Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty expanse. Praise Him for His mighty deeds; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
I own this video and it's incredible! I grew up having theories taught to me as if they were truth, and clearly the theories have been shown to be BUNK. Darwin himself gave parameters wherein his theory would be false if conditions were met, they have been met, but yet people hang onto evolution grimly as their religion. I know now that people will do ANYTHING to keep God at arm's length because I did the same thing. Suppressing Truth in order to keep on living my way, instead of God's way.
Dr. Austin is convinced that the Biblical Flood ..... Geologists proved there was no global flood. There is no flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it.
Just another IDiot trying to prove the Grand Canyon could have been formed quickly. LOL Some of the layers in the GC are coral, some are desert sands.
There aren't any creationist Scientists, all they do is say God did it.
Actual Scientists say look for reasons, which they find.
Also, scientists that agree with evolution want to silence the creationists as they are full of shit and have no proof and always come up with the same stuff again and again, just a new twist.
@blackjeffrey1 Perhaps you should find out what it is that "Creation Sceintists" are saying before you go on your rant. Creation makes soooo much more sense than Evolution and long ages. Evolution is the Athiests religion. Have you heard of the blood plasma and soft tissue that have been found in dinosaur bones that are supposedly millions of years old? Have you heard about the second order or level of coding within DNA and how it only speaks of design not mere chance.
@sking0369 Perhaps you should go and learn about evolution, it makes great sense once you have learnt it. Also, what second order coding in the DNA? Is that like the second order coding in the da vinci code, and the Bible, and every other book written, which is found purely because we try and find it, not because it was actually made.
How can you possibly apply this to the Grand Canyon? The Mt St Helens layers are volcanogenic, while the layers in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary. I'd think that someone with a Ph D in Geology should know things like that. The strata of the Grand Canyon show a lot of variety in rock type, it is impossible that these were formed by one single event.
WRONG....the layers at Mt St Helens are sedimentary.....heat and steam, melted ice pack and created rivers of mud (much like one might expect in a global flood)...anywho, the mud formed rock rapidly, which was in turn carved into canyons rapidly...exposing rapidly formed strata........people this is a dead issue, repeatable scientific experiments PROVE that strata form quickly......its over go home, naturalism is dead.
Where did you get your information? I never said that they weren't sedimentary, but, as every geologist knows, there are many types of sedimentary rocks. If the GC was carved in soft bedrock, all the sides would have slumped in the process. There are sandstones and even limestones among the strata, it isn't all "mud." Receding floodwaters would have formed a braided river pattern, instead of a meandering one, like the GC. its over go home, creationism is dead.
I think Steve Austin distorts the truth! Have you seen his video about Darwin on youtube? "Where Darwin went wrong" because Darwin got a river valley wrong in South America he seemed to be saying that Darwins theory ( I prefer fact) on evolution is wrong! He was a biologist not a geologist! Although he had dabbled in geology, with Adam Sedgwick at Cambridge Uni. He is better known in the biology field. A case of misinformation I think!
I've seen his vid, I've been debating extensively on that thread. It's an ingenious technique of creationism, to point at very minor errors of people and say that it would effect their credibility on other fields as well. It's just because they can't supply actual evidence in support of their worldviews, or even against evolution.
A gas charged slurry (pyroclastic flow) which occurred at Mt. St. Helens and a hydrodynamic flow (flume tank studies or flood deposit) all follow well established physical laws of fluid dynamics. Layering is not a question of time, it is a question of particle size, density and current speed. Mt. St. Helens showed the geological world that a catastrophic process can form fine laminations which look just like a rhythmite or varve or slowly deposited material.
The geological world already knew that. However, sedimentary rocks can form BOTH fastly and slowly (something creationists structurally fail to consider), it's not slow or fast. In most cases, however, strata result from slow deposition. And varves of volcanogenic mud look rather different from varves of more abundantly occuring sediment. For one thing, varves and rhythmites are cyclic, while volcanogenic mudlayers aren't (volcanoes are not known to erupt in a cyclic manner)
'The geological world already knew that'??, No they didn't! But it seems you are owning up to the possibility. However you can grind up a rhythmite (which is INTERPRETED as being cyclic!) and throw it in a water flume and due to it's density and particle size will REFORM in seconds! Slow deposition can occur yes, only in water conditions where there is NO current, like a placid lake, where horizontal layers build up vertically as a yearly cycle.
They ARE cyclic, this is something that is observable, you can watch their deposition. Furthermore, inside rhythmites, there are general patterns of grain size, organic content variations etc that occur the same manner in every layers. Also, some of them show evidence of events happening in particular years, like for example dust of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. It is untrue that deposition cant occur in water with no current, it is also dependant on grain size. Hydrologic sorting is a fact.
