Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 46 of 377 (528957)
10-07-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by roxrkool
10-07-2009 4:13 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Are you kidding? I've lived my entire life in the western U.S. and the only locations that look like that are the plains of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, obviously.
This sort of absurdness epitomizes Creationism. You write meaningless statements while at the same time glossing over all the evidence to the contrary.
Then you haven't been to, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Oklahoma, or New Mexico. I have; many times.
West Texas: [thumb=100]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/westTexas.jpg[/thumb=100]
South Dakota:
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/SouthDakota.jpg[/thumb=300]
Now, where is all the missing sediment that once filled in the space between those plateaus? What force on earth could have moved multiplied thousands of square miles in a vast deposition of land from one location to another on this continent? We see the erosion at the foot of most of the formations, like this:
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2540.jpg[/thumb=300]
but this accounts for only a small percentage of it. Where is the rest of the sediment? What force was strong enough to do this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by roxrkool, posted 10-07-2009 4:13 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by roxrkool, posted 10-07-2009 8:11 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 47 of 377 (528958)
10-07-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 4:29 PM


Let me get this right -- you are looking at animal footprints and ripple marks in rock, and claiming that they are evidence of a global flood?
Can you explain how those marks were preserved in the mud during 40 days and 40 nights of rain followed by a flood that covered the tops of mountains??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 4:29 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by obvious Child, posted 10-07-2009 5:03 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 59 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:49 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 48 of 377 (528959)
10-07-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-07-2009 4:24 PM


Re: A test for Slevesque
Hi Slevesque,
Same question to you as to Calypsis: Can you tell us where in the geologic column you think the flood layer is? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 4:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 5:13 PM Kitsune has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 49 of 377 (528963)
10-07-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Kitsune
10-07-2009 4:52 PM


I'm still waiting for our resident creationist to provide me evidence of how fast mobile dinosaurs died before giant ground sloths during the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 4:52 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 50 of 377 (528966)
10-07-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-07-2009 4:24 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
No seriously, I understand your argument very well, and of course, there are two things to consider:
- Is the fossil really pre-flood ? Remember that creationist contest the assumptions behind the dating methods, and a radio-carbon date of 10 300 years old for them does not mean it really is pre-flood. The strata in which it was found is very important to determine if it was pre-flood. And in the case it was found in a cave etc. of some sort, then from a creationists perspective it is definitely post-flood (as cavemen fossils are post-flood in the creationist model if I remember correctly)
This was not a fossil. It was an archaeological specimen in a cave, and was found with a variety of artifacts and other materials, many of which were more recent. No layers which would have represented a global flood were reported in any of the reports I have seen.
Biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago. If you don't accept that date you better talk to them, not me.
- Even if the age is correct, the false assumption is that all the current mtDNA lineage should come from 'noah's female kin'. This is not necessarily true, since Noah's sons also had wives, which weren't there own sisters most probably, and so we already have here multiple pre-flood mtDNA lineage that got to be passed down.
Noah's female kin (I believe there were four) would have been the only sources for mtDNA, as males cannot pass this on to their offspring; it is passed entirely from mother to daughter. As kin I include daughters-in-law. They would all have had middle eastern mtDNA patterns, while Haplotype D is restricted to the Americas.
I saw you make this argument several times, maybe even every times a flood topic comes up. The argument is valid, but one, or possibly two, of the premises are false.
The assumptions are not false. We have a genetic record for mtDNA distributions in the Americas, and mtDNA from the eastern Mediterranean and middle east are not represented until after historic contact.
The conclusion remains: Native American mtDNA lineages survived from before the purported date of the flood right up to living individuals. They were not wiped out by this flood because the global flood never happened.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 4:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 5:28 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 114 by Peg, posted 10-10-2009 3:27 AM Coyote has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 51 of 377 (528967)
10-07-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kitsune
10-07-2009 4:55 PM


