Posted on 03/17/2009 8:36:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
Flood Evidence Number Six
by Andrew A. Snelling
March 15, 2009
How could a series of sedimentary layers fold without fracturing? The only way is for all the sedimentary layers to be laid down in rapid succession and then be folded while still soft and pliable.
If the global Flood, as described in Genesis 7–8, really occurred, what evidence would we expect to find? Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth that are filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Yes, and that’s exactly what we find...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Ping!
We would expect to find fossils jumbled in random order.
Instead, we find fossils in the specific order of evolutionary descent.
Flood hypothesis disproven.
QED
Solid rock is not so solid under pressure, moisture, and heat, and for long periods of time. Folded rock is very common and very well understood and predictable from both lab experiments and field work.
Metamorphic rocks are almost always from folded strata. It happens all over and all the time. This is really basic stuff.
Are fossils frequently found in metamorphic rock?
“Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart - Noah's Flood - The Geological Case For and Against.
I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.
For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.
In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.”
If one assumes the flood was in the area of Noah’s family (the hebrew transcripts can be translated either way) and one assumes he brought the animals used for food and farming not every animal (physically impossinble on that vessel), one would find the evidence you are searching for.
Naturally science and YHVH’s word coincide; he is the foundation of scientific laws.
==We would expect to find fossils jumbled in random order.
Wrong.
Fossil sorting:
http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_sorting
==Instead, we find fossils in the specific order of evolutionary descent.
And what evolutionary descent would that be, now that the evidence has forced the Evos to (finally) hack down Darwin’s “tree of life”, and all those phylogenetic trees are being thrown into dissaray by the finding that over 93% (and growing) of the genome is functional?
There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn't have been killed, and therefore wouldn't have left any fossils behind.
What ignorant nonsense!
We would expect to find them in their natural habitat, as we do find them!
The fact that we find any fossils at all is absolute proof of the near simultaneous death of both predator, and prey, which is also powerful proof of the judgement.
As for evolution, the only thing on Earth that supports it is morons.
Don’t cloud their fairy tales with logic.
Has anyone ever reproduced this “fossil sorting” in the lab?
[[And what evolutionary descent would that be, now that the evidence has forced the Evos to (finally) hack down Darwin’s “tree of life”, and all those phylogenetic trees are being thrown into dissaray by the finding that over 93% (and growing) of the genome is functional?]]
There is no ‘evidence’- they mistake ‘assumptions about continuance’ as ‘evidence’- their evidence-less a priori assumptions are deemed ‘science’ while opposition with evidence is labelled ‘psuedoscience’- just hte claim of ‘e find fossils in specific order of descent’ is enough- no evidence of continuance is needed- just the claim.
Bump to save
You’ve been drinking the Koolaid.
[[If the fossils are the result of animals killed by the flood, and Noah didn’t take any of the fish or other aquatic animals aboard]]
Not true- He had an aquarium with goldfish and japanese fighting fish, and fresh water catfish, as well he had a freezer full of Haddock and Shark, and various other yummies to snack on which fell overboard and got stuck in the mud when hte ark hit a speedbump.
[[There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn’t have been killed,]]
Actually- yeah they would have died- this wasn’t just a nice little trickle event- the pressures and sediments were massive- some might have survived but it’s almost a certainty some would have died and been buried alive as we have fossils of fish in the act of giving birth that were fossilized.
Thanks for the ping!
DNA is there to prevent evolution - placemarker.
[[Like I said I’m not arguing the religion, just pointing out that the rock bending argument doesn’t support the theory of rapid sedimentation.]]
Actually it DOES support it- could htere be OTHER explanations as well? Sure- however there would need to be evdience to back up another scenario- do we have htose evidences? Or do the evidences we have more uspport world flood? Are the evidences just anectdotal? Or are they worldwide evidneces that seem ot have occured at the same time?- We can’t say that because folding has a couple of explanation probabilities that one is ruled out or another isn’t possible unless there is a perponerance of evidences for one or hte other hypothesis to establish a beyond reasonable doubt case.
no, we dont find all fossils in complete order
there are many cases of fossils found in mixed and even an order reversed according to evolutionary theory
Most of the 70,000 did not make it beyond 50,000 earth years.