'dust of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991'? How do you know this? Eye witnesses! However when geologists look at the fine lamina in Mt. St. Helen's strata unless they knew it was deposited in 1 day then they would use the uniformitarian method and interpret those strata as yearly layers. All those cycles you mention are HIGHLY speculative and depend upon the assumed history, not the actual data in the rock.
Davies et al, 2007, describe how volcanic eruptions leave their records in varves. The patterns of eruption materials in varves of lakes around the world (and ice cores) can be correlated with one another. They show roughly the same amount of layers between different events, and I think it is rather unlikely to assume that this is all a giant coincidence. So it is not "highly speculative." Most lake sediments arent volcanogenic, by the way, and therefore cant be compared with Mt St Helens.
Rocks are often assumed to be rhythmites and varves, but may also be produced catastrophically. Uniformitarianism is like a straight jacket that only allows one type of slow and gradual explanation. Like ice cores and multiple ice ages.
Yet catastrophically deposited rhythmites and varves wouldn't show past volcanic eruptions in their sediments. That's how you can distinguish them. And in modern science, catastrophic occurrences are being considered and known to happen. However, creationists only allow catastrophic explanations, as slow and gradual ones would demolish their views. So what's the real straight jacket here?
No, we DO allow for slow and gradual as well!!! POST FLOOD! That's one way that Creationists distinguish between Flood and post Flood strata. Back to volcanic layering in varves etc, this can easily be explained by a constant rain of ash over quickly depositing water born sediments, you just ASSUME we don't have an answer. As for
Your comment (POST FLOOD!) makes it clear that you regard the flood to be a fact, even before you do research. This is exactly why creationism is religion, not science.
Once again, lake varves generally DO NOT consist of volcanic ash, so they can not be compared to Mt St Helens. And you've missed your second opportunity to explain the volcanic eruption record in lake sediments. As you structurally do not answer this question, is it so strange that I assume you do not have an answer at all?
But were the layers in Grand Canyon formed in a placid lake? No one is suggesting this! The Coconino sandstone was thought to form in a desert. However the cross bedding in the rock is the wrong angle for desert dunes, but the correct angle for sand waves formed under water in strong current. (also seen forming in flume tanks). The sand grains also show the correct water erosion marks. Also fossil footprints in the Coconino can only be explained by amphibians struggling in a current.
There are LIMESTONE layers in the GC. Can you please suggest a model which causes limestone to be deposited swiftly by a global flood, sorting the microfossils so exactly that every centimeter is characterized by different fossil assemblages? That they are sorted based on temperature tolerance instead of hydrodynamic shape? That cycles of warm-cold forams repeat hundreds of times? Footprints of animals would have been erased if they were struggling , not as smooth as found in the GC
Limestone is CaCO3 and can be formed not just by animals. Again all those particles and micro fossils can be finely sorted in graded and inverse graded patterns. This is also seen real time in fluvial tank experiments. The rocks do not speak for themselves they have to be interpreted and depending upon your world view and assumptions about history one can draw very different conclusions. Also if those footprints were formed in deserts there is no mechanism of preservation AT ALL!
There is, just deposit a new sand dune on a damp sand surface.
Your hypothesis doesn't work, however, as raindrop impressions are found as well (Schur, 2000)
Can you cite me ONE laboratory experiment that managed to sort layers of micro organisms on the basis of temperature tolerance, instead of hydrodynamic properties? All creationists claim hydrodynamic sorting to be able to generate the fossil record, yet no one so far has managed to cite an article of an experiment in the lab.
w w w . answers in genesis . org /tj/v8/i1/sand.asp
You can start from there.
Didn't you hear me? The dunes are the incorrect angle for aeolian dunes,(34 degrees) they are the correct angle for hydraulic sand waves (25 degrees). Also to form fossils you need a cementing agent to bind the grains, this cannot be present in a dry desert, but is readily available in turbidity currents. You can do a quick search yourself for articles which site many papers, you just assume there aren't any!!
The slope of sand dunes doesn't HAVE to be 30-34 degrees. Yet McKee 1979; Reineck and Singh, 1980, report slopes up to 34 degrees in the Coconino. The dominant slope of 25 degrees is apparently a result of wind ripple migration and grain-fall bedding.
And now an answer to my question: How has hydrodynamic sorting generated the fossil record? You still haven't cited any lab experiments that replicate such a process.
'wind ripple migration and grain-fall bedding.' It doesn't negate the fact that the Cocinio cross bedding is the WRONG angle for aolian dunes, such processes as you have quoted above are all wind born factors working in dry deserts. Why didn't you look at the link I sent you about Guy Berthault and his flume experiments producing all your favorite uniformitarian geological features like cross bedding, inverse graded bedding, in real time!
By the way, you haven't answered my question for the second time. If you don't have an answer, please say so. Then I can stop asking:
"Can you cite me ONE laboratory experiment that managed to sort layers of micro organisms on the basis of temperature tolerance, instead of hydrodynamic properties?"
I suggest you buy a copy of Experiments in Stratigraphy if you're at all open minded or interested, you will see loads of video footage of flume tank experiments with varying grain size, density and current speeds. It's all about physics and not time.
I try to be open minded, but am not wealthy enough to buy every DVD that slightly interests me. If you have it, I see no reason why you cannot answer my question. So please stop evading it, and just answer me: How does hydrodynamic sorting generate the microfossil record as wee see it today, displaying warm-cold trends that, according to you, never were there? Can you cite a paper perhaps? I'm answering your questions directly as well, so stop sending me links that only partially explain things.
OK, I will offer to send you a copy of the DVD free of charge! I think it's a DVD every geologist should see, it has very pertinent things to say about hydraulic sorting and layering (And it's non religious, just technical). As for the warm-cold trend in varves, yes I can accept cycles in lakes we observe today, however take a strata layer which is INTERPRETED as being a cyclic varve, grind it up, throw it into a flume tank, you can watch it re-form the same cycles real-time.
I think the Uniformitarian glasses that geologists wear and see trends often requires rather creative imagination. Would you go so far as saying that you can see sun spot activity in varves? Now that's really stretching it!
Guy Berthault uses laboratory and sediment flume experiments to test accepted principles for the formation of strata. He shows, using easy to follow computer animation, that in moving currents several of the basic principles of stratigraphy do not apply. These principles, including the principles of superposition and continuity, are applicable only in calm water. He applies flume experiments to the real world of strata, mainly the formation of the layers in the Grand Canyon.
Berthault's work and it's application to the Grand Canyon have been long discredited. Berthault's theory does not scale beyond a couple of inches let alone to the size of the Grand Canyon. You need to get information from more sources than just Answers in Genesis & associated sites.
He has not proposed any solution to the well defined ordering of the fossils which are clearly sorted by chronology rather than size or any other hydrological parameter.
In what way has Berthault been discredited? Why should I take your word for it? Please provide a link or cite me a paper where his work has been 'discredited'. (one waits to see if you go straight to TalkOrigin & 'associated sites'! Well defined ordering of fossils? Ever heard of 'out of place fossils'? They even have their own technical name. It was not Berthault's purpose to explain fossil successions, rather how water velocity and particle size & density form complex layers.
Hilarious that you ask me to provide a reference from a scientific journal when all of your own links cite answersingenesis or similar sites. Do a search on Geo Ref or Science Direct for some proper peer-reviewed critiques of his work.
'Out of Place' fossils is NOT a technical term it is a phrase invented by the convicted fraudster, Kent Hovind. The true technical term is anomolous fossils. These are to be expected as older depsoits are being eroded whilst new layers are deposited.
If you were to bother reading the articles I suggested you would see many many cited articles from refereed journals. Space does not allow for all the citations. Ah you do know the technical term then, Anomalous fossils (not anomolous lol!) So where is the clear evidence of erosion on all these out of place fossils then?I call your logic special pleading, and in every case of these fossils special pleading or complete avoidance is required. But hey you're an evolutionist, so you're good at that!
Implying that standard erosional processes which we currently see all around us also applied in the past is hardly 'special pleading'. I would suggest that it would like special pleading to assert that we could ignore these processes just because they don't fit our world view.
If you were to bother reading the articles I suggested you would see many many cited articles from refereed journals.Space does not allow for all the citations. Ah you do know the technical term then, Anomalous fossils (not anomolous lol!) So where is the clear evidence of erosion on all these out of place fossils then?I call your logic special pleading, and in every case of these fossils special pleading or complete avoidance is required. But hey you're an evolutionist, so you're good at that!
Long periods of time are not required to deposit a sequence of strata in a moving current, and multiple beds can be deposited simultaneously, especially as a result of changing current speeds. His results have profound implications for the geological column and the interpretation of fossil sequences.
He still says nothing about limestone. How could limestone be deposited fastly?
Nevertheless, he doesn't exclude slow processes, he just says that strata can be deposited fastly as well. And the Grand Canyon isn't mentioned in his research.
I said they wre deposited on a DAMP surface. doesn't rain often in deserts, but sometimes it does (especially on damp surfaces, when there is apparently a wet period. But I can think of no way they would have formed under water.
For rain drops to be preserved a soft cementing layer would have had to have been washed over the imprints quickly. Also the layer on which the rain imprints were made would have had to be a cement rich layer and not just aolian dune sand. Rain imprints and fossil track ways are only sensible in a flood type scenario, it does not make since within a slow and gradual paradigm.
"Rain imprints are only sensible in a flood type scenario."
Please explain this. Raindrop impressions forming under water? How is this supposed to happen?
The sandstone can either be cemented by its own silica as a result of compaction or by chemical alteration by water, which can intrude the porous sandstone long after it has been deposited.
