COOL_BREEZE2
Well-Known Member
Sooooo....you're saying...the science disproved the science?
What is religion?
- Thread starter Godsloveapples
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sooooo....you're saying...the science disproved the science?
-
214Replies
-
6KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
COOL_BREEZE2
Well-Known Member
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
No, they use older creationist models that have long been proven to be completely bunk.
COOL_BREEZE2
Well-Known Member
Sooooo.....wasn't it a scientific analysis they did?
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
No. Creationists don't use real science. They publish twisted numbers and facts as truth. Like kent Hovind.
I mean, these are the people that claim the earth is only 4,000-6,000 years old.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
it would be funny if they weren't serious about it.
Godsloveapples
Between darkness and wonder
No they don't. They citied where they got the stuff from.
Godsloveapples
Between darkness and wonder
No, I looked through it for 3 seconds
but seriously...I did look through it, and like it's not convincing. All they say is that it's not possible to gather all animals or they can't fit. My scientific data beats your "scientific" data. :cool
More:
Archeologists Claim to Have Found Noah's Ark
Is Noah’s Ark a myth? - Answers in Genesis
Noah's Ark Found? Turkey Expedition Planned for Summer
Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Noahs flood did happen, not just because of this evidence I gave you, but because it's written in the Holy Quran. All my evidence is enough to make anyone believe that it did happen, but you're just being stubborn. :nod:
Godsloveapples
Between darkness and wonder
No, I looked through it for 3 seconds
but seriously...I did look through it, and like it's not convincing. All they say is that it's not possible to gather all animals or they can't fit, it's all wrong. My scientific data beats your "scientific" data. :cool
More:
Archeologists Claim to Have Found Noah's Ark
Is Noah’s Ark a myth? - Answers in Genesis
Noah's Ark Found? Turkey Expedition Planned for Summer
Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Noahs flood did happen, not just because of this evidence I gave you, but because it's written in the Holy Quran. All my evidence is enough to make anyone believe that it did happen, but you're just being stubborn. :nod:
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
This statement PROVES that you didn't look at my data thoroughly. The animal problem is only a little part of it all. They go into everything to geology to hydrology for pages. But, I can't expect a person so hardened in their beliefs to accept anything.No, I looked through it for 3 seconds
but seriously...I did look through it, and like it's not convincing. All they say is that it's not possible to gather all animals or they can't fit. My scientific data beats your "scientific" data. :cool
More:
Archeologists Claim to Have Found Noah's Ark
Is Noah’s Ark a myth? - Answers in Genesis
Noah's Ark Found? Turkey Expedition Planned for Summer
Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Noahs flood did happen, not just because of this evidence I gave you, but because it's written in the Holy Quran. All my evidence is enough to make anyone believe that it did happen, but you're just being stubborn. :nod:
And to be honest, the statement of "its true because it's in the Koran!" is BS. I'm sorry , but thats such an intellectual cop out. Just because its in a old book doesn't mean anything at all. It has to have testable data behind it, which it does not. All it has is myths and half baked predictions that "seem" to fit in with some geological findings (which also are skewed).
Perhaps I should show you again. This is all scientific fact that is cited from scientific sources, not some biased website with an agenda:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. The present day land surface would be expected everywhere to show rounding of the land surfaces in the direction the waters receded. There would be mega-ripples everywhere such as are seen along the Columbia River formed by the rapid movement of the waters off the land surface. Present day landforms would be expected to show a second stage of erosion resulting from this runoff in the common form of valleys eroded below the base level of its tributaries resulting in what are called hanging valleys in glacial terrain. These would be common and not caused by glaciation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order".[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events, a situation where fossils are abundant below a certain line within the geological layers, but totally absent above that line. The most notable extinction event is the one that killed off the dinosaurs (and 90% of all other life) 65 million years ago. There is no way to explain these geological features with a global flood.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. If, here and there, there were preserved remnants of the pre-flood land surface, its surface would show signs of major erosion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. Igneous (volcanic) rocks, if they existed at all in flood sediments, would all be in the form of pillow lava, which are extruded underwater. There could be no segregation of igneous rock types. Basalt would be the only igneous rock type because all activity would have been extrusive. There would be a complete absence of volcanic layers within the strata. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In reality, there are very clearly defined volcanic layers, from which radiometric dates are obtained.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] How can we observe layers of volcanic rock within the strata if there was a Flood at at the time? The lava would have mushroomed up into what is known as "pillow lava", like we see on the ocean floor today. So how can we have flat layers of vocanic rock, compressed between other layers, occuring during an "ultramassive flood"?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7. Metamorphic rocks, as they are formed from previously existing rocks, would not exist in the post-Flood geological layers because the necessary heating and cooling require millions of years for large bodies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8. All radioactive isotopes which would not have completely decayed away in, say 10,000 years, would exist in nature because those with a moderately short half-life would not have had time to decay.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9. No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers.[/FONT]
