Summations Only

Not to mention mammoths "standing up".

And don't forget that people still talk about Siddhrtha Gautama, too!

Portillo, maybe you won't get such a stormy reception if you stopped all the porkies you've used in the past? Ever thought of that alternative? For example, stop using dishonest quote-mines from creationist sources. Porkies are really not endearing you to people who want to have an honest conversation. All the quote-mines you've used so far showed, upon further investigation, to be very misleading quotes or/as well as outright porkies.How about starting to think for yourself? Your reception won't be hostile once you attempted honest conversations.

PortilloQuotes are fine, as long as they are put into context and you, yourself can understand them and where the quote comes from. What is not fine is quote-mining, where the quote-mine you use has the opposite meaning of what the writer of the quote actually meant trying to convey a message.What also is not acceptable is a vague reference of somebody pretending that he read the quote somewhere. Like you did with the "5 million mammaths" thing. The original actual publication is nowhere to be found.If you quote someone, give a proper reference. Not a vague reference from a creationist tract where they reference another creationist where they reference another creationist, but you never see the original reference.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

We have evidence that you are wrong.Water got into the mantle by quite a few ways, actually. It first happened when the original molten earth started cooling and rocks started forming. Water was not only trapped in minerals when the original molten earth cooled, they also formed part of the rocks.Chemical reactions and minerals are wonderful things. They exist and we can study them (I know the word 'study' is foreign to creationists and that you won’t understand it, but people actually can study rocks!). I hope you know that the asthenosphere consists of ductile rocks?Oh, and by the way. The topic of this thread is 'Evidence for a recent flood'. As this is a science forum, ramblings about how you think water got into the asthenosphere is not evidence for a flood. It has nothing to do with it.We have evidence for water in the asthenosphere. We have evidence on how it got there and still gets there. No global flood involved.I take it that you have no evidence for a recent global flood at all, but you just believe it because of an old book?Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Changed sentences

quote:

---

But if you start digging down into the western prairies, what do you find? Fossils. They got there by being smashed by masses of mud in a global catastrophe.
  —Portillo

---

How would fossils found in the western prairies indicate a global catastrophe called "The Flood?" Please explain.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

My question

quote:

---

How would fossils found in the western prairies indicate a global catastrophe called "The Flood?" Please explain.
  —me

---

The answer you gave was.

quote:

---

Why arent fossils being formed anywhere in the world today? On land or water. If the fossil record is the record of life, why isnt the record continuing?
  —Portillo

---

Obviously dodging the question.Remember, you stated that fossils in the western prairies indicate a global flood.The question again: How would fossils found in the western prairies indicate a global catastrophe called "The Flood?" Please explain.

quote:

---

If you put various sediments in a blender and then lay them down with water, they will all go back neatly into layers. Kids can do this experiment at home!

---

Not true, if you put various sediments in a blender and lay them down with water, it forms one layer of sediment, sorted with the course stuff at the bottom, grading into the finest stuff at the top.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

In this thread it was obvious that creationists don't have any idea on what has been studied by thousands of geologists.They don't realize that geologists have been working for hundreds of years. This is obvious when, for example, Portillo referred to Mount Saint Helens; as if it was the first volcano or volcanic eruption ever witnessed or studied by geologists. He doesn't realize that lots of eruptions, together with the resulting deposits, have been studied in depth by thousands of geologists long before the eruption at Mount Saint Helens.