65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 12:46 pm
RexRed wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Isn't the big bang just clinical words for poofism?


No.


Yes Smile


My answer is backed up by science. What is yours backed up by?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 04:10 pm
There are a few Creationist Geologists . Their conflict with evidence and their doctrinal proscriptions is often a story shared by many of our colleaguew around the campfires. Also it often leads them to draw conclusions that could cost clients big bucks. We once drew a project from a mining engineering firm that haed a fe Creationist geologists. These guys interpreted sediment layers in terms of "flood deposists" that should continue into another county. They were fault separated into a downwarped basin overlain by younger barren sediments. The client , a small petro fuel company had asked that all work that had been done by the creationists be repayed because of some obscure contract language for "incompetence" However, their E/O insurance covered their butts. Im sure the insurance company did client vetting more carefully in the future.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 06:20 pm
real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
I suppose Real will tell us this all came about because of The Flood.


I suppose you suppose wrong.

I have never said that all geological features are due to the Flood. But some of them may be.

However, what interests me about some formations (which are similar to what you have posted) is that some have large trees which extend through many 'layers' .

These layers would otherwise be assumed to have formed over very long periods of time, but those pesky trees would have had to avoid decomposition for an extraordinary period if that were the case.


One such description is here:

Quote:
Upright Trees in Coal


The autochthonous (or swamp-growth) theory of coal formation is central to the Age of the Earth debate because it was used by German, English, Canadian, and American lawyers and geologists during the early to middle 19th Century to convince the scientific communities of the world that the Earth had to be much older than the 6,000--10,000 year Chronology portrayed in the Old Testament: where Dragons (now incorrectly referred to as "Dinosaurs") are described as real creatures that were living at the same time as Man (i.e. Job 40:15-24 and 41).

The reason they believed this was because there are places in Germany, Canada and the United States where multiple seams of coal occur, one on top of the other, separated by shales, sandstones, clays and limestones, usually in some type of sequential order (called a cyclothem). In fact, some locations have over 80 seams of coal of various thicknesses. And even though many of these are less than and inch or two thick, some of them are several feet thick.

Therefore, according to the Peat Bog Theory, the time required for such "forests" to grow upon the spot of their burial, in multiple swampy peat bogs, and then to be covered up -- over and over and over again -- by the same types of sediments (surely) must have taken many hundreds of thousands (to millions and millions) of years.

This view also, at first glance, appears to lend some support to the theory of evolution; however, time is simply not enough, as is discussed in other portions of this site.

On the other hand, if the coals were the result of rafted in vegetation (via a major flood or floods) -- which was buried, again and again during recurring phases of one major event, then the coals need not have taken long to form, as they could do so via a single worldwide event that uprooted virtually all vegetation on the Earth's surface and buried it under sediments at various different times, perhaps only days, hours, or minutes apart.

One of these views is (somewhat) compatible with the theory of evolution and one is not. So if one is inclined to believe in evolution, or even to disbelieve in a Creator/God, then he or she would naturally lean toward believing in the peat bog theory of coal formation. However, for various reasons, this theory is losing ground today in favor of the allochthonous, drift, or alluvial theory (i.e. a Major Flood or floods), which states that the coals are merely laminated sedimentary deposits of mixed up and partially decomposed plant material. This rapid formation view also better explains why such organic deposits are almost always laminated, and in many cases very finely laminated.

For example, the Peat Bog Theory asserts that one foot of coal represents 10 feet of compressed peat. However, when considering the upper drawing below, one will note that the seam in which the trees rest is about 2 feet thick. This would (in theory) represent about 20 feet of peat growth. And since peat grows at about 1 foot every 300-600 years, then 20 feet of peat would represent about 6,000 -- 12,000 years of time.

If such trees grew upon the spot where they were entombed, this would mean that they somehow persisted for 6,000 -- 12,000 years without decaying or falling over, since the lower ones appear to be "rooted" below the coal. However, this poses a problem for the peat growth theory because trees are not known to live for 6,000 years. Also, by the size of their trunks, the trees only appear to be about 100--200 years old. Therefore something really does appear to be wrong with this picture? Or just maybe, something is wrong with the peat-bog theory of coal formation.

