|
Author
|
Topic: The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10033 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 271 of 377 (621105)
06-23-2011 6:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 264 by Chuck77
06-22-2011 4:57 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
I have no proof of the worlwide flood when it comes to "regular" Science. Wouldn't there be scientific evidence if the entire Earth were covered by water just 4,500 years ago? I would think that such evidence would be obvious and abundant. Don't you?
Is it possible that all of the waters from the flood are in the oceans today? The mountains were "hills" before the flood and didn't "sprout " up till afterwards because of plate tectonics?Or catastophic plate tech? The earth's surface was maybe a little more level back then. Also the water poured into the deep valleys in the oceans afterwards when tectonic movement took place. I would like to approach these questions from a different angle than the posters above. What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that this didn't happen? IOW, how does one falsify the idea of a recent worldwide flood (in your eyes)?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 264 by Chuck77, posted 06-22-2011 4:57 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Taq has replied |
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 272 of 377 (621324)
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 271 by Taq
06-23-2011 6:54 PM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Taq writes: I would like to approach these questions from a different angle than the posters above. What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that this didn't happen? IOW, how does one falsify the idea of a recent worldwide flood (in your eyes)? What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that plate tectonics didn't happen to cause the mountains to rise up? Or that the flood didn't happen? To make a long story short, it's senseless for me to try to hypothesize without being able to provide evidence. It's also senseless for me to answer a question with what I think may have happened. I believe the flood happened but not knowing what the earth looked like before the "flood" how would I know how the evidence against it is supposed to look? Im Obvioulsy not a geologist and have no hands on experience. A lot of us "cretins" hypothesize but that's it. Im not going to break any new ground here im sure. I've read every post here and it's all the same theme, suggestions with no evidence except to say "here's a picture of me next to this rock so the flood happened". Creation Scientists' are working on flood theorys all the time. There is one from 2007 that is really interesting (to me). It's a lot of reading(which im still doing) but if anyone is interested, here are the links for them. It would be interesting to comment on some of the material (if anyone is willing) but havn't finished reading all the material just yet, it's still sort of new to me but will be prepared hopefully soon to do so. Regarding taqs' questions and everyone elses, I don't mean to brush off questions, but I also don't wish to look like a fool explaining things im not prepared to backup with reliable evidence that would satisfy anyone here. Flood transported quartzites: Part 1east of the Rocky Mountains - creation.com Flood transported quartzites: Part 2west of the Rocky Mountains - creation.com Flood transported quartzites: Part 3failure of uniformitarian interpretations - creation.com Flood transported quartzites: Part 4diluvial interpretations - creation.com Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 271 by Taq, posted 06-23-2011 6:54 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 273 of 377 (621327)
06-25-2011 3:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Here's the way it looks right now
Chuck77 writes: I believe the flood happened but not knowing what the earth looked like before the "flood" how would I know how the evidence against it is supposed to look? It looks like an incised river valley, the Grand Canyon being one of hundreds of examples. It looks like dozens of lakes with annual layers known as varves, Lake Shigetsu being a prime example. It looks like every ice core pulled out of the center of Greenland and Antarctica. It looks like every coral reef that has annual variations in growth. It looks like every tree ring that has annual variations in growth. It looks like every calcite formation, such as stalactites that have annual variations of growth. It looks like every sedimentary formation with annual layers such as the Castile beneath my feet which has 200,000 alternating layers of the same sequence of anhydrite, gypsum, and halite in each one. It looks like the four miles of salts beneath my feet, which is more than any 4350 years of evaporation can ever account for. It looks like every sedimentary rock that shows no supposed flood layer, inter sped with water borne impossibilities such as igneous intrusions that could not have formed under oceans. It looks like a geology that in every way accounts for preservation of mass and energy. .... I'm just warming up. It looks to me like you need to learn something about the geosciences before declaring your opinion as somehow informed. {ABE} Read every word in this thread, or you will have no credibility here concerning this or similar subjects among the majority of members. Sometimes the truth hurts, sometimes it needs to so it sticks.{/ABE} Edited by anglagard, : Link to greatest thread of all time Edited by anglagard, : More precision in the Castile formation bit. Edited by anglagard, : remove parts of too strong a sentence in referring to the #1 post by RAZD
