Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Basic re-education for Darwinists - Geology




In the spirit of one of my posts from 2010,

The difference between science and propaganda

If Darwinists had any integrity they would have long ago given up on the idea that dinosaurs died out before man existed.   With all the drawings and carvings and documents and figurines made by men describing or depicting dinosaurs long before scientists identified them or came up with the term, dinosaur.   Mankind called them behemoth and leviathan and dragon and serpent.  Darwinists pretend that all that evidence just doesn't exist.   They also pretend that the rock records support their failed hypothesis.  Let's do some work to falsify that unsupported allegation.   Really, where are the honest Darwinists who will step up and admit all the anomalies in the rock records and make an attempt to explain them (whatever that would be) rather than just deny?   How can they claim dinosaurs died out millions of years ago when our ancestors lived with them, depicted them, fought them, killed them, wrote about them, carved them on temples and in churches and even made thousands of figurines that are more accurate than the imagination of Darwinist scientists at the time of their "discovery" in Acambaro.

There have had a few comments lately in which Darwinists are attempting to nail down whether there is any way for them to comprehend the basics of Creationist geology.   I can understand the confusion, since Darwinists begin with a geologic column taught in schools that doesn't really exist in the real world and then are taught the concept of uniformitarianism which is unsupportable when the sedimentary layers of the Earth are associated with catastrophic water-driven (or storm created) activities.   So Darwinists start with a basic understanding of geology that is entirely wrong.  They cannot really help it, this is what is taught in most schools and it requires some independent thinking to question what you have been spoon-fed.  But when you become an adult in your mind (whether that is when you are 12 or 21 or 71) one would hope that you would question anything and everything you have been taught that is in any way questionable.  Surely Darwinism is just about as questionable as it gets!

For instance, they often ask me why there are few if any fossils found below the place where Creationists believe the Flood sedimentary rock layers begin.   That is fairly easy to answer.  Three major reasons why:

1) God decided to flood the Earth to destroy the civilization and world that was in existence at that time.   He is pretty good at doing what He determines to do.

2) Part of the Flood event included rapid subduction of tectonic plates, so that much of the surface of the Earth that existed before the Flood would have wound up being pushed below other tectonic plates as what we suspect was one large continent split and we wound up with several continents that appear to be like puzzle pieces that could fit together.

3) Another important point is that fossils are not easy to form.  How many fossils of dead opossums or armadillos or kangaroos do you find by the side of roads?   When things die they are immediately subject to forces of nature and organisms that begin to break them down into components that will eventually recycle the corpse back into dust.  Yet in the sedimentary rock layers there are literally billions of fossils!   We have difficulty numbering the fossils found in the rocks but they are found deep under your feet and on mountaintops and while most of them are the kinds of organisms that would be found on the bottoms of seas there are fossils of many varieties of organisms.   But not below the flood line usually.  Because before the Flood the forces that create fossils were not present.  

I have posted many times about how ludicrous the concept of long ages and millions of years is when viewing the rock layers.   The sedimentary rocks are all about catastrophic events and except for some of the top layers they are all water-formed.   A casual observer who saw the normal layer-cake formations found in, say, the Grand Canyon and yet saw the evidences for interbedding and cross-bedding and megabreccias and polystrates and layers completely out of order and layers folded like taffy not to mention many fossil layers that are obviously aligned according to flow?   He would say that there was one enormous and powerful flood at one time.  That makes sense.   Let's go over some basics courtesy of Tas Walker to begin:

Biblical Geology

Properly Understanding the Rocks

by Tas Walker

modelSee here how easy it is to develop a simple, powerful model for classifying rock formations within a biblical framework.

A biblical geological model? What is a model? Is a biblical geological model scientific?    More.
 
The linking problem. A biblical geological model links two sources of information, namely, the written biblical history and the observed geological data. It is vital to get the link right.    More.
 
Major Dimensions. When we start with the Bible we can work out a broad framework for Earth history. And we can be confident it is correct because we believe the biblical record is accurate.    More.
 
Biblical chronology. Before you or I or anyone else can develop a geological model we need to know what happened on the earth in the past—we need an earth history. The Bible is accurate record from which we can obtain a detailed chronology.    More.
 
Development of the model. Drawing on our understanding of geological processes we will think about the biblical text from a geological point of view. In particular we will ask the question "What would we expect to find?"    More.
 
Overview of the model. The basic concept of the geological model is quite simple and transforms the way we look at geology.    More.

Detail of the model. To be useful for scientific research, the broad framework must be expanded to provide detail of specific events and processes and their time relationships.    More.
 
Classification criteria for conntecting to geology in the field. Past geologic processes varied in nature and intensity at different times. We can use this to identify geologic characteristics will help classify rocks in accordance with the biblical geological model.    More.
 
Geological environments and processes. Different phases of Earth history experienced different geological environments and processes. What characteristics would we expect for rocks deposited during each phase?    More.
 