Re: A test for Slevesque
Oh my, that's a question that usually gets covered in them long papers on flood geology (ya know, the boring ones)
I'm not really into geology, so I don't know the conventional layer names at all. I have a book about it though, but it's at my parents hous ...
From my personnal memory and deduction abilities hehe, I would think that pretty much all the sedimentary layers were deposited during the flood, maybe here and there some post flood layers appeared, and also maybe some pre-flood layers exist at the very beginning. But overall, all sedimentary layers containing fossils were deposited during the flood.
And so as soon as you start having lots of fossils (read here: the cambrian explosion layers) then you have the beginning of the flood-deposited layers, which would stretch all the way to the upper-most layers.
The real question here I guess is which layers are linked with what stages of the flood. Because in the current creationist model of the flood, there were multiple stages to it.
Some layers at the same place could actually have been deposited at the same time during the flood, and so where a long-age geologist (note I didn't say evolutionist ) would see multiple layers of thousands/millions of years, a flood geologist would see one layer deposited by a flow of water, which produced multiple 'artificial layers' because the grains arranged in terms of size etc.
As I've said, I hope this is clear, as it isn't my 'specialty' and so I have fewer english vocabulary on this, since I read about it less often.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 4:55 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 5:52 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 52 of 377 (528968)
10-07-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Kitsune
10-07-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Address the evidence please
You must realise by now that this is not a competition to see who can post the fastest.
And where did I suggest it was, dear friend? But this old man is wearing himself out just trying to keep up.
where is the flood layer in the geologic column?
Take your pick:
Ripple marks at high elevation in Utah. [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug08254.jpg[/thumb=200]
Seven layers uncovered in Wisconsin that had fossils of jellyfish!
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Sep24192.jpg[/thumb=200]
Then these rock ripples in upper Michigan:
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/RockRipples.jpg[/thumb=300]
Creationists believe that stratum like this were laid down rather rapidly and not over millions of yrs. To answer you last question: I believe that most fossils in the world are directly because of the flood. There are many exceptions and clearly much of it is guesswork. The mere preponderance of the number of fossils bespeaks of a volume that evolution cannot account for.
Stay tuned for the next post because I have a question for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 4:15 PM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:37 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 56 by dokukaeru, posted 10-07-2009 5:41 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 58 by Capt Stormfield, posted 10-07-2009 5:45 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 106 by Kapyong, posted 10-09-2009 6:57 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 53 of 377 (528969)
10-07-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Coyote
10-07-2009 5:12 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
Well then, the case is settled on my side I guess. If the specimen is from a cave, then it is post-flood from the creationist model of post-flood dispersion of population. Remember that after the flood, there was the tower of Babel, and only after this event did humanity spread out and populate other places. It is during this post-babel dispersion, which would have been in the middle of the ice age, that the majority of cave specimens were 'made' (if I can use this expression)
If I can prevent in advance, I will guess that you will say 'this is religion based, and so as no relevance in this scientific discussion'. However, it would be faulty to attack the flood model, with an argument based on genetics, without wanting to consider the larger creationist model of the post-flood events. It is also more clever to argument against a model, by assuming this model to be true, only to show that is inconsistent with the current data. In this case, I think that the flood-babel-post babel model is consistent with this data.
Furthermore, the historicity of Babel would by itself be another topic, one that would probably be very interesting, but so it would be beyond the scope of this thread to analyse if it has any scientific/historic significance.
The only issue, then, remains the carbon-dating. Which is also another topic, one that I know you feel comfortable with the actual assumptions. But I'll let calypsis4 cover it in due time ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 10-07-2009 5:12 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 54 of 377 (528971)
10-07-2009 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 5:14 PM


Re: Address the evidence please
Lindalou:
Let's see if I can blow your mind:
From evolutionist Stephen Trimble in Rim of Time (1981) he had this to say about Monument Canyon:
[thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Sep29286.jpg[/thumb=400]
In case you couldn't read it well, his last statement was, "They omit the record of life from single-celled algae to dinosaurs and mammals--a major chunk of history, indeed(!)"
Would you please explain to me and the other readers what happened to the 750 million yrs of missing sediment in this formation?
Not only so but there is this added problem:
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Aug09269.jpg[/thumb=200]
So seven layers of strata representing about 247 million yrs is missing from the Grand Canyon. The so-called 'geologic column' exists almost nowhere on earth. Why is this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:14 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 10-07-2009 5:42 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 64 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 6:17 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 55 of 377 (528972)
10-07-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
10-07-2009 5:28 PM


Re: A test for Calypsis4
The only issue, then, remains the carbon-dating. Which is also another topic, one that I know you feel comfortable with the actual assumptions. But I'll let calypsis4 cover it in due time ...
You bet I will, with fire in my eyes.
I am now and remain...an ex-evolutionist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 5:28 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4614 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


(1)
Message 56 of 377 (528973)
10-07-2009 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 5:14 PM


Re: Address the evidence please
Hello Galypsis4 and good evening!
Galypsis4 writes:
You must realise by now that this is not a competition to see who can post the fastest.
And where did I suggest it was, dear friend? But this old man is wearing himself out just trying to keep up.
How about your topics: "Living fossils expose evolution" thread:
Calypsis4 #POSTS:133/416 TOTAL
and Moons: their origin, age, & recession
Calypsis4 #POSTS:72/213 TOTAL
and Questions about the living cell
Calypsis4 #POSTS:46/126 TOTAL
Please, please my friend....slow down and answer the questions before you go galyping away.
Please answer Coyotes point in Message 6 and Message 15 and Message 50
Thanks,
Joe
Edited by dokukaeru, : Forgot Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:14 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 57 of 377 (528974)
10-07-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 5:37 PM


Re: Address the evidence please
Would you please explain to me and the other readers what happened to the 750 million yrs of missing sediment in this formation?
Erosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:37 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 6:02 PM JonF has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 58 of 377 (528976)
10-07-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Calypsis4
10-07-2009 5:14 PM


Re: Address the evidence please
I believe that most fossils in the world are directly because of the flood. There are many exceptions and clearly much of it is guesswork. The mere preponderance of the number of fossils bespeaks of a volume that evolution cannot account for.
This relates to my as yet unanswered inquiry in message #29. Does your model have an estimate for the number of organisms that would have been alive at the same time in the pre-flood era?
It seems to me that this might pose a problem for your model. I do not see that evolutionary theory has any trouble at all accounting for such numbers, since it does not suggest that they were contemporaneous.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 5:14 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 10:12 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 59 of 377 (528978)
10-07-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Kitsune
10-07-2009 4:52 PM


Let me get this right -- you are looking at animal footprints and ripple marks in rock, and claiming that they are evidence of a global flood?
No, it was obviously a global forest fire.
Replies like that merit no better answer.
I guess I could have talked about the fossil fish in the Alps...you know the mountians of Europe that are upside down according to the evolutionary geology.
The explanation for this is plate tectonics. But has anyone in history every observed hundreds of thousands of square miles slide over other many thousands of square miles to form mountains. Who could ever have possibly seen such a thing...other than perhaps Noah?
Edited by Calypsis4, : correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 4:52 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Kitsune, posted 10-07-2009 5:59 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4299 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 60 of 377 (528979)
10-07-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by slevesque
10-07-2009 5:13 PM


Re: A test for Slevesque
Hi Slevesque,
Your honest reply to my question is appreciated. I get the impression that you are quite young, and that English is not your first language? I admire you for coming here and taking us all on You seem like a very thoughtful and intelligent person.
It might come as a surprise to you that there is no "current creationist model of the flood." Ask them to be specific about the flood layer and you get different answers and shifting goalposts, just like when you ask them what a "kind" is. I spoke to one creationist who had decided that it was sort of everywhere but you couldn't see it. This was after I gave him evidence of what the geology of a catastrophically flooded area looks like, and asked him where all the jumbles of fossils from the dyings animals were.
Can you explain why fossils are sorted in the geologic record in a way convenient for evolution? Why we see trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs further up, and humans near the top -- never mixed with each other, anywhere? This is not hydrological sorting. Curious, don't you think?
If you look at a place like the Grand Canyon, you will have difficulty finding that flood layer because you get things like evidence of burrowing, coprolites, ripple marks and animal tracks in aeolian deposits, paleosols, and brachiopods fossilised in colonies with their stalks still attached to the ground or to other shells. I hesitate to go into any more detail though because the Grand Canyon is a topic in itself, whether we're talking about its geology or the fossils it contains.
One final question: where did all the sediment go? Surely if we're looking for a flood layer, we would expect to see -- all around the world -- a thick layer of mud which contains fossils jumbled up, trilobites with dinosaurs and humans.
It ain't there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 10-07-2009 5:13 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Calypsis4, posted 10-07-2009 10:16 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024