Scientific Evidence for a Global Flood

[rogue06]

A little more on the dinosaur track front, for the lurkers.

Here is a site in Colorado where dino tracks were found eroding out of a greater than vertical cliff face

Attachment 78005 Attachment 78006

In this photo you can clearly see a track in the upper right portion of the pic

Attachment 78007




I wonder how barky will explain the dinosaurs scrambling up the greater than vertical side of this cliff?

- T

I have a bunch of photos of vertical dinosaur trackways from around the world but since the upgrade here at Tweb they don't work (show up) when I try to post them

[marke]

That leaves you out barky. All you've offered to date is blustering YEC claims you can't support, dishonest and quite reprehensible misrepresentations of others' posts, and a penchant for ignoring all scientific evidence presented to you.
Can you blame us for thinking you want us to ridicule you?
- T

I have done extensive debating with evolutionists on other sites who think we are all animals descended from animals. Even though I don't agree with them, I nevertheless don't blame them for acting out their beliefs.

[marke]

Barky marke is too ignorant to know, but the entire Scablands weren't formed in one shot. They were formed over a period of several thousand years by multiple independent ice dam breakages, at least 29 in all, that suddenly emptied Lake Missoula. Each time the lake would refill, then different breakages at different times created the multiple scouring patterns that are observed.

I guess you probably don't realize how this story came about, but I guarantee that this whole thing was first made up by one or a few evolutionists or assorted God-rejecters who were using their best guesses to explain the limited number of evidences they were looking at in a manner which agreed with the accepted evolutionist story line which itself has been built by evolutionist assumptions. Nothing here boldly asserted to be fact has ever been proven in the slightest. You say there were 29 dam breaks. Really? You can prove this? You know for a fact there were not 28 or 30, but absolutely 29 without doubt or question? Can you even prove that there were at least 2 dam breaks? What did you believe during the 40 years that Bretz was ridiculed and his theories rejected by the 'established' geologic community who did not believe the canyons were carved by even one dam break?

You can prove nothing of the sort about multiple dam breaks and I challenge you to try. Why do you so gullibly believe all this unprovable nonsense without question? Because you love the evolutionist story line and hate the implications of the Biblical creation and the Flood, possibly?

So much for a one-time FLUD. But barky here is not one to let nasty facts get in the way of a good YEC fantasy.

No, no, no, no. We want nasty facts to get in the way, so show us your compelling evidence with scientific reasoning which supports your claims here or supports the claims made by your teachers here.

[phank]

Maybe if Tiggy provided his sources and marke provided his, we could compare their provenance. Otherwise, we have to decide whether geologists are more or less trustworthy than creationists. And we do THAT on the basis of ideology when sources are unavailable (or in the case of creationists, whenever sources are uncongenial, which is always).

[Tiggy]

I guess you probably don't realize how this story came about, but I guarantee that this whole thing was first made up by one or a few evolutionists or assorted God-rejecters who were using their best guesses to explain the limited number of evidences they were looking at in a manner which agreed with the accepted evolutionist story line which itself has been built by evolutionist assumptions. Nothing here boldly asserted to be fact has ever been proven in the slightest. You say there were 29 dam breaks. Really? You can prove this? You know for a fact there were not 28 or 30, but absolutely 29 without doubt or question? Can you even prove that there were at least 2 dam breaks?

That is nonsense; you can prove nothing of the sort and I challenge you to try. Why do you so gullibly believe all this unprovable nonsense without question? Because you love the evolutionist story line and hate the implications of the Biblical creation and the Flood, possibly?

Well barky, if you weren't such a lazy sot and tried reading the paper you'd see the evidence. The researchers counted the separate varved layers that formed each time the lake emptied and refilled. From the abstract:

The new exposure, which we informally term the rail line section, is located near Missoula, Montana, and exposes 29 units, each of which consists of many silt and clay couplets that we interpret to be varves. The deposits are similar to other fine-grained sediments attributed to glacial Lake Missoula. Similar varved sediments overlie gravelly flood deposits elsewhere in the glacial Lake Missoula basin. Each of the 29 units represents a period when the lake was deepening, and all units show evidence for substantial draining of glacial Lake Missoula that repeatedly exposed the lake floor. The evidence includes erosion and deformation of glaciolacustrine sediment that we interpret happened during draining of the lake, desiccation cracks that formed during exposure of the lake bottom, and fluvial sand deposited as the lake began to refill.

