RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 9:30:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsnody2001

I've also seen pictures a fossilized cowboy boot with the foot fossilized inside of it. Tell me that took millions of years. I've also seen pictures of a piece of coal broken open with a spark plug inside. It does not take millions of years, just the right conditions.


The one I am familiar with was not fossilized. It was still bone, and the boot it was in is still leather. The process of replacing bone and leather with minerals from the surrounding rock takes a lot of time.

Strict creationists Carl Baugh and Don Patton have claimed that a cowboy boot manufactured around 1950 and found in a creek bed about 1980 near Iraan, Texas, contains a "fossilized" or "petrified" human leg inside, demonstrating that fossils do not take millions of years to form. Even if the boot actually contained a fossilized leg, it would not prove that all or even most fossils formed quickly, nor provide any anti-evolutionary evidence. And so far, the boot advocates have not published any rigorous evidence that the alleged leg bones in the boot are actually "fossilized," which implies that the original tissues are at least partially replaced with other minerals. The bones in question appear bright white (at least on the outside), which is more typical of modern bones than fossil bones (which are generally tan to dark brown, due to the minerals in the sediment which they absorb over time). Furthermore, when viewed on end (Fig. 2), the internal structure of the bones can be seen, and appears entirely modern--with a network of unfilled voids.

In June 2006 Baugh removed the original "Limestone Cowboy" article from his website, although a single paragraph in the "archives" still promotes it. He also did not display the boot among other allegedly anomalous artifacts discussed during his June, 2006 seminar at his Creation Evidence museum in Glen Rose, Texas.

Although I have not been allowed to examine the boot in person, the above considerations alone invite strong skepticism of Baugh's claims. Whenever extraordinary claims are made, the burden is on the claimants to demonstrate their veracity, not on skeptics to prove them wrong. In view of this, as well as Baugh's long history of sensational and unfounded claims, a high degree of skepticism about this "limestone cowboy" boot is warranted.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm



evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 9:33:27 PM)

quote:

The claim is that these canyons are analogous to the Grand Canyon, but that is not correct. The geology of the Grand Canyon is such that that canyon cuts through many different layers of rock to a depth of over a mile, however the examples you provided are cut through ~150 feet of loose clay and unconsolidated sandstone.


No, the claim is that with the proper conditions, canyons do not require massive amounts of time to form. No one is claiming the Grand Canyon was formed in 40 days. Consider this. After the flood, when the waters receded, the water running through the parts of Arizona where the GC was formed would most likely not be clean pure water. It would be dirty, thick, DENSE water mixed with different sediments and minerals, making the erosion process a bit easier and shorter. Another theory is the ice age after the flood occurred. Glaciers have been shown to be a tool of erosion. So again, no one (at least I'm not) is claiming that the 40 days of the flood is the sole reason the GC came about. You must consider the possibilities within the hundreds of years after the Noahic flood.



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 9:47:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
The Grand Canyon does not prove a global flood. It simply proves there are other possible (perhaps more likely) explanations as to how the Grand Canyon, and other landmarks of this such, were formed, and I am not obliged to be brainwashed by the typical "millions and billions of years" bologna. To believe the earth survived a billion years of chaotic possibilities seems a bit foolish to me.


No flood produces limestone, especially fossil bearing limestone like that found in the GC. Floods do not produce fossilized, wind blown sand dunes like those found in the Coconino Sandstones. Rapid erosion does not produce extreme gooseneck meanders like those found in the GC. Here is a good pic of the meanders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goosenecks_State_Park

Slow moving rivers form gooseneck meanders. These goosenecks show that the rivers which formed the canyons on the Colorado plateau were slow moving. Slow moving rivers also erode slowly.

Flat strata are also mentioned, but what is not mentioned is the Great Unconformity found in the GC. The lower levels of sediment were lithified and then tilted at an angle then eroded smooth. Here is a good pic of the unconformity.

http://zsylvester.blogspot.com/2007/03/no-vestige-of-beginning-no-prospect-of.html

If these sediments were wet they would have cracked. These are not cracked.

