Young Earth - Global Flood

Over the past couple years I've come across countless arguments and geological evidence for the Earth's rock layers and the fossils within having been laid down rapidly by a global flood and its receding waters.  I believe the fossil record itself is a story of mass watery death based on ecosystem and various hydrologic sorting processes. 

For instance, the bottom layers of the Earth (Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian) contain exactly the types of marine-floor animals we would expect to find buried by landmasses eroding onto the seabed.  By the Carboniferous layers the flooding has begun to destroy massive dry land areas which is why we find an explosion of fossils of terrestrial plant-life, insects, and low-living amphibians, etc.   Deep-sea and fast-swimming fish and mammals would have been carried up with the rising flood waters, away from the lower layers. And of course we find similar groups of marine fossils mixed in with all layers of strata, as we would expect with a global flood. 

Of course the evolutionists have concocted mysterious "mass extinction events" to explain the data.  To give you an idea of their thought processes..  one of the theories for the mass death of Ordovician-Silurian life is a gamma ray burst from an exploding star in outer space that destroyed Earth's atmosphere!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician%E2%80%93Silurian_extinction_events#Gamma_ray_burst_hypothesis 

Anyways, thought I might start a thread to begin organizing some information and generating discussion.  

For an intro to some subject material here's a video by Ian Juby of Genesis Week.  I'm a big fan of this guy's work.  Very entertaining and informative.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOx7yMDbt_Y

It would be great to have a thread on the flood. Will look forward to your research notes. Thanks.

Strangelove wrote:It would be great to have a thread on the flood. Will look forward to your research notes. Thanks.

It's going to be some work for me to just organize arguments for presentation.  I've just been soaking up all the info and lectures I can find.  It's such a big topic with so many intricate facets to it.



This lecture is fantastic.  Lots of details.

The Grand Canyon - Evidence for the Global Flood - Paul Garner (fellow of the Geologic Society)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TejSw67QFRk

The flood is a story nearly every culture has because of that there is little doubt that it did not happen but there is doubt the the story from the bible is true but, I believe the flood happened because of the bible being true.

clark thompson wrote:The flood is a story nearly every culture has because of that there is little doubt that it did not happen but there is doubt the the story from the bible is true but, I believe the flood happened because of the bible being true.

That's a good point.  There are many flood legends throughout different parts of the world.  I believe these are all variations on the true Biblical Flood that changed overtime in different cultures.  Copies based off of the real thing.  Just more compelling evidence that there was a real event to be copied.

For one example, this is an interesting comparison between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh flood stories
http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/

What is interesting is that the shape of the Ark in the Gilgamesh story was square and would not have been sea-worthy,  whereas engineers have studied the dimensions and construction, even built replicas, described in Genesis and found it was perfect design for its purpose, and could easily house the huge variety of animal kinds with plenty of room left over.

You would think such details as physical dimensions of Noah's Ark would be superfluous details for a flood narrative, but it makes me think that God included bits of information like that as a proof...

Here is a fascinating and very detailed 2009-2013 discussion on 'Young Earth / Flood' evidence dealing mainly with geological processes.  One could easily spend years studying all the different aspects of this subject.

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=1969



Here is a clip from a set of experiments which simulated sedimentation processes resulting from massive flooding.  The layering of material is very similar to what we see on a macro-scale on Earth. 

Turtle Fossils From Jurassic Period found in ancient 'Bone Bed'

2012

Scientists say they've uncovered a pile of 1,800 Jurassic turtle skeletons in China that had been swept into a mass grave millions of years ago.


The fossilized mesa chelonia turtles were found in China’s northwest province of Xinjiang in what paleontologists call a "bone bed" with some of the shells stacked up on top of each other in the rock.
Some 160 million years ago, these turtles (identified as a species in the genus Annemys) likely had gathered in one of the remaining waterholes during a very dry period, awaiting rain, which apparently came too late, the researchers say. When all the water left in the hole dried up, the turtles died.


When the rain did finally arrive, it hit with catastrophic force. The inundation sent a river of mud over the area, washing the turtle corpses and surrounding sediments into one resting place, according to the paleontologists' analysis of the site.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/turtle-fossils-jurassic_n_2049523.html

This type of mass burial is a frequent discovery in the world of paleontology. 

Notice the hoops that scientists will jump through to avoid attributing the death directly to a major flood event.  In this case, the turtles surely must have died from dehydration, and only then were their carcasses buried by mudslides caused by flooding.   It's not like thousands of immobile, dying turtles would be eaten by predators or scavenged or anything.... 

