Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
39 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, RAZD (7 members, 32 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,390 Year: 20,426/19,786 Month: 823/2,023 Week: 331/392 Day: 21/41 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 96 (463541)
04-18-2008 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
04-17-2008 9:39 PM


Re: Smooth earth!
Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:
My model does not feature a completely smooth earth. It features a far smoother earth surface than post flood but the mountains would be more like foothills post flood with relatively shallow oceans preflood.

Irrelevant. If there is any dry land anywhere, then it is geometrically impossible to flood the earth. That's the entire point behind there being dry land: There isn't enough water to cover it. If there were, then it would be flooded.

Plus, you seem to have completely ignored Message 41 of this very thread where I directly spoke to you about the energy required to move mountains.

Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to raise a mass the size of the continents? Assuming a roughly conical shape, Mt. Everest is about 72 km in diameter at its base and is about 9 km tall. That gives a volume of about 12,000 cubic km. It's made up primarily of marble which has a density of about 2,500 kg/m^3 which gives Mt. Everest a weight of about 3x10^17 kg.

Thus, to raise Mt. Everest by one meter would require on the order of 3x10^17 Joules of energy. That's 300,000 TJ (tera-Joules).

The largest nuclear explosion was about 250,000 TJ.

And since energy cannot be converted entirely to work, it's going to take much more than that to actually move the mountain. And all that extra energy will be bled out as heat.

The surface of the planet would have liquified and the water would have boiled away.

So you've got the water condensing and liquifying the surface of the earth due to the heat transfer and then you've got the tectonic activity liquifying the surface of the earth due to the energy required to move it around.

And you think a wooden boat could survive afloat on a global ocean of lava?

Why is it that we know all of the physics behind what you are suggesting and you don't? I'm still waiting for the answer to my question posed directly to you:

Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.

Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2008 9:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 3:55 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 77 of 96 (463543)
04-18-2008 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
04-17-2008 9:24 PM


Re: Pause
quote:

Of course, what is considered reliable on the internet is a matter of ideology preference, Paul. Certainly you wouldn't consider anything reliable which counters your POV relative to the flood.

It certainly seems to be a matter of "ideology preference" to you.

However I proved that the page you quoted was unreliable - as a matter of objective fact.

If you had followed my advice and done the sort of checking I did you would have discovered that. I didn't choose that page - you did. You might ask yourself why, if my opinion does not have a basis in fact - it turned out to be right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2008 9:24 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2429 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 78 of 96 (463547)
04-18-2008 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
04-17-2008 9:24 PM


Re: Pause
But how about when it goes against physics and basic math?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2008 9:24 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 79 of 96 (463561)
04-18-2008 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by 1071
04-17-2008 9:18 PM


Polystrate Trees
This would make an excellent, more highly focussed topic.

We would all be interested in your dismantling. Please open a new topic to show us the evidence and reasoning supporting your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 1071, posted 04-17-2008 9:18 PM 1071 has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 80 of 96 (463565)
04-18-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
04-17-2008 9:36 PM


Re: Smooth earth!
Rahvin writes:

How funny. Perhaps next time you'd like to say something resembling an argument? perhaps an argument refuting my last post? or perhaps a concession? Id accept that, too.

Well... I kinda figured from your posts you didn't have a sense of humor. But that is okay. I do.

Rahvin writes:

It's not reasonable to assume that those layers were deposited by a global flood, because the evidence directly contradicts such a model. A conclusion like that would be, in fact, stupid.

Honestly I can not argue with you. According to you my model idea is stupid.. How can I argue with your debasement with out getting in to a mud slinging contest. You know... "You're stupid, no you're stupid".. lol.. But then again with out a sense of humor I guess you wouldn't get that.

So, I will be serious and say;
I disagree with your model.

Edited by antiLIE, : spell check... oops..lol

Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV] οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 04-17-2008 9:36 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 04-18-2008 10:37 AM 1071 has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 81 of 96 (463570)
04-18-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by 1071
04-18-2008 10:04 AM


Support your agruments
You are doing pretty well so far antiLie (married to uncleFib?) but please note that this is a science thread. We don't have to get into a mud slinging match. We just have to supply reasoned, evidence based arguments.

