Then how does he explain the perpendicular tributaries along the grand canyon that are as deep as the canyon itself? How about the sediment from the Colorado River being steadily shifted northward over the years by faults like the San Andreas? Why does it not share any of the features expected by a massive flood (a braiding river system, a wide, shallow river bed, coarse-grained sediment and boulders along the canyon floor, and streamlined relict islands)?
@ArcanaKnight Steadily shifted northward over the years? Over how many years has this shifting been actually observed?
Would a braiding river system result if the amount of water were as large as proposed? Is the proposed slope high enough to result in such?
I had a college professor who pointed out that the evidence indicates that the layers at the Grand Canyon eroded before all the layers were fully hardened. That could explain why the river bed wasn't wide.
@PicklePublishing No it couldn't. Even if true, semi-hardened layers wouldn't explain why it created such a deep, narrow river because a flood would've been able to carry away the surrounding sediment just as easily.
Even ignoring the tributaries, floods don't create meandering rivers, especially not ones like the GC with such pronounced meanders; at some points it flows for 5 mile while only going 1 mile as the bird flies.
The science behind the sediment shifting: tinyurlDOTcom/3r5pqmz
@ArcanaKnight (1) The video proposed that the GC was created by a catastrophic flow from a post-Flood lake, not from the Flood itself.
(2) The 5 miles over 1 mile that you refer to, is the river's meandering at the bottom of canyon walls that do not meander?
(3) I can't access more than the abstract, but it appears from the abstract that the article is based on the assumption of millions of years. Does the proposed sediment shifting require that assumption?
@PicklePublishing It doesn't matter whether it was from the supposed global flood or from a flood of lake water, it still wouldn't explain why it created a narrow river. The lake flood is actually an even flimsier argument because the proposed lake is small compared to the GC, so it would've had to have carried more materials away than there was water.
No, the 1,000 foot canyon walls follow along the same path as the river.
No flood, including one caused by a lake, would have been able to create the many perpendicular tributaries which are just as deep as the canyon itself.
If a brief moment of rushing water could create the GC, there would be many such canyons, so why aren't there similar canyons surrounding the edges of all the continents?
@ArcanaKnight Can you identify other places where similar conditions must have existed that would have existed after the Flood at the Grand Canyon?
Another approach would be for you to suggest another theory for how the Grand Canyon formed within the short time constraints indicated by the scientific data.
@PicklePublishing "within the short time constraints indicated by the scientific data" Except the scientific data DOESN'T indicate any such thing; that's what I've been trying to explain to you. YEC claims have to ignore or deny large amounts of evidence for their narratives to work because they're working backwards from how science actually works; they're starting with the conclusion and trying to get the evidence to fit that preconceived belief.
(a) The lack of erosion between layers at the GC shows that they were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur, despite skeptics assigning 12 my and > 100 my to some gaps between layers.
(b) He & Pb retention rates in Precambrian zircons give an age of just 1000's of years.
(c) U/Pb ratios in U halos in Jurassic & Triassic coalified wood give young ages.
(d) Soft tissue and protein levels in dinosaur bones points to young ages.
@PicklePublishing a) There actually is erosion found between layers (which even flood geologists like ICR's Steve Austin admits).
b-d) I'm going to need your source for these claims in order to properly evaluate them.
1) "time constraints imposed by the scientific evidence" Until I get your sources for the above claims, I still maintain that the evidence doesn't impose such time constraints.
2) Its not my job to disprove what you claim your professor said in class one time, you must first show that your professor was correct by providing evidence that what he said was true. Even if this claim was coming to me directly from your professor and not second-hand through you, I still wouldn't take what he said to be true just because he said it, so I would still need that supporting evidence.
@ArcanaKnight And what if I said the same to you? What if I said you have to provide supporting evidence, that it's not my job to disprove what you were told?
Note also that Precambrian Po-218 halos indicate that those rocks crystallized instantly, which collapses a good bit of the evolutionary time frame.
@ArcanaKnight (a) Not the amount of erosion expected over 12 and > 100 my. The contact point between the layers is too flat.
(b) halosDOTcom/reports/science-1982-lead-in-zircons.htm halosDOTcom/reports/grl-1982-helium-in-zircons.htm But the implications aren't brought out in these.
@PicklePublishing "And what if I said the same to you?" Then I would ask exactly which points you wanted supporting evidence for (as I did for you).
b and c) It appears that your sources are all by Gentry and concern his claims on polonium halos, which have been repeatedly refuted: tinyurlDOTcom/afyl9s As I said above, creationist claims of inconsistency rest on relatively few examples while ignoring the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results.
@ArcanaKnight (b-c) That doesn't refute Gentry. Baillieul cites Moazed re: confusing Po-210 and Rn-222 rings, which ignores the fact that these rings are distinguishable in fluorite. Baillieul ignores the missing alpha recoil track problem. etc.
Did you read the article critically? After reading Gentry's reports, so you would know what needs refuting?
(d) The video is wrong. Read the section on osteocytes in sciencemagDOTorg/content/suppl/2005/03/24/307.5717.1952.DC1/Schweiter.SOM.pdf
@ArcanaKnight P.S. Aren't the dates skeptics come up with in large part what they are already looking for based on their preconceived beliefs that sacred history is wrong, and that skepticism and uniformitarianism is a viable religious world view?
I think it would be the exception rather than the rule for a scientist to publish dates that don't already coincide with his or her religious views, while overlooking evidence contradicting those dates and those religious views. It's only natural.
@PicklePublishing The dates resulting from scientific dating methods are collected independent of beliefs about of your "sacred history" (they aren't accepted just because they contradict your "history"); the results could have coincided with your "sacred history", and if it had, it would have been verification that they could be right instead of a refutation (of certain interpretations anyway)
Neither skepticism or uniformitarianism qualify as religious, let alone as a religious world view.
@ArcanaKnight I think you are incorrect. Scientific methods of dating are indeed often dependent on the religious views or other preconceived opinions of the scientist. A case in point demonstrating the subjectivity involved is at educatetruthDOTcom/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff
Uniformitarianism maintains that there have never been any miracles, and you don't think that's a religious view?
@PicklePublishing "I think you are incorrect" Then you think wrongly, at least about this subject. Independent measurements (using different and independent radiometric techniques) give consistent results, radiometric dates are also consistent with other nonradiometric dating methods, and creationist claims of inconsistency rest on relatively few examples while ignoring the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results.
No, its not a religious belief because it doesn't actually talk about miracles one way or the other, and as long as the supposed miracle doesn't violate the current natural laws and processes, there is no problem with it as far as uniformitarianism is concerned. That there have been miracles is also not the default position, so the stance that there have never been any miracles is analogous to the null hypothesis; in other words, it is up to those claiming there have been miracles to prove it.
@ArcanaKnight "... as long as the supposed miracle doesn't violate the current natural laws and processes ...." That's the whole point. Current, invariable, natural laws and processes is the supreme deity. Miracles, a supernatural transcending of these current laws, never have occurred, says uniformitarianism.
And thus, uniformitarianism denies the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, the feeding of 5000 with 5 loaves & 2 fishes, etc.
@PicklePublishing No, its not a religious belief to think that the current natural laws and processes have always been around. If this concept is inconvenient to your belief that the stories in a book (one that is a mix of poetry, myth, legend, genealogy, prophecy, and visions and which is a translation of a translation of a translation of an oral history that was passed along for a long time before being written down) are true, then that's your problem, and its up to you to prove it otherwise.
What evidence do you have that current natural laws have always been, without variation?
I think you have betrayed your religious beliefs in your reply. Now see if you can set aside all of what you just expressed, and approach the scientific data without such preconceived assumptions.
In actuality, the Bible's creation account is history written by someone who knew Someone who was actually there when it happened. And if you disagree, then prove it!
@PicklePublishing "In actuality, the Bible's creation account is history written by someone who knew someone" No, actually it isn't; the stories in the old testament in particular were passed down orally for many generations before ever being committed to paper. And again, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim that the biblical account is true, not on everyone else to disprove it.
@ArcanaKnight No, actually, it's authentic history written by someone who knew Someone who was there, and you can't prove otherwise.
Your refusal to prove otherwise shows that you aren't an objective scientist. An objective scientist wouldn't assume that an historical document isn't authentic. What would you think if someone denied that Washington was the 1st pres.?
By the way, Moses wrote Exodus, and Moses was at Mt. Sinai when God said, "In 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth." Ex. 20:11.
@PicklePublishing "and you can't prove otherwise" Again, its not my job to disprove whatever wild claims you make, the burden of proof is on you to show that its an accurate historical account as you claim.
"shows that you aren't an objective scientist" I've never actually claimed to be a scientist. Also, you have that backward, an objective scientist wouldn't assume that a document is an authentic historical account without proof.
If you are going to criticize a video presenting unrefuted scientific evidence in support of creation and the Flood, the burden of proof is on you to discredit the historical source.
An objective scientist would not assume that a document is not an authentic historical account without proof. You seem to be arguing that it should be assumed to be unauthentic until proven otherwise. That is wrong.
@ArcanaKnight A truly objective scientist won't limit his theories and reporting to only current laws, or at the very least, he will subject the presupposition of uniformitarianism to the testing of the scientific method. (Otherwise, uniformitarianism is outside the realm of science.)
The whole point of one of Gentry's videos is that uniformitarianism as a theory has been scientifically falsified.
Inconsistency: Evolutionists do not apply uniformitariansim to the Big Bang.
@PicklePublishing "any objective scientist won't limit his theories and reporting to only current laws" Actually, an objective scientist WOULD limit it to that until there were some evidence indicating that it should be otherwise. What you're looking for isn't an objective scientist, its one that is sympathetic towards your beliefs (like Gentry).
That's not really an inconsistency; that research is on the very edge of our understanding, so we don't if its inconsistent with the known laws.
@ArcanaKnight (a) No, a truly objective, unbiased scientist would not assume that uniformitarianism is a fact, without first establishing that it is true.
(b) The evidence that refutes uniformitarianism is already in.
(c) I'm looking for scientists that will set aside all their biases and look at the evidence objectively.
(d) It has been pretty standard to say that current laws did not operate around the time of the Big Bang.
@PicklePublishing a) although just an assumption, its considered a very good and reasonable assumption which produces theories which are self-conistent, plausible and that explain observed evidence well. Creationists are really the only ones who try to discredit it because they're forced to claim the laws have changed over time in order to resolve some messy inconsistencies of observed phenomena with the biblical account.
c) You're clearly not, otherwise you would accept the opinion of the majority of the scientists instead of the roughly 1% who are sympathetic towards your beliefs.
d) To postulate that mechanisms and rates were different in the past would require a researcher to determine not only what those mechanisms were but why they are different to today. This is one key difference between Big Bang research and creationist claims; actual scientists try to find out WHY they've changed.
@ArcanaKnight (c) I suppose it is easier for you to make false accusations like that than to deal with the evidence itself.
Can you cite a study which proves that 99% of scientists are skeptics, atheists, or infidels, people who don't believe in the resurrection of Christ or Lazarus, etc.?
Is that alleged 99% honest enough to acknowledge the religious presuppositions that underlie their theories?
@ArcanaKnight (d) I don't understand your point. Creationists know why miracles occurred, why the Flood took place, why Creation occurred.
If skeptics do not impose uniformitarianism upon the Big Bang, why insist that it must be imposed at all other times, without first testing that assumption, without first proving that such must be, without proving that at all other times uniformitarianism held sway?
@ArcanaKnight (a) Real science doesn't operate that way, refusing to test assumptions, and then building elaborate theories on those unproven, untested assumptions.
(b) Po-218 halos in Precambrian granites is one line of such evidence. The many failed granite synthesis experiments is another.
@PicklePublishing a) That sounds an awful lot like a No True Scotsman argument to me. Also, one way to test something is by examining testable predictions based on it, and a large number of predictions based on this assumption (such as in astronomy) have turned out to be very accurate, thereby showing that there is no harm in continuing to assume it.
b) The various creationist claims about polonium halos have been repeatedly refuted, both in and out of journals (such as tinyurlDOTcom/65x7j7 and tinyurlDOTcom/3jmjjyu). The latter "evidence" isn't evidence of anything because its not even essential to Gentry's instant creation hypothesis anyway.
c) I didn't say anything about 99% being atheists. In fact quite a few are christians, jews, hindus, etc., CONT
they just don't allow their religious beliefs to influence their evaluation of the evidence like you clearly want them to. Ken Miller is an excellent example of this.
d) "creationists know why miracles occurred" You're confusing belief with knowledge. What creationists "know" is nothing more than unverifiable belief.
@ArcanaKnight Scientists who are atheists, skeptics, or infidels allow their religious views to influence their evaluation all the time. Sometimes they even admit it, that the obvious conclusion of the evidence (creation or whatever) is just unthinkable.
(d) Uniformitarianism, long ages, the Big Bang, random mutations creating all forms of life, Po halos caused by diffusion, all of this is unverifiable beliefs held by atheists, infidels, & skeptics.
(d) cont. The idea that 3.2 billion base pairs of human DNA came to be via mostly lethal, random mutations, leaving behind little or no transitional forms in the fossil record, is nothing short of miraculous.
Is it true that evolutionists believe a placental mole to be more closely related to a humpback whale than to a pouched mole?
@ArcanaKnight (b) Have you read Gentry's reports yet? If not, how do you know whether his findings are refuted at the sites you link to?
At the first link, click "Gentry's Basis Premise" and read the part about Rn-222 and Po-210 rings being indistinguishable. Years ago I complained about this web page presenting this bogus argument, and it's still there. Why?
Your second link is pretty pathetic. It makes no attempt to deal with the science. Why?
@ArcanaKnight (b) cont. Gentry proposed a falsification test for uniformitarianism and his own theory: synthesize granite. My point is that failed synthesis experiments falsify uniformitarianism, and they do. Thus, you can't use uniformitarianism to explain away scientific evidence of creation & the flood.
(c) I didn't say anything about 99% being atheists. I said skeptics, atheists, & infidels. Christians, Jews, & Muslims who don't believe the Bible are at best skeptics, even if not atheists.
@ArcanaKnight (a) Evolutionists who refuse to test uniformitarianism have thereby placed that assumption outside of science.
If you think it has been tested, please cite studies that have indeed reported testing whether no miracles have ever occurred, even in the distant past. Please cite studies that establish that current laws and processes have always been the same, except around the time of the Big Bang.
@ArcanaKnight Did you read educatetruthDOTcom/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff ?
The inconsistencies were reported by evolutionists, not creationists. And the inconsistencies would never have been known (a) if the initial date hadn't become out of sync with preconceived evolutionary dates for human evolution, and (b) without the rancor between three different labs doing the testing.
How often is the public kept in the dark about the full range of "dates" measured?
@PicklePublishing "The inconsistencies were reported by evolutionists" Read my comments more closely before responding; I never said that they weren't, what I said was that creationist claims of inconsistency rely upon relatively few examples while completely ignoring the vast majority of them which do give consistent results.
The KBS tuff controversy does illustrate some problems with radiometric dating, but they aren't fatal flaws despite what creationists try to say:
@ArcanaKnight (a) And perhaps you should read my comments more closely. Prove that the vast majority give consistent results by showing that all derived dates, not just the desired dates, were published in a majority of cases, and that the scatter was slight.
(b) After I demonstrated how unreliable the articles at TalkOrigins can be, why post a link to another? Why not instead post a link to a peer-reviewed article, rather than to an evolutionary apologetic site?
@PicklePublishing a) Reliability has already been proven; that's precisely why these different dating methods were accepted by the scientific community in the first place.
b) First of all, you demonstrated no such thing. Secondly, all the articles there aren't even written by the same people, so your criticisms of one article don't necessarily apply to the rest. And in case you didn't notice, references to peer-reviewed articles were given at the bottom of the link.
@ArcanaKnight (a) Where has it been proven that published articles always publish the full range of dates derived, not just the dates chosen? Are you saying that the KBS tuff articles were an exception, that in that one case many of the derived dates were not initially disclosed, but that usually there is full disclosure? If that's what you're saying, prove it!
@PicklePublishing a) I wasn't talking about disclosure, I was talking about the reliability of the dates, and how the problems shown in the KBS tuff are hardly the fatal flaws you creationists try to make them out to be. I also find it interesting that you gloss over the fact that the dates that were being argued about aren't even close to the time-scale required by YECs.
@ArcanaKnight *I* was talking about disclosure, which does affect the dates' reliability. If evolutionists refuse to disclose ALL the isotope ratios that don't fit their targeted dates, the public cannot judge if the dates are reliable.
Gloss over? You fail to see the point. The dates evolutionists derive from isotope ratios depend upon uniformitarian presuppositions. If those presuppositions be false, the dates pontificated by evolutionists mean nothing, leaving nothing to gloss over.
@ArcanaKnight (b) I did too demonstrate it. Remember? He tried to say that Rn-222 and Po-210 rings were indistinguishable, when they are distinguishable in fluorite, and he ignored the missing alpha recoil track problem.
That TalkOrigins still posts that flawed article 6 years later discredits the whole site.
You should be the one providing a link to a peer-reviewed article, not an evolutionary apologist at TalkOrigins. Provide a link to a peer-reviewed article you have personally read.
@PicklePublishing b) Actually, he said that they were very similar and can't COMMONLY be distinguished, not that they were indistinguishable. Also, even if your point did stand, finding one error in a minor point of an article doesn't even refute the entire article, let alone every article on the site.
@ArcanaKnight It isn't a minor point. Baillieul misled the reader. Was it on purpose? Your point suggests that it was, since "commonly" suggests that Baillieul knew there were exceptions, exceptions that refute his point, exceptions he failed to disclose.
On the other hand, if Baillieul was ignorant of the exception, he is far from an authority on the subject.
Either way, the entire article is thus called into question, as well as the website that hasn't fixed it 6 yrs later!
@ArcanaKnight Let me put it plainly: Did Baillieul read Gentry's reports?
If he did, he knew that Rn-222 & Po-210 rings are distinguishable in fluorite, and that this refutes the point he wanted to make. Thus, he purposely deceived his readers into thinking otherwise.
If he did not, then he wasn't qualified to write an article condemning another scientist's peer-reviewed published research!
Plus, it wasn't only one error: He ignored the missing fossil alpha recoil track problem!
@PicklePublishing "I think it would be the exception" Actually, many scientists are theists, and most have no problems at all with the old dates. Also, if a scientist was ever caught overlooking or discarding evidence just because it contradicted his religious beliefs, he would probably have a hard time finding work since his results would always be considered suspect by the scientific community.
@ArcanaKnight (a) True, many profess to believe that God used evolution to create, not realizing how such an idea undermines key concepts of the gospel: Death entered the world because of Adam's sin. Man has degenerated since then, and the only hope of improvement is a Savior.
(b) Not if that evidence supports creation/the Flood, and the scientist is a skeptic. It's fairly routine.
But really, one doesn't have to intentionally overlook evidence. It's only natural to not see contrary evidence.
@PicklePublishing "The proposed lake was not small" Yes, it is actually two lakes (still doesn't get around the many problems with that hypothesis), and I never said that they were small, just that it was small compared to the GC. Given the sizes of the proposed lakes, they still would've had to have carried away more material than there was water.
That specific meander is around Gooseneck State Park in southern Utah, though the entire river meanders (which it wouldn't if caused by a flood).
@ArcanaKnight (1) Again, propose another theory within the time constraints imposed by the scientific evidence.
(2) My college professor is the one who told our class back in 1982 that a meandering canyon with straight walls would be formed if the layers were not yet hardened. If you know of any experimental evidence that falsifies this idea, please provide a link.
ng them? Or could it be because you're really not so sure of your worldview after all and are desperate to find some real answers meanwhile by pretending to debate? You know as an observer and having been reading a lot of your posts, i admire your energy to fight on even with absolute convincing evidence shown in each video. You always manage to come up with some theory to counter, JUST AMAZING! I pray for you my friend. I mean i used to be blind like most people and Thank God for his Spirit!
My dear Friends in Christ, when you quarrel with a fool, you become like one, says Proverbs. There are those of us that were blind and now see, and those that will never see and we pra they will someday. Sin has blinded the world and the result is blatent rejection of the truth, this is not news, my brothers.
