Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Seashells on tops of mountains.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 181 of 343 (507983)
05-09-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Doubletime
05-09-2009 3:06 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Thanks Doubletime,
Actually. I dont believe the daiting is especially correct. But thats for another thread.
Yes, and there are several threads that will explain the dating methods to you in great detail. One thread where no creationist has yet been able to show that the dating methods are wrong is the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread. It uses simple understandable systems, systems that also provide correlations from one to the other, and where your task, should you choose to participate on that thread, is to explain not just why each method is wrong and how, but why the correlate. It is easy to make up "what-ifs" to conjecture why one method could have errors, but it is another to explain why the errors particular to one method are matched in correlation with another method. Perhaps I'll see you there.
No but it is not unlikley to tink it was the flodd. ...
... IF you agree that the "flodd" was a peaceful inundation of a low lying area that lasted several hundred years at a minimum, just as we see today on seabeds around the world, ... however, as noted previously, I don't call such events "floods" I call them seafloor.
But if you are claiming that it is evidence of a cataclysmic event, washing up and over mountains, then there should be evidence of the cataclysm, not of peaceful, undisturbed life covering many generations, undisturbed by outside influences.
And if the flood lasted less than a year, there should be NO evidence of seashells that are 10, 20, or 30 years old from organisms that grow annual rings in their shells, and live at the end of a stalk attached to the bottom while these shells grow - stalks also found still attached to the bottom in the fossil beds.
There should be debris from several ecosystems mixed together, and there should be a lack of layers. Such evidence of cataclysm is missing from these beds of seashells in layer after layer after layer on mountaintop after mountaintop. One needs to look at the effect of floods on the lands flooded in modern times and then look to see if similar evidence is apparent in the layers after layers of seashells on the mountaintops.
It isn't, and for that reason it IS "unlikley to tink it was the flodd" - because you don't have evidence of any effect of a flood, just evidence of peaceful undisturbed life in mature ecosystems spanning many generations.
And evolutionist explanation to how the sea shells got their is moslty guesses in the end.
Evolution has nothing to do with it, for mountain forming is part of geology. You are confusing all of science with evolution, while evolution is only a part of science. Evolution explains why the layers have a progression of life from one generation to the next, it does not explain why the seashells are on mountaintops.
We see exactly this same progression of life from one generation to the next when we take samples of seafloor around the world: it is the same process, and the only thing this tells us is that the life that left the seashells behind was of a similar nature, undisturbed mature ecosystems of life evolving from one generation to the next, forming layer after layer after layer in the sediments on the seafloors.
We see this progression of changing forms in the fossils of the Foraminifera, where there is a 65 million year record of the gradual progression from one species to the next, such that the bottom layer organisms are not found in the top layer, nor are the top layer organisms found at the bottom, even though there is no break is the transition from one generation to the next.
These are free swimming organisms with a hard shell, and the shells of dead organisms fall to the seafloor and accumulate over time.
We see the same pattern of growth and evolution shown in the forams repeated in the White Cliffs of Dover and the shells left behind by the Coccolithophores. Coccolithophores free floating organisms that also have a hard shell, and these shells also fall to the seafloor when the organism dies and accumulate over time.
For this reason, both Foraminifera and Coccolithophores are both used as index fossils to gauge the relative ages of sedimentary layers.
Evolution of the living forms, and deposition of the shells from the dead organisms on the seafloor over time explains the layer after layer of shells AND the gradual progression in form from one layer to the next. Thus evolution shows that the process that formed the layers of foraminifer, also formed the layers of the Cliffs of Dover, but it does not explain why the Cliffs of Dover are above sealevel: that is geology.
Plate tectonics and the process of uplift explain how and why sections of the earths crust that were once seafloor can be raised up into mountains. The process is slow, but fairly steady, and it can be measured today: the region that includes Mt Everest is still rising today. This rate of rise compared with the age of the fossils shows that it is possible for the mountain to have risen to the present height in the time available. Height, rate of uplift, age all correlate.
My point is that believing in the flodd is not ignorant.
Sadly, it is. Ignorant means being uninformed. Particularly, it means being uninformed of contradictory evidence that makes a concept nonviable. In this case, being uniformed of the fact that the evidence of the seashells, including may decades old individuals, in generation after generation of growth in a mature (fully developed) ecosystem, make it impossible for the shells to have grown on top of those mountains during a flood that did not last one year.
In general scientist are closed to the crazy possibility that the flood really happend ...
