Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 10:26 PM
345 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,528 Year: 29,134/21,208 Month: 1,200/1,847 Week: 123/452 Day: 123/115 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5657
58
5960
...
91NextFF
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 856 of 1352 (808459)
05-11-2017 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
05-10-2017 11:10 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
otally disagree, ICANT, I think there's tons of evidence for the worldwide Flood. I don't know much about Ellen G White, I wouldn't read a cultist.

You keep saying things like this but never give us any evidence. All you provide is assertions.

If you do provide evidence, it's either completely fallacious or not conclusive. Like saying that millions of creatures fossilized in water-lain sediment. Why would that necessarily be a flood? You cannot tell us, can you?

It's just 'obvious', right?

Well, it isn't obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 859 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:20 AM edge has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 857 of 1352 (808460)
05-11-2017 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 834 by Faith
05-10-2017 1:48 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Hi Faith,

Faith writes:

This is really hilarious the way this obvious denial of reality is clung to by everybody here. The strata full of dead things are IN-YOUR-FACE EVIDENCE both for a worldwide Flood and against the preposterous idea that they represent time periods that then all collapsed down into stratified rock.

Yes the strata is full of the remains of dead things. The remains of dead vegetation has been retrieved in oil from on the surface to over 5 miles deep in the earth.

So are you proposing that all the strata in those 5 miles (holes have been drilled to 7 miles deep but I will stick with just 5) was created during the flood?

If all the strata in the world was created during the flood where did all the material come from to create the strata?

If you want to declare it was the material that was already there and it was just lifted up in the air and returned to the earth and then setteled in the layers we find today would be in the realm of the same probability of Jesus fulfilling 40 Old Testament prophecies.
Which the probability has been placed at 1 chance in 10 to the 157th power. That is 10 with 157 zeros behind it.

If you want to test my statement just take some instant pudding 1 box of chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, lemon, raspberry, and butterscotch. Mix all 6 boxes up in different containers and throw them into the air at one time, catch them in a container. When these would settle do you think you would have a layer of chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, lemon, raspberry, and butterscotch.

Well the probability for that happening would be zero. They would get all mixed up in the air and then again when they landed in the container. The same thing would happen if you ripped up a 5 mile thick layer of the earth and threw it into the air and then let it settle back to the earth in the water.

You would not have layers of strata you would have a mixed up mess.

Maybe that is the reason your arguments don't get much traction.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 1:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 860 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:22 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 858 of 1352 (808461)
05-11-2017 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:25 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
quote:

That wasn't a parody, that was the plain truth.

It certainly isn't the truth.

quote:

I have no need to "ignore" what you call "buried terrain features since I've amply explained them.

It isn't true that you have adequately explained them. It certainly IS true that you keep ignoring them. Your "plain truth" doesn't admit to their existence, for one.

quote:

You should assume that THE Flood (not A flood) deposited that limestone because 1) it's a layer among layers stacked to a great depth and covering a great area, 2) it's not shallow it's humongous in most cases 3) some of those layers are interpreted as time periods in which land creatures lived, all of which supposedly collapsed down in the end to vast slabs of rock, in this case limestone, which is impossible; 3) The Flood would certainly have killed a lot of sea creatures and buried them in limestone; and 4) such a stack of layers is excellent evidence for a spectacularly huge worldwide water catastrophe and very BAD evidence for the standard interpretation.

It's hardly likely that a year-long Flood would produce the depth we see - and you don't know the extent of that formation. And limestone from a flood ? No. So your first reason is a bust.

Your second is just repeating the size claim.

Your first 3) is a silly misrepresentation - especially as this is seabed

Your second 3) is wrong (limestone again) and given the abundance of fossils this is a ecology that had been living at that location for some time, which seems a bit unlikely with the Flood killing everything and burying them multiple times before

And your 4) is just your opinion - which is the reverse of the truth.

So I guess that the only reason to assume the Flood is to avoid seeing how ridiculously false it is. And I don't care about that.