Just one note on gregrutz, i see your name on comments in these videos and other related ones endlessly. If you are so sure that you're convinced with the EVO-THEORY, why bother watchi-
@TheSpiffyGamer They stayed under pressure after the flood for thousands of years .Helium trapped in zircon crystals have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rate of seepage is only 6,000 yrs,go figure.The Earth itself was also smaller than today,it appears that lava from within the earth acts sort of like "great stuff" expanding foam that hardens.This would explain less gravity that the dinos would need and if there were a canopy that would explain the higher oxygen levels we find.
@CBALLEN Wow you honestly believe that dinsaurs are only 6000 years old. And you helplessy try to explain it with some "great stuff" lava that somehow miracuroulsy decreased the earths gravity substantually, because dinosaurs needed it for what?
@TREACLE97 Erm, yes seeming as the Earth's gravity has been more or less stable around 9.8 for millions of years. Dinosaurs didn't need less gravity to hold themselves up.
If macroevolution were true,all those many,many experiments done on fruit flies would have produced many new kinds of insects by now,but what did they get?....A bunch of crippled fruit flies! All dino bones look like all the dinos were put into a huge washing machine with rocks and debris mixing their bones up,proving these animals were moved around in water and broken apart.
@graysight Corals grow slowly and not in muddy flood waters. The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
@gregrutz No evidence?Everything said here can be backed up and reproduced in the laboratory,unlike scientists who believe in the big bang ,abiogensis and macroevolution, none of what they believe can be re- produced in the laboratory.lol Evo-atheists have nothing, all they can do is make fun of and ridicule,they have nothing to disprove anything said in this video. Mt St Helens has set the evo-atheists beliefs on their heads. Poly-strait fossils are happening as we speak,disproving millions oys
@gregrutz A mini grand canyon was produced in a few hours after the eruption of MSH ,just look at all those layers! Now if there were deer and other animals there,they will be fossils now! I wonder how many fish have been fossilized by this eruption,I guess we'll see in a few years.
The question is Not how long the canyon took to carve, How long did it take to lay down a mile of sediments? Some wind blown sands, some limestone with slow growing corals. How did limestone get to 7000 feet above sea level?
@PicklePublishing There are major 'unconformities' in the canyon. Layers missing because of erosion. Corals only grow in clean water and are growing on solid rock, making more rock.
@gregrutz I think you and I have already discussed the erosion question. Since there is little or no erosion between layers, and that fact is been known for decades, your hypothesis that layers eroded away in the Grand Canyon is decisively and unquestionably falsified.
Thanks for agreeing that the rocks above the Supergroup are level or flat.
Since the Supergroup are Precambrian, those rocks could have been created during creation week, and the flat layers on top could have been rapidly laid down during the Flood, leaving no time for erosion between layers. Brown's theory then explains how the canyon rapidly formed.
@gregrutz You stated that Gentry's published reports contain flawed logic, and now you appear to be evading my request to be specific by changing the subject. That is not the way to carry on a productive conversation.
The Grand Canyon has no fossilized grand canyons, no canyons filled up with sediment. Contact points between layers, sometimes represent 12 to 100+ million years according to evolutionists, but there's little or no erosion between layers. Little or no erosion for that long? No way
There are many in the Grand Canyon. Times in the past where there was no sediments laid down. or if some were, they were eroded away = 'erosion marks'
No one will ever know what happened there because there is no evidence.
It is not a complete geologic column. some time periods are missing layers of rock.
@gregrutz So you aren't going to cite any of Gentry's published reports that you have personally read? Is that because you haven't read any? Why then did you say that the logic they contain is flawed?
As far as your unconformities go, you're evading the point: The contact points are flat even when they allegedly represent 12 to 100+ million years. In reality, the layers were laid down so quickly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers.
@gregrutz Look at whatever picture of the Grand Canyon you want to look at. The layers are all flat with little or no erosion between layers.
Gravity does NOT prevent erosion between layers, thus keeping the layers flat. The flatness thus indicates lack of erosion, and thus extremely rapid deposition from bottom to top, not over millions of years.
evolution is proven wrong...there are no evidence for it...will you accept the facts? I bet you'll go on with your faith in a "science" with no evidence
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
@gregrutz Gentry has published a number of falsifications, such as the Po radiohalo evidence. Have you read any of that published evidence and evaluated it for yourself? Taking other people's word for it would be a big mistake.
@gregrutz After thoroughly analyzing the data and findings, I can't see the flaws.
It's easier to make an unsupported assertion to that effect, rather than to scientifically explain where the flaws are.
Your assertion is self defeating: If peer-reviewed journals can publish that many flawed reports, then much of the evolutionary propaganda they contain is probably also flawed.
But since you assert that there are flaws, please tell us which specific published reports you have personally read.
@PicklePublishing The atlantic ridge is what they found when they went looking for old sediments. they found young rock and sea floor spreading. Proving plate tectonice and an old earth.
There are many ways of viewing science my friend. Creationists are scientists too. Some examples are Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Wernher Von Braun, James Irwin etc. The problem is that evolutionists suppress them, like what they did with Gregor, & later on, stole his work & claim them as their own. That's not science! They revert to name calling, bashing, & quite frankly, don't want to believe in God. Evolution isn't a fact but a lie. Louis P. is right.
would not a meteor or asteroid collision cause all what is stated in this video? the buckling of the plates, valcanic eruptions and massive flooding in a short bit of time?
Then how does he explain the perpendicular tributaries along the grand canyon that are as deep as the canyon itself? How about the sediment from the Colorado River being steadily shifted northward over the years by faults like the San Andreas? Why does it not share any of the features expected by a massive flood (a braiding river system, a wide, shallow river bed, coarse-grained sediment and boulders along the canyon floor, and streamlined relict islands)?
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Steadily shifted northward over the years? Over how many years has this shifting been actually observed?
Would a braiding river system result if the amount of water were as large as proposed? Is the proposed slope high enough to result in such?
I had a college professor who pointed out that the evidence indicates that the layers at the Grand Canyon eroded before all the layers were fully hardened. That could explain why the river bed wasn't wide.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing No it couldn't. Even if true, semi-hardened layers wouldn't explain why it created such a deep, narrow river because a flood would've been able to carry away the surrounding sediment just as easily.
Even ignoring the tributaries, floods don't create meandering rivers, especially not ones like the GC with such pronounced meanders; at some points it flows for 5 mile while only going 1 mile as the bird flies.
The science behind the sediment shifting: tinyurlDOTcom/3r5pqmz
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (1) The video proposed that the GC was created by a catastrophic flow from a post-Flood lake, not from the Flood itself.
(2) The 5 miles over 1 mile that you refer to, is the river's meandering at the bottom of canyon walls that do not meander?
