Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

Pages: (202) < ... 162 163 164 165 166 [167] 168 169 170 171 172 ... >

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,12:17    Deadman ... Are we quitting on trying to explain how the Grand Staircase layers are dated radiometrically? We are bringing up a new thing? ... fossils in the Morrison formation.  Cool.  I'll take a look. Faid...I think you are still confused on who said what.  Maybe you should tell me clearly ... do YOU agree with this?   Quote The sediments that comprise the Morrison Formation are believed to have been deposited about 150 million years ago, during Late Jurassic time. They were carried by streams and rivers from ancient highlands (sometimes called the "Ancestral Rockies") far to the west and deposited here in swampy lowland environments. [URL]http://town.morrison.co.us/geology/morrform.html Crabby ... Oh, so you still WANT to visit?  OK.  Come on then.  I did not recall that it was me that invited you first.  I thought you invited yourself.  Whatever.  I'll be glad to see you.  Would you like me to buy you lunch so you can insult me properly for an extended period of time?  Or will you just insult me in the lobby?  Or second hand via an usher?  Do you want me to introduce you to the Pastor so you can schedule your announcement about how evil I am? JonF ... looks like you want to discuss paleosols ... very good.  I'll oblige you.  No time to read your stuff in detail now.  Church tonight again.  Yes, it's true ... my church is so much fun, I go TWICE on Sundays!  Then again on Wednesday night.  You guys should join Crabby and come see for yourselves! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,13:20    Quote (afdave @ Aug. 27 2006,17:17) Deadman ... Are we quitting on trying to explain how the Grand Staircase layers are dated radiometrically? We are bringing up a new thing? ... fossils in the Morrison formation.  Cool.  I'll take a look. No, Dave, we're not done with radiometric dating of the Grand Staircase. Well, okay, we're probably done with explaining how it's done for you, since you've made it abundantly clear that you're uneducable on the matter. But we're not supposed to be educating you on stuff like this anyway. Your job is to demonstrate that none of the layers in the Grand Staircase are more than 6,000 years old, the oldest date compatible with your "hypothesis." In other words, Dave, you need to demonstrate that every single layer in the Grand Canyon, all the way down to beneath the Vishnu Schist, dates to 6,000 years or less. And in the meantime, are you going to unveil your method for dating the layers of the Grand Staircase? I asked you days ago, and of course you blew me off. Why? Because you don't have the first idea how you would go about it. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,13:26    Yes I agree, dave. (Sigh.) Do you understand what it says? it talks about the way the sediments were deposited, dave. NOT about the volcanic ash layer that fell onto them. Is that SO hard to get? About the root thing: Hey dave here's some more examples... http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm Quote Bucl and Mack (1995) describe large in situ trees in fluvial deposits of the McRae Formation. The McRae Formation in south-central New Mexico is about 420m thick, and consists of two members, the Jose Creek and the Hall Lake. The formation is of latest Cretaceous age, based upon the included dinosaur fauna. The formation is rich in paleosols (at least 26), many of which contain in situ tree trunks. 14 paleosols, from 45-150m thick, are recognized in the Jose Creek Member. These are classified as argillisols. These display well-developed soil horizonation (A-E-Bt-Bc-C), and soil structures such as blocky peds and clay cutans. Downward bifurcating, downward-tapering root traces are abundant, some of which are silicified (root petrifactions). Several of these paleosols are blanketed by ash-fall tuffs burying tree stumps up to 1.7m! in diameter, with preerved large roots penetrating and cross-cutting the underlying palesol horizons (see fig. 5). 12 paleosols are recognized in the overlying Hall Lake Member, from 70-450cm thick. These are classified as calcisols and vertic calcisols. Soil horizons and soil structures are well-developed, and at least one paleosol includes a "massive, well-indurated bed of pedogenic calcrete up to 4m thick," which indicates a very advanced stage of calcisol development. Calcisols are diagnostic of semi-arid environments. Also, read above that for a thorough thrashing of your "upright deposition" babble. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,13:32    Quote Don't make stuff up, Deadman.  I know it's hard to make your lie win out over the truth without somehow lying, but you can at least try.  Show me where I have ever said that the Colorado or others like it are "almighty rushing rivers." This is the fourth time you have accused me of lying. Each time...whether it was the Hittite references or your claims about me working with groups in "jungles"...you have been proven wrong. So will this be different? No. StephenWells, p.134, quoting ShitforBrainsDave..note the references are to a river cutting the GC layers.   Quote (stephenWells @ Aug. 11 2006,11:54)   Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,18:23)   Quote You'll notice a few things. First, the Kaibab is overlain by the Moenkopi...which extends into Utah, too. Those layers you see on the Utah stratigraphic columns USED to exist in the Grand Canyon, too. 5000 or so more feet of layers were washed away in the Grand Canyon, but not the Moenkopi... 5000 feet of layers washed away ... hmmmm ... did a dinky little river do that over millions of years?  Or perhaps was it a Global Flood? No, Dave, it was a river. You can tell because the river cut a typical river valley. A global flood would wash away EVERYTHING. And you can't HAVE a global flood, because there's no water to make it, and if there were, there'd be nowhere for it to go. Now StupidLyingDave, the next page (p.135) quoting stephenWells:   Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,13:09)   Quote No, Dave, it was a river. You can tell because the river cut a typical river valley. A global flood would wash away EVERYTHING. And you can't HAVE a global flood, because there's no water to make it, and if there were, there'd be nowhere for it to go. I agree it was a river.  