And on a related note.. Turtles (like all other types of animals) appear fully formed in the fossil record.  The "oldest" turtle fossil dates to 210 million years ago in the late Triassic,  and it is just as advanced as any modern turtle, even with some extra features like a spiked tail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proganochelys

It's always like this... the first appearance of every basic type of animal has all of it's major anatomy and morphology intact and practically identical to modern versions.    We never find these supposed mystery transitional sequences. 

The Evolution Fairies hid them all to test the Darwinist's faith of course.

Lecture by Paul Esparante who is part of a paleontological team in South America.  Researchers have discovered thousands of whale fossils buried together in the Pisco rock formation in Peru.  They have been documenting them for years.

- The whale fossils are extremely well preserved and show no evidence of being eroded overtime or scavenged by sea creatures.   The Baleen on a whale is usually separated very quickly during decomposition, but the baleen on these fossils are intact.

- Many of the whale fossils are buried at steep vertical angles, showing they were not lying horizontally settled on the sea floor but thrust violently into their body position at death. 

- Groups of whale fossils protrude through "millions of years" of rock layers. 

Esparante supports the claim that these fossils were deposited by a massive flood event.
More interesting details and Q&A in the video.

Fossil Whales in Peru - Catastrophic Burial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5v4YRZE25M

Life wrote:We never find these supposed mystery transitional sequences. 

The Evolution Fairies hid them all to test the Darwinist's faith of course.

LOLZ!

Nice Life.

Nice.

I've been doing some research into dating methods. Will have to start a thread soon.

So I just began reading these two books..  There is a lot of information in them.  The evidence for a rapidly formed/Young Earth, and Noah's Flood is overwhelming..  I hope to eventually begin adding the progressive arguments to this thread.


"In the Beginning:  Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood"  - Walt Brown 2008
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1878026097/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This book is more geared towards the layman, lays out the 'Hydroplate Theory' which is a scientific model of the Biblical Flood, and various evidence in general for a young Earth, and many arguments against an old Earth. 


"Earth's Catastrophic Past" - Andrew Snelling 2009
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0932766943/ref=oh_details_o03_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

This book is very thorough and semi-technical - compelling detailed evidence for a global flood, and rapid deposition of Earth's sediments.  Strong detailed arguments against the claims of old-Earth.

(sorry, have to change the thread title again..  should have a more increased scope)

Strangelove wrote:LOLZ!

Nice Life.

Nice.

I've been doing some research into dating methods. Will have to start a thread soon.

Snelling's "Earth's Castarophic Past" Vol 2.  Has a couple chapters devoted to pointing out the flaws with individual radiometric dating methods in detail.   I will try and post them later. 

The thing with radiometric dating that I keep hearing is that "multiple methods always confirm each other".. meaning independent dating methods corroborate each other.   This seems to be some kind of urban legend, as I am having a very difficult time finding these studies in which rigorous testing like that was performed.  There seem to be only a very few cherry-picked examples of where this may have occurred.

As an example, the other day I was told by an evolutionist that one confirmation of old ages was that the number of Varves (thin layers of sediments claimed to be deposited annually on the bottom of past lakes) are corroborated independently by Carbon-14 dates. 

Well I spent the whole day searching the literature about this, and when I did track down relevant studies, I find written in the methodology that the Varves were adjusted to fit with the C14 dates.  I found another study that said part of the Varve region matched up, and part of it significantly deviated.  And as I posted earlier in this thread,  repeatable experiments show that water currents will rapidly lay down lamination (varves), so it is proven that they aren't necessarily annual layers. 

My points were never responded to.  You can read the references and see how the discussion played out here if you're interested. 
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/question-for-evolutionists-if-fossils-are-actually-young-would-you-find-id-more-believable/#comment-469585

I have a strong suspicion that when you get down to the nitty gritty of most, if not all, of these types of claims of multiple dating accuracy, it will turn out that some kind of fudging or assumption-making is going on.  This kind of goes without saying, though, as the mainstream uniformitarian/evolutionary community has unquestioningly believed the Earth is millions and billions of years old for centuries.  So if an experiment returns contradictory results it will certainly be interpreted as an error. The premise of an old-earth is not permitted to be questioned under any circumstances.

