Real Science Friday's 2012 List of Not So Old Things

[Bob Enyart]

Alate_One, there was much evidence that Hutton missed...

Alate_One, there was much evidence that Hutton missed...

That particular spot, Siccar point is the major piece of evidence that convinced early geologists that the earth was old.

Hello A_O! Earlier this year I took notes while viewing a DVD of geologists who revisited Siccar Point, as well as other nearby iconic geological sites. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the DVD, which pointed out many details which Hutton, et al., overlooked. And as I recall, the DVD also covers a revolution beginning among old-Earth geologists whereby the old super-slow explanation for granite intrusions is making way for a rapid (very rapid) explanation.

Alate, I'd like to send you a copy of this DVD is you'd make one promise. Of course you would present your many disagreements. But of the observations offered to undermine claimed evidence of old ages, would you present here a list of the top three best points made?

Let me know, and also, let me know where to instruct Amazon.com to drop ship the DVD.

Thanks!

-Bob Enyart

 

[fool]

Hello fool! Hey, I have a bad memory for such things (being a talk show host for 20 years, I interact with too many people to recall all the details I'd like to remember), but... don't you live in the Denver metro area?

Detroit, so close, they both have a D.

I do recall though always wanting to meet with you. Coffee?

-Bob

Same here Bob, if I ever make it out that way we'll get together for sure.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Nick, nice tree!

Nick, nice tree!

Is the tree millions of years old?
View attachment 17613

Nick, the thing I like about your example, is that it is perfectly typical of polystrates from all over the world, where the tops of the trees, whale skeletons, etc., show no more erosion than the bottoms, even in locations where the burial layers allegedly were laid down over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Also, like in Yellowstone, where we worked with friends to get the park to remove their Petrified Tree sign (because the trees had no root systems, which falsified the claim that 20 forests allegedly grew there, in situ, one after another, etc.), these trees were catastrophically broken off and transported by water and buried upright, as at Mt. St. Helens.

Nick, I especially like the whale fossil in diatoms and the fossilized school of jellyfish!

-Bob Enyart

 

[Nick M]

So, sediment turns to stone in less than a year? How about you show us that?

How about hours? Ever here of concrete?

The dino blood is not debunked. No matter how much you stomp your feet.

 

[Alate_One]

I didn't say I had one. I just don't see why it matters that some formations aren't results of the flood.

And you still haven't shown that such formations require more than 6,000 years.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The individual layers must be formed by separate events. Single flood deposits don't form distinct layers. So that's going to require a lot of time. Then the layers have to solidify into rock. This has to happen otherwise the contact between the layers wouldn't stay intact when they are folded into a vertical position. Seen any sediment turn into rock in a short period of time lately? Then you have to get the rock to fold into a vertical position. If this occurred quickly it would have been observed by human beings. If it were still occurring today, people would be observing it happening right now. Then you have to have yet another series of sediment layers form in a watery environment and then get lifted up (or sea level drop considerably) to reveal the completed structure.

And of course this happened in multiple places around the world.

I don't like this guy's attitude towards faith, but if you can set it aside he does a reasonably good job explaining the geological processes that tell us the earth is old. Siccar Point is only one example, the evidence is everywhere.

Story of the Earth

Again, this is why Bible believing geologists gave up on a recent earth and flood geology long ago.

 

[Alate_One]

How about hours? Ever here of concrete?

Concrete is a manmade substance *designed* to solidify in hours. We're talking about natural processes here. Or did you forget that before posting?

The dino blood is not debunked. No matter how much you stomp your feet.

It wasn't fresh blood no matter how much you stamp your feet. Nor do residues of biomaterials automatically make something 6000 years old in the face over overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Alate_One]

Hello A_O! Earlier this year I took notes while viewing a DVD of geologists who revisited Siccar Point, as well as other nearby iconic geological sites. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the DVD, which pointed out many details which Hutton, et al., overlooked. And as I recall, the DVD also covers a revolution beginning among old-Earth geologists whereby the old super-slow explanation for granite intrusions is making way for a rapid (very rapid) explanation.

Alate, I'd like to send you a copy of this DVD is you'd make one promise. Of course you would present your many disagreements. But of the observations offered to undermine claimed evidence of old ages, would you present here a list of the top three best points made?

Let me know, and also, let me know where to instruct Amazon.com to drop ship the DVD.

Thanks!

-Bob Enyart

This is the age of technology Bob. Videos sent through snail mail? :chuckle: How about you post it online if you're so proud of it? Or if you're worried about others seeing it you can post it privately and send a link to me and remove it after a while.

But, I'm no geologist, (though we now have one on staff) and even the most basic level of geology tells us the earth is no 6000 years old. And you don't even need geology to tell you that.

 

[Alate_One]

Nick, the thing I like about your example, is that it is perfectly typical of polystrates from all over the world, where the tops of the trees, whale skeletons, etc., show no more erosion than the bottoms, even in locations where the burial layers allegedly were laid down over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Wrong. How about you watch the video I linked before spouting this falsehood again?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Alate, I was bombed out of your video in less than 2 minutes...

Alate, I was bombed out of your video in less than 2 minutes...

Dinosaur blood and Polystrate trees debunked

Alate, hi! As I'm sure is true for you, time is precious. So I thought that I'd watch the video you posted until they made an inaccurate accusation against creationists.

Within two minutes, the narrator (a scientist?) claimed he debunked the Christians, in that he read Mary's 2002 paper which he said made no claim of her finding red blood cells in that dino thigh bone.

I really think the world's best catalog of dino soft tissue finds, with excerpts, is at our RSF dinosaursofttissue.com, which you can easily use to fact check claims on either side.

If you check there, you'll find that Mary Schweitzer reported almost verbatim what was claimed by the creationist, that in that T. rex fossil, MOR 1125 (Museum of the Rockies), she found what she described as, "structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells..." [You can link from our DST page directly to Mary's free, online peer-reviewed paper and read this in context.] She also wrote that, "The structures observed in most fossil specimens are similar in morphology, size, location and content to erythrocytes [red blood cells] observed in related extant [still living] taxa."

The creationist whom the narrator made fun of for not reading Mary's "2002" paper, actually said, at 35 seconds into the video, that when they broke open [MOR 1125] the thigh bone, they found "what appear to be intact red blood cells." He didn't say that Mary reported this in her 2002 paper. She didn't. She reported it in her 2007 paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

I'm not sure exactly when she first saw what appeared to her to look like red blood cells. (As you may recall, Schweitzer later injected some of this material into lab rats, and they produced the same antibodies that they produce when exposed to reptile hemoglobin, which helped to disprove the claim that this wasn't organic but mineral heme.) But it seems that what the creationist said on this specific point (which the narrator dramatically crossed off his list of creationist errors) was reasonable.

Yes, when the second creationist used the word "meat", that was wrong (and silly: he said this material was found inside of bone, where we find marrow, yes, but not meat, from inside of a bone). Whether he thought that it was meat, or misspoke, that was a valid criticism. (Though I don't think that the creationists put the word "meat" on the screen, I think that was the narrator's edit, and if the creationists had done that, I would think that would have brought their attention to that specific word and they probably would have noticed and corrected their error.)

At any rate, when criticizing, as well all know, it's doubly important to be accurate. So that error, within 2 minutes of the video, suggested to me that the narrator's bias makes him susceptible to false accusations, and I'd rather spend time with criticisms from more careful critics. So that bombed me out of the video.

Thanks A_O!

-Bob

 

[Alate_One]

Alate, hi! As I'm sure is true for you, time is precious. So I thought that I'd watch the video you posted until they made an inaccurate accusation against creationists.

Gee if I used that same criteria (making inaccurate accusations) for any of your shows or show summaries, I wouldn't get very far at all. :chuckle:

Okay precious time granted, here's the section specifically dedicated to polystrate trees. It's only 2 minutes long.

At any rate, when criticizing, as well all know, it's doubly important to be accurate. So that error, within 2 minutes of the video, suggested to me that the narrator's bias makes him susceptible to false accusations, and I'd rather spend time with criticisms from more careful critics. So that bombed me out of the video.

Thanks A_O!

-Bob

You could have, of course, actually skipped to the relevant part that debunks the false statement I pointed out, you know the one having to do with the trees. The issue of dinosaur "soft tissue" is relatively complex. (Hemoglobin vs. breakdown products vs. blood cells vs. things that look like blood cells) However, none of these structures were actually soft or flexible at the time they were removed from a fossil. So there's a certain amount of truth stretching going on in this area, not to mention the logical fallacies. For example preserved biomaterials means that the structures in question must be young, despite all the contrary evidence showing the earth and the fossils are in fact old.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Alate, how about polystrates in strata that is claimed to form far more slowly?

