All of which is invoked with no support from evidence. They aren’t interpretting evidence to reach the conclusion that these processes happened rapidly. They are just asserting it, sans evidence.
The “we are interpreting the same evidence” argument is patently false.
Ah…now this is where i can add my own experience. The movement of air in the atmosphere is usually considered in much the same way as water.
Given i have over 1 thousand hours flying paragliders where thermal activity is one of two main ways to stay airborne (the other we call ridge lift), there is regular debate in aviation circles about whether the rising air “pulls” or the heavier cooler falling air “pushes” inwards thus squeezing hot air up.
In a pot of boiling water…why does the hot water rise and the cooler water fall in said pot?
Does a pump suck or propel the water?
Is aerodynamic lift suction from low air pressure or thrust from high air pressure?
Basically, its a bit of a chicken and egg argument and the answer in this case is that both equally contribute, so no the push isnt greater than the pull.
Gravity is driving both equally.
You may start to use the water volume is different on each side argument as it may appear more on the push side) however the enrgy on both sides is the same. Energy seeks equalibirum in that its always transferred not created or destroyed. The potential on the push side is the same as the kinetic on the pull side.
For me, this also explains why miracles arent testable scientifically. Miracles do not follow the principle of the conservation of matter and energy.
The video that @Joel_Duff put out was is response to an article which appeared on the ICR site by Frank Sherwin who has an earned MS in zoology, titled Fossilized Reptile Skin Is Still Reptile Skin
There are degrees of wrong. Least wrong are scientifically competent YEC such as Todd Wood who may advance strained ideas that snap past the point of credibility, but they do understand the material. Most wrong are those who write on matters where they are clearly and embarrassingly clueless. Judge for yourself where this piece lies on the line.
Things do not get off to a promising start. A lead line is
Creation scientists predict that wherever skin is found in the fossil record, it would be 100% skin, unique and functional to that animal group.
Which raises the question, would biologists predict skin would not be skin? I would be safe in predicting that whenever green cheese is found on the moon, it would be green cheese.
He continues…
Recently, a tiny piece of amniote, or terrestrial vertebrate, epidermal skin was discovered in an infilled cave system at Richards Spur, Oklahoma.
and quotes from the source article published in Current Biology
This is the first record of a skin-cast fossil…from the Paleozoic Era and the earliest known occurrence of epidermal integumentary structures. We also report on several compression fossils (carbonized skin impressions), all demonstrating similar external morphologies to extant [living] crocodiles.
As you read along, it becomes apparent that Sherwin is not aware that the actual find is an fossil impression of skin - rare, finely detailed, textured, and of great scientific value - but 100% permineralized. It is right there in his source quote, “skin-cast fossil”.
And he continues
It was 100% skin even though it was dated to 286–289 millions of years ago.
And I am hoping he really mean 100% faithful impression of skin, but then he asks
Aside from the lack of evidence for the evolution of skin and scales, could this skin sample be preserved for these supposed millions of years?
Once permineralized, the fossil skin can be preserved until the Sun goes nova. So yup, he actually does not get this painfully basic point.
And he concludes with
Can the scientists be sure this infilled cave remained sealed and maintained an anoxic condition1 for all those alleged millions of years? If atmospheric air entered the cave system, the tissue would oxidize after several million years or less.
This amniote epidermal skin sample is 100% skin, unique and functional to amniotes that have been amniotes since the beginning of creation.
Of course, an anoxic environment only matters as long as it takes to fossilize, which takes some time but not millions of years. Once done, there would be no organic tissue to matter.
And further to my prior post, he is so fixated on what he thinks is some sort of preserved soft tissue that he is oblivious to the intractable difficulty that the entire fossilized cave system poses to the YEC timeline that he espouses.
In this particular case, however, the push and the pull are at separate occasions, the incoming water of the Flood versus draining. Young-earth sources need to give their models precise parameters to make them into credibly testable scientific models, but instead they are routinely without any precise parameters to allow claiming that they fit any data. Here, to be able to say what the flood waters could do, it is necessary to spell out in detail where the water comes from and how fast it is moving. If those specifics do not match the evidence, admit that model has problems and try something else.
I dont think that is an issue to be honest…it seems to me that its easier for YEC flood model to explain global sedimentary layers…because we claim a worldwide flood.
In any case, either you are arguing sedimentary deposition is responsible yes? So water covers the ground and when it no longer has the energy to keep particulates in suspension, they fall and are left largely where we find them today right? The push pull to me is nothing mkre than a scaled chicken or the egg argument (scaling by playing with time). I dont have an issue that a single event produced the necessary environmental changes whereby the Grand Canyon formed and continued to form…why should any YEC take issue with that?
Same eith the supposed asteroid impact off mexico. I have no problem with asteroids hitting the earth and thst is because i have read about Verneshot theory…that they were ejected from this planet in the first place and pulled back in. I do not have an issue with the claim an explosion large enough to do this would destroy the earth…i seriously wonder if the individual who came up with that claim considered the earth is largely covered in water which is a fabulous sustance for just such a scenario (look at how well it works in absorbing heat energy in combustion engines)
So it seems to me that the complaint here is one of how rapidly it can occur, not whether it did. (because the deposited sedimentary layers are clearly visible).
The thing im reminded of is that the same layers even according to the evolutionary model are found worldwide…so the localised deposition/flood that you mentioned earlier i dont think works with either belief.
Why isn’t it an issue? A lack of precise details, with measurements, equations and parameters to put into them and testable predictions about what should come out, is always an issue in every area of science. It’s called “hand-waving.”
Sorry, but if we allowed young earthists to get away with that, we would also be granting a free pass to astrology, homeopathy, water divining, reading tea leaves, feng shui, and tobacco companies claiming that smoking was good for you.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If young earthists want to be taken seriously, then they need to meet the same standards of rigour and quality control as everyone else. It’s as simple as that.
The problem is if they do this, and a few do try, they end up reaching a point where they have to throw up their hands and admit “God did it”. For some reason they are loath to invoke the miracle explanation. I guess because it makes their “scientific creationism” not scientific. Which seems to be important to them.
I have yet to see a YEC demonstrate that any layer is a global flood layer, nor any layer that covers the entire globe.
We see it happening now, such as in almost every river delta on the planet.
What evidence led to those conclusions?
Where are the calculations demonstrating the claims? Where is the evidence that YEC’s claim they are using to reach these conclusions?
I have created a topic for Verneshot Theory. If interested, please take that discussion there.
[quote=“adamjedgar, post:65, topic:53498”]
In any case, either you are arguing sedimentary deposition is responsible yes? So water covers the ground and when it no longer has the energy to keep particulates in suspension, they fall and are left largely where we find them today right? "
That is the way aquatic sedimentation (or for that matter, wind-blown) works. But a working model needs to have the water with a particular amount of energy - it can’t simultaneously be carrying boulders and letting fine mud settle out, for example. Getting changing fossils, isotopes, and the like distributed around the globe within a young-earth timeframe requires water moving too fast to deposit anything. This is why models need to be specific, not hand-waving.
“The thing I’m reminded of is that the same layers even according to the evolutionary model are found worldwide…so the localised deposition/flood that you mentioned earlier I don’t think works with either belief.”
There are layers within layers. No single sedimentary unit is found worldwide. Although iridium from the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous can be found around the globe, it’s in different stratigraphic formations in different places. The distribution of different kinds of deposits is compatible with an old-earth model but not with a global flood. Most sedimentary deposits are not from catastrophic floods, and land deposits can be recognized throughout the geologic section.
It’s also odd how post flood survival correlates with how deep in the fossil record similar species are found. The correlation between phylogeny and depth in the fossil record is also hard to explain in a flood model.
rubbish.
Sedimentary deposits show a world wide consistency in layering, including the fossils found in those layers. Dont you think its rather coincidental that a worldwide consistency in rock layers just so happens to align with the biblical claim of a global flood given those same layers are clearly deposited as a result of water?
The atheist explains this by saying…oh we must have had multiple asteroid strikes around the world, such as the one off the coast of Mexico, causing tsunamis big enough to cross continents. Personally i don’t have an issue with asteroid strikes…because even Verneshot theory claims
Why would you say that?
if i were to perform an experiment…
Setup a glass of water and throw some dirt in it of different particulate sizes. stir it with a spoon and notice what happens to the different sizes of sediment in the moving water in the glass.
more than likely, my experiment will eventually produce a similar result to this Wikipedia diagram below in that there will be a movement and an arrangement of those particulates according to the flow of the water in the glass.
We notice in rivers for example, that the sediment is deposited on the inside curved edges along said rivers…these are almost always the shallowest areas when looking at sedimentation. When boating, if you want to find a great way to hit the bottom with the outboard motor…that’s the way to do it! the reason why we find such deposits on the “inside curves” should be quite obvious to you after having done your experiment. Particulates (the ones that don’t float of course) fall to the bottom in the centre of the glass where the water flow is slowest (the Wikipedia illustration above fills in the rest). Note that in river mouths, the largest bolders are found in the fastest moving water areas (closest to the river mouth). The energy in the water and its capacity to carry larger rocks is related to its speed obviously and so as the water slows, finer and finer grains are deposited farther out in the delta.
Now the funnt thing is, and this is why i used the paraglider illustration in an earlier post, when air moving in the atmosphere encounters texture (such as trees for example), the air closest to said texture is slowed. The point is, wind moves slower closer to the ground than it does at altitude.
Also, what some of you may have noticed when watching the weather on a windy day near the ocean, where the wind is blowing offshore, its speed is significantly greater as it moves across the water than what it was over the land (i know this because being a paraglider pilot this kind of stuff matters enormously).
The same principle applies in sedimentary deposits around the globe. The speed of the water moving across the landmass changes proportionally to the distance that water is from the land below. If some of that land mass underneath is not perfectly flat, then this will in turn influence what the water speed in travelling past any undulations or obstacles.
I don’t see how any of this falsifies a global flood?
