Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
The Barbarian said:
Did trilobites live on land?
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
[_ Old Earth _] The Flaws of the Geologic Column (Timeline)
- Thread starter Pard
- Start date
Did trilobites live on land?
Evointrinsic
Member
- May 23, 2009
- 529
- 0
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
The Barbarian said:
I don't understand your question. Are you still referring to marine deposits?
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
I guess.
However, I prefer peer reviewed articles.
Evointrinsic
Member
- May 23, 2009
- 529
- 0
Crying Rock said:
Then Google should be able to find you some articles quite easily
Personally, I find it quite difficult (in some cases) to gather valid information on the internet, so my tactic is to read as many articles on the same subject from various different sources, and then make a conclusion over the most agreed upon conclusion those articles made. Of course, this still can be risky. But in this case you could always email a few Palaeontologists for the best possible answer if your still unsure. No offense to The Barbarian or anything, but a practicing Palaeontologist will (most likely) know more on the subject.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,202
- 2,509
Barbarian chuckles:
Yeah, that's wrong; the geologic column was noticed long before Darwin. But I'm thinking that there's a bigger "misconception" here. What do you think "uniformitarian" means?
I'd like to know what you think it means. Your source seems to be unaware of that.
Sedgwick, for example, had the character to face up to the evidence, and acknowledge what it meant:
In retreating where we have advanced too far, there is neither compromise of dignity nor loss of strength; for in doing this, we partake but of the common fortune of every one who enters on a field of investigation like our own....
Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.
To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
(Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)
Barbarian observes:
This is also true. At first they had no idea what it all meant. They only knew the order for undisturbed sediments. The law of superposition was hundreds of years old by that time, so they knew the lower sediments were older. But they had no idea how old.
Rather, they realized that they were different periods, by looking at the geologic column.
Barbarian chuckles:
I'm always amazed that creationists think geologists ever thought this was true. Because it would require that all areas of the earth receive sediment at the same time, it's manifestly impossible for every layer to be present everywhere. There are however, a few places where every major strata is present. So far, we've gotten creationist misconceptions only. I don't see how that's a problem for science.
Barbarian oberves:
See above. No one is surprised by this. From the start, they knew about things like folding and overthrusts, that cause the strata to be "out of place."
Barbarian observes:
At one time, it was so. But radioisotope testing is far more reliable now. Index fossils are still quite useful, however.
Doesn't matter. It's been calibrated using known dates, such as the destruction of Pompeii.
Barbarian oberves:
That's another misconception creationists have. Sometimes, deposition stops entirely. Other times, it can rapidly occur. No scientist is surprised by that.
That's a very modern religious idea. Until the early 1900s, almost all Christians believed that millions of years had passed. Even the Baptists were convinced of this:
In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam.
Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon 1855
Barbarian observes:
Another creationist misconception. Radiometric dating can supply reasonably accurate dates to billions of years, but there are numerous ways to misinterpret it. There are entire books written on things that must be done to assure accuracy.
The fact remains. The method works. And unless you get careless, the results are very reliable.
Barbarian observes:
This is often true. Would you like to learn how we can know these things?
If you doubt it, I can show you. Do I need to do that?
Sure. First, we can know if a desert existed at certain levels by the chemistry and composition of the paleosols, the fossil dirt. We can see the fossil burrows of certain kinds of animals, and the grain structure and cross-bedding of dunes, as well as particular kind of rock "varnish" and other signs of a desert. There are many similar ways you can verify other sorts of biomes. Pick one, and I'll show you.
Books, films and museum displays contain illustrations asking us to visualize what earlier "geologic ages" were like. These "pictures" show supposed primitive earth conditions, specific environments with sediments being slowly deposited, inferred "transitional organisms" evolving toward familiar forms, and whole communities of organisms "at home" with other organisms absent. Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved.
The origin of life was long before the early Cambrian. We have many fossils of complex Precambrian organisms. Some of them are ancestral to living phyla; others seem to have no surviving descendants:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html
The reduced iron formations in very early deposits show that the oxygen content of the early atmosphere was very low; such deposits cannot form in an oxidizing atmosphere.
