Jump to content


Photo

The Defeat Of Flood Geology By Flood Geology(?)

Flood Geology Young Earth

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

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:58 PM

That's one possible explanation for the layers. And that only explains the marine layers, the land based animals show no such consistency. You have amphibians first which fits in with your lowest-first theory, but then you have a small reptile layer followed by a large reptile layer followed by a large mammal layer followed by a small mammal layer. In these layers you have small mammals nearly right through these layers. I cannot think of any sedimentation model or rate of drowning model or rate of running up hills model that would explain the various categories found in relative (not complete) consistency in layers throughout the world. Maybe there is an explanation? Maybe the drowned little mammal fossils (shrews and rats) found with the drowned dinosaur fossils were slow runners and these dinosaurs were also slow runners. Yet the drowned little mammals in the large mammal layers were faster and only drowned when the hills were covered? Maybe, but they look like the same types to me, little shrews and rats throughout the layers, that for some reason drowned regularly, yet the little reptiles and large reptiles and large mammals drowned in sequence?? Do large mammal carcasses float for longer than large reptile carcasses? Maybe they do, I don't know, but why are the small mammal fossils everywhere except during the small reptile drownings?

There are other explanations for the marine layers, there was 1700 years of fossilisation in the oceans as sediments moved there before the flood. You find arthropods fossilised there in soils that show a high sulfuric content and low oxygen. It appears that when God created marine life, HE created arthropods where they would flourish, sulfuric and anoxic oceans, fish would have died in the earliest oceans. This is why you have a clear trilobite layer followed by a fish layer, trilobites flourished in oceans , fish did not. To explain why "sulfuric anoxic" sediments fossilised trilobites first is yet another challenge to the current flood model. A trilobite layer does not prove evolution, it just proves that the early oceans were sulfuric, fish must have lives in non-sulfuric patches, or in inland seas of which there were many before the flood.


But there is a bigger problem for long periods of time doing this. What mechanism that requires so much time that could sort the layers and the fossils just as we see? No one has been able to supply a mechanism or process that requires time to sort layers. I don;t know of anything concerning time that can sort layers and fossils besides the flood, do you?

#42 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:50 AM

But there is a bigger problem for long periods of time doing this. What mechanism that requires so much time that could sort the layers and the fossils just as we see? No one has been able to supply a mechanism or process that requires time to sort layers. I don;t know of anything concerning time that can sort layers and fossils besides the flood, do you?

I don't believe in long periods of time, I am a bible literalist and believe in the creation of biological life over 6 literal days, literally about 6000 years ago. Yes I do know of an alternative sorting mechaism other than the flood.

The sorting mechanism is rapidly changing environments during the 6000 year period through a number of catastrophic events before , during, and after the flood. I haven't studied this in detail yet, but I will give a brief summary:

1) Anoxic Sulfuric oceans cause a trilobite layer right at the beginning of creation.
2) At the same time dominant land animals are those conditions described as in the carboniferous period, mainly amphibians in low lying coastal wetlands and inland swamps. Huge insects , long-life spans, favourable atmospheric conditions, a highly moist environment. Small enclaves of larger reptiles and mammals are misunderstood as to be later by evolutionists, but some of these mammal fossils are actually pre-flood too.
3) Permian age is a misunderstanding of the great flood extinction and fossil deposits from a mainly "carboniferous" environment (flood sediments and fossils)
4) Post-flood conditions are dry and hot with high methane levels and anoxic oceans caused by the rotting vegetation. The methane adds to the global warming and sustains it. Animals suited to cold moist conditions all die off.
5) Reptiles fill the ecological gaps left by carboniferous "great dying" of the flood. Mammals exist but are rare in the hot conditions.
6) Reptiles grow to huge sizes because the methane "greenhouse effect" causes the atmosphere to grow to unprecedented air pressures, allowing for large animals and simultaneously encouraging easy flight conditions for a range of animals.
7) After centuries of lower post-flood vegetation, oxygen levels are continuously decreasing, making survival difficult for large reptiles (dinosaurs) which need the oxygen to breathe and to purify their systems from bacteria etc.
8) Mankind's life-spans start to drop off rapidly due to the lower oxygen levels.
9) There is a comet impact event that strikes earth and simultaneously millions of large dinosaurs die off due to slipped discs, broken backs.
10) This comet completely disrupts the atmosphere causing a sudden ice age as dust encompasses earth. Surviving dinosaurs already struggling with low oxygen die off in the cold.
11) Mammals proliferate, air pressures are still high, they grow to large sizes to fill the ecological gaps left behind by the dinosaurs.
12) Air pressures deteriate over time, the earth continuously losing atmosphere and oxygen, and these "mega-fauna" die off, leaving the current predominant smaller mammals.

That's the theory. Already some points of discussion have been mentioned in this thread, was there actually a cometary impact, what is the scientific evidence of changes to oxygen /co2 levels of each of these layers etc etc. I wouldn't like to debate each one of these points I listed above, because there are already so many incompleted discussions in this thread, I was just pointing out that there are alternative flood models to the current flood model.

#43 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 March 2012 - 06:02 AM

The sorting mechanism is rapidly changing environments during the 6000 year period through a number of catastrophic events before , during, and after the flood.


I really think we should start looking at individual places and see how far each individual layer stretches, because as far as I know, there isn't a deposit that stretches completely around the world.

"One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood geology." - Raup, David M. (University of Chicago, Ph.D. in Paleontology), "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, p. 289, (July 17, 1981).

I think we need to ditch this "mistaken notion" and start looking at the geology apart from the gelogic column or would that be naive? Is there any reason we should keep the geologic column? Has it made any accurate predictions? I'm genuinely wondering.

I haven't studied this in detail yet, but I will give a brief summary:

1) Anoxic Sulfuric oceans cause a trilobite layer right at the beginning of creation.


By "at the beginning of creation" do you mean a short amount of time after Adam sinned?

2) At the same time dominant land animals are those conditions described as in the carboniferous period, mainly amphibians in low lying coastal wetlands and inland swamps. Huge insects , long-life spans, favourable atmospheric conditions, a highly moist environment. Small enclaves of larger reptiles and mammals are misunderstood as to be later by evolutionists, but some of these mammal fossils are actually pre-flood too.


Do you know of any mammal fossils found in carboniferous rock? I know of some human footprints, but I'm wondering if there's more.

3) Permian age is a misunderstanding of the great flood extinction and fossil deposits from a mainly "carboniferous" environment (flood sediments and fossils)
4) Post-flood conditions are dry and hot with high methane levels and anoxic oceans caused by the rotting vegetation. The methane adds to the global warming and sustains it. Animals suited to cold moist conditions all die off.


I'm still wondering about the evidence for these environmental changes.

5) Reptiles fill the ecological gaps left by carboniferous "great dying" of the flood. Mammals exist but are rare in the hot conditions.
6) Reptiles grow to huge sizes because the methane "greenhouse effect" causes the atmosphere to grow to unprecedented air pressures, allowing for large animals and simultaneously encouraging easy flight conditions for a range of animals.


What kind of reptile do you believe evolved into the sauropods? They just seem so unique. Many dinosaurs do. Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and the duck-billed dinosaurs. How come we don't see dramatic changes like this today, even without the environmental pressures?

7) After centuries of lower post-flood vegetation, oxygen levels are continuously decreasing, making survival difficult for large reptiles (dinosaurs) which need the oxygen to breathe and to purify their systems from bacteria etc.


