|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
sidelined writes: I am going to ask you to clarify what effect you think a pre flood earth and its atmosphere could have upon dating methodologies. 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. This would likely be the reason that humans lived multiple century lives as per the Biblical record. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Ringo, if the mountains rose as per Psalms 108 that means they were lower before they rose as per the ASV Bible which imo is the most accurate having been translated from the older manuscripts than the KJV.
Btw, being a layman, usage of the word "likely" is my disclaimer, so as not to be accused of acting like a know-it-all. Abe: We Bible-creos must be doubly careful, you know with the vast majority ever watchful for anything to nail us on. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add Sentence. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Ringo, if the mountains rose as per Psalms 108 that means they were lower before they rose as per the ASV Bible which imo is the most accurate having been translated from the older manuscripts than the KJV. And exactly what is your evidence that the mountains were lower or that the mountains rose or the model which explains either? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! 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. And where is your evidence there ever was a "greenhouse canopy type atmosphere" (whatever the hell that means) and the model that explains it? Where is the evidence that it would effect dating methods and the model that explains it?
This would likely be the reason that humans lived multiple century lives as per the Biblical record. Where is the evidence "that humans lived multiple century lives" and the model that explains it? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Nuggin writes: I like this term of yours "Flood sense". I think I'll use it.So, Buz, your hypothesis is that all the worlds big mountain ranges (particularly those with shells in and on them) were formed during the Flood. Therefore, they should all the same age. Thus, they should all have the same types of fossils on/in them. And, those comprised of the same materials should show the exact same amount of erosion. Right? I mean, that all makes sense. I don't know if it makes "Flood sense" Hi Nuggin. I checked around and see that this problem arises with both ideologies. I found a site which may offer some reasons for dating variations relative to contamination within the same fossil beds. The following paragraph is taken from the site but there's a lot more at the site relative to this:
The Galley Hill Skeleton was found 8 feet deep in gravels at Swanscombe, Kent, in 1888. The gravels are Middle Pleistocene, that is to say of early palaeolithic age; and there has been a long con[2]troversy as to whether the human bones had been naturally buried in the gravels when they were laid down by the Thames, a quarter of a million years ago, or whether they had been buried artificially at a comparatively recent date. We collected a number of fossil animal bones from these early palaeolithic gravels, a number from later palaeolithic (i.e. Upper Pleistocene) deposits in neighbouring pits, and some from recent deposits, including part of a Saxon skeleton. These were analysed in the Government Laboratory and it was found that all the undoubted early palaeolithic bones contained around 2 per cent. fluorine, the later palaeolithic around 1 per cent., and those from recent deposits 0.3 per cent. or less, down to 0.05 per cent. Some spare scraps of the Galley Hill Man had been left in the Museum Collection by one of the original investigators, and we submitted these for analysis. They showed around 0.3 per cent. fluorine. Yet the skeleton had been found in gravels in which the genuine fossil animal bones show 2 per cent. fluorine. Clearly the skeleton is not a quarter of a million years old as has been alleged, but is a comparatively recent burial, almost certainly less than 10,000 years old. http://www.clarku.edu/...n/map_expose/someapps_flourine.html BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I found a site which may offer some reasons for dating variations relative to contamination within the same fossil beds. Buz, let's assume that your source is 100% correct and that there is MASSIVE flourine contamination screwing up all the dates. How does the flourine know to disolve only the dinosaur fossils in one bed and only the megafaunal in another? Flood theory states that the vast majority of these fossils were created in one cataclismic event, wiping out all the animals alive at the time (save those on the ark). So why don't we see any mixing at all of the bones? Never dinos (big or small) with pleisto mammals (big or small). And, why is your quote from a link which has "piltdown" in the name?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Jar, likely you will agree that the mountains were uplifted via tectonic activity relative to movement/collision of tectonic plates which formed the planet's present morphology. Is that correct?
If that is the case, the question is what caused the movement and uplift due to the plate collision etc. We Bible-creos go with the Bibical historical record as we apply reason and logic factoring in all the corroborating data that gives us reason to lend credence to that record. That historical record factors in a global flood. This topic is not about plate tectonics perse, so don't expect me to digress into that topic to any significant extent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jar, likely you will agree that the mountains were uplifted via tectonic activity relative to movement/collision of tectonic plates which formed the planet's present morphology. Is that correct? Slowly, very slowly as we have seen.