You and Rahvin have established your positions as to who you think is right and wrong. This thread is already piled with reasons for discounting the Noachian flood. Perhaps it is time for you to actually answer some of those in full detail.

Edited by AdminNosy, : Spelling fix


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 10:04 AM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 3:45 PM AdminNosy has responded

Repzion
Member (Idle past 3731 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 82 of 96 (463581)
04-18-2008 2:19 PM


Question: Can I offer some evidence in rebuttal to the 100 reasons here?

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 3:11 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 83 of 96 (463584)
04-18-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Repzion
04-18-2008 2:19 PM


Repzion writes:

Question: Can I offer some evidence in rebuttal to the 100 reasons here?

Forgive me if I sound sarcastic, but are you asking for permission to debate on a debate forum?

Please present any evidence that you have so it can be discussed: that's the whole idea of a debate, and it is the sort of thing that is in short order on the Noachian side.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Repzion, posted 04-18-2008 2:19 PM Repzion has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 84 of 96 (463586)
04-18-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by AdminNosy
04-18-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Support your agruments
AdminNosy writes:

You are doing pretty well so far antiLie (married to uncleFib?) but please note that this is a science thread. We don't have to get into a mud slinging match. We just have to supply reasoned, evidence based arguments.

You and Rahvin have established your positions as to who you think is right and wrong. This thread is already piled with reasons for discounting the Noachian flood. Perhaps it is time for you to actually answer some of those in full detail.

You are correct. Here is a rebuttal. Above the molten rock at the center of our planet is a mantle of black basalt, from which flows the lava which issues forth out of volcanoes. Above that basalt is to be found the light-colored, coarse-grained crystals we call granite. This is the basement rock of the world and undergirds all of our continents. At times this granite is close to the surface, but frequently a large quantity of sedimentary rock is above it.

The sedimentary rock that overlays the granite could have been laid down by a gigantic flood of waters, and is characterized by strata or layers. The strata are composed of water-borne sediments, such as pebbles, gravel, sand, and clay.

O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 129. writes:

"About three-fourths, perhaps more, of the land area of the earth, 55 million square miles [142 million km2], has sedimentary rock as the bedrock at the surface or directly under the cover of the mantle-rock . . The thickness of the stratified rocks range from a few feet to 40,000 feet [121,920 dm] or more at any one place . . The vast bulk of the stratified rocks is composed of shallow-water deposits."

Within that strata is to be found billions upon billions of fossils. [remains—or the casts—of plants and animals that suddenly died] Yet fossilization does not normally occur today; for it requires sudden death, sudden burial, and great pressure.

F.H.T. Rhodes, H.S. Zim, and *P.R. Shaffer, Fossils (1962), p. 10. writes:

"To become fossilized a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the process."

The sedimentary strata (also called fossil-bearing strata or "the geologic column") were laid down at the time of the Flood. There are no fossils in the granite, because that rock was formed prior to the Flood.

by the way.. the uncleFIB thing was awesome...lol

Okay, here are some PREDICTIONS about the column and the flood. —If the Flood caused the sedimentary rock strata, with their billions of fossils, then the following points would be expected;—and, upon examination of the fossils in the strata—they all prove true:

(1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata.

(2) Creatures buried together—would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community.

(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.

(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.

(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.

(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fish, but as a rule, below the land animals.

(7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata.

(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.

(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.

(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.

(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).

(12) Relatively few birds would be found in the strata, since they could fly to the highest points.

(13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at the top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose.

--
So how does this look in term to the Geologic Column?... I like this model... It could possibly looked like this;
--

Recent (Holocene)—Glaciers melt. Evidences of human civilization.

Pleistocene—The Flood waters conclude their receding from the continents. Fossils, strata, and petroleum are no longer being formed. The ice age begins.

Pliocene—The Flood has ended. First mountain building begins, as continents begin rising, ocean basins dropping, and oceans filling. If this had not occurred, everything today would be under water. Some strata forming continues.

Miocene—First large numbers of birds buried. First evidence of volcanic lava.

Oliogocene—First of the very agile monkeys and apes buried.

Eocene—First faster animals (such as horses) buried. No more slow animals (including dinosaurs).

Triassic—First strong land animals buried (slowest dinosaurs).

Mississipian—First land animals buried (slow ones, such as small reptiles).

Silurian—First land plants laid down.

Cambrian—Flood begins. Fossils and strata begin. Slowest creatures buried. But plants float up to higher levels.

Precambrian—Prior to the Flood. No sedimentary strata or fossils.

..... any thoughts?


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071
[Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV] οτι ους προεγνω και προωρισεν συμμορφους της εικονος του υιου αυτου εις το ειναι αυτον πρωτοτοκον εν πολλοις αδελφοις

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 04-18-2008 10:37 AM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminNosy, posted 04-18-2008 4:00 PM 1071 has not yet responded
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2008 4:32 PM 1071 has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Rahvin, posted 04-18-2008 5:35 PM 1071 has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 5:43 PM 1071 has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 96 (463588)
04-18-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rrhain
04-18-2008 12:19 AM


Re: Smooth earth!
You are leaving out some critical things. First, as far as energy and the improbability of the Ark's survival, we see God directly intervening in the story and so it would be quite easy for that to occur.

The second area, more fruitful to discuss, is whether the Flood would leave evidence in the earth and whether we see that, but to suggest there wasn't enough water or that it couldn't happen is a poor approach because we are dealing with God. So if you are going to challenge the story, you must do so accepting it first and then seeing if the story fits. Merely insisting God cannot be an agent doesn't work. Heck, Noah didn't even gather the animals, nor control them.

I don't know if Noah's Flood, so to speak, was regional or global. I am not certain the text tells us, but I think YECs attempt to discuss the evidence of the geologic column in the context of the Flood is admirable. I see problems with their analysis, but equally see problems with evo analysis. Certainly, we do see at times whole herds or groups of creatures seemingly buried together.

So for me, I remain unconvinced it was a global flood, but unconvinced of evo hypotheses as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2008 12:19 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 04-19-2008 12:37 AM randman has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 86 of 96 (463590)
04-18-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by 1071
04-18-2008 3:45 PM


Supporting your Arguments
Excellent work!

That is something very unusual from those supporting your side. Thank you for all the work.

The challenge that you have is when you get specific there are details that can be discussed, taken issue with and, perhaps, falsified. We'll see how these do now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 3:45 PM 1071 has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 96 (463593)
04-18-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by 1071
04-18-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Support your agruments
(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.

How do they get buried if they can swim?

(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fish, but as a rule, below the land animals.

Why would they be buried higher? Why below land animals? What about reptiles that are land animals? What about the reptiles that could fly?

(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.

What do you mean by first land plants?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 3:45 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 88 of 96 (463605)
04-18-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by 1071
04-18-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Support your agruments
Within that strata is to be found billions upon billions of fossils. [remains—or the casts—of plants and animals that suddenly died] Yet fossilization does not normally occur today; for it requires sudden death, sudden burial, and great pressure.

If the number of dead creatures for which we have iscovered fossils were all alive at one time (and they have to be by your model, sicne they were all laid down in the flood), there would be no room to move. The Earth's surface would be covered with life.

Fossils do not require "great pressure." I'm not even certain they require "sudden death" or "sudden burial." Fossilization is an extremely rare event due to the conditions required to fossilize a living creature, but many of the fossils we have uncovered were quite clearly not the result of a flood. Some were fossilized in volcanic ash, for instance - and yet found in the exact same geological layers as all of the other members of their species found in other types of rock. This means that somehow your flood needs to have deposited all of the fossils of species x in a single set of layers and somehow retain the layers of volcanic ash that only occurred in specific regions.

By what mechanism does your flood sort by species rather than body density or ability to swim?

By what mechanism does your flood consistently sort fish and dinosaurs below metal tools, every single time?

The sedimentary strata (also called fossil-bearing strata or "the geologic column") were laid down at the time of the Flood. There are no fossils in the granite, because that rock was formed prior to the Flood.

What about cases where a layer of igneous rock is laid on top of many sedimentary layers? What about when this happens multiple times in a single location due to repeated volcanic eruptions? Could each set of sedimentary layers have been sandwiched between the igneous layers by a flood?

If so, by what mechanism?

(1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata.

