Pennsylvanian Tracks show time required in global flood

[grmorton]

I spotted this fossil in a colleagues office the other day. It is the tracks of four animals in the Pennsylvanian of Utah. We don't know what made the trails but there is a sequence of events here. Trails 1-3 were laid down first, and trail 4 clearly moves in after them. This flagstone is only about a quarter of an inch thick. To have animals leaving trails shows that the flood was not rapidly depositing during the time it took for these four animals to leave their tracks. And since it would take 50-100 feet of deposition per day for the one year flood to deposit everything in the geologic column, these tracks imply that that isn't possible.

[TrueCreation]

I spotted this fossil in a colleagues office the other day. It is the tracks of four animals in the Pennsylvanian of Utah. We don't know what made the trails but there is a sequence of events here. Trails 1-3 were laid down first, and trail 4 clearly moves in after them. This flagstone is only about a quarter of an inch thick. To have animals leaving trails shows that the flood was not rapidly depositing during the time it took for these four animals to leave their tracks.

--Good logical inference.

And since it would take 50-100 feet of deposition per day for the one year flood to deposit everything in the geologic column, these tracks imply that that isn't possible.

--Poor inference.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[grmorton]

TrueCreation:

--Good logical inference.


--Poor inference.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Would you care to explain, or is this the extent of the reasoning?

[TrueCreation]

Would you care to explain, or is this the extent of the reasoning?

--I found your use of logic here very odd. It is clear that if the entire paleozoic is going to be deposited in a short time sedimentation rates are going to be fantastically high, but it seems as if you presume constant sedimentation at every geographic locus around the world with no variation in rate or pauses in its continuity. To me, burrows and other similar trace fossils (such as dessication cracks) could merely represent pauses in sedimentation.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[grmorton]

TrueCreation:

--I found your use of logic here very odd. It is clear that if the entire paleozoic is going to be deposited in a short time sedimentation rates are going to be fantastically high, but it seems as if you presume constant sedimentation at every geographic locus around the world with no variation in rate or pauses in its continuity. To me, burrows and other similar trace fossils (such as dessication cracks) could merely represent pauses in sedimentation.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

I find it odd that you haven't figured out that if the average rate of sedimentation is 50-100 ft per day, all the dead bodies ought to be at the bottom of the pile. How long do you think you could fend off a dumping of sediment at the rate of 2-4 feet per hour month after month 24/7? When are you going to eat? I would suggest that after the first week of the average rate of deposition, you would be a wee bit tired and hungry and would therefore probably begin thinking about giving up the constant day and night of climbing 50-100 feet per day.

I suspect that the little burrowers would also become a wee bit weary after such continued exertion and would give up the ghost after a few days at most. The fact that the Haymond burrows are found in the middle of the geologic column, says that they didn't have to perform this super-burrower feat for 6 months 24/7!

How hardy to you think these animals are?

[TrueCreation]

I find it odd that you haven't figured out that if the average rate of sedimentation is 50-100 ft per day, all the dead bodies ought to be at the bottom of the pile.

--I presume that the situation is a bit more complicated than that.

How long do you think you could fend off a dumping of sediment at the rate of 2-4 feet per hour month after month 24/7? When are you going to eat? I would suggest that after the first week of the average rate of deposition, you would be a wee bit tired and hungry and would therefore probably begin thinking about giving up the constant day and night of climbing 50-100 feet per day.

--Doesn't this assume that the depositional mechanism of the sediment is analogous to rain precipitating out of the atmosphere?

I suspect that the little burrowers would also become a wee bit weary after such continued exertion and would give up the ghost after a few days at most. The fact that the Haymond burrows are found in the middle of the geologic column, says that they didn't have to perform this super-burrower feat for 6 months 24/7!

How hardy to you think these animals are?

--I don't know, I don't have a video of their activity during a supposed catastrophe of the proportions given by an episode of catastrophic plate tectonics.

But anyways, so do you withdraw your original comment as being literally accurate and being logically consistant? Ie, your assertion that, "since it would take 50-100 feet of deposition per day for the one year flood to deposit everything in the geologic column, these tracks imply that that isn't possible."

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[grmorton]

TrueCreation:

--I presume that the situation is a bit more complicated than that.

Just because you assume something doesn't make it so. You need to justify your assumption by explaining how animals can avoid burial for a year by climbing up an average of 2-4 feet per hour to avoid the 2-4 feet of mud coming down on them. And you thought I had poor logic, TrueCreation.

--Doesn't this assume that the depositional mechanism of the sediment is analogous to rain precipitating out of the atmosphere?

If you haven't taken a geology course, I can understand you asking this question. Once mud is on the bottom of the ocean, or the bottom of a lake, how are you going to lift that mud up to insert new sediment underneath it? Of course the diluvially deposited sediment is coming down from above. You simply can't lift the sediment which was deposited last hour and stuff new sediment under it. The only exception to this is intrusive volcanism, because the magma comes from below.

--I don't know, I don't have a video of their activity during a supposed catastrophe of the proportions given by an episode of catastrophic plate tectonics.

That is silly. I don't think you need such a video to know in your heart I am correct. PETA will hate me for this, but why don't you take a worm or a milliped and poke him with a stick to keep him moving for an entire week, and don't let him eat. What do you think will happen to that poor critter. And ask yourself this. If all you have to do is sit for an entire week (168 hours) poking that milliped, how do you imagine you will feel? It only takes a wee bit of imagination to answer that question. Try it for 2 weeks.

But anyways, so do you withdraw your original comment as being literally accurate and being logically consistant? Ie, your assertion that, "since it would take 50-100 feet of deposition per day for the one year flood to deposit everything in the geologic column, these tracks imply that that isn't possible."

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Yes, absolutely. There are too many tracks VERTICALLY in the geologic column. There are burrows, footprints, etc from the bottom to the top of the geologic column whereever on earth you look at it. This is what the vertical section looks like in the Newark Basin underneath New Jersey:
Boonton Fm (80 m thick) fish, leaves, pollen
clamshrimp
Dinosaur footprints
roots
footprints, roots
plants, pollen
plants, pollen
footprints, roots
Hook Mountain Basalt
Towaco Fm (120 m thick) Dinosaur footprints
fish, plants, pollen
roots
Dinosaur footprints, roots
fish plants pollen
pollen
roots
roots
Dinosaur footprints, plants, pollen
fish, plants, pollen, stromatolites
plants, pollen, roots
roots
Preakness Basalt
Feltville Fm (20 m thick) roots
Pollen
plants
pollen
fish, plants
footprints, pollen, roots
Orange Mountain Basalt
Passaic Fm (15 m thick) roots
roots
roots
roots
plants, pollen
footprints, Dinosaur bones
roots
roots
Lockatong Fm (4 m thick) Dinosaur footprints
fish, clamshrimps
fish scales
fish, clamshrimps
reptile bones, articulated reptiles
clam shrimp
fish scales, clamshrimps
fish, clamshrimps
articulated reptiles, plants, clamshrimps
Dinosaur footprints
Stockton Fm insects, arthropod burrows

Taken from Paul E. Olsen, "Triassic and Jurassic Formations of the Newark Basin," in Warren Manspeizer, editor, NY State Geol. Assoc. Guidebook, 1980, p. 18.

Just so you will know what roots in the subsurface look like I will show you some roots from 7000 feet down in SE Colorado from an oil well:



And you know what I noticed??? You didn't go look at those posts I suggested you explain. Why do you think that is? I find that young-earth creationists never actually explain things. They want to talk about everything except the data. Why don't you go look at those posts I suggested and explain them instead of ignoring them.

[TrueCreation]

Just because you assume something doesn't make it so. You need to justify your assumption by explaining how animals can avoid burial for a year by climbing up an average of 2-4 feet per hour to avoid the 2-4 feet of mud coming down on them. And you thought I had poor logic, TrueCreation.

--As I said, I presume it is more complicated than that. If sedimentation progressed in spurts through a different mechanism unlike what would be analogous to rain than it wouldn't be 2-4 feet per hour at a constant rate. It would be much faster than that for a moment and then there would be interspursed moments of relative tranquility. In the midst of this organisms could either migrate in from adjacent localities or they could simply dig themselves out. I don't have sufficient field data to apply this to a scenario but I do think that in the general scheme of things your argument probably isn't as simple as you seem to imply.
--Also, I didn't say you had poor logic as a personal characteristic, I merely said that your "this, therefore" statement in your first post of this thread was irrational.