Curiously, of the ones that died, it seems that in nearly every case, of the fish that were killed, all the fish of that species were killed, and we find very few fossils of species of fish that still survive today.
Whatever you’re smoking, I wouldn’t show it to the neighbors.
Are you honestly postulating that the rapid currents and deposition involved in a GLOBAL FLOOD would not rapidly bury and fossilize any aquatic animals?
That definitely seems to be their m.o.
That makes no sense at all. The flood waters were intensely hot, and very little could have survived.
Who cares? There was either a flood or there wasn’t. The world formed naturally or God made it, life was created or started spontaneously. Whether or not any of these things are true, no matter which side you take,right now those of us in the US need to think about Bozo and how to get him out of office,peacefully of course, before the next several years have passed. If we don’t you won’t have to worry about religious texts, theories or facts because religion, except for perhaps Islam, will be gone in the US, along with many other freedoms, particularly the freedom to express ones self or to defend ones self. Get with it and stop worrying about stuff that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because if someone doesn’t believe the flood took place that doesn’t mean it didn’t. Follow your faith and let other people alone about it and concentrate on the terrible threats we face now in our own country.
How did the fish and other sea animals survive? Were there whales on the arc? If there were, how did Noah get them there?
Have you had to jump?
You seem to have lost your place.
Barney Frank has his entire eternity invested in the lie that their is no God, no Creator, no right, no wrong.
There is no debate. Our freedoms in the U.S.A. come from God, not government, not Barney, not Obama.
Do you lose your place by asking the wrong questions?
It's pretty remarkable that evolution managed to mimic the overall order of fossils that we would expect from a global flood. After all, if evolution had started with aerial life first and then worked its way down to deep ocean life and this was reflected in the fossil record, the global flood hypothesis would be clearly incompatible. Instead we see a general order to the fossils that matches the Flood order, from deep ocean life to shallow ocean life to the antediluvian floating forest ecosystem to continental margins life and up into the highlands.
Floods are energetic events, but so long as there is still a lot of energy present in the floodwaters the things carried in the water will not be deposited. Only as the energy levels diminish will things be deposited. Thus your notion that a flood would jumble things up is precisely wrong. In some cases this would occur (as when waves strike against a cliff) but in general an orderly pattern would develop as energy levels gradually diminished and sedimentary loads dropped out.
The effects of these glacial outburst floods are quite different from the erosion caused by the movement (and eventual gradual retreat) of glaciers. You've described some of those effects. You could also mention eskers and fjords. The effects of an outburst flood are like the aftermath of the bursting of a man-made dam.
==Who cares?
Obviously, we do.
i care... where i stand on this issue determines much about my worldview...
There was a 100% death rate for terrestrial life during the Flood. But so long as there was even a 0.01% (or whatever) survival rate among sea life, the sea life would not have needed to go on the ark. There would have been sufficient survivors to re-establish their populations after things settled down. As a practical matter I expect that the vast majority of aquatic life did die in the Kataklusmos. (To use the Greek NT term for this event.)
I notice the evolutionists here have once again failed to respond to the article in question.
Well then wouldn't you also expect to find fossilized horses, cows, dogs, sheep, camels, and all the other modern forms of animal life that Noah cou;dn't take on the ark at that same layer? Not to mention fossils of all the people who were not left on the ark? How's that going?
See #10.
Do you have any documentation on that? I have the opposite impression. And there is a bias against assigning fossils to currently living species since it emphasizes the lack of change observed in many cases. Instead I've noticed that paleontologists say a given fossil is "very similar" to a modern species. Yet they refuse to just assign it to the same species and be done with it.
If evolution were true than only a tiny percentage of fossils found should be of current species, yet the numbers I've seen in general are that there is a very high degree of overlap between living species and the fossil record, and that most differences between fossils and living species are very minor. Certainly it fits better with a polyphyletic model on a young earth than old-earth models.
But if fossiliferous rock is almost entirely the result of the Biblical flood then it should contain fossils of modern animals as well as fossils of people along with the fossils of dinosaurs and the rest. So where are they?
From http://trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
Andrew Snelling answers Alex Ritchie (a response by Dr. Andrew Snelling of critcism posted on the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry [CARM] bulletin board by Dr. Alex Ritchie) © 1998 Dr. Andrew Snelling. All Rights Reserved.
