Creationist offers of scientific evidence are NOT welcome by evolutionists so forget it creationists

Sad example of a creationist offering evidence at EvC that is simply trashed by an evolutionist:

First I would point out how interesting I find it that most who reject a global flood, overlook the fact that fossils require an anoxic environment in which to even form.

This is, of course, not true. That's what's required for soft-tissue preservation. Which is extremely rare.

Dr. A is here stretching a point to obscure it. Of course oxygen deprivation is also necessary to fossilization of bones and shells.

And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions.

That's an interesting use of the phrase "of course", but back in the real world we can see rapid sedimentary deposition without floods.

Very rarely and never on anything like the scale of the geologic column. And why, I wonder, don't you describe an example of what you assert exists "in the real world?" You know, "evidence."

Secondly, there's often burrows preserved and fossilized that are oriented starting from lower strata and moving upward. These are like what you would expect had an animal been buried by the sediment and tried to dig its way out. They are very different from the normal type which are oriented in all directions.

If you are trying to say that under normal conditions burrowing animals never burrow up or down, then you are wrong.

He described burrows oriented from lower to higher, Dr. A, which does indeed imply an attempt to dig out as opposed to burrows begun from the surface, which again you are obfuscating with your irrelevant comment.

If you are saying that there's a greater proportion of such burrows than there should be, then we need a couple of figures from you:

(a) What proportion of burrows in the fossil record have a vertical component?
(b) What should the proportion be, if geologists were right about geology?

Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).

Amazing how you miss the point, Dr. A. He's describing a situation that shouldn't ever occur under normal conditions, burrows that ORIGINATE from under the sediment.

A third thing to notice while looking at the geologic record, is that it consists mostly of "rocks" but very few paleo-soils. Normally, poorly consolidated rocks aren't considered to be made of ancient materials that have ever been actual soils. Evolutionary thinking in geology says that land surfaces supported an abundance of life for hundreds of millions of years. So where's all the paleo-soils in the record that supported that life? It's not there!

If you are trying to say that there are too few paleosol deposits, I should like you to present your figures for:

(a) How many there are.
(b) How many there should be if geologists were right about geology.

Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).

His point is that there are hardly ANY at all, Dr. A., which is observable to anyone who takes a look at the strata in say the Grand Staircase where millions of years are supposed to have been inhabited by bazillions of land animals, the strata there being just as devoid of soils as the strata full of marine contents where they aren't to be expected.

Fourth, consider what we see evidence in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon area. Uniformitarian geologists date this sandstone to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. If you didn't know, the Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. However fossilized amphibians tracks have been found in the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water.

Perhaps in Opposite World the tracks of land animals with, y'know, feet, are only deposited underwater. In the real world, not so much.

Amphibians are generally associated with water, Dr. A, the point here which again you choose to obscure by referring to feet.

Fifth, we can further conclude that the Coconino was not laid down under a dry desert condition, by noticing that directly under it is a "blade edged" thin layer of Hermit shale. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later?

Sixth, these blade edged flat layers, such as the Hermit, completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between deposits, (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid deposition took place with almost instant current shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally eroding sediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the WWGF scenario described in the Bible.

Your point is obscure, can you clarify it? It contains terms not to be found in geology textbooks, or at least not the ones I've read.

The point is only obscure because Dr. A insists on obscuring it. Alas, Dr. A finds it impossible to follow a description of phenomena in nontechnical English when it suits him for purposes of dismissing a creationist's point. The point about the noneroded surface of the shale actually also applies to all the strata -- they are all flat and obviously free of normal erosion in a way that could only have occurred under water, including all those claimed to have been deposited aerially.

Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old.

But not to have taken several million years to form, a distinction which creationists seem unable to grasp, because they are idiots.

Even if a particular lower layer was rapidly formed, if the idea is that the layers represent millions of years of time then the layer that formed on top of it would have had to wait those millions of years before depositing. Polystrate fossils prove that ALL the strata had to have been deposited in the same event.

Eighth, consider how at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved. Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment.

Or several days, depending on the circumstances under which they were laid down.

By the way, weren't you pretending it was "millions of years" in the last paragraph? Yes, yes you were.

He's answering conventional geology, which says millions of years in the one connection, and seasonal laminations in the other. Very interesting how you consistently seek to obscure his point.

Ninth is the lack of bio-turbation between conforming layers of strata. If millions of years really took place between the deposits of conformable layers, why are their surfaces so scarce of millions of years of life? By that I mean things like burrows, root formations, etc... are mostly missing from the record.

So now you're complaining that there aren't enough polystrate fossils?

Seriously?

Well, again, we need a couple of figures:

(a) How many are there?
(b) How many should there be if geologists were right about geology?

Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).

Go look at some slabs of rock called time eras and see that what he's describing is simple fact that shouldn't be the case if the rock represents millions of years -- or even a thousand, a hundred, ten years. The evidence of the activities of life doesn't even approach that of a broad prairie over a year in our own time frame.

This exchange ought to demonstrate that no creationist should ever bother posting at EvC forums. Dr. A should have been trounced by the admins for this nonresponse to a creationist's offering of evidence.

=======================

Admin's comments on the creationist's post certainly confirm what I say above. Moderator Moose who did consider it to be evidence for the Flood had it right. But this comment ought to demonstrate the absolute futility of a creationist's ever posting anything at EvC:

Concerning being on-topic in this thread, I don't think Adminnemooseus and I are in agreement, but I don't think unanimity amongst moderators can always be expected. Coyote's Message 138 did fail to address any of JBR's points, and he did repeat points he has made many times in the past, but on the other hand the thread's topic is about evidence for the flood, none of JBR's points were evidence for the flood, and I do think Coyote's message was on-topic.

To this moderator JBR's points appeared to be criticisms of widely accepted views within geology containing no positive evidence for the flood. They also appeared to be unattributed rephrasings from creationist websites, not cut-n-pastes, but not exactly his own words, either. This moderator believes that responding to JBR's points would risk diverting the thread's topic to a defense of modern geological views instead of an examination of flood evidence, but I'm a participant in that thread, not a moderator (except when it comes to IamJoseph, who I'd been following around from one science thread to the next asking him to stop arguing the Bible and start arguing the science).

I don't know that there's a best response to JBR's points. Some replied with circumspection, asking him if there is any point in particular he'd like to focus on. Others replied by trying to identify specifics of the flood viewpoint, like when it happened. Others replied by pointing out that JBR had not actually offered any positive evidence for the flood. These all seem to have potential as possibly fruitful directions for discussion.