Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WinAce · 04-10-2003, 06:28 PM

Coprolites: a Falsification of Young-Earth Creationism

General background information on the formation of fossilized dung, i.e. coprolites, can be found here and here.

Coprolites offer a convenient and easy-to-understand way to check if the world was ever flooded. Here are some that unambiguously and completely falsify the flood. Allow me to explain.

Exhibit A. Eocene Epoch (around 50 mya) turtle coprolite from Madagascar.

How do we know this wasn't deposited in the flood? Look at it. See the cracks? What do they remind you of? That's right, dog poop. Dog poop that's been out in the air a long while, dried out and cracked. Something it can't do when it's underwater.

Quote:

For these turtle-fouled Eocene rocks and younger rocks which lie above them, these facts require that they are at least post flood. One can follow the Eocene rocks from Madagascar around Africa and Eurasia and across to India. In the Ocean the link is unbroken.. The thickness of the rocks equal in age or younger (Post Paleocene) offshore India reaches 15 kilometers in thickness (see Curiale et al, AAPG86(2002):4:636). Thus the young-earth creationist, if he/she decides that the sediments I am speaking of are post-flood, must then account for 15 kilometers of post flood sediments offshore India. This is 50,000 feet of sediment. The young-earth creationist must ask himself how it is possible to non-catastrophically erode and deposit that much sediment within the past few thousand years. Clearly this is a difficulty. On the other hand if the young-earth creationist thinks that the sediments are flood sediments, they must explain how the turtles found dry land in the middle of the flood, so that lots of feces could be deposited and then have the time to dry out.
And that is the real poop on the Global Flood.
- Glenn Morton

Dried and cracked coprolites are found throughout the geologic layers, not just Eocene rocks. Needless to say, this puts a damper on any claims the layers were wholesale deposited by a flood...

Magus55 · 04-10-2003, 06:57 PM

Or maybe, that animal was on the Ark and that is a sample that dried out in the ark, and eventually fossilized in the land once the ark decayed. Or maybe, thats a fossil from after the flood waters receded and the animal was back on land? /gasp. Thats quite a strech to try and disprove it. I think you are just outta options so have to resort to stupid things like turtle pooh.

WinAce · 04-10-2003, 07:03 PM

Ah yes, a piece of dung that flew off the ark on Mt. Ararat and magically landed in Madagascar. That makes perfect sense.

Or a fossil laid down after the flood waters receded. In other words, any geologic layers with dried poop inside are post-flood. But since practically *every* geologic layer contains dried poop fossils, that means the flood didn't deposit any of the layers usually associated with it. And that means the entire geologic column couldn't have been deposited by catastrophic means, but would require millions of years to be laid down gradually.

Ah, the joys of having your myths falsified scientifically...

Magus55 · 04-10-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Demigawd
Anything's possible when you subscribe to Magical Thinking (tm). Why relie on evidence when you have unlimited imagination?

We have evidence, you just don't like it. I'm not impressed by evolutionary evidence(if you can call it that) either. "Omg omg! We found fossils of apes that are similar to human fossils, by golly they must be ancestors!! Forget the possibility of them having the same creator, and thus have many similar characteristics!" And of course, where are all the millions of fossils that should exist based on evolution ( including multitudes of transitional ones, where as you have none)? Did those millions of fossils from the millions of years animals and humans have been on earth run into hiding? Creationists have an explanation for the lack of human and animal fossils, whats your excuse?

Magus55 · 04-10-2003, 07:27 PM

Ok, refute these geological evidences for the Flood:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3802.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3856.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...v23n2_coal.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...ation_pipe.asp

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

And of course, i've already posted refutes to a debate from Talkorigins on the validity of the flood, and the guy on Talkorigins failed to refute it. Pity.

Of course, surely you could have found this info on your own and drawn your own conclusions ( which I of course already know what they are - its all invalid, its false - it proves nothing!)

Of course this is all a waste, since I was only trying to show that the flood was quite possible. And instead you just blame it all on delusion and imagination, and automatically assume its not possible. The Antichrist is gonna have quite a field day with the atheists, since its so easy to pull them from God even when he unleashes judgement on the Earth.

Baidarka · 04-10-2003, 07:33 PM

Magus55

"And of course there is the theory that the Grand Canyon was caused by the Noah flood."

No it was't! It was carved out by Paul Buyan and his Blue Ox Babe!

Answerer · 04-10-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
The Antichrist is gonna have quite a field day with the atheists, since its so easy to pull them from God even when he unleashes judgement on the Earth.

I guess the anti-christ must be the devoted christian, MR Bush, then.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Peter Kirby · 04-10-2003, 10:19 PM

I am closing this thread because Magus55 is an unreasonable interlocutor and because flood pseudo-science (and refutations of it) is better suited to the Evolution/Creation forum.

best,
Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2003, 06:57 PM	#22
Magus55 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 7,204	Or maybe, that animal was on the Ark and that is a sample that dried out in the ark, and eventually fossilized in the land once the ark decayed. Or maybe, thats a fossil from after the flood waters receded and the animal was back on land? /gasp. Thats quite a strech to try and disprove it. I think you are just outta options so have to resort to stupid things like turtle pooh.

04-10-2003, 07:03 PM	#23
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	Ah yes, a piece of dung that flew off the ark on Mt. Ararat and magically landed in Madagascar. That makes perfect sense. Or a fossil laid down after the flood waters receded. In other words, any geologic layers with dried poop inside are post-flood. But since practically every geologic layer contains dried poop fossils, that means the flood didn't deposit any of the layers usually associated with it. And that means the entire geologic column couldn't have been deposited by catastrophic means, but would require millions of years to be laid down gradually. Ah, the joys of having your myths falsified scientifically...

04-10-2003, 07:27 PM	#25
Magus55 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 7,204	Ok, refute these geological evidences for the Flood: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3802.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3856.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...v23n2_coal.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...ation_pipe.asp http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp And of course, i've already posted refutes to a debate from Talkorigins on the validity of the flood, and the guy on Talkorigins failed to refute it. Pity. Of course, surely you could have found this info on your own and drawn your own conclusions ( which I of course already know what they are - its all invalid, its false - it proves nothing!) Of course this is all a waste, since I was only trying to show that the flood was quite possible. And instead you just blame it all on delusion and imagination, and automatically assume its not possible. The Antichrist is gonna have quite a field day with the atheists, since its so easy to pull them from God even when he unleashes judgement on the Earth.

04-10-2003, 07:33 PM	#26
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Magus55 "And of course there is the theory that the Grand Canyon was caused by the Noah flood." No it was't! It was carved out by Paul Buyan and his Blue Ox Babe!

04-10-2003, 10:19 PM	#28
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I am closing this thread because Magus55 is an unreasonable interlocutor and because flood pseudo-science (and refutations of it) is better suited to the Evolution/Creation forum. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.