How exactly are venom harpoons, suctorial feeding, or depending on endosymbiotic bacteria “eating plants”? And each of those is very inherent to how conoids, pyramidelloids, and lucinoids are designed.
That’s a lie.
That’s also a lie–it’s soft tissue remnants, often thoroughly mineralized ones.
And how exactly can we get this out of a one-year flood?
For instances, a global flood should not consistently separate Chesapecten jeffersonius and Carolinapecten solarioides into different layers, as they lived in similar habitats and are similar shapes and sizes. What it should sort by is something like size or depth range, which bear almost no resemblance to patterns in fossil deposits as a whole. Completely un-size sorted deposits with repeated ups and downs in sea level (based on physiological requirements, sediment type, and stable isotope ratios) cannot have been moved after deposition significantly, nor deposited during a single flood event.
There is no way to get large endolithic bivalve holes in a rock in less than a few years of exposure to clean seawater. Let’s take an example of the strata at one mine in Horry County, South Carolina: the bottom of the pit hits a clayy limestone that has occasional dinosaur bones in other places and some bioturbation of its surface, above this there is a thick, hard limestone with lots of endolithic bivalve burrows in its upper surface that then got eroded down, then a non-leached shell marl with multiple transgressive-regressive pulses within it. This indicates the following sequence of events:
1 The clayy limestone is deposited.
2 It is colonized by various animals at its surface (takes a few years at an unrealistic minimum).
[a bunch of other layers get deposited and eroded away, based on other sites]
3 The animals whose skeletons compose the limestone live and die (a few centuries at an unrealistic minimum, given the known lifespans of some of the animals in it).
4 The sediment later to become limestone is exposed to fresh groundwater for a few decades at an unrealistic minimum (fastest way for limestone to form).
5 The limestone goes back under the ocean, is excavated from topsoil by water motion, and is then colonized by (among other things) lithophagiform mussels. These mussels live for a decade or more to get to their final sizes.
6 Sea level goes back down and the surface of the limestone is eroded down such that some burrows are only a few mm deep.
[a couple more layers come and go based on other sites]
7 Sea level rises again, and a new marine fauna colonizes the top of the limestone.
8 Sea level then drops and rises about three more times (over at least a few centuries, again based solely on measured lifespans).
9 Sea level drops a final time, a river erodes through the site, and leaves a sand layer at the top outside of its channel (at least a few decades more).
10 The river moves elsewhere.
11 People arrive in the area, as the sea level and river courses have not changed significantly since human habitation.
This means that the layers here took more than 500 years to be deposited, with sea level going up and down by intervals of over 30 meters during that time (which adds at least 2000 years more to allow for deposition of clay-sized grains in the layers). If that was during the flood, then the flood took centuries. If it was after, then we would have records of sea level changes of that size range in archeological deposits. The only other option is a pointless, deceptive miracle.
"
…
"Report on the Geology of South Carolina (pp. 58-59), from 1848. The immediately prior pages argue against Lamarkian evolution, and for the best-fit model of the time, individual creation of species, but note that there are some components of the fossil record that look somewhat like Lamarkian-style evolution. [To avoid a bad counter-argument for a third time, the geologist who died in 1857 was not the same person as the Tammany Hall politician who was still active in the 1870s.]
The only way to get abrupt-looking changes in sediment size is to abruptly (in terms of deposition rate, not time) change water flow speed. Thus, that requires an extremely complex flood that keeps oscillating between very calm and very violent. There is a problem, however; once it is ever violent, it cannot deposit fine mud quickly:
Any deposit that has both fragile in-place paired bivalves larger than my hand and mud that takes a week to settle out of still water after being stirred up is utterly incompatible with violent burial. (Practically) still water is required to prevent that mud from being washed away. Examples of deposits which include both of those include: the Waccamaw Formation, Yorktown Formation, Duplin Formation, Bermont Formation, Caloosahatchee Formation, Tamiami Formation, various Italian and Spanish Pliocene layers, Red Crag, Paris Basin Eocene, Gulf Coast Eocene, and nearly every other unconsolidated shallow marine deposit in the world.
