Scientific Evidence for a Global Flood

[marke]

Here barky-marke, I'll give you a leg up on the trilobite question.

I'm sure you read some idiot YEC website claiming that live trilobites have been found. Just be sure your idiot sources weren't presenting one of these trilobite superficial look-alikes.
Attachment 77982
Serolina delaria, an extremely trilobite-like marine isopod
Over to you barky.
- T

You reminded me of the fact that I forgot to mention the evolutionist trick of renaming a fossil as something else if it is found in the wrong place on the geologic column. A trilobite, for example, found in bed with a 65 million year old dinosaur is not really a trilobite but a different creature altogether from a 'later period' which just looks like, smells like, tastes like, acts like, lives like and dies like a trilobite.

[marke]

Let's clarify the big problem with this statement geologists do not consider much of the strata revealed by the erosion in the Grand Canyon to be quote, flood deposited. There are marine deposits like limestones, shales and beach deposits, volcanic deposits like ash and basalt flows, wind blown deposit of sand and silt, and maybe some flood deposits associated with the river systems in the buried erosion surfaces, but not much,

This reminds me of Dawkins who said he mignt not be opposed to ID as long as it was not God. Here evolutionists and assorted God-rejecters admit that sediments were laid down by water, possibly shallow seas or wide overflowing rivers spreading themselves to cover hundreds of square miles with silt, but NOT NOAH's FLOOD.

[DuraGizer]

Trying to correct or inform marke is a useless gesture; he's just gonna continue with his slandering and baseless asserting until he's beyond blue in the face. It's best to ignore the troll and just let him wither on the vine.

[JonF]

From where did the wind get all this sand

Most likely from the Mazatzal Highlands in central Arizona. The Coconino Formation

and how did it get moved so far from one place to the other.

Wind. Sand regularly blows across large areas of the globe, e.g. Saharan sand makes it to Florida and Chinese sand makes it to the West Coast. Saharan Dust Crosses the Atlantic:



Dust Storms In Sahara Desert Trigger Huge Plankton Blooms In Eastern Atlantic:



Of course this will have no effect on your dearly cherished ignorance.

[Tiggy]

You reminded me of the fact that I forgot to mention the evolutionist trick of renaming a fossil as something else if it is found in the wrong place on the geologic column. A trilobite, for example, found in bed with a 65 million year old dinosaur is not really a trilobite but a different creature altogether from a 'later period' which just looks like, smells like, tastes like, acts like, lives like and dies like a trilobite.

OK, your answer is that you are not honestly interested in learning. Suit yourself.

Looks like it's going to be just one C&Ped creationist lie after another, sprinkled with your own libel and slurs against honest scientists.

Here's your sign:

i-m-an-idiot_design.png

- T

[OmniSkeptical]

I think we must have quite a few democrats or God-hating liberals on these posts. You can recognize them by the way they show disdain for those they imagine to be 'beneath' themselves, like the majority of humans on earth, in their eyes.

Clownshoes, I was talking about Jerry Bergmann of Common Sense Science. Number 1 in crank physics.

[Tiggy]

Clownshoes, I was talking about Jerry Bergmann of Common Sense Science. Number 1 in crank physics.

marke is not "Clownshoes"

Clownshoes is magellan004

marke is still working on earning a nickname, although I like "barky"

Other suggestions will be considered.

- T

[rogue06]

You think desert deposits with sea creatures blew in with the wind?

Exactly what sort of "sea creatures" have been found in the Coconino Sandstone marke? I think you're reduced to making claims up to support your belief.

Let me therefore just call them God-rejecting or Bible-rejecting geologists.

Because they don't agree with your woodenly literal, simplistic interpretation of the Bible that now makes them "God-rejecting or Bible-rejecting geologists." You get more pathetic with each posting.

Some of the facts not yet clearly established include the source of the water, the timing of the event, and the hardness of the sedimentary rock, especially considering the fact that the sediment was once soft.