Various other instances of trees in coal have also been documented and observed by other writers; a few are mentioned in the author's paper on "Fossil Forests" Parts 1 and 2 (see examples below). One was reported to be 40 feet long and completely enclosed in a very thick coal seam. The author has also found various other instances of upright trees in coal that are from one to three feet thick. And according to Kingsley such occurrences are not uncommon. Below are a few links concerning Fossil Trees (and other artifacts) found in coal.



Querschnitt durch
Gesteinschichten
der Steinkohlenzeit
mit aufrecht
versteinerten
Baumstämmen.

Which means:
Cross-section
through rock
strata of the coal
period with
upright fossilized
tree stumps.



After Bölsche, Wilhelm, Im Steinkohlenwald; 1906-- (Various Eds.), p. 35





After Williamson, William C., A Monograph on the Morphology and Histology of Stigmaria Ficoides, 1887, p. 13.
Click Here for Full Size Image.

Note that in the drawing above there are no visible traces of roots even though the tree is sitting atop a laminated Fireclay and clays are supposed to be very good at preserving all sorts of (once living) things: Like (purportedly) 17 "million-year-old" green and fresh-looking magnolia leaves.

from http://www.earthage.org/Upright%20Trees%20in%20Coal.htm

another here:

Quote:
from http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=445

It would be interesting to hear how these trees stood upright for looooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg ages while coal was forming in successive layers around them , interspersed with sedimentary layers. (And some of them stood 'upright' upside down.)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 07:07 pm
Quote:
Upright Trees in Coal
OOOH how I love this ****. "polystrate trees" are a figment of the Creationists imaginations. Cyclothems are not a worldwide layer cake of coal forests. They record climates and sea level dletas in migrating river systems that have about reached "baseline" or the approximate wetland elevation of a coastal swamp as we see in florida and the Miss delta today. . The nifty sea cliffs of te inner Fundy basinshow cross sections of these coal seams. There are quite a few besides Joggins, there are beauties along the coast of Cap Breton between Port Hood and CheticAMP, AND FROM Boularderie Island to Point Morien along the Sydney coalfields at the tip of Cap Breton. Also at Cape Enrage in New Brunswick.

Ive seen most all of these and Im always wondering what the shoutings about. For if you look, you can see that the only upright trees are preserved in peat layers that lie atop the upward fining sand sequences of a cyclothem. The cyclothems take about 1000 years or more to orm and the Sigillaria trees , like todays puines are preserved and only portions of their trunks are preerved as the deposit infilled the coal swamp with ever fining sediment that ultimately became peat, then cannel coal, then the bituminous coal that is what the coalfields are noted. The "polystrate trees" (PS polystrate is a bogus word that has no scientific significance because it does not represent what youd wish it to (The word does not appear AT ALL in the AGI glossary of Geologic terms 5th ed [2006]). ALL of the supposed "polystrate" trees are actually seen in cross sections of stream channels where the trees had been floated and deposited within stream beds, the deposition in which, was done by classic meander belts like the Mississippi where Ox bows contain many layers of recent sediments and catch "Snags" and pull them down to be deposited all around by varying sediment types.
To give a more technical explanation, a river will cut a channel in older sediemnts and deposit sand and gravel in its channel. Ancient trees like Calamites and Sigillarian grow along the banks, beyond which is a floodplain that supports a larger forest of Sigillaria and giant ferns and cycads. Organic forest duff in this forest builds up a layer of peat that later forms coal. During periodic flood stages of the stream, the river breaks over its banks and out of its channel. Sand is deposited , choking the forest covering the peat and building a new channel. Only the stumps are left, some upright and some wind up in the new channel getting buried by sheet sediments. A new river channel establishes itself and a new forest (cyclothem) begins. Marine or brackish waters sometimes back up into these areas bringing in some marine fossils .
RL, you have to actually visit these sites and see them in 3D, not on some screen play by AIG.

