Cro-Magnon

gbunty · Alley Cat Joined: 28 Jun 2004 Posts: 182

For a thorough discussion of why a global flood never could have happened go to:

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

This is a trace fossil of a spider track found in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon
For more Coconino Sandstone trace fossils (including raindrop craters) see here:

http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html

How can a spider leave tracks in sand that is being carried by water? How can those tracks be preserved long enough to be fossilized under flood waters?
How do raindrops make an impact in sand that is underwater? How are those impact craters preserved under flood waters?

Just a few of the questions flood geology does not answer in respect to the Grand Canyon.

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

C s, ..."The sandstone isn't formed by water as you suppose. But by the wind.. dry wind blowing dry sand. Imagine a sandy desert, a light rainfall and tiny lizard-like creatures running across the damp sand leaving tracks. More dry sands blows in covering the tracks and providing distinct layering. Again and again this happens. Sand burrows formed by small animals digging their homes, are preserved as well. Thousands of years of this environment prevail But you are right things change, weather, circumstances, geological conditions such as volcanoes. Now a channel opens and the area becomes again a sea."

This is imaginary. Duh. You’ve got your burrows and sand tracks preseved through wind and rain. You’ve described life in a desert sure enough, but you’ve described no process whereby a sand dune is preserved as a layer of sandstone. Fossilization as found in the geology of the earth is not formed by any process other than rapid, complete burial under significant load. Your admition that things change doesn’t explain the fossilization of any thing. A channel opens but, how and why? Sand blows in and covers tracks and what? The new sand is a new layer? Sand? Not believable.
I notice you still avoid the simple truth that stares you in the face. (You said, “More dry sands blows in covering the tracks and providing distinct layering.”)The wind doesn’t sort out materials such as sand into distinct colored layers. Don’t you get it? I’m beginning to think you do get it. Why else avoid it? It is "water" that layers materials into bands, and it does it easily and rapidly. You can do it at home. Anyone can do it. And, the simple fact remains that the layers that you say are great lengths of time cannot be since, everyone knows that there isn’t an enviroment that only deposits one sort of material for great lengths of time. But, you can’t admit it.

C s, ..."One foot of sandstone for every 5,000 years. 500 feet of sandstone, 2,500,000 years."

This is not reasonable. Why would a layer of sand stay put for any length of time much less 5,ooo years? You ever heard of the “sands of time”….well..they shift. You ever heard of shifting sand? Do you really think shifting sands leave layers of undisturbed sand? Where does a continual supply of new sand come from? The wind blows new sand in continually to lay on top old sand but, the old never moves? Silly.

C s, said, “All the time displaying the gradual changes in the fossils as they go from the bottom to the top.”

They're lying to you C s, There are many examples, some of which you already provided (but you don't even know it). Your not critical of these so called scientists and you simply repeat their assertions. I’ve already explained to you how it can easily be reasoned. Your are ignoring what I said. The gradual change in fossils is contradicted the world over.

C s,….. “ We see species changing over time.”

What your calling species are really only breeds. If you had evidence there wouldn’t be a argument. Everyone knows there isn’t evolution in the fossil records. There may be extinct creatures but a horse is still a horse of course.

C s, …“ We do not in any place in the canyon see displays of the chaotic mixing/churning/depositing that a huge flood creates.”

You’ve not described the flood properly. While mixing and churning does occur that's not when the layering occurs. The layering occurs after water depth is achieved and the materials that were mixed sort out of the water into color band layers. I already told you that the flood is complex and consists of distinct stages. Your not thinking carefully with the actual possibility of a global flood in mind. Your just knee jerk reacting.

C s,… “The process and description that you used fits the description for the deposition of sedimentary rock just as the geologist describe. It does NOT fit a catastrophic flood.”

Your first sentence is true. Your next isn’t true. It easily fits. You don’t give one reasonable fact why it isn’t so. Your in denial.

C s, …“I live in the Appalachians. They were formed by 'folding' when Africa 'slammed into North America.”

Africa never bouced off of North and South America even in mythology. They were formed by folding when the compression wave from the west coast arrived on the east coast. The evidence that the west coast is the location of a catastrophic braking event is obvious. (1.) Numerous faults and cracks in the crust. (2.) earthquakes…proving instability beneath the west coast. (3.) volcanoes… created by the emmense fractures in the crust and the tremendous amount of magma produced by the braking action of the continent grinding to a halt in a rapid event. None of this comparable on the east coast. The mountains get smaller as you precede to the east from the west coast because of distance and the dispertion of the compression wave energy, and the stiffness of the plains crustal rock. Also, I note that the spacing in the mountain formations fits with 'quarter wave damping' which fits well with a compression wave event and also points to the source being on the west coast. Take a look at a map of North America and start thinking for yourself. Look at South America’s west coast and east. Look at Africa’s west and east, it’s the opposite. Go look at the drainage patterns of the global flood waters from off the continents into the ocean basins. Only seeing is believing for many.
I’m curious, and would like it if you’d answer a question for me. The next time you go down the highway and you pass through the cuts in the hills made for the road. Look and see if the sedimentary layers, where you may find them, are parallel with the road as it goes down or up, or whether it is parallel to the horizon and is cut across by the roadway. Thank you.

C s, …“ You have used a few too many zeros and they were mammoths that were frozen.”

It is a estimate. And, it is 5 million elephants trapped in the permafrost. Siberia was in the past the main source of tusks as opposed to Africa. A mammoth is an evolutionists pretence that it’s not an elephant. It’s hairy because hair continues to grow after death. The length of the hair could be used to determine length of time since death. But, your so called scientist are not going to do that. You made no response to what caused such rapid death. Do you think they couldn’t outrun the encroaching ice age? Were the glaciers, that move magically over flat ground, to fast for them? Think about it.

C s, …“The process is called gelifluction..”

I’ll read on it. Never herd of it.

C s, …“The Canyon was formed by the Colorado river, wind, and rain.”

That’s not what your encyclopedia said.

C s, …“When it began it's task it was simply a meandering river fed mainly by melting snows.”

Meandering rivers take the path of least resistance. Think about it. Is the mighty Colorado older than all the other non-canyon making rivers, like the Mississippi and many others? You have to dredge them for some reason. You’d think they’d dig deeper and deeper into harder and harder rock wouldn't you? Maybe you would but, I wouldn’t. I guess the softest rock is at the bottom? You wouldn’t think so since the further down the greater the heat and pressure.
Notice the terrancing of the Grand Canyon? Wonder why it keeps getting narrower? Hmmm. It’s because as the water of Noah’s flood began to pour off the surface of the continents the erosion of the newly deposited canyon layers started wide and quick. As the flood waters decreased in depth the power exerted on the canyon decreased etc…etc. And the erosion doesn’t get going till all the layers are present and accounted for. That’s why the pattern is consistent.

C s, …“The land through which it moved however rose due to plate tectonics, and in fact is still rising in some areas.”

Plate tectonics. Laughable. The power to lift up whole continents but unable to break through. The power to push up mountains but then when it surfaces (mid-atlantic ridge) then it magically exerts force horizontally <……^……> and, it’s so great it moves continents horizontally and not only that, it so powerful that it can shove the other end of the plate under another plate when both plates are hundreds of miles thick.

C s, …“I think that if you tried to understand the processes, you'd find them much more realistic than a mythical flood.”

You mean the most established myth of all human history? The one found in the remembrances of all languages, tribes, and nations? Where they all remembered a huge local flood that almost kiled everyone at the dawn of human history? That one?
So, you believe God’s Bible is mythlogical? You believe the newly invented versions (niv,s) of history?

Joman: Do you think that Jesus was kidding when he described man as sheep and goats. Not hardly. They don?t even need a ring in the nose to lead them away. Mere pretence will do. Jesus, however isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing. ]

C s, …“I wonder if you realize what you just said.”

I said, that since Jesus isn’t a wolf in sheep’s clothing he can be trusted to lead us into the unknown. But, the foolish who follow the false science teachers are being led into the jaws of Satan by bad logic gullibility thinking. We’re all led by some one. The question is, who you going to trust? You trust people you cannot know the motives nor reliability of. But, God has proved to us Christians that he is worthy of our wholehearted trust.
The non Christian is a goat.

C s, …“One more think, you constructed a strawman about C14 dating. I never said it was used in the canyon.

No, I didn’t. I wish you would one more think.

C s, …“ I said { (A note here about a previous post on 14C dating. If the canyon was formed less that 50,000 years ago, this formation should be brimming with lots of radioactive carbon, since it is composed primarily of the shells of seafish. But there is not a peep.)}”

I said, C14 is useless. Fossils don’t brim with C14. There’s not a peep cause there’s no way to get a peep from rock.