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10. Because of the catastrophic force of the marine environment and the lack of exposure of the land during the flood, we would expect to find no examples at all in the geologic record of the following delicate fossils or evidence for land deposition :[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fossilized dinosaur nests[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ant nests[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]termite nests[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming)[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fragile wasp nests[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]complex rodent burrows[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]trackways of land animals[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]raindrop imprints[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fossilized mudcracks[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis)[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ferns (adjacent to coal beds)[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO),[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]oxidized rocks layers (redbeds) because there is insufficient oxygen in the water to oxidize (bring up) the iron present.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] All these fragile features are found deep in the geological record. A catastrophic flood would have destroyed them. I would especially like you to consider how raindrop imprints and mudcracks could have become fossilized in a sudden, massive flood.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11. Were the earth only some 10,000 years old, metastable aragonite (mother of pearl) would be common in carbonates and especially in deeply buried (relatively high pressure) Paleozoic deposits. In reality, the oldest known aragonite sample is Mississippian. We would also expect to find volcanic glass and opal in rocks of all "ages," including Precambrian rocks that supposedly were created during the creation week only 6,000 years ago. In reality, opal and volcanic glass are rarely, if ever, found in Pre-Cenozoic rocks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12. We would expect Mesozoic and Cenozoic forams and radiolaria to be well mixed in the Mid-Atlantic sediments. They're not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13. There would be no blueschist outcrops. Blueschists are low temperature, high pressure metamorphic rocks that may contain the remains of pillow basalts and even fossils. These rocks would need millions of years to be subducted from the surface to depths of around 15-18 km. Once deeply buried, the blueschist minerals, such as glaucophane, need time to grow, since the temperatures are only about 300-400C.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14. We would expect to find no thick subsurface evaporites (halite, sylvite, and gypsum). It would be impossible to precipitate them from a marine environment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15. There would be genetic evidence of a recent population bottleneck in all extant species. There is no such genetic bottleneck, dating from 6-10 thousand years ago.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16. There would be some remnant evidence of pre-Flood civilization(s) and obviously pre-Flood humans. The Institute for Creation Research has not established any criteria for what a pre-Flood human might be like (instead consigning all "degenerate" fossils like erectus and neanderthal to post-Flood).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]17. Neither hardgrounds, which prove lithification before deposition of successive layers, nor buried karst terrain, as at the top of the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, would be found in the geologic record.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18. We would not find paleosols in the flood record because there was neither time nor a mechanism for sub-aerial exposure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]19. There would just be one age from the top to the bottom of the geological column. In other words, whether you pick a rock from the top of the Grand Canyon or the very bottom, they both should be dated at 10,000 years old. There would be no reason to find agreement between the layered rocks and their ages, which were determined both stratigraphically and radiometrically. In fact there are very real increases in age as one digs deeper down in the column. If the flood DID happen, then all the geological stratum were laid down in just one year, containing all those pesky bones. Therefore, there would be just one age from the top of the dirt to the bottom of the geographical layers. This is clearly not the case. Ergo, the Flood never happened.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All those "lower" strata, millions of years old, show an increase of complexity and diversity of life on this planet, dating back at least 3.8 billion years ago, when the only life on earth was bacterium. That evidence supports evolution. It refutes the idea that the earth is around 10,000 years old, and that all life appeared suddenly in one week, fully formed in their present state. The geological column clearly shows that humans only appeared very recently in the history of life. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20. We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]21. If the flood occurred about 10,000 years ago, the polar ice caps should have no more than 5000 annual layers. Or, at the very least, there should be massive evidence of melting and salt water intrusion at that time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22. Had a flood occurred, all plants alive today should have seeds which could remain viable in hot, humid conditions for a year, or which can survive prolonged submersion in sea water. All plants should be able to grow with little or no topsoil. In reality, most can't.[/FONT]
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]23. If a global flood deposited all strata, we would not expect to find the tilted, 11,600-foot thick, Late Precambrian Grand Canyon Series beneath the horizontally-bedded 4,000-foot thick Cambrian-Permian section in the Grand Canyon. Additionally, had the flood deposited all strata, one must wonder at what everyone between Adam and Noah lived on! Creationists have never identified the bedrock on which these biblical heroes walked.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24. In regard to fossils, there are three very important predictions if the Global Flood really occurred:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A) None of the marine fossils would be encrusted by other fossils, or show any sign of boring by organisms after death.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] B) None of the vertebrate fossils should show signs of scavenging or prolonged weathering by exposure on the ground.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] C) None of the vertebrate fossils should be encrusted by pedogenic carbonate, such as the fossils in the Karoo of South Africa and the Badlands of South Dakota are.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In other words, if the Flood happened, fossil vertebrates should consist only of freshly broken bone exhibiting no sign of scavenging or of having lain on the ground or sea bottom for a long period of time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25. Zoogeography should show a dispersal pattern demonstrating that the point of origin of all species is in the Middle East (the disembarking point for Noah's ark). It doesn't. It shows different points of origins for different species.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26. The Hawaiian Islands and associated coral structures should all be found to be more recent than the Flood. They aren't.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27. There should be isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years in the biosphere. The fact that there are none argues very strongly for an earth with an age far older than 10,000 years. (This point is not so much about the flood in particular, but presents an irrefutable argument in favor of an ancient earth. Click here to read a technical explanation). This evidence has never been refuted by any creationist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]28. Fossilized plants should be represented equally throughout all the geological layers, with no sorting from 'primitive' to 'modern'. This is not the case-- there is clearly segregation of plant fossils from primitive to modern represented in the geological column. Plants have no means by which to "run to higher ground", the infantile method that creationists suggest was used by animals to sort themselves in order of intelligence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24. In regard to fossils, there are three very important predictions if the Global Flood really occurred:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A) None of the marine fossils would be encrusted by other fossils, or show any sign of boring by organisms after death.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] B) None of the vertebrate fossils should show signs of scavenging or prolonged weathering by exposure on the ground.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] C) None of the vertebrate fossils should be encrusted by pedogenic carbonate, such as the fossils in the Karoo of South Africa and the Badlands of South Dakota are.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In other words, if the Flood happened, fossil vertebrates should consist only of freshly broken bone exhibiting no sign of scavenging or of having lain on the ground or sea bottom for a long period of time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25. Zoogeography should show a dispersal pattern demonstrating that the point of origin of all species is in the Middle East (the disembarking point for Noah's ark). It doesn't. It shows different points of origins for different species.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26. The Hawaiian Islands and associated coral structures should all be found to be more recent than the Flood. They aren't.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27. There should be isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years in the biosphere. The fact that there are none argues very strongly for an earth with an age far older than 10,000 years. (This point is not so much about the flood in particular, but presents an irrefutable argument in favor of an ancient earth. Click here to read a technical explanation). This evidence has never been refuted by any creationist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]28. Fossilized plants should be represented equally throughout all the geological layers, with no sorting from 'primitive' to 'modern'. This is not the case-- there is clearly segregation of plant fossils from primitive to modern represented in the geological column. Plants have no means by which to "run to higher ground", the infantile method that creationists suggest was used by animals to sort themselves in order of intelligence.[/FONT]
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been properly thought through: its implications have never been carefully considered by its creationist exponents. For instance, conglomerate is a type of rock that looks kind of like a natural concrete. It has a matrix of sandstone or other fine-grained rock, but embedded in this are many rounded pebbles of various sizes, and even boulders... The Institute for Creation Research implies that Noah's Flood was responsible for all the great concentrations of conglomerates throughout the world. But they nowhere face up to the great problems that this idea creates. One major difficulty is that many large deposits of conglomerate lie on top of great thicknesses - often several miles - of fine-grained sedimentary rock. The great conglomerate sea cliffs near Marseilles, for instance, are hundreds of feet high and contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. What purely natural processes would enable the Flood to deposit a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then place the boulder-laden conglomerates on top? Have Flood geologists not heard the expression, to sink like a stone?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Another problem for them is the clean, sharp lines often found at the boundaries between geologic layers. (The layers which face upward often have fossil limpets or barnacles attached to them. This shows that those layers had time to harden into rock and attract rock-clinging shellfish before the next stratum was laid down, which is hardly likely to happen in a flood that laid down a mile-thick layer of unconsolidated sediments in less than a year.) These sharp boundary lines are particularly troublesome in the case of conglomerate rock atop underlying sandstone.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Clearly, the lower layer must already have hardened into rock before the conglomerate was dumped on top, as otherwise the stones would have sunk into it. If one flood deposited both layers in quick succession, how could the underlying sandstone have hardened so fast?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Above all, there is the fact that the boulders inside conglomerate often contain fossils. How did they get there if, as Flood geologists assert, fossils are the remains of creatures that died in the Flood? And these boulders in conglomerate are nearly always rounded, as if they had been rolled around on a river or sea bed for long periods before being dumped in their last resting place. Of course, one can always argue that God specially created these rounded, fossil-laden boulders, and then miraculously caused the Flood to place them on top of the fine-grained deposits... [Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Oyster-like creatures are found from bottom to top of the geologic record- strange for slow moving bottom-dwellers. In chalk deposits a definite succession of different species of the same type of creature are found, separate and unmixed, at different levels... If they all once lived together, why do whales, seals, placoderms and oricthyosaurs not appear with modern fishes in fossilized marine Devonian environments?...[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Why, if the flood took place rapidly, are sandstone nearly always void of fossils? Uniformitarians reasonably explain that, over a period, shells are oxidized and abraded out of existence by the sand - but is a year long flood enough time for that to happen? [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Flood geologists have proposed that hydraulic sorting explains the succession of fossils found in the geologic record. But such a proposal is clearly a non-starter. There are fossil ammonites, whose beautiful spiral shells contain buoyancy chambers, and are therefore very light - yet they're never found in the upper levels. And ammonoid species ranging in size from a fraction of an inch to several feet across are all found together in the same deposit... The proposal that differential mobility explains the order found in the fossil record loses all credibility too. Why is there not a single human fossil below the topmost layer? Were there no inhabitants of the coastal plains who were overwhelmed in their sleep? No cripples or sick folk unable to flee to higher ground? And why are the pterodactyl fossils all in the middle layers? You would think that at least one or two of them would have flapped their way to the hilltops...[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Another proposal is that the Flood scooped up hundred-mile tracts of marine and land surfaces complete with their inhabitants, and then neatly arranged them into one-mile deep stacks - and in the right sequence, and without intermingling... Even if the Flood could have achieved such results in one place, it could not possibly have done so all over the world. The average thickness of fossil-bearing rock throughout the world is about a mile. Yet the precious layer of soil in and on which all life must live (except for swimming fishes and floating plants) is never more than a few feet thick. Did the Flood pick up that thin layer and with it produce sedimentary rock one mile thick?