Why? Dead animals tend to float to varying degrees based on body density. Provide an example of an observed flood where animals living at the lowest elevations are always found at the bottom and never in higher layers despite ability to swim or lower body density.

(2) Creatures buried together—would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community.

That tends to happen even discounting a catastrophe like a flood, except with certain migrational species. It's not a meaningful prediction of your scenario.

(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.

Explain "simplest shapes." Provide the mechanism by which water sorts by shape rather than density. Explain why fossils discovered in sedimentary layers are not sorted by density, but rather are sorted vertically by species type despite wide variety in body density and ability to swim. Provide an example of a flood that has been observed to do such things, rather than the most dense objects sinking to the lowest layers or haphazard burials from mudslides that do not sort at all.

(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.

Why? Many invertebrates are capable of swimming and have a very low body density. In turbulent water, why would they not occasionally wind up on top of more dense creatures? For that matter, why do we find fossilized invertebrates on top of mountains? Shouldn't they be at the lowest poitns by your model?

(5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface.

Why is this then not the case? We find fish sorted by species, both above and below (in different locations) land animals that are also sorted by species. Why are the fish not always on top?

In fact, how are any fish alive at all? The flood scenario requires all salt-water and fresh-water to be mixed. Sudden, drastic changes in salinity like that would be lethal to nearly all fish.

(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fish, but as a rule, below the land animals.

Why? They can swim. Shouldn't they survive a flood longer than land animals with higher body densities who are incapable of swimming? Shouldn't we always find amphibians above such animals given a global flood? What about reptiles that are unable to swim. Why would they be found at the same level as amphibians who can swim?

Why are all amphibians and reptile fossils (along with all the others) sorted by species and not by body density or ability to swim?

(7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata.

Why? Land plants certainly cannot swim. Wouldn't they be found below the animals who could? Provide an example of an observed flood where land plants were rarely at the bottom of the deposited sediment.

(8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found.

"The first?" According to the Bible, god created all plants at the same time. Explain the "first plants," and explain why they should be found with the reptiles and amphibians despite wildly different density and roots that attach them to the ground.

(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.

Why? Again, the amphibians can swim. Why do we see sorting by species rather than by density or ability to swim? Explain how birds could remain flying during a global thunderstorm that lasts 40 days. Explain how those birds are again sorted by species, but not by density or ability to stay airborne for long periods of time.

(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.

Irrelevant. This is the case even without a global flood - local burials caused by local floods or volcanic eruptions, for instance, tend to do the same thing.

But why are the same species of all animals always found in the same set of layers, not sorted by body density or ability to swim?

(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).

Then why are dinosaurs of all sizes found in the same set of layers, every single time, regardless of size, density, strength, or speed?

Why are they always found below stone and metal tools, despite the fact that tools tend to sink like the rocks they are?

Honestly, antiLIE, I think that's enough. Your model doesn't work.

Here's what we should expect given a global flood:

Sedimentary layers sorted by density that occur globally.

There should be no cases of observable annual sedimentary deposits where there are more than a few thousand such identical layers at most.

Buried animals should be sorted by density and ability to swim, meaning amphibians and fish should be found above large ground-based dinosaurs.

There should be no layers of volcanic ash deposited between sedimentary layers, and this should certainly not occur several times in the same location with sedimentary layers in between. All volcanism in the sedimentary layers should look exactly like underwater eruptions.

There are many more things we should see, but this is getting rather long and unfocused (the price of a flood topic - it can be disproven from hundreds of separate avenues independently).

Honestly, antiLIE, it is completely impossible to have a global flood and end with the world we see today. It requires a large number of miracles which must be taken on faith and leave no objective observable evidence. While you and other Christians are most certainly welcome to do so, such beliefs have nothing to do with science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 3:45 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 89 of 96 (463607)
04-18-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by 1071
04-18-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Support your agruments
{AbE: Oh, crap--I see Rahvin beat me to it. That guy is sure fast on his toes. Oh well, some of my points are different from his: I'll leave mine.}

antiLIE writes:

(3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first.

Under this logic, you wouldn't expect simple, wormlike things to be found in the Cambrian strata (because they are streamlined and have low drag). But, there are wormlike things in Cambrian strata. And, there are things with "simple shapes" in higher strata.

antiLIE writes:

(4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata.

