Jump to content


Photo

Another Look At The Flood


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

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 October 2008 - 08:49 AM

I was looking for real pictures of the geological time column with the dinosaurs skeletons arranged in there respective orders, and I could not find any in perfect order. I have determined finding Waldo is easier than finding the geological time column.

So how do the scientist determine that the allosaur is older than the tyrannosaur when neither are found in the same area? Also I am skeptical that they are not sometimes found in the same area simply because they are usually found in the same states.

I also ask this question about Utah, how close is the Morrison formation, Cedar mountain formation, North Horn and Kaiparowits formation from each other? I would assume that neither are found on top of each other, yet are in different locations.

Also how would one determine jurassic limestone from cretaceous limestone? Is the color of the limestone any different?

#42 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 15 October 2008 - 09:05 AM

Jamesf

I know very little about geology but have found your posts quite interesting.

You've mentioned dozens of times in various threads that there are a number of layers, each of which contains a range of fossils, and that fossils do not occur in the wrong layer.

I have a question about the arrangement of the layers themselves...

Is it possible to find, say a cambrian fossil and a jurassic fossil at the same depth, say 1000 ft (just an example)? If so, then my guess would be that this is beacuse the layers are not evenly distributed across the globe. Probably as the result of tectonic movement and so on.

Are there places where the surface of the earth is so buckled that the entire cambrian layer sits on top of the jurassic layer (again, just an example)? This doesn't mean that the jurassic layer is older, just that it has been moved.

From this you could argue that even though cambrian fossils occur at a shallower depth or at the same depth as jurassic fossils, they are not out of place because they only occur in the cambrian layer.

I might have over simplified here, but am I on the right lines?

View Post


Hi Falcone,
There are a number of places on the planet that have geological folds and overthrusts. However, these are quite obvious geologically. I don't know of any such place where it can not be easily identified by just looking at the strata.

Posted Image


Furthermore, many of these folds were created by a lot of heat and pressure. This tends to destroy the fossils. Therefore, if one sees sedimentary layers piled vertically, without clear geological distortion (tilting is common but such folding is quite rare) and they contain fossils, then the fossils will be found in the order of younger on top of older. Places like the grand canyon have no significant folds so the fossils are all in sequence. Layers can certainly be missing, but they are never out of sequence (older on top of younger) without an obvious geological anomaly.

You can track layers for hundreds of miles. The altitudes may change, and do change most of the time. But the order of the layers is usually quite obvious. The Morrison formation where the late Jurassic dinosaurs are found in the midwest, can be tracked for hundreds of miles. Older fossils are below this layer. Younger fossils are above this layer. I know of no exceptions.

Typically the layers have marked coloring reflecting the environment when the layer was laid down. This makes tracking the layers easy for quite a long distance. This is particularly eash in the grand canyon where even the novice can see the consistent ordering over many miles.

Posted Image
http://www.cliffshad...orado/rocks.htm
The above shows the Morrison formation.

James

p.s. I do enjoy reading stories regarding claims of out of place fossils. The Moab man is a good example. The bones were not fossilized and were concluded to be relatively recent Native American bones by those that first investigated it. However, it seems there were a few that wanted a different story, so they created their own. Even many creationists find this second story a bit hard to swallow, but I will let those interested read and judge for themselves.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

#43 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 15 October 2008 - 09:11 AM

Scott, I've been trying to understand your argument throughout this thread, and I've just thought of something...

When scientists refer the the geological column, do you think they literally mean a narrow, vertical column which you can access from any single point on earth?

I think the world 'column' is used metaphorically.

#44 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 16 October 2008 - 02:32 PM

Hi James,
quote;p.s. I do enjoy reading stories regarding claims of out of place fossils. The Moab man is a good example. The bones were not fossilized and were concluded to be relatively recent Native American bones by those that first investigated it. However, it seems there were a few that wanted a different story, so they created their own. Even many creationists find this second story a bit hard to swallow, but I will let those interested read and judge for themselves.

It seems there are many stories,but there is only one truth.