Ill argue and, in a debate, beat up any of those "experts" whove tried making supposed points about "polystrate fossils"Either They just have no idea about how to interpret field data and or they really do know and theyre just doing it for the gullible, the pros dont buy any of their **** because it doesnt even make sense. After all, these processes are still going on today. The Mississippi delta (if it were not being robbed of silt) would be a great model of how" polystrate" fossil trees get caught in the Atchafalaya cuttoff and why sometimes we find buried steamboats in "dry land" miles from a nearest river meander, and these steamboats seem to be lying in multiple sediment layers.Stream morphology and captured fossils have always been a dynamic system and if you go to the cliffs at Blomeden or Cape Enrage, you can see these river beds in cross section right down their axes of flow and they are containing tree stumps and logs that appear to be in many depositional horizons.But its just not so me boy.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 07:12 pm
QUOTE FROM JOHN MORRIS
Quote:
We certainly will not find the solution in uniformitarian thinking. On the other hand, the myriad of complex events necessarily occurring during the Flood of Noah's day provide a framework within which to consider possible solutions.


Heres a perfect example where "objective Creationist thought" requires that multiple hypotheses be the working model. .
On second thought , I know that Objective Creationist thinking" is an oxymoron.

If "Dr" John Morris were one of my grad students , wed charter a flight to about 6 different Carboniferous sections along Fundy coast and Parrsboro to cape Enrage and do detailed cross sectional analyses of all these locations so he could see his errors. I cant believe he earmned a PhD in geology. I hope it wasnt from a real college.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 07:32 pm
Just incase RL is swaying some people, let me offer andy macrae's virtual field trip of Joggins where you can see that , in some of these fossil plant sections , you are looking right up the butt of a river channel and are looking at rater rapid deposition in a special environment. (think of buried ships in Mississippi channels that heve been abandoned for less than 150 yearsVIRTUAL FIELD TRIP OF THE JOGGINS AREA
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 07:53 pm
Hey Real, give us some more of your "evidence.' I love seeing farmerman rip it apart.

Not being a science major myself I wouldn't know what was a lie and what was truth in their presentations. But if it comes from a Creationist you can bet there is a lot of dishonesty involved.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:10 pm
Here's an article by morris that claims "evolution claims bear more resemblance to flat Earth claims than does creation thinking."

Quote:
Is Earth Really Round?
by John Morris, Ph.D.
Without a doubt, Earth is round, or nearly so. Using careful measurements from the ground and observations from space we can be certain it is essentially a sphere, with only minor bulging near the equator. If reduced to the size of a billiard ball, it would be perfectly smooth, and we wouldn't even be able to feel the highest mountains or deepest oceans. The erosive action of rainfall, glaciers and wind couple with gravity to relocate material from higher elevations to lower ones, rounding the globe. We actually observe these familiar mechanisms at work in the present.

By the way, the Bible has always taught a spherical Earth. There are, of course, instances of phenomenological language, where the author refers to what the viewer can see, just as we do today when communicating. We talk about "flat" terrain or a "flat" ocean even though we know they follow Earth's curvature. It is flat to our eyes and to our listener's eyes. But when the issue of Earth's shape is addressed in Scripture, the Hebrew wording implies sphericity (see Isaiah 40:22, etc.).

This may seem unimportant, but evolutionists often belittle creation thinking by comparing it to belief in a flat Earth. Certainly most who do so are merely repeating catchy insults from others, even though there are many who make the claim maliciously and purposively. While this may make them feel superior it belies a great misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of creation and of the nature of science itself!

Of course creationists and evolutionists agree fully on Earth's shape. It involves observational science. Earth can be observed to be round. This is not a matter of interpretation. This is simply an observational fact. To deny it is to deny observation, and no one does.

Compare this with macroevolution, the theory that basic plant and animal types have changed into others. This is not and has never been observed. Instead, we observe stasis, that things "stay" the same, with only minor adaptations to the basic types. Evolutionists recognize this fact of the present too, but they claim things underwent major changes in the unobserved past when no one was present to observe it, and that all of life experienced these major changes. Indeed, their claim is that all of life came from a common ancestor. They argue about the mechanism by which this happened, but not the truth of the claim.

Thus evolution must deny the ubiquitous observation of stasis, relying on an unobserved mechanism to accomplish great changes. Evolution must confuse facts about the present operation of the universe based on observations in the present with speculation about its history which ignore present observations.

