Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[Roy]

Explain this please. Fossilized dino tracks up a near vertical 300' wall in Bolivia.

I'll try to get to the rest later, but until then here's another picture of fossilised tracks.
footprints.jpg
How could this have happened during a flood?

[rogue06]

I'll try to get to the rest later, but until then here's another picture of fossilised tracks.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17102[/ATTACH]
How could this have happened during a flood?

A few from my collection

vertical positive peru trax.jpg
Positive tracks in Peru

vertical tracks Chile.JPG
From Chile

vertical tracks Glen Canyon.JPG
From Glen Canyon

vertical tracks Portugal.jpg
From Portugal

verticle tracks Pyrenees.jpg
From the Pyrenees

vertical tracks Argen.jpg
From Argentina

vertical tracks Bolivia.jpg
From Bolivia

vertical tracks Bolivia2.jpg
Bolivia again

vertical tracks calorcko.jpg
Again Bolivia

vertical tracks unknown.jpg
I think this is another view of the Argentina ones

vertical tracks Brit Columbia.jpg
From British Columbia

[oxmixmudd]

A few from my collection

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17104[/ATTACH]
Positive tracks in Peru

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17105[/ATTACH]
From Chile

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17106[/ATTACH]
From Glen Canyon

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17107[/ATTACH]
From Portugal

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17108[/ATTACH]
From the Pyrenees

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17109[/ATTACH]
From Argentina

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17110[/ATTACH]
From Bolivia

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17111[/ATTACH]
Bolivia again

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17112[/ATTACH]
Again Bolivia

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17113[/ATTACH]
I think this is another view of the Argentina ones

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17114[/ATTACH]
From British Columbia

As I've tried to say before, a hypothesis that expresses the real history of the Earth will be found to be consistent with all the records found in the rocks and oceans of the Earth. And no amount of contriving or conniving will be sufficiently complete to force fit it all into some alternate explanation. My comments about 'No scientific evidence for the global flood' refers to ALL the evidence taken together. I am not saying someone might find some formation somewhere that could possibly be explained by either a recent global flood OR long ages. What I'm saying is there is conistent explanation for all or even most of the evidence we have under a global flood scenario. This was discovered long ago by the Early geologists and remains true today.

I also have observed the following, but am trying to engage logician in as welcoming a fashion as possible to see if anything he brings forward will serve as a counter to these observations:

1) Most of what passes for global flood 'evidence' on sites like AIG and ICR ignores significant elements of the specific piece of evidence or geological formation (e.g. tracks accross multiple layers in to Coconino sandstone). Elements contrary to a recent flood hypothesis.

2) Evidence like these track you, Roy, and Beagle have posted is completely ignored. To stand these formations on end, they must have lithified first. To form multiple layers of instact and whole ecological systems such as those Shunya and others have listed require so much special pleading in a flood scenario as to become comletely ludicrous.


Jim

The AIG/ICR attempts to assign layers to a flood ALWAYS crash into elements like these and others.

[rogue06]

As I've tried to say before, a hypothesis that expresses the real history of the Earth will be found to be consistent with all the records found in the rocks and oceans of the Earth. And no amount of contriving or conniving will be sufficiently complete to force fit it all into some alternate explanation. My comments about 'No scientific evidence for the global flood' refers to ALL the evidence taken together. I am not saying someone might find some formation somewhere that could possibly be explained by either a recent global flood OR long ages. What I'm saying is there is conistent explanation for all or even most of the evidence we have under a global flood scenario. This was discovered long ago by the Early geologists and remains true today.

I also have observed the following, but am trying to engage logician in as welcoming a fashion as possible to see if anything he brings forward will serve as a counter to these observations:

1) Most of what passes for global flood 'evidence' on sites like AIG and ICR ignores significant elements of the specific piece of evidence or geological formation (e.g. tracks accross multiple layers in to Coconino sandstone). Elements contrary to a recent flood hypothesis.

2) Evidence like these track you, Roy, and Beagle have posted is completely ignored. To stand these formations on end, they must have lithified first. To form multiple layers of instact and whole ecological systems such as those Shunya and others have listed require so much special pleading in a flood scenario as to become comletely ludicrous.


Jim

The AIG/ICR attempts to assign layers to a flood ALWAYS crash into elements like these and others.

The problem is that YECs attempt to cobble together some ad hoc explanation for something that just doesn't hold any water and is inconsistent -- often directly contradicting -- with other explanations they offered. They count on their followers not to notice and to accept them blindly

[TheLurch]

The problem is that YECs attempt to cobble together some ad hoc explanation for something that just doesn't hold any water and is inconsistent -- often directly contradicting -- with other explanations they offered. They count on their followers not to notice and to accept them blindly

Agreed on this, but the thing that strikes me is how circular it all is.

Them: "We've found a few random things that we can twist around and interpret in such a way as indicating there was a global flood."
Science: "Your interpretation is flawed, and besides, there's not enough water to produce a global flood"
Them: "But we can come up with all these physically impossible processes that could have gotten within an order of magnitude of having enough water!"
Science: "That's insane. Besides, there's no evidence of a global flood that requires a mechanism to explain it.
Them: "We've found a few random things that we can twist around and interpret in such a way as indicating there was a global flood!"

Lather, rinse, repeat.

It would be so much easier if it went something like this:

Them: "My theological convictions require me to believe that something that's physically impossible occurred, and failed to leave traces on the current landscape."
Science: "Ok, whatever."

[Roy]

Logician Bones,

Rather than carry on simultaneous conversations in two threads, I've combined your comments into this one post for easier (and uninterrupted) reply. I've mostly addressed you comments to me, but highlighted a couple of other points too.

a global flood would not produce in-filled river channels or angular unconformities.

Of course it would, Roy -- the question is if there are any specific cases of these that are actually impossible (shown by features not possible in a Flood scenario, not just claimed to be impossible).

Yes, lots. How would a single flood leave a set of deposited layers, have them harden, have them lithified, metamorphosed by heat, bent and faulted, and then turned on their side, and then eroded the sloping layers flat and deposit more layers on top of their ends?

How can you say these would not happen at all? How would a global Flood happen and somehow NOT show these erosion features?

Because they are far more than just erosion features.

-Burrows -- like I said before, this is the sort of argument that is probably the strongest against the Flood, but simply saying burrows were fossilized isn't enough because we do expect that. But if we were to find one burrow fossilized below others (directly below, or definitely in layers that had to be laid down atop the lower layer -- as in, not just assumed to be above but in far distant locations),...

We do.

... and if the burrows somehow were proven to be unable to be made during the Flood (keep in mind we would expect some of that; animals wouldn't all die instantly, and the RS explanation especially would have two major flood stages, at least, with time in between for some of the initial survivors to try to resettle), then we could get somewhere.

Or not. How would animals reburrow in soft mud and not have those burrows completely obliterated by another violent flood a few months later?

-Tracks are again obviously expected.

Multiple layers of tracks are not, nor are tracks on vertical planes.

-Not sure offhand what you mean by "hardgrounds". Could you clarify for the noob? :P

Lithified seabed with signs of animal activity - boring, burrowing, etc. Often found in multiple layers atop each other.

-Eggs, nests, etc. go in the same category as burrows.

But as with burrows, you'd only expect nests and eggs to be found at the base of the flood sediments, not scattered throughout them. And eggs are not known for their ability to withstand long-distance transport in raging torrents.

-Roots -- This is similar too, but also the Mt. St. Helens evidence needs to come in here. We find many trees uprooted but buried upright as we saw there, some crossing multiple layers incidentally (so at least those layers were laid down catastrophically), and if there are complete roots buried elsewhere (offhand I don't recall), they could have been buried in situ if low enough, and it's also possible for roots to come up with trees and be moved elsewhere before being buried, depending on how the removal happens (and water could turn soil to mud possibly allowing roots to come up with the tree).