See above. As noted earlier, life began long before the Cambrian. The evidence your guy thinks is missing:
But new data seem to indicate that this event may have happened earlier than that. A lot earlier: like 3.5 billion years ago. This new data comes in the form of geological core samples containing hematite, a mineral that forms either through aerobic processes of bacteria (that is, biology using oxygen) or through photolysis (chemical changes from light) due to sunlight. But that latter happens only near the surface of water, and the hematite in the core samples seem to be from too deep in water to be from photolysis.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... re-appear/
Even more convincing are the somewhat later banded iron formations.
The deposition of alternating iron-rich and silica-rich mineral layers in the late Fe(II)-rich Archean to early Proterozoic periods of the Earth's history resulted in the genesis of the Precambrian banded iron formations (BIFs)125 (see figure). Early models suggested that BIFs were a consequence of abiotic reactions involving Fe(II) photo-oxidation51, 126 and/or Fe(II) oxidation by the metabolic end product of oxygenic photosynthesis — oxygen (Ref. 127). This led to the formation of the iron-rich laminae, containing hematite (Fe2O3) and the mixed-valence phase Fe(II)–Fe(III)-bearing mineral magnetite (Fe3O4).
In recent years, microbial reductive and oxidative respiratory metabolisms have been implicated in the deposition of iron-bearing minerals in the iron-rich laminae of BIFs4, 20, 128, 129, 130. Microaerophilic Fe(II) oxidizers, such as Gallionella ferruginea, might have metabolically oxidized Fe(II) coupled to the oxygen generated by oxygenic photosynthesis129, 131. However, this model assumes that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved enough oxygen to account for the precipitation of Fe(III)-rich minerals. There has been much debate concerning the evolution of oxygen in the early Proterozoic and therefore the role of oxygen in the deposition of BIFs132, 133. Other microbially mediated mechanisms influencing the precipitation of Fe(II)- and Fe(III)-rich minerals in anoxic environments have been proposed as plausible alternatives, including Fe(III) reduction, phototrophic Fe(II) oxidation, and nitrate-dependent Fe(II) oxidation (see figure).
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v ... 0_BX1.html
Anaerobic prokaryotes produced oxygen as a waste product. In beds of them, the oxygen produced an oxidized layer, which also killed off most of the organisms. As the oxygen level dropped, they grew again, forming a series of bands of reduced and oxidized iron.
Barbarian chuckles:
Another creationist misconception. No biologist with any sense thinks amoebas gave rise to humans. Nor does the obvious cases of evolution in the fossil record (such as those mentioned by Stephen Gould)
show such a thing.
It's such an odd belief that I have a hard time thinking anyone really seriously thinks humans evolved from amoebae, or even thinks that some other people might think it's true.
Nope. Nothing about magic. Darwin did attribute the origin of life to God, but magic wasn't part of it.
Natural selection seems to be the way God guided it.
I could show you again how mutation increases the amount of information in a population. Would you like me to do that?
It's called "natural selection." Even most creationists now admit it's a fact.
Notice that by pointing out that error, a whole set of misconceptions were exposed. And that's always a good thing.
In this case, we cleared up a lot of errors.
"Amoeba-to-man" is a strawman that is best refuted by showing how absurdly it misrepresents evolutionary theory. By clarifying what it actually means, it puts us back on the real theory.
And yes, I have some very good friends who are YE creationists. One was even kind enough to send me a manuscript of his book for critique before he sent it to the publisher. And no, evolution is not a salvation issue.
Yeah, that's wrong; the geologic column was noticed long before Darwin. But I'm thinking that there's a bigger "misconception" here. What do you think "uniformitarian" means?
I'd like to know what you think it means. Your source seems to be unaware of that.
Sedgwick, for example, had the character to face up to the evidence, and acknowledge what it meant:
In retreating where we have advanced too far, there is neither compromise of dignity nor loss of strength; for in doing this, we partake but of the common fortune of every one who enters on a field of investigation like our own....
Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.
To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
(Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)
Barbarian observes:
This is also true. At first they had no idea what it all meant. They only knew the order for undisturbed sediments. The law of superposition was hundreds of years old by that time, so they knew the lower sediments were older. But they had no idea how old.
Rather, they realized that they were different periods, by looking at the geologic column.
Barbarian chuckles:
I'm always amazed that creationists think geologists ever thought this was true. Because it would require that all areas of the earth receive sediment at the same time, it's manifestly impossible for every layer to be present everywhere. There are however, a few places where every major strata is present. So far, we've gotten creationist misconceptions only. I don't see how that's a problem for science.
Barbarian oberves:
See above. No one is surprised by this. From the start, they knew about things like folding and overthrusts, that cause the strata to be "out of place."
Barbarian observes:
At one time, it was so. But radioisotope testing is far more reliable now. Index fossils are still quite useful, however.
Doesn't matter. It's been calibrated using known dates, such as the destruction of Pompeii.
Barbarian oberves:
That's another misconception creationists have. Sometimes, deposition stops entirely. Other times, it can rapidly occur. No scientist is surprised by that.
That's a very modern religious idea. Until the early 1900s, almost all Christians believed that millions of years had passed. Even the Baptists were convinced of this:
In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam.
Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon 1855
Barbarian observes:
Another creationist misconception. Radiometric dating can supply reasonably accurate dates to billions of years, but there are numerous ways to misinterpret it. There are entire books written on things that must be done to assure accuracy.
The fact remains. The method works. And unless you get careless, the results are very reliable.
Barbarian observes:
This is often true. Would you like to learn how we can know these things?
If you doubt it, I can show you. Do I need to do that?
Sure. First, we can know if a desert existed at certain levels by the chemistry and composition of the paleosols, the fossil dirt. We can see the fossil burrows of certain kinds of animals, and the grain structure and cross-bedding of dunes, as well as particular kind of rock "varnish" and other signs of a desert. There are many similar ways you can verify other sorts of biomes. Pick one, and I'll show you.
Books, films and museum displays contain illustrations asking us to visualize what earlier "geologic ages" were like. These "pictures" show supposed primitive earth conditions, specific environments with sediments being slowly deposited, inferred "transitional organisms" evolving toward familiar forms, and whole communities of organisms "at home" with other organisms absent. Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved.
The origin of life was long before the early Cambrian. We have many fossils of complex Precambrian organisms. Some of them are ancestral to living phyla; others seem to have no surviving descendants:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html
The reduced iron formations in very early deposits show that the oxygen content of the early atmosphere was very low; such deposits cannot form in an oxidizing atmosphere.
See above. As noted earlier, life began long before the Cambrian. The evidence your guy thinks is missing:
But new data seem to indicate that this event may have happened earlier than that. A lot earlier: like 3.5 billion years ago. This new data comes in the form of geological core samples containing hematite, a mineral that forms either through aerobic processes of bacteria (that is, biology using oxygen) or through photolysis (chemical changes from light) due to sunlight. But that latter happens only near the surface of water, and the hematite in the core samples seem to be from too deep in water to be from photolysis.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... re-appear/
Even more convincing are the somewhat later banded iron formations.
The deposition of alternating iron-rich and silica-rich mineral layers in the late Fe(II)-rich Archean to early Proterozoic periods of the Earth's history resulted in the genesis of the Precambrian banded iron formations (BIFs)125 (see figure). Early models suggested that BIFs were a consequence of abiotic reactions involving Fe(II) photo-oxidation51, 126 and/or Fe(II) oxidation by the metabolic end product of oxygenic photosynthesis — oxygen (Ref. 127). This led to the formation of the iron-rich laminae, containing hematite (Fe2O3) and the mixed-valence phase Fe(II)–Fe(III)-bearing mineral magnetite (Fe3O4).