A MIGHTY RUSHING river, which flowed for a very brief period (3 or 4 days maybe?) when a debris dam burst.  Yes, a global flood WOULD wash everything away, which it in fact did.  It then redeposited everything all over the earth in layers -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,13:44    Oh and, I just couldn't help noticing how, when I offered to debate paleosols with you, but with a mutual agreement that no dishonest tactics will be used, otherwise that would mean instant forfeit, you said you were on "another subject" now, and had a life, and didn't know when you'd be back to the paleosol issue... But now that Jon is willing to discuss the same issues with you, without my terms, you jump right at it! Reeeeeeal classy, dude. Oh and, good job deadman!         -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,13:47    Quote Deadman ... Are we quitting on trying to explain how the Grand Staircase layers are dated radiometrically? We are bringing up a new thing? ... fossils in the Morrison formation.  Cool.  I'll take a look Initially your "challenge" was about showing radiometrically dated layers in the Grand Canyon. You said there were none. You were  shown multiple radiometric dates. You then switched you r claim to "well, show me dates on the Kaibab" You were then shown multiple radiometric dates. You then switched that to " show me dates on the Grand Staircase" You were shown multiple radiometric dates. You switched that to "I don't believe the dates are valid because radiometric dating is only good for igneous grains " (implying that the grains could be imported in and giving false dates.) You were shown that there are multiple methods of dating the matrix in which grains are imbedded. IN fact, you were told this way back on page 109 of this thread, where JonF specifically referred to it:   Quote However, advances have been made in reducing sample size (SHRIMP systems regularly sample a disk about 10 micrometers diameter and 1 micrometer thick: [shows photo here] ) and in studying the materials that form between grains when the rock lithifies. If we can reliably date the material that formed between grains when the rock became rock, we can date the rock. One very promising such material is xenotime , which can be dated by U-PB concordia-discordia analysis in SHRIMP instrumentation. See SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks (requires free subscription, or see BugMeNot There are other techniques of dating sedimentary rocks, such as K-Ar dating of glauconite  (which forms as part ot the "cement" in some environments) and fission track dating of any of several other minerals found in the "cement" such as These are difficult to apply to tiny samples and are constrained by some other technical issues, and are not widely used. Anyone interested in following your dishonesty can do so by simply following the posts from about page 106 onwards. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,14:26    You neglected to tell us why you brought up the KBS Tuff in the middle of a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks ... looks like an admission that you thought tuffs are sedimentary.  Moron. And, of course, you have not acknowledged your egregious errors in your claims about how sedimentary rocks are dated ("S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N") and your claim about the links I posted ("They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon") that was refuted by the titles of the links.   Quote Faid...I think you are still confused on who said what.  Maybe you should tell me clearly ... do YOU agree with this?       Quote The sediments that comprise the Morrison Formation are believed to have been deposited about 150 million years ago, during Late Jurassic time. They were carried by streams and rivers from ancient highlands (sometimes called the "Ancestral Rockies") far to the west and deposited here in swampy lowland environments. [URL]http://town.morrison.co.us/geology/morrform.html Wotta maroon.  That's a fairly good one-sentence description of a complex formation; as with all such, it leaves out a lot that is important when you start looking at details.  IOW, that does not mean that all of the Morrison was fomed in that manner, just most of it. Quote JonF ... looks like you want to discuss paleosols ... very good.  I'll oblige you. You just caught on that I want to discuss paleosols, hum?  You're awfully slow, Davie-dork.  Don't forget to include your evaluations of the particular ones for which I've posted pictures three times now, in response to your promise to discuss any particular paleosols we wanted.  And, of course, the evidence for your interpretations. AIG speculations without any evidence are not appropriate.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,15:04    Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2006,18:47) You switched that to "I don't believe the dates are valid because radiometric dating is only good for igneous grains " (implying that the grains could be imported in and giving false dates.) I thought he was pretty explicit in writing that the dates of the igneous rocks, from which the sediment was derived that eventually became sedimentary rocks, were not the dates of the sedimentary rocks.  In that he's close to correct; as we all know, all you learn from the date of an igneous-origin grain in a sedimentary rock is that the grain is older than the sedimentary rock, unless there's more information available for a particular case such as the Morrison ashfall that you discussed.  Of course, his error was in assuming that all that we can do is date igneous grains, and that there's never any other information available.  I find that this is common among creationists.  E.g., they assert that we can't know the amount of initial daughter in radiometric dating, or that we can't detect open-system behavior.  Davie's done that in this very thread.  But they make the unstated assumption that all we can do is measure the amount of daugher and parent products in one sample and never bother to look into the real story where knowledge of crystallization restrictions, other isotopes, and multiple samples allow us to regularly do what they claim is impossible. I found it particularly amusing when he finally realized how stupid his claim about igneous grains was, and proudly announced that "I SEE THAT I'VE KILLED THIS ERRONEOUS NOTION ONCE AND FOR ALL."

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,16:57    Quote I agree it was a river.  A MIGHTY RUSHING river, which flowed for a very brief period (3 or 4 days maybe?) when a debris dam burst.  Yes, a global flood WOULD wash everything away, which it in fact did.  It then redeposited everything all over the earth in layers Oh, so THAT'S what you're talking about.  I wasn't talking about the Colorado.  SW was saying a river cut the canyon.  And I responded with "yeah, a MIGHTY RUSHING river" as in a Global Flood -- one ENORMOUS river.  I can see how you misunderstood.  OK.  I'll humbly apologize and proclaim that you are officially not a liar.   Ah ... now we're friends again ... how sweet! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,18:30    Bwhahahahahahahahaha Quote And I responded with "yeah, a MIGHTY RUSHING river" as in a Global Flood -- one ENORMOUS river.   That mixed up all the Sinners, Elephants, Dinosaurs, Rats, Rabbits, Hyaenae,  Unicorns, Dragons, Oxen, Giraffes, extinct trees, Trilobites (yes trilobites got trapped as well). Into one big pile at the bottom of the canyon for which AFD has the pictures.....yes folks...real photos, NO CARTOONS it true. All running down from one huge mountain..... Mount Purgatory and disappeared down a hole in China because the inside of the earth was hollow then and now its full of water just look up EB. God pulled out the plug and all the water went down the plug hole he put the plug back in before all the water went down the hole and that hole is now a popular tourist attraction just look up google. No no wait the Orinoco ran backwards up hill and the Nile just stopped and waited for the Amazon to flush out all the mud which left this huge canyon...true...gods earthmoving firm 'Satan's Holy Fillers' used millions of South Americans, who he saved from the flud to fill in the Great Amazon Canyon and then he drowned them all so Noah and his sailors had the world to themselves. No No wait all the water piled up in the middle of the Atlantic and gawrd scooped it up in his cosmic bucket an made it into Pluto. (he suspended gravity while he did this). Hence the little know fable "The day gravity was suspended" all the writings for this floated out to space...er with the atmosphere ....the birds had to walk around while this was going on....er no no wait he just suspended gravity locally.....snicker So AFD Dino's were on the ark eh? What happened to them? If the frozen remains of Mastodons (20,000 years old) have been found in Siberia why not frozen  Dinosaurs only 3500 years old? ...RIGHT? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,21:38    Quote (afdave @ Aug. 27 2006,17:17) Crabby ... Oh, so you still WANT to visit?  OK.  Come on then.  I did not recall that it was me that invited you first.  I thought you invited yourself.  Whatever.  I'll be glad to see you.  Would you like me to buy you lunch so you can insult me properly for an extended period of time?  Or will you just insult me in the lobby?  Or second hand via an usher?  Do you want me to introduce you to the Pastor so you can schedule your announcement about how evil I am? Crabby  Aug 17 pg 144 Quote Moron, fool, willfully ignorant liar, name the place and I'll call you that in public DDTTD. DDTTD Aug 17 pg 144 Quote Crabby ... Quote Moron, fool, willfully ignorant liar, name the place and I'll call you that in public DDTTD. OK.  My church.  As soon as possible.  When will you be here? Crabby  Aug 17 pg 145 Quote What's the address DDTTD? Crabby  Aug 19 pg 148 Quote Got that address to your church DDTTD? He never did post an address. I had to point out that fundies have burned fundy churches (bombed judges and shot doctors, YIKES! because they weren't fundy enough, to get a rise out of him. He insisted I give him all my personal info before we could meet. Save me Jebus. At this point the only thing I feel the need to say is, Coward, moron, fool, willfully ignorant PATHOLOGICAL liar. I hope your shmekel is longer than your memory.

