Geological and archaeological evidence for/against the flood/CTE

Tricky said:
It don't usually think of bioturbation as activity by humans. But earlier when I said "undisturbed beds", that was because sometimes things like bioturbation disturb the beds. A worm may burrow into soft sediments, then younger sediments fill the burrow, or a tree can grow, sometimes into near solid rock, leave a "root hole" which then gets filled with younger sediment and reburied. Also, ancient potholes can leave pits that can be filled with younger sediment. (This is NOT bioturbation*.) But these are all "unconformities" and their presence means that the rock is not undisturbed.

*Note: animal self-gratification is also NOT bioturbation.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the frequent phenomenon of petrified tree stumps projecting vertically up several layers (and thousands of years. Simply erosion of softer sands around the petrified stump then tides depositing new layers.
 
Robrob said:
Not to mention the frequent phenomenon of petrified tree stumps projecting vertically up several layers (and thousands of years. Simply erosion of softer sands around the petrified stump then tides depositing new layers.
Click to expand...

Actually its volcanic ash
 
If the specific layers of strata and fossil distribution are a result of scientists omitting exceptions to their own rules through stubbornness and other various psychological issues or faith in dogma or what have you, what caused the original men who began these models of earth and geological time to establish these models in the first place in your opinion, Avalon?

They were Christian men for the most part. Do you think they perhaps got lost on tangents that seemed like novel paradigm shifts, and they followed these findings out of a desire to contribute to something that would be seen as a major change, something new?
 
MG1962 said:
Out near Monument rock in Kansas is an outstanding example of this. There is an exposed fish fossil that appears to have fossilized vertically through three sedimentary layers. He has left it in situ as a lesson on how to build context in the find, and to challenge people how it got like that.

The secrete is in the matrix lol - and no I dont mean the movie ;)
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to that? I'd love to see it!
 
Mudcat said:
No. Chrono Trigger's titular character, Crono. He was a time traveller. But just the same don't get me started on Squaresuck's naming conventions.
Click to expand...
ha ha ha !
He kinda looks like cloud who befriends an ATHEIST fighting against the church in FFT!
 
TimCallahan said:
Okay, I thought you were claiming that you had evidence of geologists cherry-picking the data, etc.; but I'll take your word for it: You have no evidence upon which to back your assertion.

So, have you bugged your creationist friend for any such evidence yet?

Also, do you have any rebuttal to the objections we've raised to the flood theory?
Click to expand...

AvalonXQ: I'm still waiting for a response to these questions?
 
To the first question: yes I did.

To the second: I'm waiting to see what the Woodmorappe books says.
 
AvalonXQ said:
To the second: I'm waiting to see what the Woodmorappe books says.
Click to expand...
Seems like you're placing a lot of expectation on a book you haven't even read yet. So maybe this is a good time to consider the (many) arguments and pieces of evidence that have been laid before you. Do they make any sense? Just using your own reasoning, not that which you've heard from creationists, are there obvious contradictions that would overrule the evidence?

It's okay if you don't know a lot about geology. Many of us here will be glad to answer questions.
 
Tricky said:
Seems like you're placing a lot of expectation on a book you haven't even read yet. So maybe this is a good time to consider the (many) arguments and pieces of evidence that have been laid before you. Do they make any sense?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think they do.
The basic argument seems to be that we'd expect the landscape and the biosphere to look a certain way if the Genesis account is correct, and neither appearance is consistent with those expectations.

Just using your own reasoning, not that which you've heard from creationists, are there obvious contradictions that would overrule the evidence?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're asking here.
 
AvalonXQ said:
The basic argument seems to be that we'd expect the landscape and the biosphere to look a certain way if the Genesis account is correct, and neither appearance is consistent with those expectations.
Click to expand...
Not strong enough. Your statement isn't false; however, the tone is way too weak. Deluge Geology makes specific predictions in terms of structural geology, sedimentology, paleontology, biology, ecology, etc. Every time one of those predictions has been put to the test it has failed. Most of this was recognized well before evolution was even considered--check out the old versions of Catastraphism to see proof of that. Actually, it's worth looking into Catastraphism just to see some of the political cartoons--anyone who thinks we're mean on this forum should see what those guys said about and to each other!!

I don't understand what you're asking here.
Click to expand...
You're talking to two people with backgrounds in geology--at least two, I should say. We've presented some specific data for your consideration. Take a look at that data, and see if our interpretations are consistent with it. See if there's any data to contradict our statements. We're scientists--we'll always bow to data. If you can show data that contradicts our statements, I for one would honestly love to hear it. Tricky and I are both working from the same broad paradigm, so are there any contradictions between what the two of us say? Additionally, you have to (if I may say so myself) pretty good resources here. We're willing to help. And by that I don't mean "help you see the truth"; rather, if you want to know what geology says about X, or what data supports Y, or the like, ask. We'll give you the data; it's up to you to interpret it.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Yes, I think they do.
The basic argument seems to be that we'd expect the landscape and the biosphere to look a certain way if the Genesis account is correct, and neither appearance is consistent with those expectations.
Click to expand...

Would you be open to guessing about what kind of traces we would expect to see from such an event?
 
Dinwar said:
You're talking to two people with backgrounds in geology--at least two, I should say. We've presented some specific data for your consideration. Take a look at that data, and see if our interpretations are consistent with it. See if there's any data to contradict our statements. We're scientists--we'll always bow to data. If you can show data that contradicts our statements, I for one would honestly love to hear it. Tricky and I are both working from the same broad paradigm, so are there any contradictions between what the two of us say? Additionally, you have to (if I may say so myself) pretty good resources here. We're willing to help. And by that I don't mean "help you see the truth"; rather, if you want to know what geology says about X, or what data supports Y, or the like, ask. We'll give you the data; it's up to you to interpret it.
Click to expand...

What Dinwar said.

Here's an interesting aside though.

Georges Cuvier, known to many as the Father of Paleontology did not believe in evolution or uniformitarianism. He believed in catastrophism, which is not the same as what Biblical diluvianists believe, but it does involve repeated catastrophes such as floods. Gradually, the uniformitarianist view gained the upper hand because of superior evidence and compatibility with other disciplines, but Cuvier is still remembered for his extensive descriptions and stratigraphy work.

So you see, it's not like evolution and uniformitariansm have always been scientific mantras. They earned their spots in science over ideas that were much more like those that creationists still espouse. And science is filled with stories of great men with big egos making very big mistakes, like how Edison tried to destroy Tesla* for suggesting that alternating current was superior to the direct current that Edison supported. Edison was wrong. Cuvier was wrong. Lamark was wrong. Science doesn't care about ego. Evidence will always win out. That is why it is ludicrous to suggest that earth scientists are "cherry-picking" data to support a preferred theory. They've tossed out preferred theories time and time again, and will continue to do so as evidence demands.

If biblical literalism had the evidence behind it, it could overturn evolution, gradualism and lots of other theories. But it doesn't. It has almost no evidence at all. That's why very few scientists believe it. Not because they're "anti-bible".


*Happy birthday Nikola!
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
There's no way in 6,000 a million years AvalonXQ is going to change his mind about this.
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but I wouldn't put money on that. He seems to be receptive to polite explanations.

But if he listens, that's enough. Ideas are very hard things to change and it doesn't happen overnight. You have to let them rattle around in your head for a while. I used to be a Christian too and I believed many of the stories. Letting go of God isn't easy. Ask Julia Sweeny.
 
Uniformitarianism itself took two major hits since its inception: the Uniformity of Rate and Uniformity of State have been completely discarded. Alvarez proved that events in geology can occur extremely rapidly (the Cretaceous ended in about a half a second), and geochemistry demonstrated that things have changed a LOT since the Earth solidified.

"Darwin's Century" gives an interesting overview of how evolution came to be considered true, from a biological standpoint--but it also touches on these arguments, as deep time is necessary for evolution to be true. It presents the historical context, and shows how the ideas that became our modern understanding slowly accumulated over time (it'd make Lyelle happy to hear that!).

It's interesting to note that the old Creationists were more sophisticated than today's Creationists. The old Catastraphists sometimes argued that the Bible only presented the latest round of Creation, and that God simply didn't bother to talk about previous ones (being as they weren't applicable to anything in theology). No need to have the Earth 6,000 years old, or to explain how T. rexes got onto the Arc, or any of that.
 
Dinwar said:
Uniformitarianism itself took two major hits since its inception: the Uniformity of Rate and Uniformity of State have been completely discarded. Alvarez proved that events in geology can occur extremely rapidly (the Cretaceous ended in about a half a second), and geochemistry demonstrated that things have changed a LOT since the Earth solidified.

"Darwin's Century" gives an interesting overview of how evolution came to be considered true, from a biological standpoint--but it also touches on these arguments, as deep time is necessary for evolution to be true. It presents the historical context, and shows how the ideas that became our modern understanding slowly accumulated over time (it'd make Lyelle happy to hear that!).

It's interesting to note that the old Creationists were more sophisticated than today's Creationists. The old Catastraphists sometimes argued that the Bible only presented the latest round of Creation, and that God simply didn't bother to talk about previous ones (being as they weren't applicable to anything in theology). No need to have the Earth 6,000 years old, or to explain how T. rexes got onto the Arc, or any of that.
Click to expand...
True, and evolution has been shown to go through rapid bursts of diversification and then more stable times. Obviously a big event like the end of the Cretaceous not only eliminates many species, but it creates selective pressure and opens lots of new niches.

But by uniformitarianism, I mean that the same processes that we see to day happened in the past. Certainly there have been meteor and comet strikes before and there will be again. (Hopefully no time soon.) But at no time is there evidence of the kind of incredibly rapid tectonic movement that AvalonXQ referred to earlier.

I've heard some scientists mention that the times of polar reversal may have something to do with the rate of evolution. The Van Allen Radiation Belts, which protect us from a lot of cosmic rays, are hypothesized to be held in place by earth's magnetic field. If the field weakened during a reversal, more radiation might get through, leading to more frequent mutations. I make no claims about the accuracy of this hypothesis.
 
Tricky said:
But by uniformitarianism, I mean that the same processes that we see to day happened in the past. Certainly there have been meteor and comet strikes before and there will be again. (Hopefully no time soon.) But at no time is there evidence of the kind of incredibly rapid tectonic movement that AvalonXQ referred to earlier.
Click to expand...
Right--I didn't mean to imply that there was. It's just an issue rather close to my heart; in fact, it came up today at work. So it was on my mind.

I've heard some scientists mention that the times of polar reversal may have something to do with the rate of evolution. The Van Allen Radiation Belts, which protect us from a lot of cosmic rays, are hypothesized to be held in place by earth's magnetic field. If the field weakened during a reversal, more radiation might get through, leading to more frequent mutations. I make no claims about the accuracy of this hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I've seen those arguments, but the evidence is so weak that I usually dismiss them. I may be entirely wrong, and would love to learn that I am--but my interpretation is that the anomalies that pop up during reversals provide sufficient protection to mitigate the radiation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom