A plethora of problems for the Young Earth Hypothesis

Atlantis was Atlantika, Atlantida, Atlan, Avalon, Aztlan, the Atlantioi, and the City of Posidon (Father Sidon, son of Canaan) went under as described by Plato, Atlas was a son of Posidon.

It went under when the Ice Age ended.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did Atlas and Posidon die when Atlantis went under?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, Posidon lived from about 2300 B.C. 'til around 1900 B.C, and Atlas lived from about 2250 'til perhaps 1900 B.C., Atlantis went under around 1500 B.C., when Cecrops, Erecthonius, and Erectheus were ruling the Athenian realm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Things IAC has no response to:

1) How did the water recede?

2) The Moenkopi Formation Problem

This 230 million year old formation contains mudstones, limestones, sandstones, shales, and siltstones, and gypsum. This formation reaches thicknesses of 1,800 feet, and is comprised thousands of these alternating layers, clearly indicating a shallow, fluctuating shoreline. It is unclear how young earth creationists would fit it in their model, given the clear evidence in the middle of the flood of thousands of advances and retreats of the shoreline. It provides clear testimony against the young earth flood model.

3) The Chinle Formation Problem

This interesting rock layer contains shale, gypsum, limestone, sandstone, and many important minerals such as iron, magesium, and uranium ore. There are also layers of volcanic ash, and petrified wood and fossils are plentiful (this is the formation at the Petrified Forest National Park). It is about 550 feet thick. The gypsum formed from lagoon deposits. Given the worldwide flood model of young earth creation science, there should be no lagoons. Again, we have many alternating layers of sand, silt, and limestone, providing proof of an advancing and retreating shoreline, which again is inexplicable within the context of the young earth flood model. Some sources say this is the first layer with trace fossils for dinosaurs.

4) Moenave Formation

Early Jurassic uplift was accompanied by deposition of the Moenave Formation. The oldest beds of this formation belong to the reddish, slope-forming thin beds of siltstone interbedded with mudstone and fine sandstone of its Dinosaur Canyon Member, 140 to 375 feet thick (43 to 114 m), which was probably laid down in streams, ponds and large lakes (evidence for this is in cross-bedding of the sediments and large numbers of fish fossils).
Pale reddish-brown and 75 to 150 feet thick (23 to 46 m), the cliff-forming Springdale Sandstone is the upper member of the Moenave. It was deposited in swifter, larger, and more voluminous streams than the older Dinosaur Canyon Member. Fossils of large sturgeon-like freshwater fish have been found in the beds of the Springdale Sandstone. The next member in the Moenave Formation is the thin-bedded Whitmore Point, which is made of mudstone and shale. The lower red cliffs seen from the Zion Human History Museum (until 2000 the Zion Canyon Visitor Center) are good, easy to see examples of this formation.1
You may have noticed key words, such as streams, ponds, and large lakes, all features that should not be present on a globe full of water. Again we have interbedded siltstone, mudstone, and sandstone, indications of fluctuations in shoreline. It clearly does not fit the young earth model.

5) Kayenta Formation

At 200 to 600 feet thick (60 to 180 m), the Kayenta Formation's sand and silt were laid down in early Jurassic time in slower-moving, intermittent streambeds in a semiarid to tropical environment. Fossilized dinosaur footprints from sauropods have been found up the Left Fork of North Creek in this formation. Today the Kayenta is a red and mauve rocky slope-former made of sandstone, shale, and siltstone that can be seen throughout Zion Canyon.
Here we have clear evidence of streambeds, which contradicts the young earth model. Of the greatest interest here, however, is the first trace of dinosaurs (tracks). We are now about 8,000 feet up the stratigraphic column from where the flood started (the rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and we suddenly have sauropod dinosaurs walking around...in the middle of Noah's Flood!

6) The Temple Cap Formation Problem
In early Mid Jurassic time streams loaded with iron-oxide-rich mud flooded and partially leveled the sand dunes, creating the Temple Cap Formation. Thin beds of clay and silt mark the end of this formation as desert conditions briefly returned to the area. The most prominent outcrops of this formation make up the capstones of East Temple and West Temple in Zion Canyon. Rain dissolves some of the iron oxide and thus streaks Zion's cliffs red (the red streak seen on the Alter of Sacrifice is a famous example). Temple Cap iron oxide is also the source of the red-orange color of much the lower half of the Navajo Formation.1
Once again, we have terrestrial streams and desert sand dunes, clear evidence against Noah's Flood.

In case you may be thinking that the flood should be over now, and these were deposited after the flood...all the mammal fossils, and almost all the dinosaur fossils are located above this rock layer, thus negating this as the endpoint of the flood.


7) The Post-Flood Dinosaur/Carnivore Problem

Let’s talk about a post-ark environment. Assuming that there were two juvenile T-rex’s on the ark, and at least one raptor species, what would they eat? The flood has killed all plant life, since it was buried by the multiple layers of rocks. Seeds would take years to repopulate the earth’s plant life. So these dinosaurs would come out, and probably kill off everything else as food within the first three months. We would have no cattle, no mammals, probably no man! All because of four dinosaurs! The supposed “ice age” would not come quickly enough to save mankind.

8) The Dinosaur Fossil Problem

Next, the authors move toward the claim that all but a few dinosaurs died in the worldwide flood of Noah. The author even goes so far to say that there was a “lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.” Let’s look at this closer. According to young-earth creation theory, the fossil-bearing rock layers of the world were laid down in the flood of Noah. According to the best young-earth model, the rocks that geologists call “Mesozoic” in age were deposited by the receding waters of the flood1. As it rained for 40 days, then the waters stayed on the planet for 150 more, and then started receding, these rocks were deposited at least 190 days into the flood.

The problem is…these rocks contain all the dinosaur fossils. Even worse, all fossil mammals are above these layers! They must have escaped the flood, only to be killed by the receding waters. And, they were even mating, eating, pooping, and walking around, right in the middle of the flood. So we know for certain that dinosaurs were not killed by Noah’s flood.


9) The Dino Poop Problem

It is important to note that all of the fossilized dinosaur poop is found in Mesozoic rocks. According to Steven Austin and the young-earth proponents, these rocks were deposited in the receding phase of the flood, therefore to have dinosaurs pooping in these rocks, when they were clearly dead by the end of the 40 days of rain, is not possible.


10) The Dino Trackway Problem

With poop, we have indirect evidence of dinosaurs which were eating and eliminating food in the middle of the flood. Let’s move on to more direct evidence of living dinosaurs. To further complicate the issue for the young-earth model, the fossil record is full of the footprints of animals. Locations that have many of these prints are called trackways.

For example, let’s look at the Morrison Formation in Wyoming, which has yielded hundreds of skeletons of Apatosaurus. The Morrison contains many footprints of these magnificent beasts. However, if you believe the young-earth Flood model, these could not exist! How can animals that are dead be making footprints in rocks which are hundreds of feet underwater? It’s not possible.

To re-emphasize again, the dinosaur layers, including the Morrison, are Mesozoic in age, and, if you believe the young earth flood model, they were deposited after the animals on earth were killed, during the receding water phase of the Flood. It is not possible to have walking dinosaurs when the entire planet is under water! How could we have footprints from animals that should already be dead from the first 40 days of the flood?

Again, it is clear that the young earth model for Noah’s flood cannot explain why there are signs of living dinosaurs during the latter stages of the flood. However, there is more evidence awaiting us.

11) The Mass Graves Problem

Many young earth theorists point to the mass dinosaur graves as evidence of catastrophic death and burial during the Flood. There is one critical piece of information that the young earth creationism overlooks in using these as evidence of a young earth.

Young earth proponents are eager to point to mass graves as proving that a great flood killed these dinosaurs, however, they fail to consider that there are other dinosaur fossils above and below the rock layers at these gravesites. If the flood killed them, then they would all be located in the same rock layer. In fact, we should see fossils of Tyrannosaurus Rex right alongside the fossils of Apatosaurus. However, we don’t see this jumbled mix of species in these graves. The mass graves that have been found contain one type of dinosaur, such as the graves of hadrosaurs found in the western United States. If the young earth model were true, we would have one layer of dinosaur fossils, with all the species mixed together.

The fact that these graves contain single species supports the old-earth theory. Why? Think for a minute about the T-Rex and Apatosaurus. According to young-earth theory, they should be found together as a result of the flood…but they are not. Why not? Because they didn’t live at the same time! The Apatosaurus lived in the late Jurassic period, about 150 million years ago. The T-rex is a more recent dinosaur species, all living around 67 million years ago. The two species never interacted, never shared the same piece of real estate.
As you can see, the mass graveyards offer no evidence to support a young earth, and no support for the dinosaur’s end by the flood of Noah.

12) The Teeth Problem
Finally, one piece of evidence often overlooked at mass gravesites is the teeth marks. Many of these bones show chew marks from carnivorous dinosaurs, as they fed on the carcasses of the dead animals. In several cases, right alongside the large teeth marks are small ones from the juvenile dinosaurs of the same species.
Dinosaur teeth are continually reproduced. As they break off during feeding, a new one is grown right underneath the older tooth. At these feeding sites, we have both adult and juvenile teeth that have been shed during the eating of these carcasses.
The young earth model fails to explain the existence of these teeth marks, and the shed teeth at these sites. It is obvious that carnivorous dinosaurs, both adult and juvenile, were feeding on the carcasses in these graveyards. So one must ask…why did the meat-eaters not die also during the initial flood event? How could they be alive, and eating at these all-you-can-eat dinosaur buffets, when according to the young-earth model they were dead also?
Clearly, the young-earth model cannot account for this evidence of feeding dinosaurs during the receding portion of the flood of Noah. The only way to explain it from a young earth creation science model is the following proposal…

…the plant eaters were killed by the flood. However, the carnivorous dinosaurs, who were adept at swimming in great currents of water, survived much longer. As they swam around, they dived down, persevering through the 150 mile per hour water currents, and reached bottom, where the bodies of the plant eaters were. They feasted, old and young alike, until their breath could not hold out, and then surfaced for air.

You can see how ridiculous this proposal is. However, if you want a young earth, this is what you have to believe.

13) Since the Coconino Sandstone's cross-bedding is 25°, they are obviously wind-deposited. They fall within the average for eolian cross beds (25°-28°), but are far from the angle expected for water-deposited cross-beds (less than 10°).


There are obviously many more problems with the Young Earth Theory that IAC has not, and can not, confront.

Also, he never responded to this challenge from Laika:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64512&page=17

 

Those are nonsensical objections, according to what the GFM proposes, as I said previously, and as Saquist says, get serious, or you won't be treated seriously, oh zany one.

 

IAC, I know you have limited yourself to one sentence a post, so let's try and go through this argument by argument.

7) The Post-Flood Dinosaur/Carnivore Problem

Let’s talk about a post-ark environment. Assuming that there were two juvenile T-rex’s on the ark, and at least one raptor species, what would they eat? The flood has killed all plant life, since it was buried by the multiple layers of rocks. Seeds would take years to repopulate the earth’s plant life. So these dinosaurs would come out, and probably kill off everything else as food within the first three months. We would have no cattle, no mammals, probably no man! All because of four dinosaurs! The supposed “ice age” would not come quickly enough to save mankind.


Please respond to these questions:

1) What did the carnivores eat post-ark?


2)

Gen 8:11
11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.


So 7 days after the water receded, we have olive trees magically appearing. With a year of flooding and miles of sediment piled on the ground, please explain how olive trees, or any plant life for that matter, survived the flood.


Responding in the following format would be ideal:

1) Your answer.

2) Your answer.


Please note that you can feel free to ask me numbered questions too, and I will try to respond with my limited knowledge in the format above.

 

I'm not ignoring you, but I'm ignoring you, do you know what I'm trying to say?

 

IAC, I'm trying to have a nice, clean debate with you here. I have asked you two very simple questions. Is there any specific reason why you won't answer them (my guess is that you don't have an answer)?

 

You are not engaged in debate, you act as if you've heard nothing of what I've said before, you're either disingenuous or dull.

 

Are you even a person, or are you just a 'bot' program that says the same thing over and over again?

 

IAC, I am about 99% sure I haven't presented the above arguments to you yet. I'm sorry if you have already responded to these arguments, but even if you did I ask that you please repeat those one sentence responses you gave to them earlier. I'm sure typing two sentences wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

In any case, if you indeed have already responded to the questions posed above, kindly post the links to the responses to the questions above so I can refresh my memory. I'm sure, though, that if you are truly confident in your responses then you will gladly retype them into a new post. Thanks.

 

Let me refresh everyone as to how IAC explains away how this great amount of magma magically started pumping out of the rift zones:

Somehow, "debris" hitting the earth miraculously affected sub-crustal processes in extraordinary ways. In any case, how did this planet explode, Ice?

So the question is, how does "debris" hitting the surface of the earth cause the earth's plate tectonic system to speed up to miraculous rates?

I also encourage everyone to read Laika's excellent response to one of IAC's baseless claims:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1353464&postcount=339

IAC apparantly put Laika on ignore as well after this claim and proceded to start a whole new thread. So the idea is, when you have no response, simply ignore that person or demean them.

How 'bout them apples?

 

The problem is we have heard it all before over and over again...usually one line at a time...and even then...you still manage to convey virtually nothing of any real meaning...

 

Laika described different types of lensing-out of strata within the geologic column, just what you'd expect from the Deluge.

 

The main point is NDS that you have shown zero ability to restate my positions, so you're either disingenuous or dull.

 

First off, the two arguments I have just posted above you have not even attempted to respond to. I'll assume for now that you have no response to them.

Let's go back to things we have already discussed in the past. Looking back into the Sciforums vault, I have found various responses by you on the topic of faunal succession, and why the fossil record magically "appears" as if evolution was the cause.

Your reply to faunal succession in general:

My response: Revised how exactly? It only seems natural that it would constantly be revised since new fossils are constantly being found. What is your point?

I asked you why no humans are ever found with dinos. You replied:

My response:

When I first read this post I couldn't help but start rolling on the ground in a burst of laughter. So this one, little, vague, dull, sentence somehow desribes the entire faunal succession problem. LOL!!! Truth is, it's arguments like this which show how really comical this whole young earth idea is.

According to you, since there was not a lot of land, and the land was very flat pre-Deluge, the dinosaurs, people, mammals, etc. would have NO WHERE TO RETREAT TO. Where would they go? And even if there were 20 foot high "hills" pre-Deluge, this should make absolutely no difference in regards to the order of fossils.

The raptors, lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, baboons, etc. were much more "mobile" than humans anyway. Humans and leopards both have an equal ability to run away from approaching water and go up on the highest hill they could find (no mountains pre-deluge).

You also say that "What is left in the fossil record are predictably the marine creatures and the less mobile land creatures, Scruffy."

"Less mobile land creatures? Is that why hundreds of Pteranodon fossils (flying reptiles) are found thousands of feet below the highest level of sediment? I always thought "flying" was the most mobile method of transportation.

Further questions from Post #1 on this issue which you haven't responded to:

How do you explain the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?

How do you explain why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata?

How do you explain why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted?

How do you explain how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.

How do you explain why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
How do explain why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted.

How do you explain why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata.

How do you explain why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].

How do you explain why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?


So, IAC, now do you see why a one liner response like the one you gave me is not even close to adequate?

 

Onto the next issue which clearly dissproves your theory. Here is the dialogue which went on:

First off, this last response wasn't even a complete sentence, lol. Secondly, typing two geologic terms doesn't prove anything. Please elaborate.

My Theory on how the Coconino desert layer was formed between two marine layers: Vast changes in climate, avg. temp, and sea level over millions of years.

IAC's theory: Global scouring and redeposition

I don't know what to say, Ice. Your response of 4 words was about as far from an argument, and about as "dull" as you could possibly get. It's arguments like those (4 WORDS!!!) which really discredit not only your education, but your "hypothesis."

Not to mention, you haven't even touched on this argument which I have posed to you various times:

Since the Coconino Sandstone's cross-bedding is 25°, they are obviously wind-deposited (not water, or "flood" deposited). They fall within the average for eolian cross beds (25°-28°), but are far from the angle expected for water-deposited cross-beds (less than 10°).

 

Hey NDS, I know why you haven't posted on the "What Do You Know about the GFM?" thread.

 

IAC's theory on how incredible (millions of cubic miles) amounts of magma magically started pumping out of the rift zones:

So first off, the Global Flood Model has to deal with the initial, and most important aspect of the whole model: Why the hell did it happen?

IAC admits (surpisingly) that he has no clue as to why an entire fucking planet would explode, LOL.

But for the purposes of debate, let's go along this fairy tale and assume that a planet between Mars and Jupiter has somehow exploded.

How does "debris" hitting the surface of the earth cause the earth to suddenly spew out millions of cubic miles of magma, and cause earth's plate tectonic system to speed up to miraculous rates?

 

Think about it real hard.