(3) I can't access more than the abstract, but it appears from the abstract that the article is based on the assumption of millions of years. Does the proposed sediment shifting require that assumption?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing It doesn't matter whether it was from the supposed global flood or from a flood of lake water, it still wouldn't explain why it created a narrow river. The lake flood is actually an even flimsier argument because the proposed lake is small compared to the GC, so it would've had to have carried more materials away than there was water.
No, the 1,000 foot canyon walls follow along the same path as the river.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
No flood, including one caused by a lake, would have been able to create the many perpendicular tributaries which are just as deep as the canyon itself.
If a brief moment of rushing water could create the GC, there would be many such canyons, so why aren't there similar canyons surrounding the edges of all the continents?
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Can you identify other places where similar conditions must have existed that would have existed after the Flood at the Grand Canyon?
Another approach would be for you to suggest another theory for how the Grand Canyon formed within the short time constraints indicated by the scientific data.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "within the short time constraints indicated by the scientific data" Except the scientific data DOESN'T indicate any such thing; that's what I've been trying to explain to you. YEC claims have to ignore or deny large amounts of evidence for their narratives to work because they're working backwards from how science actually works; they're starting with the conclusion and trying to get the evidence to fit that preconceived belief.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight You are incorrect.
(a) The lack of erosion between layers at the GC shows that they were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur, despite skeptics assigning 12 my and > 100 my to some gaps between layers.
(b) He & Pb retention rates in Precambrian zircons give an age of just 1000's of years.
(c) U/Pb ratios in U halos in Jurassic & Triassic coalified wood give young ages.
(d) Soft tissue and protein levels in dinosaur bones points to young ages.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing a) There actually is erosion found between layers (which even flood geologists like ICR's Steve Austin admits).
b-d) I'm going to need your source for these claims in order to properly evaluate them.
1) "time constraints imposed by the scientific evidence" Until I get your sources for the above claims, I still maintain that the evidence doesn't impose such time constraints.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
2) Its not my job to disprove what you claim your professor said in class one time, you must first show that your professor was correct by providing evidence that what he said was true. Even if this claim was coming to me directly from your professor and not second-hand through you, I still wouldn't take what he said to be true just because he said it, so I would still need that supporting evidence.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight And what if I said the same to you? What if I said you have to provide supporting evidence, that it's not my job to disprove what you were told?
Note also that Precambrian Po-218 halos indicate that those rocks crystallized instantly, which collapses a good bit of the evolutionary time frame.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) Not the amount of erosion expected over 12 and > 100 my. The contact point between the layers is too flat.
(b) halosDOTcom/reports/science-1982-lead-in-zircons.htm halosDOTcom/reports/grl-1982-helium-in-zircons.htm But the implications aren't brought out in these.
(c) halosDOTcom/reports/science-1976-coalified-wood.htm
(d) For the former, search on Google for "dinosaur soft tissue". The latter was in a lecture last summer. Should be easy to verify.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "And what if I said the same to you?" Then I would ask exactly which points you wanted supporting evidence for (as I did for you).
b and c) It appears that your sources are all by Gentry and concern his claims on polonium halos, which have been repeatedly refuted: tinyurlDOTcom/afyl9s As I said above, creationist claims of inconsistency rest on relatively few examples while ignoring the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results.
d) watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (b-c) That doesn't refute Gentry. Baillieul cites Moazed re: confusing Po-210 and Rn-222 rings, which ignores the fact that these rings are distinguishable in fluorite. Baillieul ignores the missing alpha recoil track problem. etc.
Did you read the article critically? After reading Gentry's reports, so you would know what needs refuting?
(d) The video is wrong. Read the section on osteocytes in sciencemagDOTorg/content/suppl/2005/03/24/307.5717.1952.DC1/Schweiter.SOM.pdf
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight P.S. Aren't the dates skeptics come up with in large part what they are already looking for based on their preconceived beliefs that sacred history is wrong, and that skepticism and uniformitarianism is a viable religious world view?
I think it would be the exception rather than the rule for a scientist to publish dates that don't already coincide with his or her religious views, while overlooking evidence contradicting those dates and those religious views. It's only natural.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing The dates resulting from scientific dating methods are collected independent of beliefs about of your "sacred history" (they aren't accepted just because they contradict your "history"); the results could have coincided with your "sacred history", and if it had, it would have been verification that they could be right instead of a refutation (of certain interpretations anyway)
Neither skepticism or uniformitarianism qualify as religious, let alone as a religious world view.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I think you are incorrect. Scientific methods of dating are indeed often dependent on the religious views or other preconceived opinions of the scientist. A case in point demonstrating the subjectivity involved is at educatetruthDOTcom/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff
Uniformitarianism maintains that there have never been any miracles, and you don't think that's a religious view?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "I think you are incorrect" Then you think wrongly, at least about this subject. Independent measurements (using different and independent radiometric techniques) give consistent results, radiometric dates are also consistent with other nonradiometric dating methods, and creationist claims of inconsistency rest on relatively few examples while ignoring the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
No, its not a religious belief because it doesn't actually talk about miracles one way or the other, and as long as the supposed miracle doesn't violate the current natural laws and processes, there is no problem with it as far as uniformitarianism is concerned. That there have been miracles is also not the default position, so the stance that there have never been any miracles is analogous to the null hypothesis; in other words, it is up to those claiming there have been miracles to prove it.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight "... as long as the supposed miracle doesn't violate the current natural laws and processes ...." That's the whole point. Current, invariable, natural laws and processes is the supreme deity. Miracles, a supernatural transcending of these current laws, never have occurred, says uniformitarianism.
And thus, uniformitarianism denies the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus and Lazarus, the feeding of 5000 with 5 loaves & 2 fishes, etc.
And that's not a religious belief?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing No, its not a religious belief to think that the current natural laws and processes have always been around. If this concept is inconvenient to your belief that the stories in a book (one that is a mix of poetry, myth, legend, genealogy, prophecy, and visions and which is a translation of a translation of a translation of an oral history that was passed along for a long time before being written down) are true, then that's your problem, and its up to you to prove it otherwise.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight You just revealed your bias.
What evidence do you have that current natural laws have always been, without variation?
I think you have betrayed your religious beliefs in your reply. Now see if you can set aside all of what you just expressed, and approach the scientific data without such preconceived assumptions.
In actuality, the Bible's creation account is history written by someone who knew Someone who was actually there when it happened. And if you disagree, then prove it!
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "In actuality, the Bible's creation account is history written by someone who knew someone" No, actually it isn't; the stories in the old testament in particular were passed down orally for many generations before ever being committed to paper. And again, the burden of proof is on you to support your claim that the biblical account is true, not on everyone else to disprove it.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight No, actually, it's authentic history written by someone who knew Someone who was there, and you can't prove otherwise.
Your refusal to prove otherwise shows that you aren't an objective scientist. An objective scientist wouldn't assume that an historical document isn't authentic. What would you think if someone denied that Washington was the 1st pres.?