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,22:06    Outstanding post Faid, paleosols, upright trees (in situ) abraded stump deposition and tuff (Why are abraded stumps significant DDTTD?) in a single link. BAM! DDTTD HAS BEEN KARATE KICKED UNCONCIOUS

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,22:10    "Boot to the head" wait, you mean he wasn't unconscious when he arrived? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:02    Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Aug. 28 2006,04:06) Outstanding post Faid, paleosols, upright trees (in situ) abraded stump deposition and tuff (Why are abraded stumps significant DDTTD?) in a single link. BAM! DDTTD HAS BEEN KARATE KICKED UNCONCIOUS Wow, that's a tough one for him to get out of.  I'm guessing Dave is going to go with the "doctored and/or cherry-picked photos" defense. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:40    Aug 28, 2006 CLOSING THE BOOK ON GRAND STAIRCASE "FANTASY DATING" I have spent a considerable amount of time on the Grand Staircase because it is quite important to show the vacuousness of claims that the layers can be dated radiometrically.  What have we (or at least I) learned so far? 1) Most importantly, we have learned that almost all the layers of the Grand Staircase consist of WATER-LAID SEDIMENTS.  Moreover, the layers have the characterisitcs of being deposited by RAPIDLY-MOVING WATER.  This simple observation alone--the fact that we have 10,000 or so feet of layered, rapidly moving water-borne sediment should make every geologist on the planet sit up and take notice of the Global Flood Hypothesis.  It remains as one of the wonders of the modern world that they do not. 2) Secondly, it is obvious that these layers are bent and that they were BENT WHILE THEY WERE STILL SOFT.  Were they soft because they were heated AFTER lithification as JonF proposes?  Impossible.  If this were the case, we would have metamorphic rock, which of course, there is some, but not anywhere close to the quantity of sandstone, mudstone, shales, and other water-laid sedimentary rock.  Also if they were bent after lithification, there would be massive cracking and we do not have this. 3) I have learned that the geologic column (of which the Grand Staircase is a good example) is PRIMARILY DATED BY FOSSILS.  We argued a bit over the meaning of "Primary Dating" and that is all well and good, but the bottom line is that apparently Primary Dates = Fossil Dates.  My EB article stated that the dating is first done with bio-stratigraphy, then layers are dated radiometrically if this is possible.  This was illustrated clearly with the KBS Tuff example. 4) Now people like Deadman claim that you CAN date layers radiometrically and has given the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation as an example.  He has given me around 3 other examples out of some 80 or so identifiable layers, but we have focused on this one to make a point.  And my point is that even if you can date volcanic material radiometrically, how can you then say that this date--the "Ash Creation Date" is anywhere close to the "Deposition Date" of the mudstone layer?  Much of that ash must have lain around for millions of years before getting gradually deposited in the Brushy Basin area by "streams and rivers" if the Long Age scenario is true.  So thinking about this, some logical questions to ask would be ..."Is ash at the bottom dated older than at the top?" and "If the ash is from the same volcano, top and bottom samples should be the same age, right?"  But if they are, how does this square with the "Gradual Deposition by Streams and Rivers" theory?  Shouldn't it take 50 my or so to deposit the entire Morrison Formation, thus requiring the top to be dated 50 my younger than the bottom?  Someone help me out here. 5) JonF believes the "stream and river" theory in spite of the fact that this seems to defy all logic.  Note that he says MOST of the Morrison Formation was formed slowly over millions of years by stream and river deposition. JonF... Quote Quote   The sediments that comprise the Morrison Formation are believed to have been deposited about 150 million years ago, during Late Jurassic time. They were carried by streams and rivers from ancient highlands (sometimes called the "Ancestral Rockies") far to the west and deposited here in swampy lowland environments. [URL]http://town.morrison.co.us/geology/morrform.html [/url] Wotta maroon.  That's a fairly good one-sentence description of a complex formation; as with all such, it leaves out a lot that is important when you start looking at details.  IOW, that does not mean that all of the Morrison was fomed in that manner, just most of it. Now ... take a look at the Morrison Formation ... I think the numbers on the side are meters ... http://www.wvup.edu/ecrisp/fieldstudiesinutah.html Remember how extensive it is ... something like 8 states or so ... Can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and say with a straight face that this massive formation was laid down gradually over millions of years by dinky little streams and rivers?  Come on, guys.  We've seen this type of formation at Mt. Saint Helens.  We now know how this type of formation is deposited.  This stuff didn't get deposited over million of years.   TRY DAYS!!!  OR MAYBE HOURS!!! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:00    PALEOSOLS AND WHY FAID'S LINK DOESN'T HELP LONG AGERS Quote Now you guys seem to have some example in mind where ALL the roots are in the right direction.  Would someone care to show me an example? That's what we've been saying all along, Davie-doodles. Don't have one from the Grand Staircase handy, but here's a great one: Looks to me like a big clump of plants that got uprooted by the rising, rushing water of Noah's Flood, floated around for a while, then came to rest and was buried with a bunch of water-borne sediment.  As the water receded, the sediment got eroded so we can now see it.  I've seen bunches of plants like this floating in an upright postion.  It's simply a matter of center of gravity and buoyancy. What's YOUR explanation?  In detail.  I know you say it's a paleosol.  But tell me the whole detailed story of how you think this soil formed, how the plants go there, how they got fossilized and so on. JonF...   Quote Root traces in paleosols: calcareous rhizoconcretions from an Aquept of the late Eocene Birket Qarun Formation, Egypt (Bown & Kraus, 1988).  From Geology 435/535 Paleopedology. In this one, look at figures 4 and 5: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/JonF/Paleosol-4.jpg Fig. 4. 1, Outcrop of the Ligorio Márquez Formation at LM01 ("Mina Ligorio Márquez"); 2, An example of lithofacies in the middle unit. Pebbly sandstone with cross-stratification overlies plant-bearing mudstone (equals to plant megafossil locality 03) with erosional surface. Middle unit. LM01; 3, Plant megafossil locality 04, showing dark gray mudstone frequently intercalated with white fine- to very fine-grained sandstone. Middle unit. LM01. Hammer for scale has a handle 30 cm long; 4, Plant megafossil locality 05, showing carbonaceous root traces (arrows). Middle unit. LM01; 5, Paleosol at middle unit of LM02, showing irregular joining and scattering organic matters. Handle of hammer is 3 cm wide; 6, Paleosol with abundant root traces. The bed probably corresponds with that reported by Suárez et al. (2000: fig. 2). Middle unit. LM04. A pen for scale is 14 cm long; 7, Upper unit of the Ligorio Márquez Formation (LM) and overlying basalt (B) at LM05; 8, Locality of a sample for K-Ar dating.LM05. Hammer handle is 30 cm long.  From GEOLOGICAL NOTES ON PLANT FOSSIL LOCALITIES OF THE LIGORIO MÁRQUEZ FORMATION, CENTRAL PATAGONIA, CHILE. Your turn, Davie, show us some photos of paleosols with upside-down and sidweways and randomly oriented root traces.  You're the one with the better explanation, remember? I'm squinting really hard and I'm not seeing anything in Figures 4 & 5.  Can I borrow your magnifying glass? As for showing you some trees in other-than-upright positions, how about this ... didn't someone say "ALL PLANTS ARE DEPOSITED UPRIGHT"  ??  Well, if you said that, I think you are sadly mistaken ... From Faid's article ...     Quote The YEC hypothesis that the sedimentary record originated as a result of a single, year-long global flood is directly contradicted by the presence of a variety of biogenic structures preserved within the sedimentary record which could not form in the time allotted for the flood, or under the depositional conditions associated with the flood. One type of structure that could not form via the flood is "fossil forests," containing upright trees preserved in growth position. Why can't we have fossil forests buried by the Flood?  Actually this is a prediction of the Flood Hypothesis.  If a Global Flood happened, we should have all kinds of things happening to plants:  plants getting uprooted, transported, redeposited; plants getting buried in situ; plants getting buried sideways and upright ... maybe even upside down!  This is a naive statement. The first paragraph from Faid's article actually confirms my statement above!  See below ...     Quote 1. Eocene Fossil Forests in Yellowstone National Park The Lamar River Formation in Yellowstone Park contains the best known example of a "fossil forest." Here we find multiple levels of in situ trees. The upright trees at Specimen Ridge are rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone and encased in conglomeratic mudflows. The grain size of the conglomerate decreases away from the location of the volcanic source areas, the East and West Absaroka belts. Also, the ratio of upright, in situ trees to horizontal trees increases away from the Eocene volcanic source areas - the eruptions and mud flows flattened whole forests proximal to the source, while many trees are preserved in growth position in more distal locations, such as at Specimen Ridge. Although it is unclear how many successive forest layers are present in the Lamar River Formation, estimates range from 9-12 for Specimen Ridge. Some of the levels have very wide and old trees trunks. The mud flows caused by the Mt St Helens eruption in 1980 provide an excellent analogue for the geologic processes which produced the Yellowstone deposits. Fritz noted that the mixture of transported of upright and transported trees found in mudflows were virtually identical to the deposits seen at Yellowstone. In fact, several 'recent' fossil forests, containing in situ trees up to 7m tall, are present in the vicinity of Mount St Helens, each buried by lahar flows and/or pyroclastics. Exposures of these were exhumed by mudflows after the 1980 eruption. Most of the forest-bearing deposits have been dated to the period 1479-1857 by tree ring analyses of buried trees. These subfossil 'fossil' forests are excellent modern analogues for the Yellowstone forests exposed at Specimen Ridge. Karowe and Jefferson note that the "striking similarity between features of of trees buried in situ by Mount St Helens mudflows and features of upright fossil trees in the Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone National Park strongly supports a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright trees at Yellowstone" (p. 203; see also Yamaguchi and Hoblitt, 1995). What is the author referring to?  Well this, of course, which I posted previously. Oh, and guess what.  After Mt. Saint Helens, they changed the sign!!! Again, guys, you would know all this if you would expand your minds and read some creationist books for a change.  