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

#61 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 09 March 2012 - 01:04 AM

Could you summarize the evidence?


Just going back to this question about scientific evidence for the flood during the P-T boundary, you asked for a summary, here goes:

Scientists acknowledge the following:
1) Sea level vast coastal wetlands during the Permian
2) Massive ice caps
3) Siberian volcanic activity melted the ice caps
4) There was a transgression event showing rises in sea levels due to melted ice caps

So this explains flooding of coastal wetlands.

As for the flood-plains scientists acknowledge the following:
1) Vast flood plains make up most of the interior of the continents of the Permian
2) Volcanic activity causes massive precipitation
3) The Siberian traps were the most massive volcanic activity the earth has ever known
4) The flood-plains were already vulnerable to continuous flooding
5) During the boundary the flood plains across earth changed from a sedimentary underfill situation to an overfill situation
6) Sedimentation rates before the boundary were steady and strong, after the boundary were weak yet no-one can explain the sudden increase of sedimentation at the boundary.

My logical conclusion from all this, is that the volcanic activity caused unprecedented rainfalls that flooded and drowned those vast flood-plains. If they were also close to sea-level they would have been influenced by rising oceans too.

Aggravating circumstances:
1) Additionally Northern Pangea was spreading at that time, which caused a massive "earthquake rift" between Europe and North America, expanding the continent of Pangea and thereby reducing ocean size.
2) The Siberian Traps caused a flood of basalt the size of a continent over northern siberia and the adjacent ocean. This basalt flooding was many km deep thereby closing down ocean size over a region of approximately 1 million km2.
3) Speculating that there were further ocean closures and subsequent tsunamis as evolutionists may underestimate the extent of the break-up of Pangea during that boundary event.
4) Widespread glaciation suddenly melted.
5) There was a magnetic reversal at that time which causes a temporary decline in the magnetic field. This results in lack of protection from the solar wind, causing solar particles to literally seed the air, causing rainfall escalations.

My conclusion based on the scientists own evidence, is that the combination of displaced oceans due to tectonics and basalt flooding, large ice caps melting and intense precipitation (acid rain) caused by the heaviest volcanic activity the earth has known, and melting of large continental glaciers and the seeding of the air through solar wind caused widespread flooding that would have wiped out most low lying territories on earth. Signs of this are shown in the accepted coastal marine transgression during the P-T boundary, and the vast sudden increase in sedimentation across all flood-plains on earth during the P-T boundary.

#62 SomchaiA

SomchaiA

    Junior Member

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

Posted 09 March 2012 - 05:06 AM

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.


Thank you for the links. I am told Steven Austin wrote the better book because he is a geologist with a doctor's degree and the other book was written by authors with different background. I will have to see by reading more.

#63 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:46 AM

I'm glad you brought this up.... I don't know how to word my problem correctly even logically think through their POV. I quickly read through/skimmed over the first page of that and it seemed nice... but then on the second page it showed their Geological Column which to me is illogical or I don't understand....
I tried to study their 'laws of geology' as well as their presuppositions but some things don't even make sense.... I'll give an example...
Dragonflies exist today right.... but they ' supposedly' from the evo. worldview existed before the time of dinosaurs.... How exactly do they date the rocks for the geological column... According to the protestant bible God created the earth rock all at once....

So one of my questions is how do they get the different layers for the column....

On page 6 of 14 he makes claims such as "Flood geologists who claim that the entire Paleozoic and Mesozoic represent the Flood
year...." and as far as I know, some YECs do not support the 'geological column' so he mest be talking to OECs?.... I see it as pure mythology psuedo science right now... did they use their false worldview to create imaginary layers if we still have 300+ living fossils?
Aren't all rocks the same age since they are from the same earth? (chemically at least)
Perhaps someone can explain?

Also 'The Defeat of Flood Geology
by Flood Geology' isn't that a self refuting argument.... just sayin' :-)

Update: just found, the article Chris linked to, I'll look at that

#64 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 20 March 2012 - 06:47 PM

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.


I haven't had the chance to read this paper, but the title sounds interesting:

Leigh M. Van Valen (1988), "Paleocene dinosaurs or Cretaceous ungulates in South America?" Evolutionary Monographs, pp. 79.

Apart from that, I'd take it that you don't consider Repenomamus giganticus to be large enough though? Also, keep in mind the evidence for human footprints in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous.

Some also claim to have found a large cat track in the Cretaceous.
http://www.bible.ca/...s/cat-track.htm

I've also heard that mammals bloat and float while reptiles sink, so maybe that's one reason why you don't find many mammal fossils with the dinosaurs.

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.


A recent study in the Answers Research Journal has put the DNA similarity between apes and humans at 86-89%.[1] This agrees with a 2003 study in PNAS which put the number at 86.7%.[2]

I've heard that our DNA is 50% similar to bananas, so, my point is, there may be some similarity there, but I'm not sure if it's really that significant.

[1] Jeffrey P. Tomkins (Dec. 28, 2011), "Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86-89%" Answers Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 233-241; http://www.answersin...j/v4/n1/blastin

[2] Tatsuya, A., et al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003):7708-13

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?


Yes, it's definitely possible. I don't see why swamps couldn't exist.

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


Where do you find these trees with evidence of in situ growth? I think there's good evidence that the trees and plants in Joggins and Yellowstone were transported.

Just going back to this question about scientific evidence for the flood during the P-T boundary, you asked for a summary, here goes:

Scientists acknowledge the following:
1) Sea level vast coastal wetlands during the Permian
2) Massive ice caps
3) Siberian volcanic activity melted the ice caps
4) There was a transgression event showing rises in sea levels due to melted ice caps


Do you know what the evidence is for the ice caps?