In general science - all science -- is closed to crazy ideas that are not supported by any evidence. In specific science -- all science -- is closed to ideas that are invalidated by contradictory evidence, as is the case here: the evidence of the seashells, including may decades old individuals, in generation after generation of growth in a mature (fully developed) ecosystem, make it impossible for the shells to have grown on top of those mountains during a flood that did not last one year. It's called the scientific method.
... so alot of them want to find alternative explanations on diffrent matters.
The task of science in general is to find working explanations for the evidence around us. This includes how mountains form, and how life evolves from one type of organism to another, generation after generation. Science only cares about concepts that work, that make predictions, and that can be tested for validity.
... it was the flodd. Alot of them were frozen instnaly.
While the mechanism of organisms freezing to death is explained by dwise1 (Message 179), there is another aspect of this statement that bears scrutiny: floods don't cause freezing. You just cannot cause sudden freezing and ice formation with moving water.
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 176 by Doubletime, posted 05-09-2009 3:06 AM Doubletime has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 2:04 AM RAZD has replied

  
Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 182 of 343 (508028)
05-10-2009 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
05-09-2009 12:27 PM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^
WoW you write long posts. The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others. nd atleast im not ignorant having read so much that evolutionist wrote.
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood.But doesn't believe in the flood happening in the past. I read their explanations to " all the fosils sea shells in the mountains and other stuff " that can be said to indicate the flood. But i didnt see any real evidence at all.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible. In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 2:20 AM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 184 by Son, posted 05-10-2009 4:28 AM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 188 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2009 8:50 AM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2009 2:16 PM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2009 1:45 PM Doubletime has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 183 of 343 (508030)
05-10-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 2:04 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^
Your assertions. And your interpretation of them.
WoW you write long posts. The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others.
Perhaps you should spell this out more clearly.
First you were maintaining that the shells were washed up the mountains by the flood.
Now, confronted with the evidence that they were buried undisturbed, you maintain that the flood need not have disturbed them.
In which case:
(1) Do you accept that the flood did not wash them up the mountains?
(2) How do you now suppose that the shells got in the mountains?
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood.
You have not shown your working.
But doesn't believe in the flood happening in the past. I read their explanations to " all the fosils sea shells in the mountains and other stuff " that can be said to indicate the flood. But i didnt see any real evidence at all.
The fact that the shells are undisturbed is real evidence.
The fact that water washes things downhill, not uphill, would also be evidence.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic.
Evidently not.
And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible.
No.
It would be correct to say that all geologists know that there never was a universal flood. But they would know this if the book of genesis had never been written. It has nothing to do with distaste for the myths of one particular religion and everything to do with the evidence.
In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte.
No. This is why geologists have not debated it since approximately 1832, when Adam Sedgwick admitted he was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 2:04 AM Doubletime has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by traste, posted 06-26-2009 9:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 184 of 343 (508040)
05-10-2009 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 2:04 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Doubletime writes:
weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible.
You do know that there are christian scientists,right?
Why do creationists always have to rehash the christian persecution thing everytime someone disagrees with them?
You do know that Rome is not the empire anyore, don't you?
Doubletime writes:
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^
Adam ate at the tree of knowledge 6K years ago, but we only had Internet for around 11 years, I wonder why ^^
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 2:04 AM Doubletime has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 6:34 AM Son has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 185 of 343 (508049)
05-10-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Son
05-10-2009 4:28 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Son writes:
Adam ate at the tree of knowledge 6K years ago, but we only had computers for around 11 years, I wonder why ^^
11 years?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Son, posted 05-10-2009 4:28 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Son, posted 05-10-2009 6:48 AM Percy has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 186 of 343 (508050)
05-10-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
05-10-2009 6:34 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Sorry, I meant the Internet of course, I edited my message to correct this embarassing mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 6:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 7:48 AM Son has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 187 of 343 (508053)
05-10-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Son
05-10-2009 6:48 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Son writes:
Sorry, I meant the Internet of course...
11 years?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Son, posted 05-10-2009 6:48 AM Son has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 188 of 343 (508055)
05-10-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 2:04 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^
You "belief" is flawed.
The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others. nd atleast im not ignorant having read so much that evolutionist wrote.
You appear to have the selective ignorance characteristic of many creationists; if science contradicts the bible then science is wrong.
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood.But doesn't believe in the flood happening in the past. I read their explanations to " all the fosils sea shells in the mountains and other stuff " that can be said to indicate the flood. But i didnt see any real evidence at all.
There was no global flood in the past. Its not a matter of belief, its a matter of evidence. The early geologists were mostly creationists, and for many the goal was to document the flood. They gave up in the early 1830s because the evidence showed that there was no flood. Its a myth.