Here is a Paleochronology group that has consistently Carbon14 dated dinosaur fossils at between 20,000-40,000 years old.  These fossils are claimed to be 65,80+ million years old.  C14 is supposed to be completely gone after 60,000 years.   Interesting how consistent the dates are if this is all some kind of carbon contamination as evolutionists claim.  Of course what we see here is evolutionists rejecting their own methods when it gives them ages they don't like. 

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm


These same types of fossils are being regularly discovered to contain organic soft tissues (cells, proteins, dna) that belonged to the dinosaur.  Does anyone believe that intact proteins are going to be preserved for 65 million years?

Here is a very well put together compilation of all the organic material discovered in dinosaur fossils:

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

"Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

Here are the scientific journals, the kinds of biological material found so far, and the dinosaurs yielding up these discoveries:

Scientific Journals: Nature, Science, PNAS, PLoS One, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Bone, the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, and others below in our chronological catalog, "the web's most complete list of dinosaur soft tissue discoveries," as published in many leading journals, according to a co-author of one of those papers.

Biological Material Found: As of May 2013, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including collagen, actin, and hemoglobin, and powerful evidence for DNA."

Soft-tissue in dinosaur biological material:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VbDFCndMI

The soft tissue thing is intriguing.

I brought this up with an atheist friend, and the response was that, of course, soft tissue would be preserved for millions of years in frozen organisms. He said we have a fully preserved whooly mammoth, complete with hairs and eyeballs?

Even if all the tissue that has been found was from frozen bodies (which I don't think they are) doesn't protein and soft tissue have a certain decay rate even in those conditions?

This is a fairly new field of study for me. What do you recon Life?

Well mammoths are claimed by evolutionists to have been around only thousands of years ago, so it's a little bit different scenario.

There are some interesting things about mammoths also, that I need to revisit.  One of the main points being that mammoth remains are routinely found completely intact with no signs of decay.  (the food they were eating is even found undigested in their stomachs)   Creationists claim this is evidence that they were frozen suddenly.  This sudden freezing is attributed to the fountains of the deep breaking upon (as described in the flood of Genesis) water shooting out and into the atmosphere, freezing, and showering the landscape.. producing the data that evolutionists claim is due to a long gradual "Ice Age".   I have to look into this more, though..

Here is one study on Protein decay rates from 1999:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692449/pdf/10091249.pdf

Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges
Bada et al. 1999

The geochemical reactions of amino acids have been
thoroughly studied, and this information can be used to
predict the level of survival of other important biomol-
ecules such as DNA. Amino-acid analyses can be easily
carried out and provide the bases of a routine method for
evaluating the general level of biomolecule preservation
in fossil specimens. The model we have developed based
on the analyses of Pleistocene fossils predicts that original
protein components should be hydrolysed to free amino
acids which then di¡use out of the fossil matrix and are
lost over time-scales of 10^5 - 10^6 years in most environ-
ments.

That is all protein decayed between 100,000 years and a max limit of 1,000,000 years.

But several years later... large quantities of intact proteins, and even intact osteocyte(bone) cells, have been discovered routinely in dinosaur fossils dated between 65-80 million years old.  There is even strong evidence for original DNA which has a much faster decay rate than protein. 

Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085295

The evolutionist response (after originally hand-waving the proteins away as bacterial contamination) is basically to re-write the model of protein decay, based on the sole reasoning that evolutionary/geologic time *must* be true.  This is how the evolution religion is driving science.

Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival
2011 Antonio et al.

While it is widely accepted that proteins have the potential to survive significantly longer periods of time than DNA, persistence of original bone proteins in fossils at least 68 million years old is controversial , despite multiple lines of evidence supporting this hypothesis . Current temporal predictions have been surpassed , supporting the suggestion that current models may not be appropriate...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110760/

I see, so basically we see the establishment inventing new physics to accommodate anomalous data.

They did the same thing with helio. Data showed the Earth doesn't move so they invented Relativity.

Now data shows dino bones can't possibly be as old as they thought, so they will say these are SuperBones that don't decay as fast or something? Or they need a new model to smooth over the results.

Anything but a young Earth. Anything but God.

Usually evolutionists are simply able to make up new fantasy stories about how evolution worked in the past.  The theory is mostly storytelling in general.  But in this case they show that they have no qualms about inventing new laws of physics to accommodate evolution, if push comes to shove.

If you have an hour to kill, this is nice overview of evolution in general.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Here are some points on various fossil graveyards from "Earth's Catastrophic Past" by Andrew Snelling.  Vol. 2 starting on Pg. 537

The Cambrian Burgess Shale, B.C. Canda:

More than 120 species of marine invertebrates have been preserved at various closely-spaced stratigraphic levels within this shale in the Canadian Rockies.  Most of these were soft-bodied animals, but they have been preserved with soft parts intact, often with food still in their guts.... Usually found squashed flat into thin films, these animals were not fossilized in their normal life position... Submarine landslides swept the animals into a deeper basin where there was no oxygen, where they were killed instantly and buried immediately in fine mud.  Indeed, the turbulent flow is evidenced by the disposition of the fossils in the rock, the animals being dumped at a variety of angles to the bedding.  The Burgess Shale is, therefore, an enormous fossil graveyard, produced by countless animals living on the sea floor being catastrophically swept away in landslide-generated turbidity currents, and then buried almost instantly in the resultant massive turbidite layers, to be exquisitely preserved and fossilized.

The Carboniferous Montceau Shale, Central France

This shale, in the Montceau Basin of central France, is associated with coal seams, and so far has yielded the fossilized remains of nearly 300 species of plants and pollen, and 16 classes of animals representing about 30 genera.  These animals and plants are found flattened within the shale between layers of silt, or in nodules that are believed to have formed as a result of finer sediments accumulating around the organisms s they were buried and fossilized.  Among the fossilized plants are giant seed ferns and conifers, the former represented by specimens that must have grown as tall as trees, judging by the trunks found fossilized.  Fossilized leaves and thorns are plentiful.

Arthropods are by far the mos numerous and well preserved animals in this fossil graveyard, crustaceans alone representing about 33 percent of the fossil fauna...  Among the terrestrial arthropod fossils are millipedes, spiders, and scorpions,  the latter in many cases being beautifully preserved, complete with their venomous vesicle and sting.  Representatives of eight orders of insects, including cockroaches, are present, many of the insects being found as nymphal forms.  Due to the exceptional preservation, even the soft tissues of the segmented worms have been fossilized, along with the rare specimens of caterpillars...

The vertebrates found belong to at least four classes--bony fishes, cartilaginous fishes, amphibians, and reptiles.  Fish are the most numerous, including small sharks.  The fossil amphibians resemble small salamanders...  numerous footprints of amphibians and reptiles have been found, complete with finger and claw marks...  Even raindrop imprints and ripple marks have been found preserved, signifying that burial and lithification must have been extremely rapid. Similarly, the preservation of the fragile hinges in the bivalve mollusk fossils suggests that these animals were not transported before burial, but were entombed abruptly by rapid deposition of sediment.  As this fossil graveyard contains a mixture of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial animals and terrestrial plants, some rapid transport of organisms had to take place, along with the rapid sedimentation and burial.  Such a mixture of organisms from vastly different habitats buried catastrophically together is consistent with conditions during the Genesis Flood.

The Triassic Mont San Giorgio Basin, Italy-Switzerland

The shales of Mont San Giorgio are in a basin that is estimated to have been from 6 to 10 kilometers in diameter and only approximately 100 meters deep.  Yet thousands of well-preserved fossils in a diverse assemblage of fish and reptiles have been found in these bituminous shales... however, fish, like so many other creatures, do not naturally become entombed like this, but are usually devoured by other fish or scavengers after dying.  Furthermore, when most fish die their bodies float.  In the fossil assemblage at Mont San Giorgio are some indisputable terrestrial reptiles among the marine reptiles and fishes.  Thus, to fossilize all those fish with the large marine and terrestrial reptiles, so that they are all exquisitely preserved, would have required a catastrophic water flow to sweep all these animals together and bury them in fine-grained mud.

The Triassic Cow Branch Formation, Cascade, Virginia

The fossiliferous shales of the Cow Branch Formation in the Virginia-North Carolina border area contain an abundances of complete insects, and preserve even the soft-part anatomy of some vertebrates, (reptiles), along with an unusual diversity of flora.... Many articulated specimens of the aquatic reptile Tanytrachelos have been described from these black shales... It is this mixture of organisms (terrestrial, freswhater, and marine) buried together, fossilized and so well preserved, that again is consistent with very reapid deposition and burial, repeatedly during this cyclical sedimentation to produce this fossil graveyard.  Insects do not simply die, fall into a body of water, and slowly sink to be gradually covered up by slowly accumulating sediments,  even if anoxic (lack of oxygen) conditions prevailed.  There are still bacteria which operate under those conditions that would destroy the insects before they could be preserved in such exquisite detail.


There are many, many, more cases of fossil graveyards of course.   *These are just a few.

This is something I just accidentally stumbled upon concerning radiometric dating.   Sounds like it could ruffle quite a few feathers.  I'm sure the lid is being kept on real tight for now. Something to watch out for.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3283v1.pdf

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
Jenkins et al. 2008

Astropart.Phys.32:42-46,2009


Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32 Si and 226 Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (32Si), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (226Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed, including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.

......

In summary, we have presented evidence for a correlation between changes in nuclear decay rates and the Earth-Sun distance.

*edit:  just to clarify,  the entire basis of old-earth dating systems is the assumption that nuclear decay rates on Earth are constant, and have always been constant in the past. 

Just a thought, if Earth-Sun distances cause nuclear decay fluctuations... I wonder what kind of fluctuations occurred in the rocks of the Earth (created on the 3rd day) when the Sun was created on the 4th day of Genesis!

There is a Science Daily article on this from 2010.  I'm surprised I've never heard of this before from any YEC literature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825093253.htm

The Earth-Sun nuclear decay fluctuations reminds me of this research by Robert Gentry where he found evidence that radioactive halos indicate the instantaneous creation of the initial rock layers of Earth. 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.



The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.



A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.



An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

http://www.halos.com/

Bloody fascinating stuff Life. Keep going. I like the way your brain works.

Thanks for the encouragement Doc,  I will keep pushing with details. 

In the meantime here is a video on Flood evidence by Snelling



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8

Here is one of the papers associated with that "Drama in the Rocks" videos I posted earlier concerning distinct rock layers forming due to rapid sedimentation.

Published by the Geologic Society of France in 1993
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~pierre/ce_old/resume/Paperspdf/Julien%20et%20al.%20France93.pdf

There are many other related papers listed in the references, and also on Answers in Genesis's website.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/sand

Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures

by Pierre Y. Julien, Yongqiang Lan and Guy Berthault

April 1, 1994


Superposed strata in sedimentary rocks are believed to have been formed by successive layers of sediments deposited periodically with interruptions of sedimentation. This experimental study examines possible stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures under continuous (non-periodic and non-interrupted) sedimentation. The three primary aspects of stratification are considered: lamination, graded-beds, and joints....

Conclusions:


Lamination essentially results from the mechanical segregation of heterogeneous particles in a moving layer. Lamination is possible without turbulence and without the migration of low amplitude bedforms. Through lateral movement of particles of constant mass density, finer particles fall within the interstices of rolling coarser particles. Coarse particles then roll on top of fines and microscale segregation of particles is then obtained. The degree of segregation depends on particle size distribution, density, and possibly angularity of heterogeneous sand mixtures (see Figure 2). Repetitive segregation is also possible in settling columns where lamination is clearly observed both in air and water. Sufficient space, or rolling distance, is required for clear lamination to develop in moving layers of heterogeneous particles. Particles of comparable size but different densities segregate similarly, with heavier particles falling between lighter particles.


The graded-bed experiments clearly demonstrate the simultaneous formation of stratified deposits under steady flow conditions and a continuous supply of heterogeneous particles. The deposition process involves the formation of a stratum of coarse particles between laminated deposits of fine particles as a result of velocity changes in non-uniform flow. The time sequence of the deposit formation shows that sets of laminae develop vertically upward and progress in the downstream direction. At a microscopic scale, at the surface of the deposit, coarse particles roll on a deposit of fine particles as a result of particle segregation.


In summary, these experiments demonstrate that stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures can result from: segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and desiccation for joints. Therefore, superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers.

So we have observable, repeatable, experimental evidence that sediment layering is produced from water currents. versus  old-earth/uniformitarian assumptions and belief systems about successive layering(superposition) occurring over millions of years.


