Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 12:18 PM
40 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,599 Year: 9,635/19,786 Month: 2,057/2,119 Week: 93/724 Day: 25/68 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 518 (484597)
09-29-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 8:28 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Why are you stuck on a date of 4,350 years ago?

We have these date estimates for the global flood according to various sources and scholars:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

About 4,350 years ago seems to be a general consensus.

If not then, what would you propose? Remember, it has to be less than 6,000 years ago. We're not talking geologic time in any case.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 8:28 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:13 PM Coyote has responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 62 of 518 (484598)
09-29-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coyote
09-29-2008 9:01 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
So you accept that information of a date of 4,350 years ago as a general consensus from those sources as you put it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 9:01 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 9:20 PM IchiBan has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 518 (484600)
09-29-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:13 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
So you accept that information of a date of 4,350 years ago as a general consensus from those sources as you put it?

Beats me. That's what these folks say. But then I've seen folks claiming the Cambrian explosion (which lasted for tens of millions of years) was the result of the global flood.

As far as I am concerned, I have not seen evidence in the areas in which I do archaeology that can be connected to a global flood. The most I have seen is the Channeled Scablands of eastern and southern Washington, which are clearly connected to late ice age floods from ice dams in the Idaho panhandle area. Those floods were not on the same scale as ascribed to the global flood.

The problem I find with the flood is that a lot of folks are unwilling to commit a specific date because then science can examine that date and check for evidence of a flood. So far there is no evidence of a global flood at any time during which humans have been around.

So you tell me, when did the aledged global flood occur?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:13 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:24 PM Coyote has responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 64 of 518 (484601)
09-29-2008 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Coyote
09-29-2008 9:20 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
It sounds to me like you are now turning away from a date of 4,350 years ago & the general consensus from those sources as you described them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 9:20 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 9:42 PM IchiBan has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5393
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 65 of 518 (484603)
09-29-2008 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Architect-426
09-29-2008 5:46 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
During the deepest exploration drilling to date, to much of their surprise scientists found water 6 miles deep.

Would that be the Bertha Rogers well drilled in the 70's out near Elk City, Oklahoma? If so, I'm a little puzzled that "scientists" were surprised at finding water there. It was drilled into the Arbuckle, which was known long before then to be an ocean-laid limestone that was later changed to dolomite - by rainwater. The petroleum folks would have been very surprised to not find water there.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 5:46 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 10:43 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 66 of 518 (484604)
09-29-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:24 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
It sounds to me like you are now turning away from a date of 4,350 years ago & the general consensus from those sources as you described them.

What's this, some kind of gotcha question?

I found a bunch of biblical scholars whose estimates center around that date, so that's the one I use.

If you have a better date, I would like to hear about it. And your reason for selecting that date.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:24 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:53 PM Coyote has responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 67 of 518 (484606)
09-29-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
09-29-2008 9:42 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Dates of events or phenomena can get rather squishy the further back we go, and so you accept a consensus to work with for a date of 4350 years ago.

Do you accept or reject the work of biblical scholars, and to what degree, or is it just on a flood date of 4350 years ago?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 9:42 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 10:22 PM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:49 PM IchiBan has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 68 of 518 (484608)
09-29-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:53 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Dates of events or phenomena can get rather squishy the further back we go, and so you accept a consensus to work with for a date of 4350 years ago.

Do you accept or reject the work of biblical scholars, and to what degree, or is it just on a flood date of 4350 years ago?

Biblical scholars and believers are the ones claiming there was a global flood. It is up to them to pin down a date; that flood can wander over a billion or more years of geologic history, always being "over there," but never here, where you just looked.

And no, I don't accept that there ever was a global flood; the evidence contradicts that contention.

So when do you think the supposed flood occurred?

{See messeage 71 below. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:53 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 69 of 518 (484614)
09-29-2008 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Architect-426
09-29-2008 7:00 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Thanks ARCHITECT-426,

Go back to Genesis chapter 6. It says that "all flesh" will be destroyed "with the earth", including the "creeping things" (insects). Now we all know that insects can certainly survive in/on water, could hold onto debris, etc. In order to "wipe out" all living things "with the earth", volcanism would certainly do the "trick".