Application to the Great Artesian Basin, Australia. Now that the biblical model is finished we can classify rocks in the field. Every rock formation on the earth can be placed somewhere within the biblical model because the model covers the entire geological history of our planet from its initial creation to the present time. Let's see how it works on the rocks of the Great Artesian Basin, Australia.    More.
 
~~~~~~~~~~

Biblical Geologists do not want or need to use terms like Cambrian or Devonian because Creationists absolutely abstain from believing in 19th Century failed hypotheses like long age uniformitarianism.   For good reason.  It isn't reflected in the rocks themselves.  The sedimentary rocks are not being formed in this way now, although we saw Mt. St. Helens produce a miniature Grand Canyon and the catastrophe did help scientists understand much of the mysterious nature of the Grand Canyon formations.   There are so many side canyons that were formed by an overflow of massive amounts of water that we now understand after the Mt. St. Helens formations were formed.  I've blogged on this extensively.  You can search Mt. St. Helens on this blog and also geologic column and sedimentary rocks and polystrates and megabreccias and other subjects but for now this is a basic overview.  So again from Tas Walker:


Detail of the Model

© Tas Walker  May 05

Establishing meaningful categories within a workable model

To be useful for scientific research, the broad framework of the model must be expanded to provide specific detail of the events and processes and their time relationships. Distinctive conditions need to be identified to correlate geologic features in the field with the model. In addition the level of detail needs to be scaled such that it bears a useful relationship with the quantity of rocks involved. As we examine the Biblical account more closely, the various processes, events, conditions and features will be defined and named. The adjacent figure shows the biblical geological model developed in detail to assist scientific analysis of geology.


[Detailed model]
For ease of classification the four parts of the time-scale are sub-divided using the time and process information in the Bible. The first level of sub-division is termed the stage. The Creation event is divided into two stages, the Foundational stage of two days' duration and the Formative stage lasting four days. The Flood event is divided into two stages, the Inundatory stage and the Recessive stage. These stages are readily seen on the figure.

The last level of classification is termed the phase. The Foundational stage has two phases, the Original and Ensuing phases. The Formative stage also has two phases, the Derivative and Biotic phases. The Lost-World era is not further divided and so has only one phase of the same name. The Inundatory stage of the Flood event is divided into three phases, the Eruptive, the Ascending and the Zenithic phases. The Recessive stage of the Flood event has two phases, the Abative and Dispersive phases. For the New-World era two phases have been included, the Residual and Modern phases.

The duration of each phase varies considerably as shown on the figure. The Inundatory stage of the Flood is shown at 60 days while the Recessive stage is 300 days. This is consistent with Genesis 7:17 which says "for forty days the Flood kept coming on the earth." However it is possible that, based on Genesis 7:24 and 8:3 the Inundatory stage may have been longer at 150 days making the Recessive stage about 210 days long.
The aim of the model is for all component parts such as each event, era, stage, and phase, to relate to a geologically significant process with easily identifiable starting and finishing criteria as described in the Bible. In this way it should be possible to correlate the model with the geology in the field.

Note that even though the terms event, era, stage and phase are shown for convenience on the rock-scale, they are actually time terms. It is proposed that the rocks formed at these times be given the same name but with the time term replaced with the word "rocks". For example, rocks formed during the Derivative phase would be called Derivative rocks and those formed during the Inundatory stage, Inundatory rocks.

Finally, four geological actions as described in the Bible are shown in the figure. In chronological order the first is the Foundational action which represents the very first creative act that founded the earth in the beginning (Genesis 1:1). Also during the Creation event, the Formative action took place on day three (Genesis 1:9) causing the waters which covered the earth to be gathered together into the ocean basins and allowing dry land to form. At the beginning of the Flood the Eruptive action burst open the springs of the great deep (Genesis 7:11) initiating the inundation of the continents. And lastly, the operation which closed the springs of the great deep (Genesis 8:2) and produced the new ocean basins is called the Abative action. Following this action the waters of the Flood receded from the earth.

Although these actions and their effects are described in Scripture, their specific nature is not clear. In geologic terms an action can be defined as a world scale geologic disturbance which formed or modified the large scale geologic structures of the earth. Actions are represented on the figure as a single arrow but in fact may have involved a sequence of tectonic activity continuing over one or two, or more phases. Numerous suggestions have been made as to the specific form of some actions, including rapid subduction of the continents1, lateral movement of the contents following the impact of a giant meteor2, lateral movement of the continents following rupture of the crust3, and crustal distortion due to the gravitational attraction of a celestial body approaching the earth4. As far as the model is concerned, the key concept involves significant tectonic and crustal movement accompanied by major changes to the surface shape of the earth. An action, therefore, would substantially disturb any pre-existing geologic structures on the earth and initiate secondary water-driven geologic processes.

It is clear that the detailed model shown in the figure is derived from the Bible. Geological principles such as erosion, sedimentation and superposition have been incorporated, but at this stage the geologic data has not been consulted. Consequently, the relative volume of rock material currently present on the earth for each phase is not known. Nor is it known if some phases are now absent. While we are confident of finding New-World rocks and Flood rocks, it is possible that rocks formed earlier during the Lost-World era and the Creation event may have been destroyed during the Flood. Flood rocks must have been derived from Creation rocks and Lost-World rocks by erosion, alteration and magmatic differentiation. It is possible that some rocks such as Biotic and Original never existed. The point is that the model provides a coherent framework for approaching the data from a biblical point of view.

References

1. Baumgardner, J. R., 1994. Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, R. E. Walsh (ed), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 63-75.
2. Fischer, J. M., 1992. Dividing the earth. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 28(4):166-169.
3. Brown, W. T., 1986. The fountains of the great deep. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Volume 1, pp. 23-38.
4. Patten, D. W., 1966. The biblical flood and the ice epoch, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 137-163.

~~~~~~~~~

It will take you some hours to go over all the information on Tas Walker's website.   Walker is one of several Biblical Geologists who have great websites and we may go over several of them but concentrating on Tas for now because he presents information in a style conducive to conducting a classroom.  One could easily simply go one by one through his links to get a foundational education in understanding the rock layers.  I am encouraging rather than discouraging this.   Just one more excerpt to draw you in...

Classification Criteria for Geology in the Field

© Tas Walker  May 05

How can we determine where geologic units fit in the scheme?

From the Biblical model we infer that geologic processes acting in the past varied in nature and intensity, and were different from what we experience today. Consequently it is anticipated that certain geologic characteristics will help classify rocks in accordance with the model. A preliminary list of useful characteristics for classifying a geological structure include:
[simple model]
  • Physical scale
  • Degree of disturbance
  • Response to disturbance
  • Texture
  • Fossils
  • Coal
  • Raindrops
  • Natives
  • Footprints
  • Post Depositional Erosion
  • Flat Topped Landforms
You will be able to add to this list as additional criteria are found useful by experience. Classification criteria should be used jointly to determine where a rock structure belongs in the biblical framework and not used in isolation.

