Mud experiments overturn long-held geological beliefs (Evos finally admit long ages not required!)

Journal of Creation ^ | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

New research presented in Science documents how, contrary to conventional wisdom, mud can be deposited from rapidly flowing water.[1] These findings cut across beliefs held by geologists for over a century and signal that ‘mudstone science is poised for a paradigm shift.’[2]...

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[bgill]

Schieber, the lead researcher, said it should have been obvious that mud can settle from flowing water. ‘All you have to do is look around.

Like, duh.

[DManA]

Science has recognize many sites formed by catastrophic water flows. The scablands in Washington State for example. Not controversial at all.

[mc6809e]

I wonder when the evos will back down on their claim that snakes can’t talk.

[xcamel]

Warning!
This is a Meta-article that contains
no site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever
and is produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific
internet group attempting to pass off his agenda as scholarly.
They are not constituted to provide proof of Creationism but instead
merely to snipe snidely and spam the internet with their Trollisms.
Buyer Beware!

[cripplecreek]

Not controversial at all.

But that doesn't help with the lie that its controversial.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Cicero]

Snakes CAN’T talk. That was Satan disguised as a snake.

But snakes used to bowl around before they were condemned to crawl on their bellies and lick the dirt, as a lesson to us all.

Read “Paradise Lost.”

[DManA]

GodGunsStrawmen

[paulycy]

Read “Paradise Lost.”

Now, that's hard to do.

[rjsimmon]

This is a Meta-article that contains no site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever and is produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific internet group attempting to pass off his agenda as scholarly.

What? Are you intentionally being obtuse or simply having a knee-jerk reaction to something that challenges your biased opinion?

References

1. Schieber, J., Southard, J. and Thaisen, K., Accretion of mudstone beds from migrating floccule ripples, Science 318(5857):1760–1763, 2007.

2. Macquaker, J.H.S. and Bohacs, K.M., On the accumulation of mud, Science 318(5857):1734–1735, 2007.

3. As waters clear, scientists seek to end a muddy debate, Physorg.com, 13 December 2007; .

4. Details of the research is posted at . The page links to videos that show the experiments and resulting deposits, which are posted on YouTube: Part 1 ; Part 2 ; Part 3 .

5. Hayward, A., Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies, Triangle, London, pp. 123–125, 1985.

6. Wonderly, D.E., Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young- Earth Creationist Writings, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, Hatfield, PA, 1987; .

7. Wonderly, ref. 6, pp. 39–40.

8. Wonderly, ref. 6, p. 41.

9. Macquaker and Bohacs, ref. 2. p. 1735.

[xcamel]

No, I'm pointing out a false premise, extracted from common knowledge, for creationist Internet spamming purposes.

[rjsimmon]

What is that false premise?

What is the common knowledge extract?

[cripplecreek]

It takes years for a tree to grow and usually years for them to die. That doesn’t make it getting blown down in a storm “controversial”. It just means that things don’t always happen the same way all the time.

Science recognizes that to be the case and finds nothing controversial about it. The most common accepted theory is that the black sea formed in a few days and nobody screams “controversy” over that.

It just sounds to me like someone is doing what liberals do. Putting words in the mouth of the opposition and attacking those rather than confronting the argument honestly.

[count-your-change]

Thanks for the heads up. The Braying Chorus will be along soon.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Science has recognize many sites formed by catastrophic water flows. The scablands in Washington State for example. Not controversial at all.

True. What's controversial is the interpretations they choose to apply, even despite evidences to the contrary.

[DManA]

What do you mean? Are you talking about the scablands specifically?

What’s controversial is the interpretations they choose to apply,

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

What do you mean? Are you talking about the scablands specifically?

No, I'm speaking generally. And what I mean is that nearly all of the controversy between evolutionist and creationist comes down to a matter of which philosophical underpinning is in play when the evidences are interpreted.

[whattajoke]

A creationist gets something right! Snakes DID have legs back in the day. 2 legged snake And This guy lived in the holy land to boot!