Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 196 of 503 (676971)
10-26-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK
10-26-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Age and time...
that's right, I haven't perfectly interlinked the timeframes, but it appears the demise of the dinosaurs (end-Jurassic) occurred at the same time as the demise of those early old civilizations (Egypt-Old kingdom)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2012 3:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2012 6:26 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 201 by Granny Magda, posted 10-26-2012 7:35 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 202 by Larni, posted 10-26-2012 7:42 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 197 of 503 (676973)
10-26-2012 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Age and time...
Well you've got a bit of a problem there. The Sphinx is built around an outcrop of rock- laid down in the Eocene. And it's limestone, so you've got the whole issue of how it formed, and how the Giza plateau formed, too. The point is that there is a lot more to geology than you've considered, and it is going to be very, very hard to fit it to your timeframe (I'd say impossible, but we'll see).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:18 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 198 of 503 (676975)
10-26-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Coyote
10-25-2012 3:12 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
There are bones, heavily mineralised, but bones nevertheless. They do not need long time frames to mineralise. You see, if they weren't exposed to that fast mineralisation process very quickly, they would hardly ever survive. So these fossils very existence is proof that bones can become rock quickly, if they didnt they wouldnt exist.
Dinosaur bones: just how old are they really - creation.com
Sensational dinosaur blood report! - creation.com
Regarding co-existing, dinosaurs were prevalent in the dryer regions and were the dominant species, but mammals were among them. According to the bible lifespans were huge back then, Noah being the oldest person on earth only died 300 years after the flood. Thus there would only ever be a few humans dying concurrent with dinosaurs, but to find them together virtually impossible due to variation in habitat and human burial habits.
Only after the dinosaurs largely died out did the large mammals proliferate, filling the ecological gaps left by the dinosaurs. That is why many species of small mammals and no species of large animals are find concurrent with dinosaurs.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : Correcting Noah's age

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 10-25-2012 3:12 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Panda, posted 10-26-2012 6:39 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 10-26-2012 7:17 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 204 by Coyote, posted 10-26-2012 8:32 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 206 by edge, posted 10-26-2012 12:49 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 199 of 503 (676976)
10-26-2012 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:27 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Again - another link filled with lies and misrepresentations.
"Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex?": No.
"With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)?": Nope.
"It sounds preposterousto those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.": Not only preposterous, but also untrue.
Seriously, stop believing these links without at least checking the original data.
(I find it indicative of deceit when that web-site does not have any links to external verification of it's claims.)
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:27 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 200 of 503 (676980)
10-26-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:27 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
According to the bible lifespans were huge back then, Noah being the oldest person on earth only died 600 years after the flood. This is close to the time I regard the dinosaurs as mainly dying out. Thus there would only ever be a few humans dying concurrent with dinosaurs, but to find them together virtually impossible due to variation in habitat and human burial habits.
What about all those humans that lived well before the flood? Weren't they living concurrently with dinosaurs according to you? You seem to be suggesting here that fossils only come from dinosaurs that died during an extension event. But what about fossils below the P-T boundary? Below the K-T boundary?
You see, if they weren't exposed to that fast mineralisation process very quickly, they would hardly ever survive. So these fossils very existence is proof that bones can become rock quickly, if they didnt they wouldnt exist.
Or, the mineralization process is actually very slow and fossils are quite rare. That seems to match what we actually see.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:27 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:23 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 201 of 503 (676984)
10-26-2012 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Age and time...
Hi mindspawn,
...the demise of the dinosaurs (end-Jurassic)...
a) You mean end Cretaceous.
b) If that is the case, you need to explain the lack of geologic layers that contain both dinosaur and human remains.
The mammals that we actually find in the Cretaceous are small, vaguely shrew-like creatures. You are trying to place human civilisations into an era when our real ancestors were still living in burrows.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:18 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 202 of 503 (676988)
10-26-2012 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:18 AM