What about the evidence for living dinosaurs, marine reptiles and flying reptiles? Would you like to see some? Granted, they're probably not as big as their fossil counterparts, but they're still large in most cases.

8) Mankind's life-spans start to drop off rapidly due to the lower oxygen levels.
9) There is a comet impact event that strikes earth and simultaneously millions of large dinosaurs die off due to slipped discs, broken backs.
10) This comet completely disrupts the atmosphere causing a sudden ice age as dust encompasses earth. Surviving dinosaurs already struggling with low oxygen die off in the cold.
11) Mammals proliferate, air pressures are still high, they grow to large sizes to fill the ecological gaps left behind by the dinosaurs.
12) Air pressures deteriate over time, the earth continuously losing atmosphere and oxygen, and these "mega-fauna" die off, leaving the current predominant smaller mammals.


Not saying this is all impossible, but you mentioned that it was hard to imagine a lot of things going on during the flood. This seems like a lot of stuff to fit into 6,000 years. What do you think?

That's the theory. Already some points of discussion have been mentioned in this thread, was there actually a cometary impact, what is the scientific evidence of changes to oxygen /co2 levels of each of these layers etc etc. I wouldn't like to debate each one of these points I listed above, because there are already so many incompleted discussions in this thread, I was just pointing out that there are alternative flood models to the current flood model.


I just got to the bottom and read that you don't want to debate these points lol, but what I've said above is a lot of what I've already said anyway.

I respect that you're thinking outside of the box. It gets us all to think more critically about the history of the planet and the way the flood affected the earth. Iron sharpening iron.

#44 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:46 AM

I really think we should start looking at individual places and see how far each individual layer stretches, because as far as I know, there isn't a deposit that stretches completely around the world. "One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood geology." - Raup, David M. (University of Chicago, Ph.D. in Paleontology), "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, p. 289, (July 17, 1981). I think we need to ditch this "mistaken notion" and start looking at the geology apart from the gelogic column or would that be naive? Is there any reason we should keep the geologic column? Has it made any accurate predictions? I'm genuinely wondering. By "at the beginning of creation" do you mean a short amount of time after Adam sinned? Do you know of any mammal fossils found in carboniferous rock? I know of some human footprints, but I'm wondering if there's more. I'm still wondering about the evidence for these environmental changes. What kind of reptile do you believe evolved into the sauropods? They just seem so unique. Many dinosaurs do. Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and the duck-billed dinosaurs. How come we don't see dramatic changes like this today, even without the environmental pressures? What about the evidence for living dinosaurs, marine reptiles and flying reptiles? Would you like to see some? Granted, they're probably not as big as their fossil counterparts, but they're still large in most cases. Not saying this is all impossible, but you mentioned that it was hard to imagine a lot of things going on during the flood. This seems like a lot of stuff to fit into 6,000 years. What do you think? I just got to the bottom and read that you don't want to debate these points lol, but what I've said above is a lot of what I've already said anyway. I respect that you're thinking outside of the box. It gets us all to think more critically about the history of the planet and the way the flood affected the earth. Iron sharpening iron.


Thanks, I'm not trying to find the "middle ground" between the two views, I honestly am not comfortable with the current flood model and honestly agree with some of the conclusions of evolutionists despite evolution being an incorrect theory. I believe the geologic column is an accurate reflection of general conditions. If an evolutionist looked at today's fossils in 1000 years time he would conclude that 100 million years ago the world was filled with dry grassland mammals with limited jungles. Some of the little ecosystems and niches where reptiles dominate (Komodo) he would probably allocate to the Mesozoic era instead of the Cenozoic era because of his commitment to a worldwide consistent geologic column, and would therefore miss the obvious, that certain types proliferate but the rarer types often survive in an ecological niche, ready to dominate again if conditions change.

By the "beginning of creation - I mean about the time of Adam, at creation or soon afterwards. I believe in micro-evolution, sauropods evolved from smaller sauropods. They were on the ark and dominated when the dry post-flood conditions became wetter.

I like the idea that large reptiles are very recent, this would help to disprove evolution, but what is needed is carboniferous human and mammal fossils to give a real death-blow to evolution. I already believe the signs of dinosaurs and humans co-existing are significant, it would be great to find the same with the amphibians of the Permian.

6000 years is a lot longer than 1 year, yes I believe that ecological niches are rapidly filled. Imagine if kangaroo populations kept increasing until there was little vegetation left in southern Australia. They couldn't suddenly hop 2000 km to the jungles of the north and so huge populations were about to die off because there were no predators. Animals start dying, and some desperate kangaroos start nibbling on the carcasses. Some of them do not survive the meat, but because of variation a few had the stomach acids strong enough to handle meat. These scavenging kangaroos start to proliferate and after a few generations are more suited to meat eating because of natural selection and yet start to hunt because kangaroo populations have nearly died off and vegetation is starting to take a foothold again. these scavengers start picking on the small and helpless of the kangaroos but the scavengers with stronger shorter hindlegs do better because of acceleration. The ones with sharper teeth do better. As you have shown in the human skeletons, meat-eaters have stronger jaws, these meat eating kangaroos would have stronger jaws. They breed at probably 3 years old and so can micro-evolve rapidly. I see no restrictions on a fully micro-evolved Tasmanian Tiger developing from a kangaroo in less than 600 years over 200 generations. http://www.wired.com...al-family-tree/ Look at research done on what is actually post-flood Australian marsupial populations:

Maria Nilsson and her colleagues at Westfälische Wilhelms Universität Münster in Germany looked at similarities and differences in jumping genes in the seven main branches of marsupials. In the July PLoS Biology, the team presents a new marsupial family tree with slightly different familial relationships than other research had predicted. “It’s a different type of data, and it’s much cleaner [than fossil and genetic data],” says evolutionary biologist David Pollock of the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver, who was not involved with the research. According to the new tree, all Australian marsupials arose from a single South American ancestor. In addition, their data puts the gray, short-tailed South American opossum on the earliest branch of the marsupial tree.


This South American opossum had a genetic deviation of a certain type. ALL Australian marsupials have the same genetic deviation, which is a normal hereditary occurrence that all your descendents will retain the same genetic deviation that you have. This is not showing any sort of evolutionary improvement in the genome sequence , this study merely showed a common ancestor for Australian marsupials, indicating rapid micro-evolution of post-flood species to fill ecological gaps in a closed eco-system. Which just shows the fantastic flexibility that God gave his creation through variation and adaptation. Macro-evolution would be to show that a DNA sequence can grow by more than 9000 genes with your everage insect or animal. This means 9000 positive gene adding mutations would have to occur in each of 1 400 000 species before a complex organism can be evolved from a less complex organism. This is unlikely. Micro-evolution means that the genome sequence remains constant without the need for mutations and yet each genetic feature adapts to a new average across the new sub-species creating new look and new ecological functions for a sub-species that does retain the same genetic sequence.

#45 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:08 AM

Thanks, I'm not trying to find the "middle ground" between the two views, I honestly am not comfortable with the current flood model and honestly agree with some of the conclusions of evolutionists despite evolution being an incorrect theory.


Right, I wouldn't disagree with someone just because I don't agree with their entire worldview. I just try to distinguish between what is true and not true.

Concerning the current flood model, I'm sure there are many unexplained things and it needs some work, but could you check out the other topic I posted and let me know what you think of the evidence for the Tapeats to Kaibab being deposited by the flood? Also, would you have a problem with that based on different types of environments you may see in the layers?

I believe the geologic column is an accurate reflection of general conditions.


Why though? I don't doubt that maybe you can see particular environments, but the general order of the whole model is a "mental abstraction" based on the assumption that the anti-Scriptural history (cells to people) is true.

If an evolutionist looked at today's fossils in 1000 years time he would conclude that 100 million years ago the world was filled with dry grassland mammals with limited jungles. Some of the little ecosystems and niches where reptiles dominate (Komodo) he would probably allocate to the Mesozoic era instead of the Cenozoic era because of his commitment to a worldwide consistent geologic column, and would therefore miss the obvious, that certain types proliferate but the rarer types often survive in an ecological niche, ready to dominate again if conditions change.


Okay, right, so then you agree that the general order is arbitrary? That the strata either goes up or down on the column depending on the fossils they find in it.

By the "beginning of creation - I mean about the time of Adam, at creation or soon afterwards.


I was just wondering if you had them dieing before Adam sinned and brought death into existence.

I believe in micro-evolution, sauropods evolved from smaller sauropods. They were on the ark and dominated when the dry post-flood conditions became wetter.


I believe animals can change too, but I thought you were having "modern" looking reptiles or something change into sauropods, but I have no problem with sauropods changing into bigger sauropods.

I like the idea that large reptiles are very recent, this would help to disprove evolution,


One example of this is:

In 1925, this creature washed up on Moore's Beach in California:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Santa Cruz Judge W. R. Springer saw the creature and felt certain that it was a monster from a past age, "perhaps millions of years old", and he described it as having a long neck.[1][2]

Many reputable people examined and described the creature, but some have argued that it was just a whale and that the neck somehow got stretched out in the ocean.

E. L. Wallace of Santa Cruz (twice president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia) examined the creature and disagreed with the whale interpretation. He said:

"My examination of the monster was quite thorough. I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth. Its head is large and its neck fully twenty feet long. The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal. Again its tail is too weak for an animal of the deep and does away with that last version.

With a bill like it possesses, it must have lived on herbage and undoubtedly inhabited a swamp. I would call it a type of plesiosaurus."
[1][2]

Randall A. Reinstedt, author of Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters, reported:

"While such identifications were being printed in several bay area newspapers, the Santa Cruz Sentinel published an account of a "terrific battle" between a dozen or more sea lions and a monster fish that had been observed (near Santa Cruz's Houghton Beach - a few days before the Moore's Beach monster was discovered) by a Mr. E. J. Lear. As stated by Mr. Lear:

'I was driving a team toward Capitola (a neighboring Santa Cruz community) and suddenly I was attracted by some young sea lions not far out. They were lined up and several large lions were swimming back and forth in front of them. Much farther out I saw the water being churned to foam and thrown high up in the air, and then all of a sudden a big form shot into the air. It was shiny and I took it for a big fish. A dozen or more sea lions were battling it, and every once in a while all would raise out of the water. It looked to me as though all the sea lions were attacking it beneath as the monster came out of the water several times. In telling (of) the battle of that night I estimated its length at 30 feet.

The battle continued as long as I could see it from the road. I was driving toward Capitola with a load of sand. I have not seen the monster on the beach, but possibly it may have been that which I saw.'"
[3]

Skin Diver magazine, in their article about this creature, reported:

"During the 1930's and 40's such creatures were spotted many times by fishermen of Monterey's Sardine Fleet, with one account stating that it was witnessed by one boat's entire crew of 12 men. ... One such report described the creature as surfacing near a fishing boat and staring at the crew with 'large baleful eyes from a rounded head that topped a long slender neck that stuck out of the water a distance of eight or more feet.'"[2]

So, I think it was a marine reptile.

[1] Randall A. Reinstedt, Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters of California's Central Coast, (June 1975), p. 160.

[2] William C. Roberts, "California's Nessie," Skin Diver, (Nov. 1989).

[3] Ref. 1, p. 161-162.

but what is needed is carboniferous human and mammal fossils to give a real death-blow to evolution.


In a 1940 Scientific American article written by Albert Ingalls, he discussed fossil human footprints found in Carboniferous rocks.[1]

The footprints were found in Berea, Kentucky. W. G. Burroughs was the man who originally studied the tracks. He began his study of the tracks in 1930.[2] He was a geologist who founded the geology department and taught at Berea college. There is now a small museum named after him in the college.

Upon suggestion and discussion with Dr. Frank Thone (Science Service, an organization for the popularization of science associated with the Smithsonian) Burroughs gave the tracks the latin name "Phenanthropus mirabilis," which means "looks human; remarkable."[2]

In the Scientific American article, four photos are shown. When looking at them, it instantly becomes obvious that these pictures are of carved human footprints and you wonder what on earth Burroughs and Thone were thinking when they named them Phenanthropus mirabilis.

Posted Image

The fact that these pictures appear in the article discussing the human footprints, gives you the impression that these are the humans footprints being described, but they're not. The article says:

"On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints similar to those shown above, and from 5 to 10 inches long, have from time to time been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."[1] (emphasis mine)

The article states that ethnologist David I. Bushnell of the Smithsonian Institution, "examined a number of them." The article says:

"He [Bushnell] states that every one of them is unquestionably a carving made by the Indians. As they are always found near water, he suggests that the human foot was a symbol which some ancient Indian people associated with a watering place."

Ian Juby and David Willis went to the college in Berea to investigate the tracks.[2] They found a copy of the Scientific American article in Burroughs archives, complete with his comments on the bottom of the page.
Posted Image
Burroughs says that Bushnell never examined the Ky. fossil tracks or the ones in the article. So, here we see him making a distinction between the photos and the Ky. fossil tracks he examined, but he did seem to recognize the tracks pictured in the article.

David Willis obtained a Dr. Gilmore's correspondence from the Smithsonian.[3] In his correspondence with Gilmore, Burrough's sent a photograph of what he called "Indian carvings" he had examined about 30 miles away from the Berea track site. It would appear that somehow the photos that wound up in the Scientific American article were of the "Indian carvings" found some 30 miles from the fossil human footprints, which Burroughs had also visited at one point and had determined were Indian carvings (petroglyphs) not tracks.

A letter to Borroughs from Waldemar Kaempffert, Science Editor of the New York Times, read "Dear Sir: The footprints to which you refer in your letter of recent date are probably not human in origin. There is not the slightest fossil evidence that Man was known in this country back of the last Ice Age. Faithfully yours, (signature of Kaempffert)." (dated January 27, 1938. Burroughs noted he wrote back on January 31, 1938)

Burrough's response was probably the only time he wrote so emphatically: "They are P O S I T I V E L Y human footprints - brought to view thru erosion of millions of years." Burroughs invited Kaempffert to come see the tracks for himself, but it is unknown whether Kaempffert ever took him up on the offer.[2]

The tracks were found in a ledge of rock that was part of the Pottsville formation sandstone. This is one of the original photos of the site from Dr. Burrough's archives:

http://i44.tinypic.com/1zptlb4.jpg

The toes are oddly placed in these footprints. This is caused by the person habitually running barefoot. In fact, one person who had visited the tracks with Dr. Burroughs had placed his feet within the tracks and noted the remarkable match[2]:

"My own feet as you will recall, fitted in the tracks perfectly, even to the arches, the only exception being the wider toe spread in the track. During my years residence and travels in Far Eastern Oriental countries, I was a very close observer of the natives, their habits and customs. the foot tracks you discovered could well be those of barefoot natives of remote villages and jungle settlements or those of aboriginal tribes with whom I came in frequent contact, so near do they approach the formation of these prehistoric 'tracks'. Most cordially yours, A. Merle Hooper" (Private correspondence to Burroughs from A. Merle Hooper, October 18, 1938)

Both David Willis and Ian Juby obtained wax castings of the Berea tracks from the Berea college museum.[2] Here's a picture of a wax casting:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mmuxkx.jpg

There is displaced mud surrounding the prints. Burroughs pointed this out repeatedly in his correspondence. Burroughs and others who examined the tracks also pointed out that the grains of sand in the sandstone were more compacted under the tracks, and this compaction was visible under a magnifying glass. One of those persons was an artist and a sculptor by the name of Frank Loug (sp? The signature is difficult to read). Obviously Burroughs was seeking Loug's opinion as to whether these were carved tracks or not. Loug made an interesting observation to which he wrote in an undated, signed letter (transcribed exactly as written, spelling mistakes are in the original):

"It is my opinion as artist and sculptor and from careful examination with magnifying glass, the impressions in the stone at [the Finnell farm] was made by imprint pressure in the substance before this hardened into stone. There is no logical, artistic argument to sustain an opinion that those marks are carved, chiseled, or made by hand. In the first place the prints are scattered aimlessly over the rock with no apparrent design; secondly there are no tool marks visible; thirdly the prints so closely resemble those made by human feet in a soft substance that a manual production so faithful could be, not only, almost beyond human skill, but is inconceivable since an artistic motive for such work would be lacking.

I can testify that the sand grains within the tracks are in closer combination than those on the rest of the surface of the stone. They have many appearances of having been compressed by a weight pressure, as the stone surface bulges upwards and outward around the tracks. Then our track, half of which is visible on the surface of the stone, the other half concealed beneath the partly cracked away, overlying layer of newer stone would seem to disprove any argument that these marks were around. All of the marks present an appearance singularly like that of human tracks."
[2]

Loug brings up a significant point about a particular track which became exposed over time, of which the heal is only visible in this early photo:

Posted Image

This particular track is significant in that it was only exposed after Burroughs had started his research, and several eye witnesses signed a testimony documenting how this track became exposed after the overlying layer had eroded away. The letter reads:

"We, the undersigned, herewith go on record that we saw the following on the sandstone rock which bears the fossil tracks on the farm of Mr. O. Finnell, Rockcastle County, Ky.. At the end of the rock outcrop where one footprint is partially covered by Pottsville sandstone solid and in place, the Pottsville sand grains near this partially exposed track did not show foot-prints in the rock, until within the last few weeks. During these last few weeks sand grains have been gradually worn away due to people having walked on the rock and brushed the rock off, and rain water having washed over the rock, until now there are several imprints of toes and the front parts of the feet exposed to view. ....This is one of several additional proofs that the tracks are real tracks, such proofs being the uproll of the sandstone adjacent to each track where the sand was pushed upward by the pressure of the creature's foot, the closer texture of the sand within than outside the tracks due to pressure of the feet, the fact that two tracks are distinctly seen to pass beneath solid Pottsville sandstone in situ.

Yours very truly, signed, W.G. Burroughs, M.R. Burroughs, G. Pruitte Sentt(?), Mark H. Clark, W. A. Finnell.

June 28, 1939"
[2]

This is why the footprint count at the track site varies in the reports. Originally it was ten tracks, then eleven, then twelve. It's because other footprints were being exposed over time. The tracks are clearly not carvings.

Several of the tracks were in right-left pattern, enabling identification of the track maker as bipedal (walking on two legs).

Posted Image

Here's a picture of Ian Juby at the site today:

http://i40.tinypic.com/spuctd.jpg

Glen Kuban[3] and Talk.Origins[4] have not had a chance to visit the archives at the college in Berea and presumably do not know that there is compelling evidence for these specific tracks being genuine and not carved. So, they conclude that they are not genuine and show the Indian carvings from the Scientific American article.

[1] Albert G. Ingalls, "The Carboniferous Mystery," Scientific American 162:14, (1940).

[2] Ian Juby, "Special report #1: The strange fossil footprints of Berea, Kentucky," Ian's Creation Blog & Newsletters, (Feb. 18, 2012); http://ianjuby.org/newsletter/?p=525

[3] Glen J. Kuban, "Alleged Human Tracks in Carboniferous Rocks of Kentucky," Paleo.cc, (June 2005); http://paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm

[4] "Berea, Kentucky Carboniferous 'Footprints'" TalkOrigins.org; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/berea/

6000 years is a lot longer than 1 year, yes I believe that ecological niches are rapidly filled. Imagine if kangaroo populations kept increasing until there was little vegetation left in southern Australia. They couldn't suddenly hop 2000 km to the jungles of the north and so huge populations were about to die off because there were no predators. Animals start dying, and some desperate kangaroos start nibbling on the carcasses. Some of them do not survive the meat, but because of variation a few had the stomach acids strong enough to handle meat. These scavenging kangaroos start to proliferate and after a few generations are more suited to meat eating because of natural selection and yet start to hunt because kangaroo populations have nearly died off and vegetation is starting to take a foothold again. these scavengers start picking on the small and helpless of the kangaroos but the scavengers with stronger shorter hindlegs do better because of acceleration. The ones with sharper teeth do better. As you have shown in the human skeletons, meat-eaters have stronger jaws, these meat eating kangaroos would have stronger jaws. They breed at probably 3 years old and so can micro-evolve rapidly. I see no restrictions on a fully micro-evolved Tasmanian Tiger developing from a kangaroo in less than 600 years over 200 generations.


That sounds possible. The thylacine seems like it's part of the canine kind though. It seems more similar to canines, but you may be right.

http://www.wired.com...al-family-tree/ Look at research done on what is actually post-flood Australian marsupial populations:

This South American opossum had a genetic deviation of a certain type. ALL Australian marsupials have the same genetic deviation, which is a normal hereditary occurrence that all your descendents will retain the same genetic deviation that you have. This is not showing any sort of evolutionary improvement in the genome sequence , this study merely showed a common ancestor for Australian marsupials, indicating rapid micro-evolution of post-flood species.


Are you saying all of the marsupials had a common ancestor or am I misunderstanding you? You have placental moles and marsupial moles. It's more likely that they are the same kind of animal. I imagine that some animals went to Australia after the flood and for some reason (e.g., environmental pressures), they became marsupial varieties or maybe some already existed. I just don't think all of the marsupial creatures can be related. They have a marsupial mouse and saber-toothed "tiger". If those kind of changes are possible, we should have historical records describing such large-scale transformations.

#46 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:14 AM

That sounds pretty good. My only problem with the catastrophic plate tectonics is the heat problem. I still usually imagine the flood happening like that though, but it bothers me, because there's already enough heat going on with the accelerated decay.


When parts of the ocean floor moved 50M in the Japanese earthquake, this represented 5000 years of "continental drift" in a few hours. What heat problem? The only reason there was that particular type of devastating tsunami was the way in which the one plate lifted over the other , causing this general tilting of the ocean floor towards Japan resulting in this thick swell rather than a high tsunami. It is possible that the heat and effects of parting tectonic plates as with the Atlantic ridge would cause even less damage and even less heat than these colliding plates of Japan. I see no reason why seperating plates in the Atlantic would affect a Middle Eastern population in any manner, you could conceivably have regular movements of 500m or more under the deep ocean that do not cause any tsunamis or any noticeable heat effects.

What did you think of my explanation above? The rock correlation and how the majority of the column may just be subjective.