Ah. So it is your interpretation that volcanism was used even though the bible does not explicitly so state.

Of course along with flood waters, earthquakes, etc. to complete the destruction and ultimately transform the face of the earth. This also has profound spiritual meaning in which I will not go into here.

Again, I see no mention of earthquakes, nor of transformation, just flood water.

The personal accounts of the event are horrific to say the least.

And interestingly, none of these kind of accounts are recorded in the flood story, as far as I can remember: please cite your chapter and verse for that evidence.

Volcanism is highly complex and extremely powerful, and the main ingredient is WATER. In a phreatic type of eruption, steam is ejected thus causing heavy torrential downpours. Study the events that took place during the eruption of Krakatoa.... Ships encountered heavy rain (ash as well) along with hurricane force winds, tsunamis (felt all the way in Africa). Also note LAND WAS LOST....quickly.

That happens when you have an explosion.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Krakatau.html

quote:
THE CATACLYSMIC EVENTS OF AUGUST 26-27
... This frightening display of volcanic power would culminate in a series of at least four stupendous eruptions that began at 5:30 a.m., climaxing in a colossal blast that literally blew Krakatau apart. ...
ENORMOUS SEA WAVES
... Eyewitness accounts of the massive waves came from passengers of the Loudon, ...
PYROCLASTIC AIRFALL AND DEVASTING PYROCLASTIC FLOWS
... Over the ensuing months, storms ...
... On August 27, the Louden (see above) was located ~65 km north-northeast of Krakatau when it was struck by severe winds and tephra, and the W.H. Besse was located at ~80 km east-northeast of Krakatau when it was hit by hurricane-force winds, heavy tephra, and the strong smell of sulfur. At these greater distances, the pyroclastic flows were at lower temperatures so that the ships and crew survived. ...
ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
... Tephra from the eruption fell as far as 2,500 km downwind in the days following the eruption. However, the finest fragments were propelled high into the stratosphere, spreading outward as a broad cloud across the entire equatorial belt in only two weeks. These particles would remain suspended in the atmosphere for years, propogating farther to the north and south before finally dissipating. ...

Curiously, no mention of rain during any of the blasts or by the survivors of the tsunamis. Strong winds and sulfur smells yes, rain no.

quote:
How is it possible for pyroclastic flows to travel such great distances? Pyroclastic flows are hot mixtures of solid particles and expanding volcanic gases. While advancing over water, the base of the flow will conert the water to steam. The rapid expansion of water to vapor greatly enhances flow fluidization and inhibits the deposition of particles, particularly the low-density pumiceous particles, thus allowing the flow to travel tens of kilometers over flat oceanic waters. This mobility was first recognized during the 1902 eruption of a pyroclastic flow from Mt. Pelée, which destroyed the coastal city of St. Pierre, only to continue across open waters to overturn and burn ships anchored several kilometers offshore.

Strangely the source of the water here is the existing ocean, not the volcano.

Now take this event, say times 1,000, and apply it in dozens of regions all over the globe. You get massive rain, massive tsunamis, massive loss of land, massive fissure type eruptions, massive mountains, massive quakes, earth debris mixed with super-heated water and hard shelled aquatic "critters" turning into layers of rock and fossils, etc.....

Give each of your 1000 krakatoas an 80 km radius and you cover 1000 x pi(80)^2 = 20,106,193 sq km

Surface of the earth = 510,072,000 sq km or 25.4 times as much area, and even at 65 km the forces of destruction from the volcano were survivable.

And the only land "destroyed" was the immediate island: the adjoining islands are still there, nor was there a noticable rise in the average level of the sea, so it looks like you would need a LOT more krakatoas than just a 1000. They would have to be so close together that a little rain would NOT be what people were talking about when they reminisced about their survival.

There is also no evidence from Krakatoa OR Mt St Helens of shells being tossed out onto land (bringing us back circuitously to the original topic thesis of shells on mountain tops and explanations for them being there).

