|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a recent flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: Any evidence for this, apart from your statement? The land mass being in one place and the water rising from all directions (with no rate of the rise of the water given)All the evidence we have clearly points to the exact opposite. In the last 10 000 years, there's absolutely no empirical evidence for this. In fact, glue was invented before that. We have evidence for the invention of glue and also exactly when it was invented. Way before your flood. ICANT writes: It rained for forty days and forty nights. From your holy book. As we can measure how much water the atmosphere can contain, the rate of how much rain can fall in forty days and nights is a given. It won't even put Australia under water. Your book is complete fairy tale stuff.
...and coming down in the form of rain (with no explanation of the rate the water was raining at) just what would you expect to find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This is a science thread. In science we need empirical evidence. Not wishful thinking. Verses or whatever they are called from your favourite holy book do not count. Empirical evidence does.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Got me
I certainly don't understand your "arguments". You should have been a creationist! Why would the fountains of the deep be only around the land mass? Wouldn't they be everywhere? The holy books don't state anything on where they were (from your verses). Just fountains from the deep. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
If a flood occurred, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world.
There's lots of areas all over the world with no fossils at all. Therefore, those fossils are not all over the world. Therefore, no such flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
The tide at the Bay of Fundy rises 50 feet and falls 50 feet every 12 hours and 13 minutes. It don't wash everything away..... Who said it would wash everything away? ... nor does it leave a lot of evidence it has been there. You can find information about it Here. It does leave a lot of evidence. Things like mud flats and tidal marshes. You can find information about it here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, your'e right. it was addressed to Portillo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Not at all. Let's have a look at the original statement from Portillo. Split by me.
Portillo writes: In one big global flood occurring at the same time all over the world, covering the entire world in water, I would expect to find at least one stratum of sedimentary deposits with comparative characteristics that covers the entire world. From pole to pole. It would contain unsorted debris all in one layer. In laymen's terms, all mixed up. If a flood occurred, what would you expect to find? Portillo writes: In one global flood, yip, all over the world. Everywhere. No sequence of deposition involved. All mixed up. No layering involved. Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world.Portillo writes: The fossiliferous sediments don't occur all over the world. Where they do occur, they occur containing very distinctive sequences of fossils from bottom to top. All occurring in very distinguishable strata. The exact opposite of what you would expect from one global flood. And what do we find?Portillo writes: We don't find that at all. For example, what about all those fossils not laid down in strata deposited by water? All those fossils in pyroclastic deposits, for example. No global flood involved. Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world. The areas covered by fossiliferous sediments are small compared to the areas not covered by them, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: Without tides, the mud flats won’t be there. Tides leave evidence. Floods leave evidence,too. We know the difference. But the mud flats are there when the tide is in and is still there when the tide is out.ICANT writes: Without the tides rising and falling, they won’t be there. Tides leave evidence. We do know what tidal evidence looks like. They have been there all the time that the tide has rose and fell 50 feet.ICANT writes: Now that would leave huge evidence. Not only mudflats. It would leave one big mudflat all over the world. More than that, it would leave one layer of sediment you should be able to follow all over the world. The water of the flood of Noah rose one time over a period of 40 days and 40 nights and stayed 110 days before it began to return from off the Earth which took another 150 days.ICANT writes: You show us. Do the maths. We would love to see. So if the water rose over a 40 day period to cover the highest point on the land mass how much did the water have to rise?ICANT writes: Oh, is it? Please show your maths. If the water rose as much as it does in the bay of fundy on each tide over a period of 40 days the water would rise 4.000 feet.ICANT writes: I don’t know. You work it out for us. Show your maths. How high was the highest point above sea level on the land mass at the time of the flood of Noah? ICANT writes: Yes, I know. Facts indicating a global flood are missing, completely. That’s why there’s absolutely no evidence for any global flood, at least since the time of the first unicellular organisms. We’ve got empirical evidence for them, you know? No one knows how high that point was. Guesses can be made and assertions can be made. But the facts are missing. ICANT writes: May the Force be with you!