Alate, how about polystrates in strata that is claimed to form far more slowly?

Gee if I used that same criteria (making inaccurate accusations) for any of your shows or show summaries, I wouldn't get very far at all. :chuckle:

That's cute A_O

Okay precious time granted, here's the section specifically dedicated to polystrate trees. It's only 2 minutes long.

Alate, that segment says that polystrate fossils are easily explained by realizing that some layered sediments deposit quickly enough so that some specimens can remain intact long enough to be eventually covered by the resultant strata.

(This isn't my main point below, but I'll toss in that the video showed trees growing in place, being slowly covered in mud in a swamp. Of course that's not going to explain whale or jellyfish polystrates, for obvious reasons, but more specifically, as I've already pointed out, like the trees at Yellowstone that were initially falsely reported as having grown in situ, they had no root systems, and so, "we" were successful in getting Yellowstone to remove their sign to that effect, typical polystrate trees do not have root systems, but only root "balls", having been catastrophically broken off and then transported and buried.)

But to my main point. Of course some sediments are claimed by evolutionists to have been deposited rapidly (including over centuries), but other deposits are claimed, with the utmost of commitment, to have been deposited only extremely slowly, over long geologic periods. Creation scientists as a group of course are easily and completely aware of this.

So consider A_O a scenario not at all addressed by that video, and this is actually the only scenario in which this argument is made when carefully presented by degreed young earth scientists...

Question for Alate: Do you agree, Alate, that if there are many polystrate fossils in strata that the evolutionists claim were deposited over hundreds of thousands or even over a million years or more, that this is a reasonable argument against the alleged slow deposition of the strata in question?

-Bob Enyart

p.s. We've listed a few polystrate fossil discoveries at youngearth.com that are not addressed by this video.

 

[Alate_One]

That's cute A_O




Alate, that segment says that polystrate fossils are easily explained by realizing that some layered sediments deposit quickly enough so that some specimens can remain intact long enough to be eventually covered by the resultant strata.

(This isn't my main point below, but I'll toss in that the video showed trees growing in place, being slowly covered in mud in a swamp. Of course that's not going to explain whale or jellyfish polystrates, for obvious reasons, but more specifically, as I've already pointed out, like the trees at Yellowstone that were initially falsely reported as having grown in situ, they had no root systems, and so, "we" were successful in getting Yellowstone to remove their sign to that effect, typical polystrate trees do not have root systems, but only root "balls", having been catastrophically broken off and then transported and buried.)

Okay and park signs can be wrong. Parks often don't have scientists on staff. I've seen plenty of incorrect information on signs and even in textbooks in my day (And I'm not that old ). Your point being what?

Catastrophes do happen. But they clearly aren't all the same catastrophe that happened within the same narrow window of a few thousand years ago.

But to my main point. Of course some sediments are claimed by evolutionists to have been deposited rapidly (including over centuries), but other deposits are claimed, with the utmost of commitment, to have been deposited only extremely slowly, over long geologic periods. Creation scientists as a group of course are easily and completely aware of this.

Then why do you keep saying that evolutionists claim that polystrate trees were formed over millions of years when this is clearly not the case?

So consider A_O a scenario not at all addressed by that video, and this is actually the only scenario in which this argument is made when carefully presented by degreed young earth scientists...

Question for Alate: Do you agree, Alate, that if there are many polystrate fossils in strata that the evolutionists claim were deposited over hundreds of thousands or even over a million years or more, that this is a reasonable argument against the alleged slow deposition of the strata in question?

No, I don't agree with that.

I know that polystrate trees are clearly explained. I also know there are lots of stories floating around in creationist literature that are not actually based on facts. Some examples: Human/dinosaur tracks in Texas, plesiosaurs found in the waters of New Zealand. (That last one fooled me at a church event when I was about 10 years old). Your "polystrate" whale is apparently one of these stories.

Here's a segment of a response to your whale story, which apparently stretched the truth a bit.

Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California. The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982). Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989).

Source

As for your Jellyfish school, the abstract from the actual scientific paper in question answers it reasonably well.