Rain drops under water? No, on freshly deposited water born sediment containing cementing agents that could instantly preserve the impressions before the next current adds the next layer. As for a link for rain drops and tracks try this one, it took me a couple of seconds to find, but I guess when you don't believe there's an answer you wouldn't look would you?
answersingenesis . org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
Please note many many references at bottom of article.
"I guess when you don't believe there's an answer you wouldn't look would you?"
YOU're the one who claims raindrops form in a flood scenario, so YOU are the one who needs to back it up. Basic discussion rules.
Your link does not mention the crescents and bulges at one side of each track, which suggest uphill climbing (Lockley & Hunt, 1995). Neither does it address my earlier question why animals leave clear footprints when they're struggling against the flood. Finally, nothing about raindrops
Steve Austin has interpreted a layer near the base of the Canyon containing billions of orthocone nautiloid fossils (a unique find by him) as being deposited in minutes, which covers thousands of sq miles. Many of the nautiloids were fossilized on their ends and in the same orientation as if swept into place by one single current. He published this as a catastrophic mass kill, certainly not proof of millions of years of deposition!
Austin is being dishonest. The layers deposited in the valley have only a superficial resemblance to sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock layers are called varves. Varves show seasonality. For example pollen is found only in layers deposited in spring and not winter. Varves indicate how long a particular deposit took to form.
You make some good points but the mere fact that he hasnt had many peer reviewed articles doesnt in itself ruin his theory. Plus, Im not really talking about the video honestly, just the fact that the guy deserves a bit more respect than you seem to want to give him. You make it sound as if Peer review is the end all, be all. Its good, but its not the definition of Hard work. And attack the argument, not the man. Its always bad when has to attack the person vs. the merits.
This video is really sad BB. This is because Austin never bothered to expand on his claims about Mount St Helens and really demonstrates the laziness I find with Austin's "work." The 1980 eruption was a single event. But on average 50 volcanoes erupt each year. If Austin truly believed in his theory, he should have been busy correlating all volcanic eruptions to his flood theory. He didn't, which makes him stupid and lazy.
So incredidly stupid and lazy in fact Lawilson, that he managed to get a PHd. Im sure he just lazily worked his way through school and a Phd fell on his lap. Yeah, he knows nothing, but the anonymous on poster on Youtube sure does.
Now, now, Hustada, there is no point to get upset over Austin's laziness. The criticism I gave has little to do with Austin obtaining a PhD from Penn State.
Austin pin his entire flood geology analysis on a single volcanic eruption that occurred 28 years ago. But, if Austin truly believes that volcanoes can explain the global flood, why hasn't Austin visited other volcanoes? And why are you so willingly to blindly accept this view when Austin has not done the leg work? This is sad.
Im not blindly accepting anything. Im merely pointing out the fact that the guy isnt stupid and lazy because you think so. You may not agree with the guy but that doesnt make him lazy or stupid.
Now, now Hustada it is not a question of disagreement. I have friends who spent their entire career studying Mount St Helens and other volcanoes, resulting in being published dozens of times in the top peer reviewed journals in the country.
And just how many peer reviewed articles had Austin been published in? One.
In geology, like so many other fields, careers live and die on the ability to be published and one peer reviewed article in 30 years is not a sign of hard work.
Beautiful evidence that stratified layers form quickly and catastrophically. People should research this and the thousands of polystrate trees that extend through multiple layers that are supposed to be millions of years old.
Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty expanse. Praise Him for His mighty deeds; Praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with trumpet sound; Praise Him with harp and lyre. Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe. Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD!
KellyBigSky 10 months ago
I own this video and it's incredible! I grew up having theories taught to me as if they were truth, and clearly the theories have been shown to be BUNK. Darwin himself gave parameters wherein his theory would be false if conditions were met, they have been met, but yet people hang onto evolution grimly as their religion. I know now that people will do ANYTHING to keep God at arm's length because I did the same thing. Suppressing Truth in order to keep on living my way, instead of God's way.
KellyBigSky 10 months ago
Dr. Austin is convinced that the Biblical Flood ..... Geologists proved there was no global flood. There is no flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it.
Just another IDiot trying to prove the Grand Canyon could have been formed quickly. LOL Some of the layers in the GC are coral, some are desert sands.
gregrutz 11 months ago
No, you are not looking at a miniture Grand Canyon. The GC did not come from a volcanic eruption.
He probibly think Uniformitarianism says 'slow and grandual' or 'uniform'
Wrong, it means the processes were the same. Volcanos in the past, volcanos in the future. Read a Geology book.
gregrutz 11 months ago
The quality of this video is so bad it tells me nothing!!!
AltusPienaar 1 year ago 2
I have this vid. SOOOOOOOOO good! So much more empirical of an account of the structure of the earth than what the, um, 'experts' give.
AntimatterRadio 1 year ago
@AntimatterRadio So you're an expert?
