Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
67 online now:
dwise1, jar, Johnny, nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Post Volume: Total: 885,059 Year: 2,705/14,102 Month: 370/703 Week: 23/168 Day: 23/21 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 117 of 206 (781619)
04-06-2016 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
04-05-2016 9:16 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
quote:

OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist. The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

On the contrary, it is your objection that is ridiculous. The purpose of the model is to account for the evidence. If it cannot account for such a major piece of evidence then the model is hopelessly deficient and should be rejected.

from a rational standpoint you are admitting that the order of the fossil record disproves the Flood. Which is the position you are meant to be arguing against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 9:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 118 of 206 (781620)
04-06-2016 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
04-05-2016 10:52 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
quote:

Gpsh it's amazing how many billions of creatures of all ages did so all at once and got themselves buried in a particular kind of sediment.

It probably sounds amazing because it isn't true.

quote:

Which scenario was of course repeated for all kinds of creatures found in the geologic record.

And we know that's not true. The nautilus were singled out because there was evidence suggesting a mass kill - and that is NOT the case for the majority of fossils. So, no. Most fossils were not the product of mass kills, let alone a single mass kill.

Making up "evidence" will not convince us that your position is true. It may well convince us that your position is a lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 10:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:06 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 121 of 206 (781624)
04-06-2016 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:06 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
quote:

What isn't true? The billions or what? THIS SITE Says "millions in the canyon alone," but the bed extends well beyond the canyon, into all the surrounding states as I recall, and I remember billions being Austin's estimate. As usual I'll have to go find the book.

To this I would point out that there is evidence that Austin's estimates might be too large, and that the number of fossils certainly need not bet he number caught in a single mass kill event. And, of course, the most you can prove from the nautiloids alone would be a localised event, even if it was a very large one.

quote:

Most fossils" are found buried willy-nilly in their sedimentary beds, as they would have been by the Flood.

Or, more accurately, just as they would be if there were no Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:49 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 125 of 206 (781628)
04-06-2016 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:49 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
quote:

They are all in the same bed which had to have been washed up onto the land since nautiloids don't happen to live on the land, and then covered over quite rapidly by the next sedimentary layer up.

I'm pretty sure that Austin regards the bed as being deposited under water, so there would be no need for anything to be washed up on land.

quote:

Single mass kill certainly looks like the best interpretation of the evidence.

What evidence ? You certainly haven't produced any evidence of a mass kill extending outside the canyon, and I don't believe that the evidence even requires a mass kill within the canyon.

quote:

I dunno. There they are sandwiched in their own sedimentary layer between other sedimentary layers equally horizontal and flat. Looks like whatever put them there also put the other layers there.

Even if that bed extended as far as you think, it still only covers a relatively small part of the Earths surface. Therefore it obviously cannot prove a world-wide even on its own. And your comment simply fails to address that obvious fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:39 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:40 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 132 of 206 (781635)
04-06-2016 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:40 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
quote:

Of course it was on the "ocean floor," it was during the Flood. Everything was being moved in sediment-laden currents or bands or levels of water that were carried over the land -- and that ended up deposited ON THE LAND.

That's your opinion. But if even Steve Austin disagrees, why should we believe it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:53 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 136 of 206 (781639)
04-06-2016 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:53 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
It is NOW, but you insisted that it was land when the nautiloids were deposited - and in an area that has undergone considerable uplift that's not exactly a certainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:10 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 138 of 206 (781642)
04-06-2016 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
04-06-2016 8:10 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
And that is just an assumption - and certainly contradicts the idea that it is ocean floor, which is what Austin appears to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 166 of 206 (781697)
04-06-2016 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
04-06-2016 4:10 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
quote:

Yes there are some time periods that are marked by more than one layer, and some of the layers are mixtures but not many

I think you must be taking a simplified view as fact. That is certainly not the impression I get from reading up on the geology of the Grand Canyon.

quote:

the overall fact remains that the geologic column is characterized by discreet separate sediments, each time period marked by its own sediment or sediments, and that is what makes no sense.

It isn't a fact. And if your imaginings make no sense, that is hardly a problem for those who disagree with you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 4:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 168 of 206 (781701)
04-06-2016 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
04-06-2016 4:19 PM


Re: what must be seen
It is not nit-picking to point out that your claims are false and in fact unfounded.

Simply declaring yourself right - when even you should be able to see that you are wrong - is hardly contributing to discussion. It's just a display of arrogance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 4:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 183 of 206 (781730)
04-07-2016 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
04-06-2016 9:03 PM


Re: To try to help Faith.
I have carefully read it and he does not seem to suggest that but he does suggest that I and Dr A clarify our objections.

However, I read your comments differently. In fact you seem to be suggesting that the truth is an unimportant detail, and thus everybody should believe your assertions.

If you disagree then you will have to explain why pointing out massive falsehoods should be considered "nit-picking"

Edited by PaulK, : Corrected initial sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 9:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021