From the paper

2.2. Rail line section

We studied the rail line section in detail where the exposed sediments are thickest (11.8 m; Fig. 5). All but the lowest sediments are well exposed on the northeast-facing side of the railway cut; the lowest sediments were documented on the southwest-facing side of the cut. The exposed sediments include 29 upward-thinning units of rhythmically bedded fine sand, silt, and clay (Figs. 5 and 6A). A zone of highly disturbed sediments approximately 6 m above the base of the exposure is thicker than the units directly above and below it (Fig. 5). Judging from the average thickness of adjacent units, we estimate that the disturbed zone includes 3 units, bringing the total count to 31. Units consist of three lithofacies similar to those at the Ninemile site. The three lithofacies, in the order in which they generally occur from bottom to top, are the sand, silt, and silt–clay facies. We describe the facies in detail because some of their characteristics differ from those at the Ninemile site.

1-s2.0-S0277379111003520-gr5.jpg 1-s2.0-S0277379111003520-gr6.jpg

No, no, no, no. We want nasty facts to get in the way, so show us your compelling evidence with scientific reasoning which supports your claims here or supports the claims made by your teachers here.

There you go barky. Those science nasty facts that scare the poo out of you.

- T

[Tiggy]

No, no, no, no. We want nasty facts to get in the way, so show us your compelling evidence with scientific reasoning which supports your claims here or supports the claims made by your teachers here.

So barky, when are we going to see your nasty facts that support your YEC claims? When will we see your compelling evidence with scientific reasoning which supports your claims?

I'm the only one providing any scientific data here barky. You're just standing by with your pants around your ankles.

- T

[marke]

Dinosaurs are a subset of reptiles with very specific features that separates them from other clades. Someone didn't just point to an arbitrary line and say "whatever is above this is a dinosaur, whatever below this is a reptile."

Old evolutionist ideas must be constantly revised in order to meet the ever changing factual landscape. We just posted the fact that geologists laughed Bretz out of town for suggesting the Channeled Scablands were formed by lake water released in a dam break. They ridiculed and rejected his theory for 40 years, but in the end had to finally admit (those still alive after all that time) that he had been right after all. Evolutionists have claimed for years that dinosaur tracks have been discovered in the Grand Canyon sediments, but the story now must be changed to say the tracks were reptilian instead. Why? Because, it turns out, dinosaurs didn't actually show up anywhere in the world (according to evolutionists) until after the sediments had been formed in the land from which the canyon was cut.

ite=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Distinguishing_anatomical_features]
While recent discoveries have made it more difficult to present a universally agreed-upon list of dinosaurs' distinguishing features, nearly all dinosaurs discovered so far share certain modifications to the ancestral archosaurian skeleton. Although some later groups of dinosaurs featured further modified versions of these traits, they are considered typical across Dinosauria; the earliest dinosaurs had them and passed them on to all their descendants. Such common features across a taxonomic group are called synapomorphies.
A detailed assessment of archosaur interrelations by S. Nesbitt confirmed or found the following 12 unambiguous synapomorphies, some previously known:[/cite]

Read through the link to see the list. Dinosaurs are distinct from earlier and later reptiles not because it sorts out the "kinks in the geologic clocks" but because they have specific morphological differences from other reptiles.

The key to this whole detailed rewrite may be discovered somewhere under the words, "...recent discoveries have made it more difficult...'

[Tiggy]

Evolutionists have claimed for years that dinosaur tracks have been discovered in the Grand Canyon sediments, but the story now must be changed to say the tracks were reptilian instead.

More pure BS from barky. I was the only one who accidentally referred to some GC tracks as 'dinosaur', but retracted after sam pointed out my mistake.

Go ahead barky, support your claim that "Evolutionists have claimed for years that dinosaur tracks have been discovered in the Grand Canyon sediments".

You're a dishonest, pathetic little man barky. I'm going to have fun kicking the crap out of your stupid dishonest claims.

- T

[phank]

I also found this source. Here it says:

The late Pleistocene flooding through the Channeled Scabland and adjacent areas involved
multiple events, perhaps 40 to 100 or so, as indicated by low-energy (silt and sand) facies of
flood-related deposition into various basins, backwater areas, and ice-marginal lakes (Waitt
1980, 1984, 1985; Atwater 1986, 1987; Smith 1993). Studies of high-energy (gravel and
boulder) facies (e.g., Figure 5) suggest that many of these hypothesized floods were probably
of relatively low magnitude in comparison with the biggest events (Baker & Bunker
1985, O’Connor & Baker 1992, Benito & O’Connor 2003). Work is needed to sort out
the complete magnitude and frequency picture for scabland flooding, tracing the flood indicators
all the way from the paleo-ice-sheet margins to deposits on the ocean floor (e.g.,
Brunner et al. 1999, Zuffa et al. 2000).

[marke]

Bullcrap. Present this evidence for analysis.
More bullcrap. Trilobites died out 250 MYA. The Hell Creek formation was deposited at the end of the Jurrasic, 67-65 MYA. There have never been any trilobites found at Hell Creek, ever. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The evidence is there. Science can explain it and support their views. You can't.
Not only can you prove nothing, you can support nothing. You must get laryngitis of the rectum from talking out of it so much.
- T

You are right about the trilobites at Hell Creek. I went back and looked up the material I had remembered that from and found I had misunderstood what I had read. It was not a creo site but that doesn't matter, I was wrong and so will just drop trilobites for now. The shoe/trilobite info is on the net but I don't want to even try to defend it either. I want to look at trilobites more before getting into it again. I think the reason trilobites are found on the bottom of the geologic column is because that is where they lived to begin with, below the mud on the sea floor. These areas would quite naturally be the first to be buried in the global flood, which is why they would be at the bottom of the geologic column, whether buried 5,000 years ago or 500,000 years ago.

[marke]

If you can't support what you claim to be the truth, then it's almost certainly not the truth.

If so, then if you cannot defend a lie it is still a lie.

Present this evidence and we'll critically analyze and assess it.

Better yet, I'll give you the info and you tell me whether you will refuse to consider it no matter how compelling the evidence. If you tell me straight out that there is no way you will ever believe the evidence, then I won't waste time posting it. There is, for example, evidence of sea creature fossils high in the Himalayas with evidence also of folding of sedimentary layers suggesting the Flood once covered the tops of those mountains and laid sediments down there.

Yep, that's exactly what happened. Now how did the surface get raised and tilted?

Techtonic plate shifting?

If you want the truth, you have to explain the observed data, ALL the observed data. Do you want the truth or not?
- T

Do you? Frozen muddy water thousands of feet thick in Alaska flattened whole lush forests in one cataclysmic flood. This frozen muck did not accumulate from gradual sedimentation but was once a complete mixture of a single body of flood water at one time which froze for some reason and remains frozen today. Just prior to that body of mucky water freezing, however, that lush tropical forest was intact and alive. Noah's Flood is by far the only reasonable explanation for the evidence.

[marke]

The Meister Print? Sheesh, you'll swallow anything.
Er, sorry, nope. No trilobites in the Hell Creek formation.

I concede the Hell Creek absence of trilobites and allow that people can believe what they want about the shoe print. I can believe it or not, it doesn't matter to me, but I will need mor evidence to make a decision either way.

[marke]

LOL! Yes, we've heard of Wally "wonderpants" Brown. He's a retired Air Force colonel with ZERO scientific training who wrote his own YEC apologetics book. 90% he made up himself with "evidence" taken directly from his posterior regions. Even other professional Creationist charlatans won't touch his nonsense.

Like I already told you, if you really want to look like a clueless boob, present some of Uncle Walt's blithering nonsense here and we'll critically examine it.

Go ahead barky, I dare you.

- T

Look, I know you are like me in that we are not impressed with degrees from West Point, MIT, Harvard, or anywhere else except maybe for those who might have specific degrees (even those from community colleges with a passing average graded on a curve) in one field only, in which case what they say is only questionable, not worthless, like what they say in any other field.

[Tiggy]

I think the reason trilobites are found on the bottom of the geologic column is because that is where they lived to begin with, below the mud on the sea floor. These areas would quite naturally be the first to be buried in the global flood, which is why they would be at the bottom of the geologic column, whether buried 5,000 years ago or 500,000 years ago.

But they aren't found just on the bottom. They're found in layers that date from 525 MYA to 250 MYA. In the Grand Canyon they're found in every layer from the almost bottom Tapeats sandstone to the uppermost Kaibab limestone.

GrandCanyonAge.jpg

They're never found in layers that date younger than 250 MYA, i.e. in the layers of the Grand Staircase above the Kaibab. What does that do to your "DA FLUD mixed up and laid the layers all at the same time" nonsense?

Looks like those nasty facts kicked your ad hoc story right in the teeth again barky. Making up stuff as you go along won't cut it here chump.

- T

[Tiggy]

Look, I know you are like me

I'm not like you at all barky. I'm honest, and I know what I'm talking about.

- T