In recent years, microbial reductive and oxidative respiratory metabolisms have been implicated in the deposition of iron-bearing minerals in the iron-rich laminae of BIFs4, 20, 128, 129, 130. Microaerophilic Fe(II) oxidizers, such as Gallionella ferruginea, might have metabolically oxidized Fe(II) coupled to the oxygen generated by oxygenic photosynthesis129, 131. However, this model assumes that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved enough oxygen to account for the precipitation of Fe(III)-rich minerals. There has been much debate concerning the evolution of oxygen in the early Proterozoic and therefore the role of oxygen in the deposition of BIFs132, 133. Other microbially mediated mechanisms influencing the precipitation of Fe(II)- and Fe(III)-rich minerals in anoxic environments have been proposed as plausible alternatives, including Fe(III) reduction, phototrophic Fe(II) oxidation, and nitrate-dependent Fe(II) oxidation (see figure).
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v ... 0_BX1.html
Anaerobic prokaryotes produced oxygen as a waste product. In beds of them, the oxygen produced an oxidized layer, which also killed off most of the organisms. As the oxygen level dropped, they grew again, forming a series of bands of reduced and oxidized iron.
Barbarian chuckles:
Another creationist misconception. No biologist with any sense thinks amoebas gave rise to humans. Nor does the obvious cases of evolution in the fossil record (such as those mentioned by Stephen Gould)
show such a thing.
It's such an odd belief that I have a hard time thinking anyone really seriously thinks humans evolved from amoebae, or even thinks that some other people might think it's true.
Nope. Nothing about magic. Darwin did attribute the origin of life to God, but magic wasn't part of it.
Natural selection seems to be the way God guided it.
I could show you again how mutation increases the amount of information in a population. Would you like me to do that?
It's called "natural selection." Even most creationists now admit it's a fact.
Notice that by pointing out that error, a whole set of misconceptions were exposed. And that's always a good thing.
In this case, we cleared up a lot of errors.
"Amoeba-to-man" is a strawman that is best refuted by showing how absurdly it misrepresents evolutionary theory. By clarifying what it actually means, it puts us back on the real theory.
And yes, I have some very good friends who are YE creationists. One was even kind enough to send me a manuscript of his book for critique before he sent it to the publisher. And no, evolution is not a salvation issue.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Crying Rock said:
I don't understand your question. Are you still referring to marine deposits?[/quote:2cvc8n3e]
I have read several peer-reviewed geological reports that conclude that the oldest
remaining land deposits are only a few million years old. They're located in Israel
in some desert. I'll track down the refs.
If this is true then this would explain why the oldest preserved organisms are in marine deposits.
Again, I'll track down the refs to make sure I'm not recalling incorrectly.
I've written a geologist friend of mine that originally pointed out the reports to me.
Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
Bronzesnake wrote:...We do not believe God created all living things at once.
The scriptures say that God created animals after their own kind. Therefore, He created for example, the first pair of dogs and from that first pair or kind, all other breeds were based....
LK Quote -
Sorry I can’t help you my friend.
If you can’t grasp simple terminology then perhaps you shouldn’t get involved in these “kinds†of discussions.
Bronzesnake
The scriptures say that God created animals after their own kind. Therefore, He created for example, the first pair of dogs and from that first pair or kind, all other breeds were based....
LK Quote -
Sorry I can’t help you my friend.
If you can’t grasp simple terminology then perhaps you shouldn’t get involved in these “kinds†of discussions.
Bronzesnake
lordkalvan
Member
- Jul 9, 2008
- 2,195
- 0
A surprisingly arrogant and dismissive reply to what I thought was a quite reasonable question. No doubt the nature of your response was prompted by your ready understanding that the biblical 'kind' is so vaguely defined, incoherently described and scientifically vacuous that you realize that to offer any supporting argument in its favour at all would offer far too many hostages to fortune and expose the self-serving silliness of the concept for what it is.Bronzesnake said:
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Crying Rock said:
I don't understand your question. Are you still referring to marine deposits?[/quote:3v6jq8gj]
I have read several peer-reviewed geological reports that conclude that the oldest
remaining land deposits are only a few million years old. They're located in Israel
in some desert. I'll track down the refs.
If this is true then this would explain why the oldest preserved organisms are in marine deposits.
Again, I'll track down the refs to make sure I'm not recalling incorrectly.
