Evidence of the flood

Yeah, look at the trilobites, DUH: These are not the same species. Trilobytes are a class. To get to species you have to go through class => order => family => genus => species. You can't just throw away the classification system because it contradicts your Biblical beliefs. Conceited much? I agree that what you understand about geology and the ToE is a confusing mess. You've made this case ad infinitum, and it's been rebutted the same number of times. You've repeatedly made the point that diversity decreases to the point where evolution becomes impossible, and we've repeatedly responded that mutation maintains diversity and provides opportunity for species change. Unless you've got complete Alzheimers you must remember all these times when we've mentioned mutation. Responsible discussion demands that you move on to address the responses about mutation, instead of repeating your original claim from scratch as if it hadn't already been rebutted a zillion times. Discussion isn't rocket science. Get a clue. Well, yes, of course trilobites are all trilobites, just as mammals are all mammals. And just as all mammals are not the same species, neither are trilobites all the same species. Again, not rocket science. You want to look at the trilobites again? Fine, let's look at them again: Those are definitely not the same species of trilobite. It doesn't all hang together. It doesn't even have anything that is true or that corresponds to reality.--Percy

Assuming we're talking about the Green River formation, don't forget about turning to rock. You have to get 6 million layers and then turn them to rock.Faith, if you're not going to invoke miracles then you have to invoke the same natural laws and processes that govern the world today and that governed it in the past. If you're going to do that then you need to learn something about how natural laws and processes actually work. If you're just going to make up your own rules of nature then you may as well be invoking miracles.--Percy

But your "conjecture" is not founded upon evidence, or even upon anything that is true or consistent with anything else. The only means that exist to prove anything is through supporting evidence, of which you've been able to muster exactly none. The only thing you've been to prove is how little you know about natural processes. In other words, you don't understand what he's saying, but you're sure he's wrong anyway. It's not how solid you think your arguments are that counts, it's how solid others think they are. Probably the wrong analogy for a woman, but as Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." Your ideas have not survived in the ring. It's almost inhuman the way you keep sending these ideas out to get massacred time and again. You not only haven't given a single argument that hasn't been rebutted, you don't usually even get through a single sentence without getting something or another wrong. You've literally offered nothing of merit. The varves and tree rings by themselves falsify the possibility of the Flood.--Percy

The value of your supposin' is less than worthless. I haven't noticed RAZD changing subjects, so that's just more misdirection from you. And you haven't offered any good arguments. Almost every single thing you've said has been rebutted, disproved, invalidated, refuted and dispatched.--Percy

Don't be ridiculous. You must have blacked out there for a few hundred posts. What is the matter with you that you think your own opinion of your own ideas have any value. The value in your ideas is what others think of them. The contribution of debate is to hone your ideas into things of value. Instead you just keep repeating the same ideas over and over again. You don't even listen to the rebuttals. You ignore them and just repeat the same failed ideas again and again. I already rebutted this in a previous post, see Message 435. I already rebutted this in a previous post, see Message 423. This has been rebutted innumerable times. It is time to start responding to the rebuttals and stop mindlessly repeating yourself. You haven't explained a thing, not sufficiently nor to any other degree. The geologic column continues to grow everywhere there is net sedimentation. Nothing else is possible. Simple definition demands it. That number would be zero.--Percy

You are not operating from a different paradigm. You're doing religion. That's why you keep mentioning the Bible (15 posts) and Jesus (4 posts). I've rebutted this already a couple times today. No, you seem to have misunderstood what PaulK was saying. He did indicate that may not have realized the implications of your position, but the basic point is that it makes no sense to hold that the varves of the Green River formation are part of the geologic column while those of more recent origin are not. Again, what you're doing is religion, not shifting paradigms.--Percy

No one is denying that facts and evidence can lead to different interpretations, but in the case of this discussion all your arguments reflect a profound ignorance of the laws of the physical universe. You keep trying to invoke natural processes for the Biblical Flood, but what you really need is miracles. If the Flood was really an act of God then why not let it be and let all the miracles that are needed take place. No one would object if you expressed the belief that the Flood and all that sprang from it was a miracle of God that obey the physical laws of the universe. It would be a religious belief and we would respect that, as long as you didn't insist on teaching it in science class.--Percy

Well, now you're just striking out and trying to distract attention from the topic. When my understanding of how the world works is faulty then people are always sure to bring it to my attention.Across a number of posts today I've identified a number of things that you have wrong about the physical world. If you actually believe you are correct then I suggest you respond to those posts. Well this is a bald-faced lie. I don't understand how you live with yourself. Here's the list of my messages just from today addressing your arguments, a number of them of substantial length:

• Message 403
  
• Message 406
  
• Message 408
  
• Message 423
  
• Message 424
  
• Message 428
  
• Message 433
  
• Message 435
  
• Message 436
  
• Message 437
  
• Message 439
  
• Message 442
  
• Message 445
  
• Message 449
  
• Message 450
  
• Message 452
  
• Message 454
  
• Message 455
  
• Message 454

The number you've replied to that actually addressed even a tiny fraction of the subject matter? Two. What paradigm clash? You're a person almost completely ignorant of the natural world who is doing religion.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

According to this brief excerpt from this Black Sea webpage, we shouldn't expect to see dead sea life on the floor of the Black Sea:

quote:

---

Marine animals and algae can not live in the anoxic zone of Black Sea, that water is inhabited by anaerobic bacteria which disintegrate sinking remains of the upper layer marine life.

---

But according to the Wikipedia article on fossil zones of the Green River Formation, some of the best areas of fossil preservation were in anoxic zones:

quote:

---

The fossils of the herring-like Knightia, sometimes in dense layers, as if a school had wandered into anoxic water levels and were overcome, are familiar to fossil-lovers and are among the most commonly available fossils on the commercial market.

---

So apparently the anoxic zones of the Black sea disintegrate organic remains, while the anoxic zones of the Green River Formation did not. Seems contradictory.--Percy

Well now you're just making it up again. Scientists have determined that the trilobite class is divided into orders, families, genera and species, and you think you can get away with just declaring that they're really all just the same species? Would you like to offer any evidence? Would you like to explain to us how trilobite species as different as this could interbreed: Again, Faith, there is no paradigm conflict. You are doing religion, as is obvious from your lack of any evidence.--Percy

I was making a serious point, Faith. You seem to have this odd misconception that you determine the value of your own ideas, when the truth is that their value derives from the opinions of others.You're also again descending into one-liner posts. Please don't do that. It is very rude and disrespectful to those who put a lot of time and effort into replying to your posts. I had detailed rebuttals in Message 423 and Message 435, and then you made the same points again as if they had never been rebutted, so I referred you to those rebuttals, and now I'm referring you to them yet again. Also, your point about "huge flat sedimentary rocks" has been rebutted numerous times, but you're ignoring all the rebuttals and simply repeating your original point.--Percy

That's just a bald declaration lacking any evidence and delivered by someone with a long history of getting things wrong. There is obviously not just one species of trilobites. In fact if I had showed you this one all by itself like this you wouldn't have any idea it was a trilobite: So let's you quit the nonsense and be honest. You have no idea how to classify trilobites into orders, families, genera and species, and no background that leads you to think you should. The webpage [url=A Guide to the Orders of Trilobites[]A Guide to the Orders of Trilobites[/url] contains a great deal of information about trilobites. Look it over.--Percy

Stop being purposefully dense. It wasn't "huge flat sedimentary rocks" that was rebutted, but your point about them. In Message 402 you said: This has been rebutted a number of times throughout this thread. It is time to start responding to the rebuttals and stop mindlessly repeating yourself.And stop with the mindless one-liner posts. I also mentioned Message 423 and Message 435 that you ignored, and that you just ignored again. Sometimes it seems that you're making a concerted effort to be as annoying as possible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix message link.

Oh, good grief, who are you kidding. Only yourself. Yet another bald declaration with no supporting evidence from someone of demonstrated ignorance. I think if you look over that page that PaulK and I recommended to you that you'll find the answer to this question. Another empty utterance from the clueless.--Percy

So PaulK's original question remains: Why do you think that varves deposited long ago, such as those in the Green River formation, are part of the geologic column, but varves deposited more recently are not?More generally, if sediments deposited today are not part of the geologic column, what are they part of? As Coragyps described, an anoxic environment can preserve fish for a great deal of time. The Wikipedia article on the Green River Formation says:

quote:

---

The lagersttten formed in anoxic conditions in the fine carbonate muds that formed in the lakebeds. Lack of oxygen slowed bacterial decomposition and kept scavengers away, so leaves of palms, ferns and sycamores, some showing the insect damage they had sustained during their growth, were covered with fine-grained sediment and preserved. Insects were preserved whole, even delicate wing membranes and spider spinnerets.

​

Vertebrates were preserved too, including the scutes of Borealosuchus, the crocodile that was an early clue to the mild Eocene climate of Western North America. Fish are common.

---

As images of shipwrecks in the Black Sea show, anoxic conditions can preserve things for a very long time. The fish fossils were preserved by anoxic conditions, so not only do they not prove varves aren't annual, even if we didn't understand the origin of fossils in the Green River Formation, there's already too much evidence that varves are annual, especially the fact that we see varves forming today before our very eyes.Could you provide a link to this article? It would be interesting to read. Again, I'd like an opportunity to read this article. And again, the presence of fossils, even if their origin were not understood, cannot change the fact that varves are annual. They record the changing seasons over the course of a year. What the Green River Formation shows is that varves formed millions of years ago in the same way varves form today - annually.--Percy