But corals are found in all strata. In fact, they are more common in Ordovician through Silurian strata than in lower strata. How could this be? Corals can't run away or even detach from the bottom, yet most of them managed to remain unburied until the end of the Permian deposition.

antiLIE writes:

(6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fish, but as a rule, below the land animals.

First off, you realize that reptiles are land animals, right? Second, if fish float at the top of the water, how does anything get above them in the strata? As the water rises over the land, so do the fish, right?

antiLIE writes:

(9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians.

I don't see how you could back this one up.

antiLIE writes:

(11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses).

So, is the hippopotamus the "larger, stronger" one, or the "slower" one? The problem with this is that all strata in the geologic column have animals of all sizes and builds: there were small, fast-moving maniraptors and oviraptors at the same times and places as there were lumbering sauropods; there were nimble borhyaenids and fast-moving terror birds at the same times and places as there were glyptodonts and giant sloths; there were small, rodent-like mammals at the same time as there were tyrannosaurs and ceratopsians. This claim just is not upheld by the geological column. There isn't even a proportion-wise pattern that statistically leans toward this pattern you're suggesting.

antiLIE writes:

(10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together.

You would also find them buried together under local floods, rockslides, volcanic eruptions, tarpits, meteorite impacts and any other number of local or global catastrophic phenomena. Carcasses could also be washed down a river and deposited at the delta, making it look like they were gregarious when they weren't. There is no way to link this concept to the Deluge, because it could have happened under any number of circumstances

antiLIE writes:

(13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at the top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose.

This is complete anthropocentric hogwash: why would humans be struggling to survive while other animals weren't? Further, how could humans possibly stay afloat longer than sea turtles, seals, whales, tylosaurs, ichthyosaurs, hesperornithiformes, anomalocarids and ammonites? Let alone fish? All of these animals are found in lower sediments than humans.

antiLIE writes:

Eocene—First faster animals (such as horses) buried. No more slow animals (including dinosaurs).

This doesn’t make any sense. If the Flood is still going on in the Eocene strata, how come no more slow animals are getting buried? There are still slow animals alive today, after all: surely, if they could survive up until the Eocene deposition, and until today, they must have been able to survive midway between too, right?

antiLIE writes:

Mississipian—First land animals buried (slow ones, such as small reptiles).

My experience suggests that small reptiles are generally quite fast animals. Why aren’t there turtles or ankylosaurs in the Mississippian?

antiLIE writes:

Precambrian—Prior to the Flood. No sedimentary strata or fossils.

But, there are pre-Cambrian fossils and strata: the Ediacaran/Vendian strata have lots of interesting fossils for us to see.

--

I’m sorry, antiLIE, but the geologic column does not, by any stretch of the imagination, conform to this model. Half of your predictions are not seen in the geologic record, and the other half either support other models just as well as they support yours or are complete non sequiturs.

Edited by Bluejay, : Disclaimer at the top.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by 1071, posted 04-18-2008 3:45 PM 1071 has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 96 (463631)
04-18-2008 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Rahvin
04-17-2008 9:48 PM


Re: Smooth earth!
Rahven writes:

Then please provide the mechanism by which a billion years worth of tectonic activity and the raising of mountains and the deepening of oceans is caused by a flood over a period of a year without sterilizing the planet.

Saying "a flood can do that" is blatantly false unless you can demonstrate that a local flood has been observed to create similar structures on smaller scales, or at least provide a plausible mechanism by which 40 days of global rain and a massive global flood can do so.

1. You must have missed my point about a hypothetical canopy model skewing the dating methodology.

2. You must have missed my points about a two flood model and all of the possibilities and unknowns relative to that model.

3. The Mt St Helens event models some aspects of the ancient floods, first the flooded earth after which heated evaporation as well as other moving on the waters by the Holy Spirit, God's on the job worker occured. Of course, one must factor in the emensity of the ancient ones and the millenia of time lapse since for other factors to weigh into the model.

4. Imo you're too anxious to render another's POV blatantly false when you don't have all the answers yourself.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Rahvin, posted 04-17-2008 9:48 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rahvin, posted 04-18-2008 10:34 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 92 by molbiogirl, posted 04-18-2008 10:51 PM Buzsaw 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