Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

Hey Sam,

I disagree with your analysis here. The folded strata are completely devoid of the expected signs of gradual folding or of folding after the rock had solidified. There is no evidence of fracturing and the sand particles are not elongated like would be expected. Rather it is quite clear that the sediment was still saturated with water when it folded. They actually very closely match the sediment that was layed down during the flood waters of the Mt. St. Helens event. A global flood paired with large scale geologic activity would accomplish a very similar task just on a global scale which is exactly what we observe. Many secular geologists will even admit that these are examples of catastrophic flooding, just on a regional level.

I can't address general issues if you don't provide specific localities, the mechanisms of folding and the processes which control the appearance of said folds are widely varied depending on tectnic setting etc...

The majority of fold structures seen across the world are examples of folding due to tectonic activity over prolonged time periods. The highly deformed beds produced by regional flooding and other catastrophic events are completely different.

I'd also be tempted to say that before you could even start to use this as evidence for a global flood you would have to demonstrate localities of similar appearance all over the world at a similar point in the geological record.

Yes, they are well known, and well ignored by many secular geologists and paleontologists alike.

Except they are both weel known and well documented by 'secular' geologists (I take it you use that term to refer to anyone who doesn't hold your viewpoint?). I even wrote a report on a site at Joggins, Nova Scotia a year or so ago. You can find many works in the mainstream literature on the topic of Fossil Forests and Polystrate Tree Fossils.

You will have layers of strata that are supposed to represent thousands and sometimes millions o f years of slow and gradual accumulation, but you’ll have this tree that spans up through dozens and dozens of layers. Some of these fossils will span through several layers of different kinds of rock, like shale to sandstone. Did the tree really stand up out of the ground for thousands of years while it was slowly buried? Of course not, so why think the layers all accumulated over thousands of years? Catastrophic depositing of these layers is a much better explanation.

Again, your hiding behind generalities, provide a site that displays this evidence.

The fact is that possibility of rapid burial during localised flooding events, and other short-term depositional episodes is in full agreement with these features and the surrounding geology while your claim of global catastrpohsim cannot even hold water here.

When we examine soil layers from the last 1000 years or so we see evidence of biotubation, however when we get into the layers that are supposedly ancient we never find evidence of it. This is a good indication that these layers were laid down so quickly that the burrowing animals never had time to use them. There are also many places where we find thousands of fossils of plant eating animals but no fossils of plant life. This would also indicate that this is not evidence of an ancient ecosystem but rather evidence of a catastrophic burial.

Statler, What on earth are you talking about?

I just got back from some fieldwork, the site included rocks of the Carboniferous (More than 1000 years ago ) Interbedded with the Limestones & Mudstone we observed highly bioturbated beds so just by coincidence I can show your claim to be bullshit.

Well when we use the same uniformitarian principles that the old earth crowd loves to use we find that it doesn’t add up.

I'm starting to think you haven't even bothered to find out how mainstream geology etc... is conducted. The principle of Uniformatarianism is used as a genral guide to processes i.e. the processes operating today are the same as those that operated in the past.

There is no assumption about constant rates for these kind of processes. Conversely, with radioactivty the rates of those processes are relatively constant. These are two seperate phonomena an you cannot expect the blanket application of a principle across them.

Again I am just using the same constant rate assumptions the old earth crowd loves to use. Obviously these assumptions don’t always conclude the earth is old as many on here assert they do.

A source on the matter would be

“Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction” in the Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 93.

I have shown you why your misunderstanding of the science here is colouring your opinions. I see no reason to repeat myself.

All those claims have been adequately addressed by the RATE group as well. If the secular community is so concerned with the group’s methodology and the professional labs that did the measurements maybe they should repeat the tests and get different results, rather than just screaming from the sidelines. They won’t though.

Thats the problem, they haven't. On the whole the RATE group just refused to accept the points against them or repeated their erroneous conclusions.

Why should we expect the critics to re-do faulty work? The RATE group were claiming to have made a breakthrough, their work was roundly criticised, they failed to adequately justify it. Therefore it was disregarded. The onus is on them to prove their work is sound, not for anyone else to do it for them.

Cheers

Sam