By the way, Moses wrote Exodus, and Moses was at Mt. Sinai when God said, "In 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth." Ex. 20:11.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PicklePublishing "and you can't prove otherwise" Again, its not my job to disprove whatever wild claims you make, the burden of proof is on you to show that its an accurate historical account as you claim.
"shows that you aren't an objective scientist" I've never actually claimed to be a scientist. Also, you have that backward, an objective scientist wouldn't assume that a document is an authentic historical account without proof.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight I have made no wild claims.
If you are going to criticize a video presenting unrefuted scientific evidence in support of creation and the Flood, the burden of proof is on you to discredit the historical source.
An objective scientist would not assume that a document is not an authentic historical account without proof. You seem to be arguing that it should be assumed to be unauthentic until proven otherwise. That is wrong.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight A truly objective scientist won't limit his theories and reporting to only current laws, or at the very least, he will subject the presupposition of uniformitarianism to the testing of the scientific method. (Otherwise, uniformitarianism is outside the realm of science.)
The whole point of one of Gentry's videos is that uniformitarianism as a theory has been scientifically falsified.
Inconsistency: Evolutionists do not apply uniformitariansim to the Big Bang.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "any objective scientist won't limit his theories and reporting to only current laws" Actually, an objective scientist WOULD limit it to that until there were some evidence indicating that it should be otherwise. What you're looking for isn't an objective scientist, its one that is sympathetic towards your beliefs (like Gentry).
That's not really an inconsistency; that research is on the very edge of our understanding, so we don't if its inconsistent with the known laws.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) No, a truly objective, unbiased scientist would not assume that uniformitarianism is a fact, without first establishing that it is true.
(b) The evidence that refutes uniformitarianism is already in.
(c) I'm looking for scientists that will set aside all their biases and look at the evidence objectively.
(d) It has been pretty standard to say that current laws did not operate around the time of the Big Bang.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing a) although just an assumption, its considered a very good and reasonable assumption which produces theories which are self-conistent, plausible and that explain observed evidence well. Creationists are really the only ones who try to discredit it because they're forced to claim the laws have changed over time in order to resolve some messy inconsistencies of observed phenomena with the biblical account.
b) And exactly what evidence would that be?
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
c) You're clearly not, otherwise you would accept the opinion of the majority of the scientists instead of the roughly 1% who are sympathetic towards your beliefs.
d) To postulate that mechanisms and rates were different in the past would require a researcher to determine not only what those mechanisms were but why they are different to today. This is one key difference between Big Bang research and creationist claims; actual scientists try to find out WHY they've changed.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (c) I suppose it is easier for you to make false accusations like that than to deal with the evidence itself.
Can you cite a study which proves that 99% of scientists are skeptics, atheists, or infidels, people who don't believe in the resurrection of Christ or Lazarus, etc.?
Is that alleged 99% honest enough to acknowledge the religious presuppositions that underlie their theories?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (d) I don't understand your point. Creationists know why miracles occurred, why the Flood took place, why Creation occurred.
If skeptics do not impose uniformitarianism upon the Big Bang, why insist that it must be imposed at all other times, without first testing that assumption, without first proving that such must be, without proving that at all other times uniformitarianism held sway?
To assume without testing is not real science.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) Real science doesn't operate that way, refusing to test assumptions, and then building elaborate theories on those unproven, untested assumptions.
(b) Po-218 halos in Precambrian granites is one line of such evidence. The many failed granite synthesis experiments is another.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing a) That sounds an awful lot like a No True Scotsman argument to me. Also, one way to test something is by examining testable predictions based on it, and a large number of predictions based on this assumption (such as in astronomy) have turned out to be very accurate, thereby showing that there is no harm in continuing to assume it.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
b) The various creationist claims about polonium halos have been repeatedly refuted, both in and out of journals (such as tinyurlDOTcom/65x7j7 and tinyurlDOTcom/3jmjjyu). The latter "evidence" isn't evidence of anything because its not even essential to Gentry's instant creation hypothesis anyway.
c) I didn't say anything about 99% being atheists. In fact quite a few are christians, jews, hindus, etc., CONT
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
they just don't allow their religious beliefs to influence their evaluation of the evidence like you clearly want them to. Ken Miller is an excellent example of this.
d) "creationists know why miracles occurred" You're confusing belief with knowledge. What creationists "know" is nothing more than unverifiable belief.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Scientists who are atheists, skeptics, or infidels allow their religious views to influence their evaluation all the time. Sometimes they even admit it, that the obvious conclusion of the evidence (creation or whatever) is just unthinkable.
(d) Uniformitarianism, long ages, the Big Bang, random mutations creating all forms of life, Po halos caused by diffusion, all of this is unverifiable beliefs held by atheists, infidels, & skeptics.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
(d) cont. The idea that 3.2 billion base pairs of human DNA came to be via mostly lethal, random mutations, leaving behind little or no transitional forms in the fossil record, is nothing short of miraculous.
Is it true that evolutionists believe a placental mole to be more closely related to a humpback whale than to a pouched mole?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (b) Have you read Gentry's reports yet? If not, how do you know whether his findings are refuted at the sites you link to?
At the first link, click "Gentry's Basis Premise" and read the part about Rn-222 and Po-210 rings being indistinguishable. Years ago I complained about this web page presenting this bogus argument, and it's still there. Why?
Your second link is pretty pathetic. It makes no attempt to deal with the science. Why?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (b) cont. Gentry proposed a falsification test for uniformitarianism and his own theory: synthesize granite. My point is that failed synthesis experiments falsify uniformitarianism, and they do. Thus, you can't use uniformitarianism to explain away scientific evidence of creation & the flood.
(c) I didn't say anything about 99% being atheists. I said skeptics, atheists, & infidels. Christians, Jews, & Muslims who don't believe the Bible are at best skeptics, even if not atheists.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) Evolutionists who refuse to test uniformitarianism have thereby placed that assumption outside of science.
If you think it has been tested, please cite studies that have indeed reported testing whether no miracles have ever occurred, even in the distant past. Please cite studies that establish that current laws and processes have always been the same, except around the time of the Big Bang.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Did you read educatetruthDOTcom/la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff ?
The inconsistencies were reported by evolutionists, not creationists. And the inconsistencies would never have been known (a) if the initial date hadn't become out of sync with preconceived evolutionary dates for human evolution, and (b) without the rancor between three different labs doing the testing.
How often is the public kept in the dark about the full range of "dates" measured?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "The inconsistencies were reported by evolutionists" Read my comments more closely before responding; I never said that they weren't, what I said was that creationist claims of inconsistency rely upon relatively few examples while completely ignoring the vast majority of them which do give consistent results.
The KBS tuff controversy does illustrate some problems with radiometric dating, but they aren't fatal flaws despite what creationists try to say:
tinyurlDOTcom/3duuu43
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) And perhaps you should read my comments more closely. Prove that the vast majority give consistent results by showing that all derived dates, not just the desired dates, were published in a majority of cases, and that the scatter was slight.
