fountains of the great deep prt12

[earlysda]

Great science. Just went thru all 12 in the series, and am praising God for scientists who are not beholden to failed, evolutionary theories. Now where is part 13?

[gregrutz]

science video, NOT

Plate tectonic explains the whole thing, not a flood, not water under the rocks.

This is not science, not geology.

[gregrutz]

How did the layers get tilted? They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, more sediments laid down level and then it was all raised up by plate tectonics over millions of years.

Geologists CAN explain the rocks we see.

Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rock.

How did 21 distinct layers of rock get there for the flood to make a canyon?

[chattiestspike2]

I find it insulting that the description of this vid is "science video"

[hallsirius]

3. Why don't core samples from the ocean floor between the islands and the continents contain the remains of land animals and plants?

[hallsirius]

If this man is correct, then

1.Why aren't there kangaroos, wallabies, and wombats in Asia, and why aren't there tigers, elephants, and hoofed animals in Australia?

2.If islands like the Galapagos, New Zealand, and French Polynesia were connected to the continents, why are they dominated by animals that only could have flown in or floated in on rafts? Why don't they have large bodied animals like elephants and hooved animals?

[lawilson200]

Geolgoy cannot explain a quartizsite rock at the Grand Canyon? Answer: After 2 gya, a mountain range dominating what is now the Grand Canyon eroded to the nub. About 550 mya a sea began to enter into the region. What remained of this mountain range became isands. As the islands erorded, the quartizite block broke off. If you actually studied, you would know this.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

How does a mountain range erode into one of the bigest canyons in the world and leave very little trace of erosion in that canyon? Also there is no sign of even one mountain.

[lawilson200]

Here is an oldie but a goodie argument. The Vishnu Schist formation at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is the remnants of a mountain range that was taller then Mount Everest. I can go into the technical reasons, but I am not interested today to do so. Suffice to say, the Grand Canyon tells an absolutely fascinating story of our planet, through the course of 2 gya.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

lawilson200- Again I will mention the lack of evidence for millions of years of erosion in the canyon. The canyon like many other places shows a build up of sediment layers which took a short time to lay down. This can be shown by the many trees fossilized and protruding through so called millions of years of sediment.

[lawilson200]

And your "observation" is based on ....?

And if you say Mount St Helens, you are in big trouble, because you don't want to debate me on this subject.

However, your claims is completely wrong. While it is true there is no agreed geological explanation for how the canyon formed, the layers of the canyon, speak for itself.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

lawilson200-again I will bring up the fossilized trees I pointed out above. These trees are protruding threw so called millions of years of sediment layers. This proves that the layers did not take millions of years to form. In fact it proves that they took a very short time to form because to make a fossil something must be buried rapidly in order not to decay away.

[lawilson200]

Actually, what you are referring to was resolved more than a century ago. There is no "mystery" with in-situ fossilized trees.

While conditins do very from location to location where in-situ fossilized trees are found (local floods, mudflows, volcanic eruptions), these trees were not killed by these initial events and continued to grow. However, to get more detailed, you must give me a more specific location.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

lawlison- I don't mean to sound rude so please don't take this that way. That is a ridiculous arguement even to a elementry student.

[lawilson200]

onlyOnetrueTruth-I can't help that basic geology is beyond your capacity of understanding. If you have an argument on a specific location (like Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone), make it please! Or, quit wasting my time.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

Lawlison- The point I'm making is it is ridiculous to say that a tree continued to grow threw layers that took millions of years to lay down. the layers around the tree had to happen rapidly in order to make a fossil. If you say that these layers happened semi quickly over the course of the tres life there would have to be roots coming out along the trunk of the tree. Trees usually die if you bury the bottom part of them anyway.

[lawilson200]

This goes to show, just how little you know about trees.

The argument is based on a common straw man. The accumulation of layering does not represent a span of several "millions of years." Once again, your argument is site dependent. An example is the in-situ trees of Nova Scotia of Carboniferous age, where there was localized flooding (but not killing the tree). And trees show signs of decay, once they did die.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

lawlison- I will say again if the tree was semi quickly buried over the course of its life than it would have roots coming out of its trunk as the trunk was buried. I may not have a degree in any thing but I am in construction and can gaurantee you that if you bury a good portion of a trees base it wiil die.

[lawilson200]

I will say this a third time. Do you care to address a specific location? You will find in-situ trees at many locations and the conditions for their deposition varies.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

lawlison- No the specific one does not matter. If there is just one then the evidence is there to show that the tree was rapidly buried

[lawilson200]

And this is where you are wrong. I am not going to comment on generalizations.

[onlyONEtrueTRUTH]

lawlison- than we disagree.