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 274 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 4:38 AM | | anglagard has replied |
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
Re: Here's the way it looks right now
anglagard writes: I'm just warming up. It looks to me like you need to learn something about the geosciences before declaring your opinion as somehow informed. You really took my ENTIRE comment out of context. Do you always try to twist what other members say and or bully them? Are you under the impression that im on this thread to try to inform everyone here why and how the flood happened from MY perspective? Here's a thought, instead of cherry picking things i've said TRY to keep my comments in context. It really isn't hard. As for declaring my opinion as informed and using what I said about NOT knowing how the earth looked before the "flood" how would I know what things are supposed to look like? As an example (since you like to cherry pick and forget everything else i've said regarding how I said I "lack EVIDENCE" to back up MY opinions which you overlook and instead try to demean) if the earth was LEVEL or less "mountainess" before the SUPPOSED "FLOOD". Possibly the mountains TODAY are WAY higher than then and catastrophic Plate Tectonics could have caused the mountains to rise and ocean valley's to sink but I can't know for sure because I wasn't there. So that's why I said it would be nice to know how it used to look. I know YOU/Scientists say they've been rising a few inches a century or so? So it must have been millions of years for them to form like they are now. HENCE the debate. I know you think there is no "debate" but that's why your here right? To debate or just shout down? I can't stand arrogant know it alls even after people admit they have a lot of work to do finding supporting evidence. It's a HYPOTHESIS. You know what a HYPOTHESIS is? I didn't say it was a proven THEORY. YET. So now, you are bringing me into an argument about ideas and opinions i've already expressed and am learning not to just say things without sufficient evidence AFTER I already said I have no theory to support it. Are you just jumping in or have you been following along? If you've been following along then you're a playground bully and should stick to the coffee house and free for all and stick it to the Creationists' over there. IF you have a shred of humility and can see that EVERYONE is NOT as smart as you then stick around, you might actually lean how to be a decent human being and how the 'FLOOD" really happened, after I get the evidence, of course.
anglagard writes: Sometimes the truth hurts, sometimes it needs to so it sticks The truth doesn't hurt. As the reason everyone is here IS because they WANT truth. It's only people like you that don't care about truth but instead relish in the showing of everyone how wrong you think they are.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 273 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2011 3:15 AM | | anglagard has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 275 of 377 (621338)
06-25-2011 6:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 274 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 4:38 AM
|
|
Re: Here's the way it looks right now
Chuck77 writes: You really took my ENTIRE comment out of context. To reiterate:
Chuck77 writes: I believe the flood happened but not knowing what the earth looked like before the "flood" how would I know how the evidence against it is supposed to look? Do you always try to twist what other members say and or bully them? You said you believed in a global flood in accordance with biblical fundamentalism, I took you at your word that is what you believe. It isn't my personal problem that you don't know you are wrong until you try to force some form of cult anti-rational crap on everyone, such as happened to my daughter in the public school system in West Texas. Yeah I'm angry, for good cause. Makes me a real bastard at times.
Here's a thought, instead of cherry picking things i've said TRY to keep my comments in context. It really isn't hard. OK, what is the context, let's find out.
As for declaring my opinion as informed and using what I said about NOT knowing how the earth looked before the "flood" how would I know what things are supposed to look like? As I stated, with tree rings, coral reefs, ice sheets (sometimes), evolving creatures, rocks, volcanoes, and so on. Just like it looked to those Egyptians who built the largest pyramids before this supposed flood. From your own posts apparently everything appears to you through the filter of 'the flood happened.' Reality, unfortunately for you, clearly demonstrates there was no global flood since the Precambrian, and most likely never.