(b) After I demonstrated how unreliable the articles at TalkOrigins can be, why post a link to another? Why not instead post a link to a peer-reviewed article, rather than to an evolutionary apologetic site?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing a) Reliability has already been proven; that's precisely why these different dating methods were accepted by the scientific community in the first place.
b) First of all, you demonstrated no such thing. Secondly, all the articles there aren't even written by the same people, so your criticisms of one article don't necessarily apply to the rest. And in case you didn't notice, references to peer-reviewed articles were given at the bottom of the link.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) Where has it been proven that published articles always publish the full range of dates derived, not just the dates chosen? Are you saying that the KBS tuff articles were an exception, that in that one case many of the derived dates were not initially disclosed, but that usually there is full disclosure? If that's what you're saying, prove it!
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing a) I wasn't talking about disclosure, I was talking about the reliability of the dates, and how the problems shown in the KBS tuff are hardly the fatal flaws you creationists try to make them out to be. I also find it interesting that you gloss over the fact that the dates that were being argued about aren't even close to the time-scale required by YECs.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight *I* was talking about disclosure, which does affect the dates' reliability. If evolutionists refuse to disclose ALL the isotope ratios that don't fit their targeted dates, the public cannot judge if the dates are reliable.
Gloss over? You fail to see the point. The dates evolutionists derive from isotope ratios depend upon uniformitarian presuppositions. If those presuppositions be false, the dates pontificated by evolutionists mean nothing, leaving nothing to gloss over.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (b) I did too demonstrate it. Remember? He tried to say that Rn-222 and Po-210 rings were indistinguishable, when they are distinguishable in fluorite, and he ignored the missing alpha recoil track problem.
That TalkOrigins still posts that flawed article 6 years later discredits the whole site.
You should be the one providing a link to a peer-reviewed article, not an evolutionary apologist at TalkOrigins. Provide a link to a peer-reviewed article you have personally read.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing b) Actually, he said that they were very similar and can't COMMONLY be distinguished, not that they were indistinguishable. Also, even if your point did stand, finding one error in a minor point of an article doesn't even refute the entire article, let alone every article on the site.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight It isn't a minor point. Baillieul misled the reader. Was it on purpose? Your point suggests that it was, since "commonly" suggests that Baillieul knew there were exceptions, exceptions that refute his point, exceptions he failed to disclose.
On the other hand, if Baillieul was ignorant of the exception, he is far from an authority on the subject.
Either way, the entire article is thus called into question, as well as the website that hasn't fixed it 6 yrs later!
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Let me put it plainly: Did Baillieul read Gentry's reports?
If he did, he knew that Rn-222 & Po-210 rings are distinguishable in fluorite, and that this refutes the point he wanted to make. Thus, he purposely deceived his readers into thinking otherwise.
If he did not, then he wasn't qualified to write an article condemning another scientist's peer-reviewed published research!
Plus, it wasn't only one error: He ignored the missing fossil alpha recoil track problem!
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "I think it would be the exception" Actually, many scientists are theists, and most have no problems at all with the old dates. Also, if a scientist was ever caught overlooking or discarding evidence just because it contradicted his religious beliefs, he would probably have a hard time finding work since his results would always be considered suspect by the scientific community.
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (a) True, many profess to believe that God used evolution to create, not realizing how such an idea undermines key concepts of the gospel: Death entered the world because of Adam's sin. Man has degenerated since then, and the only hope of improvement is a Savior.
(b) Not if that evidence supports creation/the Flood, and the scientist is a skeptic. It's fairly routine.
But really, one doesn't have to intentionally overlook evidence. It's only natural to not see contrary evidence.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (1) The proposed lake was not small. And actually, I think there were two proposed lakes.
(2) Where exactly is the 5-mile stretch you are referring to? Can you provide a link to a map of it?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing "The proposed lake was not small" Yes, it is actually two lakes (still doesn't get around the many problems with that hypothesis), and I never said that they were small, just that it was small compared to the GC. Given the sizes of the proposed lakes, they still would've had to have carried away more material than there was water.
That specific meander is around Gooseneck State Park in southern Utah, though the entire river meanders (which it wouldn't if caused by a flood).
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
@ArcanaKnight (1) Again, propose another theory within the time constraints imposed by the scientific evidence.
(2) My college professor is the one who told our class back in 1982 that a meandering canyon with straight walls would be formed if the layers were not yet hardened. If you know of any experimental evidence that falsifies this idea, please provide a link.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
ng them? Or could it be because you're really not so sure of your worldview after all and are desperate to find some real answers meanwhile by pretending to debate? You know as an observer and having been reading a lot of your posts, i admire your energy to fight on even with absolute convincing evidence shown in each video. You always manage to come up with some theory to counter, JUST AMAZING! I pray for you my friend. I mean i used to be blind like most people and Thank God for his Spirit!
northstar1111 11 months ago
My dear Friends in Christ, when you quarrel with a fool, you become like one, says Proverbs. There are those of us that were blind and now see, and those that will never see and we pra they will someday. Sin has blinded the world and the result is blatent rejection of the truth, this is not news, my brothers.
Just one note on gregrutz, i see your name on comments in these videos and other related ones endlessly. If you are so sure that you're convinced with the EVO-THEORY, why bother watchi-
northstar1111 11 months ago
@TheSpiffyGamer They stayed under pressure after the flood for thousands of years .Helium trapped in zircon crystals have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rate of seepage is only 6,000 yrs,go figure.The Earth itself was also smaller than today,it appears that lava from within the earth acts sort of like "great stuff" expanding foam that hardens.This would explain less gravity that the dinos would need and if there were a canopy that would explain the higher oxygen levels we find.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@CBALLEN Wow you honestly believe that dinsaurs are only 6000 years old. And you helplessy try to explain it with some "great stuff" lava that somehow miracuroulsy decreased the earths gravity substantually, because dinosaurs needed it for what?
TheSpiffyGamer 1 year ago
@TheSpiffyGamer Check out some of the videos on the expanding Earth,it may also expand your mind.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@TheSpiffyGamer - do you really have a problem understanding why dinosaurs would need less gravity than today?
TREACLE97 11 months ago
@TREACLE97 Erm, yes seeming as the Earth's gravity has been more or less stable around 9.8 for millions of years. Dinosaurs didn't need less gravity to hold themselves up.
TheSpiffyGamer 11 months ago
@TheSpiffyGamer - thanks for that response - you must be a 'scientist' - thats really funny!...