But there are instances of multiple forest layers atop each other, with the fossilized roots of each layer extending into the layers below - and the trees are too large to haver grown in less than a year.

-Just calling something a desert deposit isn't evidence; that looks like circular reasoning because we would expect OEs to assume they'll see deserts in the layers. We would see those as laid down by water.

Obviously. But no-one who isn't predisposed to Noah's flood will see that.

-Large salt deposition is expected as well.

Not in a flood it isn't. Salt deposits are caused by evaporating shallow seas, as happens in the outback, or around Salt Lake city or the Caspian. Unless your global flood was very shallow and evaporated completely multiple times, it wouldn't have left salt deposits.

-Could you be more specific about the mud cracks argument?

Sure. When mud dries, it cracks and hardens. This can be seen in dried up lakebeds or river courses. For obvious reasons it doesn't happen underwater, so would only ever occur at the base of the flood layers. Unfortunately it occurs directly under the Coconino sandstone, in the middle of the supposed flood deposits.

-Under the runaway subduction model, we would expect some of the lava flows to have been aerial, but I've seen cases of them being originally assumed to be aerial but later features are found more consistent with underwater formation, as mentioned earlier.

IIRC, under the runaway subduction model everything is subaerial since there is enough heat to boil away the oceans entirely.

-Again, could you be more specific? We have many places where under the OE view we would expect much more scree than is there.

Sure. Scree is jagged rock fragments caused by cliff-falls. These do not occur underwater in the same way as they do on land. There should be no scree in flood deposits.

-Scoria is a type of rock, not an argument -- again, please be more specific.

No problem. Scoria is lava that shows signs of decompression - air vesicles/bubbles within its matrix. It does not form underwater.

-Same as with burrows. Note that feces decay much faster than bones, so these being preserved at all shows at least a small scale of catastrophism.

It decays so fast it would not last more than a few seconds in a torrential flood - but it is found throughout the supposed flood deposits.

-Again, obviously we would expect raindrops in the described scenario!

Raindrops, yes. Raindrop markings, no. Rain that lands in floodwaters obviously does not leave depressions in the seabed, so raindrop markings would only be found on the base of the flood deposits - but they are found throughout them.

Surely there would be even clearer traces of genetic bottlenecks in large animals

From what the account describes, not of the kind that is described for humans that we have found. Other evidence I wouldn't rule out, like I said, but with humans we were told to expect one major male line surviving from the prior genetic mutations in the Pre-Flood world, and up to three female lines. And that's what modern science found. This is a pattern that shows a bottleneck regardless of any dubious "dating" methods.

In the animals, though, we're told only that they are in pairs, and some in multiple pairs, with no easily discernable pattern like a difference between male and female.

Mammals have mitochondria and X/Y chromosomes too. If you can, as you have claimed, see a single lineage in human males, there would be a single lineage in the males of other mammal species too.

the change in decay rate is at most a few % even for extreme temperature differences

The problem with that is that the results vary based on other conditions

By more than a few percent? You need several orders of magnitude difference.

-- we would need to conclusively rule out that those conditions occurred during the Flood in amounts that could increase the percentage enough. From what I've seen, there has been no such proof yet. Obviously this can't be universal, or the radiocarbon would speed up too (presumably the heat from the volcanic layers would spread into the sedimentary layers, right?). What we observe is contradictory "ages" from different methods -- exactly what we would expect if the current findings that conditions affect certain radioactive decay types differently from others was at play.

What we observe is consistent dates from diverse methods, suggesting that there is little or no difference in how decay rates are affected by conditions.

In some cases patterns of damage due to radioactivity show that the decay happened faster in situ, ...

If you are referring to the halo effects, they don't show that at all - only that gaseous elemnts tended to concentrate and decay at the top of cracks in the rocks.

There are none of the seashell or coral fragments that are typically found in beach sand.

Expected since the evidence shows this region was deposited during the Flood, transported from a region more to the north, and it's well into the continent.

So how exactly did the Coconino sandstone get deposited? You seem to be suggesting that it was eroded from an area many miles away, transported by fast-flowingwater en masse without affecting the fine internal structures and trace fossils, or changing the sediment orientation, and then being deposited in suddenly shallow water on top of dry mud that didn't dissolve, while animals scampered across the now sloping surface of it.

While those can get to that spot earlier in the RS model when the ocean water is being pumped out onto the land from the coasts in, the transportation evidence shows that at the time of Coconino transportation the current was primarily inland to coast, presumably due to the rainfall having started at that point.

There is no transportation evidence that I am aware of.

The ripple marks and cross-bedding in the planes match those of desert dunes

No they don't. This was the old assumption prior to actually comparing them to desert dunes versus large underwater sand waves. They match the latter, as do the footprints, not desert dunes.

They were compared to (and found to match) desert dunes back in the 1940s.

To the other points, I'm not sure what you mean about the tracks not being level.

There are fossil trackways on vertical cliffs. See rogue's gallery. These trackways were not made by animals running uphill.

The study showed that they consistently go uphill, and are angled as if the animals were fighting a current (matching experiments to that effect and not desert tracks), so if you mean either of those things this works against your view, not for it.

What study?

One last point: AiG's creation museum has a plaque suggesting that the pair of rhinoceroses on the Ark diversified into perhaps 200-300 species in the first couple centuries after the Flood. If you don't think YECs propose hyperevolution, I suggest you try doing the maths regarding just how fast those speciations must have occurred. Hint: Rhino generations are 5-10 years long.

[rogue06]

But there are instances of multiple forest layers atop each other, with the fossilized roots of each layer extending into the layers below - and the trees are too large to haver grown in less than a year.

I'd like to add a bit more on this part and expand upon it concerning "polystrate" fossils (fossils that pass through different sediment layers) since the two subjects often get linked.


Such stacked forests are known at other sites as well including a sequence of 27 fossil forests buried, one upon the other, at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park (Wyoming, USA). The deposit shows that, at least 27 times in the past, a forest reached maturity (the oldest tress in each layer are about 500 years old) and was then buried by volcanic ash and debris coming from a nearby volcano (in the Eocene, the area would have been between two volcanic chains).

This means that Specimen Ridge cannot be younger than the sum of the ages of the oldest trees in each of the 27 layers, not to mention the time it took for the volcanic rock to gain enough top soil to support trees^[1]

And there are numerous other examples of stacked in situ forests.

The Joggins Cliffs in Nova Scotia includes multiple (+30) in-place, mature forests, some separated by hundred of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires, and each forest has vertical trunks with roots in a fossil soil can best be explained by a slowly sinking delta. "Polystrates" form as land sinks. Wood buried in such marshes is almost immune to rot and can be buried over the course of decades or centuries without a problem.

There are four levels of early Cretaceous fossil forests on Alexander Island, Antarctica, where flat-lying trees are rare and the roots of these fossil tree trunks are firmly attached to the underlying sediments (clay-rich weathered volcanic paleosols) that had been deposited prior to the growth of the trees and into which the roots grew.

There are ten stacked conifer forests from Jurassic sediments exposed at Curio Bay on South Island, New Zealand and 600km north, on the North Island of New Zealand, at Kawhia Harbor, there are 8-10 mid-Jurassic fossil forests, with some of the trees exhibiting deeply-penetrating tap roots.

In Eastern New York, in a Devonian Catskill "delta," are three sand-buried Eospermatopteris stump horizons with roots penetrating underlying mudstones.

Near Donaldsonville, Louisiana, there are 3 levels of cypress forests stacked one atop the other. Each level represents a cypress forest that grew in the backwater swamp of the Mississippi River during an extended period of very low or nonexistent sedimentation. Each forest was killed when the backwater swamp was flooded with sediment over a very brief period of time (possibly due to a change in the river’s course or the development of a crevasse splay).

And recently on the Island of Axel Heiberg Island, in the Canadian Arctic, 20 layers of semi-tropical forests have been found stacked one above the other.

The existence of such stacked forests, one on top of the other, terminally rebuts the concept of a global flood unless it was one that allowed forests to grow, get buried, grow again, get buried, grow again, get buried and on and on.

That some of these forests are still rooted in the soil they grew in discredits lame YEC attempts to claim that those trees are the result of uprooted trees being washed in and dumped in the same location like they were on some sort of conveyor belt. And the fact that some of these forests show evidence of being burned in forest fires (even you would likely agree that this is a neat trick for something allegedly deep underwater) is yet another nail in the coffin of the flood geologist fantasy-based "explanations."

Also inconvenient for YEC assertions, polystrates can be seen forming today again demonstrating that a global flood isn't necessary to explain their formation.

For instance, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes are known to cover trees ten meters high in just a few years and at Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, there are some bald cypress trees that have continued growing in the lake since an earthquake submerged them back in 1812.

Glenn Morton (a geologist and former YEC who posts here upon occasion) has done some excellent work showing how polystrate trees are forming today in backwater regions along the Mississippi River in a manner very similar to what we see in ancient deposits in western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, and Eastern Kentucky.

And then take a look at trees in modern mangrove forests and peat swamps whose root systems and quite a bit of the trunk are buried in sediment. It appears that the majority of these polystrate trees come from ecosystems that are coastal peat swamps with rivers bringing and depositing sediment.

In such instances the water would also tend to be anoxic (depleted of oxygen) which would promote the formation of coal over time^[2].

Finally, despite claims from YECs to the contrary, geologists have understood that localized events can lay down a deposit fairly quickly. It is absurd in the extreme to contend that, for example, a lava flow from a volcano found in the geologic record took millions of years to be deposited. Likewise, nobody maintains that a single landslide took place over thousands of years. These are ridiculous mischaracterizations of what uniformitarianism proposes.

And as can be seen here in this picture below of polystrate telephone poles caused by torrential rains washing loose volcanic material down off Mt. Pinatubo on the island of Luzon in the Philippines, it doesn't take millions of years for something like this to happen – and neither does it take a global flood.

fig18f.jpg

1 27 forest each at least 500 years old means that at a minimum 13,500 years are needed for this sequence to form. How could 27 successive fossil forests be formed and sorted in one flood that lasted less than a year long? Further, such violent waters would have uprooted the trees instead of allowing the roots to remain in the soil itself, which is also fossilized.

2 And some of the time it is even something like resin that preserves the trees such as in the case of these Norwegian trees dead 500 years that haven’t rotted but still have fresh wood in a wet environment due to resin.

[shunyadragon]

The overwhelming geologic evidence presented here gives no other option than the earth billions of years old, and no basis for any of the variations of a literal Genesis. As far as the total evidence, what has been presented so far is only a drop in the bucket.

[shunyadragon]

Case closed . . .

[Jorge]

As I've tried to say before, a hypothesis that expresses the real history of the Earth will be found to be consistent with all the records found in the rocks and oceans of the Earth. And no amount of contriving or conniving will be sufficiently complete to force fit it all into some alternate explanation. My comments about 'No scientific evidence for the global flood' refers to ALL the evidence taken together. I am not saying someone might find some formation somewhere that could possibly be explained by either a recent global flood OR long ages. What I'm saying is there is conistent explanation for all or even most of the evidence we have under a global flood scenario. This was discovered long ago by the Early geologists and remains true today.

I also have observed the following, but am trying to engage logician in as welcoming a fashion as possible to see if anything he brings forward will serve as a counter to these observations:

1) Most of what passes for global flood 'evidence' on sites like AIG and ICR ignores significant elements of the specific piece of evidence or geological formation (e.g. tracks accross multiple layers in to Coconino sandstone). Elements contrary to a recent flood hypothesis.

2) Evidence like these track you, Roy, and Beagle have posted is completely ignored. To stand these formations on end, they must have lithified first. To form multiple layers of instact and whole ecological systems such as those Shunya and others have listed require so much special pleading in a flood scenario as to become comletely ludicrous.


Jim

The AIG/ICR attempts to assign layers to a flood ALWAYS crash into elements like these and others.

Your dishonesty continues ...

Most Biblical Creationists, including myself, have at the very least thought about these observations. Ideas and hypotheses have been explored, critiqued and so on. I don't believe that anyone has the answer to these observations - the observations don't yield enough facts to be able to conclusively settle on one thing or another. This is why I personally return to the ONE thing that I know is certain: God's Word including His historical accounts. See, I openly confess this.

Specimens like yourself, on the other hand, choose to interpret things so as to satisfy your baseline beliefs - beliefs that are centered on General Uniformitarianism and other Materialistic foundations. That much is perfectly fine - we are all free to do as we wish. The dishonesty occurs when you fail to report these things as what they are, namely, religiously-based interpretations and instead refer to them as "science". Your interpretations are chock-full of open questions that you conveniently sidestep so as to remain "credible" (that is a typical tactic of TEs/OECs). Then that fraud is compounded by condemning other interpretations as "religious, not "scientific". Finally, the deception comes full circle by creating a false "science versus religion" dichotomy in which you assign yourself the "moral high ground" of "science".

I cannot state it enough times: That is blatant, rank dishonesty. If you would at least confess that yours also is a religiously-based interpretation then you'd have earned some respect. The problem is that you won't ever do that. God knows that I've offered you many, many opportunities to come clean but you never have. That is why you et al. have earned the label of dishonest.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The overwhelming geologic evidence presented here gives no other option than the earth billions of years old, and no basis for any of the variations of a literal Genesis. As far as the total evidence, what has been presented so far is only a drop in the bucket.

See my last post and cease your drunken stupor.
At the very least confess that you simply believe what you wish to believe.
Be honest for once in your life ... just to see what it feels like ... you may like it.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

That is blatant, rank dishonesty.

...and it's all coming from Jorge "the welsher" Fernandez.

Go ahead Give us your "scientific" Flood explanation for the various geologic features shown in this thread. Explain those near vertical dino tracks, especially the ones angling downward.

You won't because you're still the biggest coward the YEC ranks have ever produced.

[TheLurch]

Specimens like yourself, on the other hand, choose to interpret things so as to satisfy your baseline beliefs - beliefs that are centered on General Uniformitarianism and other Materialistic foundations. That much is perfectly fine - we are all free to do as we wish. The dishonesty occurs when you fail to report these things as what they are, namely, religiously-based interpretations and instead refer to them as "science".

Uniformitarianism is something all of us use every day, from expecting the sun rises, to assuming that the trees around us grew from seeds. So, until you convince me that believing a 100 year old tree grew from a seed is a religious position, then forgive me for not finding this assertion to be in the least bit credible.

[Jorge]

Uniformitarianism is something all of us use every day, from expecting the sun rises, to assuming that the trees around us grew from seeds. So, until you convince me that believing a 100 year old tree grew from a seed is a religious position, then forgive me for not finding this assertion to be in the least bit credible.

I ended our last exchange after realizing that you are like the rest of the TEs/OECs here - dishonest. In the post above you add another log to that fire. First, I did not say "Uniformitarianism", I said "General Uniformitarianism". If you don't know the difference then I suggest you hit the books. Second, you create a Straw Man so as to remain unconvinced - yeah, a typical tactic of OECs/TEs. Third and last, you have previously demonstrated not having a deep or mature handle on these matters so it's best if you not attack someone like me until you're better equipped.

Jorge

[Jorge]

...and it's all coming from Jorge "the welsher" Fernandez.

Go ahead Give us your "scientific" Flood explanation for the various geologic features shown in this thread. Explain those near vertical dino tracks, especially the ones angling downward.

You won't because you're still the biggest coward the YEC ranks have ever produced.

Sure enough, we are approaching the end of the month and so Beagle Boy
has been released from his cage to forage and howl at the moon.

Jorge