As an example (since you like to cherry pick and forget everything else i've said regarding how I said I "lack EVIDENCE" to back up MY opinions which you overlook and instead try to demean) if the earth was LEVEL or less "mountainess" before the SUPPOSED "FLOOD". Possibly the mountains TODAY are WAY higher than then and catastrophic Plate Tectonics could have caused the mountains to rise and ocean valley's to sink but I can't know for sure because I wasn't there. Uh huh, "you weren't there" direct from the Ken Ham playbook.
So that's why I said it would be nice to know how it used to look. Those idiot scientists, myself included, actually have a very detailed picture based upon evidence. Care to listen?
I know YOU/Scientists say they've been rising a few inches a century or so? So it must have been millions of years for them to form like they are now. HENCE the debate. I know you think there is no "debate" but that's why your here right? To debate or just shout down? I can't stand arrogant know it alls even after people admit they have a lot of work to do finding supporting evidence. It's a HYPOTHESIS. You know what a HYPOTHESIS is? I didn't say it was a proven THEORY. YET. I know the difference between data, hypothesis, theory, and proof. From the previous sentences most all here can see you don't. As I said do some studying, here is a great place to start.
So now, you are bringing me into an argument about ideas and opinions i've already expressed and am learning not to just say things without sufficient evidence AFTER I already said I have no theory to support it. Are you just jumping in or have you been following along? If you've been following along then you're a playground bully and should stick to the coffee house and free for all and stick it to the Creationists' over there. If you have no theory to support your assertions......, well, please continue the debate.
IF you have a shred of humility and can see that EVERYONE is NOT as smart as you then stick around, you might actually lean how to be a decent human being and how the 'FLOOD" really happened, after I get the evidence, of course.  Glad to see you have not lost your sense of humor.
The truth doesn't hurt. As the reason everyone is here IS because they WANT truth. It's only people like you that don't care about truth but instead relish in the showing of everyone how wrong you think they are. Personally, I relish both. So, as a flud advocate, care to look deeper into those evaporites? How about Salt of the Earth?
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 274 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 4:38 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 276 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 7:28 AM | | anglagard has replied |
|
Chuck77
Inactive Member
|
Re: Here's the way it looks right now
anglagard writes: You said you believed in a global flood in accordance with biblical fundamentalism, I took you at your word that is what you believe. It isn't my personal problem that you don't know you are wrong until you try to force some form of cult anti-rational crap on everyone, such as happened to my daughter in the public school system in West Texas. Yeah I'm angry, for good cause. Makes me a real bastard at times." Wow, you do know this is a debate site right? Force anti-rational crap? YOU are the only one forcing crap on people here, and why? Because your DAUGHTER happened to hear about a different view other than yours? That's YOUR problem not mine. Take your anger out on someone else. Maybe you should settle into the fact that your daughter may not believe the same things you do, it happens, it makes the world go around you control freak. About you taking me on my word and thinking it's not your problem im wrong well, you must have been born with all of the knowledge you have now. Not me, im still learning. I know how to admit when im wrong and how to search for answers I don't yet have. The reason you can't see that is because your the total opposite. You have to much pride and not enough humility to admit error. The best thing for your daughter is that she get a wider view on how people reason and come to conclusions while maintaining that they don't know it all. The only way she'll ever learn that is by getting as far away from you as possible. Thanks for bringing the simple comment I made a few comments up and taking everything in it off topic. As a veteren member here you should know better. As a new member here well, I don't know any better, yet. I only go by what I see. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : spelling
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 275 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2011 6:25 AM | | anglagard has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 277 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2011 7:51 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 277 of 377 (621341)
06-25-2011 7:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 276 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 7:28 AM
|
|
Re: Here's the way it looks right now
Chuck77 writes: You have to much pride and not enough humility to admit error. I don't know any better, yet. I only go by what I see. One of the above statements is true. 
Thanks for bringing the simple comment I made a few comments up and taking everything in it off topic. As a veteren member here you should know better Yeah, I guess if the topic is the Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence, my post concerning The Flood & the geologic evidence is off topic. Guess I left one out. You have 57 posts, the kid gloves are off. Now about those evaporites. {ABE} upon viewing the OP, I see it is primarily about having too many fossils in one place at one time to please creationists. Well you should see the Permian limestone around here, damn near solid fossils of brachiopods and crinoids every centimeter. That is of course when that inland sea wasn't making evaporites. May be on topic after all, but I am not the one to judge. {/ABE} Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 276 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 7:28 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 278 of 377 (621342)
06-25-2011 7:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Hi Chuck, I gave a cursory look at your first link (it's kind of long, I don't have that kind of time right now), and it seems to me like a thread discussing it could be pretty interesting. The premise is that there are large Rocky Mountain quartzite rocks that have been violently transported up to a thousand miles by the flood. Why don't you create a thread proposal by writing a paragraph or two around the link over at Proposed New Topics.
Chuck77 writes: To make a long story short, it's senseless for me to try to hypothesize without being able to provide evidence. But haven't you already formed a hypothesis ("the flood happened") without evidence? Don't you, in effect, have a hypothesis in search of evidence? A side comment: I wish Anglagard would adopt a more dispassionate tone, and I hope this doesn't escalate. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 279 of 377 (621345)
06-25-2011 8:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
I believe the flood happened but not knowing what the earth looked like before the "flood" how would I know how the evidence against it is supposed to look? But we know what the earth looked like before the date most folk use for the imagined flood, we know quite well and from many, many different lines of evidence. There is also the genetic bottleneck signature that totally and completely refutes the Biblical flood myths.
jar writes: quote:
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."
and in Genesis 7:
quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT... If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.
Finally, there are no and can be no Creation Scientists.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 288 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:54 AM | | jar has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 280 of 377 (621346)
06-25-2011 8:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
So. After extensive work and hypothesis testing, real geologists have resolved the question of the quartzite conglomerates in the Beaverhead Group, having identified them as having been transported by rivers, and have identified the paleovalleys through which these rivers flowed:
Meanwhile your creationists (Oard et al) have a completely different idea. Well, not a completely different idea. Having dismissed, for reasons which are (let's put this kindly) obscure, the reality-based hypothesis that the gravel was deposited by rivers, they propose that it was deposited by what would, in fact, be rivers. Water channelized into valleys, eh? Where do creationists get all these original ideas? However, they disagree with real geologists on two points. First, they claim that the origin of the water was magical. And second, per Genesis 8, their river would have been a temporary one that only flowed for a few months before running dry rather than a permanent one that flowed for millions of years. The radiometric evidence they ignore, because they are creationists. They might, perhaps, have said a little something about the fossil evidence. What, exactly, were dinosaurs doing in North America in the months following the flood to get themselves buried in the Pinyon conglomerate? I think we should be told. Amongst their whining about reality-based geologists, two passages are worthy of particular remark, not to mention contempt. First, they claim that real scientists "have been reluctant to publish much information" on the conglomerates, as though they were trying to hide something. They supply no basis for this accusation, because they're creationists. But where do they suppose that they are getting all their information from? Their webpages on these gravels are adorned with dozens and dozens of references and citations and quotations from real geologists, and if creationists really think that not enough research has been done in this area, then they should stop wasting their money on creation "museums" and replicas of imaginary boats, and offer to fund further geological fieldwork --- and see if geologists are really "reluctant" to pursue their profession. The second thing that made me snort with contempt was when they complained that "Janecke et al. do not provide any quantitative evaluation of their paleovalley hypothesis". Did Oard et al not collectively blush when they wrote this? If any creationist has ever performed any quantitative investigation into the purported effects of their supposed magical flood, it was not, on the present showing, Oard, Hergenrather, or Klevberg. This is the pot rebuking the kettle with a vengance. Oard et al have supplied no reason to suppose that the water that deposited the gravel was magical rather than non-magical in origin; and given the weight of evidence against a magical flood ever having taken place, and the general scarcity of magical events, it seems as though the non-magical explanation is to be preferred. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:36 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 281 of 377 (621349)
