|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
I agree with biostratigraphy for relative dating. In itself , biostratigraphy does not point to millions of years. Then you have a big problem, and a fatal one for your Flood idea; there are no human fossils below the most recent strata. Even in terms of relative dating you have a huge problem. For you to have any kind of case, you need to show human remains dating back to before the Flood and running right through from the post-Flood Triassic, to the present day. Instead what you have is a total lack of human fossils until the Pleistocene. Whether that is considered a couple of million years ago or some shorter span, you need to show human habitation before and after your Flood to bring a case. The Flood story features humans; you need human fossils to have an argument. Without those fossils, you have nothing to corroborate your story.
mindspawn writes: The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt. Untrue. Even the crude map you posted shows that the traps do not cover the entire NE region.
mindspawn writes: This is the greatest layer of basalt known to man. It is pretty impassable. Completely untrue. There has been extensive mining of the coal zones around the edges of the intrusions for years. If the area had been inhabited by humans (or any other modern animal), then they would have found evidence. Anyway, this is merely excuse-making on your part. Why can't you provide evidence? Because it is hiding! You previously claimed that fossil whales were hiding in mysterious inland seas. Now you are claiming that human fossils are hiding under a lava field. This is not how honest enquiry is carried out. This is just rationalising.
Note that this image is showing the high latitudes of Pangea, the red portion is where the basalt layer is, covering nearly all of that portion. Nearly all. But not all.
Hallam and Wignall claim the high latitudes did not experience the early to mid Permian extinction crisis: Hallam and Wignall only describe "higher latitudes" as being spared the Gualdalupian disaster; they do not demand that only the area covered by the Traps was habitable. That notion is entirely your own invention. There are plenty of Late Permian tetrapod fossils from lower latitudes. The more Southern latitudes simply suffered higher extinction rates, they were not uninhabitable, nor was the entire Northern region of Pangea covered by the Siberian LIP.
I proved a dramatic rise in sea level, all transgressions cause coastal flooding, i proved this was a particularly dramatic transgression. It also involved flooding into the interior of Pangea that is now discovered across 3 continents. All of which facts completely disprove a global flood at that time. It ought to be obvious to any rational observer that a partial flood is not a global flood. Your continued refusal to accept this simple logic is baffling.
And you still deny flooding at the P-T bounday? I have never denied flooding at the PT Boundary. That is a complete untruth. It is your repeated habit of making such patently untrue claims that has led to unkind assesments of your motives in this discussion. I do not deny flooding at the PT. You have successfully proved flooding at the PT. What you have failed to do is to provide evidence for a GLOBAL FLOOD at the PT. Instead, by providing clear evidence of incomplete flooding at the PT Boundary, you have disproved a global flood. The Bible describes a complete global flood. You have proved that no such condition exists at the PT. You have disproved your own claim. Nice work.
More research needs to be done on exposed layers in northern Siberia. Pre-boundary pollen has been unexpectedly found, and I agree with you that I need pre-boundary human skeletons to be found there to add strength to my case. Then might I suggest that you try and persuade some your fellow creationists to fund such research? Certainly no-one else is going to take you seriously unless you have some pre-Permian human fossils to show us. Without that, you do not have a case to strengthen. All you have is conjecture and wishful thinking. Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Most people do not need to be told that they do known know things which are unknown.
Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
You will save a lot of time and argument by saying "widespread" when you mean widespread. Rather than waste my time discussing the meaning of the word "worldwide", let me use the word "widespread". Across various parts of the coast and interior of Pangea. "Worldwide", in the context of the Biblical flood, automatically implies that all of the land is covered by water. If you're saying, instead, that there was flooding here and flooding there all over the world at the same time, you'll get no argument. We have that today. But you're throwing the notion that the Biblical flood was real right out the window.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
mindspawn writes: Wycliff Bible (first version):For yet and after seven days, I shall rain on [the] earth forty days and forty nights You included this one:Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA): For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth. I accept your cherries. Both quotes has god saying he will/shall rain on the earth for 40 days and forty nights. God has therefore intervened with nature to cause a flood and he has predicted when it was to happen. Additionally, he gives Noah a year's warning of the fact so that he can build a boat and tells us why he's doing it. Without a shadow of a doubt, no matter what translation you pick, God did it. And God intervening with weather on the earth is a miracle.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
We're talking about the equivocation of "worldwide" and "widespread". If you mean one when you say the other you're either ignorant of the distinction or trying to deceive. If there's another option, feel free to enlighten all of us. Science is based on facts, instead of cooling me a fool, why don't you enlighten me on the truth in an educational manner? Science is based on precision as well as "facts". If you want to talk science, learn to be precise with your words.
mindspawn writes:
Yes, the facts are overwhelming. Very few creationists even try to argue against them any more. It's just the liars preaching to the fools.
Maybe your facts are so overwhelming in favor of evolution I will convert?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You will save a lot of time and argument by saying "widespread" when you mean widespread. "Worldwide", in the context of the Biblical flood, automatically implies that all of the land is covered by water. If you're saying, instead, that there was flooding here and flooding there all over the world at the same time, you'll get no argument. We have that today. But you're throwing the notion that the Biblical flood was real right out the window. I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains. My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved. If so I would like to see the evidence. Of course there's radioactive dating, but that's a subject for another thread, but I'm referring to geological reasons to deny a flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
Good. Then the Biblical flood is a non-starter scientifically.