The Place of the Supernatural in the Creation Event


The aim of scientific research is to understand the relationship between cause and effect, or in the case of geology, process and product. For the Creation event we do not know the nature of the creative processes or the form of the created outcomes. The events of the first six days certainly cannot be explained using natural laws in isolation because creation involved supernatural acts. However we can draw limited conclusions assuming natural laws would have operated once supernatural actions were complete. For example, the first bird was created supernaturally by processes not humanly observed and never repeated. Immediately the creature was formed its physiological functions such as breathing, blood circulation, and digestion, would have functioned as we observe today. Using similar logic we can anticipate that after the Earth was created supernaturally on the first day the subsequent processes such as the movement of water and the precipitation of dissolved material would have followed natural laws.

Limited conclusions can also be drawn about the form of the initial creation. We would not expect God to create rocks instantaneously with the appearance of a prior history. For example, a fossil in a rock appears to be the remains of a creature which has lived and died before the rock was formed. Most creationists today are of the opinion that fossils were not created instantaneously within the rocks. Apart from the illusion of history, the appearance of dead fossils would not be consistent with a good creation. Fossils are easily explained as creatures destroyed during the Flood event.

Just as fossils indicate a prior history, most sedimentary and metamorphic rocks appear to be derived from pre-existing source rocks. Consequently we would not regard these as having been instantaneously created by God. This is not to say that sedimentary or metamorphic rocks were not produced during the Creation event by natural processes operating at that time. However rocks created instantaneously by God out of nothing would not be derived from pre-existing source rocks.


Physical Scale

The intensity of geologic processes was different at different times in the past producing geologic structures of different geographical extent. A structure's scale will therefore indicate the strength of the process involved in its formation. A geologic structure can have a world-wide, continental, regional, or local scale. Scale also includes the thickness of the structures. Scale is therefore expected to help classify geologic structures according to the Biblical model.

[Scale classification guide]
As a convenient measure four categories of scale are defined: world scale, continental scale, regional scale and local scale. Perhaps the most useful single parameter is the volume of material in a geological structure. A helpful scheme is set out in the following figure. This figure indicates, for example, that a world scale structure would involve more than 100,000,000 km3 of material whereas continental scale structures would involve between 100,000,000 km3 and 10,000 km3 of material. Typical dimensions to achieve a volume of 100,000,000 km3 would be 3000 km by 3000 km in aerial extent coupled with a thickness of 10 km. Any combination of dimensions achieving a comparable volume could be considered equivalent from a scale point of view.

The physical scale of rock structures will help will help classify rock structures within the biblical model.

Degree of Disturbance

The degree of disturbance of a geological structure depends on the number and intensity of tectonic actions to which the structure was exposed. This in turn would depend on the time the structure was formed. The biblical model sets out the following sequence for past geologic events:
  • The Foundational Action
  • The Formative Action
  • The Eruptive Action
  • The Abative Action
The degree of disturbance of rock structures will help will help establish timing for rock structures and enable their classification.

Response to Disturbance

The Biblical model sets out the following time relationship for past geologic actions:
[Biblical time-scale] The above time-line illustrates the history of the earth as set out in the Bible. Various key events are indicated. The dates shown are from Ussher's chronology which was based on internal evidence from the Bible itself. By adding the years given in the genealogies and relating these to chronological information in other passages he determined the dates for the accompanying events. I use Ussher because his chronology is well known. The dates shown on the timeline are:

Foundational to Formative Action
Formative to Eruptive Action
Eruptive to Abative Action
Abative Action to present
2 days
1700 years
60 (to 150) days
over 4000 years 

The response of geologic structures to disturbances depends on how soon they were disturbed after they were formed. Rocks may respond in a:
  • plastic manner - oozing, twisting, bending and folding.
  • brittle manner - faulting, crushing, and fracturing. 
The response of rocks to imposed stress is complicated. Even hard and brittle rocks can respond in a plastic manner if they are deeply buried when disturbed. It should also be noted that the concept of brittle and plastic depends on the scale at which the units are viewed. For example, numerous, small, brittle failures can add together to give smooth curves when viewed from a distance, like a plastic response.

The biblical geological model introduces two additional factors affecting the response of rocks to disturbances, factors not normally considered in uniformitarian models. The first factor involves the extent to which a sediment has hardened since deposition and before disturbance. Material properties of rocks such as fracture strength, elasticity and viscosity which prescribe how the rock will respond to disturbance all depend on the degree of diagenesis. This in turn depends on such factors as the physical and chemical characteristics of the rock material, temperature and pressure resulting from depth of burial, and the time between deposition and disturbance. Given the right chemical situation, soft sediment can cement rapidly. Concrete, for example, can set within a few hours and reach full strength after a month or two. Yet, even though sediments could harden quickly, the biblical model suggests that sometimes rocks would have deformed while still soft.
The second factor arises because large volumes of sediments would be deposited rapidly and contain significant water. The presence of water reduces the stress required to deform the sediments and assists the relative movement of grains to each other.

It is expected that response of rocks to disturbance will help classify units within the biblical model when the timing of geological actions is taken into account.

Texture

From the biblical model we envision that the hardness of source material would vary from time to time as would the erosive intensity of water-driven geologic processes. These differences would affect the texture of the resultant sedimentary rocks. For example, rocks formed from fine, soft, unconsolidated source material would have a fine texture, no matter how intense the erosive action of flowing water. On the other hand, the texture of rocks derived from hardened source material would depend on the erosive intensity of the water flows. Intense erosive action on hard, strong source rock would produce rocks of coarse texture such as conglomerates and breccias. Clasts of soft sediments could be eroded from partially hardened source rock. These would exhibit plastic behaviour after deposition or be rounded in shape.