I have never hidden my allegiances or beliefs. For example, when I left the employment of mining companies in 1983 I made it perfectly clear where I was going, what I believed and what I was doing. I also told other research scientists that I was working with, and even offered to be a silent partner in the research work if my involvement embarrassed them or compromised them in any way. None of them in any way backed off, respecting me and the position I'd taken even if they didn't agree.
When I came to write the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit, it was at the request of the mining company who knew exactly where I stood. The paper was for a book on Australian ore deposits with an editor who had strict guidelines as to how the papers should be written. When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology, and what all the critics have overlooked is that I fully reference all the comments that they are slamming me with. In other words, as far as I was concerned I was making it perfectly clear that this is what everyone else believes, and what is the standard wisdom about this ore deposit and its geological setting. It so happens that the editor of the volume when he did the work was still in the employ of one of the mining companies that I had worked for that knew my position, so nothing was hidden from the public in any way.
The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can't see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not. In other words, even though I could have appealed to the editor of the monograph it would have been to no avail, because the reviewers would have also insisted on the conventional terminology, particularly as one of the reviewers was one of the researchers having done the standard work on the regional geology of that area. It is ludicrous to suggest any hypocrisy or two-facedness. Besides, if you look at some of my papers in the creationist literature, and those of other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, you will notice that we still use the same labels for the rock units as the evolutionists, not by way of compromise, but so everyone knows that we are talking about the same rock units, except we make it clear that we don't agree with the millions of years associated with them. In other words, even in the creationist literature we use the same terminology, though stripped on its conventionaal evolutionary/uniformitaria interpretation.
I believe that specific responses to the article by Alex Ritchie and similar claims by Ian Plimer are available on the Answers in Genesis website, the address for which is:
Please don't misunderstand me, but I have long ago given up trying to defend myself against these kinds of accusations, not through any arrogance or lack of submission to accountability on my part, but simply because it is a great waste of time that distracts me from what the Lord has called me to do. Besides, these people will not be convinced and they are really out for my destruction. The parallel in the Scriptures is with Nehemiah. His enemies tried all sorts of tricks to distract him from doing the work of rebuilding the walls, but their only intention was to kill him and make sure the walls were not rebuilt. I am in no way saying that I am any equal to Nehemiah, but I am resolute in being available to the Lord to do His bidding as He directs, whatever the consequences, and even if we don't appear successful in the world's eyes. The Lord calls us to be faithful - the success is up to Him as He sees fit so that He gets all the glory.
By the way, let me dispell the myth that somehow I make a lot of money out of any of this. Quite the opposite. As far as the consulting work is concerned there has been very little of it, probably averaging around 1 week to 10 days per year at most over the last 15 years. The bulk of livelihood I need to support my family comes from working with the Creation Science Foundation/Answers in Genesis, and the remuneration here, understandably, has been, and is, less than one-third or one-quarter of what I could receive in the mining industry, about the one-third or one-half what I would receive in an academic post, or about one-tenth of what I would receive in consulting. Mind you, I am not complaining one bit, as the Lord has been good to us in so many ways nonetheless.
Andrew Snelling
Thanks for the Ping. I’m listening to a voice recording of The Pilgrim’s Progress. I just listened to Christian’s and Faithful’s discourse about a man named Shameful. Shameful’s arguments against Christianity are rehearsed everyday on your posts by the FR agnostics.
It’s enlightening that these same arguments which assaulted Christians when Bunyan’s book was written (1678) are put forth here. The very same ones. Darwin’s tree, or Voltaire’s essays, or Marx’s book didn’t give rise to the skepticism and rejection of scripture of modern men. They give cover to the Worldly Wisemen of the day.
If you’ve never read the book, it’s highly recommended.
Fish are killed by floods as I’ve observed. Muddy water and high amounts of sediments often choke fishs’ gills and fish are often trapped in pools of receding flood waters. Flood pools were always a good place to catch fish.
So you’re comment, “There should be no fossils of aquatic animals to speak of, since they wouldn’t have been killed, and therefore wouldn’t have left any fossils behind.”, is at odds with reality.
Why do people always assume a refusal to talk to them proof the other person is stumped? There are a lot of people I refuse to talk to because I don’t like them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.