Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

so in your view origin of the species is equated with monism and primitive darwinism? first of all monism and the book origin of the species are not the same thing. so your argument fails.

I never said they were. I never implied they were. Nor does the article. It said that both primitive Darwinism and monism were banned. It did not equate the two either.

 

[createdtoworship]

So? They are not flood sediments. Not only that we can show that they would have taken many millions of years to deposit.

And as I said Flood advocates cannot explain the fossil record.

I never said they were. I never implied they were. Nor does the article. It said that both primitive Darwinism and monism were banned. It did not equate the two either.

Didnt you just say in the last few posts that primitive darwinism was the book origin of species? and then saying something to the affect that " there is nothing more primitive than that"? referring do origin of species? how is it that you deny "saying they were?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are missing the point. a catastrophy happened in montana. as a result a geologist gave me north american paleographical maps. so while he could not refute the evidence, he attempted to show ancient oceans covering america. and in doing so proved my point nicely.

Wrong, he probably was not interested in wasting his time.

Far too many creationists are dishonest and do not even know what evidence is.

Yes, there may have been a catastrophe. Geology does not say that catastrophes never happen. They are the exception rather than the rule and that is what you would expect if deposition was mostly slow and steady. I did not say there are no flood sediments. I said that they are very rare, and if you did any geology you would find that out for yourself.

I would be hard pressed to say what percentage of sedimentary rocks could be flood sediments, but we can easily eliminate most of them. Shale is very well sorted fine clay. The deposition rates for shale is very slow and could not be from the flood. Bioclastic rocks usually show great evidence of growing slowly in place so we can eliminate limestones and dolomites. Well sorted sandstone is again not a flood sediment.

That would probably leave less than 1% of all deposits that could possibly be from a flood of some sort.

And then again you cannot explain the fossil record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didnt you just say in the last few posts that primitive darwinism was the book origin of species? and then saying something to the affect that " there is nothing more primitive than that"? referring do origin of species? how is it that you deny "saying they were?"

We are talking about two totally different subjects here.

What is our point exactly?

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong, he probably was not interested in wasting his time.

Far too many creationists are dishonest and do not even know what evidence is.

Yes, there may have been a catastrophe. Geology does not say that catastrophes never happen. They are the exception rather than the rule and that is what you would expect if deposition was mostly slow and steady. I did not say there are no flood sediments. I said that they are very rare, and if you did any geology you would find that out for yourself.

I would be hard pressed to say what percentage of sedimentary rocks could be flood sediments, but we can easily eliminate most of them. Shale is very well sorted fine clay. The deposition rates for shale is very slow and could not be from the flood. Bioclastic rocks usually show great evidence of growing slowly in place so we can eliminate limestones and dolomites. Well sorted sandstone is again not a flood sediment.

That would probably leave less than 1% of all deposits that could possibly be from a flood of some sort.

And then again you cannot explain the fossil record.

1 percent? please cite your sources.

here is the dinasaur graveyard

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 percent? please cite your sources.

here is the dinasaur graveyard

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I don't have a source, but here is a link for these numbers:



Geological Sciences 100

Shale is 46% of sedimentary rocks. It is not a flood sediment.

Limestone is 22% of sedimentary rocks. It is not a flood sediment.

Sandstone is roughly 32% of sedimentary rocks. If it is well sorted which over 90% of sandstones are it is not a flood sediment.


That leaves a very very small amount that may be flood sediments and those sediments would be separated by sediments that are not flood sediments. In other words you cannot point to a layer and claim it to be from the Flood.

There was no flood. If you want to claim one the burden of proof is now upon you. I don't think you can show any evidence for a flood.

 

[dad]

... sediments. Not only that we can show that they would have taken many millions of years to deposit....

Only by dumping your beliefs on them. No one can show anything is millions of years old. What would you try to use, the speed at which deposits make layers? Decay dating stuff in the sediment? Fossils? Gong.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't have a source, but here is a link for these numbers:



Geological Sciences 100

Shale is 46% of sedimentary rocks. It is not a flood sediment.

Limestone is 22% of sedimentary rocks. It is not a flood sediment.

Sandstone is roughly 32% of sedimentary rocks. If it is well sorted which over 90% of sandstones are it is not a flood sediment.


That leaves a very very small amount that may be flood sediments and those sediments would be separated by sediments that are not flood sediments. In other words you cannot point to a layer and claim it to be from the Flood.

There was no flood. If you want to claim one the burden of proof is now upon you. I don't think you can show any evidence for a flood.

how do you explain marine fossils in shale? (46%)

or nautiloids in limestone (22%)


shale is made basically by mud and moving water

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/sh...display-indiana-state-museum-october-2010.jpg

or nautiloids buried in vertical position not laying dow?

"Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event at a Hydrothermal Mound within the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona"[*]

Austin, Steven A., Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA 92071;
Wise, Kurt P., Bryan College, Dayton, TN 37321

Seventy-six nautiloids (Order Orthocerida) were located and measured at Nautiloid Canyon, a side canyon of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

The fossils occur in a 330m2 exposure within a single, massive bed of fine-grained dolomite at the top of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone. The consistent morphology, high fossil density, and near-normal size-frequency distribution of the fossils suggest a life, rather than death assemblage. Implosion evidence and non-random orientation data (n=71) are consistent with bodies being in the shells at the time of burial. Life assemblage and intact body evidence suggest that nautiloids were involved in a mass-kill event.

The fossil horizon is found on the flank of a broad domal structure which involves the uppermost Whitmore Wash Member and at least 20m of the increasingly cherty sediments of the Thunder Springs Member. The sediments above the fossil horizon exhibit high iron-to-aluminum ratios and a strong depletion in titanium, aluminum, and rare earth elements. Hydrothermal process is indicated by lithologic evidence (dolomite/chert boundary, geochemical signature, and structural mound) coincident with fossil evidence (rapid burial indicated by implosion, currents indicated by shell orientations, and mass-kill evidence).

We interpret the nautiloids as being killed in high-temperature, toxic water derived from a hydrothermal source. We then interpret the nautiloids as being transported in a sediment-charged current and deposited and rapidly buried upon a sloping depositional surface on the flank of a building hydrothermal mound."
above quote from
http://www.mandley.com/advdemo/mod12/adv12500.htm

 

[dad]

dad, you are not free.

I a forever free and will be in the state to come also! I am free indeed.

And I never whine. I do laugh at hypocrites that cannot back up their claims with evidence.

Mirror, meet the poster.

 

[dad]

Over five miles of water would have left evidence.

There is no evidence of such a flood.

In your dreams. You were told that high mountains were post flood. In the Cretaceous layer there is lots of chalk, and iridium. That could be evidence of a flood.

 

[dad]

Sea shells on top of mount everest.

Maybe. However since there were pre flood seas, and mountain uplift was likely after the flood, they could be anything.

 

[dad]

And I know of only two frauds in evolution. .

That shows how little you know!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only by dumping your beliefs on them. No one can show anything is millions of years old. What would you try to use, the speed at which deposits make layers? Decay dating stuff in the sediment? Fossils? Gong.

Gong on you. That is an incredibly foolish statement.

Of course we can demonstrate that it would take millions of years to deposit those sediments. Why would you make such an obviously false statement.

Meanwhile you cannot show how it could be done, even if your delusional state existed. And even if you could do that you could not explain the fossil record.

But I am open mined. Let's see your evidence.

I am waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe. However since there were pre flood seas, and mountain uplift was likely after the flood, they could be anything.

No, it wasn't. Again, we can show that. But since you made the claim they occurred after the fluddd let's see your evidence.

And remember without evidence you are defeated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That shows how little you know!

Even if you could name more I could name ten Christian frauds for everyone of your evolution frauds. People that were not fraudulent will cost you a penalty of ten Christian frauds that I do not have to show besides the ten you lose from your false fraud.

Again, your claim. Without evidence you are defeated.

 

[createdtoworship]

Gong on you. That is an incredibly foolish statement.

Of course we can demonstrate that it would take millions of years to deposit those sediments. Why would you make such an obviously false statement.

Meanwhile you cannot show how it could be done, even if your delusional state existed. And even if you could do that you could not explain the fossil record.

But I am open mined. Let's see your evidence.

I am waiting.

fossil evidence?

nautiloids?

duckbill dinasaurs?

(see my last posts)

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your dreams. You were told that high mountains were post flood. In the Cretaceous layer there is lots of chalk, and iridium. That could be evidence of a flood.

Wrong. The Cretaceous was roughly 65 million years ago or more.

Another fail brought to you be dad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

fossil evidence?

nautiloids?

duckbill dinasaurs?

(see my last posts)

Sorry, you have been debunked. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[dad]

Of course we can demonstrate that it would take millions of years to deposit those sediments.

Then do it in your own words, using any links for references.

Meanwhile you cannot show how it could be done, even if your delusional state existed.

Whats the problem?? Piece of cake.

And even if you could do that you could not explain the fossil record.

Already have done that. It is likely a very incomplete record of life in the former state because almost all animals and man could not likely fossilize! Once we could in this present state world, we see man a beast join the record. Piece of cake.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Question SZ: Would massive cosmic ray bombardment skew radio carbon dating?