Jump to content


Photo

Biofilms And Primary Soft Tissues In Dinosaur Fossils


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
58 replies to this topic

#21 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 October 2010 - 06:59 AM

The entire point of the article I posted is that some current scientists do believe that preserving proteins for millions of years is possible. Saying that "current science says that preserving proteins over millions of years is not possible" is not a correct statement, but instead a sweeping generality. Some hold this to be true, others do not. But it is a statement that creationists seem to be hanging onto so as to descredit the accepted ages of the dinosaur bones in the studies. So on which side of the debate are we seeing the most dogmatic attitude and reluctance to accept evidence as it is acquired?

View Post

It is quite funny that they completely rule out another very real possibility. That the tissue is there because of more recent burial.

How do the scientist explain this when they know that biomolecules are held together by weaker hydrogen bonds, not covalent bonds. This makes organic material so much more vulnerable to break down than crystalized minerals. ALso they undergo enzymatic break down immediately. I think it's amazing these tisses can last even thousands of years.

This is my question--why won't they do 14C measurements on them? Well, of course, because they the believe the geologic timescale is infallible. Why would you try to find 14C in fossils 65 m years old?

And isn't that why there is such strong motivation on both sides--because of old/young earth implications? Evolutionists have worked hard to "disprove" a young earth, and are very satisfied with the public relations, and legal job they've done to remove credibility from anything a creationist does or says.

But I would like to say that I believe before it's over, the word of God will be vindicated. Evolution is not the first thing to challenge it. It really is now, people just don't want to hear anything that doesn't jive with their theory. But has man in general ever belived anything that comes from God. Look at the Bible, and see how man's biggest problem is unbelief!

#22 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 31 October 2010 - 12:13 PM

So on which side of the debate are we seeing the most dogmatic attitude and reluctance to accept evidence as it is acquired?

View Post

What evidence? I have not seen any new studies that show organic materials lasting millions of years. (I could have missed it.)

#23 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 01 November 2010 - 05:02 AM

It is quite funny that they completely rule out another very real possibility.  That the tissue is there because of more recent burial. 

How do the scientist explain this when they know that biomolecules are held together by weaker hydrogen bonds, not covalent bonds.  This makes organic material so much more vulnerable to break down than crystalized minerals.  ALso they undergo enzymatic break down immediately.  I think it's amazing these tisses can last even thousands of years. 

This is my question--why won't they do 14C measurements on them?  Well, of course, because they the believe the geologic timescale is infallible.  Why would you try to find 14C in fossils 65 m years old?

And isn't that why there is such strong motivation on both sides--because of old/young earth implications?  Evolutionists have worked hard to "disprove" a young earth, and are very satisfied with the public relations, and legal  job they've done to remove credibility from anything a creationist does or says.

But I would like to say that I believe before it's over, the word of God will be vindicated.  Evolution is not the first thing to challenge it.  It really is now, people just don't want to hear anything that doesn't jive with their theory.  But has man in general ever belived anything that comes from God.  Look at the Bible, and see how man's biggest problem is unbelief!

View Post

I think it rather amazing that such material can be preserved as well.

Actually this study did not hinge on the absolute ages of the bones in question, so I would guess that would be a main reason for not conducting any age dates of their own. They presumably relied upon the dates given to these samples from other studies. You are quite correct that they probably did not take into account the possibility that the dinosaur bones were relatively young. I don't think they thought about the fallibility of geologic time in a general sense due to so much evidence being in support of it. I don't consider the fallibility either, as I have no doubts that it is correct within a range of certainty that still leaves the age of the planet as being very old and the age of the dinosaurs many millions of years ago.

Quite frankly the motivation of the scientists doing all of the studies on this "preservation" probably has nothing to do with a young earth / old earth debate. There is no debate anymore in the minds of most paleontologists. I am not citing this to say that the fact that most do not entertain a young earth possibility means that they are correct, I am saying that this is the current way they think. Most only think of YEC claims when reading something in the papers about school boards and the teaching controversies, or seeing a report on TV if they think about them at all. They have not bothered at all to work to "disprove" a young earth as the great majority simply except this as a fact and are concentrating on their own work. Very few are involved with PR or legal activities at all, whether it concerns YECs or not. But I have posted this before. YEC ideas really have no credibility in the scientific community in general and nobody thinks about them very often, if at all.

As you know, I don't think God has sided with the YEC position. I don't think the "word of God" has made a statement in favor or against the age of the earth (or evolution for that matter). I don't find the age of the earth as a challenge to God's actual word, or Christianity. I have belief in God. I wouldn't normally post such an explanation, and was staying with just the scientific aspects, but you have enlarged it to bring in a religious point of view.

#24 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 01 November 2010 - 05:09 AM

What evidence? I have not seen any new studies that show organic materials lasting millions of years. (I could have missed it.)

View Post


Dinosaur bones that appear to have preserved organic materials have been dated by means totally unrelated to this material as being millions of years old. Some palentologists working on such bone materials in experiments say the organic material appears to be young and not original, some say it appears to be primary material and therefore very old. One thing not in dispute, except by YECs who have done no relevent work at all in studies of this kind, is that the bones are millions of years old as shown by multiple lines of evidence.

#25 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 November 2010 - 06:48 AM

Quite frankly the motivation of the scientists doing all of the studies on this "preservation" probably has nothing to do with a young earth / old earth debate. There is no debate anymore in the minds of most paleontologists. I am not citing this to say that the fact that most do not entertain a young earth possibility means that they are correct, I am saying that this is the current way they think. Most only think of YEC claims when reading something in the papers about school boards and the teaching controversies, or seeing a report on TV if they think about them at all. They have not bothered at all to work to "disprove" a young earth as the great majority simply except this as a fact and are concentrating on their own work. Very few are involved with PR or legal activities at all, whether it concerns YECs or not. But I have posted this before. YEC ideas really have no credibility in the scientific community in general and nobody thinks about them very often, if at all.

View Post

That is true... I hadn't entertained YEC ideas at all and didn't know so many people did until recently. My materials on the subject of creation did not go into details about the age of the earth. They just said that both evolutionists and YEC were wrong. :lol:


Dinosaur bones that appear to have preserved organic materials have been dated by means totally unrelated to this material as being millions of years old. Some palentologists working on such bone materials in experiments say the organic material appears to be young and not original, some say it appears to be primary material and therefore very old. One thing not in dispute, except by YECs who have done no relevent work at all in studies of this kind, is that the bones are millions of years old as shown by multiple lines of evidence.

View Post

Oh I see. I think dating methods are bunk so I was looking for some other evidence. :rolleyes: It makes sense now, though, what they and you are saying.

#26 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 November 2010 - 09:17 PM

Dinosaur bones that appear to have preserved organic materials have been dated by means totally unrelated to this material as being millions of years old. Some palentologists working on such bone materials in experiments say the organic material appears to be young and not original, some say it appears to be primary material and therefore very old. One thing not in dispute, except by YECs who have done no relevent work at all in studies of this kind, is that the bones are millions of years old as shown by multiple lines of evidence.

View Post


You cannot test extremely old ages through half lives, or Radioactive decay, because even though have theories on how long it takes for the decay rate... there has never in the history of Nuclear Technology been proven accounts of rock solid evidence that the decay rates are correct.

Most of this is contained in theory, but we don't know for a fact what the true decay rates are... Especially over Millions of years, or even past 100 years. The only thing we can do is speculate. The only results you will get, are assumptions, and maybes.

#27 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 02 November 2010 - 03:47 AM

You cannot test extremely old ages through half lives, or Radioactive decay, because even though have theories on how long it takes for the decay rate... there has never in the history of Nuclear Technology been proven accounts of rock solid evidence that the decay rates are correct.

Most of this is contained in theory, but we don't know for a fact what the true decay rates are... Especially over Millions of years, or even past 100 years.  The only thing we can do is speculate.  The only results you will get, are assumptions, and maybes.

View Post


The theory of radioactive decay is solid in my opinion. It is true that an assumption must be made that the physics will remain the same through long periods of time, but why should it not? What a theory means in science has been exhaustively posted about in other threads, but the term does not mean "there is doubt" as you seem to be using it here in the context of your post. I think the decay rates that have been calculated are precise, the problem with the dating methods is getting un-contaminated samples and then doing accurate lab work.

But even if all the dates that have been obtained in all the measurements that have been taken for strata in which dinosaur bones have been fossilized have large error bars, which I think is very unlikely, dates in millions of years are still going to be the result.

#28 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 November 2010 - 08:34 AM

The theory of radioactive decay is solid in my opinion. It is true that an assumption must be made that the physics will remain the same through long periods of time, but why should it not? What a theory means in science has been exhaustively posted about in other threads, but the term does not mean "there is doubt" as you seem to be using it here in the context of your post. I think the decay rates that have been calculated are precise, the problem with the dating methods is getting un-contaminated samples and then doing accurate lab work.

But even if all the dates that have been obtained in all the measurements that have been taken for strata in which dinosaur bones have been fossilized have large error bars, which I think is very unlikely, dates in millions of years are still going to be the result.

View Post

http://www.icr.org/article/114/

"Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-Nuclear decay in zircon graphic.generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock."

There are many more RATE experiments, some of which I do not understand. :blink: :lol:

#29 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2010 - 08:25 PM

Actually this study did not hinge on the absolute ages of the bones in question, so I would guess that would be a main reason for not conducting any age dates of their own. They presumably relied upon the dates given to these samples from other studies. You are quite correct that they probably did not take into account the possibility that the dinosaur bones were relatively young. I don't think they thought about the fallibility of geologic time in a general sense due to so much evidence being in support of it. I don't consider the fallibility either, as I have no doubts that it is correct within a range of certainty that still leaves the age of the planet as being very old and the age of the dinosaurs many millions of years ago.

View Post

I have no doubt that on the surface anyway, there is no serious consideration that the bones are young. You yourself "have no doubts" about the timescale. This a state of mind--or the power, if you will, of your worldview. I can say the same thing myself. I have no doubts that the Biblical testimony of the flood is reality. Christ himself taught of it's truth, and took it for granted that it was truth, as well as creation's beginning from common ancestorS.


Quite frankly the motivation of the scientists doing all of the studies on this "preservation" probably has nothing to do with a young earth / old earth debate. There is no debate anymore in the minds of most paleontologists. I am not citing this to say that the fact that most do not entertain a young earth possibility means that they are correct, I am saying that this is the current way they think.

Yes, I agree. It is the way they think. And there is no suprise they do. They were drawn to science, and have been taught these things from their youths. The textbooks told them that for instance bacteria were incorporated into the cell and became the mitochondria. This is accepted, with no empirical support or possibility of experimentation, as with true operational science. On the contrary, the fact that mitochondria are encoded by the nuclear DNA would seem to argue against this. Yet this will belief will continue to be taught by public school textbooks.

YEC ideas really have no credibility in the scientific community in general and nobody thinks about them very often, if at all.

Not now, but possibly there are more YECs in science than you think. They are just not in the limelight, and they may not be writing papers, at least in a origins perspective. In my church, we have a retired MD, a chemical engineer, a former petrolem geologist, and two science teachers who are YEC. They think it is very important.

Your statement confirms that the science community has espoused naturalism, and now takes for granted that everything relevant to origins has natural explanation. Anything that would possibly include a cause outside of the natural is considered irrelevant. There would be no problem if there was no chance of the supernatural. The problem is there is plenty of evidence for it.

As you know, I don't think God has sided with the YEC position. I don't think the "word of God" has made a statement in favor or against the age of the earth (or evolution for that matter). I don't find the age of the earth as a challenge to God's actual word, or Christianity. I have belief in God. I wouldn't normally post such an explanation, and was staying with just the scientific aspects, but you have enlarged it to bring in a religious point of view.