Both of your examples confirm what David said and is pretty intuitive anyways. Heavier objects will settle out first as a carrying fluid loses energy. If boulders are being carried, fine mud will definitely not be settling out.
Ron,
please explain the issue with rock sizes and noahs flood…i do not see any relevance. The reason why i do not see any relevance is because even in the asteroid impact off Mexico example, that event is claimed to have produced tsunamis of water and sediment that crossed the US continent. In addition to this, scientists have made the claim that there must have been a series of similar asteroid impacts in other parts of the globe because similar sedimentary events have occurred on other continents to those found in the US!
And to settle what you missed about Davids quote i will repost part of it below (which is categorically wrong)
The above is bull…ground texture alone falsifies his claim there. If he knew even a tiny bit about aerodynamics, he wouldn’t have made that statement…its complete nonsense. That is what i was responding to.
What really pisses me off in these discussion is when individuals come out with wives tales without thinking about it first. Another one I’ve seen on these forums is the claim that its impossible for an asteroid to be ejected from this earth into outer space because the amount of energy required to do it would cause the earth to destroy itself with the heat energy created. Given the earth is largely water, and water is a fabulous heat exchanger, the rebuttal is stupid and the scientist who apparently came up with the calculation equally as stupid. He has clearly gotten brain freeze on a single part of the equation and ignored the bigger picture…the 332 million cubic miles of water in our oceans. The point is, these stupid claims from atheists that the entire noahs flood must have been a single moment explosion event then “done and dusted” is not even biblical. I cannot for the life of me understand why idiots continue to hang on to that notion in an attempt to falsify the flood record.
At the end of the day, a Christian is so because that individual finds out about his faith in the bible. only stupid individuals believe in things that arent real. Given we have no choice but to look backwards through history, if the Flood isn’t real, creation isn’t real, God isn’t real.
Christ specifically makes a statement about the flood, the apostle Peter talks of the flood…these are the very men from which we got our gospel and you don’t believe their statements???
Its an all or nothing choice.
I prefer car engines that actually run…not just the parts of an engine laying on the floor. The bible is a complete engine for me and that is why i am YEC.
There should not be any relevance. The simple reading of Genesis is that the water went up and submerged everything in place, and then the water went down. It is the extra Biblical speculations of Flood geologists that attempt to account for the layers of rock and segregation of fossils by invoking sorting by tsunami’s.
You would need a credible citation source for that.
The Chicxulub Impact Produced a Powerful Global Tsunami
At the end of the Cretaceous, about 66 million years ago, the Chicxulub asteroid impact near the Yucatan peninsula produced a global tsunami 30,000 times more energetic than any modern-day tsunami produced by earthquakes.
Despite that degree of magnitude, the wave would not have reached significant inland elevations let alone come near crossing any continents.
Please keep this thread on the topic of sediment, and refrain from replying to Verneshot bait.
There is no point in trying to have a rational conversation about science with someone who dismisses the rules of science as “rubbish.” They are basically demanding the right to make things up and invent their own alternative reality.
Nor is there any point in trying to have a rational conversation about science with anyone who dismisses the rules of science as “atheist.” Once again, they are demanding the right to make things up and invent their own alternative reality.
I haven’t seen Glenn Morton referenced here yet–the man who worked for oil drilling and came to realize that flood geology doesn’t work.
Here is one note of his.
Thanks.
Ernie. go look up the Creation Research Society web site. You will find I published quite a bit back in the 1970s and 80s. Look up Glenn R Morton (one paper I Robert Morton). I worked in the oil industry and when I was 29 was in charge of recruiting and training geophysicists for Atlantic Richfield, which at the time employed 50,000 people, probably 1000 geophysicists. I hired geophysicists from Christian Heritage College, Henry Morris’ college. After a few years, they either left the industry because they couldn’t justify what they saw with what Henry taught, or they gave up the young earth. We didn’t indoctrinate them, it was the data that did it. And at the time, I was still a YEC myself. But by the mid 1980s, I threw in the towel.
The geologic data simply doesn’t support a young earth. Throughout out the geologic column, are burrows. There is one formation which which concerned me greatly, the Haymond formation of west Texas. It consists of about 15000 layers of sand and shale o
“Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick.” p. 87.
"Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds. ~ Earle F. McBride,“Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Haymond Formation,” in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon Basin, Texas (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88
Give each layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the debosit would require 41 years. Haymond formation is about 1300 m and the entire geologic column is about 5000 m thick. If it was deposited by Noah flood then the math would be like this: 1300/5000*326=95 days this means 157 couplets / day. with burrows. Each day 157 times, one must have shale laid down, worms burrow into the shale and have the sand come in and fill in the burrows with sand, and the worms are never seen escaping the sand-catastrophe, so the next layer of shale must be laid down, worms burrow into it and sand fill those burrows, over and over for 95 days. There are NO shale filled burrows into the sand.
This seems impossible to do given the turbulence of the global flood. Below is what the formation looks like and notice after it solidified (diagenesis takes more than a year) it was uplifted and turned on its end.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
