Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
38 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, PurpleYouko, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,962 Year: 20,998/19,786 Month: 1,395/2,023 Week: 346/557 Day: 39/47 Hour: 1/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 181 of 372 (418956)
08-31-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 9:33 AM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
Hi Refpunk,

Iceage, to whom you didn't reply, was kind enough to provide more complete information about the definition of sediment:

quote:

sed·i·ment (sĕd'ə-mənt) pronunciation
n.
1. Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid;
2. Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice.

Obviously you would have found both these definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary, and it is the second definition that you want when discussing geology.

Thus, no scientists believe that the planet's sediments came from a worldwide tsunami or a giant ice melt, because such possibilities are not consistent with the evidence.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Formatting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 9:33 AM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:31 AM Percy has responded

Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 182 of 372 (418969)
08-31-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Percy
08-31-2007 10:06 AM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
You put those definitions together and the conclusion is simple and obvious, as the truth always is: The sediment that settled to the bottom of water was thus carried to rocks by water or wind. And since no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.

So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood and trying to change history in the process which can never be done because one cannot go back and change what people claimed happened. Never.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 08-31-2007 10:06 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 08-31-2007 11:39 AM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 184 by The Matt, posted 08-31-2007 11:53 AM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2007 1:43 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18996
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 183 of 372 (418996)
08-31-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
Refpunk writes:

You put those definitions together...

You don't really want to combine those definitions. The first definition, "Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid," is what gathers at the bottom of your glass of fresh squeezed orange juice.

The second definition, "Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice," is the one from geology and is the one you want to use in this discussion.

The sediment that settled to the bottom of water was thus carried to rocks by water or wind.

Yes, absolutely correct. Scientists believe that sedimentary layers in the past formed the same way they do today. The products of erosion in upland regions are carried to lowland regions, and to ponds, lakes and seas, by wind, rain, streams and rivers. Sedimentary layers can accumulate to great depths, such as happens at the mouths of mighty rivers like the Mississippi, where the sediment depth is several miles.

The differences in sedimentary layers are due to differences in the products of erosion. For example, if a mountain range consisting largely of granite were located near a shallow sea, then the sediments that collect in the shallow sea would include eroded granite. On the other hand, if the region were largely desert, then the nearby sea would receive primarily sandy sediments. Because regions change over time, the type of sediments that are deposited also change over time, and that's why sedimentary rock appears in layers of different appearance, oftentimes strikingly so.

This is what scientists actually believe about the formation of sedimentary deposits. They do not believe they were formed by a worldwide tsunami or a giant ice melt. Keep in mind that such events would be hugely catastrophic, and while scientists understand that catastrophes do contribute to world geology, the evidence of the sedimentary layers indicates that in most cases they were deposited gradually over long periods of time, in pretty much the same way as we see happening today.

So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood...

Scientists don't so much deny a global flood as formulate theories around existing evidence. The evidence of the geological layers, fossils, magnetic reversals, sea floor striping and radiometric dating all pretty much rules out the possibility of a global flood as responsible for world geology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:31 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

The Matt
Member (Idle past 3863 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 184 of 372 (418999)
08-31-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.

You seem to be making two erroneous assumptions here:
Firstly, you assume ALL sediment must be deposited by either wind OR water with no compromise. Why do you think that there can be no windblown sediment at all, especially when the evidence is to the contrary? Look at the earth today: You can see vast areas accumulating windblown sediment e.g. dunefields, and vast areas accumulating river and marine sediment e.g. floodplains, deltas and shallow seas. Why not in the past?

Secondly, you assume that one event has to have deposited all of the sedimentary rocks in the world. Why?