It's not an issue of God siding, but what He did. Did he bring a worldwide flood as Genesis said, which was written by a man, Moses, who heard the direct voice of God, and was given the law? Or did he evolve everything by natural selection through millions of years? If the latter is truth, why would he bother with a story of the flood. How do you allegorize the flood, and nearly all creation dying. And how do you allegorize the rebirth of humanity through Noah and his sons? If this is an allegory, what is the interpretation? Then what IS literal in Genesis? Was Abraham, the Father of faith, and of Israel, a real person. Are the prohecies in Genesis not literal, or how do we know WHAT they mean, if it is all allegory?

#30 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 November 2010 - 04:42 AM

Geode: "Actually this study did not hinge on the absolute ages of the bones in question, so I would guess that would be a main reason for not conducting any age dates of their own. They presumably relied upon the dates given to these samples from other studies. You are quite correct that they probably did not take into account the possibility that the dinosaur bones were relatively young. I don't think they thought about the fallibility of geologic time in a general sense due to so much evidence being in support of it. I don't consider the fallibility either, as I have no doubts that it is correct within a range of certainty that still leaves the age of the planet as being very old and the age of the dinosaurs many millions of years ago."

I have no doubt that on the surface anyway, there is no serious consideration that the bones are young.  You yourself "have no doubts" about the timescale.  This a state of mind--or the power, if you will, of your worldview.  I can say the same thing myself.  I have no doubts that the Biblical testimony of the flood is reality.  Christ himself taught of it's truth, and took it for granted that it was truth, as well as creation's beginning from common ancestorS.


I have knowledge of the great antiquity of the earth from a long and pervasive study of many aspects of geology, including prime research that involved obtaining empirical data supporting what others have found in this regard. I don't consider this an opinion, but basically proven fact. I have faith in Christ and His teachings, but nothing that I can cite in the same way as my scientific knowledge. That is the nature of faith vesus scientific fact. I have the same passages as you do about what Christ said about The Flood, and there is no support of the YEC position to be found there in my opinion.

Geode: "Quite frankly the motivation of the scientists doing all of the studies on this "preservation" probably has nothing to do with a young earth / old earth debate. There is no debate anymore in the minds of most paleontologists. I am not citing this to say that the fact that most do not entertain a young earth possibility means that they are correct, I am saying that this is the current way they think."

Yes, I agree.  It is the way they think.  And there is no suprise they do.  They were drawn to science, and have been taught these things from their youths.  The textbooks told them that for instance bacteria were incorporated into the cell and became the mitochondria.  This is accepted, with no empirical support or possibility of experimentation,  as with true operational science.  On the contrary, the fact that mitochondria are encoded by the nuclear DNA would seem to argue against this.  Yet this will belief will continue to be taught by public school textbooks.


I suppose they have been taught about this hypothesis. It wasn't fully accepted as you state here when I took a biology class. But this is not my field and I have not followed how this is currently taught. I don't remember this being dogmatically accepted and placed in my textbook as the only possibility for the origin of mitochondria.

Geode: "YEC ideas really have no credibility in the scientific community in general and nobody thinks about them very often, if at all."

Not now,  but possibly there are more YECs in science than you think.  They are just not in the limelight, and they may not be writing papers, at least in a origins perspective.  In my church, we have a retired MD, a chemical engineer,  a former petrolem geologist, and two science teachers who are YEC.  They think it is very important.

Your statement confirms that the science community has espoused  naturalism, and now takes for granted that everything relevant to origins has natural explanation. Anything that would possibly include a cause outside of the natural is considered irrelevant.  There would be no problem if there was no chance of the supernatural.  The problem is there is plenty of evidence for it.


Actually I think there is precious little evidence for "the supernatural"...in terms of scientific research there really is none. As a Christian I accept some supernatural occurences, but I cannot supply any scientific evidence in support.

No, I doubt that there are really more YECs in science than I have been thinking. I allow for a percentage of such to exist especially in some regions of America. I have known a couple of petroleum geologists that were YECs. They had to use the accepted mainline geologic principles in their work as YEC geological ideas are useless in this profession. I find that a real disconnect in thinking. Traditional geology allows the finding of oil and gas yet in their spare time they thought it is all hooey and accepted flood geology to be a reality?

Geode: "As you know, I don't think God has sided with the YEC position. I don't think the "word of God" has made a statement in favor or against the age of the earth (or evolution for that matter). I don't find the age of the earth as a challenge to God's actual word, or Christianity. I have belief in God. I wouldn't normally post such an explanation, and was staying with just the scientific aspects, but you have enlarged it to bring in a religious point of view."

It's not an issue of God siding, but what He did.  Did he bring a worldwide flood as Genesis said, which was written by a man, Moses, who heard the direct voice of God, and was given the law?  Or did he evolve everything by natural selection through millions of years?  If the latter is truth, why would he bother with a story of the flood.  How do you allegorize the flood, and nearly all creation dying.  And how do you allegorize the rebirth of humanity through Noah and his sons?  If this is an allegory,  what is the interpretation?  Then what IS literal in Genesis?  Was Abraham, the Father of faith, and of Israel, a real person.  Are the prohecies in Genesis not literal, or how do we know WHAT they mean, if it is all allegory?


I didn't claim that the account in The Flood was all allegory. But here you are basically talking about religion again and not science from my point of view. If by taking a religious train of thought an interpretation of the Bible must be exacting and the only one that is possible, I fully realize the dilemma that arises when scientific data emerges that conflicts with such an interpretation. For the YECs taking this approach the scientific explanation must be wrong by definition, because it does not fit with their biblical interpretation. For some of us it is impossible to look past the reality of the evidence, so an interpretation of scripture that conflicts with such data must not be completely correct.

But you set forth the problem one might face in attempting to figure out what is allegory or what is literal in the Bible. YECs face a similar challange in evaluating scientific data. Which is acceptable as conforming to natural laws, and which must be the result of something supernatural and must be accomadated by what usually amounts to some form of the supernatural (special pleading)? In ICR papers and at AIG the current approach appears to try and invoke natural laws whenever possible. They just distort the interpretation of data in attempts to force-fit it all into what you are terming "naturalism." Some critics of "creation science" have asked whey they bother. Why not just accept that God uses upernatural means for everything, or at least commonly and whenever something defiies logic and be done with it....with no explanation that fits scientific laws then being necessary?

#31 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:10 AM

I have knowledge of the great antiquity of the earth from a long and pervasive study of many aspects of geology, including prime research that involved obtaining empirical data supporting what others have found in this regard. I don't consider this an opinion, but basically proven fact. I have faith in Christ and His teachings, but nothing that I can cite in the same way as my scientific knowledge. That is the nature of faith vesus scientific fact. I have the same passages as you do about what Christ said about The Flood, and there is no support of the YEC position to be found there in my opinion.
I suppose they have been taught about this hypothesis. It wasn't fully accepted as you state here when I took a biology class. But this is not my field and I have not followed how this is currently taught. I don't remember this being dogmatically accepted and placed in my textbook as the only possibility for the origin of mitochondria.
Actually I think there is precious little evidence for "the supernatural"...in terms of scientific research there really is none. As a Christian I accept some supernatural occurences, but I cannot supply any scientific evidence in support.

No, I doubt that there are really more YECs in science than I have been thinking. I allow for a percentage of such to exist especially in some regions of America.  I have known a couple of petroleum geologists that were YECs. They had to use the accepted mainline geologic principles in their work as YEC geological ideas are useless in this profession. I find that a real disconnect in thinking. Traditional geology allows the finding of oil and gas yet in their spare time they thought it is all hooey and accepted flood geology to be a reality?
I didn't claim that the account in The Flood was all allegory. But here you are basically talking about religion again and not science from my point of view. If by taking a religious train of thought an interpretation of the Bible must be exacting and the only one that is possible, I fully realize the dilemma that arises when scientific data emerges that conflicts with such an interpretation. For the YECs taking this approach the scientific explanation must be wrong by definition, because it does not fit with their biblical interpretation. For some of us it is impossible to look past the reality of the evidence, so an interpretation of scripture that conflicts with such data must not be completely correct.

But you set forth the problem one might face in attempting to figure out what is allegory or what is literal in the Bible. YECs face a similar challange in evaluating scientific data. Which is acceptable as conforming to natural laws, and which must be the result of something supernatural and must be accomadated by what usually amounts to some form of the supernatural (special pleading)? In ICR papers and at AIG the current approach appears to try and invoke natural laws whenever possible. They just distort the interpretation of data in attempts to force-fit it all into what you are terming "naturalism." Some critics of "creation science" have asked whey they bother. Why not just accept that God uses upernatural means for everything, or at least commonly and whenever something defiies logic and be done with it....with no explanation that fits scientific laws then being necessary?

View Post

Geode,
I believe you have faith in Christ, and that you have done alot of personal research in geology. I am more of a polymath. I have done research in molecular biology, some chemistry and biocchemistry, evolutionary biology, geology and mineralogy. My degree is is theology though, and I am a layman enthusiast in science.

So in geology I have a question to you as a geologist. I have driven through the hundreds of miles of limestone of Missouri many times on I-55, but later in my life now, as I have been studying more in science, I have begun to observe it's striking features. It is a ready made study, baecause there are many man made passes. I realize that limestone is explained in gradualist fashion by most scientists, and there is a huge model regarding continental transgression of the oceans. However, I believe limestone to be a most evident proof of a catastrophic flood.

The first reason is because I do not see how the stratigraphy of what I have seen reflects gradual processes. Please forgive me if I do not use all the correct geologic lingo--perhaps you can help me in this and I can then learn.

Striking feature #1 in the Missouri limestone is the many unfaulted folds throughout. Scientist usually explain this as a result of heat and pressure. However, the limestone is surficial, and it is called limestone at the St. Louis zoo, at one of their exhibits. It has signs of long sedimentary layering in many places where is not interrupted by "non layered" areas (I will get to that). So it is apparantly not a metamorphose.

One thing it does not look like is this: Marble
http://en.wikipedia....raldemarmol.JPG

My question is how did these long strata bend without breakage? If it took so long to form, why is it folded through so many strata identically. If it was slow sedimentary sedimentation I would be looking for some strata to be folded, and some not, as one looks from the bottom to the top of the strata sequence. However, this is not the case. It is an identical fold as though the strata folded together as a unit. And it happens many times. And what prevented it from faulting? If the underlying crust elevated or gave way (and there is evidence of crustal movement by long stata which are somewhat unlevel to horizontal), it seems the entire stratigraphic unit was plastic, and if it not metamorphose, then wet sediment laid in a close time proximity is the only alternative.

Striking feature #2 is the interruption in the strata by large areas of what appear to be non-stratified "glops." I call them "mud glops" (lol). They are very large, sometimes hundreds of feet long, and homogenous looking from top to bottom. There is no sign of stratified layering at all. It interupts the strata areas, and sometimes has short intervuls of horizontal strata within it. I never saw verticle or funny directions in the short peices of strata to indicate it was deposited within the "glop." It seemed to be an indication of more alternating in the deposits. How could this happen in a gradual way? It is many times juxtaposed to stratified limestone, and starts abruptly, as though it was "glopped" there. How do non-stratified and stratified alternate so obviously within the same passes in a slow and gradual process?

Striking feature #3 are huge natural limestone cliffs. These are not passes, but hills and cliffs on the surface. Some of these could be 200 feet high, maybe more. My only question is if there was erosion between the cliffs and the made passes, why did it not ALL erode away? Limestone is very soluable in water, hence limestone caves. SO why would groundwater erode some the limestone to produce modern pasture areas and then not erode these other areas? It would seem there would an impossible difference in erosion rates in a cliff area and an adjacent pasture area.

Striking feature #4 are current indicators. Some of these are hard to explain in words, but I saw several areas, where on the top of the pass, there seemed be "tubular" shaped formations cut horizontally through the rock. These had the smooth flowing erosional effects I have seen on the rock bedding of canyon streams in my hiking. These formations were not horizontal bedding though, they were like "half-caves. Smoothly rounded on one side and open along the length of the pass. As if someone had cut a cave in half along the length of the pass. These were no longer than 200 feet usually. But they were always at the top of the pass.

