Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Evidence for a recent flood
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 76 of 404 (638599)
10-24-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:21 AM


Portillo writes:
Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past? Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.
This implies that floods no longer occur, which is clearly not true.
You claim that the creation of fossils requires that animals are laid down by water and buried quickly.
And that is what floods do.
But you then claim that fossilisation no longer happens ("we don't find fossils of animals today").
Can you explain how floods can bury animals quickly but fossils are no longer created?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:21 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 6:36 AM Panda has replied
 Message 330 by Portillo, posted 12-11-2011 12:58 AM Panda has not replied

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


Message 77 of 404 (638600)
10-24-2011 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Panda
10-24-2011 6:31 AM


You claim that the creation of fossils requires that animals are laid down by water and buried quickly.
And that is what floods do.
Well that hasn't been shown either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 6:31 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Panda, posted 10-24-2011 6:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 78 of 404 (638605)
10-24-2011 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
10-24-2011 6:36 AM


Dr. A writes:
Well that hasn't been shown either.
I was more trying to point out the logical contradictions than the factual errors.
You seem to be already dealing with the factual errors.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 6:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 79 of 404 (638608)
10-24-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:21 AM


Portillo writes:
Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past?
We actually find fossils, all over the world, today. Someone is finding a fossil, somewhere in the world, as you sleep. Do you think that a finding remains of a mammoth counts as a fossil or not? It didn’t just happen in the past.
Portillo writes:
Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.
Not true. Even Wiki can tell you that this is false.
Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Then you want to have a rational conversation with specialists on the subject and also tell them all that they all are wrong? There’s a very good phsycological word for this, you know?
Portillo writes:
If not, then I would have no such expectation.
Ever thought of Amber, for example. No flood involved. You shouldn’t have any expectation. You know too little.
Portillo writes:
Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past?
No, you should wonder about this. Ever heard what is required for mineralization to occur? Not just a flood. It happens lots of ways. A flood could be the first step, not in all circumstances. Pyroclastic deposits for example. It happens often. However, there’s no evidence for a global flood to have occurred in the last 10 000 years. So, I guess, your argument doesn’t even exist.
Portillo writes:
Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.
Yeah, tell that to all those hundreds of thousands of specialists on the subject, who actually know what they are doing. Tell that to the guys who study amber, for example.
Portillo, we all know that, it doesn't matter how many times you are shown to be incorrect, you'll never believe it. Other people can be distinguish fiction from facts, you know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:21 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(2)
Message 80 of 404 (638686)
10-24-2011 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Portillo
10-24-2011 4:21 AM


Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.
Exactly, a global flood would provide ideal conditions for fossilisation. Rapid deposition of sediment cuts off the supply of oxygen, slowing decay processes, and any scavengers which may scatter the remains would also perish. In fact for such a successful method of fossilisation, it's a wonder there are not more fossils found.
Consider how abundant fossils would be if this global flood hit the equivalent of the Serengeti, for example. Another example would be the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Although a result of the volcano Vesuvius, and not a flood, we still get an idea of what to expect from a sudden disaster, with hundreds of skeletons having been discovered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Portillo, posted 10-24-2011 4:21 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 9:43 PM Meddle has replied

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


Message 81 of 404 (638693)
10-24-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Meddle
10-24-2011 8:38 PM


Exactly, a global flood would provide ideal conditions for fossilisation. Rapid deposition of sediment cuts off the supply of oxygen, slowing decay processes, and any scavengers which may scatter the remains would also perish.
It's not clear. Corpes float, after all. Of course, later on they sink, but by then the sediment may have been laid down already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Meddle, posted 10-24-2011 8:38 PM Meddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Meddle, posted 10-25-2011 4:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 82 of 404 (638760)
10-25-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
10-24-2011 9:43 PM


My understanding was that corpses don't initially float. Instead it is the action of bacteria and the chemical breakdown of the tissues which releases gases that allows the body to rise to the surface. Of course I could very easily be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2011 9:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2011 4:33 PM Meddle has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 83 of 404 (638761)
10-25-2011 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Meddle
10-25-2011 4:29 PM


My understanding was that corpses don't initially float. Instead it is the action of bacteria and the chemical breakdown of the tissues which releases gases that allows the body to rise to the surface. Of course I could very easily be wrong.
Well, living organisms float. People do, if they keep still and don't thrash about. So do ducks. OK, that's a narrow range of samples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Meddle, posted 10-25-2011 4:29 PM Meddle has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2011 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 84 of 404 (638766)
10-25-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
10-25-2011 4:33 PM


