Citation to the literature for this statement, thanks.
truechristian, "Citation to the literature" is standard for, "can you refer me to the scientific literature to back up your claim". Wikipedia, while sometime an interesting and accurate source, is not "scientific literature".
Other than that I fell sorry for you and your lack of knowledge. Have a nice life.
So you are so supremely knwledegable that you can sneer at everyone from that little ivory tower of yours?
Well, write to this team:
quote: the team led by scientists at Binghamton University, New York State Museum and Cardiff University have mapped over 3,000 square meters of the forest at the abandoned quarry in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains in the Hudson Valley'
They also believe the forest was eventually wiped out by a flood due to the presence of many fish fossils that were also visible on the surface of the quarry! Well, fancy that - the Bible is truth!
They are only scientists so what do they know compared to what your tiny mind is filled with?
Other than that I fell sorry for you and your lack of knowledge. Have a nice life until you can grow up and burn your Jurassic Park videos.
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence." - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
I know that your own expertise on this topic is lacking, and since you reject the consensus of qualified experts, what else can I reasonably conclude except that I am watching the Dunning-Kruger effect play out in real time?
Yorzhik;n2753960 Seriously said:Th eproblem is that most people are stuck at Schopenhauer Stage one All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
But if you have any Flood holes you'd like blocking just ask me.:wave:
How about learning how Earthworms prove The Flood was a worldwide catastrophe?
Actually I was going to bring up something completely different, but that works too.It would be nice to get some better opposition. At least Alate_one could bring up sand pile angles.
Actually I was going to bring up something completely different, but that works too.
First thing is layers of sediment that later turn into rock can be formed rapidly. That's the DUH part of the Talk Origins link.
Fast forming layers = polystrate fossils. The logical step you're failing is that assuming because certain kinds of layers can form rapidly, ALL kinds of layers must only form rapidly. And that clearly does not follow, unless of course you've decided the world must be 6000 years old a priori. :chuckle:
The problem with this idea are the many layers of sediment that aren't formed by floods or volcanoes but from biological organisms. In many parts of the midwestern USA, we have limestone.
And much of that limestone is made of dead organisms.
And not just any organisms, dead organisms that don't exist anymore to any appreciable degree (stalked crinoids for an example), layer upon layer upon layer of them. There are old mansions in the area built of essentially solid layers of dead crinoids. Did THOSE layers form all at once? No of course not, because you can't grow that many living organisms all at once and then kill them all at once to make feet of dead critter sediment all at once. They would have to be growing on top of one another in layers already and crinoids are filter feeders so that's not likely to happen. Same thing with the layers of chalk scattered across the world etc. The biggest blooms of the microorganisms that form them create millimetres of chalk (at best) if killed all at once and yet we have meters of it.
There are just too many things in the world that can't happen as fast as you YECs would like, lots of things that do exist that wouldn't if there was a global flood etc. Early YEC based scientists gave up this sort of thing over a hundred years ago.
A valid point.
Classic because it is true. There are plenty of biological arguments too...Ah, the limestone argument against the Global Flood.
No, It's direct observation.That sounds like question begging on your part.
Really a Youtube video on hydroplates . . .
Classic because it is true.
There are plenty of biological arguments too...
No, It's direct observation.
Really a Youtube video on hydroplates . . .
Regardless, your problem isn't what MOST rocks are, it's that there are a sizable proportion of rocks that cannot be formed in a single global flood.
They're called Bioclastic limestone. My grandparents house was built of it. I have seen houses where I live now built of it. It means layer upon layer of tiny dead creatures. And stalked crinoids hardly exist today.
Here's a famous spot I've actually been to, The falls of the Ohio. Huge layers of bioclastic limestone with a very diverse array of living creatures.
I've also seen other rocks that are layer upon layer of clamlike shells - something one would expect from ocean bottoms today.
Are there? And how do you know that?