AltusPienaar 1 year ago
Definition of Scientist - any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge
So Why is it that evolution scientist are always trying to silence debate and ID/creationist are always trying to open debate?
It is always easiest to determine someone's true intentions by their very own actions...
theconstitution2 2 years ago
There aren't any creationist Scientists, all they do is say God did it.
Actual Scientists say look for reasons, which they find.
Also, scientists that agree with evolution want to silence the creationists as they are full of shit and have no proof and always come up with the same stuff again and again, just a new twist.
blackjeffrey1 2 years ago
@blackjeffrey1 Perhaps you should find out what it is that "Creation Sceintists" are saying before you go on your rant. Creation makes soooo much more sense than Evolution and long ages. Evolution is the Athiests religion. Have you heard of the blood plasma and soft tissue that have been found in dinosaur bones that are supposedly millions of years old? Have you heard about the second order or level of coding within DNA and how it only speaks of design not mere chance.
sking0369 1 year ago
@sking0369 Perhaps you should go and learn about evolution, it makes great sense once you have learnt it. Also, what second order coding in the DNA? Is that like the second order coding in the da vinci code, and the Bible, and every other book written, which is found purely because we try and find it, not because it was actually made.
blackjeffrey1 1 year ago
How can you possibly apply this to the Grand Canyon? The Mt St Helens layers are volcanogenic, while the layers in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary. I'd think that someone with a Ph D in Geology should know things like that. The strata of the Grand Canyon show a lot of variety in rock type, it is impossible that these were formed by one single event.
agnat86 3 years ago
WRONG....the layers at Mt St Helens are sedimentary.....heat and steam, melted ice pack and created rivers of mud (much like one might expect in a global flood)...anywho, the mud formed rock rapidly, which was in turn carved into canyons rapidly...exposing rapidly formed strata........people this is a dead issue, repeatable scientific experiments PROVE that strata form quickly......its over go home, naturalism is dead.
eeritated 2 years ago
Where did you get your information? I never said that they weren't sedimentary, but, as every geologist knows, there are many types of sedimentary rocks. If the GC was carved in soft bedrock, all the sides would have slumped in the process. There are sandstones and even limestones among the strata, it isn't all "mud." Receding floodwaters would have formed a braided river pattern, instead of a meandering one, like the GC. its over go home, creationism is dead.
agnat86 2 years ago
I think Steve Austin distorts the truth! Have you seen his video about Darwin on youtube? "Where Darwin went wrong" because Darwin got a river valley wrong in South America he seemed to be saying that Darwins theory ( I prefer fact) on evolution is wrong! He was a biologist not a geologist! Although he had dabbled in geology, with Adam Sedgwick at Cambridge Uni. He is better known in the biology field. A case of misinformation I think!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
I've seen his vid, I've been debating extensively on that thread. It's an ingenious technique of creationism, to point at very minor errors of people and say that it would effect their credibility on other fields as well. It's just because they can't supply actual evidence in support of their worldviews, or even against evolution.
agnat86 2 years ago
Well said!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
A gas charged slurry (pyroclastic flow) which occurred at Mt. St. Helens and a hydrodynamic flow (flume tank studies or flood deposit) all follow well established physical laws of fluid dynamics. Layering is not a question of time, it is a question of particle size, density and current speed. Mt. St. Helens showed the geological world that a catastrophic process can form fine laminations which look just like a rhythmite or varve or slowly deposited material.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
The geological world already knew that. However, sedimentary rocks can form BOTH fastly and slowly (something creationists structurally fail to consider), it's not slow or fast. In most cases, however, strata result from slow deposition. And varves of volcanogenic mud look rather different from varves of more abundantly occuring sediment. For one thing, varves and rhythmites are cyclic, while volcanogenic mudlayers aren't (volcanoes are not known to erupt in a cyclic manner)
agnat86 2 years ago
'The geological world already knew that'??, No they didn't! But it seems you are owning up to the possibility. However you can grind up a rhythmite (which is INTERPRETED as being cyclic!) and throw it in a water flume and due to it's density and particle size will REFORM in seconds! Slow deposition can occur yes, only in water conditions where there is NO current, like a placid lake, where horizontal layers build up vertically as a yearly cycle.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
They ARE cyclic, this is something that is observable, you can watch their deposition. Furthermore, inside rhythmites, there are general patterns of grain size, organic content variations etc that occur the same manner in every layers. Also, some of them show evidence of events happening in particular years, like for example dust of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. It is untrue that deposition cant occur in water with no current, it is also dependant on grain size. Hydrologic sorting is a fact.
