Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Alan]

Most men and boys have already been trying for years, unfortunately there is usually some woman around coercing them to violate their moral convictions.  Could be this is why God made man the head of the household, in an attempt to minimize the sinful, senseless slaughter of these helpless creatures.

When plants are armed with chopping knives, I will support the right to gather them.

[Dave_UK]

1 Corinthians 15:36
"What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first."

Obviously seeds couldn't die if they were not alive.
Seems to me the Bible teaches that plants are alive.

Thought this was an accepted fact!  Some gardeners claim they get better results from talking encouragingly to their plants  (or playing Baroque music to them - as some have reported! ).  Think I've read somewhere that when we are in a forest or copse, we only see "superficially" - beneath the ground there is a tangle of roots etc, that can "communicate" warnings of impending adverse circumstances to neighbouring trees/plants, so they can take "protective" action (albeit slowly).  There is "life" going on in plants - growth/reproduction - and it is "sentient", even if not as we understands it! But then we get into the problem of "over-crowding" and one plant spoiling the chances of growth for another - just like humanity - survival of the fittest!?

However I don't think we need to feel guilty about cutting up/eating vegetables/fruit etc.  Weren't they given to us for sustenance? Jesus was certainly not adverse to eating the produce of the land or sea.   Perhaps we should be grateful that we are at the top of the food chain.  Here is another thought  - we live in symbiosis with other "small things" that help with our digestion etc, - e.g. beneficial gut bacteria.

Can it be that the Lord intended all of life to be a struggle, an effort!?  Isn't there a Japanese Christian proverb - "No cross - no crown"! It's all too complex for me!   

[Amo]

https://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/videos/playlists/genesis-week.php#.W0DAPS2ZO4s

More examples of just how shaky supposedly unquestionable fact oriented "science" really is.

[Alan]

Hi Amo. I just thought it rather humorous that one of the people featured in "Video Ministries" from your link is a devout Christian Evolutionist. 

Anyhow, hope your doing well and have a blessed day!

[Amo]

Hi Amo. I just thought it rather humorous that one of the people featured in "Video Ministries" from your link is a devout Christian Evolutionist. 

Anyhow, hope your doing well and have a blessed day!

Even "Christian" evolutionists are right about some things.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64Hs8seswc

So, how do all these fossils end up in one layer all across the earth, while individual fossils within the same occupy space consisting of what would be layers representing thousands to tens of thousands of years according to deep time? Doesn't work out very well concerning what we know about fossil formation.

[The Barbarian]

So, how do all these fossils end up in one layer all across the earth,

They don't.  Some are literally miles above others.

while individual fossils within the same occupy space consisting of what would be layers representing thousands to tens of thousands of years according to deep time?

Species tend to live for tens of thousands of years.   Some, a lot longer.  But they are sorted nicely according to age.   This is why Haldane suggested that one easy refutation of evolution would be a rabbit in Cambrian deposits.

Doesn't work out very well concerning what we know about fossil formation.

Seems to work out just as one would expect. 

[RB]

Even "Christian" evolutionists are right about some things.

Like 4WD? Let us not give him so much credit. Actually, he's right about many things, he's also wrong about some important doctrine issues. I still love him, even though he makes it hard sometimes.

[Alan]

Like 4WD? Let us not give him so much credit. Actually, he's right about many things, he's also wrong about some important doctrine issues. I still love him, even though he makes it hard sometimes.

It would be difficult for any man to be right about all things and adversely, wrong about all things.
People are often fueled by passion, right or wrong it is the charge behind their views and at times can lead us all astray if we dismiss objectivity in our discussions. 

[Amo]

They don't.  Some are literally miles above others.

Species tend to live for tens of thousands of years.   Some, a lot longer.  But they are sorted nicely according to age.   This is why Haldane suggested that one easy refutation of evolution would be a rabbit in Cambrian deposits.

Seems to work out just as one would expect.

Apparently you didn't watch the video, or if you did you didn't pay much attention to the details, or if you did your are simply ignoring that which doesn't fit into your chosen belief system.

How does a massive global layer of chalk composed of tiny shell fish and lime grains which supposedly took millions of years to form at a rate of 1/4 inch per thousand years, contain so many varying kinds of fossils which require rapid burial to be there? Fully developed crinoids, very large fish even with undigested other fish inside them which they had just consumed, large pliosaurs, turtles, dinosaurs, and birds are all found within these globally distributed chalk beds. There is only one answer, the layer was deposited rapidly, not over the course of millions of years. You simply do not want to go where such evidence leads or suggests, which is toward a global flood as described in God's word. Correct if I am wrong, and please do explain this phenomenon. 