As for abiogenesis, all of those 1050,000 type numbers that creationists and various mathematicians come up with are flawed.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible. In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte.
Scientists follow the evidence, and if it shows the bible was wrong that is of no consequence to scientists. Creationists, on the other hand, tend to ignore or misrepresent any evidence that shows their beliefs are incorrect. Now which is the more honest approach?
Belief gets in the way of learning.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 2:04 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 189 of 343 (508089)
05-10-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 2:04 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Hi Doubletime,
WoW you write long posts.
That's so I can document in detail, with evidence to support it, where and why you are wrong. Think of it as a condensed course in reality. When you also state a number of assertions that are wrong, it takes more than a single line to show the errors in your thinking.
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^
Age and dating methods are not the topic of this thread. If you want to pretend you know something about dating methodology, then there are a couple of threads you can discuss this. One I have given you before, and it appears that you have not taken up the challenge.
Here's another one: Message 165, as it deals specifically with 14C dating.
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood.
Argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Note that abiogenesis is ALSO not the topic of the thread, and we'd like you to stick with the topic long enough to answer the questions raised by your posts.
Trying to introduce other topics is an attempt to distract people from the fact that you have not answered a single question yet about the errors in your belief.
The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others.
And then there was a period of several months before the theoretical flood subsided. This time would also qualify as peaceful, however when you total all that time up you don't even get to one year of growth, to say nothing of 30+ years per layer for layer upon layer upon layer. In other words you just do not have enough time, with this theoretical flood, to produce the development of a mature ecology of marine growth composed of multiple generations of organisms 10, 20 and 30 years old. Therefore these seashells could not have been produced by the flood and thus they are not evidence of a global flood.
Do you understand that this evidence contradicts your theoretical flood, rather than support it?
And if you cannot account for the seashells on mountaintops with growth during the flood, then you need to develop an alternative way for previous marine growth to be miraculously lifted up and put on the mountaintops.
Note that floods do not cause mountain formation, they erode mountains - so you don't have a mechanism to make mountains - and you cannot use plate tectonics to form mountains, as you just don't have time for it to result in hills to say nothing of mountains.
nd atleast im not ignorant having read so much that evolutionist wrote.
...
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic.
Do you realize that someone who is ignorant about a topic, is completely unable to determine how ignorant they are: to be able to know that, you would have to know enough that you would not be ignorant.
I read their explanations to " all the fosils sea shells in the mountains and other stuff " that can be said to indicate the flood. But i didnt see any real evidence at all.
Color me surprised. This is a typical reaction to new information, especially information that contradicts firmly held beliefs. It's a result of cognitive dissonance.
Questia
quote:
ABSTRACT-A small fauna of 11 species belonging to 10 genera of Permian Brachiopoda from the lower part of the Qubuerga Formation outcropping near Shengmi village in the Qomolangma region of southern Xizang (Tibet) is figured and new taxa are described. New taxa are Quinquenella semiglobosa and Costatumulus shengmiensis. The fauna is most likely of Wuchiapingian (Djhulfian) age as indicated by the majority of the brachiopod species.
THE INACCESSIBILITY of the area near Mt. Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) of Xizang (Tibet) has resulted in relatively little geological work being undertaken in the area prior to this study.
That places brachiopods on Mt Everest.
Brachiopod - Wikipedia
quote:
Brachiopods (from Latin brachium, arm + New Latin -poda, foot) are a small phylum of benthic invertebrates. Also known as lamp shells (or lampshells), "brachs" or Brachiopoda, they are sessile, two-valved, marine animals with an external morphology superficially resembling bivalves to which they are not closely related.
...
A second major difference is that most brachiopods are attached to the substrate by means of a fleshy "stalk" or pedicle. In contrast, although some bivalves (pelecypods such as oysters, mussels and the extinct rudists) are fixed to the substrate, most are free-moving, usually by means of a muscular "foot".