Here are a few facts about the fossils:

Two specimens from the site were sent to forensic anthropoligist "William R. Maples" and from his investigation he reached two conclusions.

1) The skeletons showed no conclusive indian characteristics.

2) The skeletons had no cologen in them,indicitive of a very old age.

Later a scanning electron microscope conformed that the fossils had no cologen in them.

Specimens excavated at a later time did have some cologen remaining in them.

The first c-14 date gave an age of 700 years old,but a later c-14 date gave an age of 1450 years old.Thats an error of over 100%,proving either contamination or loss making an accurate c-14 date impossible.

Skeptics,who have never been to the site,claim the bones were found in loose sand.A simple examination of the pictures prove they are encased in solid rock.

It is also claimed that the site is not mapped or even known.Don Patton has even given the name of the land owner and has shown airial pictures of the site along with a list of names of other scientist who have been to the site.

You can get more more details by downloading his video "Malachite Man" found at his website www.bible.ca. or by giving him a call or email with any of your questions.

I sent him an email question recently and i was shocked to get a prompt reply at 1:30 AM.

Thanks.

#45 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 18 October 2008 - 11:32 AM

It seems there are many stories,but there is only one truth.

View Post


Yes, did you read the report of the scientists that first visited the site in 1971?
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

Everything seems to point towards the burial of several native americans over several hundred years. Seems the Big Indian Mine was an an important source of copper artifacts for over 1500 years.


The first c-14 date gave an age of 700 years old,but a later c-14 date gave an age of 1450 years old.Thats an error of over 100%,proving either contamination or loss making an accurate c-14 date impossible.

View Post


Did you read the report? Those were dates of two different sets of bones. That was not an error. They were just two different dates on two different set of bones.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm


Skeptics,who have never been to the site,claim the bones were found in loose sand.A simple examination of the pictures prove they are encased in solid rock.

It is also claimed that the site is not mapped or even known.Don Patton has even given the name of the land owner and has shown airial pictures of the site along with a list of names of other scientist who have been to the site.

You can get more more details by downloading his video "Malachite Man" found at his website www.bible.ca. or by giving him a call or email with any of your questions.

I sent him an email question recently and i was shocked to get a prompt reply at 1:30 AM.

Thanks.

View Post


You should read the end of the report by Professor Marwitt that investigated the site within a few days of the discovery in 1971. I do not know what year Don Patton visited the site and I do not know his expertise in Anthropology. However, Professor Marwitt was there within a few days of the discovery and this is what he said

Q: What was the rock or semi-rock material in which these bones were discovered.
A: The bones were surrounded with and covered by loose blowsand and rotted sandstone spalls, not consolidated or semiconsolidated rock....

Q: Were the bones actually found in situ?
A: The bones were not found in situ insofar as being a part of or included in the sandstone formation...

"I again emphasize that the bones were not associated with or included in any rock formation, but with loose blowsand and sandstone spalls representing the fill of a crevice of some kind."

Q: When the bones were packed up and taken to the University of Utah, what did the subsequent examination there show?
A: Examination at the University confirmed my field interpretation to the effect that the bones were H. sapiens, that they were not fossilized, and were essentially recent."

Q: If in actuality the bones are an anomaly in anthropology, how has this affected the scientific community and what are the conclusions drawn?
A: There is no scientific anomaly at all, and those members of the 'scientific community' who (sic) I have informed of the Moab finds have reacted with amusement and mild disgust to the antics of those irresponsible journalists who manufactured and perpetuated the hoax.

"I am very happy that unlike Brandon and others who have written about the Moab finds, you took the trouble to contact me before publication. I trust that your forthcoming book will give the reading public the true story and thereby dispose of the supposed mystery. Should you have further questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience..."

Sincerely,

John P. Marwitt
Associate Professor of Anthropology


I suspect that you do not understand the true scope of the claim. Forget about humans for a minute. It should be much easier to demonstrate the error of the evolutionary claim if it was in error. No one has ever found any modern mammals fossilized with dinosaurs - Or fossilized below dinosaurs. Take a look at the many thousands of animals that have been trapped in the La Brea Tarpits over the last 40,000 years.
http://palaeo.gly.br...rea/fanflo.html

Not a single dinosaur is found here.