I've written a geologist friend of mine that originally pointed out the reports to me.[/quote:3v6jq8gj]
ABSTRACT
All exposed rocks on Earth’s surface experience
erosion; the fastest rates are documented
in rapidly uplifted monsoonal mountain
ranges, and the slowest occur in extreme
cold or warm deserts—millennial submeterscale
erosion may be approached only in the
latter. The oldest previously reported exposure
ages are from boulders and clasts of
resistant lithologies lying at the surface, and
the slowest reported erosion rates are derived
from bedrock outcrops or boulders that erode
more slowly than their surroundings; thus,
these oldest reported ages and slowest erosion
rates relate to outstanding features in the
landscape, while the surrounding landscape
may erode faster and be younger. We present
erosion rate and exposure age data from the
Paran Plains, a typical environment in the
Near East where vast abandoned alluvial surfaces
(102–104 km2) are covered by well-developed
desert pavements. These surfaces may
experience erosion rates that are slower than
those documented elsewhere on our planet
and can retain their original geometry for
more than 2 m.y. Major factors that reduce
erosion converge in these regions: extreme
hyperaridity, tectonic stability, fl at and horizontal
surfaces (i.e., no relief), and effective
surface armoring by a clast mosaic of highly
resistant lithology. The 10Be concentrations in
amalgamated desert pavement chert clasts
collected from abandoned alluvial surfaces
in the southern Negev, Israel (representing
the Sahara-Arabia Deserts), indicate simple
exposure ages of 1.5–1.8 Ma or correspond to
maximum erosion rates of 0.25–0.3 m m.y.–1.
The 36Cl in carbonate clasts, from the same
pavement, weathers faster than the chert and
yields simple exposure ages of 430–490 ka or
maximum erosion rates of 0.7–0.8 m m.y.–1.
These ages and rates are exceptional because
they represent an extensive landform. The
10Be concentrations from samples collected at
depth and optically stimulated luminescence
(OSL) dating reveal a two-stage colluvial
deposition history followed by eolian addition
of 40 cm of silt during the past 170 k.y. Our
results highlight the effi ciency of desert pavement
armor in protecting rocks from erosion
and preserving such geomorphic surfaces for
millions of years.
Matmon, A., and others 2009, Desert pavement–coated
surfaces in extreme deserts present the longest-lived
landforms on Earth. Geological Society of America
Bulletin vol. 121, no. 5-6, pp. 688-697.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,202
- 2,509
I wonder if he knows about:
Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Have you got a peer-reviewed reference?
I've got very little time, and can't waste it on blogs.
I'm looking for something like this:
Matmon, A., and others 2009, Desert pavement–coated
surfaces in extreme deserts present the longest-lived
landforms on Earth. Geological Society of America
Bulletin vol. 121, no. 5-6, pp. 688-697.
Bob may be right, but I'd like to see criticisms of his blog.
Geological Society of America's reports are open to scholarly refutation.
Are they in situ?
I've got very little time, and can't waste it on blogs.
I'm looking for something like this:
Matmon, A., and others 2009, Desert pavement–coated
surfaces in extreme deserts present the longest-lived
landforms on Earth. Geological Society of America
Bulletin vol. 121, no. 5-6, pp. 688-697.
Bob may be right, but I'd like to see criticisms of his blog.
Geological Society of America's reports are open to scholarly refutation.
Are they in situ?
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,202
- 2,509
How we know the Coconino sandstone is aoelian:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30061023
Invert tracks in Coconino sandstone:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1299441
USGS age of Coconino
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplat ... conino.htm
Journal of Sedimentary Research:
http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10 ... 0102C1865D
And there's this on a related subject:
Basal terrestrial deposits in the Cambrian-Ordovician Nepean Formation (Potsdam Group) near Kingston, Ontario, contain arthropod-produced trackways that extend the record of the first arthropod landfall back by as much as 40 m.y. The presence of large, simple cross-beds and of wind-produced structures, including adhesion ripples and wind-ripple lamination, indicates that the host strata were deposited in an eolian dune field, probably in a marginal-marine setting. The trackways were preserved mainly as undertracks and record the activities of large, amphibious arthropods, possibly euthycarcinoids.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/30/5/391
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30061023
Invert tracks in Coconino sandstone:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1299441
USGS age of Coconino
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplat ... conino.htm
Journal of Sedimentary Research:
http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10 ... 0102C1865D
And there's this on a related subject:
Basal terrestrial deposits in the Cambrian-Ordovician Nepean Formation (Potsdam Group) near Kingston, Ontario, contain arthropod-produced trackways that extend the record of the first arthropod landfall back by as much as 40 m.y. The presence of large, simple cross-beds and of wind-produced structures, including adhesion ripples and wind-ripple lamination, indicates that the host strata were deposited in an eolian dune field, probably in a marginal-marine setting. The trackways were preserved mainly as undertracks and record the activities of large, amphibious arthropods, possibly euthycarcinoids.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/30/5/391
Bronzesnake
Member
- May 7, 2010
- 241
- 0
No need to be so dramatic brother.lordkalvan said:
I do apologise if I insulted you. I actually believed a person of your apparent intelligence would obviously understand this basic language, and I therefore assumed you were being disingenuous as many others have used that tactic in relation to the biblical “kinds†of Genesis before. I guess I was wrong in this case.
It's just that I never cease to be amazed by people who come out with intelligent, well thought out and executed arguments involving somewhat complex scientific theories and ideas and yet these simple examples of very basic English and grammar seem to baffle them. So I trust you can understand when I am forced to call the bluff.
You are obviously too intelligent to be stumped by this brother.
Let’s not play games. I respect your opinions and beliefs, there is really no need for this kind of tactic.
The account in Genesis is very clear and easy to comprehend except when it comes to atheistic or theistic evolutionists.
The reason these two groups in particular have such an apparent hard time comprehending simple English and grammar I believe, is they do not have any real effective rebuttal for the obvious historical account of Genesis.
Perhaps you could help out by explaining as best as you can exactly what each of the following scriptures actually means...
What do you suppose the writer of this scripture is getting at?
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
If you were asked to explain exactly what is meant by that sentence, what would you say?
I trust you will be honest here. I’m not asking you to believe what you read, I’m simply asking you to explain what the writer means.
You come across as a very intelligent person and so I doubt you will have much trouble understanding this simple sentence my friend.
Ok next...
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."
Next...
God made the wild animals according to their kinds
Next...
the livestock according to their kinds,
Next...
and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
It’s difficult for me to take you serious when you try to convince people that you don’t know what is meant when someone discuses different “breeds†of dogs for example.
If you are still having trouble then perhaps you could benefit by reading the information here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/variety-within-kinds
Bronzesnake
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
Guys:
Ari Matmonâ€
The Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
Ori Simhai
The Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel, and Geological Survey of
Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel
Rivka Amit
Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel
Itai Haviv
The Institute of Earth Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
Naomi Porat
Geological Survey of Israel, 30 Malkhe Israel Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel
Eric McDonald
Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
Lucilla Benedetti
Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Europôle Méditerranéen de l’Arbois, BP 80,
Aix en Provence, cedex 04, 13545, France
Robert Finkel
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, California 94550, USA
And the Geological Society of America.
Matmon, A., and others 2009, Desert pavement–coated
surfaces in extreme deserts present the longest-lived
landforms on Earth. Geological Society of America
Bulletin vol. 121, no. 5-6, pp. 688-697.
You're citation:
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/30/5/391
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,202
- 2,509
The fact remains, I cited for you, numerous examples of sedimentary deposits on land, which are many millions of years old. The oldest I cited are sand dunes near the shore of a sea, which have the oldest evidence of land animals in them.
Your guys are just wrong. Obviously so.
Your guys are just wrong. Obviously so.
Crying Rock
Member
- Oct 16, 2008
- 554
- 0
The Barbarian said:
Is this a marine or land environment:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/22287 ... 943da0.jpg
Where did the sand for the dunes from?
What was the dominate source of the eolian forces?
How old are the majority of your citations?
1938; 1944; 1947; etc...