There are all sorts of weird problems with the idea that rock layers were laid down gradually over long time periods.For example: Bent rock layers (or metamorphic rock) which are found all over the world.





it supposedly took 270 million years to deposit these particular layers. (Grand Canyon)

Hardened rock layers are brittle. Try bending a slab of concrete sometime to see what happens! But if concrete is still wet, it can easily be shaped and molded before the cement sets. The same principle applies to sedimentary rock layers. They can be bent and folded soon after the sediment is deposited, before the natural cements have a chance to bind the particles together into hard, brittle rocks.¹


Rescuing Devices
What solution do old-earth advocates suggest? Heat and pressure can make hard rock layers pliable, so they claim this must be what happened in the eastern Grand Canyon, as the sequence of many layers above pressed down and heated up these rocks. Just one problem. The heat and pressure would have transformed these layers into quartzite, marble, and other metamorphic rocks. Yet Tapeats Sandstone is still sandstone, a sedimentary rock!
But this quandary is even worse for those who deny God’s recent creation and the Flood. The Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents can be traced right across North America (Figure 2),⁴ and beyond to right across northern Africa to southern Israel.⁵ Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sedimentary sequence is an integral part of six megasequences that cover North America.⁶ Only a global Flood cataclysm could carry the sediments to deposit thick layers across several continents one after the other in rapid succession in one event.⁷

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/bent-rock-layers

I think I'm starting to understand.

Rock LAYERS form due to sedimentation in a HORIZONTAL manner.

IOW, dirt flows across the sea bed and down and across a slope where particles naturally separate depending on their size and this is what makes the STRATA.

So, when it all hardens, you have rock at lower strata that is the same age or even younger than rock at the top strata. Totally different to what MS believes.

And as for the fossils. We see mostly bottom feeders at the bottom (surprise surprise) and more advanced organisms and mammals nearer the top. Just as you would expect from a catastrophic event because that.s where those organisms hang out and died!

Yet MS tells us the strata were laid one on top of the other over millions of years, with the bottom feeders evolving into more complex creatures.

What a scam!

Strangelove wrote:I think I'm starting to understand.

Rock LAYERS form due to sedimentation in a HORIZONTAL manner.

IOW, dirt flows across the sea bed and down and across a slope where particles naturally separate depending on their size and this is what makes the STRATA.

So, when it all hardens, you have rock at lower strata that is the same age or even younger than rock at the top strata. Totally different to what MS believes.

And as for the fossils. We see mostly bottom feeders at the bottom (surprise surprise) and more advanced organisms and mammals nearer the top. Just as you would expect from a catastrophic event because that.s where those organisms hang out and died!

Yet MS tells us the strata were laid one on top of the other over millions of years, with the bottom feeders evolving into more complex creatures.

What a scam!

Yes.  The sediments naturally segregate based on size (fine-ness and coarse-ness) and density, in water or air currents and rapidly form into horizontal layers.  (or other patterns depending on the situation)  The geologists describe a "Like-seek-Like" pattern among particles moving through a current flow. 

MS believes each layer represents millions of years.   There are many more problems to explore with this claim... 

You may have heard the evolutionists' statement about how finding a "Rabbit fossil in the Cambrian" would falsify Evolution.  Yet the Cambrian is made up of all marine creatures.  The bottom of the ocean is typically a hostile environment for rabbits, from what I understand. 

And we do see this general pattern of "vertical zoning" with fossils, with exceptions of course.   There is also a factor about which animals would be able to cover the most ground retreating from the rising flood waters, which would typically be the larger, faster moving mammals, including humans who were intelligent enough to relocate to the highest elevations.  (How many people do you think would be left hanging around the coast today if the water was steadily rising over the coarse of days and weeks?)


general fossil sequence:
Begins with an explosion of creatures that lived on the ocean floors (these would have been the first to die from eroding coastline flowing into the oceans and burying them)
Then lots and lots of Fish
Fish and amphibians (moving closer to sea level now)
Amphibians and reptiles and insects
Then we find an explosion of terrestrial plants and other smaller land species (this is interpreted as when the flood finally broke over the dry land)
Then we find smaller mammals, and larger reptiles
Then we find larger mammals and birds  (birds obviously would achieve some of the highest elevations)
And then humans.

Now for marine mammal species, like whales, dolphins, these would have risen with the floodwaters (instead of being caught up and buried near the ocean floor)   Which is why we don't find them in the "older" rocks, and why fossil graveyards of things like whales are found in dry land areas today..  Many were probably trapped on dry land when the floodwaters receded.

To support this claim,  we also do not find large shark species fossils until roughly the "later" period with whales.  Yet the smaller species sharks that were bottom feeders are found in the "earlier" fossil beds.