So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood

Actually, when you study geology in any serious way it becomes incredibly easy based of the fact that none of the evidence we see points to such a flood. Your support of a global flood seems to stem from complete and total ignorance of any geology. Why don't you try picking up a textbook and figure out what geology actually teaches. Until you do, as far as I'm concerned this discussion can get absolutely nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:31 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 185 of 372 (419033)
08-31-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 10:31 AM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
You put those definitions together and the conclusion is simple and obvious, as the truth always is: The sediment that settled to the bottom of water was thus carried to rocks by water or wind. And since no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.

That was weird. That lack of a single global windstorm does not mean that there was never any wind, or that wind has played no part in geology.

How did this weird notion get into your head?

Nor is a universal magic flood required for deposition of sediment by water. We can see sediment being deposited by non-magical means all the time.

So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood and trying to change history in the process which can never be done because one cannot go back and change what people claimed happened. Never.

It takes very little effort to disprove the myth of the global flood, especially when you guys claim it was the source of all sedimentary rocks. It's like shooting fish in a barrrel.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 10:31 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 186 of 372 (419037)
08-31-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:14 PM


And which of these "theories" were all consistent with one another like the flood story is?

Most made-up stories are usually consistent with themselves, just not with reality.

There is, for example, no internal inconsistency in Cinderella.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:14 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1919 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 187 of 372 (419040)
08-31-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:14 PM


Refpunk:
And which of these "theories" were all consistent with one another like the flood story is?

These aren't theories. These are ancient stories, just like the flood story is. In this case we are talking about stories in which human beings have animal ancestors.

These tales are as internally consistent as the flood story is, for the reason Dr Adequate just noted.

If you really believe ancient folk tales are important sources of scientific information, as you say, you will now begin seriously entertaining the possibility that human beings had animal ancestors.

And, of course, being the earnest truth-seeker that you are, you will do your best to learn more about the many folk tales that exist in the world before dismissing any of them unheard. You want to glean them for the information they have to offer.

It's a fascinating area of study. I wish you well in your research.

___

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:14 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1945
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 188 of 372 (419339)
09-02-2007 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 8:45 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
refpunk writes:

The theory of evolution is so absurd that it's an embarrassment to people who call themselves educated.

You can't simply walk into a college classroom and call everyone idiots without showing some support for your own assertions. It appears that they have restricted your posting privileges, but if you want to have a Great Debate with me, than thats fine. You choose the topic, but keep in mind that I am more of a Faith/Belief guy than a Science one.



What Is A Discussion Board Anyway?

  • New Topics should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Keep them short and don't attempt to explain your entire point in the first post. Allow others to respond so that you can expand your discussion.
  • If you are warned by an administrator or moderator for any reason that is not explained in the Forum Guidelines you can argue your case here.
  • If you are not promoted, feel free to discuss your reasons with the administrator in the Proposed New Topics Forum who responded to your topic proposal. Feel free to edit and modify your topic and inform the administrator that you have done so.
    You may also take your argument here and get feedback from other administrators.
    Usually, we leave topic promotion to the first administrator that responds, unless that administrator invites others to comment.

    ************************************
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 135 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:45 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

    Repzion
    Member (Idle past 3739 days)
    Posts: 22
    From: Renton,Wa
    Joined: 12-04-2006


    Message 189 of 372 (419990)
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    I'm backs. =)

    quote:
    54. Non-viable size of genetic population – A parent population of one or even seven pairs of animals is not genetically viable. Such inbreeding quickly causes fatal mutations.

    You destroyed the African Eve theory, the theory of evolution and the theory that all life came from one cell with one statement! If a parent population of one or even seven pairs of animals would quickly causes fatal mutations how do evolutionists explain all the animals that are alive on earth today without invoking divine intervention????? I implore anyone who is debating against the validity of a global flood: don't make this assertion or be prepared to explain it in light of abiogenesis and evolution.