Also related to texture is the metaphysical question of the form of rocks emplaced during the Original phase of the Creation event. The concept of the Original phase is of an instantaneous supernatural creation out of nothing at the beginning of the first day. It is proposed that such created rocks would not appear to be derived from pre-existing source rocks. Consequently sedimentary and metamorphic rocks would not have formed during the Original phase of the Creation event.

Another metaphysical question is whether volcanic activity occurred during the Creation event producing extrusive igneous rocks. Considering that each step in the creation process during the Creation event was described as "good" by the Creator (e.g. Genesis 1:4), it is hard to conceive of highly explosive volcanic activity at this time. For the sky to be filled with debris ejected by volcanic eruptions and accumulating into large pyroclastic deposits runs counter to the concept of a perfect creation. It certainly would not be "good" for the atmosphere to be dense with scalding hot ash that settled and welded itself into crystal tuff. Nor is it likely that the contamination would clear in time, ready for the creation of birds, animals and people within a few days because ash can persist in the atmosphere for weeks or months after volcanic eruptions. It is unlikely therefore that tuffs and pyroclastics would have formed during the Creation event.

Some igneous rocks may have formed during the Creation event without spoiling the new creation if magmatic material extruded under the ocean or injected within the crust of the earth without harm. Extrusive volcanic rocks could form on land provided the extrusion was not explosive or injurious to the environment and provided the lava flow was in an isolated location where it could cause no damage. These processes however would not produce pyroclastics or crystal tuffs.

Rock texture is expected to be useful for classifying rocks.

Fossils

Fossils are the remains of organisms that lived in the past. Metaphysically, it is considered that all fossils formed since life was created during the Creation event and that no fossils were created supernaturally within the rocks.

Fossils indicate rapid burial of living creatures before they decompose, and before being consumed by other creatures. The state of preservation of the fossil indicates how quickly the organism was buried, and whether it was subsequently disturbed. The distribution of fossils would reflect the distribution of life on the earth at the time of the Flood and the order in which they were buried by the Flood. Fossils could not occur before life was created. The requirement for rapid burial makes it more likely for fossils to form during the Flood than during the Lost-World or New-World eras.

Note that the Biotic phase has been included within the Creation event to allow for the remote possibility that some plankton or other organic material may have become trapped after its creation when sediments were forming in the oceans. This raises the metaphysical issue of "death before the curse of death which followed Adam's sin". However, the Bible never ascribes to plants the attributes of a "living thing" and therefore they could not die when consumed.1 Consequently the possibility of fossiliferous organic material within rocks formed during the Creation event is not inconsistent with the biblical record.

The use of fossils to correlate strata is fundamental to current geological practice and routinely employed to interpret geological structures within a region. Fossils have been used to set up geological systems with their alleged world wide "time zones". As such they are utilized to tie regional geology from different parts of the world into a universal time sequence. From a biblical perspective, fossils should be useful for classifying rocks on a regional basis and their distribution would relate to the progressive destruction of biogeographical zones. However, the biblical model provides no basis for assuming a time correlation between regions based on fossil evidence. This would require each index fossil to be deposited worldwide at the same time during the whole of the Flood event.

Fossils can be used to guide classification within the biblical model.

Reference

1. Stambaugh, J., 1992. 'Life' according to the Bible, and the scientific evidence, CEN Technical Journal, 6(2):98-121.

Coal

It is considered that vegetation buried during the Flood produced coal. Mechanisms would be different from the slow and gradual processes for peat accumulation observed today. Possible mechanisms include:
  • Large scale cyclic dumping of floating vegetation on shore lines by tectonically controlled hydraulic deposition
  • Lake deposits as observed after the explosion of Mt St Helens
  • Deposits in vegetation traps created by ground topology
  • Burial initiated by accumulation of pyroclastic volcanic ash
Coal rank and quality could indicate when burial took place, whether it was in fresh water or in salty water, how long the vegetation was floating before it was buried, and the presence of suitable catalysts. Coal can be used as a guide for classifying rocks.

Raindrops

Raindrops are commonly found in rock formations and may help classify rocks. Raindrops are significant because the surface must be exposed to rain. This would rule out the Foundational Rocks of the Creation Event. Also there would be some period of time during the Flood toward the end of the Inundatory Stage and the beginning of the Recessive stage when raindrops could not form because the surface was covered by water.

Natives

Many countries, like Australia, have distinctive animal populations. We would not expect kangaroos, for example, to travel to Noah's Ark from Australia before the Flood, and then return to Australia from the Middle East after the Flood. (Australia, as such did not exist before the Flood.) Consequently, the kinds of animals represented in the fossil record of a country may help distinguish between Flood and New-World Rocks. Such an analysis must ensure that the fossils have been properly identified, allow for variation within created kinds, and consider environmental changes during the New-World Era.

We would not expect the fossils found in Flood rocks to correlate strongly with the native animals in that country. Flood Rocks should contain fossils of some animals from other countries and lack some native fossils. On the other hand we would expect a good correlation between the kinds of fossils found in New-World Rocks and the native animals of that country.

Footprints

Footprints of animals, birds and humans have been found in rock formations and their presence is important. Footprints could not be made in Creation rocks because animals did not exist during the time Creation rocks were formed. Furthermore, footprints would not be made in the Recessive stage of the Flood event because all land animals were dead at this time. The creature must be alive to make a footprint. The Bible states that "Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died" (Genesis 7:22). Even dinosaurs would have perished when the strong deep torrents of the Flood overwhelmed them. This explanation is proposed for many dinosaur graveyards in north America, and the cause of their mass extinction.2

Reference

2. Oard, M. J., 1995. Polar dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 32(1):47-58.

Post Depositional Erosion

[After Zenithic]


For sediments deposited during the Zenithic phase of the Flood, post-depositional erosion provides clues to the relative timing. Genesis 7:19 records that the waters "rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The adjacent figure (part a) illustrates the water covering a continent at the beginning of the Recessive stage. Sediment deposited during the Zenithic phase is shown as horizontal strata beneath the water.
[During Recession] As the present ocean basins deepened during the Recessive stage the waters moved off the continents eroding the sediments selectively. Flow would commence from the edges of the continents as illustrated in part b of the figure while in the interior the water would remain stationary. Sediments near the edges of the continent would be eroded by the fast-flowing water, while sediments under the stationary water would not be disturbed. The surface sediments (deposited later) would be more vulnerable to erosion than deep-sediments (deposited earlier).
[After Flood] The landform emerging when the water receded from the continent as illustrated in part c of the figure would indicate the relative timing of the sediment deposition. Limited erosion (as to the left of the figure) would preserve sediments deposited late in the Zenithic phase. Significant erosion (as to the right of the figure) would expose sediments deposited early in the phase or even during the previous Ascending phase. The presence of erosion indicates that the top of the Zenithic phase is absent.

Sediments deposited during the Abative or Dispersive phases would not display the same degree of post depositional erosion because they were not exposed to power of the receding Flood waters. The strata in rocks deposited earlier, in the Eruptive or Ascending phases, would be exposed to a greater erosion but would be less likely to remain horizontal.

Flat Topped Landforms

[After Flood] The erosive processes associated with the Recessive stage of the Flood would tend to produce flat-topped structures such as plateaus, mesas and buttes as illustrated in the adjacent figure. Where bedding has remained horizontal these geomorphological features would be at the same stratigraphic level. Such structures would occur in Zenithic sediments with the flat-top representing the end of the phase. The above figures illustrate the hydraulic processes operating during the Recessive stage and show how flat-topped structures form in horizontal beds. Flat-topped structures with bedding at the same stratigraphic level would occur in the middle of the continent where the water was stationary initially.

It would be possible for flat-topped structures to form at any time during the Flood whenever tectonic action emptied a depositional basin of water. However, those formed at the top of the Zenithic phase and during the Abative phase would be most widespread and would have the best chance of being preserved. Being deposited late in the Flood, they could not be hydraulically destroyed once the continents were free of water. Those formed during the early phases of the Flood would most likely be disturbed, tilted and eroded during the subsequent tectonic processes.

Remember, science ought to be about evidence?  

Here is what Smithsonian Institute thinks is a Rhino? Let's give them some crayons and a nice little gold star...







 













Leah can find the Stegosaurus...shouldn't the Darwinists be able to figure it out?

35 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

A casual observer ... would say that there was one enormous and powerful flood at one time.

This is why "casual observation" isn't enough for good science.

So is this:

Leah can find the Stegosaurus...shouldn't the Darwinists be able to figure it out?

Doesn't look much like a stegosaur to me ... or to former YEC Glen Kuban:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm

And the thing carved a bit below it doesn't look much like any living animal.

radar said...

Since Glen Kuban is one of the people I would consider to be among the most insidious intentional misrepresenters of evidence on the planet I figure what he believes, the opposite is probably true. Glen Kuban, really? Want me to reply with Dr. Dino's opinion? Since talk origins exists to lie about evidence (as previously demonstrated on this blog concerning the Acambaro figurines) then who cares what he thinks?

Here is a hint, it is a lion rearing up on it's haunches and obviously a male. Duh.

radar said...

Also, Jon Woolf, if that doesn't look like a stegosaur to you then you are so blinded by your allegiance to your worldview that it is obvious nothing would change your mind. If an angel of God appeared and lifted you up off the ground and spun you around you would probably swear it was a miniature tornado and forget about it immediately. Like Pharoah in the Book of Exodus, you are hardened beyond the ability to learn or think about anything that even hints of God. Goodbye to you.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar, watch that blood pressure!
You really despise Jon Woolf, don't you?

Jon Woolf said...

Touchy, touchy, Radar.

I said it doesn't look much like a stegosaur to me. And it doesn't. Yes, it has the back plates and the out-of-proportion body shape, but it lacks the other two features that uniquely distinguish stegosaurs: the tiny head and the thagomizer. Especially the latter -- those huge tail spikes are one of the most noticeable things about Stegosaurus stenops. Two out of four isn't enough, especially not when there are living animals that share those two.

Here is a hint, it is a lion rearing up on it's haunches and obviously a male. Duh.

A lion with hands and an emphatically primate-like face? Hm. Interesting.

Myself, after considering the possibilities I think the 'stegosaurus' is actually a stylized chameleon, and the 'lion' is probably a variant on the Hindu monkey-god Hanuman.

IAMB said...

In the category of "Best Use of a Gratuitous Far Side Reference in a Web Comedy" I hereby nominate Mr. Woolf to receive one internet.

Anonymous said...

I had seen pictures of the alleged stegosaurus before, but was struck by how they only showed a close view of that carving and then one from far away in which it wasn't possible to discern the other carvings. My first question was about the context - were the other carvings realistic depictions of animals, or were they mythological creatures?

Now that that's been answered, the stegosaurus claim is substantially weakened. Or are you now going to claim that depictions of numerous mythological creatures (e.g. the faun) are evidence that they really existed?

Also, Radar, you only responded with an ad hominem attack (a textbook case, actually) on Glen Kuban instead of responding to the arguments themselves. Got nothing?

Anonymous said...

According to YEC, we should be finding the same baramins all the way down to "Creation Week". According to the theory of evolution and modern geology, we should be finding a progression of different organisms going back in time, with a trend to increasing simplicity.

We find the latter. We don't find the former.

What more is there to say?

radar said...

I have posted close-ups of that stegosaurus before. It is obviously a stegosaurus. Above it is a kind of cattle and below is a lion rearing on its haunches. The temple has carvings of monkeys and all sorts of other animals. In all honesty you cannot see that it is a stegosaurus you need either eyes or brain checked. Denial stage.

Glen Kuban is someone Woolf knows that I consider a deliberate fabricator and prevaricator, which is probably why he used the name.

radar said...