This shows that brachiopods are permanently fixed by a pedicle to the seafloor as they grow. The age of individuals can be measured by a couple of different methods. One method uses growth rings:
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01866p150.pdf
quote:
No age data is available for deep-sea brachiopods, but estimates could be made from the pronounced growth rings which imply seasonality of food supply, even at abyssal depths of more than 4000 m. The high numbers of evenly spaced (seasonal?) growth bands (between 20-30/mm) observed for Melvicalathis specimens (Fig. 2A, 2B; 4D; 6A, 6B) indicate that an adult 4—5 mm in length might be 80-100 years old. This is comparable with estimates for the life spans of some small deep-sea bivalves (Thistle 2003). However, according to Paine (1969) brachiopods can produce non-annual growth lines (observed in the shallow water species Terebratalia transversa), which may substantially reduce the above age assumption. In general, the estimated age for shallow water brachiopods is 8—15 years (Doherty 1979; Thayer 1981; James et al. 1992). Based on growth ring analysis, Curry (1984) suggested a possible age of 30 years for shallow water species settling in deeper waters. An increasing longevity of brachiopods with depth would fit the model of the deep sea as an environment of slow metabolism and correspondingly slow reproduction and would correspond to the observed number of growth rings and assumed age in Melvicalathis specimens.
The problem is that intermediate rings are mixed with the pronounced growth rings, possibly from lunar cycles affecting food supply, possibly from storms (for shallow seafloor inhabitants).
Taking a "worst case" scenario from this we would be looking at a minimum of 8 years for fully developed brachiopods growing generation after generation in a mature ecosystem.
The other approach is to use shell size:
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/.../1/v23n3-337-343.pdf
quote:
The excellent agreement between samples taken four years apart but on approximately the same date in the modal positions suggest that the modes do represent periods of maximum recruitment, and that their displacement can be attributed to growth. These relationships are plotted in Figure 4, which thus represents the growth of a modal individual in its first 57 months.
Another way of expressing growth is to plot on the curve the largest-sized individual found in each collection, assuming maximum possible age. Since we are now evaluating maximum, not modal, growth, it is not surprising that the two largest individuals from the 5Yryear maximum age samples fall above the curve. The two 10year- old maximum age individuals, and the one from Alki representing an "infinitely" old brachiopod (13 years), all fall close to an extrapolation of the curve, at about the same size, indicating either that growth in length and width may cease, or that mortality pressures are so intense that the probability of a Terebratalia living more than 10 years is extremely low.
So you see a distribution of shell size that is related to the age of the individual organism, with many individuals up to 5 years old and some up to 10 years old, and one that is 13 years old, for this one species of shallow seafloor brachiopod. Notice how this correlates with the above article ("In general, the estimated age for shallow water brachiopods is 8—15 years"). Here is a drawing of the typical shells in question:
quote:

Note that you can see 5 or 6 pronounced growth rings, with several intermediate rings, correlating with an age of 5 or 6 years for the individual shown. This means that this shallow seafloor species regularly produces individuals that are 5 to 10 years old in undisturbed mature marine ecosystems.
Note that even two year old brachiopods alone invalidate your position that they grew during a flood of a shorter duration, and that the existence of multiple layers of such mature ecosystem growth, including individuals 10 years old or older, make it an impossible concept that they all grew, one layer after the other, during a flood that lasts less than one year.
... But i didnt see any real evidence at all.
I trust this lays it out for you, in a way that is clear and unambiguous, showing that the age of the individual organisms alone, mean that they cannot be evidence of a shorter duration event, and demonstrating that the multiple layers of such growth, each layer possessing evidence of 5 or 10 year old individuals -- as a worst case -- means that it is completely untenable to claim that this is evidence of a flood of less than one year.
Do you or do you not agree that this evidence invalidates the idea that such seashells are evidence of a flood of less than one year duration?
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 182 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 2:04 AM Doubletime has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2009 9:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 190 of 343 (512840)
06-21-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Doubletime
05-10-2009 2:04 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Hi Doubletime,
It has been a while since you participated on this thread, and in the meanwhile you have participated on other threads.
I take this as tacit admission that Message 189 cannot be answered by your conjectures and ad hoc explanations of the evidence, and thus you accept that the shells on mountaintops are not evidence of a great flood for the simple reason that they don't fit the profile necessary for a great flood.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible. In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte.
Hopefully you have become more educated about the topic and realize that you were wrong.
Curiously, the fact that people do not accept the evidence that exists in the real world does not mean that their attempts to invalidate it through debate affect reality in any way.
A lot of concepts are up for debate, facts are not. It is a fact that the earth is old, it is a fact that life on earth is old, it is a fact that seashells on mountaintops is evidence of an old earth without a great flood.
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 182 by Doubletime, posted 05-10-2009 2:04 AM Doubletime has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:48 AM RAZD has replied

  
Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 5392 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 191 of 343 (512978)
06-23-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
06-21-2009 1:45 PM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
First of all
The flodd was supposed to have lasted for 40 days. Wich means the earth would have been coverd by water. Therefore the sea shells still with air trapped inside could easily end up in mountains and deserts.
