Message 16 of 518 (470156) 06-09-2008 6:50 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by deerbreh 06-09-2008 5:13 PM

Actually it is about how logically silly the argument for a global flood based on shell fossils on mountain tops is, based on the evidence of the shells alone. We don't need plate tectonics to show that the argument is worthless from shells alone.

Leonardo DaVinci figured it out, and he didn't need plate tectonics.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by Admin, : Make link active.

Message 19 of 518 (471036) 06-14-2008 2:11 AM

Reply to: Message 18 by Jason777 06-14-2008 12:24 AM

Because that is what would have to happen to get the world down and back again in a year.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.

Message 20 of 518 (471055) 06-14-2008 4:30 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by Jason777 06-14-2008 12:17 AM

Not really. The difference between the non-uniformitarians and creationists also differ on how long it took ... in fact there is only one small group of people that think it was due to a single short event. Leonardo da Vinci figured it out that there could be no single event that could explain the layer after layer after layer of marine fossils.

"Uniformitarianism" isn't needed to look at the evidence with clear eyes and an open mind.

The difference between the evidence based researcher and the gullible creationist is actually in how long - how many humdreds and hundreds of years - each of the many many sedimentary layers that have marine fossils were under water.

The fossil layers each contain mature organism shells, shells where the organism lived for 20 to 30 years in a stable environment, types of organisms that are fragile, yet reached maturity, types of organisms that spend months in a free-swimming larval stage before becoming attached to the bottom surface, and which have then grown to maturity before dying, before being buried by more layers of organisms that go through the same whole process again, and again, and again.

If I've got only four layers, each containing fossils that lived for 25 years, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that we are dealing with an area that was under water for at least 100 years. If I've got a hundred such layers, then I do not need to be a "uniformitarian" to come to the conclusion that we are dealing with an area that was underwater for 2,500 years.

That is the kind of thing that this evidence shows, and not a simple event whose time span is measured in days.

So the question is, how do you explain the evidence -- the evidence of long periods underwater -- with creationism?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 21 of 518 (471247) 06-15-2008 5:43 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD 05-25-2008 4:41 AM

If there is evidence for a geologic column, which represents epochs of earth's erosion, then there is reason to assume that there were no mountains before, and they later rose from subduction, still leaving the trilobites in the same strata that is now a mountain. If not, then one would have to consider how trilobite are hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, in a land-locked environment, such as Tibet or Afghanistan.

Message 22 of 518 (471254) 06-15-2008 6:53 PM

Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx 06-15-2008 5:43 PM

You are mixing "geological column" with "plate tectonics" when they aren't necessarily linked, but reading through the misunderstanding we can still get to this point.

True, but one would also have to consider that this same evidence shows hundreds of years duration that the various layers were underwater, and that where non-marine layers divide marine layers, one would have to consider various mechanisms that could account for multiple occurances as well.

If you use a flood hypothesis for causing this evidence, then you have to consider that this means (A) multiple floods and (B) each flood lasting hundreds of years.

I am not aware of any means by which this is evidence for a "noachian flood" of only a few hundred days, tops, are you?

Don't you have to conclude that this is evidence of something that is demonstrably NOT a "noachian flood" because it does not match the storyline at all, yes?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 23 of 518 (471286) 06-15-2008 8:56 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD 06-15-2008 6:53 PM

Perhaps I didn't explain as best I could. You may have understood, but I wouldn't anyone else not understanding me. I should probably clarify. What I meant was that if it can be determined that the trilobites on say, Mt. Everest, are further down in the strata, and not intermingled with contemporary creatures, there would not be any reason to assume a global flood. And least not in this instance.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound for me?

Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that if a Noachian flood did in fact occur in the manner the bible states, for a relatively short amount of time, there should not be as much marine diversity as there is found on the mountains? Am I getting that right?

*side note* I heard that the cancer is in remission. That is wonderful news! May it stay in remission for the rest of your natural life. Keep fighting the good fight. :)

Message 24 of 518 (471312) 06-15-2008 11:13 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx 06-15-2008 8:56 PM

Correct.

Thanks. Although I won't rule out unnatural life either ... ;)

Edited by RAZD, : .

Message 25 of 518 (476198) 07-21-2008 10:11 PM

So look no further for evidence of accelerated tectonic movement.I always saw exponential decline in volcanic evidence,now they have found evidence of the tectonic plates themselves moving very rapidly.

2-3 million years does'nt fit the biblical account,but it does make one skeptical over the dating methods,considering they have been saying they know they formed tens of millions of years ago.

The point to consider is it clearly demonstrates exponential decline and it proves the present is not the key the past.

Enjoy.

Message 26 of 518 (476202) 07-21-2008 10:22 PM

Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD 06-14-2008 4:30 AM

Do you know what species of seashells were talking about?There are literally thousands,filterfeeders and photosynthetic,saltwater,freshwater,and brackish.

If i remember correctly,someone was claiming they are freshwater mountain muscles.Without a being able to identify an exact species all we can do is speculate.

Thanks.

Message 28 of 518 (476208) 07-22-2008 12:08 AM

Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx 06-15-2008 8:56 PM

That would only be true if the earth is young like the YEC's say.

It's old and according to Pangea most of it has been covered with water for a very long time.

God Bless,

Message 29 of 518 (476215) 07-22-2008 1:41 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by Jason777 07-21-2008 10:11 PM

Where did you find this out? This is a science forum evidence is needed.

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Message 30 of 518 (476282) 07-22-2008 2:26 PM

Reply to: Message 29 by bluescat48 07-22-2008 1:41 AM

ref;

"fossils found in tibet revise history of elevation,climate"
science daily june 12,2008.