A chameleon?! Amazing. Gee, Jon, didn't you know that Stegosaurs came in more than one variety? Also I posted on the temple and showed many carvings and pointed readers to sites concerning the temple.

No one can give anyone the internet, it belongs to Al Gore and he has it tucked away in one of his energy-munching mansions I imagine.

Stupid is as stupid does, a famed movie philosopher once said. Anyone who pretends that it is not a carving of a stegosaurus is stupid therefore. Sorry to see IAMB has joined the ranks.

Anonymous said...

"Stupid is as stupid does, a famed movie philosopher once said. Anyone who pretends that it is not a carving of a stegosaurus is stupid therefore. Sorry to see IAMB has joined the ranks."

Derision is still not an argument.

The arguments against this being a stegosaurus are quite strong: the so-called "back plates" of the stegosaurus strongly resemble decorative elements used in other depictions, other mythological creatures are depicted etc.

Your refusal to address these in any reasonable way is obvious, but wishful thinking alone won't make it so, Radar.

radar said...

According to YEC, we should be finding the same baramins all the way down to "Creation Week". According to the theory of evolution and modern geology, we should be finding a progression of different organisms going back in time, with a trend to increasing simplicity.

We find the latter. We don't find the former.

What more is there to say?


That you have no idea of what you are saying. YEC scientists do not expect to find animals from the creation week as they all died before the Flood. Furthermore, the original baramin would have all the genetic information needed to speciate depending upon conditions. So in fact the first created kinds were the most complex.

The Flood preserved animals extant during the time of the Flood in the lower sedimentary layers and then in temperate zones (not often in tropical zones for obvious reasons) for a good 300-400 hundred years after the Flood the buildup of glaciers from the immense storms (the rapidity and nature of storms can easily leave several distinct layers in one 24-hour day) and the sometimes still-elastic sedimentary rocks (because of the water held within them) produced numerous mudslides and avalanches and quick dike break burials and of course dust and sand and loess storms also claimed victims.

So first, the original animals are the most complex. Second, original created kinds would not be found as fossils because there was no catastrophe. Third, all forms of life all over the planet died in the Flood and the ones on the lowest levels, with the least motility and with the least ability to sense danger were the most often buried and preserved. After the Flood few organisms outside of the Temperate zone are preserved because there were no glaciers near the equator and few if any organisms could live at the poles during the post-Flood storm period.

Anonymous said...

...and Radar loses once again.

radar said...

With all the documentation and carvings and drawings and official town records and paintings and figurines and written first-hand accounts of battles with dinosaurs and sightings of dinosaurs and even people gathering to watch dinosaurs fight with each other...with all the place names around Europe especially that are associated with dinosaurs...really, those of you who will not admit that dinosaurs lived with mankind are willingly blind and you should not expect anyone with common sense to agree with you.

For instance, the Chinese calendar uses 12 animals and the dragon is one. All the rest still remain, so they were not sprinkling mythical characters in, they knew dragons existed when the made the calendar. Dragons are a part of the history of mankind and while modern naturalists have tried to mythologize the accounts, men like Bill Cooper have shown that the evidence is both real and overwhelming.

Those of you who believe the Bible will find descriptions of two different kinds of dinosaurs described in Job and also find references to dragons in, for instance, Psalms.

Finally, evidence like the Delk track that is too good for the naysayers of this world to deny without looking foolish in the extreme.

radar said...

All of these Darwinist comments, none of them up to the level of the post. Better Darwinists, please!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Radar,

thank you for at least making an attempt at a response. Sadly, your willingness and passion is let down by the facts at hand.

"So first, the original animals are the most complex."

And in the fossil record do we see the most complex animals (which according to you are the original) in the lower layers, and the less complex ones in the upper layers?

No.

"Second, original created kinds would not be found as fossils because there was no catastrophe."

Fossils aren't only formed by large-scale catastrophes.

Note also that fossils are found in the lowest layers, which according to YEC are either pre-Flood or the lowest layers of the flood, and they consist of anything but "the most complex original created kinds".

Again, the evidence completely lets YEC down.

"Third, all forms of life all over the planet died in the Flood and the ones on the lowest levels, with the least motility and with the least ability to sense danger were the most often buried and preserved."

That - along with all your previous ad-hoc attempts to address this falsification of YEC - doesn't even come close to explaining the specific order in which fossils are consistently found in the fossil record.

Why don't we find the elephant and the stegosaurus in the same layer? The dolphin and the ichthyosaur? The ostrich and the velociraptor?

YEC falls short of an explanation. "Darwinism" doesn't.

Anonymous said...

"All of these Darwinist comments, none of them up to the level of the post. Better Darwinists, please!!!!!"

The stegosaurus claim was taken apart, and YEC claims about rock layers fell victim to observable evidence. Yelling isn't going to make that go away. How much more punishment do you want?

Anonymous said...

Re. your rant about dinosaurs living with man, could you list the place names named after dinosaurs? I can't think of any off-hand.

And are we supposed to now take mythology as evidence that valkyries, gryphons, mermaids, fauns all really existed?

That's a serious question, by the way. Are we or aren't we?

Anonymous said...

Anyone else think Radar is really beginning to lose it lately?

radar said...

Frankly, there is no such thing as order of fossils according to Darwinist theory, since circular reasoning is used to assign fossils to rocks and rocks to fossils. It is what they call a humbug.

Second, the Earth's climatic conditions are different post-Flood so many organisms that were successful previously have either speciated quite a lot or gone extinct. We no longer have marsupial wolves, but we do have wolves.

Third, the billions of fossils found are almost without exception always rapid anerobic burials. This speaks to a catastrophic event far beyond anything we have seen in recent days. The preposterous notion that in days past fossils were being created in great numbers every day when they almost never happen now is just another logical fail Darwinism teaches. You have to look into what they say to see all the logical fallacies.

