Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 8:53 AM
388 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, frako, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (5 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,436 Year: 19,042/21,208 Month: 1,801/3,111 Week: 22/574 Day: 22/38 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 136 of 518 (488857)
11-18-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Architect-426
11-18-2008 4:12 PM


Re: Plate Tectonics - Where's the "V"?
please at least explain what generates the ā€œVā€ in plate tectonics that is powerful enough to create KE needed to build mountains.

Convection. Heat a pot of menudo from below and it'll stir itself. Heat the Earth's mantle from below and it'll stir itself. And the mantle is what - a thousand times as massive as the layer of detritus up here on top that has the mountains? And remember - that "V" is on the order of a centimeter per month in the fastest plates. But the "m" is in the petagram range.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 11-18-2008 4:12 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Architect-426, posted 12-01-2008 11:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1659 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 137 of 518 (488858)
11-18-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
The second reason is because the physical evidence corroborates.

Oh, really. Then provide some. I'd like to see some evidence of the mythical flood.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 5:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 138 of 518 (488864)
11-18-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
quote:
The second reason is because the physical evidence corroborates.

Care to cite evidence of fossil beds showing sorting by fluid dynamics? Care to show evidence of where all the heat went?
Care to explain where all of the water came from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 5:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18787
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 139 of 518 (488867)
11-18-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Architect-426
11-18-2008 4:12 PM


Re: Plate Tectonics - Where's the "V"?
Hey, ARCHITECT-426

Here is a simple pragmatic kinetic energy equation you may remember from physics 101; KE=1/2 x M x V (squared)

Ever seen an iceberg? Same material, different density. Push two continents together, some goes down and some goes up. What pushes them together? currents. Oh look there goes some "V" now ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 11-18-2008 4:12 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18787
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 140 of 518 (488869)
11-18-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 4:36 PM


Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Hello Ray,

How does this follow from your premise?

Simple.

Message 1

quote:
There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.

These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. If they are evidence of a world wide flood then:

1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture,


If the marine growth in question occurred during the flood, then there had to be enough time to grow all that complex inter-related ecology, including layers of clams with shells that have growth rings showing 10, 20, 30 years of growth, in an undisturbed environment, and found in many multiples layers.

Thus one possibility is that the flood lasted much longer than the advertised time, in order to provide sufficient time for all this complex growth.

What contradiction?

Actually there are two:

(1) The length of the flood needed to grow the marine growth seen in the fossil beds on the mountain tops versus the length of the flood in the published documents. Long vs Short.

(2) Super fast vital prolific robust growth during a short flood to cause the amount of marine growth seen, surviving all the turmoil of the flood to lay down the required layers in their undisturbed format, and then total mortality of over 99.99% of the species involved. Lively vs Dead.

How do these assertions harm a Genesis flood?

Creationists claim that these fossils are evidence of the flood. I just want to understand how that works.

What I want to see is an explanation for the obvious solid rock evidence of long term marine growth that is found in multiple layers on many many mountains, an explanation that shows it must be evidence of a flood -- and that no other explanation will cover all the facts as well.

Something a little more thought out than this:

Option 1
(premise a) there are seashells on mountains
(premise b) seashells grow under water
therefore: the mountains must have been underwater
(premise c) can't think of any way to make mountains
therefore: the flood covered the mountains

Something a little less ridiculously circular than this:

Option 2
(premise q) the flood also involved made up tectonic mixing
(premise r) this mixing jumbled all the earths surface, making mountains etc
therefore: what you see is all mixed up from what was before
(unstated assumption used as premise s) ignore layering, ignore sorting of fossils, ignore evidence of dry formations in between marine ones, etc etc etc
therefore: the flood caused everything to look exactly like you see it because if it didn't look like due to a flood that then there could be no flood but there was a flood so therefore it made it look exactly like the way you see it ...

And we haven't even gotten to how these layers then became fossilized solid rock. Supposedly by the pressure of the water that is pushing up the mountains?

The Creationism explanation is the Great Flood.