At the end of the day, with fossils, Evolution comes up empty.  There is simply no record of gradual transformation of forms and features.   The small handful of ambiguous "transitional fossils" that evolutionists offer are pathetic.   Even evolutionary paleontologists recognized this obvious problem and came up with the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which was a completely Ad Hoc excuse for why there was no gradual evolution found with the billions of fossils.  This "theory" states that species would mostly remain in evolutionary stasis until relatively sudden periods of climate change or other environment fluctuations caused new pressures or "evolutionary niches" to open up,  whereby animals would quickly evolve to fill up these niches and then occupy another period of stasis....  which of course is pure unadulterated fantasy.   It's amazing how the fossil record completely refuted any belief of Evolution happening on this Earth and the Darwinian Mystics didn't miss a beat, and just kept going and preaching to the world that it all made sense... just amazing..


Anyways, there are a lot more interesting details about patterns of fossils (some I mentioned earlier)

Marc Surtees (zoologist) has some excellent lectures on Fossils and debunking evolution in general..  This comes out of the "Edinburgh Creation Group"  they have a bunch of great stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a88epQS6b0

I had a look at the Edinburgh Creation Group website. They have some interesting talks in the video's section.

Not impressed with the cosmology talk though. I wrote them an email informing them of the benefits of the biblical geocentric position. We'll see.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find any formal Creation group supporting Geocentrism.

I think I've found an example that offers great insight into how evolutionary geology 'science' works..   This may take a little bit to read through and follow the connections.. but I think you will find it quite revealing..



Firstly,  avians, true birds, are claimed to have evolved from dinosaurs in the mid-Jurassic.  Roughly 150 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

Well a few years ago, researchers discovered a bunch of bird footprints in the Santo Domingo rock formation which represented the Late Triassic period.  (roughly 55 million years older than the mid-Jurassic bird origin claim)

Here is a photograph of the footprints, and a link to the description
http://www.geotimes.org/june02/WebExtra0627.html


Here is an official article in Nature on the discovery:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6892/full/nature00818.html#B11

Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic 2002

Here we describe well-preserved and abundant footprints with clearly avian characters from a Late Triassic redbed sequence of Argentina^{11, 12}, at least 55 Myr before the first known skeletal record of birds. These footprints document the activities, in an environment interpreted as small ponds associated with ephemeral rivers, of an unknown group of Late Triassic theropods having some avian characters.

The footprints were clearly from birds.. they look exactly like the footprints of modern birds with flight capabilities.  Hence it was very strong evidence that birds were already flying around when these tracks were made... thus the supposed evolution of birds would have to predate these fossil footprints by many more millions of years down into the mid/early Triassic..  and by consequence completely screwing up the mainstream fairytale of Jurassic Bird evolution.


Now, clearly these rock formations had been calculated to represent the Triassic Period.

The Evolutionists are in a bind...  the footprints are too clearly modern bird-like.. they can't be equivocated away as anomalous or perhaps coming from another type of animal.  What to do? 

Change the dates of the rocks of course... which they have just done this year.

A retraction of the Triassic footprint claim:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12497.html

Retraction: Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic

In this Letter, we considered the bird-like footprints from the former Santo Domingo Formation of northwest Argentina to be of Late Triassic age. Recent radiometric dating¹ of the sedimentary sequence containing these bird-like footprints (renamed as the Laguna Brava Formation) indicated a Late Eocene age. Further geological studies² suggest that the region suffered a complex deformation during the Andean orogeny, including block rotation. In consequence, our previous inferences about the possible implications of this finding for the fossil record of Aves are no longer supported.

New dating of the rock formation:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/abs/nature11931.html

A Late Eocene date for Late Triassic bird tracks

Bird-like tracks from northwest Argentina have been reported as being of Late Triassic age¹. They were attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characters. However, we believe that these tracks are of Late Eocene age on the basis of a new weighted mean ²⁰⁶Pb/²³⁸U date (isotope dilution–thermal ionization mass spectrometry method) on zircons from a tuff bed in the sedimentary succession containing the fossil tracks. In consequence, the mentioned tracks are assigned to birds and its occurrence matches the known fossil record of Aves.

(the late Eocene is only about 35 million years ago, long after birds are claimed to have evolved)

Look at how malleable the evolutionary dating system is...  This formation was previously dated with Potassium/Argon dating to 200 MY.   Now after finding something inconvenient, they use a different dating method (Lead-Uranium) to get an earlier age!