06-25-2011 8:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 278 by Percy
06-25-2011 7:56 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Percy writes: A side comment: I wish Anglagard would adopt a more dispassionate tone, and I hope this doesn't escalate. Agreed, am taking this way too personal. I suspend myself from this thread for one week, regardless of temptation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 278 by Percy, posted 06-25-2011 7:56 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 282 of 377 (621353)
06-25-2011 9:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Hi again Chuck77
What type of geologic formation would demonstrate that plate tectonics didn't happen to cause the mountains to rise up? Or that the flood didn't happen? What I find fascinating is that creationists seems to be fixated on a link between mountain formation and a supposedly large flood -- there is no record anywhere of flooding causing the ground to rise. Floods cause sedimentary deposits in low spots, floods (or the water causing the floods) cause erosion away from high spots to deposit in the low spots. Plate tectonics, on the other hand, is observed to cause mountains to rise (Mt Everest is still rising).
To make a long story short, it's senseless for me to try to hypothesize without being able to provide evidence. It's also senseless for me to answer a question with what I think may have happened. I believe the flood happened but not knowing what the earth looked like before the "flood" how would I know how the evidence against it is supposed to look? Here I would repeat ZenMonkey's suggestion ( Message 270):
I'll add that if you'd like to read a careful and lucid explanation of why we can have confidence in the accuracy of current dating methods, please take a look at RAZD's Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread. Very informative. That thread addresses the issue of dating correlations that should NOT occur if there had been a flood. The earth is old, the universe is older.
Creation Scientists' are working on flood theorys all the time. There is one from 2007 that is really interesting (to me). It's a lot of reading(which im still doing) but if anyone is interested, here are the links for them. It would be interesting to comment on some of the material (if anyone is willing) but havn't finished reading all the material just yet, it's still sort of new to me but will be prepared hopefully soon to do so. Do any of them deal with the evidence of (a) marine deposits of different ages in many layers on mountains (why not one homogeneous layer) and (b) the marine deposits know to science all show mature growth of a complete marine ecosystem extending for decades or centuries in each place? See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for more. 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 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4531 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: 09-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 283 of 377 (621370)
06-25-2011 12:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 272 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Brief notes on the "flood"
Hi Chuck77, You now have three forum participants - myself, angalgard, and RAZD himself - suggesting that you go read RAZD's Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread to get up to speed on the topic of dating methods and how they work. Please let us know what you think after you've done so.
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 272 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 2:36 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 287 by Chuck77, posted 06-26-2011 1:41 AM | | ZenMonkey has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 284 of 377 (621373)
06-25-2011 12:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 274 by Chuck77
06-25-2011 4:38 AM
|
|
Re: Here's the way it looks right now
I know YOU/Scientists say they've been rising a few inches a century or so? So it must have been millions of years for them to form like they are now. And the problem with that is what, exactly? We can measure how fast the Himalayas or the California Coast Ranges are growing. We can measure how long rocks on those have been exposed to the sky, and how old the insides of some of them are. All the results point to millions of years. What has Oard measured?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 274 by Chuck77, posted 06-25-2011 4:38 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 285 by jar, posted 06-25-2011 1:15 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 285 of 377 (621377)
06-25-2011 1:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 284 by Coragyps
06-25-2011 12:45 PM
|
|
Re: Here's the way it looks right now
We also have examples of catastrophic events that would raise mountains, and guess what, such events leave evidence. Raise up a mass the size of even a small mountain ovr a year, ten years, one hundred year, even a thousand year period and I promise you it will leave evidence behind. The idea that the Biblical Flood ever happened is quite simply idiotic.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 284 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2011 12:45 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2