You've been propagandized all your lives that creationists are evil, lying, money hungry morons, who want to take everybody back to the Dark Ages.  The truth is that creationists have many right answers.  And mainstream science slowly catches up to what creationists often have been saying for a long time.  Again, as I have said before, it is often the creationists who are "at the tip of the spear" in science.  But to be at the tip of the spear is many times a very lonely place.  It is not for the faint-hearted.  It is not for people who seek approval from others.  It is only for courageous, independent thinking people who want the truth about everything no matter what the cost. Now the rest of the examples given in Faid's article are basically repeats of the Yellowstone situation, which, of course, is exactly what we would expect if there was a Global Flood.  We would expect to see MANY buried forests all over the world.  Many trees would be buried in situ and many would not be.   Now ... please tell me again what was your point, Faid, in giving me this link?  I guess I really do not understand the Official Millionsofyearsianism Viewpoint on Paleosols.  This link seems to help the case for my Global Flood Hypothesis far more than it helps any other case.  But again, I really don't fully understand your case in the first place, so maybe you could clarify. ********************************************** QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Deadman...     Quote This is how fossil confirmation of radiometric dating works, Sweetcheeks....given that there are dates on the morrison of about 145-158 mya, what kind of fossils can we expect to find in those layers? Why are there no modern mammal fossils mixed in the layers as your 2350-5000  BC flood would require?   Let me repeat this very slooowly, stupid. WHY ARE THERE ...NO MODERN MAMMALS IN THE MORRISON? Well, just a guess. I'll have to study this when I am done studying paleosols and the Grand Staircase.  But my guess is the reason is because the mammals that ARE buried there were buried 2300+ years ago and they became extinct because of this humongous catastrophe (subliminal ad: global flood, global flood) that buried them.  The only mammals left alive were those on the ark, and they in turn, reproduced and diversified after leaving the ark.  We would expect them to be different from the mammals that got buried, would we not?  Again, just a guess.  Maybe you could fill me in with more specifics so I could analyze this better. I'm not sure if you are saying "there are no mammal fossils at all" or "there are just no MODERN mammal fossils." Eric...     Quote Half the western United States was underwater at one point or another, and 10 million years ago California didn't even exist—all of it was underwater. You're getting closer to the truth.  Actually, ALL of the US was underwater at one point.  And you are off on your dates, but at least you are starting to recognize the role of massive quantities of water. JonF...     Quote Er, Davie-moron, that's the conventional geologist's viewpoint.  The "hardened, THEN eroded, turned into mud and deposited" idea is your fantasy. No. Actually this is Faid's fantasy of my supposed fantasy.  Not to be confused with your fantasy about my supposed fantasy that a tuff is a sedimentary rock.  Apparently I should not confuse all these with my fantasy about your supposed fantasy that you at one point said that lava was a sedimentary rock. And don't forget Incorygible's fantasy about how I said Leakey led an army of paleo-fascists on to a bloody victory.  Oh ... I keep thinking of fantasies.  How about the biggest fantasy of them all?  MILLIONSOFYEARSIANISM. I think we need a Fantasy Librarian around here to keep all the fantasies straight.  Any volunteers?  :-) Crabby-- So are you coming or not?  I can't figure out from your posts if you are or aren't.  Am I buying you lunch?  Or are you just going to walk in and yell at us? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:05    HairFartDrain ...oooooooooooh another color picture! With green. Hey AFD where are the frozen dinosaurs? Where are the Amazon, Nile, Congo, Murray, Olga, Volga, Rein, Yellow, Me Kong, Ganges river canyons (all from memory DHDAVE) Canyons? How can all the worlds Uranium which has a half life of 4.9 Billion years be half depleted? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:07    Quote (afdave @ Aug. 28 2006,11:00) Quote The YEC hypothesis that the sedimentary record originated as a result of a single, year-long global flood is directly contradicted by the presence of a variety of biogenic structures preserved within the sedimentary record which could not form in the time allotted for the flood, or under the depositional conditions associated with the flood. One type of structure that could not form via the flood is "fossil forests," containing upright trees preserved in growth position. Why can't we have fossil forests buried by the Flood?  Actually this is a prediction of the Flood Hypothesis.  If a Global Flood happened, we should have all kinds of things happening to plants:  plants getting uprooted, transported, redeposited; plants getting buried in situ; plants getting buried sideways and upright ... maybe even upside down!  This is a naive statement. Ok, so the fossil forests buried upright "in situ" should provide excellent eveidence of the pre-flood/flood barrier, right?  Everything below formations of predominantly upright-buried plants should be pre-flood.  Right, Dave? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:07    VERTICAL CLIFFS CUT IN HARD BASALTIC ROCK -- MILLIONS OF YEARS?  NO ... TRY LESS THAN 3 YEARS!! Again, guys ... start buying some creationist books and you would know these things.  This is from "Footprints in the Ash" by Morris and Austin about Mt. Saint Helens. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:11     o H I  gEt iT afD y o u think T r e e s GROW under G R O U N D No problems, do birds fly underground as well? -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:14    Quote (afdave @ ,) I have spent a considerable amount of time on the Grand Staircase because it is quite important to show the vacuousness of claims that the layers can be dated radiometrically.  What have we (or at least I) learned so far? Dave's learned to use the word "vacuousness" to make it sound like he's got an argument.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:15    Hey ShitForBrainsDave, did you read this part? Quote Although it is unclear how many successive forest layers are present in the Lamar River Formation, estimates range from 9-12 for Specimen Ridge. Some of the levels have very wide and old trees trunks. That means an intact, mature forest was covered, another mature forest grew over top of the covered one, then that mature forest was covered.  Repeat for 9-12 cycles. How long does it take a mature forest to grow SFBDavie? Also, you keep forgetting to answer this How is limestone deposited Davie? How long does it take for 1000' of limestone to be laid down? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:16    Who was that that was yapping at me about how all those vertical cliffs in hard rock at the Grand Canyon prove that they could not have formed rapidly. OOOOPS!! There goes that idea out the window. Was that you, Deadman?  Or was it JonF? Hey, BTW ... what ever happened to Occam's Aftershave?  Did he get tired?  Has he become a creationist? And what about Rilke?  She disappeared after she got her PhD ... -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:33    Well, what do you know ... Aftershave shows up again!!  I was just wondering where you disappeared to. To answer your question, YES, I read all of that.  And I also quoted this part to you ... Quote Karowe and Jefferson note that the "striking similarity between features of of trees buried in situ by Mount St Helens mudflows and features of upright fossil trees in the Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone National Park strongly supports a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright trees at Yellowstone" (p. 203; see also Yamaguchi and Hoblitt, 1995). Predictably, the article then goes on and tries to say how Lamar River is different that Mt Saint Helens.  They couldn't agree with creationists. That would never do!!!  Their disagreement doesn't sound very convincing though especially considering the quote above that admits a "striking similarity" to Mt Saint Helens, and the fact that they changed the sign.  Did the Mt Saint Helens trees represent successive forests?  Not at all.  They represented CATASTROPHISM, a word that, like it or not, you are going to have to get used to, my friend. LIMESTONE?  Hang on, hang on.  We'll get there.  I'm just one guy, remember, and I only have 24 hours in a day.  I'm working hard on the Grand Staircase and Paleosols right now.  Limestone will come though, and by the looks of it, you should be afraid.  Very afraid. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:43    Where are all the dinosaurs mixed up with those trees AssFrigDave? And I'm waiting on Frozen Dinosaurs with Mastodons.. Oppps wait .........MOST of the dino's died out 65 Million years ago and the fozen Mastodaons ARE 20,ooo plus years old. Dang AFD...... 1000 foot limestone?...bwhahahahahaha. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:50    Let me fix that for you AFD Quote It is only for courageous, independent thinking people who want the truth  only for cowardly, dependent unthinking people who want the lies about everything no matter what the cost to their sanity[/s] -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:54    Quote To answer your question, YES, I read all of that.  And I also quoted this part to you ...   Quote Karowe and Jefferson note that the "striking similarity between features of of trees buried in situ by Mount St Helens mudflows and features of upright fossil trees in the Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone National Park strongly supports a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright trees at Yellowstone" (p. 203; see also Yamaguchi and Hoblitt, 1995). Predictably, the article then goes on and tries to say how Lamar River is different that Mt Saint Helens.  They couldn't agree with creationists. That would never do!!!  Their disagreement doesn't sound very convincing though especially considering the quote above that admits a "striking similarity" to Mt Saint Helens, and the fact that they changed the sign.  Did the Mt Saint Helens trees represent successive forests?  Not at all.  They represented CATASTROPHISM, a word that, like it or not, you are going to have to get used to, my friend. The Mt Saint Helens trees represent a single layer of trees felled by a single event.  The Yellowstone trees represent 9-12 distinct layers, each representing a different mature forest felled by a different event for each layer. How does that occur in 3-4 days Davie? How long does it take a mature forest to grow SFBDavie?     Quote Well, what do you know ... Aftershave shows up again!!  I was just wondering where you disappeared to. I've been here watching all along SFBDavie - it just that the others were doing such a thorough job of thrashing your dishonest ass there was nothing left for me to kick. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:57    Quote (afdave @ Aug. 28 2006,09:40) I have spent a considerable amount of time on the Grand Staircase because it is quite important to show the vacuousness of claims that the layers can be dated radiometrically.  