Think about the hundreds of deposits that don’t look like that, that have definable paleoclimatology and water depth ranges that slowly move up and down–like the Paris Basin, or anywhere in a coastal plain in the eastern US south of New Jersey. How can they be possible if there was a truly global flood?
Burrawang:
But for those that don’t have a geology bent just consider that Noah would have had to have spent many years, perhaps 100 years, constructing the Ark with his three sons, but if the flood was merely local and all he had to do was walk for about a week say about 100 miles then the massive and I do mean massive effort
Size – yes; a timber vessel that large can’t be structurally seaworthy, but timber-framed and a reed hull could be if the frame was allowed to flex.
A year? Ordinary-sized reed boats could last for a number of years, so presumably a large vessel could as well.
And both become far more plausible in the proposed regional flood since the storm waves wouldn’t be nearly as large – open-sea storm waves can reach or top fifty meters high; in that regional basin I expect twenty meters would be the maximum.
All the mountains/hills under the solid dome over the flat earth-disk. If they lived somewhere like Mesopotamia, 15 cubits itself would be a very high hill for the region.
Like global planktonic foraminifera and d18O values, which cannot have time to equalize under modern flood geopseudology models.
Three more lies. There are some deposits that lack weathering on their surfaces, but most have been weathered. There are some places that lack soil horizons or tree roots (mostly because of erosion). There are some places that lack bioturbation. Many deposits have all three obvious from a cursory glance.
Except for everywhere that they did.
On every single continental shelf across the planet:
Let’s actually do the math for this–If we assume that the layers off the coast near where I live are reasonably complete for 80 million years (not very realistic, so our estimate will be low), then the deposition rate has been about 6 cm/millenium over that time. As this is within an order of magnitude or so of most of the modern deposition rate values that I have seen, this is suggestive of reasonably consistent deposition rates across time.
It’s called “rigor mortis”, and it happens whether the reptile drowned or not.
I’m still unaware of any that aren’t at least somewhat mineralized.
Burrawang:
soft tissue,
Soft tissue breakdown products or very stable types of soft tissue like collagen.
Breakdown products of these, not them themselves.
Like Michael Tuomey, whom I quoted above? He actually qualifies as honest, unlike every article or video I’ve ever seen from AiG or CMI.
Thick sedimentary rock layers bent beyond the fracturing point, yet not fractured. Why?
Most of them did break, and the YEC sources lie about them.
Is this from AiG? I ask because it uses their standard scheme of introducing a lie early on, in this case at about 1:50 through to two minutes.
The interviewee talked about a sleight of hand, but she’s engaging in a smokescreen. She has a point, but not what I suspect the video may be aiming at.
Then at 11:38 or so she states another lie – either that or she’s ignorant enough to get a very basic item wrong!
Around 13:20 the interviewer injects a smokescreen by asking about “proof”. And the interviewee proceeds to lie by omission: she went from some experiments where genetic information was lost and pretends that’s the whole story.
At about 16:00 she may be right about Australia, but not about the U.S.; mutations came in sixth grade just after Mendel in fifth (or fourth, I hear, these days).
16:29 is a flat lie; mutations can and do add information. She spins that into a lie about natural selection.
Halfway through and I’ve caught three definite lies and two that could be explained from ignorance and/or differences in educational system.
The part about dice and birds is void in the first place because it was defining the parameters in which changes could be made, plus they started with what could be considered an optimal design and proceeded to make alterations that would almost by definition be detrimental.
She’s right saying they should be teaching evolution, but she’s shown by the lies and misrepresentation that she’s not one who could do it – she wants it done “in an honest manner” but she hasn’t been honest.
Given that most of the text of this comes from replies to previous posts or threads created by you, this would seem to suggest a lack of listening or heeding correction.