As for the rest, the Spirit Lake example does not give a good reason to reinterpret the Yellowstone forests. It relies on the roots becoming waterlogged - and the fact that they are buried in volcanic ash with their roots in the preceding material rather rules that out.

quote:

Being full of volcanic ash is evidence that it was a volcano that caused the whole scenario, not evidence that the trees are growing in the stuff.

They weren't growing in the ash, they were buried by the ash. That is why the situation is not the same.

quote:

And the trees are obviously dead, dead before they got stacked that way.

Evidence please.

quote:

Lots of good evidence to rethink the usual explanation. Reality, PK, Reality.

If you have good evidence then perhaps you should try mentioning it. Misrepresentation and ignoring inconvenient facts are not signs of a solid case. That is reality, Faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26789
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 859 of 1352 (808464)
05-11-2017 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 856 by edge
05-11-2017 12:11 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
I think the evidence is clear and sufficient but if I can't convince you so be it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 856 by edge, posted 05-11-2017 12:11 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26789
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 860 of 1352 (808465)
05-11-2017 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 857 by ICANT
05-11-2017 12:15 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
I've been arguing this for years, ICANT, and you obviously haven't read much of it. I don't feel up to reviewing it all for you right now.

Stir sediments, say silt, sand and whatever, in a glass of water, they'll form layers.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by ICANT, posted 05-11-2017 12:15 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 861 of 1352 (808468)
05-11-2017 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
05-10-2017 11:10 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Hi Faith,

Faith writes:

Totally disagree, ICANT, I think there's tons of evidence for the worldwide Flood. I don't know much about Ellen G White, I wouldn't read a cultist.

Faith I believe there was a world wide flood that covered the total land mass that existed at Genesis 1:9-10 which would have existed at Genesis 7:24.

But as far as Ellen G. White she is the cornerstone of the Seventh Day Adventist and her hallucinations or visions is what YEC is based upon. So if you are going to believe in something you need to know where it came from.

God bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 862 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:36 AM ICANT has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26789
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 862 of 1352 (808469)
05-11-2017 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 861 by ICANT
05-11-2017 1:34 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
YEC is not based on Ellen G White. I never read White but I've read plenty of creationism and none of it refers to E G White or SDA or any of that..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by ICANT, posted 05-11-2017 1:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by ICANT, posted 05-16-2017 12:01 AM Faith has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 863 of 1352 (808482)
05-11-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2017 2:29 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer | NCSE:

quote:
5. Fossil Sequence

At all costs, creationists avoid discussing how fossils came to be stratified as they are. Out of the thousands of pages that Henry Morris has written on creationism, only a dozen or so are devoted to this critical subject, and he achieves that page count only by recycling three simple apologetics in several books. The mechanisms he offers might be called victim habitat, victim mobility, and hydraulic sorting. In practice, the victim habitat and mobility apologetics are generally combined. Creationists argue that the Flood would first engulf marine animals, then slow lowland creatures such as reptiles, while wily and speedy humans escaped to the hilltops. To a creationist, this adequately explains the order in which fossils occur in the geologic column. A scientist might test the mobility hypothesis by examining how well it explains the fact that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era.

A scenario with magnolias (a primitive plant) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed along with early mammals, is unconvincing. And when marine fossils are found in many places above those of land animals and plants, the victim habitat apologetic loses all credibility, too.

If explanations based on victim habitat and mobility are absurd, the hydraulic sorting apologetic is flatly contradicted by the fossil record. An object's hydrodynamic drag is directly proportional to its cross-sectional area and its drag coefficient. Therefore, when objects with the same density and the same drag coefficient move through a fluid, they are sorted according to size. (Mining engineers utilize this phenomena in some ore separation processes.) This means that all small trilobites should be found higher in the fossil record than large ones. Since this is not what we find, the hydraulic sorting argument is immediately falsified. Indeed, one wonders how Henry Morris could ever have offered it, given his background as a hydraulic engineer.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The fossil sequence is indeed an interesting question. Have out of sequence fossils ever been found? Or, has evolution made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries?

