Noah's Flood

[~TW~]

Non sequitur: since any 'evidence' would involve there being an acknowledged, verifiable and reliable non-naturalistic methodology - and there isn't one.

The burden of proof is yours here.

That also applies to you regarding nothing evolving.

                 ~TW~

[Maeght]

...... polystrate fossils for creationsists.

Do you think Polystrate fossils are evidence to support creationists? If so, why?

[Maeght]

That also applies to you regarding nothing evolving.

                 ~TW~

It would do if that's what people claimed - but no one does except for creationists like you who wish to lump in the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution into one thing, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you that they are different theories with different amounts of supporting evidence..

[~TW~]

It would do if that's what people claimed - but no one does except for creationists like you who wish to lump in the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution into one thing, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you that they are different theories with different amounts of supporting evidence..

 Explain you explain,settle down in your chair and rest.Get your breathe back and take another long day pill,you know it makes sense.

                      ~TW~

[Sebastian Toe]

Explain you explain,settle down in your chair and rest.Get your breathe back and take another long day pill,you know it makes sense.

                      ~TW~

Maybe you should take another long holiday.
Now that makes sense for everyone here!

[Maeght]

Explain you explain,settle down in your chair and rest.Get your breathe back and take another long day pill,you know it makes sense.

                      ~TW~

What wonderful advice. ABout the only sensible thing you've ever said on here (apart from the explain you explain which makes no sense at all!)

[Spud]

Do you think Polystrate fossils are evidence to support creationists? If so, why?

Yes- they are evidence for rapid sedimentation

[Maeght]

Yes- they are evidence for rapid sedimentation

Yes they are, but since they are localised they indicate rapid, localised flooding events. In what way does this support creationism? Do you think they are a problem for the old earth, non-creationist model?

[Spud]

I think they indicate more than localized flooding events, and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.

[Gordon]

I think they indicate more than localized flooding events, and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.

Is that the view of professional geologists (those who publish in reputable science journals)?

[Maeght]

I think they indicate more than localized flooding events,

Not according to my understanding. Can you point to any non-localised examples.

... and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.

This would only be relevant if you can show they are not localised.

[Spud]

Hi Maeght,

Not according to my understanding. Can you point to any non-localised examples.

How about Joggins Fossil Cliffs?

I said "Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils." You said,

This would only be relevant if you can show they are not localised.

Joggins Fossil Cliffs are said to date back to 300 mya, preserving a 15 million year sequence.

Take a giant lycopod that cuts through dozens of layers. Allow 50 years for these layers to accumulate around the upright trunk, to a depth of say 5 meters. Take the total depth of the deposit at Joggins to be 1000 m (given a 3 km long cliff and a 20 degree angle of inclination of the strata). We have 5 m of sediment accumulating in 50 years. If this occurs continually it will take 1000/5 x 50 = 10,000 years for all 1000 m of sediments to accumulate.

If they were forming at the rate of 5 m per 50 years but had taken 15 million years to accumulate, there would have been periods of thousands of years where no sediment was laid down. During these periods we would expect to see erosion of the layers so that the boundaries would now appear irregular. Instead the boundaries are flat, indicating that little or no erosion occurred and therefore that the entire sequence was laid down over a relatively short time span, not 15 million years.

[Outrider]

That also applies to you regarding nothing evolving.

                 ~TW~

Can you give an example of someone claiming that 'nothing' evolved, please?

O.

[Outrider]

I think they indicate more than localized flooding events, and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old. Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.

If there were a continuum of polystrate fossils from the same timeframe (and if the six thousand years since the alleged flood were enough time for the sediment to become rocks) then you might have a point. However, there is not a continuous run of these, nor are the ones that are found uniformly from the same period. The evidence points to independent localised flooding events at different locations at different times.

You know, like weather.

O.

[Maeght]

Hi Maeght,

Hi Spud,

How about Joggins Fossil Cliffs?

Which shows localised areas of polystrate fossils.

Joggins Fossil Cliffs are said to date back to 300 mya, preserving a 15 million year sequence.

Take a giant lycopod that cuts through dozens of layers. Allow 50 years for these layers to accumulate around the upright trunk, to a depth of say 5 meters. Take the total depth of the deposit at Joggins to be 1000 m (given a 3 km long cliff and a 20 degree angle of inclination of the strata). We have 5 m of sediment accumulating in 50 years. If this occurs continually it will take 1000/5 x 50 = 10,000 years for all 1000 m of sediments to accumulate.

If they were forming at the rate of 5 m per 50 years but had taken 15 million years to accumulate, there would have been periods of thousands of years where no sediment was laid down. During these periods we would expect to see erosion of the layers so that the boundaries would now appear irregular. Instead the boundaries are flat, indicating that little or no erosion occurred and therefore that the entire sequence was laid down over a relatively short time span, not 15 million years.

The mechanism for such polystrate fossils would be rapid sedimentation due to localised flooding events, so the numbers you are working on are not relevant. Joggins Fossil Cliffs present no problems to the standard old earth geological model.

[Spud]

How do you know the flooding events were localized?

[floo]

There is no evidence the whole world was flooded at one time!

[Maeght]

How do you know the flooding events were localized?

Because the fossils are localised.

[Maeght]

Mt St Helen's volcanic eruption's are interesting in this regard. Take a look here

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism

[Khatru]

There is no evidence the whole world was flooded at one time!

Spot on.

Yet believers cling to their myths as if they were real.

[jeremyp]

Gordon, I don't think anyone is lying as such. Rather, both sides come to different conclusions from the evidence: creationists believe that the Bible is true and therefore conclude that the sediments were laid down catastrophically;

There is lying going on here. Creationists are lying to themselves. They start with the conclusion and then massage the evidence to try to make it fit the facts story.

non-creationists make the assumption that the same processes we see today whereby sediments build up on the ocean floor, have gone on uninterrupted for millions of years.

Wrong. This is the conclusion based on the evidence, not an assumption.

[ippy]

There is no evidence the whole world was flooded at one time!

Floo you seem to forget that you're dealing here with the whole combined force of Spud and TW; have you checked your facts an redoubled your efforts on this very deep intelectual challenge you have chosen to undertake?

ippy

[jeremyp]

I think they indicate more than localized flooding events,

Wouldn't we find them everywhere if they were evidence of non localised flood events?

and therefore challenge the idea of sedimentary rock being millions of years old.

How?

Unless it can be shown that there is evidence of long breaks in sedimentation above and below the fossils.

Why?

[Spud]

Because the fossils are localised.

I think I see what you mean: if the flooding events were global, the fossils in question would be scattered further afield rather than just in the sediments at Joggins?

[Maeght]

I think I see what you mean: if the flooding events were global, the fossils in question would be scattered further afield rather than just in the sediments at Joggins?

Is this where I say yes and you come back with saying they are found all over the planet? Or am I being unfair there? The evidence at sites of polystrate fossils such as at Joggins fits with different localised events (often linked to volcanic activity such as at Mt St Helens) rather than one world wide flooding event. Polystrate fossils are not seen as a challenge to the standard geological model of an old earth within the field of geology and have been understood for a long time - it is only on creationist websites and the like where they are presented as being a problem and linked to a global flood. One problem with finding the standard scientific literature on such fossils though is that the term polystrate fossil is not a standard geological term and most usually turns up in creationist literature. An internet search therefore tends to mainly turn up the creationist point of view and gives a misleading idea of the understanding of such fossils.

Did you read the information about Mt St Helens? Fascinating don't you think.