Regarding your comments on the age of the earth/rocks (thanks by the way for the link to the other thread, it looks like you guys have that one well covered)... for me the "show stopper" is simply the beginning assumptions that are made of "known conditions" prior to the "eruption" of the rock and that their "clocks" are reset to zero. This is the "foundation" if you will of radiometric dating. So if the foundation is flawed, the results will therefore be riddled with flaws. Someone can show me detailed calculations all day long, but I will say "back to the drawing board folks". Someone can probably prod

Sorry, I don't need to show you calculations, just correlations: if you can't explain all the evidence and why it correlates then you cannot explain how the earth could be young.

see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), starting with baby steps: counting tree rings and correlating them with climate. I'll be glad to talk about any "show stoppers" you think you see there (not on this thread).

The other factors probably no one is considering (maybe this should be moved to the other thread) may not be as "scientific" but certainly have profound effects on science;
POLITICS
THE MORTGAGE
THE BIG SHIP
LIABILITY

Ah yes, the old world wide conspiracy theory. The all scientists are frauds theory. The no honest scientist theory.

Yes, a new thread could be interesting: why do so many people go to a conspiracy theory FIRST when something doesn't fit their world view? JFK, 9/11/CIA, the 2000/2004 vote, the "vast right wing conspiracy", the "left-wing media" conspiracy, and the YEC perennial favorite, the science conspiracy.

Of course the other alternative is the reality that the earth IS in FACT old.

So we still have not explained how floods, even with volcanoes, produce the quantity of marine fossils found on the mountaintops, NOR the fact that they are found in layer after layer after layer of undisturbed mature marine ecological systems, complete with delicate structures.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 7:00 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 5:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 70 of 518 (484615)
09-29-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:53 PM


NOT about WHEN ...
Curiously the topic is NOT about When the flood occurred.

The topic is about explaining the evidence of marine fossil life on mountain tops.

Message 1

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:53 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by IchiBan, posted 10-01-2008 8:59 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 73 by IchiBan, posted 10-01-2008 10:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 71 of 518 (484616)
09-29-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coyote
09-29-2008 10:22 PM


Not about WHEN ...
Curiously the topic is NOT about When the flood occurred.

The topic is about explaining the evidence of marine fossil life on mountain tops.

Message 1

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 10:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 72 of 518 (484816)
10-01-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
09-29-2008 11:49 PM


Re: NOT about WHEN ...
Thanks for the reminder.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3108 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 73 of 518 (484824)
10-01-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
09-29-2008 11:49 PM


Re: NOT about WHEN ...
About the thread topic.

Now why should myself/we accept your two contradicting propositions, when there could be many more?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 8:54 PM IchiBan has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 74 of 518 (484897)
10-02-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IchiBan
10-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: NOT about WHEN ...
Now why should myself/we accept your two contradicting propositions, when there could be many more?

Feel free to open a new topic to discuss whatever you want to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IchiBan, posted 10-01-2008 10:37 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by IchiBan, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 75 of 518 (485031)
10-04-2008 1:42 PM


BUMP FOR Zothar
Zothar has posted a new topic on post new topics, and has been told there is an existing thread on his topic. This is another one, and perhaps he can help us refocus on the original post, Message 1:

quote:
These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. ...
Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

This is Zothar's post, Creation: Prove me Wrong:

I'm gonna say this right out: im a creationist. a seventh day adventist, to be specific.

that being said, no, im not trying to force my beliefs down your throat, so please don't accuse me of that. no, im not saying that im more righious than you. im pretty low on the totem pole myself, so dont think im barking at you guys. this is just my opinion.

ok, lets start with the basics:

Creation: a supernatural God created everything on earth, thus intellegent design. LIFE on this world started about 6000 years ago. (note: i did not say that everything is 6000 years old; im saying that life started then. matter was here loooong before that). there was a worldwide flood that destroyed the entire earth exept for Noah and his family and the animals on the ark.

now evedence for creation is everywhere. im sure youve all heard the shells on top of mountains one (and by the way, ive never heard that one refuted). so if anyone wants to prove me wrong on this, feel free.

im open to any criticism, as long as it deals with my beliefs in creation. anything else i will probibly ignore. that is for a different discussion.

(bold for empHAsis)

Welcome to the fray Zothar,

The evidence proves you wrong or it proves the creation story version wrong (see Message 1), which do you prefer?

Enjoy.



ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

Edited by RAZD, : link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019