I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains. mindspawn writes:
"Disproved" probably isn't appropriate terminology. "Not a shred of evidence to support it" would be better. What people are telling you is that there is no scientific evidence that thre Flood happened or even that it could happen. How's that?
My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claim that it has already being disproved. Pathetic. If that was indeed your point, then your statements that it was your opponents responsibility to disprove that the floods covered the mountain peeks would not make much sense, would it? I doubt that anyone would have bothered arguing with you about whether there were floods in any era after the earth cooled.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains. My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved. If so I would like to see the evidence. And we've referred you to the evidence.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, really, did you change my quote on purpose or was it really an accident?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
A transgression means sea levels rise. No, it doesn't. Look at the word: trans-... -gress. A "gress" is a step. progress is a step forward, digress is a step backwards. Transgress is a step across. As a geological phenomenon it is when waterline/sediments move across the surface. Here's an image:
See how the shoreline moves across to the right? Also, you could've just looked at wiki:
quote: Sure, there's flooding, but the water event is relative to the land. That means that if there was a transgression at the P-T boundary, then there also had to be land there that was not flooded. Ergo, your "mountains that weren't underwater" must surely have existed. So, it wasn't a global flood. QED. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a transgression.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Well, yes. The evidence for transgressions involves finding the high water mark (as in the construction of the Hallam curve) and so finding out how far the transgressions transgressed. This makes perfect sense. If you can find that high water mark at the P-T bounday, then you will have disproved that was the biblical flood. Of course it would have to be undeniable evidence. Per the graph on page 4 of http://geotest.tamu.edu/...OL106/LatePaleozoicEndPermian.pdf, sea level was at or near at an all Paleozoic low at the end of the Paleozoic (the purple box is the late Paleozoic, although the right edge seems to be plotted a little too young). See also some of the earlier pages. On the other hand, sea level was at a Phanerozoic (post pre-Cambrian) high at about 100 million years ago. But even then, not all of the continents were submerged. That's the conventional old Earth version. Even if you somehow translate this to YEC, at best the great flood happened later than your position. I leave it to someone else, to explain what the 35m "secular increase" is. Moose Added by edit:
Source Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit. Edited by Minnemooseus, : Call it a typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
There has been interesting stuff posted, but God only knows (to use that phrase loosely) when messages were last in contact with the real topic theme.
Topic drift is a bitch (or something like that). AdminnemooseusOr something like that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Your graphic is a nice representation of Walther's law. For a transgression, the sediments fine seaward and up-column. For a regression, the sediments would coarsen up-column. But this is REALLY getting WAY off-topic.
quote: Sure, there's flooding, but the water event is relative to the land. I think a transgression could be purely because of land subsidence, but I think most, especially the major ones, are real sea level rises.
That means that if there was a transgression at the P-T boundary, then there also had to be land there that was not flooded. Ergo, your "mountains that weren't underwater" must surely have existed. So, it wasn't a global flood. QED. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a transgression. Here's where the real bogusity kicks in. Not that any such transgression has ever happened (maybe WAY back in the pre-Cambrian???), but there is nothing in the transgression definition that says all the land couldn't have been covered by the sea. Sure, a transgression does move shorelines to higher elevations, but if it ended up covering all the land, it would still be a transgression. In the present, we have low lying islands that are being transgressed and are probably destined to be totally under water. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Typo. Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add island sentence at end.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Stratigraphy from top to bottom: 1. Molteno Formation- Glittering sandstone, grit and conglomerate with grey and black shale and mudstone.2. Burgersdorp Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red and bluish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone and siltstone 3. Katberg Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Sandstone; subordinate red siltstone and mudstone. 4. Balfour Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Grey, bluish- and greenish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone. 5. Middleton Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red, bluish-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate sandstone. 6. Koonap Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Greenish, bluis-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate mottled sandstone. 7. Waterford Formation, Ecca Group- Dark laminated mudrock with abundant ripple-marks; numerous sandstone beds. Thanks for your research. It took me some time to delve into the exact location of the P-T boundary within that stratigraphy, it appears the Balfour formation represent late-Permian, and the Katberg formation represents the early Triassic.Page not found | CSIR "primarily represented by late Permian, Balfour Formation sedimentary rocks" The evidence of flooding is found during and at the top of the Balfour (sheet sandstones). Woody debris is overlaid with fungal remains. This is consistent with a widepsread fungal spike at the P-T boundary.http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/...eminar/os03_04/Zamecnik.pdf An up to 6 km thick sequence of lacustrine mudstones, fluvial overbank mudstones and channel sandstones dominated by a high sinuosity river system change to multistoried channel (Balfour Formation) and sheet sandstones with intermediate layers of mudstones, sedimented by a braided river system (Katberg Formation). The 1m thick layer of woody debris overlain by a layer with abundance of fungal remains — the 'FungiSpike Horizon'— is located about 0,5 m beneath the base of Katberg Formation. These sediments could represent a phase of ~2000y. For the P/T boundary definition elements of the vertebrate faunal assemblage, e.g. Lystrosaurus are used (Steineretal.2003). In the early Triassic (Katberg) there are "accelerated rates of sediment accumulation". This could very well indicate flooding.http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/118/11-12/1398.full "In both the Poortjie and lower Katberg sandstones, weakly developed paleosols indicate accelerated rates of sediment accumulation (Retallack et al., 2003). "
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024