    quote:
    1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

    Hills and rock formations would have settled and been compacted during the flood to some degree due to the pressure of being under water. When mountains and other geological structures were raised up some rock formations were tilted and as waves of water went over them some earth would have been eroded and more earth from other sources would have been deposited by more wave action. In the case of the Grand Canyon the flood may have not caused the Canyon itself although there are fossils of sea creatures there. Some people believe it was from an ancient lake when a dam burst but I haven’t looked into it. On creationwiki.org there is a response to an article about the Grand Canyon on talk origins which mentions angular unconformities

    http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon_was_carved_by_retreating_Flood_waters

    There's also a topic on the evc board about angular unconformities that I read.

    www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=190&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=190&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=190&m=1

    On post 6 the poster says

    quote:
    "You can expand angular unconformities to ANY kind of cross cutting relationship and get a problem for both a flood model and a young earth.
    My favorite happens to be rock strain especially with fossils. If I was at home I could look up some pictures. I remember seeing some where a fossil as BENT with the curve of the rock that was horizontally compressed.”

    Fossils are not a problem for the flood model. How were these creatures fossilized if the sediments were laid down over millions of years? He also mentions brachiopods which are marine creatures. I wonder how many angular conformities contain limestone. I found something here but can't copy and paste it.

    http://www.geol.uniovi.es/TDG/Volumen21/TG21-30.PDF
    (Search angular conformity and see page 14 – Comparison with the Revilla Nappe)

    quote:
    2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.

    The poster uses the phrase "intentionally misapplied" because when rocks that are known to be young have been dated with the potassium argon method they give dates that are way off. It cannot be observed that the dates given for rocks are close to the actual ages.

    I don't trust the results of radiometric dating. Carbon Dating results depends on factors like a constant rate of decay and no changes in the atmosphere that would affect the C14/C12 ratios. See The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods

    There is a good summary of the problem in a paper called Radiocarbon: Ages in Error from the Anthropological Journal of Canada Limitations and Usefulness of Rio Carbon Dating (see Problems With Radiocarbon Dating)

    In the late 1990's samples of volcanic rock from New Zealand were sent to laboratories to be dated using the potassium-argon method. The oldest sample was about fifty years old and the rocks were dated from hundreds of thousands of years old to more than two million years old. Samples from a lave dome on Mt. St. Helen were dated between .35-2.8 million years using the potassium-argon method. Hualalai basalt from Hawaii known to have been formed from 1800-1801 was dated at about 1.6 million years old. There are other examples like basalt from Mt. Etna that was formed in 1792 and dated at 350,000 years old. Then there's KNM-ER 1470, a modern looking skull found by Richard Leakey in 1972. It was originally dated at 2.9 million years and eventually at 1.9 million years.

    On talk origins they try to explain the dinosaur that Mary Schweitzer found by interviewing her colleague who said "No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red blood cells have been hypothesized on the basis of heme, a kind of iron produced biologically."

    Besides iron heme contains oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. I would like for scientists to carbon date the heme and soft tissue in that fossilized dinosaur. There is a lot to research to do hear and I would look for rocks that have been dated using different methods giving dates that are far apart. There are as many links as you would probably ever want on radiometric dating at. Take a look =)Thttp://nwcreation.net/agedatinglinks.html

    quote:
    3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

    Fossils are a result of rapid burial and removal from oxygen. The record indicates mass extinction which evolutionary scientists try to attribute to several extinction events. One wouldn’t expect flowering plants in the Cambrian since these were sea creatures unless they were forced into an area where they were buried together. Two things to be considered are ecological and biogeographic zonation. Secondly, if many transitional fossils have been lost due to erosion over hundreds of millions of years and more creatures have been fossilized due to catastrophic conditions I'm surprised that there haven't been more fossils of creatures from a later era discovered with those of an earlier era.

    quote:
    7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can't reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.

    We don't believe there was more than one ice age besides the "little ice age" or a similar event. The oxygen isotopes ratios depend on there being consistent annual layers – uniformitarianism.

