Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[laughsoutloud]

You are using the geologic column to date with. The geologic column is circular reasoning. The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks.:dizzy:

I never said anything about dating the geologic column - there is quite a different discussion.

I said that the column itself demonstrates that it was not generated by a flood event. There are cracked mud layers - created by sunlight (no long periods of dry surface during the flood, eh?). There are footprints (no creatures walking around in the middle of the flood - they were dead, right?), there are fine silt deposits, which would only precipitate out over time (far too many layers for a flood event, eh?). It is the column itself that gives lie to the idea of a global flood.

I'll repeat my earlier edit:

I know you believe that Genesis 1 has to be interpreted literally (but NOT Genesis 2, or Joshua 10:13, or Job 22:14). What I am trying to show you is that you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

Just like Luther was wrong in holding that you had to believe that the sun circled the earth because this is what the Bible teaches, you have to let go of the idea of a 6 day creation and global flood.

 

[griffinsavard]

I never said anything about dating the geologic column - there is quite a different discussion.

I said that the column itself demonstrates that it was not generated by a flood event. There are cracked mud layers - created by sunlight (no long periods of dry surface during the flood, eh?). There are footprints (no creatures walking around in the middle of the flood - they were dead, right?), there are fine silt deposits, which would only precipitate out over time (far too many layers for a flood event, eh?). It is the column itself that gives lie to the idea of a global flood.

I'll repeat my earlier edit:

I know you believe that Genesis 1 has to be interpreted literally (but NOT Genesis 2, or Joshua 10:13, or Job 22:14). What I am trying to show you is that you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

Just like Luther was wrong in holding that you had to believe that the sun circled the earth because this is what the Bible teaches, you have to let go of the idea of a 6 day creation and global flood.

The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
by John Woodmorappe

First published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):77–82, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

t has been claimed that the geological column as a faunel succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted — clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.

 

[laughsoutloud]

The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
by John Woodmorappe

First published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):77–82, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

t has been claimed that the geological column as a faunel succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted — clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.

Again, I am not talking about the the geologic column as a tool to establish dating, time lines, etc. I am simply saying that when you dig through the layers, you find sun-baked earth (disproves the flood as a source for the layer in question, as the flood would have been wet), footprints (which disproves the flood as a source for the layer in question, as all the creatures were supposed to be dead), thousands of layers of fine silt (disproves the flood as a source for the layer in question, as it would have taken many, many years for such fine particles to have precipitated from standing water).

Not that I agree with you about either dating or the existence of the geologic column (happy to talk about that), but the issue is simply how what we find when we go look disproves the flood. Just like with the example of the mammoth (which shows you what we find when we look for evidence that a certain creature lived at the same time as humans), the KT boundary shows you what we find when we look for an event (like an asteroid strike) that actually happened.

Asteroid strike? - the data says yes. Global Flood? - the data says no.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well there ya go, a hypothosys.
Moving on to step three we test it, I can build a plexiglas cube and attach a electric finish sander to it creating a liquefactor and when I get my dirt samples I'll put on my tee shirt turn on the camera and let er rip.

Keep me posted.

 

[Granite]

That's true.

Walt Brown rejects unscientific theories such as the canopy theory. It's no wonder other creationists aren't sure what to think of him. Yet his work is gaining traction. I believe his theories will eventually replace all the other creationist theories.

I have never met one person that hasn't been extremely impressed when they actually read the entire book "In the Beginning".

Many creationists are very sure what to make of him, and spend time debunking him with regularity.

 

[Stripe]

Again, I am not talking about the the geologic column as a tool to establish dating, time lines, etc.

Why do evolutionists commonly refuse to discuss the age of the Earth...?

I am simply saying that when you dig through the layers, you find sun-baked earth (disproves the flood as a source for the layer in question, as the flood would have been wet)

That is no evidence against a flood. Only evidence that at some stage there wasn't one.

footprints (which disproves the flood as a source for the layer in question, as all the creatures were supposed to be dead)

How do you figure that?

thousands of layers of fine silt (disproves the flood as a source for the layer in question, as it would have taken many, many years for such fine particles to have precipitated from standing water).

