Bioturbation shows a rapid deposit of the earths strata.

[CrowCross]

Bioturbation shows a rapid deposit of the earths strata.

Strata found around the world with distinct lines of demarcation show a rapid deposit in a short period of time...or the critters causing bioturbation would have mixed up the strata lines of demarcation meaning there would be no distinct strata layers.

If long time spans occurred between the depositing of the strata as seen in our geological column actually happened the Grand canyon would not look like the Grand Canyon as each line of demarcation between the sediments would have been severely disturbed and not distinct as they are now.

The video below shows how the layers would have been destroyed via bioturbation. Enjoy.

 

[TB2]

Bioturbation shows a rapid deposit of the earths strata.

Strata found around the world with distinct lines of demarcation show a rapid deposit in a short period of time...or the critters causing bioturbation would have mixed up the strata lines of demarcation meaning there would be no distinct strata layers.

If long time spans occurred between the depositing of the strata as seen in our geological column actually happened the Grand canyon would not look like the Grand Canyon as each line of demarcation between the sediments would have been severely disturbed and not distinct as they are now.

The video below shows how the layers would have been destroyed via bioturbation. Enjoy.

@CrowCross

Nicely done! I am truly impressed you know you about bioturbation! Most people have never heard of that. And yes, it is odd to not always find more bioturbation (although advances in sequence stratigraphy seem to explain this).

But alas, there is tons of bioturbation in the Grand Canyon. Take for instance these Cambrian "worm" burrows (Skolithos) from the Bright Angel Shale. This, of course, is problematic for a Flood because it takes time for critters to disrupt and bioturbate sediments.

And then there's those dreaded slow growing reefs and stromatolites which are a type of bioturbation/sediment disruption

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross

Nicely done! I am truly impressed you know you about bioturbation! Most people have never heard of that. And yes, it is odd to not always find more bioturbation (although advances in sequence stratigraphy seem to explain this).

Believe me. I'm not trying to impress you. Now, when you actually address the post rather than re-runs of your previous post..get back to us here at the forum.

Bottom line.....if the deposition rate took as long as you've been suckered into believing....where the rock strata changes from one to the other...would not appear as they do. As you know, the deposition was rapid. You know, smething a world wide flood would produce.

My suggestion for you...stick with the truth of the Bible.

 

[TB2]

Believe me. I'm not trying to impress you. Now, when you actually address the post rather than re-runs of your previous post..get back to us here at the forum

Not liking the snarky attitude. Nor do I tolerate misrepresentation. I did address your post. You are wrong. There is bioturbration (tons of it!) in the Grand Canyon and I told you so, and gave you a (NEW) photo of Skolithos in the Bright Angel Shale of the Cambrian. We find stacked vertical sequences of Skolithos burrows that take even more time to form. You are now posting false, misinformation that you are trying to claim is true. That is disingenuous.

And I will keep reposting my previous points, as long as you keep ignoring them and fail to rebut them. You can't ignore evidence you don't like. You must account for all the data.

 

[TB2]

My suggestion for you...stick with the truth of the Bible

I suggest you heed your own advice by not going beyond what the Bible teaches. The Bible doesn't say the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. Nor does the Bible teach the floodwaters rose and then receded a bit, and rose some more as you suggest (the waters rose, they fell; one time). And the belief that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood goes against what the Bible teaches. A point that you still have yet to refute:

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record.

 

[CrowCross]

Not liking the snarky attitude. Nor do I tolerate misrepresentation. I did address your post. You are wrong. There is bioturbration (tons of it!) in the Grand Canyon and I told you so, and gave you a (NEW) photo of Skolithos in the Bright Angel Shale of the Cambrian. We find stacked vertical sequences of Skolithos burrows that take even more time to form. You are now posting false, misinformation that you are trying to claim is true. That is disingenuous.

And I will keep reposting my previous points, as long as you keep ignoring them and fail to rebut them. You can't ignore evidence you don't like. You must account for all the data.

You showed there was tons of bioturbatation? Then why are they distinct lines of demarcation where the strata meet? Oh boy, you sure proved that I was wrong.

Stick to the what the bible says TB2

 

[CrowCross]

I suggest you heed your own advice by not going beyond what the Bible teaches. The Bible doesn't say the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. Nor does the Bible teach the floodwaters rose and then receded a bit, and rose some more as you suggest (the waters rose, they fell; one time). And the belief that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood goes against what the Bible teaches. A point that you still have yet to refute:

The bible aso doesn't teach there were ladders, stairs or ramps between the levels of the Ark Noah built....but it's a pretty good guess there was.
The funny thing is you'll now have to find a way to disagree with me.

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5

miles of fossil record sediment.

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record.

There was a world wide flood per the bible you don't believe that would have destroyed the topography of the land. This would have included the rivers. After the flood old names were given to some of the new rivers. For all we know Eden could have been where Pittsburg is.

 

[TB2]

There was a world wide flood per the bible you don't believe that would have destroyed the topography of the land. This would have included the rivers. After the flood old names were given to some of the new rivers. For all we know Eden could have been where Pittsburg is.

Genesis 2.14 identifies the PRE-Flood Tigris River (associated with the Garden of Eden) with the POST-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria (Ashur) whose ruins are still visible on the surface of the earth. The Bible teaches (in Gen 2.14) that the PRE-Flood Tigris River was still present after the Flood on the earth's surface.

 

[TB2]

You showed there was tons of bioturbatation? Then why are they distinct lines of demarcation where the strata meet? Oh boy, you sure proved that I was wrong.

You need to be more specific. Where/what are these "distinct lines of demarcation where the strata meet" to which you refer? It is unclear what specifically you are referring to.

You showed there was tons of bioturbatation?

What I said: "There is bioturbration (tons of it!) in the Grand Canyon and I told you so, and gave you a (NEW) photo of Skolithos in the Bright Angel Shale of the Cambrian. We find stacked vertical sequences of Skolithos burrows that take even more time to form."

Yes, there are literally tons (upon tons upon tons) of ichno (trace) fossils evidencing bioturbation in the Grand Canyon. More than can be collected in a lifetime. Here's but one study at a single field location in a single formation (Bright Angel Shale) of the Grand Canyon. (pages 221-226 show sample photos of different types of ichnofossils (trace fossils, worm burrows, tunneling) and associated bioturbation.

 

[CrowCross]

Genesis 2.14 identifies the PRE-Flood Tigris River (associated with the Garden of Eden) with the POST-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria (Ashur) whose ruins are still visible on the surface of the earth. The Bible teaches (in Gen 2.14) that the PRE-Flood Tigris River was still present after the Flood on the earth's surface.

No, it simply shows they named a post flood river...Tigris.

 

[CrowCross]

You need to be more specific. Where/what are these "distinct lines of demarcation where the strata meet" to which you refer? It is unclear what specifically you are referring to.

What I said: "There is bioturbration (tons of it!) in the Grand Canyon and I told you so, and gave you a (NEW) photo of Skolithos in the Bright Angel Shale of the Cambrian. We find stacked vertical sequences of Skolithos burrows that take even more time to form."

Yes, there are literally tons (upon tons upon tons) of ichno (trace) fossils evidencing bioturbation in the Grand Canyon. More than can be collected in a lifetime. Here's but one study at a single field location in a single formation (Bright Angel Shale) of the Grand Canyon. (pages 221-226 show sample photos of different types of ichnofossils (trace fossils, worm burrows, tunneling) and associated bioturbation.

Which points to a rapid deposit....if the strata took as long as you say...there would be more, so many more to the point the lines of demarcation would not exist. That's the point you haven't answered.

 

[TB2]

Which points to a rapid deposit....if the strata took as long as you say...there would be more, so many more to the point the lines of demarcation would not exist. That's the point you haven't answered.

Bioturbation shows just the opposite: non rapid deposition. The title of your post should say "Bioturbation shows a LACK of rapid deposition"

Regarding your "lines of demarcation," like I said you need to be more specific. It is not clear what you are referring to. "Line of demarcation" simply refers to a distinct contact or boundary. That could mean a thousand different things. It's like asking "what does this paved road mean?" Which paved road? Why don't you post a photo of a specific example and tell me what you think it shows.

 

[CrowCross]

Bioturbation shows just the opposite: non rapid deposition. The title of your post should say "Bioturbation shows a LACK of rapid deposition"

Regarding your "lines of demarcation," like I said you need to be more specific. It is not clear what you are referring to. "Line of demarcation" simply refers to a distinct contact or boundary. That could mean a thousand different things. It's like asking "what does this paved road mean?" Which paved road? Why don't you post a photo of a specific example and tell me what you think it shows.

If you have an area where a particular biome is being layed down...perhaps like my back yard...or even a big lake....you know where the critters abre disturbing the surface, crawling around under my grass, digging around at the lake bottom...then all of a sudden a new biome is being deposited...those critters will dig through the new and into the old...destroying the demarcation of the new joining biome as the sediment slowly builds up. Or will the lower level always have to have turned to rock first?

 

[TB2]

If you have an area where a particular biome is being layed down...perhaps like my back yard...or even a big lake....you know where the critters abre disturbing the surface, crawling around under my grass, digging around at the lake bottom...then all of a sudden a new biome is being deposited...those critters will dig through the new and into the old...destroying the demarcation of the new joining biome as the sediment slowly builds up. Or will the lower level always have to have turned to rock first?

It would be better if you could just post a photo of the strata in question and what you think it means

 

[CrowCross]

It would be better if you could just post a photo of the strata in question and what you think it means

You've never seen the Grand Staircase...or a mountain cut where a road went through??

 

[TB2]

You've never seen the Grand Staircase...or a mountain cut where a road went through??

I've studied it. There are million different "lines of demarcation." Just saying there's a line of demarcation means nothing without more information. You could have a demarcation due to a shift in the environment, or it could be due to a hiatus (a pause when there is no deposition). You're not going to find bioturbation every single place. We don't even see that today. There more soil layers on earth today that don't have worm burrows. Lack of bioturbation doesn't automatically mean rapid deposition. There must be additional evidence for that. Lack of bioturbation can simply mean lack of organisms in that environment or area.

But when we find bioturbation (like we do, tons of it in the Grand Canyon) that for sure shows that it *wasn't* deposited rapidly.

 

[CrowCross]

I've studied it. There are million different "lines of demarcation." Just saying there's a line of demarcation means nothing without more information. You could have a demarcation due to a shift in the environment, or it could be due to a hiatus (a pause when there is no deposition). You're not going to find bioturbation every single place. We don't even see that today. There more soil layers on earth today that don't have worm burrows. Lack of bioturbation doesn't automatically mean rapid deposition. There must be additional evidence for that. Lack of bioturbation can simply mean lack of organisms in that environment or area.

But when we find bioturbation (like we do, tons of it in the Grand Canyon) that for sure shows that it *wasn't* deposited rapidly.

I don't disagree...no critters would mean no bioturbation. But there are strata after strata that shows fossils of critters in strata with no bioturbation.

As a christian I would think you would look at the flood models and other science and understand how well they fit the Young Earth science.

They even find a ton of evidence that show dino's and humans were contemporaneous.....how does old earth evo-ism explain that? Your obvious answer will be it's a fraud. Why? Because it has to be.

 

[TB2]

I don't disagree...no critters would mean no bioturbation. But there are strata after strata that shows fossils of critters in strata with no bioturbation.

And the same is true today. There are some places where you have lots of bioturbation (like a tropical rainforest). There are some places where you have a moderate amount (like shallow nearshore marine). But then there are lots of places where you find little to no bioturbation at all (like deep sea marine, deserts, arctic, tundra, permafrost) simply because there aren't any organisms or few organisms. Think about how big the Sahara desert is and there is little to no bioturbation. But that lack of bioturbation doesn't automatically mean rapid deposition. It usually just means there was little to no life to bioturbate the sediments.

But there are other complicating factors on to of this. Sediments get *reworked* all the time. Consider a hermit crab walking across wet sand that leaves tracks in the sand. We see these types of tracks in the fossil record, too. Now consider how many times the waves come in and wash hermit crab track clean away leaving no evidence at all and a "clear line of demarcation." More often than not that is what happens: the sediments constantly get reworked like that. That's why lack of bioturbation (without additional evidence) tells us nothing (a case based on missing evidence is never strong).

Now I don't know if you had a chance to see the photos I posted in "Science vs Scripture" where I show geologic evidence of rapid deposition. I have nothing against rapid deposition (it's cool to look at and there are lots of examples of rapid deposition in the fossil record). So if the evidence for rapid deposition is there, then we see it (*today's geologists accept that the fossil record contains both slow and rapid deposition). We do see rapid even catastrophic deposition in the fossil, we just don't see it on a global scale.

As a christian I would think you would look at the flood models and other science and understand how well they fit the Young Earth science

That's what I originally set out to do: to prove Noah's Flood in the fossil record. I earned my paleontology degree studying under some of the world's top, leading Young Eart Creationist geologists. These YEC geologists were actually the ones who explained (and showed me in the field) that there is little to no evidence for a global Flood in the fossil record. They told me that's the honest truth. Now they still have faith and believe that with continued study one day the fossil record Flood model will be proven correct. But they taught me that we have to distinguish between faith and evidence.

I don't disagree...no critters would mean no bioturbation. But there are strata after strata that shows fossils of critters in strata with no bioturbation.

As a christian I would think you would look at the flood models and other science and understand how well they fit the Young Earth science.

They even find a ton of evidence that show dino's and humans were contemporaneous.....how does old earth evo-ism explain that? Your obvious answer will be it's a fraud. Why? Because it has to be.

I believed the same thing and showed my YEC professors all the same evidence. They explained why all of it was wrong and explained how within Young Earth Creationists there is a range of people from top level scientists who do legitimate scientific research that they publish in reputable journals on the high end to crackpot "scientists" who give YECs a bad name like Ron Wyatt, and Carl Baugh (who rumor has it started his own college and gave himself his own degree). I was a Carl Baugh "follower." I had Carl Baugh's book and showed my profs indisputable evidence clear as day of human footprints with dino footprints and a picture of a human finger bone that Carl Baugh had discovered in dino-age sedimentological. Turns out one of my profs had analyzed thr evidence firsthand for himself. They weren't really human footprints and the finger bone wasn't a bone at all but just a regular old rock concretion.

I support the top YECs. I have no problem with and support YEC scientists who are researching looking for evidence for Noah's Flood (I would love to find it myself). As long as it's legitimate work. It makes us look so bad as believers when misinformation is spread.

While I don't agree personally with his model, I recommend Kurt Wise. He's a legitimate YEC paleontologist who studied under Stephen J. Gould, and co-founded the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Flood model. Again, there's a lot of things he says that I disagree with an think are wrong. But he has a lot of integrity and doesn't misquote and misrepresent scientists like a lot of other YEC organizations do like ICR & AIG. Kurt Wise was also an advisor to the Ken Ham creation park exhibits with the Ark and all that in Kentucky. They ended up disagreeing and Kurt was frustrated by how science was being misrepresented in those exhibits. Kurt is a vocal supporter of integrity and has refereed some of the Creation technical journals you've mentioned. He's tried to raise the bar and raise the quality of research. I'm all for that and can support doing that. By big thing is *honesty*. We just need to be honest about where the evidence supports Christianity and where it doesn't.

*Look up Kurt Wise's YouTube channel. I think you'll find a lot of things you like. I also recommend Ken Coulson's site. Again, I don't agree with a lot of what they say. But I respect them for being a higher level, higher caliber, respected scientist

 

[CrowCross]

And the same is true today. There are some places where you have lots of bioturbation (like a tropical rainforest). There are some places where you have a moderate amount (like shallow nearshore marine). But then there are lots of places where you find little to no bioturbation at all (like deep sea marine, deserts, arctic, tundra, permafrost) simply because there aren't any organisms or few organisms. Think about how big the Sahara desert is and there is little to no bioturbation. But that lack of bioturbation doesn't automatically mean rapid deposition. It usually just means there was little to no life to bioturbate the sediments.

That explanation pretty much explains nothing when the geological column is presented.
The Grand canyon continuing up the Grand Staircase shows pretty precise lines of demarcation with no evidence of long age between the strata. But, if you hear what you wrote this area had no life or very little for millions upon millions of years as the strata slowly built up. Of course the strata with no bioturbation indicate a major big time flaw with your old earth models.

But there are other complicating factors on to of this. Sediments get *reworked* all the time. Consider a hermit crab walking across wet sand that leaves tracks in the sand. We see these types of tracks in the fossil record, too. Now consider how many times the waves come in and wash hermit crab track clean away leaving no evidence at all and a "clear line of demarcation."

Apparently the depositing sediment which covered the tracks was not caused by a wave which would have washed away the tracks but rather a more subtle deposition.
Just for the record I've seen flume test where newts had the ability to create tracks underwater. I'm sure something similiar with hermits crabs could shown to have occurred.

More often than not that is what happens: the sediments constantly get reworked like that. That's why lack of bioturbation (without additional evidence) tells us nothing (a case based on missing evidence is never strong).

Now I don't know if you had a chance to see the photos I posted in "Science vs Scripture" where I show geologic evidence of rapid deposition. I have nothing against rapid deposition (it's cool to look at and there are lots of examples of rapid deposition in the fossil record). So if the evidence for rapid deposition is there, then we see it (*today's geologists accept that the fossil record contains both slow and rapid deposition). We do see rapid even catastrophic deposition in the fossil, we just don't see it on a global scale.

Rapid deposition has also been show to have ocurred with polystrate trees.

That's what I originally set out to do: to prove Noah's Flood in the fossil record. I earned my paleontology degree studying under some of the world's top, leading Young Eart Creationist geologists. These YEC geologists were actually the ones who explained (and showed me in the field) that there is little to no evidence for a global Flood in the fossil record. They told me that's the honest truth. Now they still have faith and believe that with continued study one day the fossil record Flood model will be proven correct. But they taught me that we have to distinguish between faith and evidence.

To be honest the fossil record doesn't show evolutionism...as an example I could present dog skulls and line them up from smallest to largest...small nose to big snout...short stubby legs to long legs great for running...and we know they are not a result of new genetic information. BUT, if they were found in the geological column the evos would claim one evolved into the other via mutations, random chance and long time frames. As we know they would be incorrect but demand they are correct. The same concept can be passed along to the trilobite and dinosaurs.

I believed the same thing and showed my YEC professors all the same evidence. They explained why all of it was wrong and explained how within Young Earth Creationists there is a range of people from top level scientists who do legitimate scientific research that they publish in reputable journals on the high end to crackpot "scientists" who give YECs a bad name like Ron Wyatt, and Carl Baugh (who rumor has it started his own college and gave himself his own degree). I was a Carl Baugh "follower." I had Carl Baugh's book and showed my profs indisputable evidence clear as day of human footprints with dino footprints and a picture of a human finger bone that Carl Baugh had discovered in dino-age sedimentological. Turns out one of my profs had analyzed thr evidence firsthand for himself. They weren't really human footprints and the finger bone wasn't a bone at all but just a regular old rock concretion.

Of course they were not human....as we all know humans didn't exist then....or so we're told.
But, these so-called "non-legitimate" scientist have to be labeled as such.....much like a progressive liberal has to label their opposition as a bigot, raciest or anti-semite to progress their agenda.

As to footprints...there is much evidence that people are much, much older than the monkey to human age time frame suggest..or the geological column is recent. This article presents some of those human footprints that defy "modern" science. Perhaps you'll now present an argument for time travel.

I support the top YECs. I have no problem with and support YEC scientists who are researching looking for evidence for Noah's Flood (I would love to find it myself). As long as it's legitimate work. It makes us look so bad as believers when misinformation is spread.

Many believe the ark has been found. You can see the evidence in this thread.

While I don't agree personally with his model, I recommend Kurt Wise. He's a legitimate YEC paleontologist who studied under Stephen J. Gould, and co-founded the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Flood model. Again, there's a lot of things he says that I disagree with an think are wrong. But he has a lot of integrity and doesn't misquote and misrepresent scientists like a lot of other YEC organizations do like ICR & AIG. Kurt Wise was also an advisor to the Ken Ham creation park exhibits with the Ark and all that in Kentucky. They ended up disagreeing and Kurt was frustrated by how science was being misrepresented in those exhibits. Kurt is a vocal supporter of integrity and has refereed some of the Creation technical journals you've mentioned. He's tried to raise the bar and raise the quality of research. I'm all for that and can support doing that. By big thing is *honesty*. We just need to be honest about where the evidence supports Christianity and where it doesn't.

I would expect some of the YEC theories to be wrong. Yes the bar on some of the research should be raised....but one thing I do now is that a lot of the theories and models are correct.

*Look up Kurt Wise's YouTube channel. I think you'll find a lot of things you like. I also recommend Ken Coulson's site. Again, I don't agree with a lot of what they say. But I respect them for being a higher level, higher caliber, respected scientist

 

[TB2]

Again line of demarcation by itself tells you nothing. Most lines of demarcation between rock formations are not rapid deposition but pauses in deposition. About 60% of Grand is low energy slow deposition.