C s, …“ Notice that this means IF the canyon were the result of Noah's flood then there SHOULD be datable evidence by C14. There isn't any such evidence.”

What I notice is your lack of understanding and independent ability to think outside the propaganda. The flood of Noah laid down layers of Rock. Thouroughly washed and filtered and dried and pressed and heated and etc….

Joman.

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Gbunty,How can a spider leave tracks in sand that is being carried by water? How can those tracks be preserved long enough to be fossilized under flood waters?

Where exactly was it found? Was it was out on a ledge, clift, shelf.?
Lastly I have no idea if this is a spider track. Looks questionable to me. And, how old a rock surface was a recognized spider track found on?
Is it a desert spider? Extinct?

Gbunty, “How do raindrops make an impact in sand that is underwater? How are those impact craters preserved under flood waters?”

I don’t think it does. You’ve provided no substantial information. And, you also are avoiding what is provable and easily understood.
How do you fossilize a raindrop? Were they found out on a ledge, clift, shelf?

Gbunty, “Just a few of the questions flood geology does not answer in respect to the Grand Canyon.”

It was an exhaustive supply. It’s the lack of answers from you that are scientific, I’m noticing.

Gbunty, “For a thorough discussion of why a global flood never could have happened go to:

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378”

That’s called, not using your own brain, and passing the buck.

Joman.

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

Gbunty,

I should have known better. I went to your web sites. the picture ones tells nothing.
The other one is a web site where other people talk about what we're talking about. Cop out on your part.

Joman.

christianskeptic · Tadpole Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 17 Location: Virginia

[Joman; This is imaginary. Duh. You?ve got your burrows and sand tracks preseved through wind and rain. You?ve described life in a desert sure enough, but you?ve described no process whereby a sand dune is preserved as a layer of sandstone. Fossilization as found in the geology of the earth is not formed by any process other than rapid, complete burial under significant load. Your admition that things change doesn?t explain the fossilization of any thing. A channel opens but, how and why? Check Link

Sand blows in and covers tracks and what? The new sand is a new layer? Sand? Not believable.]

Description of geological process for forming fossil tracks:
Animal burrows:
http://www.geotimes.org/apr04/NN_golfcourse.html

Spider tracks in Coconino Sandstone: sand, not mud.. You can go to any desert and find similar tracks. You can even see the ripples in the dunes . Check Link

Now before something can be fossilized, it has to exist. Show me deposits from ANY major flood that contains tracks burried within the mass of deposits.

[Joman; I notice you still avoid the simple truth that stares you in the face. (You said, ?More dry sands blows in covering the tracks and providing distinct layering.?)The wind doesn?t sort out materials such as sand into distinct colored layers. Don?t you get it? I?m beginning to think you do get it. Why else avoid it? It is "water" that layers materials into bands, and it does it easily and rapidly. You can do it at home. Anyone can do it. And, the simple fact remains that the layers that you say are great lengths of time cannot be since, everyone knows that there isn?t an enviroment that only deposits one sort of material for great lengths of time. But, you can?t admit it.]

Really??? How long do you think the great salt lake has been collecting salt?

[Joman; This is not reasonable. Why would a layer of sand stay put for any length of time much less 5,ooo years? You ever heard of the ?sands of time??.well..they shift. You ever heard of shifting sand? Do you really think shifting sands leave layers of undisturbed sand? Where does a continual supply of new sand come from? The wind blows new sand in continually to lay on top old sand but, the old never moves? Silly.]

You were doing ok, until the last step? yep, new sand overlies old sand in desert areas. As the sand builds up, the bottom layers condense/compact/ and gradually change to stone, after other layers of materials are laid on top. But bottom layers are not disturbed in the laying down of sediments. It's true that most rocks are formed by sedimentary deposits in shallow seas, but not always.

[Joman; C s, said, ?All the time displaying the gradual changes in the fossils as they go from the bottom to the top.?

They're lying to you C s, There are many examples, some of which you already provided (but you don't even know it). Your not critical of these so called scientists and you simply repeat their assertions. I?ve already explained to you how it can easily be reasoned. Your are ignoring what I said. The gradual change in fossils is contradicted the world over.]