[geronimo]

Dave UK wrote:

  Some gardeners claim they get better results from talking encouragingly to their plants  (or playing Baroque music to them - as some have reported!  ). 



A personal experience:
When I worked, it was with the public, and over the years, many many subjects were discussed. One particular lady I remember was probably somewhere between 60 or 80 years old, said she had a house full o beeuuuuuutiful plants. And her secret was also talking to them. But, the surprising part was, she gave them a good "cussin" every day. Sweet little lady she was.
Just reminded me of that.

Blessings

[The Barbarian]

Apparently you didn't watch the video, or if you did you didn't pay much attention to the details,

I'm just pointing out the errors.

or if you did your are simply ignoring that which doesn't fit into your chosen belief system.

We find fossils almost all the way down in the geologic column.   That's just the way it is.   The sequence of fossils in the geologic column remains an insolvable problem for YE creationism.

How does a massive global layer of chalk composed of tiny shell fish and lime grains which supposedly took millions of years to form at a rate of 1/4 inch per thousand years, contain so many varying kinds of fossils which require rapid burial to be there?

Mostly, they don't.   The later layers (which are still forming in many places in the oceans) have some fossils of vertebrates, few of which required sudden burial to be there.   The relatively few exceptions, such as the Burgess shale, formed by means observed to happen today.  Would you like to learn about that?

Fully developed crinoids, very large fish even with undigested other fish inside them which they had just consumed, large pliosaurs, turtles, dinosaurs, and birds are all found within these globally distributed chalk beds.

And all of those fossils are found in layers which have only the fauna that lived at that time.  Hence, no modern birds and placoderms in the same strata, no vertebrates and trilobites together, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on.   Would you like to learn more about how they are separated?

There is only one answer, the layer was deposited rapidly, not over the course of millions of years.

Sorry, that won't work.   As you now see, the separation of organisms in the layers of rock show that they were deposited at very different times. You simply do not want to go where such evidence leads or suggests, which is toward long ages, consistent with God's word.   Correct if I am wrong, and please do explain this phenomenon. 

[Amo]

I'm just pointing out the errors.

We find fossils almost all the way down in the geologic column.   That's just the way it is.   The sequence of fossils in the geologic column remains an insolvable problem for YE creationism.

Mostly, they don't.   The later layers (which are still forming in many places in the oceans) have some fossils of vertebrates, few of which required sudden burial to be there.   The relatively few exceptions, such as the Burgess shale, formed by means observed to happen today.  Would you like to learn about that?

And all of those fossils are found in layers which have only the fauna that lived at that time.  Hence, no modern birds and placoderms in the same strata, no vertebrates and trilobites together, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on.   Would you like to learn more about how they are separated?

Sorry, that won't work.   As you now see, the separation of organisms in the layers of rock show that they were deposited at very different times. You simply do not want to go where such evidence leads or suggests, which is toward long ages, consistent with God's word.   Correct if I am wrong, and please do explain this phenomenon.

So basically, either the man in the video is a liar, or your are a liar, correct?

[The Barbarian]

Dave UK wrote:

  Some gardeners claim they get better results from talking encouragingly to their plants  (or playing Baroque music to them - as some have reported!  ). 

My serranos prefer Norteño.

[The Barbarian]

So basically, either the man in the video is a liar, or your are a liar, correct?

Or he just convinced himself a fable without knowing anything.  Or maybe he was misled by someone who knew no more than he did.

Or maybe someone lied to him.

But what you're telling me he says, is completely wrong.  Demonstrably so.   If you'd like some more detail, and evidence, let me know which one you'd like me to show you first.

[Alan]

So basically, either the man in the video is a liar, or your are a liar, correct?

Why is that someone is always a "liar" in your opposition? If one believes they are telling the truth it can never be considered a lie. Misinformed, misled, uneducated, ignorance, yes, but a liar? No

[The Barbarian]

Snelling talks about the tapeats sandstone, but he doesn't tell you that it contains trilobites, but no vertebrates.   If he was right, and it was from a single worldwide flood, it would have ocean vertebrates in it.

The chalk continues to form on the ocean floor, so that has all sorts of fossils in it.   

The fact that some ocean floor was raised up, such as the Himalayas, (which are made of ocean sediments, and are still rising as India moves northward into Asia) means only that the Earth's crust moves.

[Amo]

Why is that someone is always a "liar" in your opposition? If one believes they are telling the truth it can never be considered a lie. Misinformed, misled, uneducated, ignorance, yes, but a liar? No

All who contradict the word of God are liars, willful or not. God is truth, we are not. All will be judged by the word of God, not every individuals perception of truth. We are all liars, God alone is true. We will either submit to that truth unto salvation, or reject it as true children of the father of lies and share his fate. Deep time evolution, and the creation account of scripture cannot both be true.

Jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Those wo reject the testimony of Jesus Christ who is the truth and the WORD OF GOD, are liars. They will be judged by His word in the last day. If the flood happened as Jesus Christ testified that it did, then evolution is a lie plain and simple.

[The Barbarian]

Those wo reject the testimony of Jesus Christ who is the truth and the WORD OF GOD, are liars. They will be judged by His word in the last day. If the flood happened as Jesus Christ testified that it did, then evolution is a lie plain and simple.

Jesus did not specify how the flood happened, or even if it was a parable or not.   It is most unwise to add new requirements for salvation.   Avoid it.  He does not care if you accept the way He did creation or not.

Let it go, and focus on what He wants from you.  That will save.   The rest won't.

[Amo]

Jesus did not specify how the flood happened, or even if it was a parable or not.   It is most unwise to add new requirements for salvation.   Avoid it.  He does not care if you accept the way He did creation or not.

Let it go, and focus on what He wants from you.  That will save.   The rest won't.

To the contrary, let go of the lie you have latched onto in contradiction to the word of God, and grasp the truth of the words of Jesus Christ and scripture. Then you will not perish along with the lies of the evil one.

[Amo]

Or he just convinced himself a fable without knowing anything.  Or maybe he was misled by someone who knew no more than he did.

Or maybe someone lied to him.

But what you're telling me he says, is completely wrong.  Demonstrably so.   If you'd like some more detail, and evidence, let me know which one you'd like me to show you first.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/natural-features/chalk-it-global-flood/

The following quote is from the link above, where the entire article may be viewed.

The Extent of the Chalk Beds

First, let's take a look at where the main chalk beds are located. The white chalk cliffs of Dover are an iconic English landmark, but similar chalk cliffs are also found to the west along the southern English coast near Brighton, and to the north along part of the Yorkshire coast. The chalk beds that connect these areas are estimated to average over 1300 feet (400 m) in thickness. The same chalk beds also crop out along the Antrim coast of Northern Ireland, and can be traced right across Europe (France, Germany, Poland, and beyond) to Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and even Kazakhstan.

ALL THESE CHALK BEDS ARE AT THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL IN THE GLOBAL GEOLOGIC RECORD. SO THEY REPRESENT ONE GLOBAL SEDIMENTARY ROCK UNIT.

Similar chalk beds are found in the Midwestern USA, from Nebraska to Texas, and from Alabama to Colorado. They include the Niobrara Chalk in Kansas, which is famous for its astonishing variety of fossils. Chalk beds are also found in the Perth Basin of southern Western Australia (the Gingin Chalk) and contain the same fossils as the English chalk beds, as well as the same types of rock layers above and below them.

All these chalk beds are at the same relative level in the global geologic record. So they represent one global sedimentary rock unit. This similarity explains why they have all been assigned to the Cretaceous geologic period. (The name itself is derived from creta, the Latin word for chalk.) Since they're all at the same level, we know all these chalk beds were deposited at the same time.

But did these chalk beds take 40 million years to accumulate? Absolutely not. The unusual, jumbled mix of fossils dispels the evolutionary scenario of slow-and-gradual accumulation of tiny grains in a placid sea over 40 million years.

The Fossils in the Chalk

The chalk fabric consists primarily of the tiny fossil remains of single-celled organisms called foraminifers, and of coccoliths (tiny plates which were the external skeletons of certain kinds of algae), set in a very fine-grained calcite. Even more important is the existence of so many larger fossils found mixed in the chalk beds. How did all these large, diverse creatures get buried in the ooze, unlike what we find on the ocean floor today?

The list of large fossils is huge. English chalk bed fossils include many big seafloor animals like sponges, corals, bryozoans (lace corals), brachiopods (lamp shells), bivalves (clams), gastropods (snails), ammonites, nautiloids, belemnites, arthropods (crabs and lobsters), and echinoderms (crinoids, starfish, and anemones).4 The chalk beds also contain a host of other creatures—the fossilized jaws and teeth of fish, and fossil remains of turtles, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, marine lizards, flying reptiles (pterosaurs), and even dinosaurs, which lived on land.

The Niobrara Chalk in Kansas contains an even more impressive list of larger fossils—fish of various types up to 16 feet (5 m) long, sharks, turtles up to 13 feet (4 m) long; plesiosaurs up to 46 feet (14 m) long; mosasaurs up to 49 feet (15 m) long; pterosaurs with wingspans up to 30 feet (9 m); dinosaurs, such as ankylosaurs and hadrosaurs, up to 30 feet (9 m); and birds up to 6.5 feet (2 m) tall.5

How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today?

[Alan]

All who contradict the word of God are liars, willful or not. God is truth, we are not. All will be judged by the word of God, not every individuals perception of truth. We are all liars, God alone is true. We will either submit to that truth unto salvation, or reject it as true children of the father of lies and share his fate. Deep time evolution, and the creation account of scripture cannot both be true.

Jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Those wo reject the testimony of Jesus Christ who is the truth and the WORD OF GOD, are liars. They will be judged by His word in the last day. If the flood happened as Jesus Christ testified that it did, then evolution is a lie plain and simple.

That doesn't even begin to address my post, no one here has rejected the testimony of Christ, it is YOU and you alone that judge us and refer to us as liars.

[The Barbarian]

First, let's take a look at where the main chalk beds are located. The white chalk cliffs of Dover are an iconic English landmark, but similar chalk cliffs are also found to the west along the southern English coast near Brighton, and to the north along part of the Yorkshire coast. The chalk beds that connect these areas are estimated to average over 1300 feet (400 m) in thickness. The same chalk beds also crop out along the Antrim coast of Northern Ireland, and can be traced right across Europe (France, Germany, Poland, and beyond) to Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and even Kazakhstan.

ALL THESE CHALK BEDS ARE AT THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL IN THE GLOBAL GEOLOGIC RECORD. SO THEY REPRESENT ONE GLOBAL SEDIMENTARY ROCK UNIT.

Well, let's take a look...

The cretaceous was first identified by chalk beds.   The white cliffs of Dover, for example, are from the Cretaceous.   However, the most ancient layers of chalk contain fossils not found in more recent layers:
The Upper Chalk is the largest portion of the entire chalk beds (Melville 1982). It is up to 404 m in the Isle of Wight and 260 m in Dorset (Melville 1982). It is described as "milk-white, fine in its grain and smooth when cut" (Wright 1981). The base of the Upper Chalk is marked by the hardest layer of all, the Chalk Rock (Melville 1982). It has a nodular character and was deposited in unusually shallow water (Bennison 1969). It contains the fossils of sponges and the moulds of ammonites and gastropods (Melville 1982). Above the Chalk Rock the chalk becomes very smooth, white, and "massively bedded, except for nodular beds and hardgrounds in...the pilula Zone of the Isle of Wight and Dorset" (Melville 1982). There are many different types of fossils present in the Upper Chalk (Bennison 1969). These include remains of fishes, in particular teeth are quite common, as well as the remains of sharks and teeth of ray fishes (Melville 1982). This provides extra evidence to support the statement about how calm the water was in which the chalk was found. Sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and are usually not preserved well since they are so fragile (Wicander 2004). To find a shark skeleton means that the water was not disturbed much over a long period of time. Echinoids such as Micraster and Echinocorys are common and can be used to correlate different layers of chalk (Melville 1982). Ammonites are also used for correlation including the Hyphantoceras reussianum (Bennison 1969). Other fossils present include: gastropods, bivalves, oysters, brachiopods, and sponges which are commonly enclosed in flint (Melville 1982).
http://courses.washington.edu/uwtgeo06/papers/BrieannaGraham_Paper.htm

Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils.   But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story.   Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick.   Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams.     The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet.    So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud.    And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.

So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this. 

How could so many large ocean-dwelling and land-dwelling creatures get buried together in ooze on the ocean floor in the past, when this is not happening today?

It is happening today.   In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them.

[Amo]

That doesn't even begin to address my post, no one here has rejected the testimony of Christ, it is YOU and you alone that judge us and refer to us as liars.

Oh, so you do believe in the biblical global flood. So how do you square that with evolutionist observations and speculations which ignore the same?

[Amo]

Well, let's take a look...

The cretaceous was first identified by chalk beds.   The white cliffs of Dover, for example, are from the Cretaceous.   However, the most ancient layers of chalk contain fossils not found in more recent layers:
The Upper Chalk is the largest portion of the entire chalk beds (Melville 1982). It is up to 404 m in the Isle of Wight and 260 m in Dorset (Melville 1982). It is described as "milk-white, fine in its grain and smooth when cut" (Wright 1981). The base of the Upper Chalk is marked by the hardest layer of all, the Chalk Rock (Melville 1982). It has a nodular character and was deposited in unusually shallow water (Bennison 1969). It contains the fossils of sponges and the moulds of ammonites and gastropods (Melville 1982). Above the Chalk Rock the chalk becomes very smooth, white, and "massively bedded, except for nodular beds and hardgrounds in...the pilula Zone of the Isle of Wight and Dorset" (Melville 1982). There are many different types of fossils present in the Upper Chalk (Bennison 1969). These include remains of fishes, in particular teeth are quite common, as well as the remains of sharks and teeth of ray fishes (Melville 1982). This provides extra evidence to support the statement about how calm the water was in which the chalk was found. Sharks have a cartilaginous skeleton, and are usually not preserved well since they are so fragile (Wicander 2004). To find a shark skeleton means that the water was not disturbed much over a long period of time. Echinoids such as Micraster and Echinocorys are common and can be used to correlate different layers of chalk (Melville 1982). Ammonites are also used for correlation including the Hyphantoceras reussianum (Bennison 1969). Other fossils present include: gastropods, bivalves, oysters, brachiopods, and sponges which are commonly enclosed in flint (Melville 1982).
http://courses.washington.edu/uwtgeo06/papers/BrieannaGraham_Paper.htm

Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils.   But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story.   Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick.   Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams.     The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet.    So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud.    And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.

So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this. 

It is happening today.   In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them.

All observations made by those who have already determined there was no global flood, and therefore exclusionary of any explanation including that scenario. In a global flood of course, the waters of the oceans would be far deeper than they are today, it would take quite some time for them to fully recede and settle to their eventual new bounds, they would be filled with the debris of mass extinction, which would include cases of both rapid burial during the most violent stages of the flood, and more slow layering after things calmed down and began to settle over time. The layering would of course be far more rapid than deep time evolution allows for and easily explains the anomolies deep time evolution cannot. The recession of the masses of waters distributed all over the planet would produce periods of both calm and violent incidents as massive amounts of waters were redistributed throughout the earth.

Your simply choose the observations of deep time theorists who think they know better than Jesus Christ and the prophets, above the testimony of the same. This is where you place your faith, that is all.

[The Barbarian]

All observations made by those who have already determined there was no global flood,

Nope.  Not one of those facts I showed you were first noticed by anyone who denied a global flood.   If you doubt this, show us otherwise.   

In a global flood of course, the waters of the oceans would be far deeper than they are today

Wrong.   The average depth then was much less than it is today, because the oceans spread over low areas to make shallow seas.   What is needed for the cretaceous chalk beds to form, are lots of shallow seas and continental shelves.   Which is what we see in the Cretaceous.

The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels that created numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous

it would take quite some time for them to fully recede and settle to their eventual new bounds, they would be filled with the debris of mass extinction, which would include cases of both rapid burial during the most violent stages of the flood,

As you learned, the deposition of cretaceous chalk was so gentle as to preserve the skeletons of sharks.   So that story won't work, either.

The recession of the masses of waters distributed all over the planet would produce periods of both calm and violent incidents as massive amounts of waters were redistributed throughout the earth.

It was violent and sudden, except that it wasn't.   In other words, Snelling is trying to make his new doctrine fit any possible facts.

Bottom line:
Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils.   But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story.   Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick.   Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams.     The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet.    So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud.    And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.

So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this.   It is happening today.   In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them. 

Snelling simply choose his new interpretation of scripture, depending on those who think they know better than Jesus Christ and the prophets, above the testimony of the same. This is where you place your faith, that is all.

[The Barbarian]

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism...A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism."
Andrew Snelling, Koongarra Uranium Deposits in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1990, pages 807 -812

"Myr" means "millions of years"    Snelling here is writing that these formations are about 1.8 billion years old.

[Amo]

Nope.  Not one of those facts I showed you were first noticed by anyone who denied a global flood.   If you doubt this, show us otherwise.   

Wrong.   The average depth then was much less than it is today, because the oceans spread over low areas to make shallow seas.   What is needed for the cretaceous chalk beds to form, are lots of shallow seas and continental shelves.   Which is what we see in the Cretaceous.

The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate, resulting in high eustatic sea levels that created numerous shallow inland seas. These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct marine reptiles, ammonites and rudists, while dinosaurs continued to dominate on land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous

As you learned, the deposition of cretaceous chalk was so gentle as to preserve the skeletons of sharks.   So that story won't work, either.

It was violent and sudden, except that it wasn't.   In other words, Snelling is trying to make his new doctrine fit any possible facts.

Bottom line:
Notice that the waters in the upper layer of chalk (formed, remember by the shells of very tiny organisms) had to be quite calm to form the fossils.   But that's not the largest problem with Snelling's story.   Most of the uneroded chalk beds are something like 1,500 feet thick.   Remember solid rock made of packed shells of forams.     The average depth of the oceans is about 12,000 feet.    So if all those forams lived in the same time, the oceans would be so packed with forams that they would be like very loose mud.    And there's the problem of different fossil fauna low in the chalk layers that are different than those higher up.

So far, creationists have not found a satisfactory explanation for this.   It is happening today.   In shallow seas, the same fall of tiny shells continues, burying other organisms with them. 

Snelling simply choose his new interpretation of scripture, depending on those who think they know better than Jesus Christ and the prophets, above the testimony of the same. This is where you place your faith, that is all.

You don't even believe in a global flood, now your saying what it was like after one? So your saying that people who believed in a global flood also believe it took deep time to form the chalk beds. Why, and what sense does that make? Please do provide examples of those who believe the biblical global flood account, but still think it took countless millions of years to form all the layers. The flood negates the need for deep time, and deep time gets messed up by the flood.

Please do provide examples of scripture which teach evolution and deep time slow development. Not the same old lame arguments that if scripture means what you say it means rather than what it plainly states, then it teaches evolution and or deep time. Show us scripture which plainly states your case, or continue to say it does at your own peril.

[Amo]

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism...A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism."
Andrew Snelling, Koongarra Uranium Deposits in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1990, pages 807 -812

"Myr" means "millions of years"    Snelling here is writing that these formations are about 1.8 billion years old.

And so? My faith is not in Snelling, it is in the word of God. If you choose to place your faith in Snelling simply because he might have said something you agree with, go to, do likewise.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Snelling

According to his many online biographies at creationist websites, Snelling received a Bachelor of Science with First Class Honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales and a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney, for his thesis A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.[2] He worked for various mining companies for several years before leaving to pursue his creation "research" in 1983,[3] however he was retained as a consultant by Koongarra uranium project until 1992.[2]

His creation research has centred around dating methods, with his pet hobbyhorse being polonium halos, which according to Answers in Genesis, he has used to demonstrate that most rock layers and fossils were deposited by a global flood 4,300 years ago.[4] He has been repeatedly overlooked for a Nobel Prize despite the importance of this discovery. He has recently sued the US National Park Service on grounds of "religious discrimination" because they won't let him collect rocks at the Grand Canyon National Park.[5]

The above quote from the link provided doesn't seem to suggest that Snelling believes in deep time evolution or cause of rock layers. Nevertheless, my faith is not in him.

[Amo]

http://www.icr.org/article/cambrian-fossils-found-wrong-place/

Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place

Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively Cambrian sea creatures. These fossil finds were quite unexpected by evolutionists, who had pictured a different evolutionary scenario.

In the geologic timescale, the "Cambrian period" refers to the lowermost densely fossil-bearing rocks. These rocks record the sudden appearance of creatures, with representatives of almost every living phylum found fully formed and with no signs of evolutionary transition, which is an enigma for evolution.1

The soft-bodied creatures found in Cambrian strata were considered stem or basal creatures. They were supposed to have been the worms, arthropods, and other odd creatures that "gave rise" to subsequent body forms found in upper strata. Although none of them ever showed clear transition toward the more familiar sea animals that are found in higher strata or are living today, they were considered to be evolutionary predecessors because they were thought to be exclusive to Cambrian rocks.

Now all of that has changed. A recent study in Nature reported that some of the same soft-bodied "Cambrian" sea creatures were found in Morocco--preserved in brilliant reds and yellows because of the oxidation of pyrite that occurred on their soft tissues while they were being fossilized--in a higher layer, mixed in with "later" animals.2 This discovery erases the argument for evolution, which relies on the absence of these creatures in higher layers to support the assumption that they "diverged" into "later" life forms--and eventually into people.

This find forces evolutionists to add a new belief in order to support their overall concept of past life. Before, evolutionists believed that some creatures evolved into others--an easy story to assert but one that lacked the expected transitional forms in the fossil record.3 Now, they must also believe that some creatures evolved into others, and at the same time spawned more of themselves in "parallel." They must insist that the "stem" soft-bodied animals "gave rise" to newer life forms found in higher sediments, as well as to populations that continued to produce more forms just like themselves.

Since both of these "parallel" populations lived alongside one another, instead of in separate periods of time, then why are the Cambrian creatures not typically found as fossils in higher strata? The study's authors said, "The rarity of Burgess Shale-type taxa [organisms] in post-Middle Cambrian rocks elsewhere probably results from a lack of preservation rather than the extinction and replacement of these faunas during the later Cambrian."2 (The Burgess Shale Formation is widely known for soft-tissue preservation in its fossils.)

This one brief statement rewrites a foundational part of the evolutionary story. Instead of going extinct because they evolved into subsequent forms, it must now be believed that they evolved into other forms despite what these new fossils show--not transitional forms evolving, but stable forms persisting. This find forces the evolutionary story to take too many twists and turns to be true.

On the other hand, if God created all creatures during the same week-long miraculous event, and if God subsequently judged the world in a globe-covering watery catastrophe, then one would expect to find exactly what has been described: ancient sea creatures that were fully-formed and coexisted in time, buried together in mud in a massive, worldwide graveyard.

[Alan]

I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one 

[The Barbarian]

Snelling is a qualified geologist, and writes perfectly reasonable papers for companies that hire him to tell them about mining issues.

Then he writes in creationist journals with an entirely different story.

And it is clear why; if he gave a company the creationist story, it would be completely useless to them in their search for minerals, and they wouldn't hire him.   And if he wrote a realistic paper for a creationist website, they wouldn't print it.

[The Barbarian]

"Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively Cambrian sea creatures. These fossil finds were quite unexpected by evolutionists, who had pictured a different evolutionary scenario."

ICR lied to you about that.  As the paper they cited made clear, many scientists thought that the absence of Burgess Cambrian organisms in Ordovician (age right after the Cambrian) deposits was due mainly to the soft bodies of those organisms, which rarely fossilize.   Turns out, they were right.   Some Cambrian organisms survived into the Ordovician period before going extinct.    Which was, as the study suggests, already suspected by many paleontologists.


Ordovician faunas of Burgess Shale type
Nature volume 465, pages 215–218 (13 May 2010)
Abstract
The renowned soft-bodied faunas of the Cambrian period, which include the Burgess Shale, disappear from the fossil record in the late Middle Cambrian, after which the Palaeozoic fauna1 dominates. The disappearance of faunas of Burgess Shale type curtails the stratigraphic record of a number of iconic Cambrian taxa. One possible explanation for this loss is a major extinction2,3, but more probably it reflects the absence of preservation of similar soft-bodied faunas in later periods4. Here we report the discovery of numerous diverse soft-bodied assemblages in the Lower and Upper Fezouata Formations (Lower Ordovician) of Morocco, which include a range of remarkable stem-group morphologies normally considered characteristic of the Cambrian. It is clear that biotas of Burgess Shale type persisted after the Cambrian and are preserved where suitable facies occur. The Fezouata biota provides a link between the Burgess Shale communities and the early stages of the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.

So they lied to you about the author's conclusions.    Because they were pretty sure you wouldn't check for yourself.

There's a lesson for everyone therein.

[The Barbarian]

I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one

Could be worse...

[Dave_UK]

I don't think a thread has reverted back to square one as many times as this one

So it seems!  I have a look at the latest posts on this, often erudite, thread from time to time out of curiosity - but "back off" from getting involved.  Send me a postcard when you all come to a definite final conclusion (if ever - most of us may be "under the daisies" by that time)!