How about if a lot of water was drained from a particular location?

Not that I agree with you about either dating or the existence of the geologic column (happy to talk about that), but the issue is simply how what we find when we go look disproves the flood.

What? 90% of sediments deposited in water the globa over and you think a couple of debatable exceptions disproves a flood hypothesis?

Just like with the example of the mammoth (which shows you what we find when we look for evidence that a certain creature lived at the same time as humans), the KT boundary shows you what we find when we look for an event (like an asteroid strike) that actually happened.

Nobody is arguing that there isn't an iridium rich clay deposit all around the globe...

Asteroid strike? - the data says yes. Global Flood? - the data says no.

What happened, in your opinion, to wipe out the dinosaurs:

1. One asteroid.
2. Lots of asteroids.

?

 

[Jukia]

Why do evolutionists commonly refuse to discuss the age of the Earth...?

Is this some sort of straw man argument? What do you mean by evolutionists? Are you speaking in some wide generic term or do you mean biologists (aharvey for example)? My off the cuff guess would be that evolutionists, no matter how you describe them, would accept the 4.5+/- billion year age of the earth because that is what the evidence shows. What is there to discuss? Whether it is billions or thousands of years old? That is not a discussion, that is farce.

 

[Stripe]

Is this some sort of straw man argument? What do you mean by evolutionists? Are you speaking in some wide generic term or do you mean biologists (aharvey for example)? My off the cuff guess would be that evolutionists, no matter how you describe them, would accept the 4.5+/- billion year age of the earth because that is what the evidence shows. What is there to discuss? Whether it is billions or thousands of years old? That is not a discussion, that is farce.

+1

I'm impressed! You went through an entire cycle! Yeah, aharvey also refused to include the age of the Earth in some of his reasonings at one point. Yeah, I know evolutionists are locked into 4 billion years at a minimum. The answer you give is quite interesting .. you think it is a waste of time to discuss the age of the Earth.

 

[Jukia]

That's true.

Walt Brown rejects unscientific theories such as the canopy theory. It's no wonder other creationists aren't sure what to think of him. Yet his work is gaining traction. I believe his theories will eventually replace all the other creationist theories.

I have never met one person that hasn't been extremely impressed when they actually read the entire book "In the Beginning".

Are you really suggesting that Brown's theory is "scientific"?

I've read most of the book on line. Guess I missed something. Is there a special part that makes it all clear? A special chapter that impresses. Cause I gotta tell you what I read it total absolute nonsensical.

 

[Stripe]

Are you really suggesting that Brown's theory is "scientific"?

I've read most of the book on line. Guess I missed something. Is there a special part that makes it all clear? A special chapter that impresses. Cause I gotta tell you what I read it total absolute nonsensical.

Dr. Brown declares a set of assumptions in the form of starting conditions for the Earth. He makes predictions based on those assumptions that line up with features of the Earth we see today. No other theory comes close to explaining the range of features that his does. Even if there are problems with some of his ideas there is literally no other theory that ties morphological features together so clearly.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Dr. Brown declares a set of assumptions in the form of starting conditions for the Earth. He makes predictions based on those assumptions that line up with features of the Earth we see today. No other theory comes close to explaining the range of features that his does. Even if there are problems with some of his ideas there is literally no other theory that ties morphological features together so clearly.

Except that his assumptions are not born out. Liquafaction, for example - there is no explanation for the data, just arm waving. It goes on and on. Compared with standard theories of cosmology, his predictions fall short of proof, because he often predicts just what the standard model predicts. To establish a theory, you have to both make prediction that are accurate, but also explain why other explanations for those results are wrong. Otherwise, you just have an alternate explanation - in his case, one that only fits selective facts.

Further, you have to focus on falsification arguments. For example, you could falsify evolution by finding a rabbit mixed in with pre-Cambrian flora and fauna that could not be explained by any of the normal geologic processes (since evolution holds that rabbits came long after the Cambrian). Brown's theory is falsified based on the fossil record alone. His theory gives no explanation for the way fossils are discovered - in groups, rather than all mixed up (dinosaurs and early reptiles and mammals in one group, modern animals, including humans, in seperate groups). Why, for example, are we never digging up people and dinosaurs, but we find people and mammoths all the time? Standard theory holds that it is because dinosaurs and people are separated by millions of years, and so dinosaur bones were buried far below human remains. Brown has no explanation. We could go on. Prediction is not enough - he also needs to focus on falsification - this is what real scientists do, and it is one of the things that seperates apologists from those who do science.

 

[Stripe]

Except that his assumptions are not born out. Liquafaction, for example - there is no explanation for the data, just arm waving.

I notice you haven't explained how the explanations he provides are inadequate. Instead you've settled for waving your arms, for lack of a better term...

Liquefaction is very well explained in his book. There are clear conditions, simple examples and reproducible experiments that even a school teacher could use to explain things to elementary school kids...

It goes on and on. Compared with standard theories of cosmology, his predictions fall short of proof, because he often predicts just what the standard model predicts.

The standard model predicts asteroids from Earth? Salt water accumulations under the crust? Have you even read his predictions?

To establish a theory, you have to both make prediction that are accurate, but also explain why other explanations for those results are wrong. Otherwise, you just have an alternate explanation - in his case, one that only fits selective facts.

You couldn't have summed up your accusations more succinctly.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Stipe

I'll omit the quotes, since the board doesn't seem to deal with a response to a response very well:

Age of the Earth
I doubt that "evolutionists" refuse to discuss the age of the earth. I noted that I would be happy to talk about the age of the earth, but that that was beside the point of my discussion - I wanted to focus on how the geological makeup of the earth, taken as it is, disproves the flood. You don't need to date, or demonstrate that it is exactly the same everywhere you go (in fact, it would not be exactly the same, though it is similar). So no, evolutionists don't shy away from discussions of dates. 4.5 billion years!

Evidence Against the Flood
You say there is no evidence against the flood - this is simply not true. We have evidence of great floods over and over, in many parts of the world - just no evidence of a single flood, all over the world, one year in duration. Later in your responses, you note that we do have strong evidence of the a world-wide catastrophe called the KT boundary, so you know what evidence would look like. A global flood could not have happened and not left evidence, and the earth as we find it would not have be as it is if a global flood, resulting in the death of all land creatures, had occurred.

Footprints During the Flood
You ask how footprints in a geologic layer disproves the flood. Well, the normal creationist explanation for the sedimentary layers geologists find is that they were laid down in the flood. All creatures are held to have died in the flood, except those on the ark. Therefore, take any layer claimed to be laid down by the flood. Search above that layer, and when you find sun-baked layers, layers with footprints in them, layers with multiple fine deposits that would have taken more than a year to form (in the aggregate), the flood no longer works as an explanation. You can start from the top, as well, and go back 4,000 years from the present, and account for whatever layers you can in that time period, eliminate those, and you still have many, many layers that cannot be explained away by the flood.

Fine Sediment in Multiple Layers
The point about the fine silt precipitating goes like this: Fine silt settles slowly, and represents (for example) seasons (runoff from snow melt, for example, though there are various reasons for the periodic nature of fine silt deposits). It takes a long time for the fine silt to precipitate, so it takes calm water (turbulence keeps it in suspension), and time. You count the layers, and what you see is evidence that the layers in question were formed over time - sometimes as many as a million years. So it could not have happened in the flood (it is not a single precipitation event), and it could not have happened since the flood (not enough time). This is not "a couple of debatable exceptions," it is a common event, recorded in lakes and seas all over the world. Your claim that 90% of deposits could support a global flood is just not true. For example, a vast plain 300 meters deep, made up of loess in China could not have been deposited wet, and could not have been deposited since the Flood.

The KT Boundary - an example of positive evidence for an event
The fact that no one is disputing the iridium deposit around the globe underscores my point about falsifying the prediction that there was a global flood. When the idea of an asteroid strike as an extinction event was first floated, this was one of the predictions - then they went out and looked for the data. See how this works? When the iridium deposit was found around the world, this gave strong support to the theory of an asteroid strike. However, perhaps as implied by your question as to whether there as one or more asteroid strikes, there is some discussion about what created this layer - a single strike, or multiple strikes. Unlike a creationist apology for the data, it doesn't really matter if it was one or two strikes. What do I think? I think I'd like to hear more about what the data supports, which is what scientists are doing - looking at data, making models, testing them, trying to falsify them.

Conclusions
Is there any of the predicted evidence to be found for a global flood, that cannot be better explained by standard geological theories? No.

Do standard geological theories predict and explain geological features better than the flood idea? Yes.

Does the data (the earth as we find it to be) present features that cannot be explained by a global flood? Yes.

Based on this evidence, the idea of a global flood must be rejected.

 

[Toast]

The standard model predicts asteroids from Earth? Salt water accumulations under the crust? Have you even read his predictions?

I'm guessing no.

 

[griffinsavard]

Except that his assumptions are not born out. Liquafaction, for example - there is no explanation for the data, just arm waving. It goes on and on. Compared with standard theories of cosmology, his predictions fall short of proof, because he often predicts just what the standard model predicts. To establish a theory, you have to both make prediction that are accurate, but also explain why other explanations for those results are wrong. Otherwise, you just have an alternate explanation - in his case, one that only fits selective facts.

Further, you have to focus on falsification arguments. For example, you could falsify evolution by finding a rabbit mixed in with pre-Cambrian flora and fauna that could not be explained by any of the normal geologic processes (since evolution holds that rabbits came long after the Cambrian). Brown's theory is falsified based on the fossil record alone. His theory gives no explanation for the way fossils are discovered - in groups, rather than all mixed up (dinosaurs and early reptiles and mammals in one group, modern animals, including humans, in seperate groups). Why, for example, are we never digging up people and dinosaurs, but we find people and mammoths all the time? Standard theory holds that it is because dinosaurs and people are separated by millions of years, and so dinosaur bones were buried far below human remains. Brown has no explanation. We could go on. Prediction is not enough - he also needs to focus on falsification - this is what real scientists do, and it is one of the things that seperates apologists from those who do science.

Taylor Trail

A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

Ryals Track

A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

New Mexico Track
One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs).

:wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Are you really suggesting that Brown's theory is "scientific"?

Yes.

This is the part where you try to silence your opposition. Welcome to the 1800's.

I've read most of the book on line.

Three paragraphs don't count as "most".

Guess I missed something.

And that's news? :idunno:

Is there a special part that makes it all clear? A special chapter that impresses. Cause I gotta tell you what I read it total absolute nonsensical.

Coming from you that isn't such a bad thing.

 

[fool]

Taylor Trail

A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

Ryals Track

A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

New Mexico Track
One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs).

:wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup:

BULL!
You spread lies.
Back it up.

 

[Jukia]

Taylor Trail

A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

Ryals Track

A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

New Mexico Track
One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs).

:wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup:

Really. Are you aware that even most of the creationists sites do not push these anymore?

But, never mind. Here, I have a bridge I can let you have cheap.

 

[koban]

None so blind, Juke, none so blind.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Many creationists are very sure what to make of him, and spend time debunking him with regularity.

That's true (especially early on).

Yet those guys have entire curriculum's and years of pushing their own theories at stake (it's similar to those that have their investments in old earth models, yet this is on a tiny scale). It's really no wonder they resist him. If you had just spent years helping to create a museum display about the canopy theory you might resist a guy whos theory disproves your work - know what I mean?

Yet in this arena the times they are a changing! Walt is gaining serious traction because his YEC model is very reasonable, it doesn't have any wild, wacky, unsupportable canopy type elements to it. His theory explains everything regarding the flood and geology in one uniform theory. Therefore I think it will eventually take the place of the other theories (but that will take time of course).