The biggest problem for a global flood are biological sediments. The best example are the chalk cliffs at Dover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover

Chalk is made of tiny organisms called coccolithophores. These are photosynthetic organisms meaning that they can only grow within a certain distance from the surface of the sea. To produce deposits like those seen at Dover you need a lot of time, not a single year. There is simply no way to grow that many coccolithophores in that short amount of time, not to mention the time and still waters needed to stack these organisms on the sea floor. A flood can not produce these deposits. Only life can.

Another problematic biological deposit are crinoid plates, the remains of sea lilies.

"Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."46

In just this one deposit, there are enough crinoids to cover every square inch of the earth to a depth of 1/4 inch.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.htm

As the link above attests, there are simply too many animals (by a long shot) in the fossil record for a single flood to produce. WAY TOO MANY.



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 9:50:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
No one is claiming the Grand Canyon was formed in 40 days. Consider this. After the flood, when the waters receded, the water running through the parts of Arizona where the GC was formed would most likely not be clean pure water. It would be dirty, thick, DENSE water mixed with different sediments and minerals, making the erosion process a bit easier and shorter.


This would also deposit sediment and you would have something resembling the Mississippi river. Also, the gooseneck meanders rule out a fast moving rivers. The sheer cliffs of the GC rule out soft sediments. The evidence requires a slow moving river that cuts through rock, and that takes time.



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 9:59:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

I'm with drmark on this one. There is no "slam dunk" evidence that a YEC can provide to prove the earth is young. Even an OEC or a Big Bang Theorist has no evidence of this sort.


The cosmic microwave background is considered "slam dunk" evidence for the Big Bang.

quote:

The most that can be provided are interpretations of evidence, and the most a YEC can do (like myself) is provide evidence to prove another way was possible.


Unfortunately, these interpretations require miracles which are obviously non-scientific and not objective. It would require a miraculous increase in the speed of light and radioactive decay without the needed increase in heat, and these increases would need to leave zero evidence where we should find it (such as in the spectra of stars). Once you throw in ad hoc miracles you are no longer interpretting anything. You are imposing your dogma onto the evidence.

quote:

Such evidence includes the example DanJames provided. It has been shown that sediment layers do not require massive amounts of time to form.


This has not been shown. Fossil bearing strata have to wait for the organisms to form, and there are way too many organisms found in the fossil record for a one year flood to produce.

quote:

All it requires is a rapid movement of sediment (perhaps the flood?) to create said layers.


Rapid movement of sediments do not form coccolithophores, sea lilies, the vegetation needed to form coal, the marine organisms to form the world's oil reserves, the billions of animals in the Karoo formation, or the massive numbers of diatoms found in diatomaceous soils. This requires the perfect living conditions, and those conditions do not include sediment choked waters.

quote:

So when one visits the Grand Canyon and reads the information that says "It took # millions of years to carve these layers", it is very likely this is a lie.


So thousands of geologists with a combined thousand years of research counts as lies?

quote:

So if a YEC is honest to himself, there is no "slam dunk" evidence to prove the Earth is young, but there's also no "slam dunk" evidence to prove the earth is old either. It all depends on which interpretation you choose to accept.


If it is an interpretation based on evidence and observation then the Old Earth interpretation is the right one. If your interpretation is based on unevidenced, ad hoc miracles then the YEC interpretation is possible. However, the OP in this thread asked for an objective, evidenced based interpretation so the YEC interpretation fails.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 10:25:34 PM)

quote:

Unfortunately, these interpretations require miracles which are obviously non-scientific and not objective.