Also, rapid speciation has been proven and observed so that a whale could become a dolphin in rapid time. Field grass was converted into corn with some smart basic genetics done by people who had not heard the term. But man has seen for centuries that organisms can come in many versions. What we never see is one organism becoming another kind of organism. This is where Darwnism puts on the top hat and leads you to the main ring in the circus. From the stands you cannot make out the tricks and trap doors and sleight-of-hand dexterity of the magician on center stage. But if you look deeply into it there is nothing but illusion and trickery.

So it is with Darwinism.

Jon Woolf said...

For instance, the Chinese calendar uses 12 animals and the dragon is one. All the rest still remain, so they were not sprinkling mythical characters in, they knew dragons existed when the made the calendar.

Even better, rumor has it that right this minute you can go to country markets in rural China and find 'dragon bones' and 'dragon teeth' for sale, either ground-up for use as medicine, or intact and whole.

They are, of course, fossilized dinosaur bones and teeth. China has enormous lodes of dinosaur (and other) fossils, and from time immemorial those fossil bones have been identified as "dragon bones." One might well conclude that the legendary dragon is based directly on the fossils.

Also, rapid speciation has been proven and observed so that a whale could become a dolphin in rapid time.

Really? From blue whale to bottlenose dolphin in a couple of generations?

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one other thing.

Frankly, there is no such thing as order of fossils according to Darwinist theory, since circular reasoning is used to assign fossils to rocks and rocks to fossils.

?? Radar, you're so tangled up right now you're getting your own side's mantras wrong. Fossils are assigned to rocks based on the rocks they're found in. It's the assigned ages that creationists claim are circular: the rocks (they say) date the fossils, and then the fossils are used to date the rocks.

Either way, though, you're being unusually vehement about this. What's going on? Other than creationists, every geologic source I'm aware of, going back to well before Darwin ever published his theory of evolution or geologists first attempted to assemble the overall geologic column, agrees that the fossil record is sequential to a very high degree. Certain specific fossils are never found together, despite being highly similar in size, shape, and habitat. Other specific fossils are generally found in close association, despite differing greatly in size and shape. Certain strata, and the fossils in them, always appear in the same vertical sequence. If layer A is above layer B at one locale, then A is always above B everywhere that both layers occur, save for special cases like overthrusts. These patterns are found world-wide, everywhere that geologists have looked.

That's what conventional geology says, and conventional geology is backed by millions of pages of data, gathered over tens of thousands of man-hours of observation, over more than two hundred years of real time.

What sources do you have that say otherwise? What specific cases can you point to of, say, sauropods being found together with gorgonopsids, or anomalocaridids with actinopterygian (ray-finned) fishes? Or any other two types that are widely separated in time according to conventional geology? If you can't point to any specific cases, then what reason do you have to believe that "there is no such thing as order of fossils according to Darwinist theory," or that "the fossil record is not sequential"?

radar said...

One, I already posted a chart of many known anomalous fossils within the "wrong" layers. Second, you operate on the wrong premise that the layers are long ages and the animals evolved whereas they are actually sorted by flow and location when the flood hit, with the higher animals getting to high ground and lasting longer. The Grand Canyon area has many footprints of partially submerged dinosaurs trying to get out of the water and moving towards dry land. Eventually there was no dry land.

The Darwinists control the information, the grant money, the entire culture. But to ask why a modern speciation of a kind isn't found in the fossil record is not intelligent. If dolphins speciated from whale kinds after the flood it may have taken 500 years to happen, who knows? Dogs have been bred to be very different within less than 100 years.

The primary issue is that the geologic column is a myth. The same layers do not take the same places at all times. Furthermore we see often times layers going back and forth, typical for a flood flow but completely impossible in a Darwinist model. Your claims about the rocks are completely preposterous and outdated. The idea of sequential fossils is also outdated. There are no transitional fossils, just animals that got caught up and buried in the Flood. Also, some places the bones are disarticulated and then take on the flow patterns associated with being sorted by speedy powerful currents.

The White Cliffs of Dover are only explicable by an immense bloom of life in superheated water with catastrophic conditions producing plenty of food in the water. Amber has been shown to have been produced by floating mats on the surface of the flooded earth and such mats often became layers of coal as they sunk and were overtopped by sediments that became eventually rock.

No macroevolution, no transitional fossil continuum, no Darwinism in the fossil record. Or in today's organisms. Or anywhere but inside a bunch of misguided heads.

cavalier973 said...

Keep up the good work, Radar. Don't get discouraged by the anklebiters who look at a representation of a stegosaurus and think "rhino", then look at the tooth of a pig and think "human!"

Jon Woolf said...

Those are claims, Radar, not evidence. What detailed, specific evidence do you have that the conventional geologic column is wrong?

You refer to "dinosaur tracks in the Grand Canyon area" -- okay, let's start with that. Where are those tracks? In what rock formation(s)? Are you sure they're dinosaur tracks, and not some other kind of animal? If so, why? What makes you say they were produced by dinosaurs wading in rising water, not dinosaurs walking along the edge of a lake?

Anonymous said...

Oh Radar, you say the darndest things,

"written first-hand accounts of battles with dinosaurs and sightings of dinosaurs and even people gathering to watch dinosaurs fight with each other"

Cool story bro. So you're telling me that picture I've seen on the internet of Jesus riding a T-Rex is Real!?!?! LOL. You guys will believe just about anything, won't you?

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Jon,

I made a blog post on the tracks and it is in my archives.

Canucklehead you are in Canada, right? Apparently you've had too much Candadian Bacon?

radar said...

As usual commenters pretend that I have not already discusssed the geologic column in great detail and specified the tracks in the Grand Canyon area. Some of you may remember the column that I wrote where I recalled the humorous first Darwinist response to the tracks - "Maybe this kind of dinosaur always backed downhill?"