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Because, if so, God must have miraculously multiplied that layer of soil, like the loaves and fishes of Galilee! [Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution]-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Even worse for the ecological zone stacking proposal of Flood geologists is the fact that it is often possible to trace such zones in the strata laterally (rather than vertically) over several kilometers and see them change from marine shelf, to beach, to terrestrial coastal plain, complete with rooted trees and coal. And there are sometimes volcanic ash beds which can be physically correlated over the same distance, confirming that the areas were synchronous - the ash bed was deposited by a single eruption (so the marine shelf and coastline at that lateral level existed at the same time in the past)... The empty shells of ammonites, like that of the modern pearly nautilus, float after the death of the animal. Nautilus shells are found over much of the Pacific and Indian oceans because they are transported after death by water currents. They sink when they are damaged and fill with water. How floating shells could be effectively sorted by their hydrodynamic properties I do not know, but the predictions of a hydrodynamic sorting model are blatantly inconsistent with everything about the distribution of shelled cephalopods and other fossils... The fossil succession of ammonoids having distinctive shell sutures is clear in the first appearance of each group...[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Flood geologists must somehow assume that (for example) oysters could run faster than (for example) the many other types of clam found in the Paleozoic. Considering the fact that most oysters are cemented to the bottom, this seems a little unlikely. There are some clams in the Cretaceous, known as inoceraminds, which get up to a meter in size. Why they got sorted into the Cretaceous, and not much lower, whether due to hydrodynamic, ecological, or differential mobility, I have no idea. There is a precise zonation of inoceramid clam species within the Cretaceous. Some are huge, some are small (fist-sized). They often co-occur. Even more paradoxically, for Flood geologists, is the fact that the juvenile (young) specimens, only a few centimeters in size and with much thinner shells, co-occur with the large, thick-shelled mature specimens of the same species. This is the normal situation in the fossil record... In fact, most fossil brachiopods (clam-like animals) are found in life position (cemented to the bottom of solid rock, and after they were buried and the rock hardened, another layer of brachiopods grew atop them)... The entire structure of Flood geology is nonscientific and is based directly on the creationists' religious beliefs. Neither are their ideas and proposals new. All can be found described in 19th century literature. They were wrong then, and are still wrong now, because of the geological evidence.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Creationist Christian Bible-believing geologists of that period tossed flood geology models overboard for the sound scientific reason that such models were discovered to be completely inconsistent with the physical evidence. They did this despite their religious beliefs, because the evidence was so compelling. There is currently no scientific reason to bring Flood geology back. It has had its day in court. In fact, there is even more evidence falsifying it now than there was one hundred years ago. [Andrew Macrae]-[/FONT]
Another problem for them is the clean, sharp lines often found at the boundaries between geologic layers. (The layers which face upward often have fossil limpets or barnacles attached to them. This shows that those layers had time to harden into rock and attract rock-clinging shellfish before the next stratum was laid down, which is hardly likely to happen in a flood that laid down a mile-thick layer of unconsolidated sediments in less than a year.) These sharp boundary lines are particularly troublesome in the case of conglomerate rock atop underlying sandstone.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Clearly, the lower layer must already have hardened into rock before the conglomerate was dumped on top, as otherwise the stones would have sunk into it. If one flood deposited both layers in quick succession, how could the underlying sandstone have hardened so fast?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Above all, there is the fact that the boulders inside conglomerate often contain fossils. How did they get there if, as Flood geologists assert, fossils are the remains of creatures that died in the Flood? And these boulders in conglomerate are nearly always rounded, as if they had been rolled around on a river or sea bed for long periods before being dumped in their last resting place. Of course, one can always argue that God specially created these rounded, fossil-laden boulders, and then miraculously caused the Flood to place them on top of the fine-grained deposits... [Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Oyster-like creatures are found from bottom to top of the geologic record- strange for slow moving bottom-dwellers. In chalk deposits a definite succession of different species of the same type of creature are found, separate and unmixed, at different levels... If they all once lived together, why do whales, seals, placoderms and oricthyosaurs not appear with modern fishes in fossilized marine Devonian environments?...[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Why, if the flood took place rapidly, are sandstone nearly always void of fossils? Uniformitarians reasonably explain that, over a period, shells are oxidized and abraded out of existence by the sand - but is a year long flood enough time for that to happen? [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Flood geologists have proposed that hydraulic sorting explains the succession of fossils found in the geologic record. But such a proposal is clearly a non-starter. There are fossil ammonites, whose beautiful spiral shells contain buoyancy chambers, and are therefore very light - yet they're never found in the upper levels. And ammonoid species ranging in size from a fraction of an inch to several feet across are all found together in the same deposit... The proposal that differential mobility explains the order found in the fossil record loses all credibility too. Why is there not a single human fossil below the topmost layer? Were there no inhabitants of the coastal plains who were overwhelmed in their sleep? No cripples or sick folk unable to flee to higher ground? And why are the pterodactyl fossils all in the middle layers? You would think that at least one or two of them would have flapped their way to the hilltops...[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Another proposal is that the Flood scooped up hundred-mile tracts of marine and land surfaces complete with their inhabitants, and then neatly arranged them into one-mile deep stacks - and in the right sequence, and without intermingling... Even if the Flood could have achieved such results in one place, it could not possibly have done so all over the world. The average thickness of fossil-bearing rock throughout the world is about a mile. Yet the precious layer of soil in and on which all life must live (except for swimming fishes and floating plants) is never more than a few feet thick. Did the Flood pick up that thin layer and with it produce sedimentary rock one mile thick?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Because, if so, God must have miraculously multiplied that layer of soil, like the loaves and fishes of Galilee! [Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution]-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Even worse for the ecological zone stacking proposal of Flood geologists is the fact that it is often possible to trace such zones in the strata laterally (rather than vertically) over several kilometers and see them change from marine shelf, to beach, to terrestrial coastal plain, complete with rooted trees and coal. And there are sometimes volcanic ash beds which can be physically correlated over the same distance, confirming that the areas were synchronous - the ash bed was deposited by a single eruption (so the marine shelf and coastline at that lateral level existed at the same time in the past)... The empty shells of ammonites, like that of the modern pearly nautilus, float after the death of the animal. Nautilus shells are found over much of the Pacific and Indian oceans because they are transported after death by water currents. They sink when they are damaged and fill with water. How floating shells could be effectively sorted by their hydrodynamic properties I do not know, but the predictions of a hydrodynamic sorting model are blatantly inconsistent with everything about the distribution of shelled cephalopods and other fossils... The fossil succession of ammonoids having distinctive shell sutures is clear in the first appearance of each group...[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Flood geologists must somehow assume that (for example) oysters could run faster than (for example) the many other types of clam found in the Paleozoic. Considering the fact that most oysters are cemented to the bottom, this seems a little unlikely. There are some clams in the Cretaceous, known as inoceraminds, which get up to a meter in size. Why they got sorted into the Cretaceous, and not much lower, whether due to hydrodynamic, ecological, or differential mobility, I have no idea. There is a precise zonation of inoceramid clam species within the Cretaceous. Some are huge, some are small (fist-sized). They often co-occur. Even more paradoxically, for Flood geologists, is the fact that the juvenile (young) specimens, only a few centimeters in size and with much thinner shells, co-occur with the large, thick-shelled mature specimens of the same species. This is the normal situation in the fossil record... In fact, most fossil brachiopods (clam-like animals) are found in life position (cemented to the bottom of solid rock, and after they were buried and the rock hardened, another layer of brachiopods grew atop them)... The entire structure of Flood geology is nonscientific and is based directly on the creationists' religious beliefs. Neither are their ideas and proposals new. All can be found described in 19th century literature. They were wrong then, and are still wrong now, because of the geological evidence.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Creationist Christian Bible-believing geologists of that period tossed flood geology models overboard for the sound scientific reason that such models were discovered to be completely inconsistent with the physical evidence. They did this despite their religious beliefs, because the evidence was so compelling. There is currently no scientific reason to bring Flood geology back. It has had its day in court. In fact, there is even more evidence falsifying it now than there was one hundred years ago. [Andrew Macrae]-[/FONT]
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is the detailed record of successive fossil species, from simple to more complex, from general to special, from fish to man, entirely an artifact of Noah's Flood? Not one human being, or horse, or cow, or fox, or deer, or hippopotamus, or tortoise, or monkey, was so slow, or so stupid, or so crippled, that it lagged behind the others, and thus got caught down at the bottom of the hill. Not one! Conversely, there was not one dinosaur, or trilobite, or mammoth, that was lucky enough, or clever enough, or fast enough, to climb up to the top of the hill, and thus escape the fate of its fellows. Not one! And this is sound science? [Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A flood strong enough to move all the sediments of the earth would tend to mix the different types of animals and plants into one big mishmash... The fossils are in the right order for evolution but not for hydraulic selection. The light animals refuse to stay in the shallow rocks, and the dense animals refuse to stay in the deep rocks, where they belong according to creationism. For instance, trilobites, light, fragile creatures resembling pill bugs, tend to be found only in the deepest rocks... The rocks show that each distinct species usually has its own horizon absolutely distinct from the horizons of other species of the same size, shape, and weight. [Christopher Gregory Weber, Common Creationist Attacks on Geology, Creation/Evolution, Issue 2, Fall 1980][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. A forest of magnolias (a primitive tree) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed with the early mammals by the Flood, is unconvincing. [Robert J. Schadewald, Six Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't answer, Creation/Evolution, Issue 9, Summer 1982][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Flood geology doesn't explain why characteristic pollens and spores are found alongside animal fossils of each age (stratum), or why large, slow-moving mammals are invariably found in strata above flying pterodactyls and early birds like archaeopteryx. Flood geology also fails to explain the fossil pattern for trees. [Ken Nahigian][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Can creationists seriously believe that their Flood geology accounts for the numerous macro-evolutionary trends so well documented in the fossil record? Is it really possible that horses, humans, cows, and rats were true contemporaries of the primitive mammals known from Mesozoic deposits, but somehow only small noneutherian, apparently transitional (and small primitive eutherian mammals) managed to be buried beside the giants of the reptile world? [Laurie R. Godfrey][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If the worldwide sequence of fossils are the products of Noah's flood and its resultant fallout, why, then - at no place on this vast earth - do we find dinosaurs and large mammals in the same strata; why are trilobites never with mammals (not even marine mammals), but always in strata below? Surely some retarded elephant would be keeping company with dinosaurs, some valiant trilobite swimming hard for thirty-nine days and winning an exalted upper berth with mammals. [Stephen J. Gould, An Urchin in the Storm][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Why are whales and dolphins only found at high levels, while marine reptiles of similar size are found only much lower?... Why were not most of the birds exhausted far sooner, since perching places would have been hard to find in the raging Deluge?... Sardines and swordfish (teleostean fish), appeared in late Triassic times (200 million years ago) and show up in the fossil record more frequently with the passage of time. This contradicts predictions of Flood geology: these deep sea fish ought to be found in the lowest strata. Besides, these fish had no special hydraulic features and they were not especially fast swimmers. Yet all these lucky teleostean fish managed to resist the flood waters for a long time, while large numbers of speedy fish are buried beneath them. [Kitcher][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] We might well ask whether the impressively huge carnivorous dinosaurs and other reptiles of the Mesozoic were weaker and less agile than the sheep and other grazing mammals that lay in the Cenozoic layers above them. Were the Mesozoic fish somehow less capable of avoiding burial in the hydraulic cataclysm than the Cenozoic corals and snails that are found above them in stratigraphic succession? We must conclude that the similarity between the known distribution of fossils and the prediction of the creationist model is insufficient to provide a basis for serious comparison. [Brian F. Glenister & Brian J. Witzke][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Remember that Flood geologists emphasize the violence of the Flood and its global scale. Dead plants and animals would have been very thoroughly mixed and transported large distances. How, then, could the sequence in which they settled out possibly be related to the original elevations of their habitats, or their running abilities? And why would man be a special case? His running and climbing ability is inferior to that of many animals. In any case, all the animals, including man, would have been killed long before the Flood finally ended, so that their ability to temporarily escape death (not burial) would have been irrelevant in the long run. [Willard Young, Fallacies of Creationism][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Creationists like to dismiss evolution as only a theory. My favorite rejoinder is that creationism isn't even a theory. When examined in the light of well-known and thoroughly researched scientific phenomena, creationist flood geology fails the most basic and simple test known to forensic science: bodies don't pile up the way creationists insist they must. [Walter F. Rowe, Bobbing for Dinosaurs: A Forensic Scientist Looks at the Genesis Flood, Creation/Evolution, Issue 28, Winter 1990-91][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Creationist Flood geologists are well aware of the second law of thermodynamics as it relates to the origin of life, but typically oblivious to it regarding the unlikely odds of so many fossils being segregated so perfectly in the geologic record... Like it or not, the association of certain types of fossils with certain strata, and the existence of trace fossils - like neatly laid eggs, tidy nests, rodent burrows and the footprints of air-breathing animals found deep within the strata - can only be explained by different types of animals and plants living at completely different times in the past. [Neil Slater][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. A forest of magnolias (a primitive tree) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed with the early mammals by the Flood, is unconvincing. [Robert J. Schadewald, Six Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't answer, Creation/Evolution, Issue 9, Summer 1982][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Flood geology doesn't explain why characteristic pollens and spores are found alongside animal fossils of each age (stratum), or why large, slow-moving mammals are invariably found in strata above flying pterodactyls and early birds like archaeopteryx. Flood geology also fails to explain the fossil pattern for trees. [Ken Nahigian][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Can creationists seriously believe that their Flood geology accounts for the numerous macro-evolutionary trends so well documented in the fossil record? Is it really possible that horses, humans, cows, and rats were true contemporaries of the primitive mammals known from Mesozoic deposits, but somehow only small noneutherian, apparently transitional (and small primitive eutherian mammals) managed to be buried beside the giants of the reptile world? [Laurie R. Godfrey][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If the worldwide sequence of fossils are the products of Noah's flood and its resultant fallout, why, then - at no place on this vast earth - do we find dinosaurs and large mammals in the same strata; why are trilobites never with mammals (not even marine mammals), but always in strata below? Surely some retarded elephant would be keeping company with dinosaurs, some valiant trilobite swimming hard for thirty-nine days and winning an exalted upper berth with mammals. [Stephen J. Gould, An Urchin in the Storm][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Why are whales and dolphins only found at high levels, while marine reptiles of similar size are found only much lower?... Why were not most of the birds exhausted far sooner, since perching places would have been hard to find in the raging Deluge?... Sardines and swordfish (teleostean fish), appeared in late Triassic times (200 million years ago) and show up in the fossil record more frequently with the passage of time. This contradicts predictions of Flood geology: these deep sea fish ought to be found in the lowest strata. Besides, these fish had no special hydraulic features and they were not especially fast swimmers. Yet all these lucky teleostean fish managed to resist the flood waters for a long time, while large numbers of speedy fish are buried beneath them. [Kitcher][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] We might well ask whether the impressively huge carnivorous dinosaurs and other reptiles of the Mesozoic were weaker and less agile than the sheep and other grazing mammals that lay in the Cenozoic layers above them. Were the Mesozoic fish somehow less capable of avoiding burial in the hydraulic cataclysm than the Cenozoic corals and snails that are found above them in stratigraphic succession? We must conclude that the similarity between the known distribution of fossils and the prediction of the creationist model is insufficient to provide a basis for serious comparison. [Brian F. Glenister & Brian J. Witzke][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Remember that Flood geologists emphasize the violence of the Flood and its global scale. Dead plants and animals would have been very thoroughly mixed and transported large distances. How, then, could the sequence in which they settled out possibly be related to the original elevations of their habitats, or their running abilities? And why would man be a special case? His running and climbing ability is inferior to that of many animals. In any case, all the animals, including man, would have been killed long before the Flood finally ended, so that their ability to temporarily escape death (not burial) would have been irrelevant in the long run. [Willard Young, Fallacies of Creationism][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Creationists like to dismiss evolution as only a theory. My favorite rejoinder is that creationism isn't even a theory. When examined in the light of well-known and thoroughly researched scientific phenomena, creationist flood geology fails the most basic and simple test known to forensic science: bodies don't pile up the way creationists insist they must. [Walter F. Rowe, Bobbing for Dinosaurs: A Forensic Scientist Looks at the Genesis Flood, Creation/Evolution, Issue 28, Winter 1990-91][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Creationist Flood geologists are well aware of the second law of thermodynamics as it relates to the origin of life, but typically oblivious to it regarding the unlikely odds of so many fossils being segregated so perfectly in the geologic record... Like it or not, the association of certain types of fossils with certain strata, and the existence