If you haven't taken a geology course, I can understand you asking this question. Once mud is on the bottom of the ocean, or the bottom of a lake, how are you going to lift that mud up to insert new sediment underneath it? Of course the diluvially deposited sediment is coming down from above. You simply can't lift the sediment which was deposited last hour and stuff new sediment under it. The only exception to this is intrusive volcanism, because the magma comes from below.

--I am confused, how did you interpret my comment as if I were violating the principle of superposition?? I am merely talking differential depositional mechanisms. Pelagic sedimentation in the middle of the pacific is much different than turbidities off the banks of continental slopes, is much different than the deposition of evaporites, and is much different than deposition of sediments via fluvial processes, lacustrine processes, alluvial fans, etc.

That is silly. I don't think you need such a video to know in your heart I am correct.

--No matter. My point is that you seem to assume that in vertical geographic columns that that is your extant population throughout the course of sedimentation on that column, without organisms going in and out of that geographic locality.

Just so you will know what roots in the subsurface look like I will show you some roots from 7000 feet down in SE Colorado from an oil well:

--Assuming these roots are <i>in situ</i> (they seem to to be of the soft-wood floral species and so there probably is no palausible allochthonous depositional model that could be applicable--may as well, therefore, consider them <i>in situ</i>) I would have to ask, how old the coalified bed is in which it is rooted, and how old the directly superposing bed is. Do you know?

And you know what I noticed??? You didn't go look at those posts I suggested you explain. Why do you think that is?

--I was unaware that you provided links to previous posts of yours in this thread??

I find that young-earth creationists never actually explain things. They want to talk about everything except the data. Why don't you go look at those posts I suggested and explain them instead of ignoring them.

--Which one? Did you note the fact that I am not a YEC? Are you seriously about to prejudicially accuse me of desiring to talk about everything except the data? I generally find myself wanting more data..not less... You may find this to be true if I continue to participate on this board and we get to know each other a bit more.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[grmorton]

TrueCreation:

--As I said, I presume it is more complicated than that. If sedimentation progressed in spurts through a different mechanism unlike what would be analogous to rain than it wouldn't be 2-4 feet per hour at a constant rate. It would be much faster than that for a moment and then there would be interspursed moments of relative tranquility.

That is quite nebulous and meaningless. Please explain how this works. Be specific and give details. Broad nebulous armwaves are not useful.

In the midst of this organisms could either migrate in from adjacent localities or they could simply dig themselves out. I don't have sufficient field data to apply this to a scenario but I do think that in the general scheme of things your argument probably isn't as simple as you seem to imply.

Why is it that global flood advocates never seem to have enough data to explain things? Is it because the global flood won't work?

--I am confused, how did you interpret my comment as if I were violating the principle of superposition?? I am merely talking differential depositional mechanisms. Pelagic sedimentation in the middle of the pacific is much different than turbidities off the banks of continental slopes, is much different than the deposition of evaporites, and is much different than deposition of sediments via fluvial processes, lacustrine processes, alluvial fans, etc.

We agree on that. Can you have salt deposition occur in a global flood, with the amount of meteoritic dust approapriate for a long period of depositional time?

--No matter. My point is that you seem to assume that in vertical geographic columns that that is your extant population throughout the course of sedimentation on that column, without organisms going in and out of that geographic locality.

My inconsistency meter just went off scale. Above you said they could migrate, not you say they can't. Which is it?

--Assuming these roots are <i>in situ</i> (they seem to to be of the soft-wood floral species and so there probably is no palausible allochthonous depositional model that could be applicable--may as well, therefore, consider them <i>in situ</i>) I would have to ask, how old the coalified bed is in which it is rooted, and how old the directly superposing bed is. Do you know?

Pennsylvanian. thus they are not floral species as you said. There were no angiosperms on earth at that time. You might want to go see roots in the beds beneath canadian coal.
I posted it here but it is in a more coherent form on
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm

--Which one? Did you note the fact that I am not a YEC? Are you seriously about to prejudicially accuse me of desiring to talk about everything except the data? I generally find myself wanting more data..not less... You may find this to be true if I continue to participate on this board and we get to know each other a bit more.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Alright. I stand corrected. But how old is the earth if you aren't a young or old earther?

[TrueCreation]

That is quite nebulous and meaningless. Please explain how this works. Be specific and give details. Broad nebulous armwaves are not useful.

--Thick sedimentary beds would be layed down quickly by some mechanism such as a surge, followed by a pause in sedimentation until sedimentation continued. This could possibly be applied to say, the Yellowstone Eocene fossil forests as a mechanism for the deposition of its beds of tuffaceous sandstone.

