Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2014 1:58 PM
78 online now:
Chatting now:  Jon, Phat
Newest Member: MikeManea
Post Volume:
Total: 738,132 Year: 23,973/28,606 Month: 1,274/1,786 Week: 136/423 Day: 46/90 Hour: 15/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 1676 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 377 (528878)
10-07-2009 11:13 AM


Being a six day creationist I believe that the Genesis flood (chapters6-9) is just as literal as the creation account itself. I intend to bring forth extensive evidence that the world was once entirely destroyed by that great catclysm and that that event accounts for the multiplied billions of fossils in the earth. No slow and gradual process could account for fossilzation on such a massive scale.

First, both creationists and evolutionists agree that rapid burial provides the best conditions for the formation of fossils. Let me illustrate what immediate burial can do.

This fossil skeleton was found at the foot of Mt. Vesuvius in Italy. This individual was buried and encased in hot ash in A.D. 79.

This couple appear to have been destroyed while sleeping together. They didn't have a chance to get away.

But what caused the following burial of countless thousands of organisms who were all crushed in the same place at what had to be the same time:

The fossil bed at Agate Springs, Nebraska. Question: did all those organisms (wild boars, rhinocerus, & extinct mammals of many kinds) all migrate to this spot just to die together? Or perhaps they were the last of the animal world with enough mobility to escape to higher ground the rising flood waters that was presently destroying the world? There are many such locations of thousands (in some cases millions) of organisms that were likewise crushed and fossilized instantly.

The next post will reveal the location of the strata where these animals were buried.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 10-07-2009 11:34 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 12:07 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 9 by Dman, posted 10-07-2009 12:20 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 1:51 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 29 by Capt Stormfield, posted 10-07-2009 2:34 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 36 by obvious Child, posted 10-07-2009 4:08 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 223 by Chuck77, posted 06-13-2011 7:34 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 377 (528883)
10-07-2009 11:18 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 377 (528885)
10-07-2009 11:18 AM


Topic Focus
The topic will focus on the flood and evidence for it. I'll try to keep a fairly close eye on it.
  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 4 of 377 (528887)
10-07-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 11:13 AM


This couple appear to have been destroyed while sleeping together. They didn't have a chance to get away.

No, no. They couldn't possibly have been lovers who chose to be buried together. Ever read Romeo and Juliet? Given that you provided no reference for this picture, I can't bring myself to assume what you say is true about it. However, I do recall seeing this somewhere else, be that here, or a different site. Where did you find it?

First, both creationists and evolutionists agree that rapid burial provides the best conditions for the formation of fossils. Let me illustrate what immediate burial can do.

Oh indeed it does. Again, though, please provide source material for this picture. Usually one would go ahead and post that WITH said picture so as not to come under this sort of fire.

The fossil bed at Agate Springs, Nebraska.....

I find it intriguing that the only mention I can find for a fossil graveyard (as seen on the picture) is in reference to creation jarble. Even the Wiki says nothing about a mysterious "graveyard". However, it does mention a fossil of a Bear Dog.

{ABE} Even on the official site, Here, it makes no mention. Though it does mention Dinohyus, a giant pig-like animal and again, the Bear dog. Where these on the Ark? I take it they were not since they are not around. What "kind" is a bear dog?

During the Miocene the land now known as Agate was a grass savanna comparable to todays Serengeti Plains in Africa. Twenty million years ago animals such as the Dinohyus (giant pig-like animal), Stenomylus (small gazelle-camel), and Menoceras (short rhinoceros) roamed the plains. There were also carnivorous beardogs wandering around, and the land beaver Paleocastor dug spiral burrows that remain as todays trace fossils (Daemonelix) into the ancient riverbanks. There are remnants of the ancient grasses and hoofprints of prehistoric animals in Miocene sediments preserved in the park, as well as layers of fossilized bones.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:13 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 5 of 377 (528888)
10-07-2009 11:42 AM


Just a question so as I don't divert off-topic: are we limited to fossil evidence only? Or any and all "evidence" for the flud? I ask because I take note of the comma after "The Flood" in the topic title. Hence, I would assume this is inclusive of all things flud related.
    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


(3)
Message 6 of 377 (528891)
10-07-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 11:13 AM


A test for Calypsis4
Here is a little test for you, to see how you deal with evidence:

There is an archaeological site in southern Alaska called On Your Knees Cave. From that cave a human skeleton was removed. It was radiocarbon dated to 10,300 years ago. A tooth was submitted for mtDNA testing, and it was found to have an unusual haplotype, now referred to as D4h3. That haplotype is known from 46 living individuals stretching from southern California to the tip of South America.

I have an example from my own archaeological research spanning nearly 5,300 years, again connected to living individuals in the same area.

Biblical scholars place the global flood at about 4,350 years ago.

If there was actually a global flood at the appointed time, these examples of mtDNA lineages could not have spanned that event; the people would have been killed and the mtDNA replaced by that of Noah's female kin.

Just one more bit of evidence, added to an already overwhelming collection of evidence, that the purported global flood did not occur as described.

