Summations Only

If you have the research present it. Might be some awards coming your way if it pans out. Amateur? Really? Who Calvert, Schleimann? The site had been suspected as Troy well before Calvert was involved. You do realize that during that period a lot of archaeologists were "amateurs". Blah, blah, blah
Present the evidence instead of making wild ass claims.Pseudoscience it is.

Okay, I won't be unsupportedly dismissive. I'll be dismissive based on evidence.All of the geological evidence worldwide shows conclusively that there has never been a single world wide flood event. 200 myths, 2,000 myths, even 2,000,000 historical eyewitness accounts if we had them, would be insufficient to establish the historicity of an event that the physical evidence shows did not happen. Myths may be a good place to begin an investigation, but they are a poor hook to hang one's hat on when they conflict with fact.

My guess is that he's referring to Schliemann. If his appeal is that we should listen to him because he's an amateur like Schliemann then he has nothing on the rest of us because we're amateurs, too. Except for those of us like Coyote who are professional archeologists.--Percy

The point is that at this point in history there were not many "professional" archaeologists if any. So the point is meaningless. Classic anti-intellectualism.

quote:

---

We can tell from your last post that you still believe the geologic record is consistent with a flood, but you ignored all the posts explaining why a flood doesn't deposit sediments in ways that resemble the layers of the geologic record. How much credit do you think you deserve for ignoring all this information? If what we post to you doesn't matter, why should we bother?

---

In 1980, Mount St Helens blew its top. Exploding with the force of 20,000,000 tonnes of TNT, equivalent to 1500 atomic bombs. The eruption produced mudflows and melted the ice and snow caps. So you had all this water, mud, landslide and volcanic material, rolling down the hill, destroying everything in its path. It also produced sedimentary layers. You wouldnt think that a volcanic eruption would create layers. Because layers usually signify a year or a long period of time, but this took place in 3 hours. And when scientists looked at Mount St Helens, they found thousands of layers, including layers inside of layers.If a scientist looked at Mount St Helens and didnt know how it had originally formed. The answer would be that every layer took a long period of time to form. That means that Mount St Helens took thousands of years to form! When you drop sediments through flowing water, you can get multiple layers to form at the same time. So one layer doesnt have to form first and after a period of time another. Another mudflow eruption in 1982, carved out a network of canyons in a single day. The key is that we know how it happened. So when a scientist asks how did this happen, but didnt know how it formed. The answer would be that a little stream eroded the canyon over millions of years.Catastrophic conditions can create geological features that dont take long periods of time. The flood had similar conditions in which layers where formed all over the earth. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

I made a mistake to say that NO fossils are being formed in the present. Certainly not in the millions like in the past. Why arent fossils being formed as much as in the past? Its because fossil formation requires certain types of conditions that arent always available. In order to form a fossil you have to bury it quickly enough so that scavengers dont eat it. You need to bury it deeply enough so that you retard bacterial decay and then you have enough time for water to replace the organic structure with mineral structures. So if you bury a fossil quickly and deeply enough, you will have a good fossil.There has been a series of catastrophic-extinction events that occured in the past that have created most of the fossil record, or maybe one big catastrophic-extinction.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

I would hope that it was obvious why fewer fossils are being produced in the present (1 year) than in the past (500 million years). It would help if you could tell us how many fossils do you think were produced in the past and how many are being produced now.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But that is simply untrue, Portillo, and has been known to be untrue for a century and a half. T.H. Huxley wrote an essay in 1868 - "On a Piece of Chalk" - that lays out as plainly as possible why geologists knew that when Queen Victoria was still young. Try reading it - though I know you won't bother. You're too afraid of learning something.http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/Chalk.html

Hi Portillo,You again did not address any of the information provided to you in this thread. By introducing Mount St. Helens you're not even talking about flood layers anymore. You're still in the same mode: you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, etc.Why don't you go back to the messages that explained why floods don't produce layers the way you think they do, quote the parts you think are wrong, then rebut them.--Percy

Hi Portillo,We can't have much of a conversation if after we've rebutted your position you simply ignore what we say and assert your position again.Once again, the geological layers are a record of mostly very gradual deposition. The conditions on the modern earth are much like those in previous eras. Fossils are being formed today at the same rate as in the past. I guess you could argue for a recently reduced fossil rate on land because so much of the land area today is under cultivation. For example, the lower portions of the plains of Kansas might have been a region where fossils could have begun forming up until a couple hundred years ago, but now much of it is dedicated to farming.But marine fossils are forming today at the same rate they have in the past, though I suppose you could argue for a recently reduced rate there, too, due to reduction in ocean populations because of pollution, global warming, and over-fishing.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

As expected, no evidence for a recent global flood was presented and the good old Gish Gallop trotted out instead.Portillo in particular presented a litany of false and misleading examples and when each was addressed the rebuttal was ignored and Portillo simply threw more spaghetti on the ceiling in hopes that some might stick.There is simply overwhelming evidence that the Biblical Flood (floods actually) myth is anything more than fiction and anyone making such a claim today is at best just plain wrong.

In summation, I hope we all had fun discussing the Genesis flood. The topic is as relevant as this mornings sunshine.

In this thread about evidence it was striking how rarely creationists made its acquaintance. The fundamentalist search for certainty has no better friend than ignorance, a condition where evidence plays no role.--Percy

In this thread it was obvious that creationists don't have any idea on what has been studied by thousands of geologists.They don't realize that geologists have been working for hundreds of years. This is obvious when, for example, Portillo referred to Mount Saint Helens; as if it was the first volcano or volcanic eruption ever witnessed or studied by geologists. He doesn't realize that lots of eruptions, together with the resulting deposits, have been studied in depth by thousands of geologists long before the eruption at Mount Saint Helens.