So you go with option #1? That doesn't explain the layers of undisturbed growth of layer after layer of such fossils or the continuity of those layers around the world. I need the details, Ray. See if you can fill it in:

Option 3

Ray's in depth explanation:...............................................................
..
..
..
..

Half of all adults in the U.S. accept the Creationism explanation.

The fallacy of the argument from popularity. Do you really want to go there, and compare which half is which?

Once again: we have one set of evidence and two major explanations.

No, we have one explanation: plate tectonics and the natural history of life on earth preserved in the fossil record as it happened, ...

... and we have one assertion. Until you actually explain the evidence you do not have an explanation.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : 1too


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 4:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 141 of 518 (488875)
11-18-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
11-18-2008 8:14 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
If the marine growth in question occurred during the flood, then there had to be enough time to grow all that complex inter-related ecology, including layers of clams with shells that have growth rings showing 10, 20, 30 years of growth, in an undisturbed environment, and found in many multiples layers.

Thus one possibility is that the flood lasted much longer than the advertised time, in order to provide sufficient time for all this complex growth.

Commentary presupposes said growth to have occurred on location on mountain tops that were under the sea. Why couldn't these growths been transported to the locations in the form we find them by the churning waters in upheaval? Of course you are going to say, or have said, that multiple layers exist, which appears not to have been caused by a Genesis flood since mountain tops under the sea for less than year does not correspond to the phenomena. Genesis specifically states that there were TWO sources causing the flood: torrential rains and fountains of the deep bursting open. The latter is speaking about sources of water originating at the sea bottom causing the levels to rise catastrophically. This would account for thick layer, or layers, or the phenomena seen. I am saying that your emphasis on "multiple layers" presupposes uniformitarian time. A catastrophe like a Great Flood, in view of the facts mentioned, could easily cause these layers, since they only exist at the top.

Are you aware that modern geology accounts for much land terrain or shores near seas as being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward?

RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.

Creationists claim that these fossils are evidence of the flood. I just want to understand how that works.

What I want to see is an explanation for the obvious solid rock evidence of long term marine growth that is found in multiple layers on many many mountains, an explanation that shows it must be evidence of a flood -- and that no other explanation will cover all the facts as well.

Something a little more thought out than this:

Option 1
(premise a) there are seashells on mountains
(premise b) seashells grow under water
therefore: the mountains must have been underwater
(premise c) can't think of any way to make mountains
therefore: the flood covered the mountains

Something a little less ridiculously circular than this:

Option 2
(premise q) the flood also involved made up tectonic mixing
(premise r) this mixing jumbled all the earths surface, making mountains etc
therefore: what you see is all mixed up from what was before
(unstated assumption used as premise s) ignore layering, ignore sorting of fossils, ignore evidence of dry formations in between marine ones, etc etc etc
therefore: the flood caused everything to look exactly like you see it because if it didn't look like due to a flood that then there could be no flood but there was a flood so therefore it made it look exactly like the way you see it ...

Everything written in the above blue box simply denigrates the Creationist explanation, asserting it not to be a explanation. This is long-winded question begging, RAZD. My previous comments (above) place the ball back in your court. And for the record: the evolution explanation is deranged and unbelievable. It amounts to no explanation since you have mountain tops to have been sea floor caused by slow steady plate conflict----yeah right----simply preposterous. In other words you don't know.

So you go with option #1? That doesn't explain the layers of undisturbed growth of layer after layer of such fossils or the continuity of those layers around the world. I need the details, Ray. See if you can fill it in:

I have made an explanation (above). Continuity is explained by the Catastrophe. Lack of similar phenomena from mountain base to the top falsifies your deranged explanation.

The fallacy of the argument from popularity. Do you really want to go there, and compare which half is which?

Argument from Popularity is not always a fallacy. Reference available upon request.

No, we have one explanation: plate tectonics and the natural history of life on earth preserved in the fossil record as it happened, ...

Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood. Your rebuttal, in its entirety, consists of assuming the logical expectation to not be logical----when it is perfectly logical.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2008 8:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 11:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 145 by The Matt, posted 11-19-2008 3:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 146 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2008 5:12 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 147 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2008 7:18 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 148 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 1:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2008 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 164 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-21-2008 12:35 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 142 of 518 (488877)
11-18-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood.

quote:
Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence

--Kettering's Law


From Talk Origins (response to creationist claim CC364):

1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

  • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
  • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
  • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

Given this, I'll stick to evidence and you can play around with logic and religious belief all you want.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 11:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 2:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 143 of 518 (488880)
11-18-2008 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
11-18-2008 11:10 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence
--Kettering's Law

Given this, I'll stick to evidence and you can play around with logic and religious belief all you want.

Your comments admit that your explanation is anti-logical and that the Creationist explanation is logical.

Evolution defies logic; this is why it is rejected by tens of millions of Americans. Admitting as much exceeds our most wild expectations. Thanks for your objectivity and honesty.

Ray

{(Biological) evolution is off-topic here, unless it is clearly and specifically tied to considerations of "the flood". Please, no "evolution" discussion responses that do not have such flood connections. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Evolution is off-topic comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 11:10 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AdminNosy, posted 11-19-2008 12:58 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 144 of 518 (488884)
11-19-2008 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 11:29 PM


Not an Answer, Ray
This is, obviously, not an intellectually honest attempt at debate Ray.

If you wish to post in the science threads you had better learn how to.

Last warning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 11:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3011 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 145 of 518 (488889)
11-19-2008 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
quote:
RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.


Are you seriously trying to imply that mountains only have fossils on their peaks? Please, go and do some fossil hunting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 3:02 PM The Matt has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2860
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 146 of 518 (488893)
11-19-2008 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
I don't really know anything about this stuff, but I just couldn't let this comment slide.

Cold Foreign Object writes:

Argument from Popularity is not always a fallacy. Reference available upon request.


If ALL you have is popularity, it is always a fallacy. Only evidence can show something to be correct, nothing else.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1659 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 147 of 518 (488895)
11-19-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood.

So explain why there are no chordate fossils in the area explained? If the results were from your mythological global flood there should be fossils of all types of sea creatures not just arthropods, mollusks & worms.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:07 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 148 of 518 (488916)
11-19-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Are you aware that modern geology accounts for much land terrain or shores near seas as being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward?

Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this. We do generally feel that portions of the geologic record are the result of 'mini' catastrophic events, such as localized flooding. How much of the geologic record is represented by these mini catastrophic events, however, is arguable.

As for the "fountains of the deep" portion of your statement. You have been misinformed. That is absolutely not true at all.

RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

First of all, mountains do not jut up ever upward. They can only get so high because of erosion and isostasy. Second of all, some mountains are in fact full of fossils. Some mountains also have fossils only at their bases. Some mountains only have fossils in their middles. You again have been misinformed regarding the location of fossils and mountains

Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.

Your argument has no merit since you obviously lack knowledge regarding the location and placement of fossils within mountains.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:02 PM roxrkool has responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 149 of 518 (488920)
11-19-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
11-18-2008 11:10 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence
--Kettering's Law

Given this, I'll stick to evidence and you can play around with logic and religious belief all you want.

Your comments admit that your explanation is anti-logical and that the Creationist explanation is logical.

Admitting as much exceeds our most wild expectations. Thanks for your objectivity and honesty. If I have misunderstood your message and its point please take the time and effort to show me the error?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 11:10 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 150 of 518 (488921)
11-19-2008 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by The Matt
11-19-2008 3:16 AM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Are you seriously trying to imply that mountains only have fossils on their peaks? Please, go and do some fossil hunting.

According to the argument initiated by RAZD, multi-layered fossilized marine life located on mountain tops is the object of explanation. Neither RAZD nor I have put forth the ridiculous implication seen in your blue box comment.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by The Matt, posted 11-19-2008 3:16 AM The Matt has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017