So the test: are you going to address this evidence in a serious manner, with evidence of your own that contradicts it, or are you going to just ignore it, or hand-wave it away, as has been your pattern on these threads?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:13 AM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:35 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 17 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 1:47 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 4:24 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 187 by menes777, posted 01-28-2010 3:57 PM Coyote has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 7 of 377 (528892)
10-07-2009 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
10-07-2009 11:34 AM


One more thing I've always been perplexed about the flud: if it covered the highest mountains, wouldn't it be a bit chilly up there? I know the top of Mt. Everest isn't exactly shorts weather.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 10-07-2009 11:34 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2009 12:19 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 8 of 377 (528893)
10-07-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by hooah212002
10-07-2009 12:14 PM


Slow Down!
Hooah,

I think you can sit back and let the discussion unfold. You've had a reasonable quota of posts here for the next few hours.

You are bringing in a distraction right now anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hooah212002, posted 10-07-2009 12:14 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 1480 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 9 of 377 (528894)
10-07-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 11:13 AM


Neat...
The fossil bed at Agate Springs, Nebraska. Question: did all those organisms (wild boars, rhinocerus, & extinct mammals of many kinds) all migrate to this spot just to die together?

Possibly?

When you say die together, do you mean on the same day, month, year, century? Or what? And what evidence is there to confirm your answer?

Or perhaps they were the last of the animal world with enough mobility to escape to higher ground the rising flood waters that was presently destroying the world?

It could be a lot of things.

I assume that you plan to show conclusively that there indeed was a global flood. Since this is what you believe to be the reason for the fossil bed.

There are many such locations of thousands (in some cases millions) of organisms that were likewise crushed and fossilized instantly.

I will concede that you could call these fossil beds a prediction of a global flood hypothesis. But a hypothesis needs more than one prediction to hold any merit.

Is your hypothesis correct? Was there a world wide flood? What evidence shows this?

But we are just getting started here and I assume you plan to show that there was indeed a global flood.

Let us see how well you do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:13 AM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 1676 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 10 of 377 (528898)
10-07-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
10-07-2009 12:07 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Well, Coyote:

I can see that you have already arrived at your conclusion without even waiting to see the evidence that I have. It will be just as extensive as was the living fossils.

But concerning the radiocarbon dating of D4h3:

Quote: "This is based on the assumption that todays rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA can be extrapolated back into the past. However, this is just an assumption based on the doctrine of uniformitarianism (that is, that the rates of change we observe in nature today are roughly the same as for all of time)." Answersingenesis.com

I have seen so many different results as far as dating specimens that differ widely with each other depending on which lab does the testing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 12:07 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:39 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 12 by AdminNosy, posted 10-07-2009 12:45 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 1:07 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 11:13 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 1676 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 11 of 377 (528900)
10-07-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:35 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
What you are seeing in the picture below is the scene from the big window of the museum at Agate Springs, Nebraska. It's a picture I took myself in mid-May of this year. The fossil conglomeration that was seen in the previous post was found just below the high precipice at the 4,700 ft elevation.

The land between the plateaus was washed out for many miles up and down the valley where these fossils were found and the whole area is littered with them, including another area where numerous fossils were found buried together. What caused this if it wasn't the flood of Genesis?

Much of the American west is similar to what you see in this photo:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:35 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:46 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Granny Magda, posted 10-07-2009 1:17 PM Calypsis4 has responded
 Message 38 by roxrkool, posted 10-07-2009 4:13 PM Calypsis4 has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 12 of 377 (528903)
10-07-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:35 PM


Maintaing topic focus...
If you have doubts about dating then you should be posting your explanations for the correlations found in this thread:
Message 1

In addition, you have, yet again, misread the post you are applying to.

The dating by DNA changes has nothing to do with Coyote's post. You might try actually answering the question put to you.

In fact, you are required to if you wish to continue posting in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:35 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 1676 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 13 of 377 (528904)
10-07-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:39 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
There is extensive evidence of fossils made during cataclysm. This fish was crushed at the moment it was eating its lunch.

Here is another one:

Then there is this:

This is a fossil fish which was destroyed in the act of giving birth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:39 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 10-07-2009 12:57 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 14 of 377 (528907)
10-07-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:46 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Please post source/reference material for these images.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:46 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


(2)
Message 15 of 377 (528908)
10-07-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 12:35 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
I can see that you have already arrived at your conclusion without even waiting to see the evidence that I have. It will be just as extensive as was the living fossils.

The evidence I presented directly contradicts the evidence you presented. Deal with it before you post a lot more nonsense because if you can't adequately deal with this one small example your entire case falls apart.

But concerning the radiocarbon dating of D4h3:

D4h3 is the haplotype, a classification of a particular configuration of the mtDNA. It is not something that is radiocarbon dated.

Quote: "This is based on the assumption that todays rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA can be extrapolated back into the past. However, this is just an assumption based on the doctrine of uniformitarianism (that is, that the rates of change we observe in nature today are roughly the same as for all of time)." Answersingenesis.com

Totally off the subject. The dating of the skeleton was done via radiocarbon dating, not via mutation rates.

You don't know the difference between these two methods, do you?

I have seen so many different results as far as dating specimens that differ widely with each other depending on which lab does the testing.

Nonsense. Typical creationist nonsense. And that has nothing to do with this particular case in any event. That's just a typical creationist "what if" story. "What if the dating is wrong?" No evidence to suggest it is, just a vague, "What if..."

You haven't made a dent in the evidence I presented. Your case for a global flood is busted until you can come up with something that deals directly with my evidence. So far you're batting zero.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 12:35 PM Calypsis4 has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014