    The difference between the old flow model and the young earth model is the former assumes the ice sheets have been forming at a consistent rate for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Again this depends on the uniformitarian position and the assumption the ice sheet has been in equilibrium for a very long period of time. Heres an article about rapid changes in oxygen isotope content of ice cores on icr.org.

    http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r02/

    quote:
    9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed

    I haven't researched this a lot, but the answer may be the same as the one above. Here are two quotes from "Geology", the first about deep sea cores:

    "Warming causes expansion of the seawater (sea-level rise); cooling results in contraction (sea- level fall). It has been estimated from oxygen isotope evidence in deep-sea cores that worldwide sea level has been 430-450 feet lower than today several times during the last 2-3 million years of earth history."
    (Geology Vol. 2, p. 390 edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press 1999)

    "The actual mechanism in the ocean basins is related to heat flow from the earth's interior at the mid-ocean ridges. As the ridges become more volcanically active, an increase in heat flow occurs; the high heat flow causes an increase in the elevation of the mid-ocean ridge. This increase in elevation causes a decrease in the volume of ocean basins, resulting in a transgression. As the volcanic activity decreases, heat flow decreases, and the elevation of the mid-ocean ridge drops so that volume of the ocean basins is increased. This results in a regression. Sea-level changes brought about by this process produce large-scale fluctuations resulting in the flooding of not only the continental shelves and the coastal plains but also the interiors of the continents. Much of the geologic record contains rocks deposited in seas in continental interiors. This process may result in transgressions where ancient sea-level could be as much as 300 meters above present sea level."
    (Geology Vol. 2, p. 649 edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press 1999)

    Do you see the problem here?

    quote:
    10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth's magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

    The question depends on the magnetic field having reverse polarity. This is something I haven’t researched but from my point of view it’s probably just another way of evolutionists trying to explain away an argument for a young earth. Given the lies they told me in school about evolution and knowing that it is a belief system – a philosophy - that many cling to, I have doubts about the magnetic field's reverse polarity. Plate tectonics does not invalidate a global flood, it’s a question of whether or not the continents have been drifting for millions of years or were separated and spread out over a much shorter time period.

    quote:
    31. Compression of all fossil life into too short a time period – If all species represented by fossils, coal, and petroleum from throughout the geologic record lived simultaneously, they would have been standing on each other, an ecological impossibility.

    SEriously...You’ve got to be kidding me! I’ve seen this type of statement before but haven’t seen the data to back it up. I’m sure there are studies which lend credence to the idea but taphonomy and pressure are necessary for the fossilization and coal and you can’t get carbon 14 out of 290 million year old coal.

    quote:
    39. Caverns – Caverns carved from dolomite such as exist in West Texas can’t form in as little as 4500 years

    Lets see some proof. Prove it. The poster ignores the dolomite problem.

    http://discovermagazine.com/1996/feb/thedolomiteprobl700

    http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1999/04.1999.01Arvidson.pdf

    I saw a quote in the 2 volume set "Geology" that said something like decaying vegetable matter in ground water produces carbonic acid. Carbonic acid reacts with calcite in dolomite rocks which causes the dissolution of dolomite forming caves. I’ve read of underwater caves that were formed quickly in the Mediterranean and in Northeastern U.S. (maybe New York).

    Along these lines is a good article at creationwiki.org

    http://creationwiki.org/Stalactites_and_Stalagmites

    quote:
    46. Delicate structures preserved in supposed turbulence – Delicate structures such as insect wings and feathers are preserved in rock. How could a turbulence that supposedly weathers miles of consolidated rock simultaneously preserve delicate structures?

    Because they were buried rapidly and removed from oxygen and protected from water. How could structures such as insect wings and feathers be preserved over hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years when they have to be buried quickly and removed from oxygen??? Delicate structures such as insect wings and feather would not be preserved if they weren’t trapped and the poster again misuses the phrase simultaneously.

    47. Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?[/quote]

    This is one of the worst arguments I've seen. Animals defecate every day and in a catastrophe some would lose control of their bodily functions. Let the poster explain how the feces was fossilized over millions of years of sedimentary deposits and why this process doesn’t occur today.

    quote:
    52. Lack of any geologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah's Flood, I know of no single piece of geologic evidence in favor of Noah's Flood.

    The process of fossilization, mass burial graveyards, fossils in sedimentary layers, the Burgess Shale, Joggins cliffs, dinosaurs with translucent blood vessels and soft tissue, carbon 14 in coal, the problem with the advancing seas theory, trilobite fossils in Canada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Arkansas, a fish fossilized giving birth, a fossil of a perch swallowing a herring, Whale fossils found miles inland and fossilized nautiloids in the Grand Canyon.

    quote:
    55. Food requirements of animals – Some animals such as Koalas require very specific diets. How could these dietary requirements been provided, and who could keep up with such variable requirements on a ship?

    Koalas may be descended from a species on the ark. Genesis 6:19-20 says "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” This is seen as a general command and the more specific command is found in Genesis 7:2 which says seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female…” Leviticus 11:27 says Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you..” Since Koalas walk on all fours and have paws they almost certainly descended from one of two pairs of animals on the ark.

    If Koalas evolved it would have been quite fortunate for them that they were in a region full of eucalyptus trees when they developed the ability to detect the toxicity levels of phenolic and terpene compounds in the leaves and also have the ability to remove the toxic components from their bodies.

    quote:
    56. Mobility considerations – How did sloths or other slow-moving animals get to any ark and how did they migrate from any ark without a trace in the time allotted?

    They walked. Any traces of animal migration would not be there because it was almost 5,000 years ago. I never understand this argument either and when it’s asked no information is given.

    quote:
    57. Symbiotic relationships – Several species have a sole source of nutrition. How did these creatures exist during or after a global flood?

    The question ignores what creationists teach; that many animals today descended from those on the ark nor does the poster attempt to explain what the animals were, what their sole source of food is, how they happened to evolved in the right location where that food was or what their food source was before they evolved to what they are now.

    quote:
    58. Parasites – Parasites require hosts in order to survive. Were all creatures on any ark hosts and how did they survive such parasitism?

    There probably weren't any creatures that were hosting parasites or the parasites were dormant. I haven’t thought about this much but suspect that there are zoos which have gone years at a time without any problems with parasites.

    quote:
    59. Diseases – Diseases that exist today require hosts to survive. How did all the infected animals survive simultaneously being hosts to every disease currently around?

    Again he presupposes that these animals were infected and had diseases. If an omniscient and omnipotent Creation can draw thousands of creatures to a certain location He can surely protect them from diseases.

    quote:
    61. Short-lived life forms – Mayflies only live a few days. How could they reproduce in a barge in a non-riparian environment?

    Again the assumption is that they existed at the time and are not a result of post flood speciation or could be preserved in certain conditions under the earth during a flood. I’m pretty sure there are mosquitoes that have survived flood waters and violent rain stroms though I don’t know how.

    quote:
    62. Life forms older than flood – The oldest bristlecone pines are 5700 years old, they can’t survive underwater for any appreciable amount of time.

    According to Wikipedia an ancient bristle Pine in the White Mountains of California is 4,700 years old and is the oldest living organism. Interestingly they give the date when Gilgamesh lived as 4,700 years ago but others give him a later date.

    quote:
    63. Vegetation – Neither most vegetation nor their seeds can survive under salt water. Nor can such vegetation root and thrive in salt encrusted 'soil' (which also largely didn’t exist immediately after any flood).

    Evolutionists try to dispute the story of the flood and claim that the salinity levels haven’t changed drastically. If this is the case then they are left to explain the advancing seas which deposited many marine fossils and layers of limestone all over the world.

    quote:
    69. Coccolithophores – How could these creatures that bloom, oversaturate their environment and then die off have created so many and such thick deposits in the geologic record in so little time during a turbulent flood? (credit to Lithodid-Man)

    Because they were buried quickly under other sediment and compacted forming limestone. Coquina is a form of limestone that contains fossilized shells and marble is formed from the metamorphism of limestone. Limestone comes from coccolithophores which would normally decay and it took great pressure to turn them into rock.

    quote:
    74. Lack of any biologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah's Flood, I know of no single piece of biologic evidence in favor of Noah's Flood.

    If the biological evidence depends on mitochondrial DNA and the PCR technique it's been shown to be suspect.

    quote:
    76. Amount of space – The amount of space provided by the Ark would not come near to enough to hold all species, genus, or even families observed today.

    Your correct however, but no one is claiming that all the species observed today existed at that time or that none of those that existed then are now extinct.

    I'll post more. That's just some stuff to work on for now

    Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 190 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 9:42 PM Repzion has responded
     Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 11:08 PM Repzion has not yet responded
     Message 192 by ringo, posted 09-05-2007 11:52 PM Repzion has not yet responded
     Message 193 by Vacate, posted 09-06-2007 12:09 AM Repzion has not yet responded
     Message 194 by iceage, posted 09-06-2007 12:34 AM Repzion has not yet responded
     Message 195 by Percy, posted 09-06-2007 1:20 AM Repzion has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20273
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.9


    Message 190 of 372 (420004)
    09-05-2007 9:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    Your Reply to Anglagard
    This is in reply to Message 46 yes?

    (re #54) You destroyed the African Eve theory, the theory of evolution and the theory that all life came from one cell with one statement!

    Nope, because the "common ancestor" concept does not mean there was a single individual, rather that there was a population of breeding organisms that shared the same basic genetics. It is more proper to refer to "common ancestor populations" to avoid this problem.

    And single cell life does not breed with others, but divides, so it is not restricted by inbreeding problems.

    I implore anyone who is debating against the validity of a global flood: don't make this assertion or be prepared to explain it in light of abiogenesis and evolution.

    Why? You haven't answered the question at all. You do realize that proving (X) wrong does not make (Y) correct don't you?

    Dodging the question like this does not answer it in any way.

    I don't trust the results of radiometric dating. Carbon Dating results depends on factors like a constant rate of decay and no changes in the atmosphere that would affect the C14/C12 ratios. See The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods

    No link to your source. I'd be happy to discuss this on a dedicated thread.

    I'll let others deal with the other "responses" (mostly ad hoc excuses than real responses).

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : added


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 196 by Repzion, posted 09-07-2007 8:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 16107
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 7.3


    Message 191 of 372 (420030)
    09-05-2007 11:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    Wow, it's like a whole anthology of wrong.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has not yet responded

    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17578
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.2


    Message 192 of 372 (420041)
    09-05-2007 11:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    Rezion writes:

    If an omniscient and omnipotent Creation can draw thousands of creatures to a certain location He can surely protect them from diseases.

    You miss the point. What protected the diseases? Why do we still have diseases today? Why weren't they all wiped out by the flood?


    “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
    -------------
    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has not yet responded

    Vacate
    Member (Idle past 2922 days)
    Posts: 565
    Joined: 10-01-2006


    Message 193 of 372 (420044)
    09-06-2007 12:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    I'm surprised that there haven't been more fossils of creatures from a later era discovered with those of an earlier era.

    *emphasis mine*

    Can you document even one?

    The difference between the old flow model and the young earth model is the former assumes the ice sheets have been forming at a consistent rate for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

    And your model assumes hundreds of thousands of changing seasons in a single year. Do you see any problems with this?

    I have doubts about the magnetic field's reverse polarity

    The rocks don't. The scientists who study the rocks don't.

    This is something I haven’t researched but from my point of view it’s probably just another way of evolutionists trying to explain away an argument for a young earth.

    Ah yes, its easier to make up a conspiracy than it is to use a search engine.

    I’ve read of underwater caves that were formed quickly in the Mediterranean and in Northeastern U.S. (maybe New York).

    Who was it that researched these caves and said they formed quickly? Geologists? Have you looked into what they call quick?

    How could structures such as insect wings and feathers be preserved over hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years when they have to be buried quickly and removed from oxygen???

    Perhaps they where buried quickly and removed from oxygen? Do you think your flood model is the only model where things can happen fast? The term you are after is "localized flooding".

    dinosaurs with translucent blood vessels and soft tissue

    No need to supply your source, thanks for the laugh.

    trilobite fossils in Canada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Arkansas

    Wierd how they have never found anything else isn't it? Its like at that time there was no mammals, dinosaurs, fish, birds, etc

    a fish fossilized giving birth, a fossil of a perch swallowing a herring

    I saw a dead deer with a mouth full of grass once. I didn't catch the second flood though, I must have been up high enough.

    I haven’t thought about this much but suspect that there are zoos which have gone years at a time without any problems with parasites.

    True, but is that zoo the only source of life on the planet. Its not really like the Ark then is it?

    I’m pretty sure there are mosquitoes that have survived flood waters and violent rain stroms though I don’t know how.

    Wasn't the flood meant to kill everything?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has not yet responded

    iceage 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
    Posts: 1024
    From: Pacific Northwest
    Joined: 09-08-2003


    Message 194 of 372 (420053)
    09-06-2007 12:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    Angular Unconformities
    1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

    Rapzion writes:

    Hills and rock formations would have settled and been compacted during the flood to some degree due to the pressure of being under water.

    This is complete nonsense. The pressure due to water is insignificant of the pressure due to rock. Go take as ocean floor sample 5 miles from surface you will find soft mud.

    Repzion writes:

    When mountains and other geological structures were raised up some rock formations were tilted and as waves of water went over them some earth would have been eroded and more earth from other sources would have been deposited by more wave action.

    This is further nonsense. First mountains around the world are of various ages. Second the material in angular unconformities is cemented (lithofied) and in many cases metamorphosed. This requires high pressure, heat and time, not hydrostatic pressure.

    Repzion writes:

    In the case of the Grand Canyon the flood may have not caused the Canyon itself although there are fossils of sea creatures there.

    And tracks of terrestrial animals, eolian dunes, rain drops, etc.

    Repzion writes:

    Some people believe it was from an ancient lake when a dam burst but I haven’t looked into it.

    At the bottom of the Grand Canyon is a huge Angular Unconformity. How does your model build this...


    Click to enlarge

    Repzion writes:

    On creationwiki.org there is a response to an article about the Grand Canyon on talk origins which mentions angular unconformities

    With a completely inadequate and absurd response. Go read their response

    creationwiki writes:

    The angular unconformity could result form the sediment being laid down at an angle and simply sloped at this point, or it could have been pushed up after being laid down and eroded by changing currents or tidal changes. This could have occurred during the Flood, but before the overlaying sediment was laid down.

    The Vishnu group that forms the foundation to this unconformity consists of high-grade metamorphic rocks (gneiss,schist,quartzite) that requires high heat, high pressure and time. The Vishnu group also has intrusive dikes of younger granite and pegmatite.

    If you can't describe how a flood could create an angular unconformity forget about trying to explain the rest.

    Angular unconformities falsify a flood all on their own.


    Click to enlarge

    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has not yet responded

    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 18996
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.4


    Message 195 of 372 (420072)
    09-06-2007 1:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 189 by Repzion
    09-05-2007 9:01 PM


    For those attempting to follow along, Repzion is responding to Message 46 from Anglagard.

    With potentially 52 different (though flood-related) topics to discuss, I don't see how this thread could avoid becoming a mess, plus it's already 2/3 of the way to the 300 message limit. It might be a good idea to focus on just one or a very few topics. I vote for angular unconformities.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by Repzion, posted 09-05-2007 9:01 PM Repzion has not yet responded

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019