If the sediment was soft when the canyon was formed you would have heavily sloping sides. That's what happens when water carves through mud -- the walls usually slant around 45 degrees. In contrast the Grand Canyon has walls that are vertical in many places. This indicates that the material that the Grand Canyon was carved from was hard.

Another point should be made as well. I remain convinced that huge volumes of high pressure, fast moving water carved the meanders.

Just like the way meanders are formed today. Oh wait. They're not. In order to form a meander you need slow moving water not fast. Fast moving water cuts straight channels.

I have heard other theories but I find them very unconvincing and unsupported by experimentation or documentation.

Bzzzzzzzz. Wrong. Meanders can be seen forming all over the world. They aren't exactly mysterious.

Is this all you've got?

You might try finishing the rest of the post before mouthing off.

That does nothing to even slightly change my opinion of the evidence found at Joggins Fossil Cliffs, which opinion is based on a large amount of documented evidence your claim doesn't even mention or attempt to address.

You didn't present any evidence that needed addressing. You merely made an assertion

I have looked into the evidence of striated fossil trees at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and am totally convinced only a flood on the magnitude of Noah's Flood could have produced thoise evidences.

Where was the evidence contained in that?

The Joggins cliff section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters (9022') thick, along a 48km (30 miles) sea cliff, has multiple (+30) in-place, mature forests made up of giant lycopod trees (and 65 separate thin beds of coal), some separated by hundred of feet of strata.

Some of these stacked forests even display evidence of forest fires (odd if they were deposited by a flood), and each forest has vertical trunks with extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). A slowly sinking delta accounts best for this rock formation.

I would agree, which is why I say it is preposterous to assume that fossilized trees vertically extending through several layers of coal estimated by geologists to be many thousands of years apart in age, were buried slowly by untold thousands of years sedimentation.

I don't think I even want to know how you got this from what I said.

Again you support the case for complete burial by a single event, preserving the trees from decay.

Actually it was a couple of flows as can be seen by the different depths of the telephone poles. The one up front was half buried when they began to put up new ones (seen in background). But another landslide buried these roughly halfway and left the earlier one nearly completely covered.

More importantly, it shows that these things can happen naturally without declaring that a global flood is the only explanation.

Again you support the case for complete burial by a single event, preserving the trees from decay.

Wrong. The examples I gave below have been taking place over hundreds of years. Hardly a single event.

Yet more evidence of rapid sedimentation, just like creationists believe, not to mention the possibility that fig trees may have survived and continued to grow under water during Noah's flood.

Really? It started in 1812. And once again it shows that these things form today without a need for a global flood.

Obviously also pointing to the fact of rapid sedimentation promoting preservation.

You really are grimly determined to steadfastly ignore any and everything that contradicts what you've already predetermined to be the facts of the case.

I don't doubt the evidence, but am not sure what the implications you are suggesting are. A careful study of the fossil trees at Joggins, however, will reveal that, even though the base of some of the upright trees were lodged near coal seams, their roots had been completely broken off before burial. This leads to the conclusion that the trees were violently uprooted and then stuck back into the soft sediment and rapidly buried from bottom to top in the same catastrophic event.

Except for the fact that the Joggins site reveals that there are mostly trees still have their root systems intact those roots -- including the delicate rootlets -- deeply embedded into the underlying soil. Once you get that bit straight we'll talk about why being embedded in coal seams is not only not a problem but to be expected considering the environment they formed in. But for now... baby steps.

Perhaps it would be safe to assume that much organic material was laid down horizontally and then covered by other sediments, creating the coal seam, while these fossil trees were buried vertically at the same time, and escaped becoming part of the coal seam because they were standing upright.

Or organic material was laid down horizontally and then covered by other sediments, that would later become coal seam, while the trees were still standing. That is what the evidence indicates.

Fossils of ancient creatures have been discovered in desert environments with soft tissues.