You can also find dinosaur graveyards with hundreds of dinosaur fossils, but one never finds a modern mammal here. Yes, very rarely one does find the primitive ancestors of mammals - as evolutionary theory predicts. However, no where does one find horses, or bears or cows or deer or camels or lions etc along with the dinosaurs - or beneath the dinosaurs

The order of fossils in the fossil record started to become clear 200 years ago. That clarity has only improved. But again, I welcome you to demonstrate that this is wrong. There are many more rules that have been shown to be true.
I listed some of them here
http://www.evolution...topic=1555&st=0

The ordering is

1. Bottom layers: No life. No algae, no plants, no complex life, no shells, no bones, no fish, no pollen, no seeds, no land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals

2. Next layers (for many many layers): single cell life (algae), no multicellular plants, no complex life, no shells, no bones, no fish, no pollen, no seeds, no land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.

3. Next layers (Pre-Cambrian), first multicellular life (odd Ediacaran life forms) and possible precursors to both vertebrates and trilobites. No shells, no bones, no fish, no land plants, no pollen, no seeds, no land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.

4. Cambrian animals appears in many places across the planet. First shells, but no bones, no fish, no land plants, no pollen, no seeds, no land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.

5. First fish appear (extinct placoderms etc). Mostly cartilage bones, so at first no bones in the fossil record but these appear later. But still no evidence of land plants. No pollen, no seeds, no land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.

6. First land plants in the fossil record, followed by the first seeds. First, gymnosperm pollen but no angiosperm (flowering plant) pollen. No land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.

7. First transitional vertebrates between water and land. No angiosperm (flowering plants) pollen. No land animals, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.
Here is a great link to this period in Pennsylvania
http://www.devoniant.../pages/who.html

8. First air breathing land animals (e.g., the Gorgons). No angiosperm (flowering plants) pollen, no dinosaurs, no modern mammals.

9. First dinosaurs, first evidence of flowering plants. No modern mammals have ever been found in these layers.

10. First modern mammals. Most all modern mammals appear only after dinosaurs go extinct.

11. First large primates

12. First evidence of humans

The emphasis of this list should be on what is NOT found. The lower layers do not contain the complex life you find in higher layers. You will be quite famous if you can find any of those things in bold in the lower layers than the order stated (higher up on the list).


If you do not want to believe this, that is your prerogative. Find a bone bed like this one with mixed bones and you will be famous. I am sure they will give you a special wall at the Creation Museum.
http://www.grisda.or....., 8-low...JPG

Good luck,
James

#46 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 18 October 2008 - 02:53 PM

With all due respect,
I have to wonder why you would use a known creationist-christian hater, Glen J. Kuban who has done much damage to the Christian faith by making people not believe. Calling people liars without proof, accusing people of frauding evidence without proof. Sneaking plaster molds of foot prints to be tested by a friend because he did not want a creationist there.

Searching into people's background and legal disputes for Character assassination, which had nothing to do with evidence. There is no telling what else he has done. But just like the false accusation of Baugh carving the foot prints, there was also an accusation of Mr. Kuban destroying foot print evidence because it supported creation. Kuban had a fit about the accusation, but what was funny was that it was as unfounded as the ones he made about Baugh. I guess he can dish it out but cannot take it.


Because of all this, I don't trust a thing written on his site.

The reason why I wonder about the site you use us because in your world view, you claim to be a theistic evolutionist. Does it not bother you that the very site you use can make someone lose their faith?

#47 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 October 2008 - 07:39 PM

Hi Falcone,
    There are a number of places on the planet that have geological folds and overthrusts. However, these are quite obvious geologically. I don't know of any such place where it can not be easily identified by just looking at the strata.

Posted Image
Furthermore, many of these folds were created by a lot of heat and pressure. This tends to destroy the fossils. Therefore, if one sees sedimentary layers piled vertically, without clear geological distortion (tilting is common but such folding is quite rare) and they contain fossils, then the fossils will be found in the order of younger on top of older. Places like the grand canyon have no significant folds so the fossils are all in sequence. Layers can certainly be missing, but they are never out of sequence (older on top of younger) without an obvious geological anomaly.

You can track layers for hundreds of miles. The altitudes may change, and do change most of the time. But the order of the layers is usually quite obvious. The Morrison formation where  the late Jurassic dinosaurs are found in the midwest, can be tracked for hundreds of miles. Older fossils are below this layer. Younger fossils are above this layer. I know of no exceptions.

Typically the layers have marked coloring reflecting the environment when the layer was laid down. This makes tracking the layers easy for quite a long distance. This is particularly eash in the grand canyon where even the novice can see the consistent ordering over many miles.

Posted Image
http://www.cliffshad...orado/rocks.htm
The above shows the Morrison formation.

James

p.s. I do enjoy reading stories regarding claims of out of place fossils. The Moab man is a good example. The bones were not fossilized and were concluded to be relatively recent Native American bones by those that first investigated it. However, it seems there were a few that wanted a different story, so they created their own. Even many creationists find this second story a bit hard to swallow, but I will let those interested read and judge for themselves.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm

View Post


In the morrison formation, there are NO older layers, and NO younger layers, actually the only animals or (dinosaurs) we find in them are Allosaurus, large sauropods, stegosaurus, and camptosaurus, all half hazardly labled JURASSIC.

Exactly what I was saying all along.

No T- Rex or Triceratops are found in the area, above or below these layers,
actually nothing is found above or below these layers. Just what clearly appears to be one type of habitat where these types of dinosaurs roamed.

Truly I am skeptical about this example: scientist finds T Rex directly above allosaurus and other happy (supposedly none native to the area dinosaurs) below T Rex, you see, I have not SEEN any pictures proving this, and I have been doing extensive research on the geological time column all week. The only evidence I keep finding is massive amounts of flood evidence, all the while I am NOT looking for flood evidence, but geological time column evidence.

I have not found any evidence that fossils are found in any sequence, as no sequence is actually found in these layers of dirt, or at least evo-paleontologist have completely forgotten to take pictures of these layers, instead they have opted for the next best thing... neatly (drawn) pictures.

But nay you say? Offcourse they take pictures of the layers from a (distance), but they are clever enough to know that taking up close and personal pictures would prove the geological time column non existant. Seeing as how the fossils seem to not agree with the idea. But offcourse you will probably ask me to provide evidence for this, well, I will do as our audience wants. I will provide mountains (literally) of evidence. As Ive stated before, the ultimate evidence for a young earth and the Flood is in the fossils. I will post it under a new topic.

Also in the pictures you've provided, the dirt layers seem to be going in a red dirt/ white dirt pattern. Are these red dirt layers and white dirt layers the same (type) of dirt throughout the levels, I believe they are, can you provide evidence that they are not the same throughout?

#48 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 October 2008 - 07:58 PM

Scott, I've been trying to understand your argument throughout this thread, and I've just thought of something...

When scientists refer the the geological column, do you think they literally mean a narrow, vertical column which you can access from any single point on earth?

I think the world 'column' is used metaphorically.

View Post



Your exactly correct falcone. The reasons I am so skeptical, is that when scientist find cambrian layers that are on top, and nothing but dirt with no organism on the bottom. I have to wonder. Where did all the other layers go??? Were there no (dinosaurs) or other creatures to be carried over into the immediate area by flood or river waters??? Something is not adding up? Sediments are layed by moving water. So what did we have? Are we always going to say, oh it was just a local flood. Amazing, a local flood engulfing an entire ecosystem of 90 foot long saurapods, and 39 foot theropods!!!! These amazing local floods can be found all over planet earth. Hah!!! Thousands of dinosaurs and mammals being engulfed by local floods all over the world certainly do not prove a Global Flood.

Also, you have to ask the question.... where did all the local flood water come from and go to? Why such extremely large floods?

#49 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 28 October 2008 - 03:18 AM

Your exactly correct falcone.  The reasons I am so skeptical, is that when scientist find cambrian layers that are on top, and nothing but dirt with no organism on the bottom.  I have to wonder.  Where did all the other layers go???  Were there no (dinosaurs) or other creatures to be carried over into the immediate area by flood or river waters???  Something is not adding up?  Sediments are layed by moving water.  So what did we have? Are we always going to say, oh it was just a local flood.  Amazing, a local flood engulfing an entire ecosystem of 90 foot long saurapods, and 39 foot theropods!!!!  These amazing local floods can be found all over planet earth.  Hah!!! Thousands of dinosaurs and mammals being engulfed by local floods all over the world certainly do not prove a Global Flood.

Also, you have to ask the question.... where did all the local flood water come from and go to?  Why such extremely large floods?

View Post

Well, that is exactly the difference between a local and global flood: In a local flood, we can explain where the water came from (elswhere) and where it went (again, to some other place). In a global flood, there is nowhere the water can come from and nowhere for it to go.

Now, local floods is not exactly a mysterious penomenon! We can observe them in many places, even today. Of course, melting periods after ice ages are especially prominent sources of really large floodings, but also geological events. For instance, the Mediterranian Ocean was a desert as little as some 1-200,000 years ago. Then the strait of Gibraltar openened due to geological events. That is a local flood that is still there this very day.

Hans

#50 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 28 October 2008 - 05:14 AM

Well, that is exactly the difference between a local and global flood: In a local flood, we can explain where the water came from (elswhere) and where it went (again, to some other place). In a global flood, there is nowhere the water can come from and nowhere for it to go.

Now, local floods is not exactly a mysterious penomenon! We can observe them in many places, even today. Of course, melting periods after ice ages are especially prominent sources of really large floodings, but also geological events. For instance, the Mediterranian Ocean was a desert as little as some 1-200,000 years ago. Then the strait of Gibraltar openened due to geological events. That is a local flood that is still there this very day.

Hans

View Post


Actually Hans, completely covering an entire ecosystem of 90 foot dinosaurs, which were actually buried alive, as the MAJORITY of fossil evidence shows, you still have to explain why such an extremely large flood would engulf the entire western part of the United States, or like I say, it's obvious this wasn't a puny 2004 tsunami. Ah yes, it would definetely have to be a large flood to make about 50 to 100 feet of sediment on top of the dinosaurs.

100 foot waves? Give me a break, thats mere matchsticks to dinosaurs. Also you absolutely positively do NOT know that the mediterranian was a desert 200,000 years ago, simply because you were not there 200,000 years ago. You can claim you dated a rock to be that old, but until a time machine is invinted, thats mere wishful thinking.

Amazing melting periods after ice ages.... REALLY NOW, have you or any other person actually SEEN these type of floods... I dont think so. A global flood really isn't all that difficult, I mean scientist half hazardly think that MARS had water all over it, yet they think that planet earth, which is almost entirely covered by water could NOT have a global flood. Now thats some wishful thinking to (think) that a planet almost completely covered by water could NOT be globaly flooded.

Where did all the water go??? Back to the oceans and back underground, as I am positive it's extremely easy. I'll tell you what, around the forest by my house there are hundreds of thousands of underground streams and rivers. I believe that this is probably how it is across all of the world.

Please, the strait of Gibraltar opened due to the FACT that it has an entire sea pushing on it everyday, I mean the water is already there.

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 November 2008 - 08:40 PM

Hi New Guy Here,

I'm just curious. I didn't notice Walt Browns hydroplate theory mentioned. This has been the most compeling model I've found regarding the current state of geologic features, fossil beds and all around present condition of the earth.

Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory

This is a great video about the size and capacity of Noah's Ark.

Noah's Ark Part 1

#52 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 21 November 2008 - 10:41 PM

Hi Adam 777,

Thanks for the link and video,i'll look at them as soon as i have time.

Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users