What have we (or at least I) learned so far? Dave, you've been shown abundant evidence that many of the layers in the Grand Canyon can be and have been dated radiometrically. That you ignore that evidence doesn't change that fact. And once again, you've failed to provide any methodology by which you would date the layers in the Grand Canyon, nor have you provided any evidence that they're all less than 6,000 years old. Quote 1) Most importantly, we have learned that almost all the layers of the Grand Staircase consist of WATER-LAID SEDIMENTS.  Moreover, the layers have the characterisitcs of being deposited by RAPIDLY-MOVING WATER. And where did you show this, Dave? You've "learned" no such thing. It's merely what you want to believe. You still haven't accounted for the multiple paleosols in the Grand Staircase, nor have you accounted for the layers that were not water-laid. How does it help you that "almost all" were? All of them had to be, or your "flood" story, which is already dead from multiple other stab-wounds, is dead. Quote 2) Secondly, it is obvious that these layers are bent and that they were BENT WHILE THEY WERE STILL SOFT.  Were they soft because they were heated AFTER lithification as JonF proposes?  Impossible. And you've demonstrated this how, Dave? From your extensive lack of knowledge of geological processes? After it's pretty clear that you think volcanic tuff is sedimentary? Don't make me laugh. Quote I have learned that the geologic column (of which the Grand Staircase is a good example) is PRIMARILY DATED BY FOSSILS.  We argued a bit over the meaning of "Primary Dating" and that is all well and good, but the bottom line is that apparently Primary Dates = Fossil Dates.  My EB article stated that the dating is first done with bio-stratigraphy, then layers are dated radiometrically if this is possible.  This was illustrated clearly with the KBS Tuff example. Still stuck on that "primary" goof you made, Dave, that you simply cannot admit you were wrong about. How many times have you been told that fossils can only provide relative dates, and how many times have you been told that igneous deposits can set upper and lower dates for sedimentary layers between them, even if those sedimentary layers cannot be dated radiometrically? Quote 4) Now people like Deadman claim that you CAN date layers radiometrically and has given the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation as an example.  He has given me around 3 other examples out of some 80 or so identifiable layers, but we have focused on this one to make a point.  And my point is that even if you can date volcanic material radiometrically, how can you then say that this date--the "Ash Creation Date" is anywhere close to the "Deposition Date" of the mudstone layer?  Much of that ash must have lain around for millions of years before getting gradually deposited in the Brushy Basin area by "streams and rivers" if the Long Age scenario is true.  So thinking about this, some logical questions to ask would be ..."Is ash at the bottom dated older than at the top?" and "If the ash is from the same volcano, top and bottom samples should be the same age, right?"  But if they are, how does this square with the "Gradual Deposition by Streams and Rivers" theory?  Shouldn't it take 50 my or so to deposit the entire Morrison Formation, thus requiring the top to be dated 50 my younger than the bottom?  Someone help me out here. This has all been explained to you at length, Dave, but you're not interested. All you care about is your own little fantasy that the Grand Canyon is less than 6,000 years old and that it was carved by a global flood. Are you going to provide evidence for either one of these assertions before the sun goes out? Dave, you don't have a flood because you don't have any water for it; you have absolutely not the slightest clue how to date any layer in the Grand Canyon, and you have not the merest smidgen of evidence that all the layers in the Grand Canyon are less than 6,000 years old. How could the ash in the Morrison have laid around for "millions of years" on a planet less than 10,000 years old, you dolt? You dismiss the radiometric dates provided for numerous layers in the Grand Staircase for no better reason that if they were accurate, your "hypothesis" would be falsified. Well guess what, Dave? Your "hypothesis" has been falsified. It's been really entertaining watching an undergraduate EE try to falsify an entire scientific discipline, but it's not like we didn't know what the results of your attempt would be before you even got started on it. And you still don't know where the water from your "flood" came from, do you? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:07    As I said, Eric ... Quote What have we (or at least I) learned so far? I have learned these things whether YOU have or not.  Remember why I came here?  To learn.  Mission is being accomplished. Aftershave ... what makes you think those layers represent Successive Forests.  You are wrong.  There are many distinct layers in the Mt Saint Helens situation as well.  Different layers are caused by different waves of sedimentation, differences in particles, differences in sediment composition, different weights of sediments, etc, etc, etc. Again, what makes you so sure those Lamar River trees are SUCCESSIVE FORESTS? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:21    ericmurphy said: Quote And you (AFD)still don't know where the water from your "flood" came from, do you? or .....where it went to...AFD? Bwhahahahahahahaha Quote Remember why I came here?  To learn.  Mission is being accomplished. heheheheheheh Just like schrubby landing on a carrier in the Pacific...snicker This is free right? Hey AFD guess what GWB HAS LOST IRAQ .........suck that down. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Pages: (202) < ... 162 163 164 165 166 [167] 168 169 170 171 172 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard