|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
... and Saint Sterno of the 17th Century ... Just to be pedantic, he's been beatified but not canonized, so that would be "the Blessed Nicholas Steno". --- Here's Da Vinci on fossil shells.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
DP.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your guesses at what other people think have been so ludicrously stupid and wrong lately that perhaps you should stop guessing what people think and start asking them instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Okay, let's spell it out.
Water flows downwards. Creationst "flood geology" is crap because it ignores this simple fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have been reading this thread as flood geology is fascinating for me, and it seems that what hasn't been brought up is that the flood doctrine usually states that mountains were formed after the flood. So this "flood doctrine" involves denying Genesis 7:19 and 8:4, both of which mention the existence of mountains?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As per the thread topic, more important is whether a preflood planet earth as well as it's atmosphere would have been different than it is today. Imo that is the big question as to the accuracy of dating methodology. If you have any evidence that a different atmosphere would change the half-lives of radioactive isotopes, now would be a great time to present it. If you have any evidence for this different atmosphere, or for the flood, that would be nice too. If, on the other hand, all you have is a bunch of ad hoc arguments and wishful thinking --- then you might be a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. I wonder what you think the words "face value" mean.
How do you explain the same evidence? Using a science known as "geology".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've told you about this before. You are making elliptical remarks about the fantasy world in your head. Those of us who live in the real world cannot follow this, because we have no idea to what you are referring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. What do you think "at face value" means? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How did "plate tectonics" place seashells on mountain tops? Remeber that the shells are, strictly speaking, in mountains, not on them. This is the result of the observable processes of sedimentation and uplift.
The Flood is a better explanation. You have yet to explain how a magic catastrophic flood washes seashells up mountains and then puts them inside the mountain without in any way disturbing their natural positions.
Look at the geologic strata of the world, causes: catastrophes of flooding. All layers represent a flood of some sort. Unless you believe people who actually study rocks, who know that you're talking rubbish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Using logic and reasoning all I can offer as a layman is that a greenhouse canopy type atmosphere would have had different properties than ours which would likely affect the whole ecosystem of the planet which in turn would likely render modern dating methodoly inaccurate. Making stuff up, based on no evidence, about subjects of which you are ignorant is not the same as "using logic and reasoning". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Unless, of course, there was a Biblical flood to do the major uplifting relative suddenly, subsequently gradually slowing as time passes. Why a Biblical flood, rather than a team of winged pigs or a geological uplift fairy? Or, hey, why not real processes which exist, which we can observe, and the action of which is confirmed by the evidence.
There again though that's applying reason and logic to what we observe and that's not recognized by conventional science. Scientists certainly never apply what you call reason and logic. This is because they use actual reason and logic. Oh, and evidence. Remember evidence? It's that stuff people can supply for claims which are actually true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1. What is your soarce of winged pigs and/or an uplift fairy. They're impossible myths contrary to the law of nature for which there is no evidence. Like the magic flood.
2. If even have a source, what corroborating evidence do you have that your source has any credibility? Same as you. Stuff I made up.
3. Is there any geological observable evidence that something other than tectonic activity caused the uplift? None whatsoever, hence my rejection of claims that it was caused by a magic flood.
What do you do with the corroborative evidence of the credibility of the Biblical historical record? Ask to see it. Since there is no corroborative evidence for the bits of the Bible I'm disputing, this conversation is usually quite short. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1. Until some qualified flood geologists come on board for you science educated folks to debate, about all I can offer is my own opinions ... You might as well say: "Until a qualified creationist mathematician comes on board and says that 2 + 2 = 5, I will go on offering my own opinion that 2 + 2 = 5." You assert that you will go on reciting rubbish until someone "qualified" in rubbishism comes along and agrees with your rubbish. Now, here's a thought. Perhaps you could stop reciting rubbish until someone "qualified" does agree with you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Jar, as I thought I made clear, you're not debating a scientist or geologist. You're debating logic and reason. So, you are attempting to apply what you call "logic and reason" to subjects of which you know sweet-bugger-all. How did you suppose that that was going to turn out, really? Even applying real logic and reason to those subjects wouldn't help you if you tried to apply them to subjects of which you know nothing. If you have any interest in what the word "logic" means, then I used to teach basic logic at the University of Leicester and would be happy to help you out. If, on the other hand, you wish to continue to apply the word "logic" to creationist gibble-gabble rather than to actual logic --- then I guess you're a creationist. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024