Deserts are notorious for producing natural mummies which on rare instances have been known to fossilize. But that really has nothing to do with this. The examples I provided show that trees can be partially covered in sediments for whatever reason and not rot away for centuries while awaiting another layer of sediment to bury them further and create a polystrate tree. The examples demonstrate that this sort of thing is happening today despite YEC claims that it is impossible unless you invoke a global flood.

There are other examples of remarkable preservation of dinosaurs with soft tissues, mammoths with green vegetation and summer fruits still undecayed in their mouth and stomach, and so forth.

All of which can easily be explained by natural events that are still taking place today. No need to claim a worldwide deluge was responsible.

I've noticed that this claim, like so many made by YECs, is never accompanied by an explanation of exactly how Noah's Flood could be responsible for such things. It reminds me of the guy with weird hair on the History Channel who thinks every odd thing in the world can be explained by...

tumblr_m4jmk10uhr1rpvofco3_400.png

...But never gets beyond assertion and wild suppositions.

But I have not seen any evidence of any standing tree anywhere currently in the process of slow burial with sedimentary material.

Nobody said it had to be a "slow burial with sedimentary material." You can get a mudslide (like the telephone poles in the Philippines) or run-of-the-mill local flooding events... to cover them part way and then centuries later have another event deposit another layer. The "slow burial with sedimentary material" is a YEC canard stated in order to make it look impossible while ignoring all the other explanations that shows it is not. It's misdirection in the same manner as a magician assuring his audience that he has nothing up his sleeve but not mentioning that he has already palmed something.

This suggests that we may never again see any such standing fossilized trees as are found at Joggins, because it is not occurring nor has it ever occurred in any scientifically observable manner anywhere that is recorded.

And yet I provided multiple examples of future polystrate trees in the making -- just not through the method that YECs wrongly insist must be used if it were the case.

Trees stacked one upon another disproves the Flood? You'll have to explain that one.

Not just stacked but in situ.

Take a look at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming (not Specimen Creek which is a close by but totally different site), in one location they've found over 25 fully mature forests with the oldest trees in each forest being around 500 years old stacked one atop the other.

And they definitely weren't washed down into that spot but grew there as demonstrated by the fact these upright trees are still rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone (contains a high percentage of volcanic ash) and encased in conglomeratic mudflows.

All of this indicates that each grew and was eventually buried by volcanic ash and debris coming from a nearby volcano (in the Eocene, the area would have been between two volcanic chains).

Now considering that you have 25+ layers containing trees 500 years old this means that the formation could not have be younger than the total of the ages of the oldest trees in each of the forests (25 x 500 = 12,500).

IOW, not taking into account the time it took for the volcanic rock to gain enough top soil to support trees this formation took at the very least 12,500 years to be laid down which would mean it grew right through the Flood and is even older than what YECs claim the earth is.

Suppose the flood laid several layers of sediment down during the catastrophic event and that it stuck the bases of many uprooted but upright trees in different sedimentary layers during the event. Did the one event bury upright trees at different elevations in that scenario. Obviously, yes.

The problem is that these trees show evidence that they weren't uprooted and transported. As I noted in a previous post concerning Specimen Ridge:

Distinguishing between transported trees and in situ trees is not difficult that is why we can determine most of those at Specimen Ridge were not transported.

Transported trees, for instance, have had their root systems ripped off, but in contrast like what is seen at Specimen Ridge the in sutu tree stumps still have their fragile roots and even small fine rootlets in place, penetrating +2' into the surrounding fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone (paleosol – fossilized soil), with the stump buried in conglomerates.

Note that because this sandstone contains a large amount of volcanic ash (hence it being tuffaceous sandstone which has to be at least 50% ash by definition) is evidence that these layers are the result of repeated volcanic events.

Also, the upper parts of most of the in place tree stumps are severely abraded, but the lower part in sandstone, are undisturbed again strong indication that these trees are in place or in situ rather than transported in a debris flow from a flood.

Further, floods carrying trees typically create “log-jams,” with a tangled mess of tree trunks pointed in all directions. But the trees at Specimen Ridge are either in an upright growth position, or else are lying flat like trees that have fallen on the forest floor.

