Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

oh look...All blogs and propaganda sites. None of them credible.
They exist solely to provide a pseudoscientific rebuttal to established geological science.
"Creation science" is a fraud.
By the way, these are the qualifications, had you bothered to look, of the author of the second paper cited. A few highlights...

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney, Australia. He serves as Answers in Genesis’ Director of Research and is the Editor-in-Chief of the online Answers Research Journal. Dr. Snelling is active in research, writing and also speaking on topics such as the flood, fossils, the Grand Canyon, and the radioactive dating of rocks.

Andrew completed a Bachelor of Science degree in applied geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first class honors in 1975. His PhD in geology was awarded in 1982 by The University of Sydney, Australia for his research thesis titled “A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.” Between studies, Andrew worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, variously as a field, mine, and research geologist for three different companies.


Andrew commenced in full-time creation ministry at the end of 1983, first working from Brisbane with the Creation Science Foundation of Australia (later Answers in Genesis–Australia) until late 1998, including three years with Ken Ham before Ham moved to the USA. From 1983 to 1992, Snelling was still required to be a geological consultant to the Koongarra uranium project for Denison Australia PL, subsidiary of the Canadian mining giant Denison. He was also involved in research projects with several Australian CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization) scientists, and for more than ten years in a major international collaborative research effort, funded by the US Department of Energy, with ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization) and university scientists across Australia and with university and government scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan, Korea , Sweden, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to investigate the Koongarra uranium deposit as a natural analog of a nuclear waste disposal site. As a result of these research endeavors, Andrew was involved in writing numerous scientific reports and scientific papers that were published in international science journals and books.

In late 1998 Andrew joined the Institute for Creation Research (then near San Diego, CA) as professor of geology. His responsibilities included teaching master’s degree geology courses in ICR’s Graduate School; leading tours to the Grand Canyon, England, Yosemite, and Death Valley; and research and writing projects. Andrew was a principal investigator in the eight-year, ICR-led RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) research project, to which he made major contributions in rock-dating studies using radioisotopes and in studies of radiation halos (radiohalos) and tracks (fission tracks) in various minerals. He was a contributor of two chapters to the first RATE technical volume in 2000 and three chapters to the second RATE technical volume in 2005, as well as primary production editor of both volumes. Andrew’s time at ICR was also spent writing a major two-volume book on Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation, and the Flood (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009), the sequel to the Whitcomb and Morris classic, The Genesis Flood.

Dr. Snelling’s talents have enabled him to be involved in extensive creationist research in Australia, the USA, Britain, New Zealand, and elsewhere, majoring on radioactive methods for dating rocks (and radiocarbon dating of fossils) and evidence for the flood of Noah. Such research has included the formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks (for example, granites and schists, respectively), all types of mineral and gem deposits, sedimentary strata and fossil graveyards, and landscape features (for example, Grand Canyon, USA, and Ayers Rock or Uluru, central Australia) within the biblical framework of earth history. Technical papers by Dr. Snelling on regional metamorphism and rock dating have won the prestigious “Technical Excellence Award” as best technical papers at the 1994 Third and 1998 Fourth International Conference on Creationism respectively. As well as writing regularly and extensively in many international creationist magazines, journals and publications, Andrew was founding editor in 1984 and served as editor for almost 15 years of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), served as the editor-in-chief for the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in 2008, and now serves as editor-in-chief of the online Answers Research Journal.

Dr. Snelling is included in the controlled group of scientists who have been permitted to remove rock samples from the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, his latest research project in Grand Canyon required a successful lawsuit (which drew national and international media attention) to obtain the permit to collect samples from sedimentary layers deep in the Canyon that have in places been spectacularly bent (folded) smoothly without shattering. The results of the analytical and extensive microscope work on these samples, which are now being published, confirm that not only were these layers deposited rapidly, but they were bent only months later at the end of the Genesis flood, which wipes out more than 500 million years of claimed geologic ages.

Andrew’s research has thus demonstrated that the global Genesis flood about 4,300 years ago explains many rock layers and most fossil deposits found around the world. Building from that foundation, he has made predictions as to what should be found if a catastrophic global flood actually happened (for example, the existence of extensive, fossil-bearing rock layers deposited right across continents). Additionally, Andrew’s research has indicated that radioactive decay rates have not been consistent in the past, having been grossly accelerated, so the radioactive methods for dating rocks at millions and billions of years old are not reliable, polonium radiohaloes indicate granites and metamorphism of rocks occurred rapidly, and the rock evidence overall is consistent with a young earth. He has also investigated the radioisotope dating of meteorites, and currently is also researching radiocarbon dating in conjunction with the geologic context of archeological investigations in Jordan and Israel.



I'm sure you have an expert bio to match his, right?
 
Evolutionary scientists have in fact been challenged on this, and they regularly fail to even respond,
And so you instead try to convince non scientists on a literotica politics forum because...why?
So actually look at the evidence yourself and use your brain, minus the evolution grid you place over everything. They are impossible. Unless the worldwide flood is true. They can't be millions of years.
The claim that upside-down fossilized trees, or polystrate fossils, refute evolutionary theory is based on a misunderstanding of geological processes. Polystrate fossils, which are trees that extend through multiple sedimentary layers, are often cited by young Earth creationists to argue against the conventional geological time scale. However, these fossils actually support rapid burial events, not long-term gradual processes. Scientists explain that such fossils form during events like volcanic eruptions or floods that deposit large amounts of sediment quickly, burying trees before they can decay. This has been well-documented in environments such as river deltas and floodplains where rapid sedimentation is common (Ager, 1973; Eicher, 1976).

Moreover, anoxic conditions can preserve organic material by slowing decay, allowing for sediment accumulation around the tree over a shorter time span (Pettijohn, 1957). The presence of polystrate fossils does not imply that the entire sediment column was deposited simultaneously but rather that specific layers were laid down rapidly, consistent with actualism—the geological principle that past processes are similar to those observed today (Gould, 1965).

Importantly, polystrate fossils do not contradict evolutionary theory. Evolution deals with biological changes over time, while geology provides context about Earth's history. Rapid sedimentation events leading to polystrate fossils are well within the framework of evolutionary theory and geological principles. Thus, these fossils highlight dynamic geological processes rather than challenging established scientific understanding (Prothero, 2007).

- Ager, D. V. (1973). The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. Wiley.
- Eicher, D. L. (1976). Geologic Time. Prentice-Hall.
- Gould, S. J. (1965). Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science, 263(3), 223-228.
- Pettijohn, F. J. (1957). Sedimentary Rocks. Harper & Brothers.
- Prothero, D. R. (2007). Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press.

The fact you are mixing up geological science with evolutionary science clearly demonstrates how ignorant you are on both.
 
Everything you just said is utterly false. I actually look at actual science not tied to a big money industry that only supports evolutionary the, and will cut out funding for anybody who dares disagree. I actually listened to people who are actually doing science, not just shutting off the idea of a Creator because they don't like the idea of a Creator. True scientific theory would actually allow for the concept of a Creator and the Divine in the mix. Evolutionists won't allow for that because they can't stand the concept, therefore, they make sure they don't even consider it. Which is distinctly unscientific.
Science includes a possible god, always. Your creationism believer scientists obviously do and still are scientists. There is no reason a god can't exist in our current scientific understanding. But not observing one means that any scientific theory of a god is impossible to support and agree upon....and agreeing on a book is not the same thing.

In the end, the only reason you are continuing to push the "evolution isn't real" trope is because it's inconsistent with your religion. You can't have evolution be real and you can't have the earth being billions of years old. If those were true, your entire religion would fall apart. Because then man wouldn't have been made in "his image"

Science doesn't need to disprove your Bible to exist.
 
Last edited:
And so you instead try to convince non scientists on a literotica politics forum because...why?

The claim that upside-down fossilized trees, or polystrate fossils, refute evolutionary theory is based on a misunderstanding of geological processes. Polystrate fossils, which are trees that extend through multiple sedimentary layers, are often cited by young Earth creationists to argue against the conventional geological time scale. However, these fossils actually support rapid burial events, not long-term gradual processes. Scientists explain that such fossils form during events like volcanic eruptions or floods that deposit large amounts of sediment quickly, burying trees before they can decay. This has been well-documented in environments such as river deltas and floodplains where rapid sedimentation is common (Ager, 1973; Eicher, 1976).

Moreover, anoxic conditions can preserve organic material by slowing decay, allowing for sediment accumulation around the tree over a shorter time span (Pettijohn, 1957). The presence of polystrate fossils does not imply that the entire sediment column was deposited simultaneously but rather that specific layers were laid down rapidly, consistent with actualism—the geological principle that past processes are similar to those observed today (Gould, 1965).

Importantly, polystrate fossils do not contradict evolutionary theory. Evolution deals with biological changes over time, while geology provides context about Earth's history. Rapid sedimentation events leading to polystrate fossils are well within the framework of evolutionary theory and geological principles. Thus, these fossils highlight dynamic geological processes rather than challenging established scientific understanding (Prothero, 2007).

- Ager, D. V. (1973). The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record. Wiley.
- Eicher, D. L. (1976). Geologic Time. Prentice-Hall.
- Gould, S. J. (1965). Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science, 263(3), 223-228.
- Pettijohn, F. J. (1957). Sedimentary Rocks. Harper & Brothers.
- Prothero, D. R. (2007). Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press.

The fact you are mixing up geological science with evolutionary science clearly demonstrates how ignorant you are on both.
Hmm... Rapid layering... Like a worldwide flood. And what you cited doesn't explain the presence of them through layers dated millions of years apart
 
Science includes a possible god, always. Your creationism believer scientists obviously do and still are scientists. There is no reason a god can't exist in our current scientific understanding. But not observing one means that any scientific theory of a god is impossible to support and agree upon....and agreeing on a book is not the same thing.

In the end, the only reason you are continuing to push the "evolution isn't real" trope is because it's inconsistent with your religion. You can't have evolution be real and you can't have the earth being billions of years old. If those were true, your entire religion would fall apart. Because then man wouldn't have been made in "his image"

Science doesn't need to disprove your Bible to exist.
I don't accept evolution because it is, by any logical, unbiased standard, distinctly unscientific.
 
It's me laying out the scientific data, in part to prove they have no interest in actual scientific data.

Except I found all of your sources with the exact verbiage for what you pasted above. All you did was copy and paste biographical entries from various sites which already support your perspective.
 
Except I found all of your sources with the exact verbiage for what you pasted above. All you did was copy and paste biographical entries from various sites which already support your perspective.
Those sites are the only ones who use the real science. Everyone else uses the fake science.
 
The funny thing is that I have posted evidence and pictures of the evidence in nature showing trees upside down, The same tree, through multiple layers of fossil layers, supposedly millions of years apart, at various stages of fossilization, as part of those layers not as breaking through them.
Where have you shown this???
For the evolutionary model to be true, these would be impossible. Yet they exist.
Again, where is the evidence? For that to exists there must be physical evidence. Sounds like Piltdown 2.0.
 
Except I found all of your sources with the exact verbiage for what you pasted above. All you did was copy and paste biographical entries from various sites which already support your perspective.
Would you expect sites that say my perspective is wrong? They are scientifically accurate, which is why they hold that perspective
 
I don't accept evolution because it is, by any logical, unbiased standard, distinctly unscientific.
Really, but you eat "evolution" every single fucking day of your life. Evolution is not tied just to mammals, reptiles or birds. It's also tied to plants. Yet here you are denying DNA changes...explain how teosinte grass became modern corn....
 
Would you expect sites that say my perspective is wrong? They are scientifically accurate, which is why they hold that perspective

Your perspective is wrong. I hope that puts that to rest for you.

My point, regardless of that, is that you copied and pasted all of that biographical data.
 
Just did. You refuse to look at the evidence. You are dumb ON PURPOSE.
What evidence? You've not posted anything that is evidence. You claim there is an upside down tree that spans millions of years of fossil records....where is it? That must be tangible, it must exists. Hell if true it would be a greater relic than the shroud of turin.
 
Fundamental flaws with this method of dating...

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
https://answersresearchjournal.org/problems-radioisotope-dating-u-pb-1/

Fundamental flaws with this type of dating...

https://creationliberty.com/articles/kardating.php

...

https://www.icr.org/article/potassium-dating-crystal-rocks-problem-excess-argo/

https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/radiometric-dating-flaws-of-presumption/

https://blog.drwile.com/scientist-realizes-important-flaw-in-radioactive-dating/

https://www.icr.org/article/fissiontracks
https://www.icr.org/article/nuclear-fission-dating-methods-are-unreliable


I could go on, but the point is made. Every one of these has been proven unreliable. And you have yet to explain upside down trees through all these rock layers supposedly millions of years apart, in various stages of fossilization, as part of those layers. That one piece of physical evidence disproves the whole idea of millions of years apart on fossil layers, and that's just one problem of many. You said I won't engage in honest debate unless I answer your challenges, but you can't answer mine.
Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about astrophysics, the big bang, and an ancient universe?
 
Really, but you eat "evolution" every single fucking day of your life. Evolution is not tied just to mammals, reptiles or birds. It's also tied to plants. Yet here you are denying DNA changes...explain how teosinte grass became modern corn....
You are beginning with the presupposition of evolution before you ever get to that statement. You aren't starting with , "what do we actively observe", you are starting with, "corn evolved from somewhere". You start with a No Creator bias.
 
You are beginning with the presupposition of evolution before you ever get to that statement. You aren't starting with , "what do we actively observe", you are starting with, "corn evolved from somewhere". You start with a No Creator bias.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TRANSLATION

I can't use creationism to explain the 9,000 year old history of corn.

Note that falls well within the Creationists declared age of the earth....
 
Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about astrophysics, the big bang, and an ancient universe?
There is no way, with the rate of expansion of the universe, with human population, this animal population, with the amount of salt buildup in the sea, with the pressure that makes oil gush, with all kinds of observable proofs, that the universe is ancient. I have posted some of the evidences on here earlier. The Bible actually makes an interesting statement here. It says that God stretched out the universe (a lot like a poetic way of describing an expanding universe), and if God spoke the universe into being, "And God said.... And there was" is exactly what we would expect a Big Bang to look like.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TRANSLATION

I can't use creationism to explain the 9,000 year old history of corn.

Note that falls well within the Creationists declared age of the earth....
Translation... I am tired of laying out the clear evidence of kind and having you ignore it because it doesn't fit your bias, even though your bias has all kinds of problems and no actual evidence. It's not an information problem for you. You decided you don't want there to be a Creator, so you have to have evolution. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.
 
What evidence? You've not posted anything that is evidence. You claim there is an upside down tree that spans millions of years of fossil records....where is it? That must be tangible, it must exists. Hell if true it would be a greater relic than the shroud of turin.
Posted the pictures and the videos showing all of that and then some. You choose not to look. You want to be blind.
 
Back
Top