Skip to comments.
Mud experiments overturn long-held geological beliefs (Evos finally admit long ages not required!)
Journal of Creation ^
| Tas Walker, Ph.D.
Posted on 09/03/2009 8:06:08 AM PDT by 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]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catastrophism; creation; evolution; garbage; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...
To: GodGunsGuts
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.
3
posted on
09/03/2009 8:09:46 AM PDT
by
bgill
(The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration)
To: GodGunsGuts
Science has recognize many sites formed by catastrophic water flows. The scablands in Washington State for example. Not controversial at all.
4
posted on
09/03/2009 8:12:51 AM PDT
by
DManA
To: GodGunsGuts
I wonder when the evos will back down on their claim that snakes can’t talk.
5
posted on
09/03/2009 8:13:41 AM PDT
by
mc6809e
To: GodGunsGuts
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!
6
posted on
09/03/2009 8:14:24 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: DManA
Not controversial at all.
But that doesn't help with the lie that its controversial.
7
posted on
09/03/2009 8:15:03 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: GodGunsGuts
To: mc6809e
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.”
9
posted on
09/03/2009 8:16:50 AM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: cripplecreek
10
posted on
09/03/2009 8:18:21 AM PDT
by
DManA
To: Cicero
Read Paradise Lost.Now, that's hard to do.
11
posted on
09/03/2009 8:19:08 AM PDT
by
paulycy
(Screw the RACErs.)
To: xcamel
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):17601763, 2007.
2. Macquaker, J.H.S. and Bohacs, K.M., On the accumulation of mud, Science 318(5857):17341735, 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. 123125, 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. 3940.
8. Wonderly, ref. 6, p. 41.
9. Macquaker and Bohacs, ref. 2. p. 1735.
12
posted on
09/03/2009 8:20:04 AM PDT
by
rjsimmon
(1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
To: rjsimmon
No, I'm pointing out a false premise, extracted from common knowledge, for creationist Internet spamming purposes.
13
posted on
09/03/2009 8:22:55 AM PDT
by
xcamel
(The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
To: xcamel
What is that false premise?
What is the common knowledge extract?
14
posted on
09/03/2009 8:28:57 AM PDT
by
rjsimmon
(1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
To: DManA
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.
15
posted on
09/03/2009 8:33:26 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: GodGunsGuts
Thanks for the heads up. The Braying Chorus will be along soon.
16
posted on
09/03/2009 8:48:49 AM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: DManA
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.
17
posted on
09/03/2009 9:54:33 AM PDT
by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
What do you mean? Are you talking about the scablands specifically?
What’s controversial is the interpretations they choose to apply,
18
posted on
09/03/2009 10:05:49 AM PDT
by
DManA
To: DManA
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.
19
posted on
09/03/2009 10:29:07 AM PDT
by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
To: Cicero
20
posted on
09/03/2009 11:16:45 AM PDT
by
whattajoke
(Let's keep Conservatism real.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson