Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 147 of 320 (631455)
09-01-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Panda
08-31-2011 11:35 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
Yes, I agree. It's futile to even try and have an honest conversation with creos. Found that out some time ago, after having to debate very dishonest users of word salads. Still have no idea what they said.
That's why the debates around scientific subjects are done in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Real scientific journals, not religious tracts who pretend to do science. Not in oral debates, but on paper, where experts can evaluate every word written. Untrue statements are quickly picked up that way. That's an effective way of weeding dishonest debaters out.
Once they are weeded out, real honest debate can begin. That's also why word salads don't do too well in scientific journals. They're weeded out. Technical terms work, because the experts all know exactly what every word means. They don't have to guess about the meaning of words.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 11:35 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 189 of 320 (631984)
09-05-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Adequate
09-04-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
I also think that they are the only people who claim that "geologists say that these sediments were deposited over millions of years".
I am a geologist and I don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2011 5:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 190 of 320 (631993)
09-05-2011 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Butterflytyrant
09-04-2011 11:22 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Sorry to interfere, but I’ve never understood creationist arguments on the so-called polystrate fossils. Maybe Just Being Real could enlighten me on this.
Just Being Real writes:
Each layer is usually said to be several million years old.
If the dating methods indicate that a layer is millions of years old, then that layer is millions of years old.
Just Being Real writes:
But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers)
This is the piece of creationist argument I really don’t understand. Why couldn’t a layer be deposited in a few days or weeks or years and is millions of years old now? Please Just Being Real, explain it to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-04-2011 11:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2011 9:35 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 191 of 320 (631995)
09-05-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Just being real
09-03-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real, I looked at your source here. Your source claims, in the second paragraph:
AIG writes:
Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth.
I see that there’s no reference to these some geologists. Do you have any reference, or is this a straw man being set up?
AIG writes:
Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.
I doubt that any scientist would even look into Noah’s flood, as there’s absolutely no empirical, objective evidence for it. The only people who would do this, would be Christian-creationists who abandoned the scientific method, but pretend to do science by using sciency-sounding terms.
Oh, and by the way, I see that your source didn’t even discuss the geology of coal deposits in any form in his religious article. He didn’t even mention the word layers (I might be mistaken, could you direct me to the word layer in that article?).
The word layer is a very bad layman’s term for some strata, anyway. How do you get to the words strata layers from that article? How does coal relate to "most" strata layers? In my country we have hundreds of thousands of strata, just in the coal-bearing sequences, with only very thin zones of coal-bearing strata dispersed amongs them.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a lot of sentences and spelling!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 1:06 PM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 198 of 320 (632152)
09-06-2011 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
09-05-2011 9:35 AM


Re: polystrate fossils
Thanks RAZD. That was interesting!
This "polystrate fossil evidence" for a "global flood" is a perfect example of how creationists go about to do their "science". It also is an excellent example of why the scientific community sees creationism as nothing but pseudo-science.
They tell lay people first that "geologists say that layers are deposited over millions of years". Their first step in deception on this subject. Geologists don't. Strata are deposited at different rates according to circumstances.
Then they even make up their own word, "polystrate", and pretend that it is a scientific word. Their second piece of deception. Make up sciency-sounding words to pretend that they do science.
Then they show pictures of "polystrate" fossils, and pretend that geologists can't explain this without a global flood. Their third piece of deception. It's already been successfully explained explained in the 1800's.
They then go on and tell people that "geologists ignore" these fossils. Their fourth piece of deception. Already been published in the 1800's.
Then go go and and tell people that it occurs wordwide and are such a threat to miners. Deception number 5. They aren't. They don't occur in the coal seams in my country.
An excellent example of how they go about: deception. Nothing else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2011 9:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 199 of 320 (632154)
09-06-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Just being real
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


Just being real writes:
I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form,....
It was originally thought that coal beds and oil deposits formed very quickly in a global flood. As we were able to study the evidence and found no evidence for such a flood, we realized that we were completely wrong. So, no, originally we thought coal beds and oil deposits formed quickly. We were wrong.
We've never been able to produce coal beds or oil deposits.
If you are referring to processes like the Fischer —Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits.
Never heard of a process in a lab to produce coal, though.
Those products we produce are neither coal beds nor oil deposits. They are substitutes for oil. Even the chemistry differs widely from naturally forming oil.
Just being real writes:
.. and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly,..
Why? We even have peat (the first stage of the coal forming process) accumulating now all over the world. We can see them forming right in front of our own very eyes. Those in my country are certainly are not buried quickly. They’re not buried at all. They just experience anaerobic conditions. All in nature. No global flood needed.
Just being real writes:
this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly.
Ignoring the photos, what has already been said and references about "polystrate fossils", are you?
The polystrate trees forming today are not forming quickly, as in a global flood quickly. They do take from a few days to a few weeks to a year to lots of years, depending on the circumstances. Right in front of our very own eyes. No global flood involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Just being real, posted 09-05-2011 11:00 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 205 of 320 (632175)
09-06-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Just being real
09-06-2011 7:05 AM


Just being real writes:
Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself.... and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations.
My, we're getting snarky, aren't we?
In message 181, you replied to Percy’s question in message 180 (RE-so coal beds are flood deposits?) as Yes, I believe most of the strata layers are. There’s absolutely no relation between the question you were asked and the answer you gave.
Just being real writes:
No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old.
Oh, were you? Why didn’t you mention it earlier, then? Nothing to do with strata layers at all.
Which scientist on earth would try to do carbon dating on coal beds? In the first place, rainwater percolates through coal beds which ensures that significant amounts of carbon 14 would always be present in any coal bed. Just go down any mine in my country, the coal beds are the most permeable strata in the sequence and look like rivers. it absorbes moisture like spunges. That’s why real scientists know not to even try to measure the carbon 14 in coal beds.
A second reason is that the C 14 method only works on organic material less than around 50 000 years old. No real scientist would be as unscientific as even attempt to determine the age of coal beds using the Carbon dating. You’ll never get an accurate answer.
(Hold press-apparently some creationist did. Another attempt at deception, I guess. We know that they don’t do science, anyway, so it’s another very good reason to just laugh at them!)
Just being real writes:
And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time.
Artificially producing oil is not an oil deposit, as you claimed in message 194. It is oil made in labs or industrially. Not a deposit. Even the chemical composition varies considerably from natural-formed oil deposits. Do you actually know what a deposit is?
Just being real writes:
Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood,. Only to defend his position.
Long story about a court case.. I don’t know what this has to do with a global flood.
Just being real writes:
Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart.
You see, this is where your story falls apart. Nobody’s ever claimed that those strata are millions of years apart. That statement of yours is not the truth. Telling porkies about those strata won’t help your case at all. You continually repeating it also won’t turn that statement into the truth.
Just being real writes:
Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit.
If somebody is caught telling porkies in a court case, he is dismissed. Ecspecially if he keeps on repeating the same porkie over and over again.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling!
Edited by Pressie, : Another spelling mistake
Edited by Pressie, : I had an extra not in there. It changed the sentence completely. Hopefully this was the last edit!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by JonF, posted 09-06-2011 8:45 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 208 of 320 (632188)
09-06-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Panda
09-06-2011 7:36 AM


Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 7:36 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 209 of 320 (632190)
09-06-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by JonF
09-06-2011 8:45 AM


Hey Panda, if they don't even attempt to publish their findings in scientific publications, how on earth is a scientist to know about that "research"?
Oh, don't mind. I know why. Trying to do an C14 age determination on a coal seam is so absolutely ridiculously stupid, they could only be published in cartoons, anyway. The pseudo sciences; all of them always the same. Clowns who don't tell the truth to to the ignorant. Deceive the lay people. That's it.
Sorry, it was JonF, not Panda I replied to.
Edited by Pressie, : Wrong name

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by JonF, posted 09-06-2011 8:45 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:31 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 213 of 320 (632224)
09-06-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
09-06-2011 9:31 AM


Re: not so fast
Hi RAZD, that is interesting. Thanks for the information.
I still can't see where any real scientist even tried to do C-14 age determinations on either coal seams or oil deposits. They measure the C-14, not the age.
Real scientists try to find deposits free of C-14 contamination in oil, but they seem very difficult to find. It does happen, though. How do the YEC's explain them, or do they just ignore it?
I don't see anything about coal deposits in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:03 PM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 219 of 320 (632314)
09-07-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by RAZD
09-06-2011 10:03 PM


Re: not so fast
Thanks RAZD
That was very interesting!
I really look forward to the work done on AMS and extending the C-14 method to 110 000 years. It would help tremendously in one of the peat projects I'm currently involved in.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 10:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 220 of 320 (632316)
09-07-2011 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
09-06-2011 9:05 PM


Re: Taking a short break
Just being real writes:
.. and since we seem to even have a disagreement with what the majority of geologists even say about strata, ....
No you don't know have the foggiest what the majority of geologists say about "polystrate" fossils. You don't even realize that there isn't anything like a "uniformatist" geologist. They are called geologists.
Please, when you come back, provide the sources of your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 9:05 PM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 228 of 320 (633017)
09-12-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
I see you didn’t even address your sentence in your post 200, that reads:
Just being real writes:
Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart..
Could you please give any real-life example of where fossils that pierce through strata that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart? I simply don’t believe you.
When I say an example, I don’t mean where creationists claim that uniformitarian geologists say this. I mean an example of where a uniformitarian geologist actually says this.
Just being real writes:
Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians.
You don’t have to give a special name to more than 99.99% percent of all geologists in the world. Just call them geologists. They do science. In my country alone, there’s more than 3 000 of them. And I live in a very small country compared to China, India, the USA, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc. I wonder how many hundreds of thousand of geologists those countries have?
Just being real writes:
In opposition is a group of geologists who believe that the strata was laid down during a world wide geologically recent global flood. I will refer to them in this discussion as creation geologists or YEC geologists.
I see that your list has only a handful of geologists. Are they all you can muster? They do need a special name, seeing that they don’t do science, but religion.
Just being real writes:
The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? .
Setting up a straw man, I see. Could you give me an example of where any geologist has ever said that?
Just being real writes:
Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata.
Yes, some of them do, even by Aeolian deposits.
Just being real writes:
This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking.
They don’t pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. Been sorted out in the 1800’s.
Just being real writes:
Contrary to claims to the otherwise, most creationists are not ignorant at all to the interpretations of Dawson made a hundred years ago about the fossils.
Probably not, but they really are very ignorant about what geologists actually say.
Just being real writes:
We just think they are as problematic today as they were then.
They’re not problematic at all for geologists. Been sorted out in the 1800’s.
Just being real writes:
These fossils are often observed crossing through layers of different types of rock and different coal deposits.
Even through aeolian deposits!
Just being real writes:
Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly,..
We’ll have to look at the evidence first. Any references to an example? Every little lamination in every part of the world is unique.
Just being real writes:
.. but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?
We’ll have to look at the evidence first. Any references to an example? Every little lamination in every part of the world is unique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 231 of 320 (633025)
09-12-2011 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 1:25 AM


Re: Geologic column / Geologic time scale
Ah, now the lights come on why laymen think like they do after reading creationist propaganda.
Just being real, do you think that, for example, the Tournaisian Stage, Mississippi Epoch, Carboniferous Period (shown as one colour and one division in the geologic column), consists of one stratum deposited from around 345 to 359 million years ago at one constant sedimentary rate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 1:25 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 234 of 320 (633036)
09-12-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: "Polystrate" fossils
This is not really on topic, but I do have to inform Just being real on the inaccuracy of his sources while trying to formulate arguments.
For example, one of your sources, http://www.examiner.com/...-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk , lists Dr. John Morris as a geologist. They certainly are inaccurate. Dr. John Morris is a Civil Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering. He is not a geologist, although they list him as one. Why do you refer us to sources who don’t tell the truth? Do you think people will believe you if you portray a totally inaccurate reality where you twist the truth. He is an Engineer who lectures geology at a creationist anti-scientific organisation. Not recognised anywhere else but in fundamentalist circles.
It is so easy to find the truth: John D. Morris - Wikipedia. Morris has never been a geologist. He’s not even trained as one. Why do your sources pretend that he is one? To boost the very small number of creationist "geologists"? To pretend that the number is growing?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024