Excuse me, but I went out on the limb to debate with a flood of opposition (it's true that the "Science and Origins" folder is dominated by, in drmark's words, "agno-atheistic/theistic" evolutionists, leading to beliefs in an old earth, making me CLEARLY out numbered) by providing some scientific, geological interpretations that do NOT require miracles, and I would appreciate it if you would not down-play YEC science by claiming it requires miracles and is therefor un-scientific. How foolish or you! Does some YEC science require miracles? Absolutely! God is miraculous, but He often uses and/or allows His own creation to perform His will, and it is this usage and/or allowance that IS scientific and unreliable to miracles, and it is this science that a YEC, like myself, attempts to explain. Method, swallow your bias, get over yourself, and stop claiming Creationists have no idea what they are talking about.

quote:

So thousands of geologists with a combined thousand years of research counts as lies?


Oh, give me a break! So popularity makes something right? I guess you believed the Catholic Crusades were justified. This shows me you're willing to accept whatever is popular, regardless to the opposing evidence, and are unwilling to accept your're wrong, because popularity says you're right.



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 10:36:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Excuse me, but I went out on the limb to debate with a flood of opposition (it's true that the "Science and Origins" folder is dominated by, in drmark's words, "agno-atheistic/theistic" evolutionists, leading to beliefs in an old earth, making me CLEARLY out numbered) by providing some scientific, geological interpretations that do NOT require miracles, and I would appreciate it if you would not down-play YEC science by claiming it requires miracles and is therefor un-scientific. How foolish or you!


If you claim that the dearth of sediments on earth were produced by a single flood then it does require miracles. Miraculous growth rates, miraculous ordering of fossils, etc.

quote:

Does some YEC science require miracles? Absolutely!


Then it isn't scientific. Given the way in which some posters here insult the very practice of science I don't see why this is a problem.

quote:

Method, swallow your bias, get over yourself, and stop claiming Creationists have no idea what they are talking about.


I don't see why having a bias towards objective evidence is such a bad thing. Can you explain?

quote:

Oh, give me a break! So popularity makes something right?


No, evidence does. The OP asked for objective, testable evidence. What is wrong with that?



drmark -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 10:40:19 PM)

quote:

So again, no one (at least I'm not) is claiming that the 40 days of the flood is the sole reason the GC came about.
Just a brief reminder, e1ng, that the flood covered the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:24) and probably vast areas for a much longer duration while the waters slowly receded. Other than that minor clarification, you're doing a great job fending off the pagan hordes! [;)]



drj11 -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 10:41:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method
No, evidence does. The OP asked for objective, testable evidence. What is wrong with that?


Just to be clear, the reason for this was that throughout many posts in this forum, there have been many claims that an honest objective look at scientific evidence can lead one to believe in YEC, and actually corroborate the creation story as literal.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 10:51:42 PM)

quote:

If you claim that the dearth of sediments on earth were produced by a single flood then it does require miracles. Miraculous growth rates, miraculous ordering of fossils, etc.


That is your interpretation and belief, not everyone's.

quote:

Then it isn't scientific.


I never claimed miracles are scientific. Please get the context right.

quote:

I don't see why having a bias towards objective evidence is such a bad thing.


HAHA, nice try, but your bias is not towards objective evidence, it is AGAINST Creationists whom you claim holds no scientific evidence, which could be no further from the truth.
quote:


No, evidence does. The OP asked for objective, testable evidence. What is wrong with that?


So don't claim you are right because people say you are. This is the typical social reinforcement that has kept evolution on life support too long.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 11:04:23 PM)

quote:

Just a brief reminder, e1ng, that the flood covered the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:24) and probably vast areas for a much longer duration while the waters slowly receded. Other than that minor clarification, you're doing a great job fending off the pagan hordes!


LOL! I know, but most people look at the flood and the "40 days and 40 nights" and say this amount of time makes the idea of a flood ludicrous, and it is, if it truly only lasted 40 days. But the flood lasted 150 days, and the effects and consequences of the flood lasted YEARS after it occurred. Actually, the flood changed our atmosphere, giving us rain among other things, meaning we are still witnessing the consequences of a global flood 4500 years after it occurred. Therefore, the flood is technically still making it's mark on the earth! People need to realize that when a Creationists attempts to interpret evidence in light of the Noahic flood, they are not strictly referencing the 40/150 days of water flooding the earth. I thought I made that point clear so far, but I guess not. My apologies Dr. M!



ianz -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 11:18:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:

Then it isn't scientific.


I never claimed miracles are scientific. Please get the context right.

? You're moving the goalposts!

If miracles are not scientific, and YEC requires miracles, then does it not follow that science CANNOT prove YEC?

Regards, Ian



evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 11:41:08 PM)

quote:

and YEC requires miracles


I didn't say this. I said "Does some YEC science require miracles? Absolutely!" I went on to say that God often uses/allows His creation to follow its path, and it is THIS that DOES NOT require miracles, and it is THIS science that a YEC, like myself, attempts to interpret. The global flood is an objective possibility, and I have provided, to the best of my ability, objective science void of miracles to explain the global flood, and it would be foolish to claim it isn't science. Whether or not you or others agree with it is up to you. But that is subjective, not objective.



ianz -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/22/2008 11:53:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

and YEC requires miracles


I didn't say this. I said "Does some YEC science require miracles? Absolutely!" I went on to say that God often uses/allows His creation to follow its path, and it is THIS that DOES NOT require miracles, and it is THIS science that a YEC, like myself, attempts to interpret. The global flood is an objective possibility, and I have provided, to the best of my ability, objective science void of miracles to explain the global flood, and it would be foolish to claim it isn't science. Whether or not you or others agree with it is up to you. But that is subjective, not objective.

OK then - but the point is still valid - if YEC requires even one miracle in order to be correct, then science cannot prove it (it certainly can't replicate the conditions or be observed).

Besides, if miracles are ok, then what on Earth is the point of using science to try proving that the Grand Canyon or anything else is evidence of a global flood? Who cares? (I'm not being facetious by the way.) Why not just say, God did it, it was a miracle, and believe it - why try to prove it, when you know that conventional scientists will dismiss the work out of hand, because of the requirement to allow miracles?

Regards, Ian



evry1needsgod -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/23/2008 12:08:14 AM)

quote:

OK then - but the point is still valid - if YEC requires even one miracle in order to be correct, then science cannot prove it (it certainly can't replicate the conditions or be observed).


So any science uttered by a YEC is not truly science? This is the dogma taught by evolutionists all across the world to naive high school students. Label someone, and then judge them by that label. That's not true science, and you know it. And this is also the reason threads like this go absolutely nowhere. Drj11 has more than once referred to his old thread, using it to show creationists have no idea what they are talking about because they don't post in his thread. That is deceiving, because the reason they don't is twofold. 1, they are out numbered and 2, whatever they do say is shut down by the typical "that is religious dogma not worthy of consideration." This is quite unfair and incorrect, because God is not void of science, His creation is not void of science, and the Noahic flood is not void of science. If everything I say gets rejected by calling it "religious dogma" I will simply quit posting here. I've done my best. The interpretations of evidence I have provided so far have been void of ANY religion and/or miracles, and I can't stand it when people dismiss what I have to say because I'm a creationist. Ben Stein had it right, and this proves it.



ianz -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/23/2008 1:27:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

OK then - but the point is still valid - if YEC requires even one miracle in order to be correct, then science cannot prove it (it certainly can't replicate the conditions or be observed).


So any science uttered by a YEC is not truly science? This is the dogma taught by evolutionists all across the world to naive high school students. Label someone, and then judge them by that label. That's not true science, and you know it. And this is also the reason threads like this go absolutely nowhere. Drj11 has more than once referred to his old thread, using it to show creationists have no idea what they are talking about because they don't post in his thread. That is deceiving, because the reason they don't is twofold. 1, they are out numbered and 2, whatever they do say is shut down by the typical "that is religious dogma not worthy of consideration." This is quite unfair and incorrect, because God is not void of science, His creation is not void of science, and the Noahic flood is not void of science. If everything I say gets rejected by calling it "religious dogma" I will simply quit posting here. I've done my best. The interpretations of evidence I have provided so far have been void of ANY religion and/or miracles, and I can't stand it when people dismiss what I have to say because I'm a creationist. Ben Stein had it right, and this proves it.

To be clear - I was talking of science by a YEC where that science is in relation to the age of the Earth. There is plenty of great scientific endeavour by scientists who happen to be YEC.

You must ask yourself, if the evidence for YEC is so compelling, why is it that only YEC scientists accept it? Why is there not a single non-YEC scientist who accepts the evidence?

Anyway, my reasoning for dismissing YEC science where it requires a belief in God stems from a discussion in this thread:
quote:


Simple example:
* An atheist, presented with proof that God exists, can accept this fact.
* A theist, presented with proof that God does not exist, cannot accept this fact, because it is incumbent on the theist to believe that God cannot not exist.

That's why, when theists consider evidence which contradicts their faith, they cannot assess it objectively, because they do so making an a priori assumption it is incorrect, or has been incorrectly interpreted, etc.


That's not meant to be some sort of arrogant claim on behalf of atheists, but it is rather to show why it is that YE science can't be taken seriously, because it requires the a priori assumption that whatever the YEC scientist thinks is true before they consider the evidence, is true.



iluvatar -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/23/2008 8:57:48 AM)

Trying to get this thread back on track....


quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

If you claim that the dearth of sediments on earth were produced by a single flood then it does require miracles. Miraculous growth rates, miraculous ordering of fossils, etc.


That is your interpretation and belief, not everyone's.



If the flood could have created these layers, please explain how. How could enough biological material have been created during 150 days to create over 1000' of limestone in several, non-adjacent layers? If it was redeposited from somewhere else, how did the sediments sort themselves into the layering we see.

If all the layers were laid down in one event, how do animal tracks and burrows show up in the middle layers?


quote:

This assumes the water currents during the flood all flowed the same way at all times until the waters receded. A global flood would have caused hurricanes, tsunamis, landslides, opposing water currents, etc, that would in turn created landmasses not so flat. A global flood has been theorized (and is very likely had the Noahic flood occurred) to be a tool in the moving of tectonic plates, creating mountains (such as Everest?) that did not exist before the flood.


And it is incumbent upon creationists to develop theories to explain the evidence that we see without causing problems in other areas.

For example: the rapid plate tectonic theory you mentioned requires the plates to move so quickly that the atlantic ocean would have essentially been left as a giant volcanic caldera. Not only does that not match what the ocean floor looks like, but there is also the unsolved problem of what happened to all that heat.

-Dan.



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/23/2008 10:46:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
That is your interpretation and belief, not everyone's.


My beliefs have nothing to do with it. In order to explain the biological organisms found in the sediments you need an Earth with 50-100 times it's current biomass with jungles and oceans simultaneously covering the entire planet. You need miraculous growth of sea lilies, coccolithophores, coral, land animals, etc. You need a miraculous sorting of fossils into discreet layers, and a miraculous deposition environment where a flood deposits pure chalk without any contamination from the megatons of other sediments choking the water. If this interpretation is wrong then please show me how it is wrong with references to evidence.

quote:

HAHA, nice try, but your bias is not towards objective evidence, it is AGAINST Creationists whom you claim holds no scientific evidence, which could be no further from the truth.


This would be more believable if you actually dealt with the evidence that I used to support my arguments.

quote:

So don't claim you are right because people say you are. This is the typical social reinforcement that has kept evolution on life support too long.


Again, deal with the evidence.



DanJames -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/26/2008 1:25:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

Trying to get this thread back on track....