Re: Age and time...
that's right, I haven't perfectly interlinked the timeframes, but it appears the demise of the dinosaurs (end-Jurassic) occurred at the same time as the demise of those early old civilizations (Egypt-Old kingdom)
So what gigantic structures were being made by modern humans in the Cretaceous period (the one that is after the Jurassic period with the T. rex and T. ceratops)?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:18 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 203 of 503 (676991)
10-26-2012 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 4:06 AM


mindspawn writes:
"Can you name any scientific theory that became accepted just because no one disproved it? Hint: this is a rhetorical question."
Rhetorical question or not, as Dr A pointed out, this is the nature of all scientific theories. If you cant disprove it, it stands as a valid possibility.
I have no idea why Dr A elected to be wrong with you, but scientific theories do not become accepted because they haven't been disproven. They become accepted through supporting evidence.
I suppose you are correct that anything not disproven is possible, but being possible doesn't make anything a scientific theory. It doesn't even make it something to be believed. That's the meaning of the celestial teapot analogy of scientific philosopher Bertrand Russell that I mentioned earlier. This is from the Wikipedia article:
"Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong."
You can't disprove that there are little green men living deep beneath the surface of Mars secretly kidnapping mothers from Earth to serve as nursemaids. Do you really believe your inability to disprove it makes it an accepted scientific theory?
Persuasive evidence is what makes a theory.
I thought it was common knowledge that there was a marine transgression at the PT boundary:
http://work.geobiology.cn/...iscussion%20and%20proposals.pdf
As I said in Message 165, there are marine transgressions in all eras. Your one-page link is referring to a transgression "in one section in the Canadian Arctic where it occurs some distance above the base of the Griesbachian Formation..." When he talks about marine transgressions and regressions in the next paragraph he's still talking about the P-T boundary sequence in that same formation. You need evidence of a world-wide marine transgression.
Googling the Internet for text to misinterpret will not be successful for you. When you encounter a passage that appears to be saying there was a world-wide marine transgression at the P-T boundary then you need to find the evidence used to reach this conclusion. Just telling us that someone somewhere said something isn't going to convince anyone, it certainly isn't evidence, and it's especially worthless if you've misinterpreted the text.
That loss of vegetation and sedimentary overfill situation occurred across the earth. the earth changed from cold and wet to hot and dry with the same changes to sedimentary patterns occurring across earth at the PT boundary
https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm
Like the paper you quoted earlier (http://golubeff.narod.ru/...Triassic_Russia_stratigraphy.pdf), this one also says nothing about marine transgressions. It is well known that there was substantial climate change at the P-T boundary, but that's not evidence of a global flood.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify one point by making it clear what I was referring to - no change in meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:06 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 204 of 503 (676998)
10-26-2012 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:27 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
There are bones, heavily mineralised, but bones nevertheless. They do not need long time frames to mineralise. You see, if they weren't exposed to that fast mineralisation process very quickly, they would hardly ever survive. So these fossils very existence is proof that bones can become rock quickly, if they didnt they wouldnt exist.
I have worked with mammoth bones that were less than 30,000 years old and were mostly mineralized, as well as mastodon bones about 12,000 years old that were not mineralized at all, so I have some idea of how these things work.
I have read most of these "science" links on the creation pages. They are so full of nonsense that it's laughable. They are belief-driven, not evidence-driven. St. Augustine would blanch at the ignorance displayed in those pages.
Regarding co-existing, dinosaurs were prevalent in the dryer regions and were the dominant species, but mammals were among them. According to the bible lifespans were huge back then, Noah being the oldest person on earth only died 300 years after the flood. Thus there would only ever be a few humans dying concurrent with dinosaurs, but to find them together virtually impossible due to variation in habitat and human burial habits.
Absolute nonsense. Humans and dinosaurs simply did not co-exist, and there is overwhelming evidence to document that. Anyone who believes otherwise is so far out on the fringe that they're living in a world of pure fantasy.
Only after the dinosaurs largely died out did the large mammals proliferate, filling the ecological gaps left by the dinosaurs. That is why many species of small mammals and no species of large animals are find concurrent with dinosaurs.
And all of this happened tens of millions of years ago, not while the Egyptians were building pyramids.
Face it, the biblical scholars place the flood some 4,350 years ago not 250 million years ago. This places the flood within the realm of archaeology and sedimentology, not geology. And both archaeology and sedimentology say it didn't happen.
In an earlier post I described the archaeological studies I've done--over a hundred probably--which cross-cut that time period. There is no evidence of a flood in any of the sites I've excavated. What we do find is evidence of continuity of fauna and flora, human cultures, and mtDNA. You have yet to address this evidence (and don't say you believe there is a problem with the dating--that's just lame).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:27 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:25 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 223 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:50 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 205 of 503 (677028)
10-26-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 3:40 AM