God Bless
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hi Dr Bertsche
Yes, I would love to talk to them, too. The problem here is that not even one of the YEC's here have any geology training at all. I would love to see one of the handful YEC's with geological training in the world (maybe ten?), to come and defend their positions. My only guess is that they don't want to try it on forums like this, because they know they will get slaughtered. They just want to preach to novices! I do know that Dr. John Baumgardner tried to do it once on a similar forum. The problem with him is that he has no geological training, but is an Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geophysics. Boy, did he get slaughtered! In the end he tried outright untruths (like referring to a real expert on dating methods as a "self-styled specialist"). Then he mentioned something about "no respect for the Word of God" (or something to that effect) and then he disappeared from the forum. I guess we won't get anything better than that. That's all they have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Portillo writes: Oh, is that so? Sources please. This baby here doesn't look as if it was crushed, or something came down on top of him or as if he was pushed down. In Siberia there are 5 million woolly mammaths frozen The mammaths are crushed as if something came on top of them and pushed them down. Many are standing, kneeling or looking up. Portillo writes: This normally happens when animals fall into very cold water. They get frozen very quickly. Nothing involving a flood. Some still have undigested food in their stomachs. Fresh flowers have been found in there mouths, which they were chewing on before they were fast frozen. Portillo writes: Falling into a frozen lake, such as when the ice breaks suddenly. Easy. It happens today. How did that massive, violent death happen? How did the woolly mammaths freeze so quickly and turn into blocks of ice? Portillo writes: Mammoth fossils fall into two main groups, one ranging in age from 45,000 years to 30,000 years and a smaller number of remains from 14-11,000 years old. Therefore not even one flood, if it has anything to do with floods, anyway. Did it happen over millions of years or did it happen it happen quickly with lots of water and catastrophe? Mammoths also haven’t been around for millions of years. Only a few thousand. Something like 45 000 years. Edited by Pressie, : Added link Edited by Pressie, : Changed spelling of the word "therfore" to "therefore"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Portillo writes: Dr Adequate, this was such an absolutely ridiculously stupid "argument" that I didn't even pick it up. Yeah, sure, they will be standing and looking up when they are finished being crushed by tons of water and sediment falling on them. In Siberia there are 5 million woolly mammaths frozen. The mammaths are crushed as if something came on top of them and pushed them down. Many are standing, kneeling or looking up. PS. Did you notice that he can’t even spell the word mammoths, but that he tried to make an argument on mammaths?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Portillo writes: Portillo, are you telling porkies again? Could you please provide an example of any scientist ever that has claimed that process of forming the woolly mammoths remains we find today happened over millions of years? You know, we are educated on this forum. Porkies don't really impress us. The porkie-teller just looses a lot of face. Your sources of any scientist ever indicating that the remains of mammoths we find today are a result of processes happening over millions of years?
How did that massive, violent death happen? How did the woolly mammaths freeze so quickly and turn into blocks of ice? Did it happen over millions of years......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I'll answer you, as I think Portillo can't answer the post, but can only do quote-mining from people with with exact opposite viewpoints than his, but will still pretend that the quote "proves" creation.
I looked him up after your answer.
Nicolai Vereshchaginncbi writes:
This is funny:
Neurologist who introduced computed tomography to the former Soviet UnionAfter qualifying he specialised in neurology, but was increasingly drawn to an administrative career, becoming, in 1965, head of the human resources department of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Soviet Union. For almost 10 years (1966-75) Vereshchagin worked in the central committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as an instructor in the department for science and education institutions. However, being an apparatchik he continued to hold an honorary position as senior researcher at the Institute of Neurology.
So a neorologist being "The top expert on woolly mammoths in Siberia is Nikolai Vereshchagin, who has spent nearly half a century researching the mammoth fauna." I feel sorry for the real experts on mammoths for having to compete with a neurologist! Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Maybe, maybe not. It might help if Portillo gave us the exact references to how he got to the number of 5 million mammoth fossils? I can't find a reference. Except for creationist "sources", where they claim someone gave those numbers. But we know that they always tell porkies.
Portillo, a reference? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024