So in reality, evolution claims bear more resemblance to flat Earth claims than does creation thinking. Based as it is on a rather unsupported view of the past, and a denial of present observations, its supporters really shouldn't be throwing stones at those who are doing better science.


I wonder what science he's talking about. Does anyone out there know of any Creation science?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:11 pm
Forgot the source.

http://www.creationonline.org/article/2703/
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 09:00 pm
xingu wrote:
Hey Real, give us some more of your "evidence.' I love seeing farmerman rip it apart.

Not being a science major myself I wouldn't know what was a lie and what was truth in their presentations. But if it comes from a Creationist you can bet there is a lot of dishonesty involved.


Ahhh the love of an atheist... Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 09:56 pm
baddog1 wrote:
xingu wrote:
Hey Real, give us some more of your "evidence.' I love seeing farmerman rip it apart.

Not being a science major myself I wouldn't know what was a lie and what was truth in their presentations. But if it comes from a Creationist you can bet there is a lot of dishonesty involved.


Ahhh the love of an atheist... Laughing Laughing


Ahhh... the sound of ignorance. You don't know what I believe.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 11:12 pm
pooofism is alive and well.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 04:53 am
The concern I have about RL's pre-digested interpretations is that its apparent that he doesnt think things out for himself or attempt to secure some evidence. He just automatically accepts AIG crap as "Fact" because it fits his preconceived ideas about a Young Earth and a Flood etc. AIG has standard geology preaching that all deposits are laid down over thousands and millions of years. That is untrue and an attempt to disrepute factual evidence. We know that river and channel deposists, volcanic ash, continental slope mudslides, lahars, earthquake deposist and loess can and is deposited from quick time events such as catastrophies and local floods etc. However, these dont make up the entire stratigraphic record. These are "event boundaried" deposits where interpretations must be made from field data. The concept of "Polystrate fossils" is just one example of where Creationists view their world from a miniscule piece of property and always fail to look and find the ends of an event boundary.
Thats why we (among other reasons) dont see any really well known Creationist Geologists. Those that are out there, merely stand for their stubborn belief systems which require them to ignore lotsa data and its context.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 06:06 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
pooofism is alive and well.


Yes it is! :wink:
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 06:10 am
I know God exists, because I talked to him this morning. He said to kill ev-

God is love. Pass the ammo.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 06:12 am
farmerman wrote:
...Thats why we (among other reasons) dont see any really well known Creationist Geologists. Those that are out there, merely stand for their stubborn belief systems which require them to ignore lotsa data and its context.


Oh contrare...

"Stubborn belief systems" go both ways there farmer. Non-creationist geologists ignore lotsa potential data and its context. Smile

Remember that if there were no potential - there would be no need for science! :wink:
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 08:33 am
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Upright Trees in Coal
OOOH how I love this ****. "polystrate trees" are a figment of the Creationists imaginations. Cyclothems are not a worldwide layer cake of coal forests. They record climates and sea level dletas in migrating river systems that have about reached "baseline" or the approximate wetland elevation of a coastal swamp as we see in florida and the Miss delta today. . The nifty sea cliffs of te inner Fundy basinshow cross sections of these coal seams. There are quite a few besides Joggins, there are beauties along the coast of Cap Breton between Port Hood and CheticAMP, AND FROM Boularderie Island to Point Morien along the Sydney coalfields at the tip of Cap Breton. Also at Cape Enrage in New Brunswick.