agnat86 2 years ago
'dust of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991'? How do you know this? Eye witnesses! However when geologists look at the fine lamina in Mt. St. Helen's strata unless they knew it was deposited in 1 day then they would use the uniformitarian method and interpret those strata as yearly layers. All those cycles you mention are HIGHLY speculative and depend upon the assumed history, not the actual data in the rock.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Davies et al, 2007, describe how volcanic eruptions leave their records in varves. The patterns of eruption materials in varves of lakes around the world (and ice cores) can be correlated with one another. They show roughly the same amount of layers between different events, and I think it is rather unlikely to assume that this is all a giant coincidence. So it is not "highly speculative." Most lake sediments arent volcanogenic, by the way, and therefore cant be compared with Mt St Helens.
agnat86 2 years ago
Rocks are often assumed to be rhythmites and varves, but may also be produced catastrophically. Uniformitarianism is like a straight jacket that only allows one type of slow and gradual explanation. Like ice cores and multiple ice ages.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Yet catastrophically deposited rhythmites and varves wouldn't show past volcanic eruptions in their sediments. That's how you can distinguish them. And in modern science, catastrophic occurrences are being considered and known to happen. However, creationists only allow catastrophic explanations, as slow and gradual ones would demolish their views. So what's the real straight jacket here?
agnat86 2 years ago
No, we DO allow for slow and gradual as well!!! POST FLOOD! That's one way that Creationists distinguish between Flood and post Flood strata. Back to volcanic layering in varves etc, this can easily be explained by a constant rain of ash over quickly depositing water born sediments, you just ASSUME we don't have an answer. As for
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Your comment (POST FLOOD!) makes it clear that you regard the flood to be a fact, even before you do research. This is exactly why creationism is religion, not science.
Once again, lake varves generally DO NOT consist of volcanic ash, so they can not be compared to Mt St Helens. And you've missed your second opportunity to explain the volcanic eruption record in lake sediments. As you structurally do not answer this question, is it so strange that I assume you do not have an answer at all?
agnat86 2 years ago
But were the layers in Grand Canyon formed in a placid lake? No one is suggesting this! The Coconino sandstone was thought to form in a desert. However the cross bedding in the rock is the wrong angle for desert dunes, but the correct angle for sand waves formed under water in strong current. (also seen forming in flume tanks). The sand grains also show the correct water erosion marks. Also fossil footprints in the Coconino can only be explained by amphibians struggling in a current.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
There are LIMESTONE layers in the GC. Can you please suggest a model which causes limestone to be deposited swiftly by a global flood, sorting the microfossils so exactly that every centimeter is characterized by different fossil assemblages? That they are sorted based on temperature tolerance instead of hydrodynamic shape? That cycles of warm-cold forams repeat hundreds of times? Footprints of animals would have been erased if they were struggling , not as smooth as found in the GC
agnat86 2 years ago
Comment removed
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Comment removed
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Limestone is CaCO3 and can be formed not just by animals. Again all those particles and micro fossils can be finely sorted in graded and inverse graded patterns. This is also seen real time in fluvial tank experiments. The rocks do not speak for themselves they have to be interpreted and depending upon your world view and assumptions about history one can draw very different conclusions. Also if those footprints were formed in deserts there is no mechanism of preservation AT ALL!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
There is, just deposit a new sand dune on a damp sand surface.
Your hypothesis doesn't work, however, as raindrop impressions are found as well (Schur, 2000)
Can you cite me ONE laboratory experiment that managed to sort layers of micro organisms on the basis of temperature tolerance, instead of hydrodynamic properties? All creationists claim hydrodynamic sorting to be able to generate the fossil record, yet no one so far has managed to cite an article of an experiment in the lab.
agnat86 2 years ago
w w w . answers in genesis . org /tj/v8/i1/sand.asp
You can start from there.
Didn't you hear me? The dunes are the incorrect angle for aeolian dunes,(34 degrees) they are the correct angle for hydraulic sand waves (25 degrees). Also to form fossils you need a cementing agent to bind the grains, this cannot be present in a dry desert, but is readily available in turbidity currents. You can do a quick search yourself for articles which site many papers, you just assume there aren't any!!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
The slope of sand dunes doesn't HAVE to be 30-34 degrees. Yet McKee 1979; Reineck and Singh, 1980, report slopes up to 34 degrees in the Coconino. The dominant slope of 25 degrees is apparently a result of wind ripple migration and grain-fall bedding.
And now an answer to my question: How has hydrodynamic sorting generated the fossil record? You still haven't cited any lab experiments that replicate such a process.
agnat86 2 years ago
'wind ripple migration and grain-fall bedding.' It doesn't negate the fact that the Cocinio cross bedding is the WRONG angle for aolian dunes, such processes as you have quoted above are all wind born factors working in dry deserts. Why didn't you look at the link I sent you about Guy Berthault and his flume experiments producing all your favorite uniformitarian geological features like cross bedding, inverse graded bedding, in real time!
answersingenesis. org/articles/am/v4/n1/no-slow-erosion
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
"It doesn't negate the fact that the Cocinio cross bedding is the WRONG angle for aolian dunes."
Yes, it does exactly that! These processes form cross bedding structures as well.
"Superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive sedimentary layers."
Berthault's conclusion. It says NOT NECESSARILY, it doesnt say definitely not or something.
And your final link fails to even mention tracks and raindrop impression, an often raised objections to their theories. Speaks volumes to me.
agnat86 2 years ago
By the way, you haven't answered my question for the second time. If you don't have an answer, please say so. Then I can stop asking:
"Can you cite me ONE laboratory experiment that managed to sort layers of micro organisms on the basis of temperature tolerance, instead of hydrodynamic properties?"
Thank you.
agnat86 2 years ago
I suggest you buy a copy of Experiments in Stratigraphy if you're at all open minded or interested, you will see loads of video footage of flume tank experiments with varying grain size, density and current speeds. It's all about physics and not time.
creationresearch . org /Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=C2b-DVD
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
I try to be open minded, but am not wealthy enough to buy every DVD that slightly interests me. If you have it, I see no reason why you cannot answer my question. So please stop evading it, and just answer me: How does hydrodynamic sorting generate the microfossil record as wee see it today, displaying warm-cold trends that, according to you, never were there? Can you cite a paper perhaps? I'm answering your questions directly as well, so stop sending me links that only partially explain things.
agnat86 2 years ago
OK, I will offer to send you a copy of the DVD free of charge! I think it's a DVD every geologist should see, it has very pertinent things to say about hydraulic sorting and layering (And it's non religious, just technical). As for the warm-cold trend in varves, yes I can accept cycles in lakes we observe today, however take a strata layer which is INTERPRETED as being a cyclic varve, grind it up, throw it into a flume tank, you can watch it re-form the same cycles real-time.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
I think the Uniformitarian glasses that geologists wear and see trends often requires rather creative imagination. Would you go so far as saying that you can see sun spot activity in varves? Now that's really stretching it!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Guy Berthault uses laboratory and sediment flume experiments to test accepted principles for the formation of strata. He shows, using easy to follow computer animation, that in moving currents several of the basic principles of stratigraphy do not apply. These principles, including the principles of superposition and continuity, are applicable only in calm water. He applies flume experiments to the real world of strata, mainly the formation of the layers in the Grand Canyon.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Berthault's work and it's application to the Grand Canyon have been long discredited. Berthault's theory does not scale beyond a couple of inches let alone to the size of the Grand Canyon. You need to get information from more sources than just Answers in Genesis & associated sites.
He has not proposed any solution to the well defined ordering of the fossils which are clearly sorted by chronology rather than size or any other hydrological parameter.
hexkid 2 years ago 2
In what way has Berthault been discredited? Why should I take your word for it? Please provide a link or cite me a paper where his work has been 'discredited'. (one waits to see if you go straight to TalkOrigin & 'associated sites'! Well defined ordering of fossils? Ever heard of 'out of place fossils'? They even have their own technical name. It was not Berthault's purpose to explain fossil successions, rather how water velocity and particle size & density form complex layers.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Hilarious that you ask me to provide a reference from a scientific journal when all of your own links cite answersingenesis or similar sites. Do a search on Geo Ref or Science Direct for some proper peer-reviewed critiques of his work.
'Out of Place' fossils is NOT a technical term it is a phrase invented by the convicted fraudster, Kent Hovind. The true technical term is anomolous fossils. These are to be expected as older depsoits are being eroded whilst new layers are deposited.
hexkid 2 years ago
If you were to bother reading the articles I suggested you would see many many cited articles from refereed journals. Space does not allow for all the citations. Ah you do know the technical term then, Anomalous fossils (not anomolous lol!) So where is the clear evidence of erosion on all these out of place fossils then?I call your logic special pleading, and in every case of these fossils special pleading or complete avoidance is required. But hey you're an evolutionist, so you're good at that!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Implying that standard erosional processes which we currently see all around us also applied in the past is hardly 'special pleading'. I would suggest that it would like special pleading to assert that we could ignore these processes just because they don't fit our world view.
hexkid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you were to bother reading the articles I suggested you would see many many cited articles from refereed journals.Space does not allow for all the citations. Ah you do know the technical term then, Anomalous fossils (not anomolous lol!) So where is the clear evidence of erosion on all these out of place fossils then?I call your logic special pleading, and in every case of these fossils special pleading or complete avoidance is required. But hey you're an evolutionist, so you're good at that!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Long periods of time are not required to deposit a sequence of strata in a moving current, and multiple beds can be deposited simultaneously, especially as a result of changing current speeds. His results have profound implications for the geological column and the interpretation of fossil sequences.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
He still says nothing about limestone. How could limestone be deposited fastly?
Nevertheless, he doesn't exclude slow processes, he just says that strata can be deposited fastly as well. And the Grand Canyon isn't mentioned in his research.
agnat86 2 years ago
Again a few second search, here's an easy to read article on quick limestone:
answersin genesis . org /creation/v17/i3/limestone.asp
For a more technical paper on chalk deposits see:
answersingenesis . org /articles/arj/v2/n1/chalk-and-upper-cretaceous-deposits
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
'Your hypothesis doesn't work, however, as raindrop impressions are found as well (Schur, 2000)' Oh yes, I forgot it rains all the time in deserts!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
I said they wre deposited on a DAMP surface. doesn't rain often in deserts, but sometimes it does (especially on damp surfaces, when there is apparently a wet period. But I can think of no way they would have formed under water.
agnat86 2 years ago
For rain drops to be preserved a soft cementing layer would have had to have been washed over the imprints quickly. Also the layer on which the rain imprints were made would have had to be a cement rich layer and not just aolian dune sand. Rain imprints and fossil track ways are only sensible in a flood type scenario, it does not make since within a slow and gradual paradigm.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
"Rain imprints are only sensible in a flood type scenario."
Please explain this. Raindrop impressions forming under water? How is this supposed to happen?
The sandstone can either be cemented by its own silica as a result of compaction or by chemical alteration by water, which can intrude the porous sandstone long after it has been deposited.
agnat86 2 years ago
Rain drops under water? No, on freshly deposited water born sediment containing cementing agents that could instantly preserve the impressions before the next current adds the next layer. As for a link for rain drops and tracks try this one, it took me a couple of seconds to find, but I guess when you don't believe there's an answer you wouldn't look would you?
answersingenesis . org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
Please note many many references at bottom of article.
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
"I guess when you don't believe there's an answer you wouldn't look would you?"
YOU're the one who claims raindrops form in a flood scenario, so YOU are the one who needs to back it up. Basic discussion rules.
Your link does not mention the crescents and bulges at one side of each track, which suggest uphill climbing (Lockley & Hunt, 1995). Neither does it address my earlier question why animals leave clear footprints when they're struggling against the flood. Finally, nothing about raindrops
agnat86 2 years ago
Steve Austin has interpreted a layer near the base of the Canyon containing billions of orthocone nautiloid fossils (a unique find by him) as being deposited in minutes, which covers thousands of sq miles. Many of the nautiloids were fossilized on their ends and in the same orientation as if swept into place by one single current. He published this as a catastrophic mass kill, certainly not proof of millions of years of deposition!
gavinmatthewcox123 2 years ago
Austin is being dishonest. The layers deposited in the valley have only a superficial resemblance to sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock layers are called varves. Varves show seasonality. For example pollen is found only in layers deposited in spring and not winter. Varves indicate how long a particular deposit took to form.
Minttzz 3 years ago
You make some good points but the mere fact that he hasnt had many peer reviewed articles doesnt in itself ruin his theory. Plus, Im not really talking about the video honestly, just the fact that the guy deserves a bit more respect than you seem to want to give him. You make it sound as if Peer review is the end all, be all. Its good, but its not the definition of Hard work. And attack the argument, not the man. Its always bad when has to attack the person vs. the merits.
Hustada 3 years ago
This video is really sad BB. This is because Austin never bothered to expand on his claims about Mount St Helens and really demonstrates the laziness I find with Austin's "work." The 1980 eruption was a single event. But on average 50 volcanoes erupt each year. If Austin truly believed in his theory, he should have been busy correlating all volcanic eruptions to his flood theory. He didn't, which makes him stupid and lazy.
lawilson200 3 years ago
So incredidly stupid and lazy in fact Lawilson, that he managed to get a PHd. Im sure he just lazily worked his way through school and a Phd fell on his lap. Yeah, he knows nothing, but the anonymous on poster on Youtube sure does.
Hustada 3 years ago
Now, now, Hustada, there is no point to get upset over Austin's laziness. The criticism I gave has little to do with Austin obtaining a PhD from Penn State.
Austin pin his entire flood geology analysis on a single volcanic eruption that occurred 28 years ago. But, if Austin truly believes that volcanoes can explain the global flood, why hasn't Austin visited other volcanoes? And why are you so willingly to blindly accept this view when Austin has not done the leg work? This is sad.
lawilson200 3 years ago
Im not blindly accepting anything. Im merely pointing out the fact that the guy isnt stupid and lazy because you think so. You may not agree with the guy but that doesnt make him lazy or stupid.
Hustada 3 years ago
Now, now Hustada it is not a question of disagreement. I have friends who spent their entire career studying Mount St Helens and other volcanoes, resulting in being published dozens of times in the top peer reviewed journals in the country.
And just how many peer reviewed articles had Austin been published in? One.
In geology, like so many other fields, careers live and die on the ability to be published and one peer reviewed article in 30 years is not a sign of hard work.
lawilson200 3 years ago
Beautiful evidence that stratified layers form quickly and catastrophically. People should research this and the thousands of polystrate trees that extend through multiple layers that are supposed to be millions of years old.
dingorex 3 years ago