Fossils have turned up in the “wrong” place many times and this continues today. This leads to the range of fossils often being extended. Vertebrates have been confirmed in the early Cambrian. Pollen fossils have been found in Precambrian strata although it was claimed that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. Grass was not supposed to have evolved until millions of years after the end of the dinosaurs but traces of grass have been found in fossilized dinosaur coprolites (dung). Ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Picture T. Rex stomping along with a duck flying overhead. Perhaps that Precambrian rabbit will soon appear.

Similarly there are many living fossils, animals and plants that were thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago. Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine, a rodent called Laonastes aenigmamus , and a sponge called Nucha vancouverensis are examples.

There are several mechanisms that separately and together could provide a Creationist explanation for the sequence in the fossil record.
● Ecological zonation
● Differential escape
● Hydrodynamic sorting
● Biogeographic provincialism

The Flood was a big event covering different phases and and effecting different habitats and landforms at different times. It is unlikely that one mechanism would explain all the fossilisation that has occurred. Tas Walker has proposed that the flood could be 5 phases. Most fossils would have been produced during the inundatory phases.
● Inundatory, Eruptive
● Inundatory, Ascending
● Inundatory,Zenethic
● Recessive, Abative
● Recessive Dispersive

Why don't we find mammals underneath Trilobite bearing layers? Because Trilobites lived on the bottom of the ocean and very few mammals lived underneath them. The Trilobites were probably buried early in the flood where they lived so mammal fossils had no opportunity to form underneath them. I saw a show on TV some time ago which said many Trilobite fossils were in contorted positions consistent with being buried alive.

We can also ask how well the fossil record supports the [neo-]Darwinian evolutionary model. Darwin said that according to his theory there should be many finely graded intermediate types but admitted that these did not appear in the fossil record. Darwin hoped that future discoveries would fill in the gaps. Over 100 years later Gould admitted the lack of transitional forms was “the trade secret of paleontology”, and he and Eldridge came up with Punctuated Equilibrium to explain this. This theory has not been a success. Transitional fossils are still missing.

Edited by Admin, : Put excerpt from NCSE inside a quote box, make into a link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2017 2:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 864 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2017 9:45 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 867 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 10:40 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 868 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-11-2017 11:15 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 869 by edge, posted 05-11-2017 11:33 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 870 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2017 11:37 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 900 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2017 3:35 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 864 of 1352 (808506)
05-11-2017 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Transitional fossils
Transitional fossils are still missing.

Why do you keep repeating this false creationist talking point? It is false, and repetition won't make it true no matter how many times it is repeated.

Here are some links, each of which contains many transitional fossils:

https://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 865 of 1352 (808508)
05-11-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 842 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:02 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

The strata that make up what is traditionally called the Geological Column, that also is the basis of the Geological Time Scale, covers HUGE amounts of territory, huge, some of them whole continents -- such as the layer called St. Peter Sandstone -- climbing two miles in some cases.

But that's not true. The St. Peter Sandstone does not cover the entire NA continent. Why lie about it?

There are no worldwide flood layers. There aren't even flood layers that cover a single landmass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:36 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 866 of 1352 (808509)
05-11-2017 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 851 by Faith
05-10-2017 10:04 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

Beecuzz they are buried usually in families within very thick flat sedimentary rocks stacked very very neatly and very deep under ideal conditions for fossilization, and not buried willy nilly.

Where is there any evidence for this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 10:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7282
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 867 of 1352 (808510)
05-11-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
CRR writes:

Fossils have turned up in the gwrongh place many times and this continues today.

Every time I have seen a creationist try to back this claim with evidence it just falls apart.

Creationists can't explain why there is a correlation between the type of fossils and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks that surround them. That's because creationists are wrong.

There are several mechanisms that separately and together could provide a Creationist explanation for the sequence in the fossil record.
œ Ecological zonation
œ Differential escape
œ Hydrodynamic sorting
œ Biogeographic provincialism

I have yet to see a single creationist explain how these mechanisms would produce the fossil record that we see. I don't understand how they can even write such things and feel they are being honest.

Do you have any interest in actually showing how these mechanisms would produce the fossil record? Probably not, right? Your only intent is to throw something out into the world to make it look like you have an answer when you know you don't. It is as dishonest as it gets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1593
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 868 of 1352 (808525)
05-11-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Pollen fossils have been found in Precambrian strata although it was claimed that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era.

Can you document this?

Grass was not supposed to have evolved until millions of years after the end of the dinosaurs but traces of grass have been found in fossilized dinosaur coprolites (dung).

Can you document this?

Ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees.

Can you document this?

And when I ask about documentation I mean publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. These sorts of finds would cause a lot of excitement in paleontological circles as well as other scientific groups and would make the finders quite famous. I would think it would be written up in more general scientific publications like Scientific American, also.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 869 of 1352 (808526)
05-11-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
It is interesting how your first statement from NCSE demolishes the YEC arguments you make even before you make them.

But, let's look at a few things you say.

The fossil sequence is indeed an interesting question. Have out of sequence fossils ever been found?

Out of sequence, no. Of an extended range yes. That is the nature of discovery. However, the likelihood of finding a Cambrian mammal is more remote every day.

Or, has evolution made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries?

Yes, see 'tiktaalik'.

Fossils have turned up in the “wrong” place many times and this continues today.

Please document. What do you mean by 'even today'? The problem being?

This leads to the range of fossils often being extended.

And this is a problem?

Vertebrates have been confirmed in the early Cambrian.

You realize that 'vertebrate' is kind of a broad category, don't you? Why not discuss giraffes, or trout?

Pollen fossils have been found in Precambrian strata although it was claimed that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era.

Please document. Are you talking about the modern pollen grains found in the Hakatai Shale?

Grass was not supposed to have evolved until millions of years after the end of the dinosaurs but traces of grass have been found in fossilized dinosaur coprolites (dung).

Again, please document. I have personally seen grass fossils in 50myo rocks and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they occurred in the Cretaceous.

Ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Picture T. Rex stomping along with a duck flying overhead.

Please document. I am skeptical, though it is known that some mammals did exist during the Cretaceous period. They were not, however, livestock or lions.

Perhaps that Precambrian rabbit will soon appear.

Well, get to work.

(Oh, wait! Silly me ... 'field work' is not a YEC strong point).

Similarly there are many living fossils, animals and plants that were thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago. Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine, a rodent called Laonastes aenigmamus , and a sponge called Nucha vancouverensis are examples.

Yes, some of members of old taxa remain, however, they are known to be different from the older species. This is not shocking.

There are several mechanisms that separately and together could provide a Creationist explanation for the sequence in the fossil record.
● Ecological zonation
● Differential escape
● Hydrodynamic sorting
● Biogeographic provincialism

So, are you saying that Devonian swamps (an ecological zone) had the same flora and fauna of modern swamps?

And just how did maple trees escape along with mammals and humans to higher ground, leaving no ancestors behind?

And why would a large dinosaur be hydrodynamically sorted from a large modern mammal such as an elephant?

And finally, where can we find the mammoth biogeographic province in Triassic time?

These arguments just don't float.

I snip the rest of your post for the purpose of brevity, but I hope you can get the gist of your problems with the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by JonF, posted 05-11-2017 12:51 PM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(4)
Message 870 of 1352 (808527)
05-11-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Trilobites
quote:

Why don't we find mammals underneath Trilobite bearing layers? Because Trilobites lived on the bottom of the ocean and very few mammals lived underneath them. The Trilobites were probably buried early in the flood where they lived so mammal fossils had no opportunity to form underneath them.

Let us refine the question a little more and ask why we find no trilobites after the end of the Permian.

Is it true that trilobites all lived "on the bottom of the ocean" ? (No)

The trilobites were a diverse and widespread group, so we should ask if it is true that we find no fossils from the seabed after the Permian. (Of course not)

And since the trilobites were a large, diverse and long-lived group - and commonly found as fossils we should also ask whether there is an order to the trilobite fossils. (Yes, there is)

Interested laymen should read Richard Fortey's Trlobite!: Eyewitness to Evolution - Fortey is one of the leading experts in trilobites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5657
58
5960
...
91NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017