They were back away from the facing of the pass a little, so there were no drilling lines on them--they were natural formations.

I think limestone, if it can be shown to be catastrophic in nature--even one formation, would crumble the foundation of gradualism. Mainly because it is hard evidence of oceanic transgression on continental crust--even even old earthers know this. But I realize worldview is powerful, and all these things I observed can be put into a gradualist explanation, or as usual shelved with a wave of the hand "no-problem" attitude. However, if it is catastrophic, and one waves it away, this would be a false cornerstone in one's foundational worldview.

#32 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:34 AM

Why not just accept that God uses upernatural means for everything, or at least commonly and whenever something defiies logic and be done with it....with no explanation that fits scientific laws then being necessary?

View Post

I agree with this in some cases, but I really enjoy reading about evidence for the flood and find it faith strengthening. I also feel like evidence of the flood is not defying logic or stretching things.

I find their explanations for young starlight etc to be unnecessary, but I do find it interesting.

About "fossil fuels":

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=47675

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=38645

http://www.aapg.org/...v/abiogenic.cfm

creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form

creation.com/bubbles-of-surprise

www.creation.com/coal

#33 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:46 AM

Double post. Sorry

#34 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 November 2010 - 06:52 AM

I agree with this in some cases, but I really enjoy reading about evidence for the flood and find it faith strengthening. I also feel like evidence of the flood is not defying logic or stretching things.

I find their explanations for young starlight etc to be unnecessary, but I do find it interesting.

About "fossil fuels":

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=47675

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=38645

http://www.aapg.org/...v/abiogenic.cfm

creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form

creation.com/bubbles-of-surprise

www.creation.com/coal

View Post


It is well-known that methane can form in a multitude of ways. It has a very simple molecule. Most crude oils are very complex chains, and carry "biomarkers" which allow them to be tagged to the source material which is not inorganic. More and more of such geochemical work is being done and the results point against an abiogenic origin. Such hydrocarbons, at least shown by the evidence that has accumulated, are in minor amounts. Why are western oil companies sought after for their ability to find commercial accumulations? Because they follow tried and true methods that have brought about success, something that has not occurred using abiogenic theories.

#35 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 03 November 2010 - 07:18 AM

Geode,
I believe you have faith in Christ, and that you have done alot of personal research in geology.  I am more of a polymath.  I have done research in molecular biology, some chemistry and biocchemistry, evolutionary biology, geology and mineralogy.  My degree is is theology though, and I am a layman enthusiast in science. 

So in geology I have a question to you as a geologist.  I have driven through the hundreds of miles of limestone of Missouri many times on I-55, but later in my life now, as I have been studying more in science, I have begun to observe it's striking features.  It is a ready made study, baecause there are many man made passes.  I realize that limestone is explained in gradualist fashion by most scientists, and there is a huge model regarding continental transgression of the oceans. However, I believe limestone to be a most evident proof of a catastrophic flood.

The first reason is because I do not see how the stratigraphy of what I have seen reflects gradual processes.  Please forgive me if I do not use all the correct geologic lingo--perhaps you can help me in this and I can then learn. 

Striking figure #1 in the Missouri limestone is the many unfaulted folds throughout.  Scientist usually explain this as a result of heat and pressure.  However, the limestone is surficial, and it is called limestone at the St. Louis zoo, at one of their exhibits.  It has signs of long sedimentary layering in many places where is not interrupted by "non layered" areas (I will get to that).  So it is apparantly not a metamorphose.
 
One thing it does not look like is this:  Marble
http://en.wikipedia....raldemarmol.JPG

My question is how did these long strata bend without breakage?  If it took so long to form, why is it folded through so many strata identically.  If it was slow sedimentary sedimentation I would be looking for some strata to be folded, and some not, as one looks from the bottom to the top of the strata sequence.  However, this is not the case.  It is an identical fold as though the strata folded together as a unit.  And it happens many times.  ANd what prevented it from faulting.  If the underlying crust elvevated or gave way, it seems the entire stratigraphic unit was plastic, and if it not metamorphose, then wet sediment laid in a close time proximity is the only alternative.

Striking figure #2 is the interruption in the strata by large areas of what appear to be non-stratified "glops."  I call them "mud glops" (lol).  They are very large, sometimes hundreds of feet long, and homogenous looking from top to bottom.  There is no sign of stratified layering at all.  It interupts the strata areas, and sometimes has short intervuls of horizontal strata within it.  I never saw verticle or funny directions in the short peices of strata to indicate it was deposited within the "glop."  It seemed to be an indication of more alternating in the deposits.  How could this happen in a gradual way?  It is many times juxtaposed to stratified limestone, and starts abruptly, as though it was "glopped" there.  How do non-stratified and stratified alternate so obviously within the same passes in a slow and gradual process?

Striking figure #3 are huge natural limestone cliffs.  These are not passes, but hills and cliffs on the surface.  Some of these could be 200 feet high, maybe more.  My only question is if there was erosion between the cliffs and the made passes, why did it not ALL erode away?  Limestone is very soluable in water, hence limestone caves.  SO why would groundwater erode some the limestone to produce modern pasture areas and then not erode these other areas?  It would seem there would  an impossible difference in erosion rates in a cliff area and an adjacent pasture area.

Striking figure #4 are current indicators.  Some of these are hard to explain in words, but I saw several areas, where on the top of the pass, there seemed be "tubular" shaped formations cut horizontally through the rock. These had the smooth flowing erosional effects I have seen on the rock bedding of canyon streams in my hiking. These formations were not horizontal bedding though, they were like  "half-caves.  Smoothly rounded on one side and open along the length of the pass.  As if someone had cut a cave in half along the length of the pass.  These were no longer than  200  feet usually.  But they were always at the top of the pass.

They were back away from the facing of the pass a little, so there were no drilling lines on them--they were natural formations.

I think limestone, if it can be shown to be catastrophic in nature--even one formation, would crumble the foundation of gradualism.  Mainly because it is hard evidence of oceanic transgression on continental crust--even even old earthers  know this.  But I realize worldview is powerful, and all these things I observed can be put into a gradualist explanation, or as usual shelved with a wave of the hand "no-problem" attitude.  However, if it is catastrophic, and one waves it away, this would be a false cornerstone in one's foundational worldview.

View Post


I recently commented on folding in a different thread in a reply to one of your posts, and my answer would remain the same. I also commented on the metamorphism angle. I think it pertained to these same limestones.

I don't know what you are describing about "glops"...so I really don't know how to comment. However, later depositional events such as those involving rivers can erode into earlier stratified deposits causing contrasts such as you describe. I slso don't know what you are describing as tabular.

Carbonates are notorious for having quite a bit of variation in the same formation. The erosional differences creating hills can be due to variations in various parameters, and there can be structural considerations. Limestones are more easily dissolved when acidic waters can contact them, but straight rainwater can take a long time to erode limestone hills or outcrops. The fact that they are often cliff-forming shows that they are actually more resistant to erosion than the shales and sandstones that interbed with them.

One catastrophic limestone would be proof of just one catastrophic event. Mainline geologists are fully away that deposits recording catastrophic events exist. Limestones are not the only indication of "gradualism"....which really is not a term mainline geologist use anymore than mainline biologists call themselves "evolutionists"....limestones can form far faster than the straw man explanations of limestone I often see in creationist writings. Some rocks have been shown to form rather slowly, others quite quickly.

I'll bet detailed studies have been done on the rocks in question and some of the questions you have were also in the minds of the geologists who first set to work on the outcrops. There will be geologic maps you can purchase from the US Geological Survey that will show the rocks in the subsurface, and how they relate to the hills you observed. Figure out which quadrangle you need and buy one, the prices are reasonable. You can also buy a topographic map and relate it to the geologic map. You might be surprised to find what underlies the "meadows"

#36 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:52 AM

I recently commented on folding in a different thread in a reply to one of your posts, and my answer would remain the same. I also commented on the metamorphism angle. I think it pertained to these same limestones.

I don't know what you are describing about "glops"...so  I really don't know how to comment. However, later depositional events such as those involving rivers can erode into earlier stratified deposits causing contrasts such as you describe. I slso don't know what you are describing as tabular.

Carbonates are notorious for having quite a bit of variation in the same formation. The erosional differences creating hills can be due to variations in various parameters, and there can be structural considerations. Limestones are more easily dissolved when acidic waters can contact them, but straight rainwater can take a long time to erode limestone hills or outcrops. The fact that they are often cliff-forming shows that they are actually more resistant to erosion than the shales and sandstones that interbed with them.

One catastrophic limestone would be proof of just one catastrophic event. Mainline geologists are fully away that deposits recording catastrophic events exist. Limestones are not the only indication of "gradualism"....which really is not a term mainline geologist use anymore than mainline biologists call themselves "evolutionists"....limestones can form far faster than the straw man explanations of limestone I often see in creationist writings. Some rocks have been shown to form rather slowly, others quite quickly.

I'll bet detailed studies have been done on the rocks in question and some of the questions you have were also in the minds of the geologists who first set to work on the outcrops. There will be geologic maps you can purchase from the US Geological Survey that will show the rocks in the subsurface, and how they relate to the hills you observed. Figure out which quadrangle you need and buy one, the prices are reasonable. You can also buy a topographic map and relate it to the geologic map. You might be surprised to find what underlies the "meadows"

View Post

Thanks for the advice.

Sorry, but I must point out that you are being ambiguous. You said...

"One catastrophic limestone would be proof of just one catastrophic event. Mainline geologists are fully away that deposits recording catastrophic events exist."

Are you saying this in general, or for limestone--you're saying they believe some limestone can be formed quickly?

Then in the same post you say...

"Carbonates are notorious for having quite a bit of variation in the same formation."

Is this is an attempt to downplay my observations, because this is common? But this is not proof of deep time formation of limestone. You are using A to argue for B without proving A. By saying that variation like I have explained is common lends to my arguement that if one limestone could be shown to be catastrophic--it will have implications for other limestone--thereby decaying the foundation of deep time formation of limestone.

Most people that I have talked to understand that limestone is formed by the decay of coral reefs, forminefera, and other marine micro-organisms with calcite shells in calm marine environments. Can you give a certain MEASURABLE criteria for what is "slow" limestone, and what is "fast" limestone? If you can not, or if you do not believe limestone to be laid in a short time, please state this. Your statements in this area are a bit ambiguous.

__________________________________
I did not mean "tabular." The word is not mispelled--"tubular." In other words there are hollowed out formations on top of these passes about 10 to 12 feet in diameter. You view them lengh wise as they run along the tops of certain passes. As though a tube had been split lengthwise--why I called "half-caves." It is not hard to see these are smoothed out, as I said, compared to canyon stream bedding or smooth stones indicating current. They are quite different than the rough strata areas.

___________________________________
I don't know how to describe the "glops." Except they are plain with no signs of stratfication, or laminae. Some entire passes are this way. There must have been alot of rivers and streams because they are quite common. WHY would rivers, or HOW would rivers bring a single deposit of lime mud so frequently at the same elevation? Again, there is general explanation given--rivers--but no measurable criteria for the mechanics of HOW this happens.

One would think that if it was a river or stream there would the obvious outline of such, just as a glaciers leave U-shaped valleys. But there is nothing striking about the shape of these areas in the limestone. They have no pattern or hard outline as though this is a cross section of a river. Some are short, some are long, and they are not infrequent.

The suggestion of rivers is just that--not data. Yet this hypothesis would be thrown into a homogenous background of "data" to allow people to take geological "facts" for granted. To make these formations the way you say would require cutting through the limestone, followed by a single deposit of limemud which would either stop up the river or displace it. Or, if the deposit was gradual, why is there no layering--not even lamination. This gradual scenario does not make sense from a mechanical point of view.

#37 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 05 November 2010 - 06:34 AM

Sorry, but I must point out that you are being ambiguous. You said...

"One catastrophic limestone would be proof of just one catastrophic event. Mainline geologists are fully away that deposits recording catastrophic events exist."

Are you saying this in general, or for limestone--you're saying they believe some limestone can be formed quickly?

Then in the same post you say...

"Carbonates are notorious for having quite a bit of variation in the same formation."

Is this is an attempt to downplay my observations, because this is common? But this is not proof of deep time formation of limestone. You are using A to argue for B without proving A. By saying that variation like I have explained is common lends to my arguement that if one limestone could be shown to be catastrophic--it will have implications for other limestone--thereby decaying the foundation of deep time formation of limestone.

Most people that I have talked to understand that limestone is formed by the decay of coral reefs, forminefera, and other marine micro-organisms with calcite shells in calm marine environments. Can you give a certain MEASURABLE criteria for what is "slow" limestone, and what is "fast" limestone? If you can not, or if you do not believe limestone to be laid in a short time, please state this. Your statements in this area are a bit ambiguous. 


It was late and after a hard day at work. An analysis of what I posted:

One catastrophic limestone would be proof of just one catastrophic event. Mainline geologists are fully away that deposits recording catastrophic events exist. Limestones are not the only indication of "gradualism"....which really is not a term mainline geologist use anymore than mainline biologists call themselves "evolutionists"....limestones can form far faster than the straw man explanations of limestone I often see in creationist writings. Some rocks have been shown to form rather slowly, others quite quickly.


The first sentence can be said about any body of rock in my opinion, that finding one instance of a rock formed catastrophically cannot be used a proof that none formed gradually. I selected limestone because you had done so. The second sentence is meant to amplify on the first, that despite the straw man often used in creationist discussions, non-creationist geologists fully accept that some deposits are a record of what can be called a catastrophic event. Then I indicated in the next sentence that rocks other than limestones can form very slowly, and that some limestones do not. Then I said some rocks form slowly and others qucikly.

"Carbonates are notorious for having quite a bit of variation in the same formation."

Is this is an attempt to downplay my observations, because this is common? But this is not proof of deep time formation of limestone. You are using A to argue for B without proving A. By saying that variation like I have explained is common lends to my arguement that if one limestone could be shown to be catastrophic--it will have implications for other limestone--thereby decaying the foundation of deep time formation of limestone.

Most people that I have talked to understand that limestone is formed by the decay of coral reefs, forminefera, and other marine micro-organisms with calcite shells in calm marine environments. Can you give a certain MEASURABLE criteria for what is "slow" limestone, and what is "fast" limestone? If you can not, or if you do not believe limestone to be laid in a short time, please state this. Your statements in this area are a bit ambiguous. 


No, it was not attempt to downplay you observations, it was an attempt to answer your question about hills being eroded differentially.

What I said was not meant to be taken in context, so no, it was not attempt to downplay your observations, is was simply a comment about one of them.

Carbonates are notorious for having quite a bit of variation in the same formation. The erosional differences creating hills can be due to variations in various parameters, and there can be structural considerations. Limestones are more easily dissolved when acidic waters can contact them, but straight rainwater can take a long time to erode limestone hills or outcrops. The fact that they are often cliff-forming shows that they are actually more resistant to erosion than the shales and sandstones that interbed with them.


My comment had absolutely nothing to do with “deep time”….I was not making a case for it here. You made a list of observations. I commented upon them in separate paragraphs. Now parts of my paragraphs are being brought together with a claim that I am arguing an “A” and a “B” to come to some conclusion about "deep time" when the comments were not related.

Some of the fastest rates I think I have seen for limestones being created, in other than a bioclastic fashion, and in recent times and directly observed is on the order of 4mm a year, which in terms of limestone deposition is relatively fast.

Here is a reference about older deposits.

"Twenty centimeters (eight inches) of reef accreted or grew in a little over 50 years," Blanchon says. "We found that the first corals that grew in the new reef were up to 1.5 meters [five feet] tall, indicating that sea level had to be at least two meters [6.6 feet] higher than the older reef which grew up to three meters [10 feet] above present sea level."


This finding "is the first indication that ice sheet collapse caused a sea level jump during the last interglacial," Blanchon says. "If we can find back-stepping reefs during the last interglacial in [Western Australia and other areas], I think we will have a rock-solid case for ice sheet collapse and catastrophic sea level rise." Given the ongoing meltdown in Greenland and Antarctica, that may be a grim presentiment of our own predicament.


Catastrophic limestone

Not a huge thickness in 50 years, but it formed during an event that would have been castastrophic to coastal cities if they had existed.

I did not mean "tabular." The word is not mispelled--"tubular." In other words there are hollowed out formations on top of these passes about 10 to 12 feet in diameter. You view them lengh wise as they run along the tops of certain passes. As though a tube had been split lengthwise--why I called "half-caves." It is not hard to see these are smoothed out, as I said, compared to canyon stream bedding or smooth stones indicating current. They are quite different than the rough strata areas.


I’m sorry, I can’t visualize what you are attempting to describe here. “Tabular" is a geologic term, but "tubular" really is not. To me something that is tubular would be like a tube, but your description does not sound as if a tube is present. It sounds like a weathering feature, but I can’t tell from your description.

I don't know how to describe the "glops." Except they are plain with no signs of stratfication, or laminae. Some entire passes are this way. There must have been alot of rivers and streams because they are quite common. WHY would rivers, or HOW would rivers bring a single deposit of lime mud so frequently at the same elevation? Again, there is general explanation given--rivers--but no measurable criteria for the mechanics of HOW this happens.

One would think that if it was a river or stream there would the obvious outline of such, just as a glaciers leave U-shaped valleys. But there is nothing striking about the shape of these areas in the limestone. They have no pattern or hard outline as though this is a cross section of a river. Some are short, some are long, and they are not infrequent.

The suggestion of rivers is just that--not data. Yet this hypothesis would be thrown into a homogenous background of "data" to allow people to take geological "facts" for granted. To make these formations the way you say would require cutting through the limestone, followed by a single deposit of limemud which would either stop up the river or displace it. Or, if the deposit was gradual, why is there no layering--not even lamination. This gradual scenario does not make sense from a mechanical point of view.


You gave me a very vague description and I threw out a possibility that might create a variation in lithology within a limestone formation. But then you have decided to run with what I posted in response to your vague description that I couldn’t picture in my mind, with an attack upon my reply as if I was attempting an exacting geologic explanation or cause? Now you add that the feature you are describing is “limemud” which makes the cause being from a river a remote possibility. I assumed you meant fine silt or clay clastic material. That is more typical for something called "mud" ...but how do you know that it is lime? What is the difference in grain size? Is there in fact a difference in color? What is the characater of the laminations when the yare present? What is the thickess of a "glop"....did you see all these features in single outcrops or are you extrapolating?

You now say the feature is “frequent” and assume that I would know this from your last post. Using my one idea, thrown out there in regards to a mention of “glops” ....which sounds like something the Whammo company might have marketed (is the feature bright pink?) is hardly the basis to attack ”geologic facts” and say that data has not been given…and then seem to claim that you have given data. And who said such an occurrence as a deposit by a river would be all that gradual? Perhaps when a more adequate description of what is present is offered, a more adequate explanation can be tendered.

#38 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 05 November 2010 - 08:12 PM

that despite the straw man often used in creationist discussions, non-creationist geologists fully accept that some deposits are a record of what can be called a catastrophic event. Then I indicated in the next sentence that rocks other than limestones can form very slowly, and that some limestones do not. Then I said some rocks form slowly and others qucikly.

View Post

I guess my biggest gripe against those who disavow an historicl flood-- is that water contiually deposited sediment, whether you know the speed at which it happened. There is no doubt this happened whether you argue for Noah's flood, or for the geologic timescale--the fossil bearing strata bear witness to this. If you look at the layers of the Grand Canyon from the basement rock--you have fossils buried by sediment for thousands of feet. Either way, it defies imagination that the oceans trangressed and transgressed and transgressed. It was once low enough for stromalites to develope in shallow seas, but is now at it's current level.

From the first stromalite that was covered, to the last mammal. There was water and there was sediment. Where did this sediment come from?

The fact that the data of transgressing oceans just happens to match the situation referred to in scripture is rather noticable. I think the only reason people deny the flood is that it is just too hard to believe it could have a mechanism.

I'm on my laptop, and this security application won't let me quote. I'll have to finish on the desktop this weekend.

#39 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 07 November 2010 - 07:23 AM

I guess my biggest gripe against those who disavow an historicl flood-- is that water contiually deposited sediment, whether  you know the speed at which it happened.  There is no doubt this happened whether you argue for Noah's flood, or for the geologic timescale--the fossil bearing strata bear witness to this. If you look at the layers of the Grand Canyon from the basement rock--you have fossils buried by sediment for thousands of feet.  Either way, it defies imagination that the oceans trangressed and transgressed and transgressed.  It was once low enough for stromalites to develope in shallow seas, but is now at it's current level.

From the first stromalite that was covered, to the last mammal.  There was water and there was sediment.  Where did this sediment come from? 

The fact that the data of transgressing oceans just happens to match the situation referred to in scripture is rather noticable.  I think the only reason people deny the flood is that it is just too hard to believe it could have a mechanism.

I'm on my laptop, and this security application won't let me quote.  I'll have to finish on the desktop this weekend.

View Post


No, this is not a correct view of earth history and sedimenation in my opinion. There clearly has not been a continual deposition of sediment in any one place. Continual deposition is not shown in the Grand Canyon, which has classic unconformities within its outcrops. There were periods of time when nothing was being deposited in the section there.

It does not defy my imagination in the slightest that multiple transgressions have occured, I have seen the evidence for them plainly in the rocks I have studied. I have studied the electric logs and cores of hundreds of wells from the Gulf of Thailand and there is a clear record of repeated trasgressions and regressions as shown by the lithologies present as well as paleontology.

I don't understand your point about it being low enough for stromatolites to develop and now at "it's current level"....this is ambiguous to me. What does "it" refer to...stromatolites or shallow seas? Or is this another anti-tectonic statement?

Sediment comes from the process of erosion. The geologic record of sedimentation does not fit one world-wide flood. But I don't think that God or the authors of biblical accounts really intended to give us a full earth history. That is not the purpose of the Bible and I wish so many people were not so obsessed with trying to make it into such an account. Our focus should be upon God and the teachings we were given to lead spirtual lives as best we can, not wring our hands and worry over how some aspects of God's creation came to be.

#40 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 November 2010 - 08:30 AM

No, this is not a correct view of earth history and sedimenation in my opinion. There clearly has not been a continual deposition of sediment in any one place. Continual deposition is not shown in the Grand Canyon, which has classic unconformities within its outcrops. There were periods of time when nothing was being deposited in the section there.

View Post

You didn't understand my point. I am speaking nuetrally between the two views here by simplifying data--I'm not making final conclusions. I'm saying the sediment of the Grand Canyon obviously was not there at one point and now it is. The fossils from top to bottom show that deposition happened. I said no matter when, how, and at what speed you believe it to have taken place, water transgressed again and again. This happened in both models.

There are three kinds of original sedimentary rock with of course all kinds of diagenesis, and metamorphism, and mixing in the Canyon. These are randomly alternating limestone, shale, and sandstone. Limestone and shale are unarguably water deposition/sedimentation, and there is debate between aeolian and hydrolic processes in the sandstone. But until the higher layers of the Canyon you have marine fossils, so they are also water.

As far as the unconformities, that is another issue. I do not claim expertise in this, but I have read that mountains were once there and were eroded away. Seems a bit far fetched, and I don't know how you confirm something that's not there, but I have read this. I'm sure there are different hypotheses for the unconformities.

As you would probably figure, creationists would attribute this to giant lenses. In other words, the flood wouldn't have continually deposited a layer forever horizontally, because of the different catastrophes and changing topograpies that were in different areas.

Sorry, in a hurry. Will try to get back.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users