By looking at the geology. For example the current flood model would have to explain why there are various layers of land formed basalt in the flood layers. Would have to explain isotopic changes between early layers and later layers reflecting differing atmospheres in early so-called flood layers compared to later so-called flood layers. There are many ways to attack a theory. The burden of proof is on the one who says a global flood is impossible at any given point to back up their position.
So what features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a recent global flood? How is flood geology falsifiable.
The burden of proof is on the one who says a global flood is impossible at any given point to back up their position.
No one here is saying that a global flood is impossible in principle. What we are saying is that the evidence does not support a recent global flood. Those are two different things.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:40 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 4:02 PM Taq has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 206 of 503 (677044)
10-26-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 6:27 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Regarding co-existing, dinosaurs were prevalent in the dryer regions and were the dominant species, but mammals were among them. According to the bible lifespans were huge back then, Noah being the oldest person on earth only died 300 years after the flood. Thus there would only ever be a few humans dying concurrent with dinosaurs, but to find them together virtually impossible due to variation in habitat and human burial habits.
Even if this were so and the habitats were so separate and distinct, why do we not find human remains in rocks of equivalent or correlative age as the dinosaurs? Why do we find no trace of humans before the flood which predated the end of the dinosaurs? Any way you cut it, there should be evidence of coexistence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 6:27 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 207 of 503 (677058)
10-26-2012 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by NoNukes
10-26-2012 7:17 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
NoNukes, you ask about fossils before the flood. If you see a map of the carboniferous, you will see that its manily the equatorial areas that show the "swampy" carboniferous coal deposits. There is little motivation to dig deep down to the carboniferous layers, the main reason for such widespread digging is to find coal. In this coal you will find swamp fossils, fauna flora suited to those pre-flood times, and suitable for wetlands. Unfortunately the digs have not focussed on those non-equatorial regions that were not swamplands. It is here in unique and isolated environments that you would have had mammals concurrent with carboniferous fauna, but in completely different isolated environments. Much like Komodo dragons are the last surviving large land-based reptile and are extremely isolated, the ancestors of modern mammals could have held the same position close to creation. Isolated. Rare.
Human cities as well. Pre-flood human cities that were not completely wiped out in the flood could be sitting in non-equatorial regions. If you look at maps of the earth at that time , its likely that the most suitable weather for humans and other mammals was in the far north at that time, now deep under the Siberian basalt.
Regarding dinosaur fossils, you seem to have missed my point. bones do not survive for long, if they are fossilized this has to be a fast process or the bones will not survive. The logic is pretty clear. Therefore rocks can form quickly, and have to form quickly according to the evidence of fossils existing. Therefore the allegation that rocks have to form slowly is incorrect, they have to form quickly to preserve the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by NoNukes, posted 10-26-2012 7:17 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Coragyps, posted 10-26-2012 3:28 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 208 of 503 (677062)
10-26-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by mindspawn
10-26-2012 3:23 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
....its likely that the most suitable weather for humans and other mammals was in the far north at that time, now deep under the Siberian basalt.
Absolute bullshit. How do you even weave bullshit into any kind of fabric at all? Are you a politician?

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:23 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by mindspawn, posted 10-26-2012 3:47 PM Coragyps has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 209 of 503 (677064)
10-26-2012 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Percy
10-26-2012 7:48 AM


Percy, you seem to disregard the evidence I showed of a major marine transgression, and major worldwide flooding in flood plains at the PT boundary. Both occurred. I don't know why you are focussed on marine transgressions I was also referring to floodplains all around the world showing overfill and loss of vegetation and excessive flooding at that time. Knowing that these wide-floodplains were the dominant feature of earth's terrain at that time, already points to a world wide flood.
Let me repeat myself clearly for you, the evidence shows a large marine transgression and additionally worldwide flooding of floodplains. the flooding of floodplains can be seen in this link :
https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm
earlier when I quoted this link I was not referring to a marine transgression, but I was referring to worldwide flooding.
Edited by mindspawn, : clarifying

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 10-26-2012 7:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 10-26-2012 3:58 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 10-26-2012 5:49 PM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 210 of 503 (677066)
10-26-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Coragyps
10-26-2012 3:28 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Why don't you look at a map of the landmass shape and size and read up on the conditions during the Carboniferous before you swear at me. Siberia was in a better position during the carboniferous than now, more suitable for non-swamp habitation. And that region did not have extensive swamps. Its illogical to keep looking at the fossils in carboniferous coal (swamp environment forms peat) and assume those were the only fauna flora around. That logic is actually laughable. Just because fossils fossilize easily in swamps, does not mean they were the only animals around. Hope you can see that point
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Coragyps, posted 10-26-2012 3:28 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 10-26-2012 3:56 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 213 by Coragyps, posted 10-26-2012 3:59 PM mindspawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024