Jump to content


Photo

Fellow Creationists . When Is The Flood Rock Strata For You


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

#1 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 15 April 2009 - 01:24 AM

Fellow creationists and everybody. This creationist sees the k-t line as the line of the flood year in the rock/fossil columns.
Therefore below this line all rock formations and fossils within are from the biblical flood and rocks/fossils above the line are from post flood events happening a few centuries later.
Many creationist however do not see the k-t line as the flood line but see it much later as just since the ice age.

Iinsist the k-t line is the line because of the fossils of creatures found.
Below the line is a very different world of dinosaurs and above the line a world of mammals only etc.
This great change is from the great fauna change done by the flood. There was a mammal ascendency after the flood because of the clean/unclean ratio on the ark. this was certainly not the ratio before the flood.

The creatures above the k-t line are very like the ones today and biogeography fits well with their post flood migrations from the ark.

It seems clear to me this is the flood line but i am asking what others think.

#2 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 15 April 2009 - 08:24 AM

Fellow creationists and everybody. This creationist sees the k-t line as the line of the flood year in the rock/fossil columns.
Therefore below this line all rock formations and fossils within are from the biblical flood and rocks/fossils above the line are from post flood events happening a few centuries later.
Many creationist however do not see the k-t line as the flood line but see it much later as just since the ice age.

Iinsist the k-t line is the line because of the fossils of creatures found.
Below the line is a very different world of dinosaurs and above the line a world of mammals only etc.
This great change is from the great fauna change done by the flood. There was a mammal ascendency after the flood because of the clean/unclean ratio on the ark. this was certainly not the ratio before the flood.

The creatures above the k-t line are very like the ones today and biogeography fits well with their post flood migrations from the ark.

It seems clear to me this is the flood line but i am asking what others think.

View Post



Robert,

My friend, when you establish a boundary time based on uniformitarian principles, then your model won't work at all relative to the flood.

Think about it for a moment....Creation(-4000bc) Flood(-3500bc) How many cretaures fossilized in the 1500 years in between? Not many according to uniformitarian principles. From the flood to present? Not many according to uniformitarian priciples. But we have gazillions of fossils.

The flood needs to be looked at as a multil level catastrophic series of events. The fist events of the flood the opening up of the fountains of the deep. Hot steamy waters were released in gigantic proportions. This would immediatedly cause enormous sedimentary deposits in the oceans with severe local temperature rises. The prediction would be to find lower sea dwelling creatures fossilized. That's exactly what is found at the lowest rock layers.

The subsequent results would have heated the ocean waters over a period of time(days-months). This would cause much of the fish to die and be burried in the sediments. That's exactly what we find next in the rock layers.

The opening up of the fountains would have caused global tsunamis. All of the amphibious creatures would have been drowned with the sediments. That's what's in the next rock layers.

As the steam entered into the atmosphere, it began to rain torrentially. Animals began to look for higher ground. Reptiles who dwell near the waters, and huge reptillian dinos were flooded and got stuck in the mud. Remeber, you need the sediments to fossilize. That's exactly what we find in the next layers.

Mammals searched for higher ground or got flooded. They fossilized based on their ability to escape. In general the larger and smarter mammals survived the longest. Man was the smartest, so he was burried last. That's exactly what we find in the next layers.

Then the earth was totally covered with water. And it began to receed. Huge amounts of erosion of soft sediments should be visible. They are all over the earth. Also the plate techtonics was enormous during this entire time. Faults were opening up every where and volcanic activity was going on every where. This is probably one of the sources for evidence of the "KT" boundary. These sediments settled before most of the mammals were destroyed.

The flood is a mult-cataclysmic series of events that lasted at least a year. It was not a 40 day event of just water.

#3 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 April 2009 - 12:28 PM

You also have to be careful with the K-T boundary,it's not found globaly,neither is the "so called" permian extinction.

The Permian extinction is considered by old-Earthers to have been the largest mass extinction in Earth history, with 90 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species dying out. It has also long been thought of as a sudden, catastrophic event—until now.

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.”

The creation model considers many of the sedimentary layers we observe—including most of the layers that have fossils—to have been laid down by geological events associated with the global Flood (including volcanic activity) along with the Flood itself. It’s therefore very easy to incorporate ideas such as the Permian extinction, or the better-known K–T (Cretaceous–Tertiary) extinction event, with the Flood model. Even if evolutionists decide a certain event took place millions of years earlier or later than what was once thought, that translates in the Flood model to likely mere months (or less) of difference.

We also have to smile whenever longstanding evolutionary ideas are overturned. In this case, a sudden Permian extinction event is now “last year’s fact,” as the CreationWise cartoon says. While a benefit of the scientific method is that hypotheses incorporate new evidence, that’s also the drawback of using science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge.


That seems to confirm that they have been dating layers by the fossils they contain (circular reasoning).As a creationists i would expect different fossils in different areas because they live in different ecological niches.Not suprisingly,we don't find crocodile fossils in Arkansas because they don't live here not because they have'nt evolved yet.

I do agree hower,that most Tertiary sediments are post-flood.I'm not agreeing with the assumptions of the geologic column,just that all fossils and sediments above the flood layers are post-flood.(e.g. many dinosaur fossils and tracks are found above the K-T boundary) so i accept that dinosaurs were on the Ark,rather than trying to explain them away as reworking or hoaxes.

Something else that should be obvious to anyone is the fact that the K-T boundary is supposed a global disaster that is'nt found globaly,but the cretaceous chalk cliffs are and they say that is'nt evidence of a global catasrophe.

"I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. …We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. …Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting – as in north-west Europe – on glauconitic sands." …Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies pp.1-2 "...in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other. …It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe.. The similarities are almost laughable.. ...we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170º of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40º does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, pp.6-7.



Enjoy.

#4 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:06 PM

Robert,

My friend, when you establish a boundary time based on uniformitarian principles, then your model won't work at all relative to the flood.

Think about it for a moment....Creation(-4000bc)  Flood(-3500bc)  How many cretaures fossilized in the 1500 years in between?  Not many according to uniformitarian principles.  From the flood to present?  Not many according to uniformitarian priciples.  But we have gazillions of fossils.

The flood needs to be looked at as a multil level catastrophic series of events.  The fist events of the flood the opening up of the fountains of the deep.  Hot steamy waters were released in gigantic proportions.  This would immediatedly cause enormous sedimentary deposits in the oceans with severe local temperature rises.  The prediction would be to find lower sea dwelling creatures fossilized.  That's exactly what is found at the lowest rock layers.

The subsequent results would have heated the ocean waters over a period of time(days-months).  This would cause much of the fish to die and be burried in the sediments.  That's exactly what we find next in the rock layers.

The opening up of the fountains would have caused global tsunamis.  All of the amphibious creatures would have been drowned with the sediments.  That's what's in the next rock layers. 

As the steam entered into the atmosphere, it began to rain torrentially.  Animals began to look for higher ground.  Reptiles who dwell near the waters, and huge reptillian dinos were flooded and got stuck in the mud.  Remeber, you need the sediments to fossilize.  That's exactly what we find in the next layers. 

Mammals searched for higher ground or got flooded.  They fossilized based on their ability to escape.  In general the larger and smarter mammals survived the longest.  Man was the smartest, so he was burried last.  That's exactly what we find in the next layers.

Then the earth was totally covered with water.  And it began to receed.  Huge amounts of erosion of soft sediments should be visible.  They are all over the earth.  Also the plate techtonics was enormous during this entire time.  Faults were opening up every where and volcanic activity was going on every where.  This is probably one of the sources for evidence of the "KT" boundary.  These sediments settled before most of the mammals were destroyed.

The flood is a mult-cataclysmic series of events that lasted at least a year.  It was not a 40 day event of just water.

View Post


What you said is fine with me for the flood year and for fossils below the k-t line or mammal ascendency.
Good stuff except i see the continents moving into their present shapes from a united shape. This being the origin of the water power that moved sediment around and into rock.

however your wrong about the idea of mammals beating dinosaurs and others to higher ground. This idea is impossible around the earth or in a general area. There is no mixing of these creatures even once. many dinos were fast and many mammals are slow.
Its impossible to see this as a option. it rejects great death assemblages of creatures in areas close to each other but without mixing.
No.
the answer is that the k-t line is the flood line. Mammal death assemblages from post flood events events are unrelated to the great flood. So a different gang of fossils from post flood refilling of earth.
Creationism must look at the great segregation of fossils in areas where dinos are all a few feet lower then all mammals above. This is not from the chaos during the rain but from unrelated origins.
This is a world wide equation and creationism can not make a winning case for seeing rhinos running faster uphill then raptors. Never even once a mix of these groups.
inpossible.
by the way the insects and small rodents creatures show the same segregation.

#5 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:00 PM

You also have to be careful with the K-T boundary,it's not found globaly,neither is the "so called" permian extinction.
That seems to confirm that they have been dating layers by the fossils they contain (circular reasoning).As a creationists i would expect different fossils in different areas because they live in different ecological niches.Not suprisingly,we don't find crocodile fossils in Arkansas because they don't live here not because they have'nt evolved yet.

I do agree hower,that most Tertiary sediments are post-flood.I'm not agreeing with the assumptions of the geologic column,just that all fossils and sediments above the flood layers are post-flood.(e.g. many dinosaur fossils and tracks are found above the K-T boundary) so i accept that dinosaurs were on the Ark,rather than trying to explain them away as reworking or hoaxes.

Something else that should be obvious to anyone is the fact that the K-T boundary is supposed a global disaster that is'nt found globaly,but the cretaceous chalk cliffs are and they say that is'nt evidence of a global catasrophe.

"I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the ‘White Cliffs of Dover’ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. …We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. …Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting – as in north-west Europe – on glauconitic sands." …Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies pp.1-2 "...in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other. …It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe.. The similarities are almost laughable.. ...we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170º of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40º does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, pp.6-7.

Enjoy.

View Post


Yes i agree tertiary fossils are from post flood events. The k-t line is relevant only because of the life fossils in determining where it stands relative to the bible.
I don't expect tertiary fossils everywhere on earth because they are from less common events after the flood.
Yet the clear segregation of fossil life is evidence of a different origin of time for the fossil assemblages.
The mammal ascendency was only after the flood with no dinosaurs around anymore and due to the ratio of clean/unclean on the ark.

#6 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 17 April 2009 - 05:52 AM

however your wrong about the idea of mammals beating dinosaurs and others to higher ground. This idea is impossible around the earth or in a general area. There is no mixing of these creatures even once. many dinos were fast and many mammals are slow.
Its impossible to see this as a option. it rejects great death assemblages of creatures in areas close to each other but without mixing.

View Post


Robert,

With all due respect, I think you ought to get your facts right. We find lots of mammals before the K-T boundary. And there is lots of mixing of dinos and mammals. I'm not sure what literature you have been reading, but I suggest you do a little research on this subject. The oldest mammal fossil is 195mya in evo time. That's just a little before the K-T boundary! We have found beaver type fossils and large dog sized mammals way below the K-T boundary. We now have found mammals that have eaten dinos. So I beg to differ with you on this.

#7 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 April 2009 - 07:19 AM

The KT boundary does not exist. It is a thin layer of iridium that was deposited by volcanoes only around certain areas. In the North American west we find this supposed KT boundary on top of mammals too, a thin layer of iridium, but where this layer is found, most likely there will be a dormant volcanoe near by.

Evolutionist like to claim that these small areas that contain iridium are from a giant asteroid, but volcanoes provide a much more sufficient answer, simply because they do infact support Creationism.

#8 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:47 PM

Robert,

With all due respect, I think you ought to  get your facts right.  We find lots of mammals before the K-T boundary.  And there is lots of mixing of dinos and mammals.  I'm not sure what literature you have been reading, but I suggest you do a little research on this subject.  The oldest mammal fossil is 195mya in evo time.  That's just a little before the K-T boundary!  We have found beaver type fossils and large dog sized mammals way below the K-T boundary.  We now have found mammals that have eaten dinos.  So I beg to differ with you on this.

View Post


I know and am fine with the mammals found with dinos. Of coarse they were around as everything was. yet i see mammals not living with dinos but instead in different areas of some kind. There also may be a option some mammals of today are just slightly altered dinos but thats beside the point.
Yet there is no mixing of any mammals that we have common knowledge. Only small or medium types we would not recognize today.

Yet it comes back to the great reality of the great segregation of dinos and mammals in the fossil column. This is welcome to this creationist as it is the great diving point of the flood deposiots and later deposits.
It solves many problems for creationists to see the k-t line as the flood line.
I believe some of organized creationism do say this but most don't.
Mammals out running dinos everywhere or anywhere to the top of this or that is just not a likely option. They say this because they have if they see all rock strata as from the flood.
there's a better idea. Why not?

#9 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:59 PM

The KT boundary does not exist.  It is a thin layer of iridium that was deposited by volcanoes only around certain areas.  In the North American west we find this supposed KT boundary on top of mammals too, a thin layer of iridium, but where this layer is found, most likely there will be a dormant volcanoe near by.

Evolutionist like to claim that these small areas that contain iridium are from a giant asteroid, but volcanoes provide a much more sufficient answer, simply because they do infact support Creationism.

View Post


I agree the iridium thing is not true. Yet the fossil column is true. There is everywhere the same sorting of dinos below etc and a mammal dominance above. Its real and good for creationism.
I suspect also the iridium is from volcanos erupting in a event centuries after the flood and the origin for the great sediment/fossil assemblages of a post flood world. I see this as ushering in the ice age.
Yes its not worldwide and not from impacts. I agree.
The k-t boundary to me is real for the fauna history.
So its just a usefull term.

#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 April 2009 - 06:07 AM

Yet the fossil column is true.

View Post

I'm sorry, but there is a huge difference between rough sorting where they find a general pattern of F.A.R.M. (Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mammal) verses the colorful fairytales that they have depicted in textbooks.

Its real and good for creationism.

View Post

Is it real good because it demonstrates the flood or do you have some other reason?

Hey Robert,

I'm just curious, do you have some personal theory that you believe better answers questions for why the earth is the way it is today? Would you be willing to give this overarching theory? You don't have to be overly specific, just give us your version of what you think happened.

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:50 AM

I know and am fine with the mammals found with dinos. Of coarse they were around as everything was. yet i see mammals not living with dinos but instead in different areas of some kind. There also may be a option some mammals of today are just slightly altered dinos but thats beside the point.
Yet there is no mixing of any mammals that we have common knowledge. Only small or medium types we would not recognize today.


Large herbivorious mammals live in grassy plains and graze on grasses.Large herbivorious dinosaurs lived in tropical jungles and feed on leaves in the canopy.So there is a very good reason why they were'nt commonly found together.However,rats,coons,possums,etc. would be right at home in the tropical niche filled by dinos.You also have to consider that dinos. were cold blooded and mammals are warm blooded,so the niche they fill would be determined by climate as well.

Preditory mammals and dinos. would avoid each other because of competition and common sense.Even finding a short face bear and grizzly bear in the same place in the fossil record is rare,because it makes much more sense to find your own territory than to risk injury fighting over someone else's.

#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 April 2009 - 08:26 PM

Dinosaur extinction didn't cause the rise of present-day mammals, claim researchers

A new, complete 'tree of life' tracing the history of all 4,500 mammals on Earth shows that they did not diversify as a result of the death of the dinosaurs, says new research published in Nature today.

The study was undertaken in the UK by scientists at Imperial College London and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). It contradicts the previously accepted theory that the Mass Extinction Event (MEE) that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago prompted the rapid rise of the mammals we see on the earth today.

The multinational research team has been working for over a decade to compile the tree of life from existing fossil records and new molecular analyses. They show that many of the genetic 'ancestors' of the mammals we see around us today existed 85 million years ago, and survived the meteor impact that is thought to have killed the dinosaurs. However, throughout the Cretaceous epoch, when dinosaurs walked the earth, these mammal species were relatively few in number, and were prevented from diversifying and evolving in ecosystems dominated by dinosaurs.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328155632.htm - 49k -

Another theory bites the dust.

I would suggest that the majority of dinosaur fossils found are from the flood itself.Most of the dinosaur footprints found are from post flood animals that slowly went extinct because of climate change after the flood.Dinosaurs are most likely cold blooded and were unable to adapt to the iceage.

#13 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:48 AM

It is also easy to see why dinosaurs would go extinct after the flood. No one wants a dragon in their back yard... therefore they were exterminated by man, and most likely the weather... A long time ago. After the Flood that is.

#14 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:39 AM

I'm sorry, but there is a huge difference between rough sorting where they find a general pattern of F.A.R.M. (Fish, Amphibian, Reptile, Mammal) verses the colorful fairytales that they have depicted in textbooks.
Is it real good because it demonstrates the flood or do you have some other reason?

Hey Robert,

I'm just curious, do you have some personal theory that you believe better answers questions for why the earth is the way it is today? Would you be willing to give this overarching theory? You don't have to be overly specific, just give us your version of what you think happened.

View Post


By the fossil column i simply mean a few segregated types of creatures, segregated by flows of sediment, found here or there.
Your right there are no sequences as evolution teaches. Yet there is a great segregation at the k-t line.
So profound and consistent that they must invoke a great origin for this case. they say a impact wiped out everything below the line. Nope. It was the biblical flood.
The k-t line is the flood line. Above it the fossils are from minor scattered events a few centuries after the ark.

#15 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 24 April 2009 - 12:59 AM

I know and am fine with the mammals found with dinos. Of coarse they were around as everything was. yet i see mammals not living with dinos but instead in different areas of some kind. There also may be a option some mammals of today are just slightly altered dinos but thats beside the point.
Yet there is no mixing of any mammals that we have common knowledge. Only small or medium types we would not recognize today.


Large herbivorious mammals live in grassy plains and graze on grasses.Large herbivorious dinosaurs lived in tropical jungles and feed on leaves in the canopy.So there is a very good reason why they were'nt commonly found together.However,rats,coons,possums,etc. would be right at home in the tropical niche filled by dinos.You also have to consider that dinos. were cold blooded and mammals are warm blooded,so the niche they fill would be determined by climate as well.

Preditory mammals and dinos. would avoid each other because of competition and common sense.Even finding a short face bear and grizzly bear in the same place in the fossil record is rare,because it makes much more sense to find your own territory than to risk injury fighting over someone else's.

View Post


All you said ws to show its logical to expect to find the great segregation between dinos and friends and mammals as we know them.
Yes the mammals would be somewhere in some body types in segregated areas.
Yet the universal and complete lack of mixing of anything like identifable mammals and dinos etc demands that they were not living together whatsoever.
Then the complete segregation and yet consistent place of mammal fossils above, always, dinos etc in the rock strata insists they were fossilized at different times.. Not different places and placed on each other by different flows in this case.
In this and more it is clear that these mammals were fossilized after the flood.

the first clue i got on this was many years ago reading about ash killed rhinos in nebraska. They were laying down in heaps that were above lower sediments or rocks that must of been formed from the flood. These critters were not killed by water but ash and not moved about by water.
The k-t line being the flood line is the right answer and fits better by far the fossil evidence.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 April 2009 - 05:07 PM

All you said ws to show its logical to expect to find the great segregation between dinos and friends and mammals as we know them.
Yes the mammals would be somewhere in some body types in segregated areas.
Yet the universal and complete lack of mixing of anything like identifable mammals and dinos etc demands that they were not living together whatsoever.
Then the complete segregation and yet consistent place of mammal fossils above, always, dinos etc in the rock strata insists they were fossilized at different times.. Not different places and placed on each other by different flows in this case.
In this and more it is clear that these mammals were fossilized after the flood.

the first clue i got on this was many years ago reading about ash killed rhinos in nebraska. They were laying down in heaps that were above lower sediments or rocks that must of been formed from the flood. These critters were not killed by water but ash and not moved about by water.
The k-t line being the flood line is the right answer and fits better by far the fossil evidence.


I understand what your saying,but have you verified an irridium layer below those rhinos and did they find dinosaurs below that?If you do find dinosaurs below them then i can make a prediction for you.The dinosaurs will be fossilized in sedimentary layers and not ash.


Thanks.

#17 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 27 April 2009 - 07:30 PM

All you said ws to show its logical to expect to find the great segregation between dinos and friends and mammals as we know them.
Yes the mammals would be somewhere in some body types in segregated areas.
Yet the universal and complete lack of mixing of anything like identifable mammals and dinos etc demands that they were not living together whatsoever.
Then the complete segregation and yet consistent place of mammal fossils above, always, dinos etc in the rock strata insists they were fossilized at different times.. Not different places and placed on each other by different flows in this case.
In this and more it is clear that these mammals were fossilized after the flood.

the first clue i got on this was many years ago reading about ash killed rhinos in nebraska. They were laying down in heaps that were above lower sediments or rocks that must of been formed from the flood. These critters were not killed by water but ash and not moved about by water.
The k-t line being the flood line is the right answer and fits better by far the fossil evidence.


I understand what your saying,but have you verified an irridium layer below those rhinos and did they find dinosaurs below that?If you do find dinosaurs below them then i can make a prediction for you.The dinosaurs will be fossilized in sedimentary layers and not ash.
Thanks.

View Post


These fossils are clearly from ash droppings and not from water layered elements. They are in the rock strata that never contain dinos etc and are certainly about the rock layers normally called by the names they use.
Probably dinos are below these rocks in that area or elsewhere.
Yes the dinos will be in sed rocks.
Yet these mammals are in ash rocks etc and high up in the rock strata.
Its also that they have creatures that could only be post flood adaptations.
Pronghorns, peccaries, and others.
There is no mixing with creatures found in layers below the k-t line.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 April 2009 - 09:47 PM

[quote name='Robert Byers' date='Apr 27 2009, 07:30 PM']
I understand what your saying,but have you verified an irridium layer below those rhinos and did they find dinosaurs below that?If you do find dinosaurs below them then i can make a prediction for you.The dinosaurs will be fossilized in sedimentary layers and not ash.
Thanks.

View Post

[/quote]

These fossils are clearly from ash droppings and not from water layered elements. They are in the rock strata that never contain dinos etc and are certainly about the rock layers normally called by the names they use.
Probably dinos are below these rocks in that area or elsewhere.
Yes the dinos will be in sed rocks.
Yet these mammals are in ash rocks etc and high up in the rock strata.
Its also that they have creatures that could only be post flood adaptations.
Pronghorns, peccaries, and others.
There is no mixing with creatures found in layers below the k-t line.

View Post

[/quote]

There is no K-T line. What we do have is a little bit of volcanic ash layered only with certain fossils. The K-T boundary is assumed to be the extinction line because it contains an element called iridium... commonly found in meteorites, but also extremely more common in volcanic ash.

Evolutionist would have you believe that the K-T boundary exist everywhere on planet earth, because evolutionist believe that a meteorite killed all the dinosaurs hence why they NEED this line for evidence of a meteorite that they have no evidence for in the first place.

Iridium layers, or ash deposits are typically only found near ancient dead volcanoes, and dinosaur/mammal fossils. Yes, even fossilized hippos were found with this iridium layer on top of them. This is the same substance that evolutionist claim is the supposed K-T boundary, and no it is not everywhere on earth, nor is it deposited in every fossil site.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 April 2009 - 02:06 PM

New Blow Against Dinosaur-killing Asteroid Theory, Geologists Find

ScienceDaily (Apr. 28, 2009) — The enduringly popular theory that the Chicxulub crater holds the clue to the demise of the dinosaurs, along with some 65 percent of all species 65 million years ago, is challenged in a paper to be published in the Journal of the Geological Society on April 27, 2009.


The crater, discovered in 1978 in northern Yucutan and measuring about 180 kilometers (112 miles) in diameter, records a massive extra-terrestrial impact.

When spherules from the impact were found just below the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, it was quickly identified as the "smoking gun" responsible for the mass extinction event that took place 65 million years ago.

It was this event which saw the demise of dinosaurs, along with countless other plant and animal species.

However, a number of scientists have since disagreed with this interpretation.

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.

"Keller and colleagues continue to amass detailed stratigraphic information supporting new thinking about the Chicxulub impact, and the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous," says H. Richard Lane, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the research. "The two may not be linked after all."

From El Penon and other localities in Mexico, says Keller, "we know that between four and nine meters of sediments were deposited at about two to three centimeters per thousand years after the impact. The mass extinction level can be seen in the sediments above this interval."


Uniformitairianism does'nt work in geology without corroborating evidence.

Advocates of the Chicxulub impact theory suggest that the impact crater and the mass extinction event only appear far apart in the sedimentary record because of earthquake or tsunami disturbance that resulted from the impact of the asteroid.

"The problem with the tsunami interpretation," says Keller, "is that this sandstone complex was not deposited over hours or days by a tsunami. Deposition occurred over a very long time period."

The study found that the sediments separating the two events were characteristic of normal sedimentation, with burrows formed by creatures colonizing the ocean floor, erosion and transportation of sediments, and no evidence of structural disturbance.


The evidence they found is predicted by creationists.You can burry burrowing organisms in a global flood and they will continue to burrow until they become overwhelmed.They have not found the evidence predicted by the OE model.(e.g. marine growth layers that we can verify as taking 300,000 years to grow.)

The scientists also found evidence that the Chicxulub impact didn't have the dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested.

At one site at El Penon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer, and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules.

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller.


In total,only 10% of the fossil record is extinct and you can't place any of them in any one specific layer.Thats the type of sorting predicted by the YE model.

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.

Keller suggests that the massive volcanic eruptions at the Deccan Traps in India may be responsible for the extinction, releasing huge amounts of dust and gases that could have blocked out sunlight and brought about a significant greenhouse effect.


More assumptions,but no evidence.

http://www.scienceda...90427010803.htm




Still believe in a K/T boundary?

#20 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 01 May 2009 - 01:22 AM

[quote name='scott' date='Apr 28 2009, 12:47 AM']
These fossils are clearly from ash droppings and not from water layered elements. They are in the rock strata that never contain dinos etc and are certainly about the rock layers normally called by the names they use.
Probably dinos are below these rocks in that area or elsewhere.
Yes the dinos will be in sed rocks.
Yet these mammals are in ash rocks etc and high up in the rock strata.
Its also that they have creatures that could only be post flood adaptations.
Pronghorns, peccaries, and others.
There is no mixing with creatures found in layers below the k-t line.

View Post

[/quote]

There is no K-T line. What we do have is a little bit of volcanic ash layered only with certain fossils. The K-T boundary is assumed to be the extinction line because it contains an element called iridium... commonly found in meteorites, but also extremely more common in volcanic ash.

Evolutionist would have you believe that the K-T boundary exist everywhere on planet earth, because evolutionist believe that a meteorite killed all the dinosaurs hence why they NEED this line for evidence of a meteorite that they have no evidence for in the first place.

Iridium layers, or ash deposits are typically only found near ancient dead volcanoes, and dinosaur/mammal fossils. Yes, even fossilized hippos were found with this iridium layer on top of them. This is the same substance that evolutionist claim is the supposed K-T boundary, and no it is not everywhere on earth, nor is it deposited in every fossil site.

View Post

[/quote]

As i said there is a great fossil line with great segregation in kinds and types and with no mixing with creatures in higher strata rocks.
this can't be denied and is fine with creationism. its the flood line.
Later they concluded about iridium but thats irrelevant. the extinction line is solid proof of a great extinction of life on earth by type dominances.

Yes i see the iridium as probably from incoming later deposits which include the fauna of that time. i see these actions as centuries after the flood.
If hippos were found with iridium on top it would be fine with me but they still are from later rock deposits. No hippos are found with dinos.

Things are simply as they are. the k-t line is the flood line and not later divisions like the ice ages which are suggested.
Any later rock/fossils are from a few events centuries after the flood.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users