TREACLE97 11 months ago
If macroevolution were true,all those many,many experiments done on fruit flies would have produced many new kinds of insects by now,but what did they get?....A bunch of crippled fruit flies! All dino bones look like all the dinos were put into a huge washing machine with rocks and debris mixing their bones up,proving these animals were moved around in water and broken apart.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@gregrutz did you ever saw how many time takes a coral to grow or how it does...
graysight 1 year ago
@graysight Corals grow slowly and not in muddy flood waters. The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz a, maybe it grows after the water was no longer muddy ...
graysight 1 year ago
@graysight typical creationist, just make something up, no evidence needed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz No evidence?Everything said here can be backed up and reproduced in the laboratory,unlike scientists who believe in the big bang ,abiogensis and macroevolution, none of what they believe can be re- produced in the laboratory.lol Evo-atheists have nothing, all they can do is make fun of and ridicule,they have nothing to disprove anything said in this video. Mt St Helens has set the evo-atheists beliefs on their heads. Poly-strait fossils are happening as we speak,disproving millions oys
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@gregrutz A mini grand canyon was produced in a few hours after the eruption of MSH ,just look at all those layers! Now if there were deer and other animals there,they will be fossils now! I wonder how many fish have been fossilized by this eruption,I guess we'll see in a few years.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
"radiometric fiction" ... that reminded me the DNA way back tracing...
graysight 1 year ago
The question is Not how long the canyon took to carve, How long did it take to lay down a mile of sediments? Some wind blown sands, some limestone with slow growing corals. How did limestone get to 7000 feet above sea level?
How did all the dirt get there?
gregrutz 1 year ago
There are major 'unconformities' in the canyon. Layers missing because of erosion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The point remains that there is little or no erosion seen ebtween the layers of strata at the Grand Canyon.
Could the coral have been transported and buried during the Flood?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing There are major 'unconformities' in the canyon. Layers missing because of erosion. Corals only grow in clean water and are growing on solid rock, making more rock.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I think you and I have already discussed the erosion question. Since there is little or no erosion between layers, and that fact is been known for decades, your hypothesis that layers eroded away in the Grand Canyon is decisively and unquestionably falsified.
How coral grows does not change that fact.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PicklePublishing There are major 'unconformities' in the canyon. Layers missing because of erosion. What part of that don't you understand.
Erosion marks = GAPS in the layers.
gregrutz 1 year ago
They never say how all the different layers of limestone were formed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Give specific examples of things that were made up.
purpleleach1 1 year ago
@purpleleach1 It is all make up, there is no evidence for what he says.
Anyone who has studied Geology is laughing at this story.
There was no global flood, the Grand Canyon is 21 distinct layers, flood don't do that.
There are major gap due to erosion in the canyon
It took 5 million years to carve the canyon, where did all the layers come from. some from wind blow sand.
gregrutz 1 year ago
The bottom of the Grand Canyon is not granite. OOPS.
At one end is the Super Group, the rocks below the level rocks. OOPS.
Not older rocks below old rocks.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz So Zoroaster Granite isn't granite?
Thanks for agreeing that the rocks above the Supergroup are level or flat.
Since the Supergroup are Precambrian, those rocks could have been created during creation week, and the flat layers on top could have been rapidly laid down during the Flood, leaving no time for erosion between layers. Brown's theory then explains how the canyon rapidly formed.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Not is you are an ecucated person or read a geology book! It is total made up crap.
Did the flood make the sediments or wash them away, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Why are the trilobite fossils only in the bottom layers.
The Coconino Sandstone has desert fossils in wind blown sand.
There are many unconformities in the Grand Canyon, gaps [erosion marks]
gregrutz 1 year ago
What does he mean 'no erosion marks'?
There are many uncomformities in the grand canyon, gaps in the history.
The Coconino Sandstone is from wind blown sand, it has desert fossils in it.
One guy says the dam flood moved lots of dirt, then the guy says a river couldn't move that much dirt. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You stated that Gentry's published reports contain flawed logic, and now you appear to be evading my request to be specific by changing the subject. That is not the way to carry on a productive conversation.
The Grand Canyon has no fossilized grand canyons, no canyons filled up with sediment. Contact points between layers, sometimes represent 12 to 100+ million years according to evolutionists, but there's little or no erosion between layers. Little or no erosion for that long? No way
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Do you know what an unconformity is?
There are many in the Grand Canyon. Times in the past where there was no sediments laid down. or if some were, they were eroded away = 'erosion marks'
No one will ever know what happened there because there is no evidence.
It is not a complete geologic column. some time periods are missing layers of rock.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz So you aren't going to cite any of Gentry's published reports that you have personally read? Is that because you haven't read any? Why then did you say that the logic they contain is flawed?
As far as your unconformities go, you're evading the point: The contact points are flat even when they allegedly represent 12 to 100+ million years. In reality, the layers were laid down so quickly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Yes, when sediments are laid down there is no erosion, when there is erosion we get an unconformity. Get it.
It is not a pancake layering, it is flat because the limestone was laid down in a shallow sea. Some layers are desert sand, gravity makes layers flat.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Look at whatever picture of the Grand Canyon you want to look at. The layers are all flat with little or no erosion between layers.
Gravity does NOT prevent erosion between layers, thus keeping the layers flat. The flatness thus indicates lack of erosion, and thus extremely rapid deposition from bottom to top, not over millions of years.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
sweet
Acuraintegraman1 2 years ago
At 1:30, as you look at this scene, that was made by flowing water. See the pancake layering? The rushing water carved it's way through. Great part!
wasnt4me 2 years ago
evolution is proven wrong...there are no evidence for it...will you accept the facts? I bet you'll go on with your faith in a "science" with no evidence
golgothawas4me 2 years ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Gentry has published a number of falsifications, such as the Po radiohalo evidence. Have you read any of that published evidence and evaluated it for yourself? Taking other people's word for it would be a big mistake.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing He didn't prove anything, his logic is flawed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz After thoroughly analyzing the data and findings, I can't see the flaws.
It's easier to make an unsupported assertion to that effect, rather than to scientifically explain where the flaws are.
Your assertion is self defeating: If peer-reviewed journals can publish that many flawed reports, then much of the evolutionary propaganda they contain is probably also flawed.
But since you assert that there are flaws, please tell us which specific published reports you have personally read.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing The atlantic ridge is what they found when they went looking for old sediments. they found young rock and sea floor spreading. Proving plate tectonice and an old earth.
Lava come out of the mid atlantic ridge.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Which published report by Dr. Gentry are you referring to? Please cite the journal and date.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
There are many ways of viewing science my friend. Creationists are scientists too. Some examples are Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Wernher Von Braun, James Irwin etc. The problem is that evolutionists suppress them, like what they did with Gregor, & later on, stole his work & claim them as their own. That's not science! They revert to name calling, bashing, & quite frankly, don't want to believe in God. Evolution isn't a fact but a lie. Louis P. is right.
4ProCreation 3 years ago
would not a meteor or asteroid collision cause all what is stated in this video? the buckling of the plates, valcanic eruptions and massive flooding in a short bit of time?
possably hitting in an oceanic area.. ???
tmad890 3 years ago
snap, a nice creation video with that old science class feel.
djbro16 3 years ago 2