I enjoyed what you said there. I believe there is a logical reason why they have created a geological column , and that is because of the widespread consistency, however as you pointed out there is stratigraphic disorder (thanks for the new term, I'm still learning all of this) which fits in with creation and also fits in with current observation. Always there are the environmental norms and then environmental exceptions. Huge eco-systems and small self sufficient eco-systems and to conclude a definite geologic column from an observation of the more widespread eco-systems is a bit of an unfounded leap of logic.

#47 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:27 AM

When parts of the ocean floor moved 50M in the Japanese earthquake, this represented 5000 years of "continental drift" in a few hours.


Cool (not what happened to the Japanese), I didn't know that happened.

What heat problem?


Are you thinking of catastrophic plate tectonics in terms of Baumgardner's model? I think he even admits that the rapid movement of all the plates would generate too much heat and cook the earth.

The only reason there was that particular type of devastating tsunami was the way in which the one plate lifted over the other , causing this general tilting of the ocean floor towards Japan resulting in this thick swell rather than a high tsunami. It is possible that the heat and effects of parting tectonic plates as with the Atlantic ridge would cause even less damage and even less heat than these colliding plates of Japan. I see no reason why seperating plates in the Atlantic would affect a Middle Eastern population in any manner, you could conceivably have regular movements of 500m or more under the deep ocean that do not cause any tsunamis or any noticeable heat effects.


Hey, I hope you're right. I don't know much at all about plate tectonics. I just know that all of the skeptics criticize catastrophic plate tectonics because it would generate too much heat. Supporters of the model have accepted the criticisms and provided three solutions:
  • A rapid expansion of space would remove large amounts of heat. This could be either universal or local.
  • Based on M-theory a super cold extremely near parallel universe could serve as a heat sink.
  • A direct act of God.
Those seem a little far out, but who knows. Then there's the fact that this same problem exists for accelerated nuclear decay.

I enjoyed what you said there. I believe there is a logical reason why they have created a geological column , and that is because of the widespread consistency, however as you pointed out there is stratigraphic disorder (thanks for the new term, I'm still learning all of this) which fits in with creation and also fits in with current observation. Always there are the environmental norms and then environmental exceptions. Huge eco-systems and small self sufficient eco-systems and to conclude a definite geologic column from an observation of the more widespread eco-systems is a bit of an unfounded leap of logic.


Thank you and thanks for agreeing about the "unfounded leap of logic".

#48 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:09 PM

Are you thinking of catastrophic plate tectonics in terms of Baumgardner's model? I think he even admits that the rapid movement of all the plates would generate too much heat and cook the earth.



Hey, I hope you're right. I don't know much at all about plate tectonics. I just know that all of the skeptics criticize catastrophic plate tectonics because it would generate too much heat. Supporters of the model have accepted the criticisms and provided three solutions:

  • A rapid expansion of space would remove large amounts of heat. This could be either universal or local.
  • Based on M-theory a super cold extremely near parallel universe could serve as a heat sink.
  • A direct act of God.


Well the entire earth did increase in temperature by 8 degrees c during the P-T boundary. I don't see what mechanism would cause that heat if there are no clashing plates. ie like Japan where the Pacific ocean floor is sliding beneath the Japanese plate and also when plates are diverging like the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

#49 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:11 PM

Why though? I don't doubt that maybe you can see particular environments, but the general order of the whole model is a "mental abstraction" based on the assumption that the anti-Scriptural history (cells to people) is true.



Okay, right, so then you agree that the general order is arbitrary? That the strata either goes up or down on the column depending on the fossils they find in it.


Thanks for the information about the footprints , will record it for future use.

According to evolutionists, the Carboniferous/Permian periods are moist and conducive to life. The biblical pre-flood period was so moist it had no need for rain to nourish the earth. It was so conducive to life that humans lived to 900 years old. The Permian and the pre-flood periods end with a mass-dying event. You can see the signs of this flood in the P-T boundary from evidence brought forward by evolutionists themselves. Then archaelogical evidence shows the proliferation of dinosaurs during those earliest post-flood civilisations. So the bible and archeology confirm a moist environment, then a dinosaur layer, then modern fauna in just 6000 years. If evolutionists come up with the same sequence through their studies I think we should take note. This does not prove evolution, but a definite geological column of proliferation, a standardised fauna before the flood and after the flood would make no sense. If the planet never experienced rainfalls until the flood, this proves an atmospheric change at the flood. Changes in the geologic column confirm the bible.


That sounds possible. The thylacine seems like it's part of the canine kind though. It seems more similar to canines, but you may be right.



Are you saying all of the marsupials had a common ancestor or am I misunderstanding you? You have placental moles and marsupial moles. It's more likely that they are the same kind of animal. I imagine that some animals went to Australia after the flood and for some reason (e.g., environmental pressures), they became marsupial varieties or maybe some already existed. I just don't think all of the marsupial creatures can be related. They have a marsupial mouse and saber-toothed "tiger". If those kind of changes are possible, we should have historical records describing such large-scale transformations.


Yes I'm saying that all marsupials in Australia come from a common ancestor, due to them all showing the same precise rare genetic deviation. This is an argument for extremely rapid post-flood micro-evolution. The fact that the thylacine resembles a canine shows how well an animal can evolve to fill an ecological niche. The fact that the so-called pre-flood mega-kangaroos and post-flood smaller kangaroos are only found in Australia sort of defeats the later flood model argument, unless its just a co-incidence that the smaller kangaroos decided to migrate there from the ark , to the same place their large "cousins" used to inhabit. (the later flood model seems to be filled with improbables).

#50 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:41 PM

Well the entire earth did increase in temperature by 8 degrees c during the P-T boundary. I don't see what mechanism would cause that heat if there are no clashing plates. ie like Japan where the Pacific ocean floor is sliding beneath the Japanese plate and also when plates are diverging like the Mid-Atlantic ridge.


He probably has crashing plates forming mountains. I haven't even read that much into it yet. If you'd like to read more, you can find more information here:

http://creation.com/...plate-tectonics

Thanks for the information about the footprints , will record it for future use.


No problem.

According to evolutionists, the Carboniferous/Permian periods are moist and conducive to life.


Do you know what their evidence is for that?

The biblical pre-flood period was so moist it had no need for rain to nourish the earth.


I used to believe that also, but the Bible just says there was no rain before Adam was created. The Bible just refers to a time (with no people and rain) where there was a different watering system (the mist/springs/streams). So, a lot of people have said that it doesn't follow that rain did not occur at some point after Adam and before the flood.

"It can, however, be logically deduced with a very high degree of probability, if not certainty, that this condition did not persist till the Flood, i.e. that there would have been some rain before the Flood. Assuming that there were bodies of water of any size before the Flood, and that the basic laws of physics and chemistry were already in operation, evaporation over those 1600 years sufficient to produce clouds and at least some rain would have been inevitable."
http://creation.com/...-to-kent-H*vind (<-- replace the star with an 'o'. For some reason, H*vind get's censored.)

You can see the signs of this flood in the P-T boundary from evidence brought forward by evolutionists themselves.


Could you summarize the evidence?

I'm still skeptical of the way they've constructed the entire column. So, even if there was evidence of a particular environment in one particular layer of strata at one particular place, I'd still doubt that they can confidently say that a similar layer on the other side of the world belonged to the same age, because there can be similar environments at different periods of time. I'm sure there are very moist places on earth today, so if like you said, they were buried and 1000 years later, some geologist came along and saw this, wouldn't it be possible for him to conclude that these layers were from a period before the Permian, when they're not?

Then archaelogical evidence shows the proliferation of dinosaurs during those earliest post-flood civilisations.


I agree with that.

So the bible and archeology confirm a moist environment, then a dinosaur layer, then modern fauna in just 6000 years.


I don't see why the entire earth had to be moist. Dinosaurs could've lived in the moist areas while other animals lived elsewhere.

If evolutionists come up with the same sequence through their studies I think we should take note.


Could you point me in the direction of some papers so I can see why they come up with these conclusions?

a standardised fauna before the flood and after the flood would make no sense.


I would say that we have many of the same kinds of animals today that were buried in the flood. A lot have also gone extinct since they got off of the ark.

Changes in the geologic column confirm the bible.


"The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column." - "Geochronology," Encyclopedia Britannica, p.779, (1985).

That's what I'm trying to get at. There is no geologic column, because it's a mental abstraction. There are layers of strata around the earth and they get constructed into a theoretical stack of animals that succeed each other based on the belief that animals came into existence in a specific order at different periods of time (cells to people).

Yes I'm saying that all marsupials in Australia come from a common ancestor, due to them all showing the same precise rare genetic deviation.


I'm sure you've heard this argument before, but can't genetic similarities be due to God. I've heard that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas, 96% with mice, that horse DNA is more similar to bats than cow DNA.

"[Based on DNA similarity studies in the National Academy of Sciences,] bats seem to be more closely related to horses than cows are. ...

'I think this will be a surprise for many scientists,' says Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan. 'No one expected this.'"
- NewScientist, "Bats and horses get strangely chummy", (June 25, 2006); http://www.newscient...ly-chummy.html/

It may just have to do with the functions the creatures have to perform. I really think it's a stretch to say that this,

Posted Image

and this,

Posted Image

are related. We should be able to use artificial selection to get such drastic changes in animals. We keep doing that with dogs and none ever get as small as a mouse or as big as a giant kangaroo.

This is an argument for extremely rapid post-flood micro-evolution. The fact that the thylacine resembles a canine shows how well an animal can evolve to fill an ecological niche.


This still looks too much like a canine to me,
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

It seems like most of the corresponding marsupial and placental animals in this picture are the same kind of animal and that some kind of environmental pressure made them marsupial:

Posted Image

Or maybe I am underestimating the amount of change that animals can undergo.

I haven't read this yet, but I plan to. It's an article about marsupials from a creation perspective, if you're interested:

http://www.nwcreatio...marsupials.html

The fact that the so-called pre-flood mega-kangaroos and post-flood smaller kangaroos are only found in Australia sort of defeats the later flood model argument, unless its just a co-incidence that the smaller kangaroos decided to migrate there from the ark , to the same place their large "cousins" used to inhabit. (the later flood model seems to be filled with improbables).


How do we know the mega-kangaroos are pre-flood?

Haven't other marsupial fossils been found outside of Australia? If so, maybe it's just a coincidence that the mega-kangaroos were buried there.

If the fossils are exclusively in Australia, that would make me wonder if catastrophic plate tectonics even happened or that there ever was a single continent.

#51 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 March 2012 - 01:44 AM

I just found an interesting 2010 article by Michael Oard on the geologic column and how it relates to reality. I'm half way through it and it's pretty good, but here it is if you're interested:

http://creation.com/...j24_1_56-64.pdf

#52 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:50 AM

I used to believe that also, but the Bible just says there was no rain before Adam was created. The Bible just refers to a time (with no people and rain) where there was a different watering system (the mist/springs/streams). So, a lot of people have said that it doesn't follow that rain did not occur at some point after Adam and before the flood.


I don't want to get into too many side-issues, yes you could be right here. I was just pointing out that there is a chance that science opens our eyes to pre-flood conditions rather than being rejected outright. Evolution is incorrect, this does not mean that everything they studied regarding the layers and the conditions are incorrect.


I'm still skeptical of the way they've constructed the entire column. So, even if there was evidence of a particular environment in one particular layer of strata at one particular place, I'd still doubt that they can confidently say that a similar layer on the other side of the world belonged to the same age, because there can be similar environments at different periods of time. I'm sure there are very moist places on earth today, so if like you said, they were buried and 1000 years later, some geologist came along and saw this, wouldn't it be possible for him to conclude that these layers were from a period before the Permian, when they're not?

There exists a definite general trend of amhibians below small reptiles , below large reptiles, below mega-mammals , below modern mammals. There are some exceptions but the general trend is undeniably there. Which does not contradict the flood or the bible at all. I am putting together some research , I am working on it :)





Could you point me in the direction of some papers so I can see why they come up with these conclusions?

Working on it.




"The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column." - "Geochronology," Encyclopedia Britannica, p.779, (1985).

That's what I'm trying to get at. There is no geologic column, because it's a mental abstraction. There are layers of strata around the earth and they get constructed into a theoretical stack of animals that succeed each other based on the belief that animals came into existence in a specific order at different periods of time (cells to people).

Like I said, you nearly always find "carboniferous amphibians" below "Jurassic reptiles". The exceptions are few if any. Its only logical in a changing world that certain types would proliferate. Like I said, this doesn't prove evolution, there are exceptions to the rule that disprove the theory of evolution, but those exceptions do not disprove the gneral trend of the geologic column, they merely highlight that proliferation is widespread but not 100% domination, some rare types always co-exist with the proliferate types even if secluded in unique environments.



I'm sure you've heard this argument before, but can't genetic similarities be due to God. I've heard that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas, 96% with mice, that horse DNA is more similar to bats than cow DNA


Yes that's what I believe. I was referring to hereditary DNA mutations, but you are right that even hereditary DNA mutations can develop simultaneously in creatures with similar DNA, because the similarities between creatures can mean the same DNA weaknesses and proneness to mutation. Identical hereditary mutations across a few species but at the same place in the genome does not necessarily point to evolution but can also point to similarities in creation.It is strange however that all the Australian marsupials have this same genetic deviation and yet only one South American species has it.




It seems like most of the corresponding marsupial and placental animals in this picture are the same kind of animal and that some kind of environmental pressure made them marsupial:

Or maybe I am underestimating the amount of change that animals can undergo.


I think you are overestimating the changes, not underestimating them. To change from mammal to marsupial is a greater change than minor changes to some features like size and proportions and teeth shape.


I haven't read this yet, but I plan to. It's an article about marsupials from a creation perspective, if you're interested:

http://www.nwcreatio...marsupials.html

Maybe Noah took the marsupials to Australia because their mammal counterparts would have dominated elsewhere?

#53 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:11 AM

"[Based on DNA similarity studies in the National Academy of Sciences,] bats seem to be more closely related to horses than cows are. ...

'I think this will be a surprise for many scientists,' says Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan. 'No one expected this.'"
- NewScientist, "Bats and horses get strangely chummy", (June 25, 2006); http://www.newscient...ly-chummy.html/

It may just have to do with the functions the creatures have to perform. I really think it's a stretch to say that this,

Posted Image

and this,

Posted Image

are related.


What about this

Posted Image
Are related

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:56 AM

I'm still skeptical of the way they've constructed the entire column. So, even if there was evidence of a particular environment in one particular layer of strata at one particular place, I'd still doubt that they can confidently say that a similar layer on the other side of the world belonged to the same age,


"A team led by Colby College paleontologist Robert Gastaldo takes a different view. Gastaldo led students on six trips to South African locations purported to be home to evidence of the Permian extinction—specifically, a thin sedimentary layer separating the Permian period from the Triassic that followed it. But according to Gastaldo, that layer “couldn’t be traced more than about 100 meters laterally,” showing that it wasn’t a global event. “We spent days walking kilometers throughout the [sites] trying to trace it from every angle and couldn’t,” Gastaldo said.

Yet in other places, the team found the sedimentary layer eight meters below the Permian–Triassic boundary! Gastaldo’s conclusion? “Because the boundary event bed doesn’t occur at the same position in the rock record there can be no one, unique event.”

http://www.answersin...o-note-03072009


I don't think it's appropriate to call a 100 meter layer a global event. This only proves the evolutionists faith in biostratigraphy, which has been shown to be wrong in countless instances.



Enjoy.

#55 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:36 PM

What about this

Posted Image
Are related


Lol, I never noticed that, well they just have to find a smaller Tyrannosaurus with feathers and they've proved evolution again!

#56 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:12 AM

"A team led by Colby College paleontologist Robert Gastaldo takes a different view. Gastaldo led students on six trips to South African locations purported to be home to evidence of the Permian extinction—specifically, a thin sedimentary layer separating the Permian period from the Triassic that followed it. But according to Gastaldo, that layer “couldn’t be traced more than about 100 meters laterally,” showing that it wasn’t a global event. “We spent days walking kilometers throughout the [sites] trying to trace it from every angle and couldn’t,” Gastaldo said.

Yet in other places, the team found the sedimentary layer eight meters below the Permian–Triassic boundary! Gastaldo’s conclusion? “Because the boundary event bed doesn’t occur at the same position in the rock record there can be no one, unique event.”

http://www.answersin...o-note-03072009


I don't think it's appropriate to call a 100 meter layer a global event. This only proves the evolutionists faith in biostratigraphy, which has been shown to be wrong in countless instances.



Enjoy.


It doesn't appear that Gastaldo was disputing the Permian fossils being below the Triassic fossils. The only point he is querying is the nature of the boundary. And so Gastaldo didn't disprove the geologic column, he merely showed that the transition period seems to show no consistency. His actual observations fit in with all theories, sediments form more rapidly in certain areas and erode more rapidly in certain areas depending on currents and topography and therefore there are no consistent layers, to have consistent layers throughout the earth would be impossible. Nevertheless there is this general observation that Triassic reptiles are found above and not below Carboniferous amphibians with rare exceptions, and the South African layers confirm this. The nature of the Siberian Traps would require a worldwide effect, but this could easily wash away and not be found in certain areas. It seems that he did confirm the sparsely fossilised Dicodont layer as seperating the Permian and Early Triassic but incorrectly identifying it as a late Permian proliferator, instead of an early Triassic proliferator. Thus when he found a reptile layer (Triassic) below the "Permian" Dicodont layer this was an anomaly for him. To me his findings confirm that the dicodont proliferated first in the dry post-flood environment along with other reptiles, sometimes above them and sometimes below them because dicodonts and other reptiles were post-flood proliferators.

#57 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

I just found an interesting 2010 article by Michael Oard on the geologic column and how it relates to reality. I'm half way through it and it's pretty good, but here it is if you're interested:

http://creation.com/...j24_1_56-64.pdf


Very interesting stuff! Even though he comes to different conclusions I generally found that his observations fit in with what I am saying. The Paleozoic era is a jumble of fossils with no clear geological column. He explains it all as flood layers, I however explain most fossils as various eco-systems in a pre-flood flourishing world, and then the Permian age being the flood deposits of the flood at the end of the Carboniferous. There are therefore 2 coal layers on earth, the wetland Carboniferous coal deposits, which were massive pre-flood peat formations covered over by flood sediment, and the Permian coal deposits which were huge gatherings of flood debris that was crushed by sedimentation and turned into coal over the last 4300 years. No new coal developed from the Triassic upwards.


Michael Ord says:

These problems make it difficult to take seriously

the separation of the periods within the Paleozoic and

Mesozoic. The Paleozoic may simply represent mostly

marine deposition during the Flood. Trilobites buried at

nearly the same time are assigned from the Cambrian to the

Permian in the uniformitarian system. On the other hand, the

organisms of the Mesozoic are much different, and generally

above Paleozoic fossils where they are found vertically

superimposed. So, the order of the geological column seems

like a general sequence from a Flood depositional point of

view, but with lots of exceptions in the details.

You see how clearly he acknowledges at least one point about the geologic column: Paleozoic fossils are found below Mesozoic fossils.
That is why I put the flood there, between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic.



#58 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok, Thailand
  • Interests:Movies. music, science.
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:06 AM

I am new to topic of flood geology, and I am wondering what are the best books or papers on the subject? I just bought "Grand Canyon - Monument to Catastrophe" edited by Steven A. Austin. Friend at university told me this one good. Is it best? It seems more complete than some others.

#59 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:23 PM

I don't want to get into too many side-issues, yes you could be right here. I was just pointing out that there is a chance that science opens our eyes to pre-flood conditions rather than being rejected outright.


I just thought that they made a good point about the water cycle.

Evolution is incorrect, this does not mean that everything they studied regarding the layers and the conditions are incorrect.


I never said that. I don't even really object to using the word evolution to describe changes within the different kinds (baramin) of animals that God made.

Like I said, you nearly always find "carboniferous amphibians" below "Jurassic reptiles". The exceptions are few if any. Its only logical in a changing world that certain types would proliferate.


I don't have a problem with that. I just can't accept that reptiles or mammals came into existence at a different time period than the amphibians (not that you're saying that). How would you explain the absence of dinosaur fossils in the carboniferous? That's not really a good argument on my part though, because most of the fossils are marine invertebrates and as you said, they would live in secluded environments, so it would be very rare to find something like that. You may have something, but I also think that the flood can explain their distribution in the strata. Dinosaurs and reptiles would probably live on higher ground than the amphibians and be buried later. What are your problems with that theory?

It is strange however that all the Australian marsupials have this same genetic deviation and yet only one South American species has it.


Are there more marsupials other than the one in South America? Does the Possum have this genetic deviation?

I think you are overestimating the changes, not underestimating them. To change from mammal to marsupial is a greater change than minor changes to some features like size and proportions and teeth shape.


I look at the basic overall structure of a creature. The animals seem to come in categories or types. By their "design", Mammoths, mastodons, elephants, and others all seem to be the same kind of animal. The same for canines, felines, penguins, etc. I feel like those are where the limits are. Then it seems like a lot of change can occur within those barriers, like changing in to a marsupial, but they'll still have that original "design" and "look" of the original type. Why would it be difficult for those changes to happen?

Maybe Noah took the marsupials to Australia because their mammal counterparts would have dominated elsewhere?


I don't know. It seems like Noah and his family would have stayed in the mountains for a while before his family headed down to build Babel. By that time, I think the animals would have gone on their way. It could be possible that some one brought them to Australia later. I still imagine certain animals heading down to Australia and becoming marsupials for some unknown reason (I'm thinking that it has something to do with the environment).

What about this

Posted Image
Are related


Well, I'll buy that one. I can hardly tell them apart. Chickenosaurus rex.

"A team led by Colby College paleontologist Robert Gastaldo takes a different view. Gastaldo led students on six trips to South African locations purported to be home to evidence of the Permian extinction—specifically, a thin sedimentary layer separating the Permian period from the Triassic that followed it. But according to Gastaldo, that layer “couldn’t be traced more than about 100 meters laterally,” showing that it wasn’t a global event. “We spent days walking kilometers throughout the [sites] trying to trace it from every angle and couldn’t,” Gastaldo said.

Yet in other places, the team found the sedimentary layer eight meters below the Permian–Triassic boundary! Gastaldo’s conclusion? “Because the boundary event bed doesn’t occur at the same position in the rock record there can be no one, unique event.”

http://www.answersin...o-note-03072009

I don't think it's appropriate to call a 100 meter layer a global event. This only proves the evolutionists faith in biostratigraphy, which has been shown to be wrong in countless instances.

Enjoy.


Thanks for that.

Very interesting stuff! Even though he comes to different conclusions I generally found that his observations fit in with what I am saying. The Paleozoic era is a jumble of fossils with no clear geological column. He explains it all as flood layers, I however explain most fossils as various eco-systems in a pre-flood flourishing world, and then the Permian age being the flood deposits of the flood at the end of the Carboniferous.


I'm glad you liked it.

What mechanism would produce all that sediment before and after the flood though? That's one of my problems with what you're saying. I am assuming a form of uniformitarianism though I guess, so the problem could be with me.

There are therefore 2 coal layers on earth, the wetland Carboniferous coal deposits, which were massive pre-flood peat formations covered over by flood sediment, and the Permian coal deposits which were huge gatherings of flood debris that was crushed by sedimentation and turned into coal over the last 4300 years. No new coal developed from the Triassic upwards.


If the flood did deposit the Carboniferous, couldn't it have formed the coal in the same way it was formed in the Permian?

Michael Ord says:


These problems make it difficult to take seriously

the separation of the periods within the Paleozoic and

Mesozoic. The Paleozoic may simply represent mostly

marine deposition during the Flood. Trilobites buried at

nearly the same time are assigned from the Cambrian to the

Permian in the uniformitarian system. On the other hand, the

organisms of the Mesozoic are much different, and generally

above Paleozoic fossils where they are found vertically

superimposed. So, the order of the geological column seems

like a general sequence from a Flood depositional point of

view, but with lots of exceptions in the details.

You see how clearly he acknowledges at least one point about the geologic column: Paleozoic fossils are found below Mesozoic fossils.
That is why I put the flood there, between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic.



After reading the article, I agree that the Paleozoic is under the Mesozoic, but I'm still skeptical about the order of the periods in them.

I am new to topic of flood geology, and I am wondering what are the best books or papers on the subject? I just bought "Grand Canyon - Monument to Catastrophe" edited by Steven A. Austin. Friend at university told me this one good. Is it best? It seems more complete than some others.


The only book I've bought so far is The Genesis Flood, but that might be out of date. I've gotten most of my information from online article.

http://creation.com/...ons-and-answers
http://www.answersin...geology-fossils
http://biblicalgeology.net/

Hope these links help.

#60 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 09 March 2012 - 12:16 AM

I never said that. I don't even really object to using the word evolution to describe changes within the different kinds (baramin) of animals that God made.


Sorry I just get the impression that many creationists throw out a lot of legitimate studies of evolutionists due to those studies contradicting the current flood model, and in this way lose out on a lot of truths about the past that are being discovered by interested scientists.


I don't have a problem with that. I just can't accept that reptiles or mammals came into existence at a different time period than the amphibians (not that you're saying that). How would you explain the absence of dinosaur fossils in the carboniferous? That's not really a good argument on my part though, because most of the fossils are marine invertebrates and as you said, they would live in secluded environments, so it would be very rare to find something like that. You may have something, but I also think that the flood can explain their distribution in the strata. Dinosaurs and reptiles would probably live on higher ground than the amphibians and be buried later. What are your problems with that theory?

I'm just talking about proliferation. The Carboniferous was dominated by large coastal wetlands and large inland flood-plains and shallow seas. These wetlands by their very nature easily fossilised wetland fauna/flora. Those dryland animals were in rarer enclaves or secluded islands, their environment was less conducive to fossilisation, and their environments were also rare in a wetlands world. If their rare fossils are discovered the obvious evolutionist interpretation is that they are Cenozoic because their whole environment was Cenozoic, grasslands did not exist in the Paleozoic era according to evolutionists, grass hadn't evolved yet. And so mammals and dinosaurs and grass existed simultaneously in the Paleozoic era but not in sufficient numbers to be fossilised and also with misunderstood fossils because of evolutionary assumptions.

I've got no problem with your explanation of the "order of drowning" during the flood, however dinosaurs are not swamp animals, they should be among the large mammals. My problem is with the dinosaur/mammal order, not with the amphibian/mammal drowning order.

Are there more marsupials other than the one in South America? Does the Possum have this genetic deviation?


Yes there are many marsupials in South America. All the marsupials in Australia and the one marsupial in South America have that genetic deviation.

I look at the basic overall structure of a creature. The animals seem to come in categories or types. By their "design", Mammoths, mastodons, elephants, and others all seem to be the same kind of animal. The same for canines, felines, penguins, etc. I feel like those are where the limits are. Then it seems like a lot of change can occur within those barriers, like changing in to a marsupial, but they'll still have that original "design" and "look" of the original type. Why would it be difficult for those changes to happen?

My logic says its easier for a vegetarian to handle meat and evolve different backlegs and stripes than to evolve a pouch and change its reproductive habits. I could be wrong, just speculating, and I'm willing to concede this entire point about the marsupials, its very possible for different organisms to develop the same genetic deviations because of the similarities in the created genome structure between different species. Because out DNA is created so similar to monkeys, we do find similar strings of genetic deviations in both, its just the nature of the fall that DNA deviates and similar creatures will exhibit similar problems.



I'm glad you liked it.

What mechanism would produce all that sediment before and after the flood though? That's one of my problems with what you're saying. I am assuming a form of uniformitarianism though I guess, so the problem could be with me.

Maybe there are places of a lot of sedimentation, but I'm not aware of large deposits of sediment subsequent to the P-T boundary? My impression , I could be wrong, is that most dinosaur fossils are relatively shallow compared to the Caroniferous.



If the flood did deposit the Carboniferous, couldn't it have formed the coal in the same way it was formed in the Permian?

I don't see why there wouldn't have been extensive pre-flood peat formations before the flood. These should be recorded somewhere, did they not have forests and swamps etc during that world that was so conducive to life? Also many tree fossils are still found in the pre-flood seat earth, and some with extensive root systems that show a continuously rising forest/swamp floor that required additonal roots to form from those parts of the tree trunk subsequently submerged under the soil. Flood model explanations appear highly unlikely compared to the simple explanation that these were trees that grew before the flood in an environment consisting mainly of fauna/flora that have become extinct. I don't see how the more obvious explanation would contradict the flood model in any manner, and it gives nice insight into the eco-systems of these extinct fauna/flora before the flood.
"It is not unusual to find trees preserved in their life positions in coal mines and outcrops, such as the one shown in Fig. 5.1. Coal seams have sometimes been used to explain how forests were swept away and deposited in specific layers by the flood. However if you look at most coal seams you can still see the tree root systems preserved, in life positions, within the fossils soils (termed the seat earth).
Time Matters: Geology's Legacy to Scientific Thought
By Michael Leddra


After reading the article, I agree that the Paleozoic is under the Mesozoic, but I'm still skeptical about the order of the periods in them.

I agree with you here, the other article you quoted highlights the discrepancies in the geologic column during the Paleozoic. I generally believe in one basic pre-flood environment where trilobites were simultaneous with carboniferous land animals with rare enclaves of modern types.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Flood Geology, Young Earth

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users