|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a recent flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Portillo writes:
This implies that floods no longer occur, which is clearly not true. 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dr. A writes:
I was more trying to point out the logical contradictions than the factual errors. Well that hasn't been shown either.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Portillo writes: 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. Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past?Portillo writes: Not true. Even Wiki can tell you that this is false. Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly. 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: Ever thought of Amber, for example. No flood involved. You shouldn’t have any expectation. You know too little. If not, then I would have no such expectation. Portillo writes: 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. Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past? Portillo writes: 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. Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Witches float too.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Coyote writes:
In his KJV thread, ICANT thinks that the flood occurred within the lifetime of Peleg - but he seems unable to say when this was. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Coragyps writes: I finally found ICANT's post and I was mistaken. 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. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024