Ive seen most all of these and Im always wondering what the shoutings about. For if you look, you can see that the only upright trees are preserved in peat layers that lie atop the upward fining sand sequences of a cyclothem. The cyclothems take about 1000 years or more to orm and the Sigillaria trees , like todays puines are preserved and only portions of their trunks are preerved as the deposit infilled the coal swamp with ever fining sediment that ultimately became peat, then cannel coal, then the bituminous coal that is what the coalfields are noted. The "polystrate trees" (PS polystrate is a bogus word that has no scientific significance because it does not represent what youd wish it to (The word does not appear AT ALL in the AGI glossary of Geologic terms 5th ed [2006]). ALL of the supposed "polystrate" trees are actually seen in cross sections of stream channels where the trees had been floated and deposited within stream beds, the deposition in which, was done by classic meander belts like the Mississippi where Ox bows contain many layers of recent sediments and catch "Snags" and pull them down to be deposited all around by varying sediment types.
To give a more technical explanation, a river will cut a channel in older sediemnts and deposit sand and gravel in its channel. Ancient trees like Calamites and Sigillarian grow along the banks, beyond which is a floodplain that supports a larger forest of Sigillaria and giant ferns and cycads. Organic forest duff in this forest builds up a layer of peat that later forms coal. During periodic flood stages of the stream, the river breaks over its banks and out of its channel. Sand is deposited , choking the forest covering the peat and building a new channel. Only the stumps are left, some upright and some wind up in the new channel getting buried by sheet sediments. A new river channel establishes itself and a new forest (cyclothem) begins. Marine or brackish waters sometimes back up into these areas bringing in some marine fossils .
RL, you have to actually visit these sites and see them in 3D, not on some screen play by AIG.

Ill argue and, in a debate, beat up any of those "experts" whove tried making supposed points about "polystrate fossils"Either They just have no idea about how to interpret field data and or they really do know and theyre just doing it for the gullible, the pros dont buy any of their **** because it doesnt even make sense. After all, these processes are still going on today. The Mississippi delta (if it were not being robbed of silt) would be a great model of how" polystrate" fossil trees get caught in the Atchafalaya cuttoff and why sometimes we find buried steamboats in "dry land" miles from a nearest river meander, and these steamboats seem to be lying in multiple sediment layers.Stream morphology and captured fossils have always been a dynamic system and if you go to the cliffs at Blomeden or Cape Enrage, you can see these river beds in cross section right down their axes of flow and they are containing tree stumps and logs that appear to be in many depositional horizons.But its just not so me boy.


So the dead trees were floating in a river channel which was cutting through layers of sediment and coal, and then the trees were deposited upright (some of them 10-30 ft tall) and buried in the sediment within the newly created channel?

How likely is it, under normal conditions, that a floating tree is going to be deposited vertically and then buried , all before decomposing?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:27 am
Quote:
The Clearing of Snags from the River

Snags were a major hazard on the river, causing the sinking of many ships. Capt. Henry Miller Shreve, Superintendent of Western River Improvements invented a boat to pull large snags from the river. With his invention, the Heliopolis, a "double hulled snagboat" he not only cleared the Mississippi but also the Ohio and Red Rivers. The Red River had been completely shut down to steamboat traffic, due to a 150 mile log jam. In appreciation of Capt. Shreve's accomplishments St. Louis has a street named, Shreve Avenue. Henry Miller Shreve spent his last days in St. Louis, dying at the home of his son-in-law, Walker Randolph Carter (his daughter being Rebecca). Shreve's grandson, Maj. Frank Carter, served in Confederate Army and later worked as a steamboat agent in St. Louis. The Shreve family is buried at Bellefontaine cemetery of St. Louis. [Note: Shreveport, Louisiana is named in honor of Capt. Shreve.]


http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/steamboat.htm

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/snagboat.jpg
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 10:13 am
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
"...a more rigid belief system which in many cases conflict with unknown science" is probably close.


How can anything conflict with unknown science?

What are you talking about?


Has this issue been clarified?

Did I miss baddog's response?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 10:45 am
wandeljw wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
"...a more rigid belief system which in many cases conflict with unknown science" is probably close.


How can anything conflict with unknown science?

What are you talking about?


Has this issue been clarified?

Did I miss baddog's response?


Oops - I missed that one too - thanks wandeljw.

The beginning of life clearly happened, yet how it happened has not been scientifically proven. (Therefore it is an "unknown science").

I used the term "unknown science" as a play on rosborne's statement concerning creationism. ("...I tend to associate 'creationism' with a more rigid belief system which in many cases conflict with known science.")

Evolutionists have a more rigid belief system when it comes to scientific evidence, except when it comes to how life [and therefore evolution] began. In other words: ros claims that creationists beliefs conflict with (known) science - I say that evolutionists beliefs conflict with (un-known) science. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 08:30:03