Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
124 online now:
Astrophile, dwise1, jar, kjsimons (4 members, 120 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,034 Year: 4,146/6,534 Month: 360/900 Week: 66/150 Day: 39/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 391 of 991 (706035)
09-05-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 4:50 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
I agree with biostratigraphy for relative dating. In itself , biostratigraphy does not point to millions of years.

Then you have a big problem, and a fatal one for your Flood idea; there are no human fossils below the most recent strata. Even in terms of relative dating you have a huge problem. For you to have any kind of case, you need to show human remains dating back to before the Flood and running right through from the post-Flood Triassic, to the present day. Instead what you have is a total lack of human fossils until the Pleistocene. Whether that is considered a couple of million years ago or some shorter span, you need to show human habitation before and after your Flood to bring a case.

The Flood story features humans; you need human fossils to have an argument. Without those fossils, you have nothing to corroborate your story.

mindspawn writes:

The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt.

Untrue. Even the crude map you posted shows that the traps do not cover the entire NE region.

mindspawn writes:

This is the greatest layer of basalt known to man. It is pretty impassable.

Completely untrue. There has been extensive mining of the coal zones around the edges of the intrusions for years. If the area had been inhabited by humans (or any other modern animal), then they would have found evidence.

Anyway, this is merely excuse-making on your part. Why can't you provide evidence? Because it is hiding! You previously claimed that fossil whales were hiding in mysterious inland seas. Now you are claiming that human fossils are hiding under a lava field. This is not how honest enquiry is carried out. This is just rationalising.

Note that this image is showing the high latitudes of Pangea, the red portion is where the basalt layer is, covering nearly all of that portion.

Nearly all. But not all.

Hallam and Wignall claim the high latitudes did not experience the early to mid Permian extinction crisis:

Hallam and Wignall only describe "higher latitudes" as being spared the Gualdalupian disaster; they do not demand that only the area covered by the Traps was habitable. That notion is entirely your own invention. There are plenty of Late Permian tetrapod fossils from lower latitudes. The more Southern latitudes simply suffered higher extinction rates, they were not uninhabitable, nor was the entire Northern region of Pangea covered by the Siberian LIP.

I proved a dramatic rise in sea level, all transgressions cause coastal flooding, i proved this was a particularly dramatic transgression. It also involved flooding into the interior of Pangea that is now discovered across 3 continents.

All of which facts completely disprove a global flood at that time.

It ought to be obvious to any rational observer that a partial flood is not a global flood. Your continued refusal to accept this simple logic is baffling.

And you still deny flooding at the P-T bounday?

I have never denied flooding at the PT Boundary. That is a complete untruth. It is your repeated habit of making such patently untrue claims that has led to unkind assesments of your motives in this discussion.

I do not deny flooding at the PT. You have successfully proved flooding at the PT. What you have failed to do is to provide evidence for a GLOBAL FLOOD at the PT. Instead, by providing clear evidence of incomplete flooding at the PT Boundary, you have disproved a global flood.

The Bible describes a complete global flood. You have proved that no such condition exists at the PT. You have disproved your own claim. Nice work.

More research needs to be done on exposed layers in northern Siberia. Pre-boundary pollen has been unexpectedly found, and I agree with you that I need pre-boundary human skeletons to be found there to add strength to my case.

Then might I suggest that you try and persuade some your fellow creationists to fund such research? Certainly no-one else is going to take you seriously unless you have some pre-Permian human fossils to show us. Without that, you do not have a case to strengthen. All you have is conjecture and wishful thinking.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 4:50 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 7:49 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 392 of 991 (706036)
09-05-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 11:09 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Most people do not need to be told that they do known know things which are unknown.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 11:09 AM mindspawn has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 393 of 991 (706038)
09-05-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:28 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:

Rather than waste my time discussing the meaning of the word "worldwide", let me use the word "widespread". Across various parts of the coast and interior of Pangea.


You will save a lot of time and argument by saying "widespread" when you mean widespread.

"Worldwide", in the context of the Biblical flood, automatically implies that all of the land is covered by water. If you're saying, instead, that there was flooding here and flooding there all over the world at the same time, you'll get no argument. We have that today.

But you're throwing the notion that the Biblical flood was real right out the window.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:28 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 12:02 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8479
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 394 of 991 (706039)
09-05-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 7:38 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:

Wycliff Bible (first version):
For yet and after seven days, I shall rain on [the] earth forty days and forty nights

You included this one:
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA):
For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth.

I accept your cherries.

Both quotes has god saying he will/shall rain on the earth for 40 days and forty nights. God has therefore intervened with nature to cause a flood and he has predicted when it was to happen.

Additionally, he gives Noah a year's warning of the fact so that he can build a boat and tells us why he's doing it.

Without a shadow of a doubt, no matter what translation you pick, God did it. And God intervening with weather on the earth is a miracle.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 7:38 AM mindspawn has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 395 of 991 (706040)
09-05-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 6:19 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:

Science is based on facts, instead of cooling me a fool, why don't you enlighten me on the truth in an educational manner?


We're talking about the equivocation of "worldwide" and "widespread". If you mean one when you say the other you're either ignorant of the distinction or trying to deceive. If there's another option, feel free to enlighten all of us.

Science is based on precision as well as "facts". If you want to talk science, learn to be precise with your words.

mindspawn writes:

Maybe your facts are so overwhelming in favor of evolution I will convert?


Yes, the facts are overwhelming. Very few creationists even try to argue against them any more. It's just the liars preaching to the fools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 6:19 AM mindspawn has taken no action

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1888 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 396 of 991 (706042)
09-05-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by ringo
09-05-2013 11:47 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
You will save a lot of time and argument by saying "widespread" when you mean widespread.
"Worldwide", in the context of the Biblical flood, automatically implies that all of the land is covered by water. If you're saying, instead, that there was flooding here and flooding there all over the world at the same time, you'll get no argument. We have that today.

But you're throwing the notion that the Biblical flood was real right out the window.

I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains.

My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved. If so I would like to see the evidence.

Of course there's radioactive dating, but that's a subject for another thread, but I'm referring to geological reasons to deny a flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by ringo, posted 09-05-2013 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 09-05-2013 12:09 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 398 by NoNukes, posted 09-05-2013 6:03 PM mindspawn has taken no action
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2013 8:07 PM mindspawn has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 397 of 991 (706043)
09-05-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 12:02 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
mindspawn writes:

I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains.


Good. Then the Biblical flood is a non-starter scientifically.

mindspawn writes:

My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved.


"Disproved" probably isn't appropriate terminology. "Not a shred of evidence to support it" would be better. What people are telling you is that there is no scientific evidence that thre Flood happened or even that it could happen. How's that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 12:02 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:25 AM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 398 of 991 (706072)
09-05-2013 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 12:02 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claim that it has already being disproved.

Pathetic. If that was indeed your point, then your statements that it was your opponents responsibility to disprove that the floods covered the mountain peeks would not make much sense, would it?

I doubt that anyone would have bothered arguing with you about whether there were floods in any era after the earth cooled.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 12:02 PM mindspawn has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 399 of 991 (706076)
09-05-2013 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 12:02 PM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains.

My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved. If so I would like to see the evidence.

And we've referred you to the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 12:02 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 6:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 400 of 991 (706082)
09-05-2013 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 9:59 AM


No, really, did you change my quote on purpose or was it really an accident?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 9:59 AM mindspawn has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 401 of 991 (706085)
09-05-2013 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 9:59 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
A transgression means sea levels rise.

No, it doesn't. Look at the word: trans-... -gress. A "gress" is a step. progress is a step forward, digress is a step backwards. Transgress is a step across. As a geological phenomenon it is when waterline/sediments move across the surface. Here's an image:

See how the shoreline moves across to the right?

Also, you could've just looked at wiki:

quote:
A marine transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding.

Sure, there's flooding, but the water event is relative to the land.

That means that if there was a transgression at the P-T boundary, then there also had to be land there that was not flooded. Ergo, your "mountains that weren't underwater" must surely have existed. So, it wasn't a global flood. QED.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been a transgression.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 9:59 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-06-2013 12:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 407 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 4:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3876
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 402 of 991 (706090)
09-05-2013 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 3:31 AM


Sea level bottomed out at the end of the Paleozoic
Well, yes. The evidence for transgressions involves finding the high water mark (as in the construction of the Hallam curve) and so finding out how far the transgressions transgressed.

This makes perfect sense. If you can find that high water mark at the P-T bounday, then you will have disproved that was the biblical flood. Of course it would have to be undeniable evidence.

Per the graph on page 4 of http://geotest.tamu.edu/...OL106/LatePaleozoicEndPermian.pdf, sea level was at or near at an all Paleozoic low at the end of the Paleozoic (the purple box is the late Paleozoic, although the right edge seems to be plotted a little too young). See also some of the earlier pages.

On the other hand, sea level was at a Phanerozoic (post pre-Cambrian) high at about 100 million years ago. But even then, not all of the continents were submerged.

That's the conventional old Earth version. Even if you somehow translate this to YEC, at best the great flood happened later than your position.

I leave it to someone else, to explain what the 35m "secular increase" is.

Moose

Added by edit:

Source

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Call it a typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 3:31 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 4:25 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 403 of 991 (706091)
09-05-2013 10:13 PM


Going into summation mode in 24 hours
There has been interesting stuff posted, but God only knows (to use that phrase loosely) when messages were last in contact with the real topic theme.

Topic drift is a bitch (or something like that).

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Admin, posted 09-06-2013 6:08 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3876
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 404 of 991 (706093)
09-06-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by New Cat's Eye
09-05-2013 9:12 PM


Nice graphic, but the text is rather bogus
Your graphic is a nice representation of Walther's law. For a transgression, the sediments fine seaward and up-column. For a regression, the sediments would coarsen up-column. But this is REALLY getting WAY off-topic.

quote:
A marine transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding.

Sure, there's flooding, but the water event is relative to the land.

I think a transgression could be purely because of land subsidence, but I think most, especially the major ones, are real sea level rises.

That means that if there was a transgression at the P-T boundary, then there also had to be land there that was not flooded. Ergo, your "mountains that weren't underwater" must surely have existed. So, it wasn't a global flood. QED.

Otherwise it wouldn't have been a transgression.

Here's where the real bogusity kicks in. Not that any such transgression has ever happened (maybe WAY back in the pre-Cambrian???), but there is nothing in the transgression definition that says all the land couldn't have been covered by the sea. Sure, a transgression does move shorelines to higher elevations, but if it ended up covering all the land, it would still be a transgression. In the present, we have low lying islands that are being transgressed and are probably destined to be totally under water.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Typo.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add island sentence at end.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-05-2013 9:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2013 4:58 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 1888 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 405 of 991 (706099)
09-06-2013 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Pressie
09-05-2013 5:39 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
Stratigraphy from top to bottom:

1. Molteno Formation- Glittering sandstone, grit and conglomerate with grey and black shale and mudstone.
2. Burgersdorp Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red and bluish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone and siltstone
3. Katberg Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Sandstone; subordinate red siltstone and mudstone.
4. Balfour Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Grey, bluish- and greenish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone.
5. Middleton Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red, bluish-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate sandstone.
6. Koonap Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Greenish, bluis-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate mottled sandstone.
7. Waterford Formation, Ecca Group- Dark laminated mudrock with abundant ripple-marks; numerous sandstone beds.

Thanks for your research. It took me some time to delve into the exact location of the P-T boundary within that stratigraphy, it appears the Balfour formation represent late-Permian, and the Katberg formation represents the early Triassic.
http://www.csir.co.za/...%20Impact%20Assessment%20Report.pdf
"primarily represented by late Permian, Balfour Formation sedimentary rocks"

The evidence of flooding is found during and at the top of the Balfour (sheet sandstones). Woody debris is overlaid with fungal remains. This is consistent with a widepsread fungal spike at the P-T boundary.
http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/...eminar/os03_04/Zamecnik.pdf
An up to 6 km thick sequence of lacustrine mudstones, fluvial overbank mudstones and channel
sandstones dominated by a high sinuosity river system change to multistoried channel (Balfour
Formation) and sheet sandstones with intermediate layers of mudstones, sedimented by a braided
river system (Katberg Formation). The 1m thick layer of woody debris overlain by a layer with
abundance of fungal remains – the 'FungiSpike Horizon'– is located about 0,5 m beneath the
base of Katberg Formation. These sediments could represent a phase of ~2000y. For the P/T­
boundary definition elements of the vertebrate faunal assemblage, e.g. Lystrosaurus are used
(Steiner et al. 2003).

In the early Triassic (Katberg) there are "accelerated rates of sediment accumulation". This could very well indicate flooding.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/118/11-12/1398.full
"In both the Poortjie and lower Katberg sandstones, weakly developed paleosols indicate accelerated rates of sediment accumulation (Retallack et al., 2003). "


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2013 5:39 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Pressie, posted 09-16-2013 1:58 AM mindspawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022