If that is the case, the question is what caused the movement and uplift due to the plate collision etc. No Buz, that is not the question. We have a model that fully explains what is seen.
We Bible-creos go with the Bibical historical record as we apply reason and logic factoring in all the corroborating data that gives us reason to lend credence to that record. That historical record factors in a global flood. This topic is not about plate tectonics perse, so don't expect me to digress into that topic to any significant extent. That is the model you MUST supply. If as usual you simply refuse to supply the model that explains how you create all them mountains in just a year, you as usual, have nothing. So once again Buz, where is the model? What are the specifics? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: And where is your evidence there ever was a "greenhouse canopy type atmosphere" (whatever the hell that means) and the model that explains it? Where is the evidence that it would effect dating methods and the model that explains it? Where is the evidence "that humans lived multiple century lives" and the model that explains it? I said I apply reason and logic to all the corroborating evidence for the Biblical historical record. Since you vehemently deny that we Bible-creos use reason and logic, there's no logical reason for us to discuss it. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
ar, likely you will agree that the mountains were uplifted via tectonic activity relative to movement/collision of tectonic plates which formed the planet's present morphology. Is that correct? If that is the case, the question is what caused the movement and uplift due to the plate collision etc. Okay, Buz, let's look at this. Both sides agree that plate tec caused uplift causing the mountains. Both sides disagree about dating methods. Jar says it happened loooong ago. You say it happened as the result of the Flood. I happen to agree with Jar, so I'm going to ask you for clarification about the timeline of events. My understanding is this:1) World exists, all the animals and people walking around - almost no fossils are left behind. 2) Flood happens, everything is killed and 99% of the fossils we see today are created. 3) Uplift happens resulting in seashells on top of mountains. For your theory to work, there needs to be enough time for the fossils to be created by the initial flood prior to the uplift occuring. Right? If the uplift occured instantly, there would be no sediment or pressure on the seashells to form the fossils on top of the mountains. They would have been the first things out of the water. So, since there was time for fossils to be laid down prior to the uplift occuring, why don't we see any mixing of fossils? Anywhere? Ever? Why aren't there fossils of the animals killed in the flood mixed in with the seashells? I don't mean an even distribution mind you. Obviously it's going to be haphazard. But, even haphazardly, we'd expect to find 1 mammal mixed in with the seashells, right? How does your theory for uplift also account for the sorting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I said I apply reason and logic to all the corroborating evidence for the Biblical historical record. Since you vehemently deny that we Bible-creos use reason and logic, there's no logical reason for us to discuss it. So you keep asserting. So since you claim to use reason and logic and all the corroborating evidence , here is your opportunity to present your model. What is needed is a model that explains ALL of the evidence seen. And where is your evidence there ever was a "greenhouse canopy type atmosphere" (whatever the hell that means) and the model that explains it? Where is the evidence that it would effect dating methods and the model that explains it? Where is the evidence "that humans lived multiple century lives" and the model that explains it? Waiting for the model Buz. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2519 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I said I apply reason and logic to all the corroborating evidence for the Biblical historical record. Buz, I have to disagree with you here. There are two competing ideas here. Jar's idea states "this rock is X old because the rate of decay (based on observable rate of decay) says it is that old." His theory makes one assumption - that the rate of decay is stable (as has been observed) You idea states: "This rock is Y old because the rate of decay is not stable." That calls for evidence of an unstable rate of decay.Your answer to this is: "In the past things may have been different than they are today." That in and of itself calls for evidence, this time to prove that things in the past were different.To that you have no answer, it's just a theory. Your theory is no more valid than this theory:The rock that Jar has is MUCH OLDER than Jar thinks because the rate of decay was different in the past. If you feel that you've come to a logical conclusion, you have to admit that this last theory is equally logical and equally valid. Therefore, it's just as possible that the world is 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years old as 6,000.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Slowly, very slowly as we have seen. Unless, of course, there was a Biblical flood to do the major uplifting relative suddenly, subsequently gradually slowing as time passes. There again though that's applying reason and logic to what we observe and that's not recognized by conventional science. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Bathtime, bedtime and church on Sabbath. So long.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024