Here is the publication of the original 200 MY Potassium/Argon dates:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/260/5109/794

The Ischigualasto Tetrapod Assemblage (Late Triassic, Argentina) and ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar Dating of Dinosaur Origins


⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar dating of sanidine from a bentonite interbedded in the Ischigualasto Formation of northwestern Argentina yielded a plateau age of 227.8 ± 0.3 million years ago. This middle Carnian age is a direct calibration of the Ischigualasto tetrapod assemblage, which includes some of the best known early dinosaurs. This age shifts last appearances of Ischigualasto taxa back into the middle Carnian, diminishing the magnitude of the proposed late Carnian tetrapod extinction event. By 228 million years ago, the major dinosaurian lineages were established, and theropods were already important constituents of the carnivorous tetrapod guild in the Ischigualasto—Villa Unión Basin. Dinosaurs as a whole remained minor components of tetrapod faunas for at least another 10 million years.

The Santo Domingo formation (where the bird footprints were found)  is part of the Ischigualasto formation.  You can confirm this yourself here in this review of footprints in the region. (more notes on the bird footprints on p.16)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00538.x/pdf

A REVIEW OF TRIASSIC TETRAPOD TRACK
ASSEMBLAGES FROM ARGENTINA

p.2

The Triassic footprint record from Argentina is restricted to three basins from the west of the country (Text-
fig. 1A): the Ischigualasto-Villa Union Basin (San Juan and La Rioja provinces, including the Santo Domingo depocentre...

Here is a corresponding paper to the Bird-footprint retraction, on the re-dating of the rocks.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040195112006907

Geological setting and paleomagnetism of the Eocene red beds of Laguna Brava Formation (Quebrada Santo Domingo, northwestern Argentina)


The red bed succession cropping out in the Quebrada Santo Domingo in northwestern Argentina had been for long considered as Upper Triassic–Lower Jurassic in age based on weak radiometric and paleontological evidence. Preliminary paleomagnetic data confirmed the age and opened questions about the nature of fossil footprints with avian features discovered in the section. Recently the stratigraphic scheme was reviewed with the identification of previously unrecognized discontinuities, and a radiometric dating obtained in a tuff, indicated an Eocene age for the Laguna Brava Formation and the fossil bird footprints, much younger than the previously assigned. We present a detailed paleomagnetic study interpreted within a regional tectonic and stratigraphic framework, looking for an explanation for the misinterpretation of the preliminary paleomagnetic data.

Highlights:  Ambiguous interpretations arise, only resolved after precisely dating the rocks.

SO... In summary

1.The rocks were dated to 200 MY by Potassium/Argon dating method (and accepted in the geologic community for 20 years)
2. Fossil footprints of modern birds were found in the rocks.
3. A different dating scheme was used to get a 35 MY date on the rocks containing the footprints.

Now, obviously if the problematic fossils were not discovered, the evolutionary community would keep on chuggin' with the Triassic dated rocks.  But since the problem fossils were discovered, they had to do the geologic shuffle to conjure them into a different age.  

The funny thing is you can use different dating methods to return young or old dates all the time.   Chances are you will always be able to find one method that strongly deviates from the rest...   Do you think these evolutionists cared what date they found?  No, they just had to get those footprints the hell out of the Triassic by any means possible.

And you can bet they've done this many times before and will do the same thing when another problematic fossil is discovered.  This is what happens when the research is motivated by the religious conviction that Evolution is true.

Also, I found this study from 2009 where the researchers prove that the fossil footprints did in fact come from modern birds by comparing them with active present-day bird-tracks.   In their eyes, this was basically divine revelation that the rocks ages must be in error. 


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018208005051

Application of neoichnological studies to behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of fossil bird-like tracks from lacustrine settings: The Late Triassic–Early Jurassic? Santo Domingo Formation, Argentina 2009

The purpose of this study is to apply neoichnological observations to the behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of a Late Triassic–Early Jurassic track surface from the Santo Domingo Formation (Argentina) containing hundreds of bird-like tracks and trackways....

Five of the behaviours recognised in the modern pond were inferred from the sixteen trackways distinguished on the fossil track surface, including walking, walking with a zig-zag path, short runs, probing, and landing with legs directed forward (possible trace of flight). The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed.

If these tracks had remained in their Triassic ranking,  this would have turned a major portion of Evolution on its head.  It would probably be the biggest paleontological upset of the century...  It would basically be like finding human fossils that predate the great apes.

(oh yea, they've found modern human footprints dated to 3.6 million years ago,  a couple millions years sooner than they're supposed to show up.
Laeotli Footprints - Google Images ...  thus the researchers conclude they must have been bipedal ape-like creatures (Australopithecus afarensis) walking just like humans.. some of the artist conceptions are  hilarious)