hhmmm - who else did that?