There is no doubt that one of us is being lied to: To demonstrate that it is me and not you, All you need to do is to provide one or more examples of fossils that are out of order. Ie
1. A mammal/dinosaur/amphibian/tree from a Precambrian rock. Or
2. Angiosperm fossils along with Dinosaurs. Or
3. Whales from a Pre Eocene rock.

Any of these examples would certainly falsify evolution and the millions of scientists in the world would immortalize your name as the guy who over threw Darwin. lol
Indeed the fossil record IS clear, Joman, that evolution has occurred over time?vast stretches of time. And it better than any other theory explains the great diversity of life on earth.

[Joman; What your calling species are really only breeds. If you had evidence there wouldn?t be a argument. Everyone knows there isn?t evolution in the fossil records. There may be extinct creatures but a horse is still a horse of course.]

The scientific definition of species is a population that breed only with each other with fertile offspring.

[Joman; C s, ?? We do not in any place in the canyon see displays of the chaotic mixing/churning/depositing that a huge flood creates.?

You?ve not described the flood properly. While mixing and churning does occur that's not when the layering occurs. The layering occurs after water depth is achieved and the materials that were mixed sort out of the water into color band layers. I already told you that the flood is complex and consists of distinct stages. Your not thinking carefully with the actual possibility of a global flood in mind. Your just knee jerk reacting.]
It is NOT consistent with large floods. What happens with large floods is that you have a deposition of mixed, jumbled material if the flood occurs suddenly? Think about what happens at Jonestown when the dam broke. The entire city was wiped out and the debris was scattered JUMBLED for miles down stream. Then as the water gradually subsided, a layer of mud, and then silt was deposited on top of that debris. Bodies were fround on the bottom, in the middle, on the top.
If the water is contained long enough, a layer of clay will will be formed from the fine particles. There is such a geologic column of destruction/mud/clay/silty soil in the Tigress/Euphrates valley that dates to about 5000 years ago and it extends from the foot of the mountains to the sea. This however, is not the condition that we see in the grand canyon. The various geological layers are formed by different processes. Ie sandstone which is fromed either in shallow (uninhabited seas) or from desert deposits.(one can tell the difference from the shape of the sand particles. Wind and water create them differently) , Limestone, which is formed in shallow seas from the bodies of dead animals, shale which is fromed from seasonal runoff into the edges of seas,

[Joman; C s,? ?The process and description that you used fits the description for the deposition of sedimentary rock just as the geologist describe. It does NOT fit a catastrophic flood.?

Your first sentence is true. Your next isn?t true. It easily fits. You don?t give one reasonable fact why it isn?t so. Your in denial.]

Both the first and second statements are true. And until you can show me evidence from some flood that can deposit vast quantities of sediment of such disparate nature, then both statements will stand.

[Joman; Africa never bouced off of North and South America even in mythology. They were formed by folding when the compression wave from the west coast arrived on the east coast. ]

Hmmm, why didn't that 'wave' just slide them off into the sea, since there was nothing there for them to fold against? ?. Nevermind, just look at some real geology:
http://www.jamestown-ri.info/geological_history.htm
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/rocksdui4.html

[Joman; It is a estimate. And, it is 5 million elephants trapped in the permafrost. Siberia was in the past the main source of tusks as opposed to Africa. A mammoth is an evolutionists pretence that it?s not an elephant. It?s hairy because hair continues to grow after death. The length of the hair could be used to determine length of time since death. But, your so called scientist are not going to do that. You made no response to what caused such rapid death. Do you think they couldn?t outrun the encroaching ice age? Were the glaciers, that move magically over flat ground, to fast for them? Think about it.]

This silliness doesn't even deserve an answer?. But I'm always game.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/atlantis.html

Just for fun:
Q: Why did the Great Woolly Mammoth cross the road?
A: Because they didn't have chickens in the Ice Age.

But just so you know not to make the same mistake again. Hair doesn't grow after death, It appears to do so slightly, because the skin around the hair follicles shrinks and exposes more of the shaft.

[Joman; Meandering rivers take the path of least resistance. ]

Yes, look at the map and you'll see it's quite a meandering path.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/grandcanyon/maps/

[Joman; Notice the terrancing of the Grand Canyon? Wonder why it keeps getting narrower? ]
I don't have to wonder. But you asked the question incorrectly. Why is the canyon wider at the top than at the bottom? Partly because of the water and partly because of the rain. As a meandering, shallow river, it cut broad banks. Then as the land of the area rose, the water cut into the rocks. Doesn't matter as to hardness, water wins if it's continuous. The canyon is still being enlarged at the top and all the way down to the bottom by wind.