Why is it that global flood advocates never seem to have enough data to explain things? Is it because the global flood won't work?

--Well I'm sorry if I havent read much on the Haymond turbidity deposits.. I don't even know what species are responsible for creating the pedotubules (probable burrows). Let me guess, I am ignorant now?

We agree on that. Can you have salt deposition occur in a global flood, with the amount of meteoritic dust approapriate for a long period of depositional time?

--I have no idea, I have not done sufficient research to make a credible conclusion.

My inconsistency meter just went off scale. Above you said they could migrate, not you say they can't. Which is it?

--In the other thread I think you asserted that these turbidities were traceable for over 1000 sq km. If this is the case, I don't think that my proposed scenario of migration is very applicable on short geologic time scales.

Pennsylvanian. thus they are not floral species as you said. There were no angiosperms on earth at that time.

--My mistake, I didn't take the geologic time period into consideration.

You might want to go see roots in the beds beneath canadian coal.
I posted it here but it is in a more coherent form on
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm

--Interesting. I wish I had more data. I don't find the apparently numerous small rootlets at the base of the coal bed significant, however I find the large pedotuble of encrusted blackened organic matter on the rocks in your third figure. I presume you tested this apparent pedotubule for its genetic origin? For instance, is it obvious that it is not a rodent burrow infilled with organic detritus? Are remnant root hairs evident? I can't see any drab haloes or varnish. I barely have any relevant data on this pedotubule, but I can go with the flow here.

Alright. I stand corrected. But how old is the earth if you aren't a young or old earther?

--I have no idea. I am not conclusively convinced it must be old.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[aniso]

Today @ 03:56 AM post located here
TrueCreation:

--Thick sedimentary beds would be layed down quickly by some mechanism such as a surge, followed by a pause in sedimentation until sedimentation continued.

Ummm, how many of these 'surges' do you see in the geological record and how much time was there between the surges?

This could possibly be applied to say, the Yellowstone Eocene fossil forests as a mechanism for the deposition of its beds of tuffaceous sandstone.

So, you apply this 'surge' business to all types of sedimentary environments. What is your mechanism for surges? Where did the sediment come from?

--I have no idea, I have not done sufficient research to make a credible conclusion.

Where do you do your research?

--My mistake, I didn't take the geologic time period into consideration.

I think you have a semantic problem here. Floral does not refer to flora. You seem confused in your terminology.

--Interesting. I wish I had more data. I don't find the apparently numerous small rootlets at the base of the coal bed significant, however I find the large pedotuble of encrusted blackened organic matter on the rocks in your third figure. I presume you tested this apparent pedotubule for its genetic origin?

What are you talking about? What do you mean by 'genetic origin'? Do you mean just 'origin'?

For instance, is it obvious that it is not a rodent burrow infilled with organic detritus? Are remnant root hairs evident? I can't see any drab haloes or varnish. I barely have any relevant data on this pedotubule, but I can go with the flow here.

I'm not sure what you expect from a picture... I'm also glad that you can go with the flow, however, for some reason, I doubt that you will.

--I have no idea. I am not conclusively convinced it must be old.

Well, when you are 'conclusively convinced', let us know. Are you always this convoluted in your thinking? What does it take to be conclusively convinced? You sound like an absolutist. Is this the case?

[Jet Black]

Today @ 01:38 AM post located here
TrueCreation:


--I presume that the situation is a bit more complicated than that.

yes it will be. If the average sedimentation is 50-100 feet per day, but it doesn't occur every day, then let us assume for somplicity that sediment is only being deposited for 50% of that time. well that means that on the days where sediment is deposited, the average rate is 100-200 feet per day. there should be huge featureless homogeneous lumps of sediment all over the place, that will probably be gravitically sorted. An interesting experiment do do would be to drop some sand in water, and see how long it takes to settle and do some calculations from that. bear in mind that this will be still water, and still water does not move much sediment, so the extention would be to make the water turbulent and so on. Actually it could be quite a nice experiment and I know you are the one for that kind of thing :)

[grmorton]

TrueCreation:

--Thick sedimentary beds would be layed down quickly by some mechanism such as a surge, followed by a pause in sedimentation until sedimentation continued.

This is still meaningless. SOME mechanism? That is nebulous. Tell me WHAT mechanism. By using the term 'some' you show that you don't have an explanation but a hope and a wish. Where was the sediment eroded from, where was it deposited? Was it above or below wave base? (I assume you know what wave base is).

This could possibly be applied to say, the Yellowstone Eocene fossil forests as a mechanism for the deposition of its beds of tuffaceous sandstone.

"Some" mechanism could produce a surge which could be applied to the Yellowstone fossil forests? What mechanism? You have nothing. And why are deposits like these not found more widely in the geologic column if it is all due to rapid deposition from a global flood?

--Well I'm sorry if I havent read much on the Haymond turbidity deposits.. I don't even know what species are responsible for creating the pedotubules (probable burrows). Let me guess, I am ignorant now?

We are all ignorant, just in different areas. The trick is to try to fill those gaps in one's knowledge by doing the study necessary prior to speaking about what is in the geologic record. There is a lot of geology that one must know about before one can come up with a theory on how the geologic column got here.

--I have no idea, I have not done sufficient research to make a credible conclusion.

That makes you different than most young-earthers around here. You are honest enough to say, I don't know in areas you haven't studied. Keep that trait because in life, it is a very important one. The only way one can learn is to say, I don't know.

--In the other thread I think you asserted that these turbidities were traceable for over 1000 sq km. If this is the case, I don't think that my proposed scenario of migration is very applicable on short geologic time scales.

Once again, a very good sign for your future. An ability to change. One has to do this in science because one always finds new data. Over my career I have had to change many things and many views.

--My mistake, I didn't take the geologic time period into consideration.

You are quite different than other people on this board. You still have a mind that is open to the possibility that one can be wrong. Most here will tell you just to believe what they say and don't think about it or even look at things that make you doubt anything. I am impresed with you. Here's to you!

--Interesting. I wish I had more data.

I think you are the first person who believes in a global flood on this board who has said that. Wow! Finally someone who actually wants more data! You are special.

I don't find the apparently numerous small rootlets at the base of the coal bed significant, however I find the large pedotuble of encrusted blackened organic matter on the rocks in your third figure. I presume you tested this apparent pedotubule for its genetic origin? For instance, is it obvious that it is not a rodent burrow infilled with organic detritus?

This is not a rodent burrow. Why would you not find rootlets at the base of a coal bed significant. It says something very important about the origin of the coal? Allochthonous coal shouldn't have roots underneath at all.

Are remnant root hairs evident? I can't see any drab haloes or varnish. I barely have any relevant data on this pedotubule, but I can go with the flow here.

root hairs will be tough to preserve in sandstone. One needs very fine grained sediment, not coarse sandstone to preserve them.

--I have no idea. I am not conclusively convinced it must be old.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

How about we start with older than the young-earthers say. Take a look at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm for good evidence that the earth is at least 100,000 years old. Lets start there. What do you think of that evidence?

[Taffsadar]

TC think about it, are you really going to keep this arguement?

For your explanation to work would we need some kind of surges that mysteriously pass by and drops 50 feet of sediment on some poor dinousar and then keeps gooing. The dinosaur would then have to dig himself out of the mud that then quickly hardens enough for him to make foot prints (which is truly miraculous since the mud usually don't harden in the downpouring water...). None of us likes to admit that we sometimes are wrong but you have claimed to want to follow scientific theories so it isn't a personal fault, it's just a theory that was disproven so stepping back won't hurt you. Keeping up with this sort of fallacious arguements will however just come back and bite you in the back. Just take a deep breath and think about the whole arguement from an objective standpoint. You know your two smart to believe that a dinosaur can dig through 50 feet of mud and make footprints on top of it.

[TrueCreation]

This is still meaningless. SOME mechanism? That is nebulous. Tell me WHAT mechanism. By using the term 'some' you show that you don't have an explanation but a hope and a wish. Where was the sediment eroded from, where was it deposited? Was it above or below wave base? (I assume you know what wave base is).

--Yes it is rather ambiguous, but I intentionally made it so because I was refering to all sedimentary deposits. I made used nebulous terms such as 'some mechanism' because if different mechanisms are responsible for the deposition of all the diverse sedimentary deposits around the world (which they are) than it would only make sense. We would have to be refering to specific lithofacies in order for there to even be the potential to be more specific.

"Some" mechanism could produce a surge which could be applied to the Yellowstone fossil forests? What mechanism? You have nothing. And why are deposits like these not found more widely in the geologic column if it is all due to rapid deposition from a global flood?