As for the flood-plains scientists acknowledge the following:
1) Vast flood plains make up most of the interior of the continents of the Permian
2) Volcanic activity causes massive precipitation
3) The Siberian traps were the most massive volcanic activity the earth has ever known
4) The flood-plains were already vulnerable to continuous flooding
5) During the boundary the flood plains across earth changed from a sedimentary underfill situation to an overfill situation
6) Sedimentation rates before the boundary were steady and strong, after the boundary were weak yet no-one can explain the sudden increase of sedimentation at the boundary.


What is meant by "underfill" and "overfill"? How did the scientists determine that the sedimentation rates before the boundary were steady and strong and weak after the boundary? Perhaps the rate of sedimentation increased during that time because of some unique circumstances (e.g. a short increase in the amount of water coming from the fountains of the deep or the sky)?

Aggravating circumstances:
1) Additionally Northern Pangea was spreading at that time, which caused a massive "earthquake rift" between Europe and North America, expanding the continent of Pangea and thereby reducing ocean size.


Do you believe that God created the earth with spreading land masses or did this begin during the flood?

#65 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:45 AM

I haven't had the chance to read this paper, but the title sounds interesting:

Leigh M. Van Valen (1988), "Paleocene dinosaurs or Cretaceous ungulates in South America?" Evolutionary Monographs, pp. 79.

Apart from that, I'd take it that you don't consider Repenomamus giganticus to be large enough though? Also, keep in mind the evidence for human footprints in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous.

Some also claim to have found a large cat track in the Cretaceous.
http://www.bible.ca/...s/cat-track.htm

I've also heard that mammals bloat and float while reptiles sink, so maybe that's one reason why you don't find many mammal fossils with the dinosaurs.



A recent study in the Answers Research Journal has put the DNA similarity between apes and humans at 86-89%.[1] This agrees with a 2003 study in PNAS which put the number at 86.7%.[2]

I've heard that our DNA is 50% similar to bananas, so, my point is, there may be some similarity there, but I'm not sure if it's really that significant.

[1] Jeffrey P. Tomkins (Dec. 28, 2011), "Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86-89%" Answers Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 233-241; http://www.answersin...j/v4/n1/blastin

[2] Tatsuya, A., et al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class I Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003):7708-13



Yes, it's definitely possible. I don't see why swamps couldn't exist.



Where do you find these trees with evidence of in situ growth? I think there's good evidence that the trees and plants in Joggins and Yellowstone were transported.



Do you know what the evidence is for the ice caps?



What is meant by "underfill" and "overfill"? How did the scientists determine that the sedimentation rates before the boundary were steady and strong and weak after the boundary? Perhaps the rate of sedimentation increased during that time because of some unique circumstances (e.g. a short increase in the amount of water coming from the fountains of the deep or the sky)?



Do you believe that God created the earth with spreading land masses or did this begin during the flood?


You just asked for a summary for why I believe there is scientific evidence for the flood being at the P-T boundary. I therefore didn't think it would open up the possibility that you would ask for evidence for these assertations. This is from information I have picked up over the last 6 months from various sources, and to prove it all to you would take a lot more time than the few minutes it took to summarise some of those events of the P-T boundary. I will include some aspects of this in my still coming post on various environments in those geologic layers.

Just some comments on some of your points, my flood model has dinosaurs being post-flood, and so fits in with all the evidence of post-flood dinosaurs that you keep mentioning. I do not have dinosaurs dying off in the flood, but instead I have dinosaurs proliferating after the flood.

Your argument that DNA similarities are not that significant fits in with evolutionists. Because there are mutations in the DNA that are inherited. Therefore the only argument we have as creationists is that the reason why the human and the monkey have an identical mutation at the same place in the genome, is because God created us so similar and therefore the weakness occurs at the same place across two similarly created species. The same with the Australian marsupials, either evolution is rapid and a marsupial mouse and marsupial wolf have the same genetic mutation because of a common ancestor, or they have the same mutation because God made them so similar that the mutation just happened to occur at the same DNA position in all Australian marsupials because of a core similarity in genetic design. So the fact that you are saying that genetic similarities do not have an effect is fitting in with the evolutionists argument becuase you then have no alternative explanation for inherited DNA mutations that do occur across similar species, but are not found elsewhere in dissimilar species.

I did give a reference about the trees, I personally believe what was written there, about coal seams showing trees in situ in the seat-earth and believe its common knowledge. This makes perfect sense because a flood would have covered over swamps rapidly and therefore trees already buried deeply in the peat would be covered over.

Your mammal explanation is good, but why do mammal fossils exist in shallow layers and not in the deep flood layers? Unless they are in the deeper flood layers?

I'm glad you are pointing out pre-flood evidence of mammals because that fits in with my theory of pre-flood proliferation of amphibians because of wetland environments, however other environments also existing simultaneously.

I'm not sure about the landmasses, I believe they did converge until the flood, and then split during the flood.

#66 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 01:14 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, 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?


Hi Chris,

Please refer to my new thread about geologic layers where we can discuss these issues, thanks.

#67 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 26 May 2012 - 11:07 AM

1. There exists no mechanism but global flood water for producing layers of rock over great spans of time all around the globe, and over great expanses of earth.
The situation on earth today is adequate to explain this, since, nothing is occurring today, nor is described historically (except the flood of Noah's day), that corresponds with creation of the existing geologic strata regarding any large area of land being overcome so quickly as to produce fossils on the scale seen in the global record, much less to think it being done within the confines of a dense specifiable matrix of extremely limited materials.
By mechanism I mean scientific filtering mechanism that selects only particular constituents out of all that are available.
When asked about a mechanism, the response on this thread was the typical naturalism one, a story minus any scientifically described mechanism.
The geologic strata of the earth affords endless fun stories satisfying all manner of personal logic systems.
But, the lack of mechanism destroys all of them but a global flood because the known mechanism is water, both flowing and sedate.
It is no coincidence that the naturalism stories about each layer of rock they choose to use for a fairytale often rely upon and call for the existence of a masses of water here, there and yonder, as in wherever they say arbitrarily, just so as to try and explain what is found (at least when attempting to do so scientifically)
This leads to my next point.

2. There appears to be a vast misunderstanding of the flood of Noah that arises, it seems to me, from minds which haven't really considered it to be a true event. This is odd to say of supposed Christian thinkers, is it not?
Think for a moment about the global flood of air that resides upon the earth globally today. It is subject to layering, temperatures, densities, contaminants, high and low flow rates and pressures, causing many effects in a seemingly endless array of complexities denoted by the vast array of local anomalies, most being predictably unpredictable.
So, where has the idea of a simplistic global flood of water come from? Image the the global flood of waters on the earth as if it were the air of today. Can you see that it was a vast climatic thing? It was not the same everywhere. The evolutionist/naturalism tactic of looking at a locale and prescribing it as argument on a global scale is merely another attempt to mislead common sense folk. I am reminded of the Jesus' teaching about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Who does that? Folks seeking to avoid admitting of the existence of the camel, that's who.

#68 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:07 AM

1. There exists no mechanism but global flood water for producing layers of rock over great spans of time all around the globe, and over great expanses of earth.
The situation on earth today is adequate to explain this, since, nothing is occurring today, nor is described historically (except the flood of Noah's day), that corresponds with creation of the existing geologic strata regarding any large area of land being overcome so quickly as to produce fossils on the scale seen in the global record, much less to think it being done within the confines of a dense specifiable matrix of extremely limited materials.
By mechanism I mean scientific filtering mechanism that selects only particular constituents out of all that are available.
When asked about a mechanism, the response on this thread was the typical naturalism one, a story minus any scientifically described mechanism.
The geologic strata of the earth affords endless fun stories satisfying all manner of personal logic systems.
But, the lack of mechanism destroys all of them but a global flood because the known mechanism is water, both flowing and sedate.
It is no coincidence that the naturalism stories about each layer of rock they choose to use for a fairytale often rely upon and call for the existence of a masses of water here, there and yonder, as in wherever they say arbitrarily, just so as to try and explain what is found (at least when attempting to do so scientifically)
This leads to my next point.

2. There appears to be a vast misunderstanding of the flood of Noah that arises, it seems to me, from minds which haven't really considered it to be a true event. This is odd to say of supposed Christian thinkers, is it not?
Think for a moment about the global flood of air that resides upon the earth globally today. It is subject to layering, temperatures, densities, contaminants, high and low flow rates and pressures, causing many effects in a seemingly endless array of complexities denoted by the vast array of local anomalies, most being predictably unpredictable.
So, where has the idea of a simplistic global flood of water come from? Image the the global flood of waters on the earth as if it were the air of today. Can you see that it was a vast climatic thing? It was not the same everywhere. The evolutionist/naturalism tactic of looking at a locale and prescribing it as argument on a global scale is merely another attempt to mislead common sense folk. I am reminded of the Jesus' teaching about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Who does that? Folks seeking to avoid admitting of the existence of the camel, that's who.


The bible timeline indicates 1700 years before the flood. If that pre-flood environment was highly conducive to widespread water-borne sedimentation, then we could be vastly overestimating the influence of the flood when we attribute even the so-called carboniferous fossilisation to the flood.

Even if you study the current flood model , you have the surprising observation of a vastly higher proportion of wetlands type fauna and flora than exists today. These fossils are numerous and lie generally at the bottom of the "flood layers".The extinction of the wetlands fauna and flora, and yet survival of the drylands types, indicates that the world was a lot wetter before the flood. Following this logic, we would therefore expect sedimentation and fossilisation during this wetter 1700 year period, which the widely accepted model does not consider.

I personally feel the flood is restricted to what is known as the Permian layer, and the Permian-Triassic boundary. Studies of the pre-boundary era by scientists indicate a world of large flat floodplains and wetlands, surrounded by large coastal wetlands. Its all very wet, and very widespread and very low-lying. ie very susceptible to huge amounts of acid rain and rising sea levels caused by Siberian volcanic activity.

Science, and the current flood model, and the bible, and also an adjusted flood model that includes 1700 years of wetlands ALL indicate a moist protected environment before a destructive worldwide event, and a dry difficult environmnet after this event.

#69 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 04 June 2012 - 09:29 PM

If that pre-flood environment was highly conducive to widespread water-borne sedimentation, then we could be vastly overestimating the influence of the flood when we attribute even the so-called carboniferous fossilisation to the flood.

You seem to be arguing that if, a 'flood' (widespread water-borne sedimentation) was the preflood environment, then, the flood's effect would be commonplace. Does that proposition seem correct? It doesn't too me because, (a) the narrative describes the flood as so novel as to be commonly thought so unbelievable in those days that no one but, Noah's family prepared in expectation, (B) the building of the ark was a surprisingly great and notable achievement suitable as a great sign in those times, which implies there was no commonplace rationale for such large oceanic vessels , © four great headwaters irrigated (watered) the earth in those days, as per God's particular design, rather a non-destructive, agricultural, gardening approach to global water usage, seems to me, (d) the global sediments we are appraising are so incredibly vast in depth, volume and area,that the factual existence of them is unbelievable to mankind today as the consequences of a appropriately sized flood.

The simple error being made in supposing that many small local floods can add up to large flood evidences, is that, there is no such mechanism in existence. For, no environment can be rationalized as alowing steady accretion of small amounts of carefully sorted materials of so many varieties, depths, anomalies and massiveness. I think it can always be shown to be a absurd fiction according to any commonsense thinking . That is why any hope of presenting any alternative geologic history must be based on endless numbers of seperate local fictitious explainations for geologic formations, because, if men stare at each local anomaly as seperate from the global picture they can then actually, and absurdly swallow the camel they are purposely trying to ignore.

Even if you study the current flood model , you have the surprising observation of a vastly higher proportion of wetlands type fauna and flora than exists today.

Which is exactly what the narrative in Genesis describes. An designed for life, irrigated, garden world, without great mountainous heights, nonviolent tame creatures, no waste of land, long lived men, giant placid creatures, without vast expanses of oceans, with few cities.

These fossils are numerous and lie generally at the bottom of the "flood layers".

I would suppose that some areas were quickly buried and not lifted up into the greater flood, as examination of higher entrapment sediments would prove feasible.

Lets look at a wll known example that is commonly explained in a ridiculous fashion by rather intelligent men, and believed without hardly a moments critical thought. (a strange thing)

Oil produced in great sumps in the earth.

Is it not obvious that great masses of vegetation was poured and drawn violently into deep holes in the earth and were then suddenly sealed shut with caps of inorganic sediments, pressed down, and cooked until great petroleum resources were created? And why? So, that at the time of the end on this side of the flood, mankind, when men will run to and fro and knowledge be increased, that all that former life energies would allow man to once again build a one world entity as though presuming to return to such a world and the Genesis narrative described, so that God can bring all the world to a profound and blatant conclusion just as is predicted. But, the former world before the flood required no such energies because it was then the far more naturally utopian environment in a world with one language, close relationship with beasts of the earth, few great cities since, the world was not then broken up into arid zones, and forzen expanses, and forbidding terrains, such as to cause global poverties by many diverse geo-economic stress factors etc etc.

But, there are many things inexplicably the result of such a global event as a flood that killed every thing into what we call extinction.

Man is merely trying on purpose to tell a alternate story.

Do you really think there was a land of dino's perfectly aligned to the imagination of children? What if the truth is that man created violence, bred huge monsters in rebellion, produced the wildness of the beasts by mistreatment, starvation, godless dna manipulation, inhanced and fomented by the knowledge of angelic creatures. Suppose I tell a different story to explain the facts in a far more simple direct way? Without the zillion flood events that make no sense since water seeks its own level. Men are to think that many global floods is more believable the one great flood of Noah's day. Why would many varities of fanciful stories make more sense to any rational philosopher of the earth but, the Genesis narrative doesn't? I can think of one reason, that mankind doesn't naturally like the idea of a God who will judge all men collectively when appropriate to his ends, and individual as is right.


The extinction of the wetlands fauna and flora, and yet survival of the drylands types, indicates that the world was a lot wetter before the flood. Following this logic, we would therefore expect sedimentation and fossilisation during this wetter 1700 year period, which the widely accepted model does not consider.

Hardly good reasoning, sorry to say. Wetlands don't produce fossils of themselves, aren't buried under immense sediments. If wetands became fossilized it can only be due to a dramatically rapid sedimentary advances over the earth.

Notice that if naturalism adherents really could prove the flood of Noah didn't occur then simple specific gravity relations would have been used to do so. And, I have seen the chart of the way the Grand Canyon sediments trend as if all were in the same flood water situation. But, we must no be so niave as to think men who invent such ridiculous stories as we now hear told, aren't doing everything they can to hide the truths.

Consider Lake Vostok in Antartica that will evidence having been rapidly buried in the flood of Noah. Do any of you think that the data will be forthcoming in an exciting ongoing manner. Does anyone think that a lake ended up frozen over and slowly buried over twenty million years by continual yearly snows. Someone isn't thinking carefully. Well, watch what they find, an entombed natural lake in which many creatures from large to microbe are suspended in a anaerobic, suffocated, non lit environment until this year. Will there be creatures there just like the same ones we have now? If so, do you think the materialistic communistic Russian science machine is going to tell the truth? Not hardly.

My point is simple, the proof of the flood of Noah has already been submitted for all to see, and it doesn't matter if it's to big to get our simple minds around, the facts don't lie, there is no other magical way of producing giant global flood sediments other than a giant global flood. Its a no brainer isn't it

...the flood is restricted to what is known as the Permian layer, and the Permian-Triassic boundary.

These boundaries are not time boundaries. They are merely well defined bands of flood sediment being interpreted as some magically produced fossil making environment that no example of can be given anywhere on earth. We can always point to the materials, the particular fossils trapped in this or that layer, and claim that there was a whole world that was...what? slowly buried over a long time, while all the fauna, creatures and what not sat there waiting to be entombed? Not hardly a rational story is it?


Studies of the pre-boundary era by scientists indicate a world of large flat floodplains and wetlands, surrounded by large coastal wetlands.

Gather some facts and then start telling a story about how it all fits the story one is telling? That bears no relationship to science because all men can tell a different story and ward off opposing notions with assumptions of authority etc etc.. Pre-boundary? in time or terrain? What if the flat plains area is simply a flood sediment described as a flat plane etc etc.?


Its all very wet, and very widespread and very low-lying. ie very susceptible to huge amounts of acid rain and rising sea levels caused by Siberian volcanic activity.

Its a fossilized layer of rock someone invented a fictitious just so storyline about,.

What kind of material matrix is the layer bound in, exactly? That would be a rather important evidence to present right? There should be no particular kind of matrix right? Since on earth all kinds, as in every kind of material falls upon the earth hither and yon without any disctinction.

Science, and the current flood model, and the bible, and also an adjusted flood model that includes 1700 years of wetlands ALL indicate a moist protected environment before a destructive worldwide event, and a dry difficult environmnet after this event.

Where is there any evidence of any such thing to be found? What's the specific gravity of the layer in question? What materials are not found anywhere in that layer? Why would soft plants get buried slowly and fossilize before rotting etc?


#70 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2012 - 11:14 PM

My point is simple, the proof of the flood of Noah has already been submitted for all to see, and it doesn't matter if it's to big to get our simple minds around, the facts don't lie, there is no other magical way of producing giant global flood sediments other than a giant global flood. Its a no brainer isn't it?


What aspect of the lower "amphibian fossil" layers would require rapid sedimentation and not slower sedimentation as in a swamp? Can you give specific studies which seem to favour a rapid sedimentation for those low "amphibian fossil" layers?

#71 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:45 AM

What aspect of the lower "amphibian fossil" layers would require rapid sedimentation and not slower sedimentation as in a swamp? Can you give specific studies which seem to favour a rapid sedimentation for those low "amphibian fossil" layers?

No study of rapid sedimentation causing the mass creation of great numbers of amphibian fossils is required. Amphibians don't lay around letting themselves be buried in slow rising sediments. They have survival instincts as well as all other creatures do. And, we're not discussing a few examples of burial near river banks or lake shores are we? And, if a creature is buried in wet sediment not heavy enough and finely divided enough to drive out oxygen and water, then like all buried life, rot decomposes the bodies and returns the elementals to the earth, dust to dust.
Why argue against a great global rising flood of waters innundating whole regions with mudflows that are inescapable by any limited traveler that can't journey far, trying to climb out up banks and hills that are eroding rapidly due to 40 days and nights of continual rain.
Amphibians trapped at the bottom? Where else would be the natural, predictable place for bottom dwellers of rivers, creeks and lakes to be found as mud flow innundated whole valleys etc?
Isn't it obvious that the real reason trilobites are down in the lower layers because that is where they lived when rapidly overlain by sediment loads from all directions. And wouldn't that layer consist of a matrix of particular/peculiar set of sorted materials on the whole. And that is what we find.
The color bands you are looking at are sorted layers purified by flood waters not by air. Only water purifies, sorts out, filters, out diverse materials into far less diverse layers.
But, average floods aren't deep enough to cause dramatic examples of such sorting, due to lack of volume and depth of water.
And, there is no great press of solutes in normal flood waters such as would be found in the great depths and volumes of the global flood of Noah, with layers of temperature climes one finds only in deep waters, and lensing mechanisms, and large segmenting flows sorting things by size and weight, and whole schools of fish massed together in flows, and rapid precipitation of pure materials on the grandest of scales, amid grinding, heating, cracking, etc etc.
The great flood provides the occam's razor edge needed to explain what at first seems difficult to explain.
At best a naturalism story explains what happen in Peoria Illinois in the mind of some biased interpreter of a few layers of rock he thinks to keep unrelated with the larger world. If he tells a good story that helps keep the lid on the lie that there never was a global flood as described in the Bible, then his story is used and praised in evolution propoganda documentaries where every other sentence repeats words like, millions, billions, over and over again. Scientists don't repeat mantra like statements every chance they get, do they?

I know of know study showing the slow formation of any fossils.
But, I'm sure some small example can be produced, but, we're looking at immense depths of strata over immense areas of the earth that all easily correspond to a rational global flood hypothesis.

#72 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:45 AM

No study of rapid sedimentation causing the mass creation of great numbers of amphibian fossils is required. Amphibians don't lay around letting themselves be buried in slow rising sediments. They have survival instincts as well as all other creatures do. And, we're not discussing a few examples of burial near river banks or lake shores are we? And, if a creature is buried in wet sediment not heavy enough and finely divided enough to drive out oxygen and water, then like all buried life, rot decomposes the bodies and returns the elementals to the earth, dust to dust.
Why argue against a great global rising flood of waters innundating whole regions with mudflows that are inescapable by any limited traveler that can't journey far, trying to climb out up banks and hills that are eroding rapidly due to 40 days and nights of continual rain.
Amphibians trapped at the bottom? Where else would be the natural, predictable place for bottom dwellers of rivers, creeks and lakes to be found as mud flow innundated whole valleys etc?
Isn't it obvious that the real reason trilobites are down in the lower layers because that is where they lived when rapidly overlain by sediment loads from all directions. And wouldn't that layer consist of a matrix of particular/peculiar set of sorted materials on the whole. And that is what we find.
The color bands you are looking at are sorted layers purified by flood waters not by air. Only water purifies, sorts out, filters, out diverse materials into far less diverse layers.
But, average floods aren't deep enough to cause dramatic examples of such sorting, due to lack of volume and depth of water.
And, there is no great press of solutes in normal flood waters such as would be found in the great depths and volumes of the global flood of Noah, with layers of temperature climes one finds only in deep waters, and lensing mechanisms, and large segmenting flows sorting things by size and weight, and whole schools of fish massed together in flows, and rapid precipitation of pure materials on the grandest of scales, amid grinding, heating, cracking, etc etc.
The great flood provides the occam's razor edge needed to explain what at first seems difficult to explain.
At best a naturalism story explains what happen in Peoria Illinois in the mind of some biased interpreter of a few layers of rock he thinks to keep unrelated with the larger world. If he tells a good story that helps keep the lid on the lie that there never was a global flood as described in the Bible, then his story is used and praised in evolution propoganda documentaries where every other sentence repeats words like, millions, billions, over and over again. Scientists don't repeat mantra like statements every chance they get, do they?

I know of know study showing the slow formation of any fossils.
But, I'm sure some small example can be produced, but, we're looking at immense depths of strata over immense areas of the earth that all easily correspond to a rational global flood hypothesis.


Peat forming swamps fossilise easily. Bodies don't even decompose for many hundreds of years, let alone the bones deteriating. If much of the earth was low-lying swampland in both the wide flood-basins and the coastal wetlands, the chances of multiple amphibian fossilisation is highly likely. Even humans, which are not typical swamp-dwellers , have been found buried and only partially decomposed in swamps, how much more will creatures die in swamps, that only live in swamps?

Its not that I'm disputing the worldwide flood, I feel there is a lot of evidence for the flood, just not in the so-called "Carboniferous" layers.

#73 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 09 June 2012 - 06:16 AM

Peat forming swamps fossilise easily. Bodies don't even decompose for many hundreds of years, let alone the bones deteriating. If much of the earth was low-lying swampland in both the wide flood-basins and the coastal wetlands, the chances of multiple amphibian fossilisation is highly likely. Even humans, which are not typical swamp-dwellers , have been found buried and only partially decomposed in swamps, how much more will creatures die in swamps, that only live in swamps?

Its not that I'm disputing the worldwide flood, I feel there is a lot of evidence for the flood, just not in the so-called "Carboniferous" layers.


A world of swamps?
If every layer of sedimentary rock is used for man to tell stories about some imaginary world before our time then the is no end to the list of fictions to be produced.
But, lets cut to the chase, as they say.
There is no imagined world that works as the fiction writers imagine it would've. could've or should've in existence today. And it is shameful that men claiming to be intelligent haven’t noticed the absurdities of the fictions being pawned off as scientific analysis.
So, if men call one layer of flood sediment, “the swamp land layer”, then what? “he world of sand”?… “the world of limestone”?…”the world of clay”?...”the world of dinosaurs”… “the world of trilobites”…”the world of volcanoes?”…”world of primate man”? etc etc etc? A story for every man and a man for every story? A story for every formation? Location? And every layer of sedimetary rock?
Such reasoning as I present above as what is not being passed of a scientific thought is clearly a approach suitable to merely trying to flood the world with narratives that won’t fit into the Genesis account of history. Why would men use such a vain approach and not notice it is amenable to deception by each storyteller and not amenable to any validation of truth?
It is plainly silly to think that in every age, each environment was slowly fossilized, when there is no such observation ever made in the history o man. And there is no mechanism imaginable but water on a global scale.
The earth today is not being slowly fossilized. And nowhere on earth is there an enviroment of fossilization occurring on a local scale, much less a gloal.
The bottom of the ocean’s are not slowly becoming pure limestone. But, there are thousand foot thick, purified limestone monuments to global flood that are sitting on top of continents. So, who are we kidding folks?
The Atlantic ocean bottom is shallow, and it doesn't correspond to the sediment layers we see at every height of geology of the earth, nor the fictional accounts explaining them. Men tell stories of how an ocean was here or there and imagine such sediments being produced, but stories are simply fictitious. Anyone can tell a story. But, the Genesis account is backed by many objective proofs of its veracity as history, and the profound genius of its author (not to be confused with his scribes)

A global geology depicting a global scale of fossilization is most rationally understood as the result of a global flood, of deep waters.
So, I for one don’t believe there ever was, or could have been a world of peat moss preservation that some fossilized, (since, fossilization is unrelated to preseving the body).

#74 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 10 June 2012 - 11:34 PM

A world of swamps?
If every layer of sedimentary rock is used for man to tell stories about some imaginary world before our time then the is no end to the list of fictions to be produced.
But, lets cut to the chase, as they say.
There is no imagined world that works as the fiction writers imagine it would've. could've or should've in existence today. And it is shameful that men claiming to be intelligent haven’t noticed the absurdities of the fictions being pawned off as scientific analysis.
So, if men call one layer of flood sediment, “the swamp land layer”, then what? “he world of sand”?… “the world of limestone”?…”the world of clay”?...”the world of dinosaurs”… “the world of trilobites”…”the world of volcanoes?”…”world of primate man”? etc etc etc? A story for every man and a man for every story? A story for every formation? Location? And every layer of sedimetary rock?
Such reasoning as I present above as what is not being passed of a scientific thought is clearly a approach suitable to merely trying to flood the world with narratives that won’t fit into the Genesis account of history. Why would men use such a vain approach and not notice it is amenable to deception by each storyteller and not amenable to any validation of truth?
It is plainly silly to think that in every age, each environment was slowly fossilized, when there is no such observation ever made in the history o man. And there is no mechanism imaginable but water on a global scale.
The earth today is not being slowly fossilized. And nowhere on earth is there an enviroment of fossilization occurring on a local scale, much less a gloal.
The bottom of the ocean’s are not slowly becoming pure limestone. But, there are thousand foot thick, purified limestone monuments to global flood that are sitting on top of continents. So, who are we kidding folks?
The Atlantic ocean bottom is shallow, and it doesn't correspond to the sediment layers we see at every height of geology of the earth, nor the fictional accounts explaining them. Men tell stories of how an ocean was here or there and imagine such sediments being produced, but stories are simply fictitious. Anyone can tell a story. But, the Genesis account is backed by many objective proofs of its veracity as history, and the profound genius of its author (not to be confused with his scribes)

A global geology depicting a global scale of fossilization is most rationally understood as the result of a global flood, of deep waters.
So, I for one don’t believe there ever was, or could have been a world of peat moss preservation that some fossilized, (since, fossilization is unrelated to preseving the body).

Now just slow down a bit and think about your own flood model. f the flood model as you are advocating is true, then the wetlands amphibian fossils would have been fossilised in their positions, this is how you describe it, they are lower and would be rapidly covered in silt. Now these wetlands fauna and flora fossils are widespread and worldwide therefore the flood model you are proposing guarantees a worldwide wetlands world because the amphibians fossils were covered by silt in situ, worldwide. So the world before the flood was different and wetter than the world after the flood because it had a higher portion of wetlands fauna/flora than today.

Now despite your objections, it is not just in rare instances that sediments and fossils are caused by wetlands environments, this is the most common source of fossils:

http://www.geol.umd....102/102fluv.htm
"Fluvial - Rivers
  • Make up a very large fraction of terrestrial sedimentary rocks
  • Rivers are largely erosive, but some relatively continuous (pointbar) and periodic (flood) deposition
  • Braided streams - horizontal beds of conglomerates and sands with unidirectional crossbeds, almost no mud.
  • Meandering streams
    • Produce very distinctive sediments:
    • Channel conglomerates
    • Cross-bedded channel sandstones, well-sorted
    • Pointbar sands, somewhat finer than channel sands
    • Levee sands, ripple marks and finer grains
    • Backswamp, non-laminated mudstones
  • This package of sediments produces a sequence that fines upwards.
  • Also associated with meandering streams
  • Additionally, meandering stream sequences surrounded by flood-plain deposits of paleosols interrupted by layers of flood muds. The whole package of stream deposits, paleosols, and ox-bow lakes formfluviolacustrine deposits.
In the above, each particular subenvironment produces rocks of a particular facies (particular combination of sedimentological, structural, and biological features).
Walther's Law: As depositional environments migrate laterally, the sediments of one environment come to lie on top of sediments of the adjacent environment.
Deltaic - deltas
  • Form where rivers empty into a spot where the flow is zero:
    • Typically a sea (or lake or other still water)
    • BUT can also be a river emptying into a desert, like Botswana's Okavango Delta (and ancient deltas, as in the Karoo Supergroup of southern Africa or the Nemegt Formation of Mongolia)
  • Suddenly stream flow drops down to zero: material falls out of suspension.
  • Deltas are modified in shape by waves, tides, and stream forces, but produce same general facies (discussion below assumes delta into water: substitute "desert deposits" and "desert fossils" as appropriate for Okavango model!):
    • Topsets (delta plain): sand and silt, nearly horizontal, cut through with stream channel deposits and with paludal facies, will contain terrestrial fossils
    • Foresets (delta front): grade into silt and clay, slope seaward, will contain marine fossils, but also some material washed in from terrestrial environment
    • Bottomsets (prodelta): clay, horizontal beds, marine fossils dominate
  • Deltas build seaward, or prograde. Thus, bottomsets are deposited at a particular spot, then covered by foresets as the delta front moves past, then by topsets as that spot has become filled with sediment to the surface. So, by Walther's Law, deltaic sediments come in stacks that coarsen upwards (opposite of fluvial).
  • Because active lobes of deltas change position from time to time, can accumulate many episodes of deltaic sedimentation on any spot."

So even a logical extension of your own flood model that contains widespread wetlands fossils, should also include a sedimentation model for a widespread wetlands environment that existed before the flood. Unless you deny basic geology.

#75 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 11 June 2012 - 12:23 AM

What aspect of the lower "amphibian fossil" layers would require rapid sedimentation and not slower sedimentation as in a swamp? Can you give specific studies which seem to favour a rapid sedimentation for those low "amphibian fossil" layers?


It should be apparent that tracks and fossils require rapid sedimentation. How amphibian tracks were formed in the flood model have been experimented on.

Posted Image

Several lessons were learned:
  • This can explain why fossil tracks are so prolific on the foreset and bottomset of crossbeds. The tracks in the coconino have not been positively identified but could be either lizards or salamanders. They are quite consistent in only traveling uphill. If the tracks are from salamanders, the same salamander could potentially be producing multiple trackways on the foresets of hundreds of feet, or perhaps even miles, of crossbeds. The salamander would "hang out" in the eddy at the bottom of the crossbed, and would simply walk up the crossbed when he was getting buried, float away and catch the eddy once more, returning to the bottom of the next crossbed.
  • Animals (such as lizards) which are swept away by the flowing waters would be sucked into the hydraulics and trapped by the eddy currents. Every year people die by being trapped in the hydraulics at the bottom of decorative dams and small waterfalls - the water is very powerful, even in small volume. In this case, the forming crossbeds make the escarpment that the hydraulics form at, thus trapping animals in them. The only way out was to go up the hill. Thus we see why the trackways in the coconino are almost always going uphill, and often show the creature being bouyed up to produce a trackway that goes from heavy foot impressions, to lighter, to claws only, to completely disappearing - often within only a few feet.
  • The preservation of tracks within the crossbeds is now easily explained: The water along the face of the foreset is virtually still. Simultaneously, there is a continuous dumping of sediments on top of any freshly made tracks, thus protecting them until lithification of the sediments.
http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

#76 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:02 AM

It should be apparent that tracks and fossils require rapid sedimentation. How amphibian tracks were formed in the flood model have been experimented on.

Posted Image

Several lessons were learned:

  • This can explain why fossil tracks are so prolific on the foreset and bottomset of crossbeds. The tracks in the coconino have not been positively identified but could be either lizards or salamanders. They are quite consistent in only traveling uphill. If the tracks are from salamanders, the same salamander could potentially be producing multiple trackways on the foresets of hundreds of feet, or perhaps even miles, of crossbeds. The salamander would "hang out" in the eddy at the bottom of the crossbed, and would simply walk up the crossbed when he was getting buried, float away and catch the eddy once more, returning to the bottom of the next crossbed.
  • Animals (such as lizards) which are swept away by the flowing waters would be sucked into the hydraulics and trapped by the eddy currents. Every year people die by being trapped in the hydraulics at the bottom of decorative dams and small waterfalls - the water is very powerful, even in small volume. In this case, the forming crossbeds make the escarpment that the hydraulics form at, thus trapping animals in them. The only way out was to go up the hill. Thus we see why the trackways in the coconino are almost always going uphill, and often show the creature being bouyed up to produce a trackway that goes from heavy foot impressions, to lighter, to claws only, to completely disappearing - often within only a few feet.
  • The preservation of tracks within the crossbeds is now easily explained: The water along the face of the foreset is virtually still. Simultaneously, there is a continuous dumping of sediments on top of any freshly made tracks, thus protecting them until lithification of the sediments.
http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/



I'm not referring to the Coconino which is higher up. I'm referring to the lower layer containing amphibians and wetlands flora. This layer is worldwide, and so indicates a worldwide wetlands environment , and as you know wetlands do establish sedimentary deposits. Thus the flood model should include a wetlands layer underneath the lowest flood layer because it has a wetlands environment covered in situ, illustrating a worldwide wetlands environment. How could that wetlands world exist for 1700 years before the flood and NOT create sediments?

#77 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 02 August 2012 - 09:57 PM

New Path said:
Since then the earliest post-flood civilisations show a proliferation of dinosaurs in their pottery, showing that dinosaurs were concurrent with the early 2000BC civilisations. Dinosaurs appear to be post-flood and the majority died off just before mammals dominated about 3000 years ago.
Reptoman said:
Brother--not sure what your saying here? God did create the dinos in the beginning, did he not? The fossil record if your a YEC is full of dinosaur fossils? Whether created during the flood or not Dino's existed prior to the flood as well as mammals of all kinds? Are you saying the dinos that lived on into mans history went extinct after the flood? I would have to agree with that. Because there is no doubt they did live into mans written history, and there is clear evidence of this.... But then there are issues with the fossil record that are challenging such as the Karoo fossils and canadian fossils, the fossils covered under ash from pre-flood super volcanoes. There are a host of issues...that seemingly need answers as yet......

#78 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

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

Posted 03 August 2012 - 11:27 PM

I'm not referring to the Coconino which is higher up. I'm referring to the lower layer containing amphibians and wetlands flora. This layer is worldwide, and so indicates a worldwide wetlands environment , and as you know wetlands do establish sedimentary deposits. Thus the flood model should include a wetlands layer underneath the lowest flood layer because it has a wetlands environment covered in situ, illustrating a worldwide wetlands environment. How could that wetlands world exist for 1700 years before the flood and NOT create sediments?

Are you referring to the Supai Group, which is the first to contain some amphibians, but also marine fossils. I didn't read anything about wetlands, could you cite your info? The supai group is made up of shale and limestone (calcerous/diatomic), which is what the lower layers contain. So where are you saying the preflood line is?

#79 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:00 AM

Are you referring to the Supai Group, which is the first to contain some amphibians, but also marine fossils. I didn't read anything about wetlands, could you cite your info? The supai group is made up of shale and limestone (calcerous/diatomic), which is what the lower layers contain. So where are you saying the preflood line is?


I'm not specifically referring to the Grand Canyon which appears to have been a marine environment before Noah's flood. It appears to me that the flood covered the Redwall sediments which were of a marine nature. I personally believe the Supai group upwards are flood deposits that covered over this marine environment.


I believe the pre-flood line is the boundary between Carboniferous and Permian, the carboniferous fossils being more intact and more wetlands , the Permian fossils having a greater variety and more broken. This to me indicates that animals from nearby less wetlands environments were washed over the carboniferous peat (swampy) fossils during the flood. The widespread pre-flood carboniferous coal deposits being from pre-flood pswamp peat covered over and crushed by the flood sediments. The Permian coal deposits being actual flood debris compressed into coal.

Regarding pre-flood wetlands environments , I'm referring to large land based swampland environments that were widespread before the flood. These fossils are known as "Carboniferous" amphibians, and are nearly all extinct today. So the widespread layer I am referring to is that layer of amphibians that lies below the more dryland reptiles. According to the popular flood model these amphibian layers were covered by silt “in situ”, in the state they were in. This is the reason given for the amphibian fossils being below the later reptile and mammal fossils. I have been saying that if such widespread fossils were all covered by the flood, this would indicate a widespread amphibian environment which would mean that wetlands were more common before the flood than after the flood. Therefore wetland pre-flood fossils should also be common because wetlands fauna/flora easily fossilize in swamps, and I do believe these wetlands pre-flood fossils are found in large numbers throughout the world. Unfortunately mammals and reptiles do not fossilize as easily in their own environments and are not found in the wetlands environments, thus the lack of non-wetlands fossils in the pre-flood layers.


#80 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:30 AM

New Path said:
Since then the earliest post-flood civilisations show a proliferation of dinosaurs in their pottery, showing that dinosaurs were concurrent with the early 2000BC civilisations. Dinosaurs appear to be post-flood and the majority died off just before mammals dominated about 3000 years ago.
Reptoman said:
Brother--not sure what your saying here? God did create the dinos in the beginning, did he not? The fossil record if your a YEC is full of dinosaur fossils? Whether created during the flood or not Dino's existed prior to the flood as well as mammals of all kinds? Are you saying the dinos that lived on into mans history went extinct after the flood? I would have to agree with that. Because there is no doubt they did live into mans written history, and there is clear evidence of this.... But then there are issues with the fossil record that are challenging such as the Karoo fossils and canadian fossils, the fossils covered under ash from pre-flood super volcanoes. There are a host of issues...that seemingly need answers as yet......


I agree there are a host of issues. But the main issue is easily explained. Each type of fauna proliferates when conditions are suitable. The main variation in environmental conditions are :
1) Moisture content
2) Oxygen content in the air
3) Oxygen content in the oceans
4) Temperature
5) Air pressure
6) Magnetic fields (protection from solar winds)
7) Atmospheric strength (protection from solar winds)

Mammals were always there, dinosaurs were always there, humans were always there. But these fauna did not proliferate in the pre-flood easily fossilizing environments. Only easily fossilising amphibians fossils are widespread during the pre-flood world. Ruins of cities etc are possibly found below the Siberian basalt and at approximately 3km below the surface and so are never found, you don't build cities in swamps, and so they are not found there. Small reptiles proliferated in the hot desert post-flood conditions. Reptiles became large in the hot high pressure environment a few hundred years later caused by the flood's methane spike that had a greenhouse effect on earth. Large reptiles largely died off during the comet strike approximately 3800 years ago that dropped temperatures and dropped oxygen content and dropped air pressures which the large dinosaurs could not handle. since then mammals have proliferated while the last dinos have been dying off.

Anyway, that's the theory, it fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence, but its my own theory and hasn't been developed much yet.





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