[Joman; Plate tectonics. Laughable. The power to lift up whole continents but unable to break through. The power to push up mountains but then when it surfaces (mid-atlantic ridge) then it magically exerts force horizontally <??^??> and, it?s so great it moves continents horizontally and not only that, it so powerful that it can shove the other end of the plate under another plate when both plates are hundreds of miles thick.]

Yep. The processes are still operating today and thanks to GPS are actually easily measured.

[Joman; C s, ?? Notice that this means IF the canyon were the result of Noah's flood then there SHOULD be datable evidence by C14. There isn't any such evidence.?

What I notice is your lack of understanding and independent ability to think outside the propaganda. The flood of Noah laid down layers of Rock. Thouroughly washed and filtered and dried and pressed and heated and etc?].

I notice that you didn't comment on my statement at all, only on what you thought of my ability, so I'll repeat it. AIG and CRI both place the flood in the third millenium BC That puts it to about 5000 years ago. WE KNOW that C14 dating works very well though this time and has in fact been calibrated to be accurate to within 50 years through about the 8th century BC. (Tree rings, varves, and thermal luminescence) Approx 5700 years is about the half life of C14. Therefore, excellent dating should be available for any living thing that was buried by the 'Great Flood'. But in the canyon rock, we find that NO FOSSIL can be dated using C14. There is no radioactive carbon left in the limestones of the canyon. The conclussion. All those rocks were laid down prior to 80,000 years ago. ?. Actually we can date some of the rock and know when they were laid down.

christianskeptic
_________________
christianskeptic, Skepticism, a good tool for truth evaluation.

gbunty · Alley Cat Joined: 28 Jun 2004 Posts: 182

joman · Tiger Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 823

C s and Gbunty,

I read your posts. You failed to comprehend what I said.
I went to the web sites. They didn't provide any objective information to assertain where the fossils were found except to say somewhere in the vastness of the Cococino.
You've compared a global flood with local flood.
You still don't show any grasp of specific gravity and water.
You think that sand sits still and continuously gains depth till it becomes stone.
You've surely seen acheologists with great patience and skill barely extricate a bone from hard dirt and stone. But, it doesn't occur to you that spider tracks aren't revealed with picks. Notice the pristine pictures. Duh.
You look at pictures and accept that if they come from Coconino that means you know where exactly or you don't think it matters.
You give meaningless disertation about raindrops because you missed the point entirely. I mentioned it again above. But, I think your going to make me spell it out for you. If I must, just ask.
You reveal no critical thinking but in one direction. And, your criticisms are based on your trust in men you don't know and endless questions no one can truthfully testify to knowledge of.
You want me to show you where all the evidence of misaligned fossil sediments are when you could've done so for yourself long ago.
You point to web sites that have no proof when you get there. and, probably expect a response.
If someone is unable to answer your endless questions which you never answer either you make like that's evidence in your favor.
You ignore simple mechanics because someone said so or encyclopedia's are wrong.
Gps satellites are proving mountain building and and plate tectonics. Which proves you don't need much evidence to jump on a band wagon.
Agrees about meandering paths and yet misses the point entirely.
Mentions C14 and rocks and and water and still doesn't get it.
Your unaware that there isn't any objective data source for C14, tree rings and ice cores. No scientist allowed to view critique it.
Still haven't searched to discover how many elephants are buried in the perma frost of Siberia.
Probably haven't ever seen the trees that intrude through gadzillion years of sediment rocks. Proving there not old.
Anyway. Lets move on to something else.
I'll be reading you.

Joman.

christianskeptic · Tadpole Joined: 14 Aug 2004 Posts: 17 Location: Virginia

Joman said " I went to the web sites. They didn't provide any objective information to assertain where the fossils were found except to say somewhere in the vastness of the Cococino. "

hmmm, it only took me one quick jump to Google to find the location and just about anything else you could want to know. I think you don't want to know.

http://members.aol.com/ncanvas2/NCWeb/Articles/Ashfork.html

I agree, further conversation is probably to no avail.

christianskeptic[/url]
_________________
christianskeptic, Skepticism, a good tool for truth evaluation.