--I suggested surges. In the case of Eocene Yellowstone, surges choked with volcanic air-fall ash. Of course these "fossil forests" were also buried by conglomeratic lahars. So we have two depositional scenarios in the same geographic area.

We are all ignorant, just in different areas. The trick is to try to fill those gaps in one's knowledge by doing the study necessary prior to speaking about what is in the geologic record.

--True, I just wanted to avoid the term as being used in a derogatory context.

There is a lot of geology that one must know about before one can come up with a theory on how the geologic column got here.

--Yes, but then again if you are not all knowledgable you should still be encouraged to question, research, and discuss the implications of any specific finding in the geologic column, even if you don't have a consumate knowledge of the subject.

That makes you different than most young-earthers around here. You are honest enough to say, I don't know in areas you haven't studied. Keep that trait because in life, it is a very important one. The only way one can learn is to say, I don't know.

--Indeed. Just keep in mind that I am not a YEC.

[Quote]Once again, a very good sign for your future. An ability to change. One has to do this in science because one always finds new data. Over my career I have had to change many things and many views.
--True, science progresses by the overturning of paradigms and by the coming of new ones.

You are quite different than other people on this board. You still have a mind that is open to the possibility that one can be wrong. Most here will tell you just to believe what they say and don't think about it or even look at things that make you doubt anything. I am impresed with you. Here's to you!

--Thanks. I have been wrong copious times before, and I will be wrong copious times again. As long as I gain experience throughout and I continue to learn through these processes, I don't have a problem with being wrong sometimes.

I think you are the first person who believes in a global flood on this board who has said that. Wow! Finally someone who actually wants more data! You are special.

--:) Thanks, but just to clear the air, I don't 'believe in a global flood', I merely am in the midst of researching its plausibility from the current literature and seeing if there is potential promise for new research. I am no more a flood advocate that I am a "uniformitarian" as far as 'belief' goes.

This is not a rodent burrow.

--How was this deduced? What diagnostic features characterize it as a definite root? I am talking abuot the root labeled 'big root' in your photo, not the obvious rootlets at the base of the coal bed.

Why would you not find rootlets at the base of a coal bed significant. It says something very important about the origin of the coal? Allochthonous coal shouldn't have roots underneath at all.

--Those rootlets are significant for interpretation of the paleogeographic setting and the paleopedology of the paleosol(?), but IMO not as a potential falsification for relatively rapid deposition of this entire lithofacies seen in your photos, including the coal bed. The large root, and possibly the larger rootlets projecting from the base of the coal bed which appears to be from a shrub as is interpreted in your article are my concern. The large root, if it were originally originated from the base of the coal bed (but it seems to truncate without connection to the base of the coal bed in your picture) such a root would take a very significant time to grow in place relative to the time alloted by a year long catastrophe. I presume that if this sediment in which it is encased were deposited rapidly and that it did not grow in situ, it is probably allochthonous and a broken off root of some other tree. The large root occuring in isolation could possibly indicate this, even tap root morphology generally doesn't have a single root penetrating at depth in isolation. Except in the case of, say, carrots.

root hairs will be tough to preserve in sandstone. One needs very fine grained sediment, not coarse sandstone to preserve them.

--root hairs have in some cases been preserved in the fine grained matrix of a prominently coarse sandstone surprisingly well according to Retallack [2001], but anyways, I didn't and still don't have data on these types of mineral characteristics of these sediments in the first place, so I could only make some relatively vague questions.

How about we start with older than the young-earthers say. Take a look at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm for good evidence that the earth is at least 100,000 years old. Lets start there. What do you think of that evidence?

--Rather good. I am rather hesitant to make conclusions regarding C-14 dating, it is such a short lived radioisotope that I can only presume what would be expected in an episode of accelerated decay (as is presumed to have occured during CPT and I think is the only way to reconcile the radioisotopic data with a short span of time). I think that the most conclusive evidence for a significantly longer age than 6000-10,000 years for the age of the earth comes from geochemistry and seismic tomography of the earth's interior. Just the mere fact that the earth is chemically differentiated the way it is calles for magnitudes of longer time than most YEC's advocate. I may expound on this if you like when I get back home later today.

Gregory, Retallack,. <i>Soils of the past</i>, 2001

Cheers,
-Chris Grose