Fossilized impressions of soft-bodied organisms are exceptionally rare in coarse-grained strata. Fossilized mass-stranding events of soft-bodied organisms are even rarer. The Upper Cambrian Mt. Simon–Wonewoc Sandstone in central Wisconsin contains at least seven horizons characterized by hundreds of decimeter-sized impressions of medusae; these represent one of only two fossilized mass-stranding deposits. Medusae exhibit features nearly identical to those observed in modern scyphozoan strandings, including impressions of subumbrellar margins and gastrovascular cavities. This deposit provides insights about soft-tissue preservation in Phanerozoic marginal marine sediments, and suggests that large soft-bodied pelagic organisms were abundant in Cambrian seas.

Stranded on a Late Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from central Wisconsin; Geology February, 2002 v. 30, no. 2, p. 147-150

If there were many examples of mass strandings of varying types of creatures spanning many layers (and of course creatures from various geologic ages mixed together in a single, massive graded bed layer) you'd have actual evidence for a global flood, but given these are incredibly rare (as evidenced by the abstract) they're just representative of unusual conditions that occur infrequently.

In fact having lots of Jellyfish stranded together would probably be unlikely to occur during a very violent global catastrophe. Instead their groups and body structure would probably be destroyed, rather than being buried in approximately the same position in a group.

As usual you're taking information second and third hand and repeating it as if it were facts. Again, this is why your show should be Wrong Science Friday, because so much of what you say is wrong. :chuckle:
Ooh maybe you should go with Silly Science Saturday instead. Think of the alliteration!

 

[Stripe]

You've never explained it before.

:AMR:

Of course I have.

It's simple because you have layers of rock on the bottom that clearly formed over some period of time

Assuming the truth of the turbidity explanation. Undersea avalanches are a joke. The greywacke is a wave induced feature (Inundation).

had to solidify for some period of time

As long as it took to remove the water (Drift).

then were turned on their side somehow

Before the water was removed, else the rock would break. And "turned on their side" is not accurate. The strata went through a compression event which folded the layers. There's no way to turn stratum on their side (Drift).

uplifted and eroded for another period of time

The compression event and the uplift event are the same thing. In fact, there was probably very little uplift. The shortening of the stratum just raised the topmost parts out of the water (Drift).

after which more layers accumulated

Accumulation was continuous (Flood).

and the rock was then uplifted again out of the water (and suffered lots of erosion again).

Sea level dropped dramatically and then rose to its present level (Recovery).

Leaving the coastline as it is today.

The flood provides mechanisms to account for all these stages. The flood can be divided into four events:

• Rupture,
• Inundation (called "flood" in the link),
• Drift, and
• Recovery.

Each of the processes that built Siccar Point has been labelled with one of these phases. Read more here.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Alate, I'm discouraged... might you redo your post?

Alate, I'm discouraged... might you redo your post?

I know that polystrate trees are clearly explained.

Alate, I'm discouraged. Your video does not address polystrate trees in depositions that geologists claim were deposited slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. Your dug up an out-dated version of the polystrate whale fossil in diatomite but ignored the up-to-date fact-checked version I provide that you were responding to. And your excerpt on the jellyfish, which paper I've read, does not in the least address the observation that this single mass stranding spans vertical layers that allegedly were laid down over a period of a million years.

If you'd like to redo your reply to my post, being more responsive and careful, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'm done for now.

Thanks!

In Christ,

-Bob Enyart

p.s. Hi Stripe!

 

[Alate_One]

:AMR:

Of course I have.

Assuming the truth of the turbidity explanation. Undersea avalanches are a joke. The greywacke is a wave induced feature (Inundation).

Okay a wave induced feature is what exactly? Google seems to only come up with this thread when searching for that particular phrase. How would waves create layers of sediment that later become rock?

As long as it took to remove the water (Drift).

Before the water was removed, else the rock would break. And "turned on their side" is not accurate. The strata went through a compression event which folded the layers. There's no way to turn stratum on their side (Drift).

Indeed I did say that incorrectly. However the folding was followed by erosion. But how would sediment layers fold without losing the integrity of the layers?

The compression event and the uplift event are the same thing. In fact, there was probably very little uplift. The shortening of the stratum just raised the topmost parts out of the water (Drift).

Possible, though if you read the rest of my postings, there are layers that are about a hundred feet above the current waterline.

Accumulation was continuous (Flood).

If that were true, there wouldn't be the layers of conglomerate in between the grey stone and the red stone and the two types of rock wouldn't be so different from one another. Plus in a single flood event, you wouldn't get many distinct layers in both rock groups.

Sea level dropped dramatically and then rose to its present level (Recovery).

This part, possibly correct.

The flood provides mechanisms to account for all these stages. The flood can be divided into four events:

• Rupture,
• Inundation (called "flood" in the link),
• Drift, and
• Recovery.

Each of the processes that built Siccar Point has been labelled with one of these phases. Read more here.

In other words, just so story central aka the "no evidence hydroplate idea." Dr. Brown's story doesn't explain anything, much less this.

 

[Alate_One]

Alate, I'm discouraged. Your video does not address polystrate trees in depositions that geologists claim were deposited slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

Where are those claims? You claim they exist. Where are they? Is your park sign example it?

Your dug up an out-dated version of the polystrate whale fossil in diatomite but ignored the up-to-date fact-checked version I provide that you were responding to.

I looked at the creation.com site you linked to. You called it polystrate multiple times which it is not. The site you linked doesn't call it that (you're not even using your own literature properly), however still claims that it's impossible for a whale to be buried in diatoms. Again in the section I posted, there is a whale skeleton currently partly buried/being buried in the exact same deposit type in the present day.

And your excerpt on the jellyfish, which paper I've read, does not in the least address the observation that this single mass stranding spans vertical layers that allegedly were laid down over a period of a million years.

I don't have access to the full paper (at least not from home) so I can't address that part, but even if true, it might be a location that tends to produce repeated strandings. It's not technically polystrate either, you have different layers each with jellyfish in them. Considering this is from the Cambrian where there's little else but jellyfish for a long period of time, I don't think that it's surprising to the point of upending anything.

Again, it appears to me you're really grasping at straws here. "Here's something a little weird, therefore the earth is young, evolution is wrong and Noah's flood did it all." :dizzy:

Sorry Bob, but it got pretty transparent even when I was young. And the stories and techniques haven't changed that much over time. You figure you can dig around in the tiny details of a handful of special cases and get everyone to forget the big picture of what the world actually looks like. You throw enough mud around and some of it will stick to the wall. People get confused and throw up their hands to say "science is bunk" and go along their merry way.

However, as you learn more science, the YEC worldview forces you to try very hard to force reality into the box you've been told you need to live in. I tried it, it doesn't work. And as science progresses it just gets worse and worse.

YEC promotion damages the faith of a lot of people, which is why I don't like to see half truths and logical fallacies held up as supporting Christianity. And none of it is necessary for saving faith.

If you'd like to redo your reply to my post, being more responsive and careful, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'm done for now.

I see. Better get back on that lawsuit I spose. You should totally have a renaming contest, you could offer prizes and everything. :second:

 

[Stripe]

Okay a wave induced feature is what exactly? Google seems to only come up with this thread when searching for that particular phrase.

A wave-induced feature is a feature induced by waves. :duh:

It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who can't grasp simple explanations.

How would waves create layers of sediment that later become rock?

Liquefaction.

Indeed I did say that incorrectly. However the folding was followed by erosion. But how would sediment layers fold without losing the integrity of the layers?

They'd have to be uncemented.

Possible, though if you read the rest of my postings, there are layers that are about a hundred feet above the current waterline.

In a flood, water levels change.

If that were true, there wouldn't be the layers of conglomerate in between the grey stone and the red stone and the two types of rock wouldn't be so different from one another. Plus in a single flood event, you wouldn't get many distinct layers in both rock groups.

Why not?

Because millions of years are required to change depositional styles? No. All that is required for a change in depositional style is the variation in water level, current, topography or sediment supply.

In other words, just so story central aka the "no evidence hydroplate idea." Dr. Brown's story doesn't explain anything, much less this.

You asked for an explanation. You need to show some humility and concede the fact that there are indeed more ways to understand this situation than just your story.

 

[Paulos]

What about this formation? Is the tree millions of years old? Did it grow through the rock?

Alate_One has already posted a video in reply to the above; I just thought I'd post a link to the section of the video that deals specifically with "polystrate trees" including the one pictured above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE#t=5m59

 

[Stripe]

I have links too. :idunno:

 

[Nick M]

Concrete is a manmade substance *designed* to solidify in hours. We're talking about natural processes here. Or did you forget that before posting?

It is rock that is made in hours. You said it can't be done. I showed you it can be done. It is made by man with things naturally occuring in nature.