Well, living organisms float. People do, if they keep still and don't thrash about. So do ducks. OK, that's a narrow range of samples.
Depends on how much air you have in your lungs. Exhale completely and you'll just sink. There are other considerations though, like salinity, that strongly affect buoyancy.
Cue comparison of ducks, wood, and very small rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2011 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Theodoric, posted 10-25-2011 6:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 85 of 404 (638781)
10-25-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Rahvin
10-25-2011 4:58 PM


I gotta go there
Witches float too.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 10-25-2011 4:58 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 86 of 404 (638789)
10-25-2011 7:51 PM


Evidence for a recent flood
Let's get back to the topic of "Evidence for a recent flood."
So far I haven't seen any serious evidence offered in support of a recent flood. Have I missed something?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Portillo, posted 10-31-2011 5:03 AM Coyote has not replied

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


(2)
Message 87 of 404 (638920)
10-26-2011 11:41 PM


Summary to date:
The original post specifically dealt with a recent global flood, in the general range of 4,350 years ago. It invited evidence from creationists supporting this general date.
Here is a summary of creationists's responses (along with other pertinent comments). Many off-topic comments have been omitted.
Message 7. ICANT goes off on a totally unrelated tangent. No mention even of a recent flood, let alone any evidence.
Message 11. ICANT replies with again no mention of a recent flood.
Message 13. ICANT replies with again no mention of a recent flood.
Message 15. ICANT replies with a comment that no date is given in the bible for the flood.
Message 17. ICANT replies, negating the idea of a recent flood and states that the flood isn’t dated in the bible.
Message 23. Chuck77 says he is gathering evidence for the thread.
Message 27. Portillo goes completely off topic and discusses fossils.
Message 34. ICANT responds with information on the Bay of Fundy. No mention of the age of the flood.
Message 41. ICANT continues with off-topic remarks.
Message 44. ICANT continues with off-topic remarks.
Message 45. ICANT repeats his claim that we don’t know the date of the flood.
Message 49. ICANT repeats his claim that we don’t know the date of the flood.
Message 51. ICANT repeats his claim that we don’t know the date of the flood.
Message 54. ICANT repeats his claim that we don’t know the date of the flood.
Message 59. kbertsche notes that biblical scholars are all over the map on the date of the flood
Message 70. kbertsche discusses the range of creationist beliefs and suggests they are appropriate for a bible study thread.
Message 74. Portillo with off-topic comments.
Summary: No evidence has been presented supporting a recent global flood.
The problem we have here is that the flood, if it took place at all, took place in comparatively recent history, after the invention of writing. That alone eliminates all of the K-T boundary and Cambrian explosion dates. Humans weren't even around then!
But it is interesting that nobody is supporting a recent date for the flood. It seems that folks are more comfortable having a very ambiguous date for the flood so that it can't be disproved.
"It's not over here, it's over there! No, over there."
That might make good apologetics but it is lousy science.
Anyone want to try to support a recent flood, something under 10,000 years ago?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 10-27-2011 8:37 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 404 (638955)
10-27-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Coyote
10-26-2011 11:41 PM


Re: Summary to date:
Coyote writes:
But it is interesting that nobody is supporting a recent date for the flood. It seems that folks are more comfortable having a very ambiguous date for the flood so that it can't be disproved.
In his KJV thread, ICANT thinks that the flood occurred within the lifetime of Peleg - but he seems unable to say when this was.
Maybe someone else has a suggestion for when Peleg lived?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 10-26-2011 11:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2011 9:19 AM Panda has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 89 of 404 (638964)
10-27-2011 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Panda
10-27-2011 8:37 AM


Re: Summary to date:
That's peculiar, since Gen 11 has Peleg as the great-great-grandson of Shem, who was one of the eight survivors of the Fludde.
10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
That puts Peleg's birth 101 years after the flood, if I'm reading my begats right.
Edited by Coragyps, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 10-27-2011 8:37 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 10-27-2011 9:47 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 90 of 404 (638967)
10-27-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coragyps
10-27-2011 9:19 AM


Re: Summary to date:
Coragyps writes:
That's peculiar, since Gen 11 has Peleg as the great-great-grandson of Shem, who was one of the eight survivors of the Fludde.
I finally found ICANT's post and I was mistaken.
ICANT was claiming that the world was separated during Peleg's lifetime.
Sorry.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2011 9:19 AM Coragyps 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