Well, the thing that really upsets me is the Brave just beat the Nationals.
Sal, really looking forward to your explanation of how the physical counting of the Suigetsu varve layers independently matches the age of the volcanoes across the whole 150,000 count varve record.
When do you think youâll have that ready?
Oh, still waiting for your explanation of the vertical wall of dinosaur tracks too.
The ocean is not salty enough to be old.
You forgot the âmoon dust not thick enoughâ and the âevolution violates the 2ndLoTâ YEC canards. 
1 Like
Iâve said creationists shouldnât use the 2nd law. So you wonât hear that from me, but the issue of salinity in the seas is of interest to me. That seems to be like issues of gravity and rain water flow. I donât think Glen Morton had a good counter.
You misunderstand the problem. The fossil didnât apparently tick fast enough, therefore the supposed rebuttal insists the fossil is young, which is correct, but it shows then the dating methods are false which would be the right conclusion, but instead, because it points to major issue in the mainstream, the rebuttal isnât willing to concede that and thus rejects the study altogether. Like I said, inconvenient truth is ignored.
Seems like the only things of interest to you are long discredited YEC nonsense you can find a ready made C&Ped hand wave for. You avoid new evidence you canât hand wave away like the plague. Just like youâre ducking the Suigetsu varve / volcanic ash correlation. Just like youâre ducking that vertical wall of dino tracks.
Magic number is 15. Yâall better hurry up
And do something
LOL! Great YEC âlogicâ. If someone finds a quarter dated 1969 in the dirt at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that shows the Grand Canyon is only 50 years old! 
2 Likes
Ariel Roth articulates the problem of erosion. Roth is part of the Seventh Day Adventists, many of whom believe in Old Universe and Young Fossil Record. For that reason I coined the designation Young Life Creationists (YLC) and Young Fossil Record (YFR).
At an erosion rate of 1 milimeter per 1000 years, which Roth justifies empirically, then much of the geological column would have been erased multiple times over. Tectonic uplift doesnât solve the problem of erasure, it actually would facilitate it! What bothers me is how the supposed continued deposition could keep going and going (for places like the Permian Basin), it means something else is eroding. Did the Permian Basin just get uplifted relatively recently?
Apologies for the late reply.
I think in my heart they are flawed, but I donât think we can make a conclusive scientific case to that effect yet.
The suggested date of the Septuagint is 6,500 years. But even 100,000 years would still be closer to the YLC/YFR view than the mainstream view.
The problem is stratigraphy 101 and basic physics and mechanical considerations agree more with fast deposition and stratification than long ages, especially for folded rocks which suggest rapid deposition and then folding:
You missed this, @stcordova:
Much of the geological column has been erased by erosion in various locations.
This assertion is counter-intuitive. How does the lifting up of mountain ranges not counteract erosion?
I appreciate your candor in this statement, @stcordova. You acknowledge that you believe a scientifically testable statement about varve layers sincerely in your heart, even though every shred of evidence so far contradicts that statement.
It is good that you have explained to us how you formulate your ideas and reach your conclusions.
Best,
Chris Falter
1 Like
I said ERASURE, not merely erosion. Thatâs probably why we have pre-cambrian strata up in the Applachians, and these creatures walking around in the pre-cambrian strata:
I think too many of your comments on this thread and others have snarky and directed at me personally rather than the arguments. I have little motivation to continue dialogue with any more of your querries.
Dialogue is by mutual agreement. I prefer to negotiate between the parties involved whether there will be continued dialogue rather than calling on mods.
Chris can say what he wants. I may not wish to respond. My understanding is that Iâm not obligated to respond especially if I think I already made my point and especially if I feel Iâm being misrepresented as I feel he and others have done multiple times here.
If I feel Iâve already covered something, I donât think Iâm obligated to respond. Iâm telling Chris I think Iâve covered important points that take priority over Varves and other things.
I mentioned Faint Young Sun paradox. He disregarded it as sufficient for my case. I put even more points on the table, he disregarded those too. Thatâs fine. But whatâs the point of me responding anymore. I get the feeling my responses to him specifically will be disregarded, so there is little motivation for me to respond to him.
Iâm typing stuff here, btw, to see how well the points hold up to scrutiny, and the bad points will not be used in my classes. But I donât have to justify my points to him to his satisfaction. Rather, Iâm trying to see if his objection merit my retraction in the class materials Iâm presenting, and so far heâs not convinced me Iâm wrong about the issues.
Iâll extend some amount of courtesy to others here, but, on the other hand Iâm outnumbered 10 to 1 by some very rude and hostile critics. I simply donât have the energy to respond to every querry, and querries I donât like will go to the bottom of the queue.
One thing that is telling about the fossilization process is this:
Dinosaur Fossils Found in Marine Rocks...Again | The Institute for Creation Research
He added, âThis find is unusual because itâs a dinosaur from marine rocksâitâs a bit like hunting for fossil whales and finding a fossil lion. Itâs an incredibly rare findâalmost like winning the lottery.â
But the discovery of a dinosaur in marine rocks should be no surprise to Longrich and his colleagues, as a group of paleontologists had concluded earlier that nearly all Cretaceous dinosaurs across Europe were buried in marine rocks.
So much of the fossil record is dated by marine fossils, even land plants and animals. That seems odd. We may have alternating layers of sea shells on top of land fossils such as in the Cretaceos seaway. This would imply alternating uplift and submerging underwater.
Seems like lots of special pleading to me. If we had so much tectonic activity, it doesnât look like that is reflected in the profile of the Permian Basin I had shown earlier.
This illustration by Sean Pittman shows the problem I see in the Permain Basin and other formations â the contact zones are simply too smooth.
As one looks at the geologic column, it is obvious that the contact zones, between the various layers, are generally very flat and smooth relative to each other (though the layers may be tilted relative to what is currently horizontal or even warped since their original âflatâ formation). Many of the layers extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles and yet their contact zones remain as smooth and parallel with each other as if sheets of glass were laid on top of one another (before they were warped). And yet, each layer is supposed to have formed over thousands if not millions of years? Wouldnât it be logical to assume that there should be a fair amount of weathering of each of these layers over that amount of time? But this expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see illustration).1 Just about all the layers have un-weathered or at best very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact zones. Long term erosion always results in uneven surfaces and this unevenness is only accentuated over time. How then are the layers found throughout the geologic column so generally even and smooth relative to each other?This general evenness and smoothness of sedimentary layers throughout the geologic column is rather odd especially considering the fact that the current weathering rate for the continents of today averages about 6cm/thousand years for the continental shelves. 2,55 This means that in less than 10 million years, the entire continental shelves of today would be washed into the oceans to be replaced by new underlying materials. This presents a problem since very old sediments, dating in the hundreds of millions of years, remain atop all the continental shelves â wonderfully preserved despite many tens of and sometimes hundreds of millions of years of erosive pressure?This problem has been well recognized for some time now.
A computer simulation with vizualization rather than a static diagram could show the problem in brutal detail. In anycase, thatâs another major reason I think the fossil record was laid down quickly, and the clocking data provided above is consistent with that viewpoint.
Thatâs another rude comment. I donât have to respond to your comments, do I? I donât think your comments have substantially rebutted the major points Iâve laid on the table.