The earth is still flodded to about 70 percent.
Several times in the history of the earth the earth has been fully coverd with water.
But nvm I would like to focus on religiuos topics now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2009 1:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Huntard, posted 06-23-2009 7:13 AM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2009 8:09 AM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 194 by Taz, posted 06-23-2009 12:08 PM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 195 by roxrkool, posted 06-23-2009 8:48 PM Doubletime has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 192 of 343 (512981)
06-23-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:48 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Hello again Double, could you explain to me how this:
Doubletime writes:
Wich means the earth would have been coverd by water.
Follows from this:
Doubletime writes:
The flodd was supposed to have lasted for 40 days.
The earth is still flodded to about 70 percent.
Why this matters for a global flood, I don't really see.
Several times in the history of the earth the earth has been fully coverd with water.
Oh really? And the evidence for this would be?
But nvm I would like to focus on religiuos topics now.
Too bad.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:48 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 343 (512983)
06-23-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:48 AM


Evidence and Reality
Hi Doubletime, you're babbling.
The flodd was supposed to have lasted for 40 days.
No, that was the period of rainfall. However the flood lasted less than a year at best.
Therefore any shells that grew in-situ to 5 or more YEARS cannot be evidence of the flood. The shells on Everst are Brachiopods, they grow in-situ attached to the ground by a stalk. The fossils show this stalk connection intact.
This evidence contradicts any concept that they grew during the flood.
Wich means the earth would have been coverd by water.
No, it just means that it rained for 40 days and some land was flooded. Curiously this kind of flooding still occurs.
Therefore the sea shells still with air trapped inside could easily end up in mountains and deserts.
Living sea shell don't have air trapped inside. Fossil evidence contains shells that died underwater. No trapped air there either. Fossil evidence also has objects like sea fans. No trapped air there.
Floating shells does not explain the evidence. The evidence contradicts your ad hoc made up explanation.
The earth is still flodded to about 70 percent.
and? Last time I checked 70% does not equal 100%
Several times in the history of the earth the earth has been fully coverd with water.
Nope. Different parts have been underwater at different times, but at no time has all of it been underwater.
But nvm I would like to focus on religiuos topics now
Good - then you can abandon all your ridiculous assertions that are based on fantasy instead of reality, including the ones about human evolution, abiogenesis, and what is taught in science classes in schools.
So I don't expect to see you posting on any science threads or anything but faith and belief topics.
Because you are basically admitting that you are unable to participate in the level of reality necessary to post on science threads.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : addd

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 191 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:48 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 194 of 343 (512990)
06-23-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:48 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Doubletime writes:
The flodd was supposed to have lasted for 40 days.
Jesus christ, you don't even know your own bible. Rain fell for 40 days and it took another year or so for the water to recede. Here's the biblical reference.
Gen 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
If you're going to be a bible literalist, be a bible literalist. Don't make up your own BS.
Therefore the sea shells still with air trapped inside could easily end up in mountains and deserts.
Have you ever come across a sea shell that got air trapped inside it? More to the point, have you ever come across a sea shell that floats?
The earth is still flodded to about 70 percent.
Again, if you're going to be a bible literalist, be one. Don't make up your own BS.
Gen 7: 19-20 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
Several times in the history of the earth the earth has been fully coverd with water.
There is absolutely no evidence that the entire Earth was ever covered with water at any one time. Different parts of the planet have been covered at different times.
If you're going to talk earth science, talk earth science. Don't make up your own BS.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:48 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 195 of 343 (513010)
06-23-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Doubletime
06-23-2009 6:48 AM


Re: The age of shells and the age of the organisms that made the shells
Therefore the sea shells still with air trapped inside could easily end up in mountains and deserts.
I nearly spit out my drink, reading that. lol
Have any Creationists that spout this nonsense even seen what fossils look like in situ? I seriously doubt it.
It's not like the fossils are laying loose on the surface of the ground. They are embedded in rocks. Rocks that can be tens of thousands of feet thick.
Just how long do Young Earth Creationists think it takes sediment to lithify? And just where did all that sediment come from? The Flooding rains would have had to annihilate entire mountain ranges thousands of feet high... in 40 days.
Not only are we seeing individual fossils or colonies of fossils, we see entire reef systems. Such as coral, sponges, and many of the other associated organisms typically found in modern reef systems. And these reef systems, they are not a few inches or even a few feet thick. They can be hundreds of feet thick.
Just how long do Young Earth Creationists think an entire reef system can develop?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Doubletime, posted 06-23-2009 6:48 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024