A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[Grumpy]

otseng

I've already presented evidence that dinosaur fossils have been found younger than 65 mya.

No, you have not. You really should read your sources more carefully.

"...thus the age of the youngest Paleocene dinosaur fossil that can be linked directly to paleomagnetic data is now estimated to be about 65 Ma. The stratigraphically highest, in-place dinosaur fossil in the entire basin was found at the San Juan River locality (Figure 1.1 and Figure 34), 15.2 m above the base of the formation, however, with no geochronologic data available at that place to quantify the time represented by this stratigraphic interval, it is not possible to say if this bone is younger than the youngest dinosaur bones in the southern part of the basin."

From the conclusions section of your cite.

http://www.palaeo-electronica.org/2009_ ... onclus.htm

The FACT is that no dinosaurs can be found in layers younger than ~65 million years. My prediction stands. The author(Fassett)of the cited piece is trying to prove that dinosaurs lived about a million years past the impact event. He bases his claim one ONE FOSSIL that he claims is not reworked(disturbed long after fossilization and reburied in a higher layer. Rare, but it is known to happen) and PALEOMAGNETISM, an inexact indicator of age at best. In his own words...

"Additional paleomagnetic studies of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at this locality could help resolve this problem."

So, no, you have not shown conclusive evidence of dinosaurs younger than ~65 million years and dinosaurs found at ~64 million years would not falsify my prediction aanyway.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Maybe we can generalize what you are saying. We should see simple organisms in older stratas and an increasing rise in novel complex organisms as we go through younger stratas. Feel free to modify this prediction.

Also your prediction is what is evident in reality

The point right now is not what the data points to, but what does the model itself predict. So, before we get to any of the data, I assume then you would agree with this prediction?

"...thus the age of the youngest Paleocene dinosaur fossil that can be linked directly to paleomagnetic data is now estimated to be about 65 Ma. The stratigraphically highest, in-place dinosaur fossil in the entire basin was found at the San Juan River locality (Figure 1.1 and Figure 34), 15.2 m above the base of the formation, however, with no geochronologic data available at that place to quantify the time represented by this stratigraphic interval, it is not possible to say if this bone is younger than the youngest dinosaur bones in the southern part of the basin."

From the conclusions section of your cite.

http://www.palaeo-electronica.org/2009_ ... onclus.htm

The FACT is that no dinosaurs can be found in layers younger than ~65 million years. My prediction stands. The author(Fassett)of the cited piece is trying to prove that dinosaurs lived about a million years past the impact event. He bases his claim one ONE FOSSIL that he claims is not reworked(disturbed long after fossilization and reburied in a higher layer. Rare, but it is known to happen) and PALEOMAGNETISM, an inexact indicator of age at best. In his own words...

"Additional paleomagnetic studies of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at this locality could help resolve this problem."

So, no, you have not shown conclusive evidence of dinosaurs younger than ~65 million years and dinosaurs found at ~64 million years would not falsify my prediction aanyway.

Grumpy

Here is the full paragraph (with my highlighting):

This increase in the length of magnetochron C29n required a revised estimate of how long dinosaurs lived in the Paleocene in the San Juan Basin. Dinosaur bone has been found to be 8.2 m above the base of the Ojo Alamo in the southern San Juan Basin (Table 2 and Figure 5) near the Barnum Brown Amphitheater locality (locality J of Figure 4). At that locality, the base of chron C29n is close to the base of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone. The base of C29n has an age of 65.118 Ma (Gradstein et al. 2004), thus the age of the youngest Paleocene dinosaur fossil that can be linked directly to paleomagnetic data is now estimated to be about 65 Ma. The stratigraphically highest, in-place dinosaur fossil in the entire basin was found at the San Juan River locality (Figure 1.1 and Figure 34), 15.2 m above the base of the formation, however, with no geochronologic data available at that place to quantify the time represented by this stratigraphic interval, it is not possible to say if this bone is younger than the youngest dinosaur bones in the southern part of the basin. Additional paleomagnetic studies of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at this locality could help resolve this problem.

Though the author does not directly say how old the fossils are found above the base of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone. However, I think it can reasonably be inferred that it is younger than the base of the sandstone.

But, even regardless of this, all the fossils are in the Paleocene which is younger than the K-T layer in which supposedly all the dinosaurs were wiped out.

[Scotracer]

Maybe we can generalize what you are saying. We should see simple organisms in older stratas and an increasing rise in novel complex organisms as we go through younger stratas. Feel free to modify this prediction.

Also your prediction is what is evident in reality

The point right now is not what the data points to, but what does the model itself predict. So, before we get to any of the data, I assume then you would agree with this prediction?

"...thus the age of the youngest Paleocene dinosaur fossil that can be linked directly to paleomagnetic data is now estimated to be about 65 Ma. The stratigraphically highest, in-place dinosaur fossil in the entire basin was found at the San Juan River locality (Figure 1.1 and Figure 34), 15.2 m above the base of the formation, however, with no geochronologic data available at that place to quantify the time represented by this stratigraphic interval, it is not possible to say if this bone is younger than the youngest dinosaur bones in the southern part of the basin."

From the conclusions section of your cite.

http://www.palaeo-electronica.org/2009_ ... onclus.htm

The FACT is that no dinosaurs can be found in layers younger than ~65 million years. My prediction stands. The author(Fassett)of the cited piece is trying to prove that dinosaurs lived about a million years past the impact event. He bases his claim one ONE FOSSIL that he claims is not reworked(disturbed long after fossilization and reburied in a higher layer. Rare, but it is known to happen) and PALEOMAGNETISM, an inexact indicator of age at best. In his own words...

"Additional paleomagnetic studies of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at this locality could help resolve this problem."

So, no, you have not shown conclusive evidence of dinosaurs younger than ~65 million years and dinosaurs found at ~64 million years would not falsify my prediction aanyway.

Grumpy

Here is the full paragraph (with my highlighting):

This increase in the length of magnetochron C29n required a revised estimate of how long dinosaurs lived in the Paleocene in the San Juan Basin. Dinosaur bone has been found to be 8.2 m above the base of the Ojo Alamo in the southern San Juan Basin (Table 2 and Figure 5) near the Barnum Brown Amphitheater locality (locality J of Figure 4). At that locality, the base of chron C29n is close to the base of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone. The base of C29n has an age of 65.118 Ma (Gradstein et al. 2004), thus the age of the youngest Paleocene dinosaur fossil that can be linked directly to paleomagnetic data is now estimated to be about 65 Ma. The stratigraphically highest, in-place dinosaur fossil in the entire basin was found at the San Juan River locality (Figure 1.1 and Figure 34), 15.2 m above the base of the formation, however, with no geochronologic data available at that place to quantify the time represented by this stratigraphic interval, it is not possible to say if this bone is younger than the youngest dinosaur bones in the southern part of the basin. Additional paleomagnetic studies of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at this locality could help resolve this problem.

Though the author does not directly say how old the fossils are found above the base of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone. However, I think it can reasonably be inferred that it is younger than the base of the sandstone.

Your prediction seems to be fine to me.

But, even regardless of this, all the fossils are in the Paleocene which is younger than the K-T layer in which supposedly all the dinosaurs were wiped out.

Well not all dinosaurs could have been wiped out...otherwise no birds would exist today. It was a mass extinction but not all "dinosaurs" were made extinct. Maybe we should get a new term as dinosaur covers so many different species and over 100 million years in time. Many species died out, but not all. So, what do we consider a dinosaur?

[Grumpy]

otseng

[Grumpy]

otseng

Though the author does not directly say how old the fossils are found above the base of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone. However, I think it can reasonably be inferred that it is younger than the base of the sandstone.

That a few dinosaurs may have survived a little while after the KT event has always been considered a slight possibility, finding such fossils will not in any way falsify the idea(and such fossils have still not been found). The important thing is that at least we are now talking about real science and the things it has found from some 65 million years ago, not a completely fictional worldwide flood of 6000 years ago. That's a major improvement in the veracity of this thread.

But, even regardless of this, all the fossils are in the Paleocene which is younger than the K-T layer in which supposedly all the dinosaurs were wiped out.

No, the cite does not support that conclusion. But I would encourage this scientist to keep digging.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Maybe we can generalize what you are saying. We should see simple organisms in older stratas and an increasing rise in novel complex organisms as we go through younger stratas. Feel free to modify this prediction.

Your prediction seems to be fine to me.

OK. We'll say this prediction is then agreed upon. We'll add this to the queue and look at the data later to test this prediction.

I want to try to get some resolution to the first prediction:

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Is there an alternative prediction to what I presented to what stratas should look like according to SG? Or is the alternative that SG can not make any general prediction to what the stratas should look like?

The important thing is that at least we are now talking about real science and the things it has found from some 65 million years ago, not a completely fictional worldwide flood of 6000 years ago. That's a major improvement in the veracity of this thread.

I think we can agree that the basis of debate is on empirical evidence and logic. If we all stick to that, we will have a meaningful debate. If I present anything that can be countered with logic or evidence, I'm willing to listen to it.

[micatala]

Maybe we can generalize what you are saying. We should see simple organisms in older stratas and an increasing rise in novel complex organisms as we go through younger stratas. Feel free to modify this prediction.

Your prediction seems to be fine to me.

OK. We'll say this prediction is then agreed upon. We'll add this to the queue and look at the data later to test this prediction.

I want to try to get some resolution to the first prediction:

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Well, I have addressed this previously to some extent.

I will add or reiterate the following.

We have yet to establish that flooding can cause ANY folding or faulting. I guess I would agree that if all of what we see above the base layers is due to a flood, then it could affect all layers. However, this assumes that a flood as described can actually produce a fault.

Secondly, while I would agree the SG along WITH the other data we have about the age and history of the earth would imply that some faulting etc. would not affect all layers, I would not say this means it should appear uniformly distributed in the strata.

FInally, I would say another prediction we might make based on SG is the folding and faulting is more likely to occur at the boundaries of techtonic plates.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Scotracer wrote:
otseng wrote:
Maybe we can generalize what you are saying. We should see simple organisms in older stratas and an increasing rise in novel complex organisms as we go through younger stratas. Feel free to modify this prediction.

Your prediction seems to be fine to me.

OK. We'll say this prediction is then agreed upon. We'll add this to the queue and look at the data later to test this prediction.

I have to ask myself why you fight so hard for your predictions being accepted, is it because you can attack that strawman successfully???

Stop trying to speak for SG, as you obviously do not understand the limits of prediction. Your prediction IS NOT VALID in any general way, but if it will get you off the dime, fine. NOW MOVE ON!!!

Grumpy

[otseng]

We have yet to establish that flooding can cause ANY folding or faulting.

According to the FM, it is not the flood phase that folding and faulting takes place. Folding/faulting takes place in the buckling phase. And the last phase was where erosion took place.

(Originally covered this at this post.)

Secondly, while I would agree the SG along WITH the other data we have about the age and history of the earth would imply that some faulting etc. would not affect all layers

Progress!

I would not say this means it should appear uniformly distributed in the strata.

To clarify, what I mean by uniform distribution is in time (layers of strata), rather than location (coordinate locations on the Earth). At some locations, there might be no faults in the rock record, but for all that do, there should be roughly a uniform distribution of faults that stop at varying depths.

Finally, I would say another prediction we might make based on SG is the folding and faulting is more likely to occur at the boundaries of techtonic plates.

I can accept that.

[otseng]

I have to ask myself why you fight so hard for your predictions being accepted, is it because you can attack that strawman successfully???

As I've repeatedly been saying, if you have an alternate prediction of what the stratas should look like, by all means present it. I'm not fighting for my prediction to be accepted. I'm simply waiting for any prediction to be agreed upon and so far only mine is on the table. Also, if it is a strawman, feel free to give logical arguments as to why you think it is so.