If the flood could have created these layers, please explain how. How could enough biological material have been created during 150 days to create over 1000' of limestone in several, non-adjacent layers? If it was redeposited from somewhere else, how did the sediments sort themselves into the layering we see.

If all the layers were laid down in one event, how do animal tracks and burrows show up in the middle layers?

Are you referring to the Red wall limestone layer? There is a mechanism for creating this layer that fits better with the evidence already proposed by Steve Austin. The nautiloids in the layer are in a randomized orientation that suggests a mass kill from a water-charged pyroclastic flow. As far as I know there aren't any layers above this limestone layer that have foot tracks, but I could be wrong. I would also point out that, while the layers are all related in that they are caused by the same catastrophe, namely the Flood, said flood was not just a single geologic event. It's not unreasonable to believe that there was a lot of geologic activity for over 100 years after the flood. For instance, the Grand Canyon was not necessarily cut during, or even right after the Flood.



unclemonkey -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/26/2008 3:53:50 PM)

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

Fossilization is the gradual replacement of the organic material with mineral material.

Gradual?
“HumanFossil Inc's patent-pending Rapid Fossilization ProcessTM (RFP) promises to convert any biological organism into a real fossil. Instead of taking millions of years, the RFP process takes just a few weeks. Any non-living mammal, up to 250 pounds can be fossilized. Your fossil will spend the rest of eternity in the South Dakota mountains, waiting for discovery...” - http://humanfossil.com/



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/26/2008 4:37:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

Fossilization is the gradual replacement of the organic material with mineral material.

Gradual?
“HumanFossil Inc's patent-pending Rapid Fossilization ProcessTM (RFP) promises to convert any biological organism into a real fossil. Instead of taking millions of years, the RFP process takes just a few weeks. Any non-living mammal, up to 250 pounds can be fossilized. Your fossil will spend the rest of eternity in the South Dakota mountains, waiting for discovery...” - http://humanfossil.com/


HAhahahaha! That's a good one, unc. Even if it were true, RFP would have little bearing on natural fossilization.



gluadys -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/26/2008 6:41:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

Fossilization is the gradual replacement of the organic material with mineral material.

Gradual?
“HumanFossil Inc's patent-pending Rapid Fossilization ProcessTM (RFP) promises to convert any biological organism into a real fossil. Instead of taking millions of years, the RFP process takes just a few weeks. Any non-living mammal, up to 250 pounds can be fossilized. Your fossil will spend the rest of eternity in the South Dakota mountains, waiting for discovery...” - http://humanfossil.com/



And where was HumanFossilInc when Turkana Boy died? Are you suggesting his skeleton was rapidly fossilized using this invention?



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/26/2008 6:47:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Are you referring to the Red wall limestone layer? There is a mechanism for creating this layer that fits better with the evidence already proposed by Steve Austin. The nautiloids in the layer are in a randomized orientation that suggests a mass kill from a water-charged pyroclastic flow.


I have discussed the massive chalk layers, crinoid plates, coal deposits, etc. above.

quote:

As far as I know there aren't any layers above this limestone layer that have foot tracks, but I could be wrong.


The Coconino sandstones sit above nearly all of the limestone layers. These are eolian deposits (wind deposited sand dunes, you know, like a desert with dunes) that have preserved lizard and scorpion tracks. How does a flood produce a dessert?

quote:

I would also point out that, while the layers are all related in that they are caused by the same catastrophe, namely the Flood,


Floods do not produce limestone nor fossilized sand dunes.

But let me ask a question from a different direction. What type of a deposit would be inconsistent with a global flood?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/26/2008 6:55:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

How does a flood produce a dessert?


Mmmm.... dessert...

I think floods produce mud pies.



Method -> RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth. (6/27/2008 10:50:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

How does a flood produce a dessert?


Mmmm.... dessert...

I think floods produce mud pies.


Hehe, I always pick the wrong spelling for those two.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI