Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8101 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-29-2014 6:43 AM
173 online now:
Faith, PaulK (2 members, 171 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,447 Year: 19,288/28,606 Month: 2,559/2,305 Week: 201/563 Day: 11/117 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 115 of 404 (639493)
11-01-2011 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Portillo
11-01-2011 5:33 AM


You guys and girls expect me to answer a million questions. Not to mention the small minority who uses swear words and insults. Im just here to have some friendly debate. Its 2011 and were still talking about Noahs Flood!

Well, this is the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Portillo, posted 11-01-2011 5:33 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 130 of 404 (641274)
11-18-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Portillo
11-18-2011 7:51 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
The only way a 15,000 pound elephant could be frozen that quick and preserve what is in its stomach, is to be frozen in a freezer that is 150 degrees below zero. Where on earth do we find a freezer like that?

Show your working.

At the climatic moment, when the surface of the earth was ruptured and the fountains of the deep broke loose and the Genesis flood occured. Geysers of super heated water went 20 miles up into the air, exploded and came down as ice onto the earth.

Fortunately Noah and his floating zoo had wrapped up warm and were unaffected by temperatures 150 degrees below zero.

---

Incidentally, you still haven't answered my question. If the mammoths were preserved in situ, does that mean that all the geology under them is pre-flood in origin?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Portillo, posted 11-18-2011 7:51 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 140 of 404 (641639)
11-20-2011 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Wollysaurus
11-19-2011 7:54 AM


Re: Evidence for a recent flood
To me, if you can swallow that sort of fairy tale without the tiny voice in your head telling you to dig a bit deeper, you're no different than someone who thinks they have to tear the heart out of a prisoner in order to make the sun rise.

Don't knock it, it worked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Wollysaurus, posted 11-19-2011 7:54 AM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 299 of 404 (642460)
11-29-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by ICANT
11-26-2011 8:22 PM


Re: looking at the likely reagion's geography
In what I read the water gets in the mantel by subduction. That being the case it would have gotten there when the Earth was divided after the flood.

Perhaps you could read and reply to my posts on this subject. I particularly recommend the one where I tell you how to spell "mantle".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2011 8:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 319 of 404 (642582)
11-29-2011 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Trixie
11-29-2011 4:04 PM


Re: Back of an envelope calculation.
Using the radius of the Earth I've calculated the volume, then using the radius plus 4000 metres I calculated it again (Everest is approx 8000 metres). The difference between the second figure and the first figure gave me the volume of water required to cover the Earth's surface completely.

Why did you divide the height of Everest by two?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 4:04 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 331 of 404 (643803)
12-12-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Portillo
12-11-2011 12:58 AM


In 1912, the Titanic sank. 1500 people went to the bottom of the ocean, 11,000 feet down. Many years later, someone went down with cameras and floodlights and found the ship. Broken in half and half a mile apart. They found thousands of pots, pans and other stuff scattered all over the ocean floor. But not 1 human, bone or skull was found. Why not? Because nothing that dies in the ocean is ever seen again. It is annihilated by scavengers. Not one fossil is formed in any ocean basin in the world today. Nature/Gods amazingly effective way of keeping the ocean basins from becoming garbage dumps.

Here is an account of a human skeleton recovered from the wreck of the Belle, lost at sea in 1686.

Oops, it forgot to vanish in accordance with "Nature/Gods amazingly effective way". Because it turns out that taphonomy works like taphonomists think it does and not how you think it does.

And the same is true on land. No fossil is being formed on land today. Hordes of millions of buffalo bisons roamed the western praires and when they died they didnt go down and become fossils. The flesh was removed by scavengers and the bones disintegrated and turned to dust. Not one fossil of these buffalos has ever been found. But if you start digging down into the western prairies, what do you find? Fossils. They got there by being smashed by masses of mud in a global catastrophe. Instantaneously smashed and preserved.

Take Fort Dobbs, for example (**), abandoned since the 1760s. There the bones of bison are found in association with Colonial-era porcelain and musket-balls. Seems they forgot to "turn to dust", because taphonomy works like taphonomists think it does and not how you think it does.

---

This is a good example of why you should get your information from people who know things instead of from creationists.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Portillo, posted 12-11-2011 12:58 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 348 of 404 (652868)
02-16-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Portillo
02-15-2012 11:56 PM


Taphonomy, Something Else You Don't Know About
Very few fossils are formed today and if they are its usually because of rapid burial and water. The point is that a flood creates perfect conditions for fossil formation.

I don't know where creationists got this nutty idea about rapid burial. It is demonstrable that many fossils were not rapidly buried. When they are, the skeletons are found intact, and paleontologists get all excited and start singing the Happy Paleontologist Song. They get excited because this is rare.

Here's a quote from a book I've just been reading on mudstone:

Where a mudstone contains fossils, their preservation --- broken or intact, sorted or corroded ---- provides rapid and easy qualitative insight into how long the fossil assemblage remained at the sediment-water interface before final burial. The longer at the interface, the slower the rate of sedimentation and burial, and the greater the chance for organic sheaths that bind calcareous segments to decay, for currents and predators to break or attack skeletons, or for dissolution* to occur in the seafloor.

So when you claim that your flood would have created "perfect conditions for fossil formation", then this is actually an argument against the flood, since the vast majority of fossils were demonstrably formed under conditions which were far from perfect. This is why what we mostly find is a tooth here, a vertebra there, half a bivalve detached from its other half ... and in 99.9 of cases, no soft parts at all.

Perhaps you'd like to try again and explain how your flood explains the actual fossil record, the one we find in the rocks, not the one creationists made up.

* To explain the bit about dissolution, the stuff from which bones and shells are made is soluble. Depending on the temperature and depth (I'll skip the technical details) a shell will start to pit and corrode as it lies on the seafloor awaiting burial. Extensive pitting shows that it had to wait a long time. (Of course, if it has to wait long enough, it will entirely dissolve and there won't be any shell left to examine.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 11:56 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 360 of 404 (652964)
02-17-2012 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Portillo
02-16-2012 4:55 PM


Re: Fossil formation
If you put various sediments in a blender and then lay them down with water, they will all go back neatly into layers.

It would be more accurate to say that it produces one layer, grading upwards from coarse to fine. (It would produce discrete layers if there were discrete sizes of clasts in the original sediment, e.g. gravel and clay, and again these layers would grade upwards from coarse to fine.)

This is not what we find in the geological record.

Let us know when you're going to explain what we do find. A first step would be for you to find out something about what it is your flood is meant to be explaining, i.e. the geological record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Portillo, posted 02-16-2012 4:55 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 370 of 404 (653077)
02-17-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Portillo
02-17-2012 7:23 PM


Re: Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.
The only place that the geological column exists in its entirety with all 12 layers in order, is in the textbooks. It doesnt exist anywhere on planet earth. The only place that the fossil record is found as it is portrayed in charts, exists only in the textbooks. It doesnt exist anywhere on planet earth.

Naturally. Why do you mention it?

Great question. Why dont geologists believe in the flood. If it was true then surely geologists would have discovered evidence for it. What was Charles Lyell's motivations for believing in millions of years of geological activity? Afterall, his theory came long before radiometric dating methods and other experiments to date rocks. Lyell's theory of millions of years had nothing to do with that.

No, it came from studying sedimentology, you know, that thing you know nothing about?

The fact that from his limited data he was able to come to a conclusion which would be later confirmed by sciences he couldn't even imagine is not a reason to cast aspersions on him but rather to hail him as a visionary and a genius. Yes, he managed to infer an old earth before radiometric dating existed. What a man!

In other words he wanted to rewrite the history of the past.

Yes. Because the history which had been written was wrong.

You find massive fossil graveyards all over the earth. Thousands of dead animals buried and squashed together. Mass mortality. Fish fossilized by the trillions.

These fish ... they were drowned in the flood, were they?

Marine fossils found on continents, proving that conditions were different in the past.

But not showing that there was a magic flood.

Fossils show signs of horrible, painful deaths. Drowning, choking and being crushed to death. Here is struthiomimus in a death pose. Drowning and gasping for air while being covered in sediment.

Er ... how do you know what a struthiomimus looks like when it's drowned as opposed to dying in some other way?

Oh, right, you made it up.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Portillo, posted 02-17-2012 7:23 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12604
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 374 of 404 (653094)
02-17-2012 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Coragyps
02-17-2012 9:41 PM


Re: Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.
It depends what one means. Strictly speaking, those are layers from each geological period deposited one on top of the other, they aren't the geological column. Again, strictly speaking, that is something found in textbooks in the same way as the periodic table is, it's a summary of knowledge, it's not a thing that someone keeps somewhere that you can go and look at.

But it depends what it is Portillo's trying to say. If when he talks of "the geological column [...] in its entirety with all 12 layers in order" what he means by "the geological column in its entirety" is the "12 layers in order", then you are right and he's wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Coragyps, posted 02-17-2012 9:41 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014