[dad2bkmj]

you should go to Perry Marshall's website and read where did the universe come from? its a long read but very informative. and it uses real sceince to prove the point:)

[Southtown]

Good questions LOC, thanx. I'll have to look into 'em and get back to ya.

Do you have any sources I could look at?

[LOC]

Southtown said:

Good questions LOC, thanx. I'll have to look into 'em and get back to ya.

Do you have any sources I could look at?

It's not partiucularly easy finding some sources for you to read. Books are much better, but maybe these links will help:

1. Regarding cross-beds, why should we assume cross-beds are formed by deformation when we see them being formed today in the dune fields, stream beds, beaches, etc.?

Formation of Cross-beds

CROSS-BEDDING, BEDFORMS, AND PALEOCURRENTS



2. Regarding buried channels, probably the best place to see this is from Glenn Morton's site (it's hard to find 3-D seismic profiles online):


River Channels Buried deep in the Geologic Column



3. Regarding ammonites and index fossils, see here:

Invertebrate Paleontology




4. Regarding meanders, incised meanders, and Grand Canyon, the links below should help. In addition to the meander issue, you must also consider the evidence supporting stream piracy and it's role in forming today's Colorado River:

stream processes

Valley Evolution

Quote

From Lecture: Stream Processes (different site than above):

A particularly interesting expression of system rejuvenation is the development of very steep incised meanders in large streams in high elevation country, where you would expect to see many low order, fairly straight streams. A good example of this is the Colorado Plateau. The Colorado River is an "antecedent" stream, meaning it existed and developed a floodplain long before the uplift of northern Arizona and southern Utah (as the buried Farallon Plate slid under the western North American Plate). The rate of uplift was apparently slow enough to allow it and its tributaries to downcut the Plateau fast enough to preserve its old meandering stream course!

[Pyrotex]

Southtown said:

Hahaha! How is that?

How is it that Sedgwick and other early geologists could look at the geological record and conclude that that the many, many layers could NOT have been all deposited at one time? And this DESPITE the fact that many of them were devout Christians and they really wanted the geological record to confirm Noah's flood?

Gee, do you suppose that maybe they were convinced by the evidence? Do you suppose that if you spent a few years looking at all the evidence that they did and tried to sort it all out like they tried to do, that maybe the evidence would convince you, too? Perhaps we'll never know.

I cannot recapitulate for you all the evidence they considered, all the papers they wrote back and forth, all the logic they brought to bear, but I do know that they established for themselves a reputation for honesty and integrity in their field. Their work is still honored in modern textbooks and their conclusions have stood against most criticisms aimed against them. The only way you are going to succeed at finding any fault in their conclusions is to go back (as so many graduate students have done over the decades) and revisit the evidence and their logic.

Or maybe hahahaha you can just make fun of them.

[Southtown]

Thanx both of you. I plan on investigating everything, rest assured, till I'm dead. It's called living. As for Sedgwick, ask him if he made his mind up because someone on the internet was dangling "important" names over his head. Ask Copernicus or Galileo if taking people for their word ever got them anywhere.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that nobody has ever helped me learn anything valuable. All I've ever gotten from "teachers" and "authority" is a hard time. All I get from the "democracy" and "capitalism" is broke. (Don't even get me started on religion.) If you gentlemen will forgive me for withholding judgement a little longer. My mind is all I have, and I'm taking it to my grave.

[LOC]

Southtown said:

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that nobody has ever helped me learn anything valuable. All I've ever gotten from "teachers" and "authority" is a hard time.

I find that incredibly sad.

I am so grateful to all those who have taken the time to teach me what they know. Even today I am learning from a well-known and well-respected expert in his field (paleontology) and it's both a fascinating and humbling experience.

[Southtown]

LOC said:

I am so grateful to all those who have taken the time to teach me what they know. Even today I am learning from a well-known and well-respected expert in his field (paleontology) and it's both a fascinating and humbling experience.

I find that incredibly sad. HAHA (Just kidding, couldn't resist.)

Well, sorry I took so long to reply. I wish I could say I've been ferreting for information this whole time, but that isn't the case. After researching a little bit, I took a break and worried about life for awhile. I did find a little though, I hope it will suffice. Have pity if I'm way off base, educating on-the-fly is not easy.

LOC said:

It's all black shale (in other words, the same habitat), but it's also: locally sandy, locally calcareus, locally lacking carbonate, locally carbon-rich, locally carbon-poor, locally rich or poor in gypsum, 10-inch concretions in 3 horizons.

I don't believe I see the problem that this should pose to Brown's theory. Could you elaborate?

LOC said:

You are suggesting crossbeds are the result of deformation? ALL crossbeds? Even the <2 inch crossbeds found in 2000 feet of undeformed calcareous shale? What about the crossbeds we see forming today?

Can you provide any experimental evidence to support this declaration? Links to Brown's theory are not evidence, they are at this point unsupported stories.

Correct. No. Yes. No. (see post #97)

I have no experiments myself, at this point, though some are planned. Brown's site does offer sources that support the observations that he claims. I will try to link to them as they become relevant.

LOC said:

How does liquefaction sort ammonite fossils based on morphology?

How can you go through 500 feet of shale core and find baby and adult ammonites of the same morphology occurring together and only in certain intervals?

First, their starting positions, considering all ammonite specimens might have been alive together, would be in pockets. Like morphologies would be grouped while others would be elsewhere. So the question would become, not 'how were morphologies grouped?' but 'why weren't morphologies ungrouped?'

That said, apparently ammonites add air chambers to their shell as they age to offset the weight of their growth and maintain buoyancy. This means that, underwater, different sizes of similar ammonites will "weigh" the same. Differing morphologies may not share similar buoyancies, seperating them by depth naturally, but that's just speculation.

Even if all ammonite buoyancies were the same, their external features would differ, unsurprizingly, between morphologies. The aerodynamic properties, and therefore the upward force felt, would depend on each morphological group's set of external peculiarites. Like morphologies would feel like force. Although upward pressure should lift smaller ammonites faster, the smaller surface area would proportionally decrease the amount of water that lifted it, hence less pressure as well.

So two things: 1) air chambers equalize the disparate weights between specimens (although not necessarily for cross-morphology) and 2) size differences within morphologies would tend to proportionalize the upward pressure felt by each specimen. These two characteristics, along with aerodynamic peculiarities between morphologies, would serve as logical reasoning why ammonite morphologies were not ungrouped by liquefaction (and maybe even serve as mechanisms to group them if need be.)

Also, recall the water lense scenario. (see post #89) Consider the cascading creation of lenses, and the interlaced strata they would create, as well as gradient strata caught in-process of splitting. Soon-to-be fossils that ventured upward into a water lense would stay there, eventually being sandwiched when the waters drained. This would create the appearance of regular "mass extinctions" if one looked at strata as if they occurred naturally over time.

LOC said:

During the compaction/high-pressure stage, where did the water go? Where are all these escape structures that the water must have formed after being squeezed out of the sediment?

The water was compressed during the pressure cycles of liquefaction. This is how water was able to travel up and down through sedimentary particles that were trying to settle.

LOC said:

Also, how would a lake breach form the meandering river pattern present in the Grand Canyon? Meanders require very specific flow regimes.

The water draining from the "Grand Lake" would travel first on flat ground, creating a very wide and shallow river (increasingly so over distance.) As erosion began to take place, the wide and shallow "Grand River" would break into multiple streams, because of variations in crustal density and water currents.

As erosion continued, the weaker streams would die off because the flow from the draining lake would gradually lose strength. In the end, after the "natural-selection" of tributaries ceased, only one would be left, the strongest... the Colorado River.

LOC said:

I'm not referring to surface channels but to the buried channels we see throughout the entire geologic column. Buried structures that look exactly like dendritic river systems and buried canyons.

That's what I was referring to, as well.

“Also, the initial receding floodwater would cut its own canyons in the crust and lower strata, while remaining water would deposit more strata. Boulders and rocks would no doubt be deposited first, and currents would carry them into any trenches in the lower sediments.” — Southie

They would have been caused by draining "inter-strata" water, or water lenses. (see prediction #3 in post #100) As for "meandering" channels, the same explanation for the Grand Canyon tributaries would apply also to their sub-strata equivalent.

On a side note, Creationists are continually (and I mean continually) derided for invoking the "argument from ignorance". (see Pyrotex's post #57)

It is not convention that a theorist should be held accountable for explaining (on-cue) everything. The theory is simply provided for scrutiny. Instead of asking questions, try explaining empirically why the theory is untenable.

[GenesisMike]

The Earth is the age that modern science claims. The creation story begins as heaven is already complete but only Earth is without form and void. The chronology of the story begins as the Sun is shinning bright enough to light up Earth's surface through heavy cloud cover or fog. The atmosphere does not clear until day 4 of the story. In fact, day 2 describes the clearing of the low level atmosphere up to an overcast sky (water above the firmament).

Modern science and the biblical creation story agree entirely. Creation science is bogus science though. Creation science cannot be used for the design of anything. Creation science does not solve the problems it addresses, but instead it prolongs them. Creation science only serves to make people think their religion is correct and that their true enemy is science and/or scientists.

The creation story is a witnessed account of the transformation of Earth into a livable planet. The witnessed account is from a ground level perspective. It is in perfect order and as such, it is in perfect agreement with all of modern science.

The single best proof of the truth and accuracy of the creation story is evolution. Although I do not present that proof here, people existed before the being called Man was hand made by God. They had evolved as had all other life (albeit under God's control). After God created the being called Man, he split that being into a male and a female. After the split, the male and female were genetically compatible with existing beings- hence Cain's wife. Read the creation story!! Oh yes, after Noah's flood only Noah's/Adam's descendants remained. Evolution is the most intelligent design there is- it is like your SUV turns into an economy car as fuel prices go up. Extinctions add the ultimate intelligent touch to evolved life.

People should have corrected their religions shortly after the first dinosaurs bones were discovered. Had they done so, science would not today be laughing religion to scorn as predicted by Augustine (St Augustine of Hippo 2 or 3 hundred years a.d.).