of trace fossils - like neatly laid eggs, tidy nests, rodent burrows and the footprints of air-breathing animals found deep within the strata - can only be explained by different types of animals and plants living at completely different times in the past. [Neil Slater][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The hydraulic engineer and co-author of The Genesis Flood, Henry Morris, not knowing that trilobites had a relatively light (non-dense) chitinous skeleton similar to that of crabs, has long said that trilobites were so dense they all sank to the lower layers during the Flood, and that's why they are found there. Actually they were much less dense than the clam-type mollusks which are found in great abundance in the higher layers of Mesozoic and Cenozoic rock systems; and both animal types lived in the same marine ecological zone (subtidal sea floor)... Scleractinian corals are found in abundance almost worldwide, and more actual volume of their fossils is present on the earth than of any other group of Cenozoic animal fossils. So it is inconceivable that they would not have become mixed into the lower strata - in fact, all strata - of the earth's sedimentary cover if the Flood geology hypothesis were correct. By reading any of Henry Morris's descriptions of the convulsive activities which he visualizes as having occurred during the Flood one can see how completely illogical it is to assert that the Paleozoic strata were formed by the Flood, with these dense calcified Scleractinian corals somehow being held up and not allowed to sink into the lower layers of sediment. Moreover, Scleractinian corals are as dense as the more ancient corals, because they are composed of CaCO3, the same as those orders were... If Morris and the folks as his Institute for Creation Research are correct, then God would have had to have performed a very specialized miracle to sink the trilobites and hold the more dense clam-type molluscs floating in the water above them. A similar miracle would have had to have been performed to keep the Scleractinian corals suspended while two other orders of coral settled beneath them. A third miracle would have had to have been performed to keep thick layers of microscopic diatoms all over the earth from mixing with the thick layers of microscopic radiolarians that settled in the strata beneath them! And so on and so forth. (I guess such specialized miracles were performed by God just to delude Christian geologists of the nineteenth century into rejecting the flood geology of their day? - Skip) [Daniel E. Wonderly, Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] There is a relative order to the fossilized species of plants found in the geologic record for which Flood Geology cannot account, unless you can imagine apple and orange trees with Nike sneakers on their roots, racing past the magnolias and primitive mammals, leaving the ginkgos back there with the dinosaurs when the Flood waters began to rise. [Frank R. Zindler, Creationism on the Rocks, Dial-An-Atheist, Greatest Hits from Ohio][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Under the Flood geology hypothesis, one would expect that lowland-loving plants, such as cattails, willow trees and lily pads (which live on or near the surface of water) would have been buried long before those plants which favor higher and cooler areas, such as pine trees and other conifers. This, however, is not what we find in the fossil record. Instead, the evolutionarily primitive conifers appear much lower in the column than do modern angiosperms such as willow trees and oak trees. What a miraculous Flood to have sorted such an incalculably large number of plant remains (and also their fine pollen grains) in such a precise manner! What are the odds that one, big, violent Flood could have accomplished such a miracle?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
How did the oak and willow trees manage to get to the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile mammals? Did the trees run for the high ground too? What about the many nesting sites that have been found for terrestrial dinosaurs? Are we to assume that these animals, panicked by the rising flood waters and the torrential rain and fleeing for the high ground, suddenly decided to stop and dig huge numbers of nests in the Flood sediments and lay eggs, which apparently had time to hatch before the Flood engulfed them?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Apparently, Flood geologists would have us believe that the therapsid reptiles (who they assert were all contemporary and lived side by side) just happened to drown and become sorted by the Flood into a sequence which looks just like evolutionary descent; the forms with well-developed reptilian jaw joints and incipient mammalian joints just happened to be buried first, followed by those like Probainognathus with double jaw joints, while forms like the Morganucodonts, with functional mammalian joints and receding reptilian joints, just happened to climb a little higher or sink a little slower than the others (but not so high or so slow as the true mammals with no reptilian characteristics). Sea turtles violate every presumed sorting mechanism that Flood geologists have proposed; they live in the open deep sea, but are found high in the sediment layer-- above such terrestrial animals as amphibians and dinosaurs; they are big and heavy and sink rapidly upon death, but are found in the upper layers, above such lighter organisms as jellyfish and seaweeds; they are clumsy and slow on land, but apparently managed to run to the higher elevations before the Flood engulfed them (since they are found in the same sediment layers as such speedy animals as saber -toothed tigers and horses). Again, what are the odds that one big violent Flood could have sorted all the dead sea turtles in such an evolutionary fashion? [Lenny Flank, Can Noah's Flood Account For the Geologic and Fossil record? at www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/worldwideflood.htm][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] What are we going to do with all those fossil fragments? After all, most animal fossils come in bits and pieces. Are we to believe that a dinosaur knee had the same hydrodynamic sorting properties as a dinosaur claw, a dinosaur tooth, a dinosaur skull? Did baby dinosaurs have the same hydrodynamic sorting properties as the adults? Did bone fragments of baby dinosaurs, dinosaur egg shells, not to mention whole eggs, all have the same hydrodynamic sorting properties as the bones of adult dinosaurs? Odd, don't you think, that in those rare cases where dinosaur skin is preserved, it is found at the same level as the bare bones? Funny, that all these diverse bits and pieces should find their way to the same level of the geologic record, species by species. I would think that at least some dinosaur teeth would wind up with the trilobites, that a few hollow leg bones would be found near the top of the geologic column. This hydrodynamic sorting principle, as used by Henry Morris, is not just wrong statistically; it is totally FRAUDULENT. It is DISHONEST. It has no more explanatory power than the usual creationist miracles. Indeed, it is nothing more than a modern day miracle couched in scientific terminology. [Dave E. Matson, April 12, 1999][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In 1938 Harold Clark (a disciple of the Flood geologist, George Macready Price) was invited by a student to visit the oil fields of Oklahoma and northern Texas, where Mr. Clark saw with his own eyes why geologists believed as they did. Observations of deep drilling and conversations with practical geologists gave Clark a real shock that permanently erased any confidence he had left in Price's vision of a topsy-turvy fossil record. Clark wrote to Price: "The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago." [Donald R. Prothero, Snake Handlers and Flood Geologists: A Review Essay of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers, The Skeptic, Vol. 2, no.2, 19'][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Under the Flood geology hypothesis, one would expect that lowland-loving plants, such as cattails, willow trees and lily pads (which live on or near the surface of water) would have been buried long before those plants which favor higher and cooler areas, such as pine trees and other conifers. This, however, is not what we find in the fossil record. Instead, the evolutionarily primitive conifers appear much lower in the column than do modern angiosperms such as willow trees and oak trees. What a miraculous Flood to have sorted such an incalculably large number of plant remains (and also their fine pollen grains) in such a precise manner! What are the odds that one, big, violent Flood could have accomplished such a miracle?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
How did the oak and willow trees manage to get to the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile mammals? Did the trees run for the high ground too? What about the many nesting sites that have been found for terrestrial dinosaurs? Are we to assume that these animals, panicked by the rising flood waters and the torrential rain and fleeing for the high ground, suddenly decided to stop and dig huge numbers of nests in the Flood sediments and lay eggs, which apparently had time to hatch before the Flood engulfed them?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Apparently, Flood geologists would have us believe that the therapsid reptiles (who they assert were all contemporary and lived side by side) just happened to drown and become sorted by the Flood into a sequence which looks just like evolutionary descent; the forms with well-developed reptilian jaw joints and incipient mammalian joints just happened to be buried first, followed by those like Probainognathus with double jaw joints, while forms like the Morganucodonts, with functional mammalian joints and receding reptilian joints, just happened to climb a little higher or sink a little slower than the others (but not so high or so slow as the true mammals with no reptilian characteristics). Sea turtles violate every presumed sorting mechanism that Flood geologists have proposed; they live in the open deep sea, but are found high in the sediment layer-- above such terrestrial animals as amphibians and dinosaurs; they are big and heavy and sink rapidly upon death, but are found in the upper layers, above such lighter organisms as jellyfish and seaweeds; they are clumsy and slow on land, but apparently managed to run to the higher elevations before the Flood engulfed them (since they are found in the same sediment layers as such speedy animals as saber -toothed tigers and horses). Again, what are the odds that one big violent Flood could have sorted all the dead sea turtles in such an evolutionary fashion? [Lenny Flank, Can Noah's Flood Account For the Geologic and Fossil record? at www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/worldwideflood.htm][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] What are we going to do with all those fossil fragments? After all, most animal fossils come in bits and pieces. Are we to believe that a dinosaur knee had the same hydrodynamic sorting properties as a dinosaur claw, a dinosaur tooth, a dinosaur skull? Did baby dinosaurs have the same hydrodynamic sorting properties as the adults? Did bone fragments of baby dinosaurs, dinosaur egg shells, not to mention whole eggs, all have the same hydrodynamic sorting properties as the bones of adult dinosaurs? Odd, don't you think, that in those rare cases where dinosaur skin is preserved, it is found at the same level as the bare bones? Funny, that all these diverse bits and pieces should find their way to the same level of the geologic record, species by species. I would think that at least some dinosaur teeth would wind up with the trilobites, that a few hollow leg bones would be found near the top of the geologic column. This hydrodynamic sorting principle, as used by Henry Morris, is not just wrong statistically; it is totally FRAUDULENT. It is DISHONEST. It has no more explanatory power than the usual creationist miracles. Indeed, it is nothing more than a modern day miracle couched in scientific terminology. [Dave E. Matson, April 12, 1999][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In 1938 Harold Clark (a disciple of the Flood geologist, George Macready Price) was invited by a student to visit the oil fields of Oklahoma and northern Texas, where Mr. Clark saw with his own eyes why geologists believed as they did. Observations of deep drilling and conversations with practical geologists gave Clark a real shock that permanently erased any confidence he had left in Price's vision of a topsy-turvy fossil record. Clark wrote to Price: "The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago." [Donald R. Prothero, Snake Handlers and Flood Geologists: A Review Essay of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers, The Skeptic, Vol. 2, no.2, 19'][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Many fossil bones found in terrestrial deposits show evidence of having been weathered for months and having been scavenged. In addition, many bones are preserved in calcareous fossil soils, i.e. the Badlands of North Dakota and the Karoo of South Africa. In marine deposits, the bones are frequently encrusted by organisms, bored by organisms, and have teeth marks from sharks and other scavengers. These are things that preclude the idea of rapid burial in a global flood. There exist almost innumerable examples in geological literature. [Paul V. Heinrich][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] I'd suggest taking a look at the DNA of a specific animal, say a bat, as compared with the DNA of it's closest living relatives, then see when the bat and its nearest living relatives first appeared in the fossil record and show how near they are to one another in geological time. How could a FLOOD sort these creatures into the irrespectively close geological layers via their DNA? It took man a thousand years to come up with DNA comparison testing, but it took those muddy violent waters no time at all to sort species after species after species after species after species, all according to their DNA. Some Flood! -Edward T. Babinski (AKA, Skip Church)
Or, this handy little link: The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] I'd suggest taking a look at the DNA of a specific animal, say a bat, as compared with the DNA of it's closest living relatives, then see when the bat and its nearest living relatives first appeared in the fossil record and show how near they are to one another in geological time. How could a FLOOD sort these creatures into the irrespectively close geological layers via their DNA? It took man a thousand years to come up with DNA comparison testing, but it took those muddy violent waters no time at all to sort species after species after species after species after species, all according to their DNA. Some Flood! -Edward T. Babinski (AKA, Skip Church)
Or, this handy little link: The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
[/FONT]
COOL_BREEZE2
Well-Known Member
:eek Whoa. My eyes hurt.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
I Blinded You With Science!
79,873Threads
2,192,299Messages
5,010Members