While some have tried to use the trees uprooted and transported by debris flows into Spirit Lake the Mt. St. Helens’ 1980 eruption as a counter-example since some of them floated to the bottom of the lake in an upright position. But this comparison is invalid because only 10% of the stumps in the Mt. St. Helens flows were transported and deposited in an upright position, contrasting sharply with what we find at Specimen Ridge, where 80% of the trees are upright.

I think you need to look at more (opposing) evidence before you rush to poor judgment or faulty conclusions and I will be happy to return to this later when I am not running out of space on a single post.

I'm actually more than passingly familiar with the subject But if you decide to do your own research be sure that your source is specifically addressing Specimen Ridge and not Specimen Creek. YEC websites appear to deliberately conflate the two distinct sites and rely on the resulting confusion.

[rogue06]

I have heard theories, but am not yet convinced those theories are right. I have even heard that limestone cannot be deposited by water, but I failed to follow the 'supporting' argument.

[rogue06]

I think it is funny that anti-God geologists and paleontologists are now calling these tracks of reptiles rather than dinosaurs, because they need to work out the kinks in their geologic clocks.

Tiggy merely made a simple misstatement when he initially said dinosaur tracks.

The tracks in Glen Rose, Texas, for example, include human tracks which point to a simple muddy ground at the time.

Even the major YEC organizations have abandoned this claim.

For instance, Creation Ministries International (CMI) includes it on their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use down in the "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" section.

AnswersinGenesis (AiG) also has it listed on their Arguments Creationists Should Avoid page as well. Even the more strident CreationWiki list the Paluxy Tracks (the ones at Glen Rose) on their own Arguments creationists should not use page simply stating that "The evidence for this does not stand scrutiny at the present time."

[rogue06]

I have to believe that you know, if you are honest, that "nothing even remotely similar" is inaccurate.

You're correct. There is at least one similarity. They are both on land. Aside from that...

[rogue06]

You are only partly correct. A fossilized trilobite was found preserved under a human shoe print also fossilized

Actually it is you who is only partly correct. A fossilized trilobite was found but it isn't a shoe print. Glen J. Kuban does an excellent take down of this claim. And before you attempt to dismiss Kuban as a "God-hating and Bible-rejecting scientist" you should know that he is a Creationist. In fact, he was hired by Institute for Creation Research (ICR) to do an independent, unbiased examination of the Paluxy tracks that you brought up earlier. His work is the main reason that so many YECs have now abandoned their claims about dinosaur and human prints being found together there.

[rogue06]

How is it that, given all the sedimentation and erosion worldwide, that every single spot where dinosaur tracks are found at ground level, the anti-God types say sedimentation followed the tracks' original impressions and then a separate but equal amount of erosion followed that to bring the surface back down to the exact point where the tracks are found, in hundreds of places worldwide by the thousands. This whole unsupported anti-God theory seems highly suspect if you ask me. In fact, it is just deliberate false storytelling and myth propagation for the sole purpose of selling the anti-God and evolutionist lies.

If they all appeared at once you might have something, but their being eroded out has been observed for thousands of years (Adrienne Mayor has conducted some fascinating research in fossils being observed in ancient Greece, Rome...)

[rogue06]

Actually I did forget about basalt, just as you say, which does reveal my lack of depth and experience in all things scientific.

But that sure hasn't stopped you from proclaiming how wrong all those with more education and/or experience in the various fields you've scoffed at are.

[Tiggy]

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

tracks_i3.jpg tracks_i4.jpg

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

tracks_i8.jpg

Skyline Drive Trackway Site

In December of 1999, while going for a Sunday morning drive, William Kurtz, a paleontology student at The University of Colorado, made a remarkable discovery. While walking along Skyline Drive , which is west of Cañon City , he was amazed to see what he thought were dinosaur tracks. It was right above the road and visible, at least to a trained person. Kurtz reported the find to Donna Engard, the curator of the Dinosaur Depot. Together they went up to survey the tracks that he had seen.

read more at link

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

- T