The tracks go in the same direction and they go from normal tracks to odd partial tracks that, when studied, were apparently the tracks made by creatures trying to run in slowly rising waters. The tracks eventually disappear and of course so did the dinosaurs.

The geologic column articles (I have posted more than one) go into detail and reveal that said column is mythical and not found in the real world in more than about .4% of the Earth. Yes, less than one per cent! Even in the places you can find all the layers in the order described by Darwinists the layers will be uneven and not as pictured in the textbooks.

What is taught in textbooks about geology is almost entirely nonsense when layers and fossils and ages are discussed. I am sure the teaching on identification of various kinds of rocks (feldspar, granite, mica, quartz) and some features (geodes, for instance) is accurate. The normal teaching concerning age measurements and fossils is drastically and horrifically wrong.

Creationists are working to correct these errors. One of my jobs is to continue to publish the good work being done and you guys go ahead and bang your heads against the wall if you like.

radar said...

As usual commenters pretend that I have not already discusssed the geologic column in great detail and specified the tracks in the Grand Canyon area. Some of you may remember the column that I wrote where I recalled the humorous first Darwinist response to the tracks - "Maybe this kind of dinosaur always backed downhill?"

The tracks go in the same direction and they go from normal tracks to odd partial tracks that, when studied, were apparently the tracks made by creatures trying to run in slowly rising waters. The tracks eventually disappear and of course so did the dinosaurs.

The geologic column articles (I have posted more than one) go into detail and reveal that said column is mythical and not found in the real world in more than about .4% of the Earth. Yes, less than one per cent! Even in the places you can find all the layers in the order described by Darwinists the layers will be uneven and not as pictured in the textbooks.

What is taught in textbooks about geology is almost entirely nonsense when layers and fossils and ages are discussed. I am sure the teaching on identification of various kinds of rocks (feldspar, granite, mica, quartz) and some features (geodes, for instance) is accurate. The normal teaching concerning age measurements and fossils is drastically and horrifically wrong.

Creationists are working to correct these errors. One of my jobs is to continue to publish the good work being done and you guys go ahead and bang your heads against the wall if you like.

Anonymous said...

"The geologic column articles (I have posted more than one) go into detail and reveal that said column is mythical and not found in the real world in more than about .4% of the Earth. Yes, less than one per cent! Even in the places you can find all the layers in the order described by Darwinists the layers will be uneven and not as pictured in the textbooks."

It seems you're missing the point of the geologic column. You think it's a claim that this is what should be seen uniformly everywhere, and that is not the claim.

The geologic column is an amalgamation of all the different layers put together, in order of age. Of course not every age left behind a uniform layer of sediment even all over the planet - during some ages, no sediments were deposited in some areas, and some layers were eroded in some areas during later ages.

Even if the geological column were not perfectly preserved anywhere on Earth, it would still be valid.

Perhaps another example could make the principle clear to you. Imagine if there was an ancient text consisting of a number of different parts from different ages, some written in century A, some in century B and so on. One can compile them and say that this text came before or after this text, and the sum total of these texts is this compilation.

Now someone could pipe up and say "well, we've never found all these texts in one and the same place, so there's really no reason to group them together".

It's a man-made, conceptual grouping, but it still describes something that occurred over time, at different time.

Is that clearer now?

Anonymous said...

The point re. the geologic column being that it does describe the order in which you will find the layers IF you find the layers. In the extremely rare cases in which the layers are not in this order, there is generally a clear indication of folding or similar phenomena.

Anonymous said...

"The normal teaching concerning age measurements and fossils is drastically and horrifically wrong.

Creationists are working to correct these errors."

Before you characterize the current scientific consensus as errors (another unsubstantiated claim), please tell us if creationists have any plausible interpretation of radiometric data.

A specific, fact-based response would be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

"The White Cliffs of Dover are only explicable by an immense bloom of life in superheated water with catastrophic conditions producing plenty of food in the water."

How exactly are they not explicable by current geological understanding?

Anonymous said...

I would like to echo (or perhaps "bump") this earlier comment from Jon Woolf:

"Other than creationists, every geologic source I'm aware of, going back to well before Darwin ever published his theory of evolution or geologists first attempted to assemble the overall geologic column, agrees that the fossil record is sequential to a very high degree. Certain specific fossils are never found together, despite being highly similar in size, shape, and habitat. Other specific fossils are generally found in close association, despite differing greatly in size and shape. Certain strata, and the fossils in them, always appear in the same vertical sequence. If layer A is above layer B at one locale, then A is always above B everywhere that both layers occur, save for special cases like overthrusts. These patterns are found world-wide, everywhere that geologists have looked.

That's what conventional geology says, and conventional geology is backed by millions of pages of data, gathered over tens of thousands of man-hours of observation, over more than two hundred years of real time.

What sources do you have that say otherwise? What specific cases can you point to of, say, sauropods being found together with gorgonopsids, or anomalocaridids with actinopterygian (ray-finned) fishes? Or any other two types that are widely separated in time according to conventional geology? If you can't point to any specific cases, then what reason do you have to believe that "there is no such thing as order of fossils according to Darwinist theory," or that "the fossil record is not sequential"?"


Radar, can you please respond to this with specific information, not some evasions or vague claims about having answered it before?

Jon Woolf said...

The tracks go in the same direction and they go from normal tracks to odd partial tracks that, when studied, were apparently the tracks made by creatures trying to run in slowly rising waters. The tracks eventually disappear and of course so did the dinosaurs.

This doesn't answer the questions I asked. Where exactly are these tracks you're talking about? What rock formation are they in? What exactly do they look like? Why are you sure they're specifically dinosaur tracks, and not some other large prehistoric animal?

You see, I know of at least two ichnosites that roughly match the description you gave -- but one is nowhere near the Grand Canyon, and the other isn't dinosaur tracks, but something much smaller like a small lizard. I'd like to know if you're referring to one of those, or another site that I don't (yet) know about.