|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: It does in the sense that there was marine life before there was any terrestrial life. But only in that sense. Marine life went on and continued to leave fossils and those fossils are every bit as much a part of the fossil record and it’s order. (E.g. consider the great marine reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs - the ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs and plesiosaurs. Marine life in it’s place in the fossil record - because they are descended from terrestrial life)
quote: That your objection was ignorant nonsense. Plenty of marine life stayed in the seas, and it’s descendants are still there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You mistake ignorance and thoughtlessness for infallibility. Correcting your foolish and ignorant ideas by citing facts I knew as a child, decades ago, is not rewriting the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Ah, Faith how you love inverting the truth. The fact is that the order of the fossil record never was from only marine life to only terrestrial life. It always went from only marine life to terrestrial life and marine life. You could have worked that out if you bothered to think about it, if only from remembering that the last ammonites in the fossil record appear in Cretaceous strata - which is also where you will find the last non-avian dinosaurs. Long after the great amphibians of the Carboniferous and the synapsids typical of the Permian are gone. And we have marine fossils newer than that. There is no rewrite of the theory, no imaginative conjurings on my side. You just made those up to avoid admitting to your ridiculous error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: This is just assumption at odds with the evidence. There are identifiable terrestrial sediments in the geological record, including some deposited by wind, not water.
quote: Then you need to get your circuits checked. A transgression followed by a regression followed by a second transgression will naturally produce this. And of course we see the sequences indicating this in the geological record. (Someone - RAZD, I think, did this analysis for the Grand Canyon rocks)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Another of your inventions. Sedimentology is NOT based in the Theory of Evolution. It does, however include a good deal of study of sediment being deposited in the present day. Scientific conclusions are not assumptions.
quote: I doubt that you will ever find a single layer of sediment representing millions of years. The formations we discuss consist of multiple strata. Besides the time scales are based on evidence and are not contrary to reason. But more importantly terrestrial layers are identified from the features of the rocks. It is not assumption at all, or even based on the timescale.
quote: According to the evidence that is not the case. And the mere say-so of someone who makes up ridiculous nonsense and then invents more nonsense to pretend she’s right carries very little weight. Edited by PaulK, : Corrected spell-corrector
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: They are marked as having been deposited in the time periods. That is really not a problem.
quote: There is no problem in dating rocks to periods. That was done by relative dating methods before radiometric dating was a thing. The periods were defined by the fossil record, and rocks were identified as having been deposited during particular periods. (Note that the actual dates of the periods came later - but that is why it is called relative dating. It is a relationship not a precise number).
quote: The only miserable failure around here is yours. You keep spouting the same ridiculous nonsense and expect us to believe it.
quote: More accurately we won’t worship a loon posting ignorant rubbish. And why should we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The point is that the time of deposition is the primary association between the rock and the time period. And I think you know that makes a nonsense of your silly argument which is why you’re changing the subject.
quote: No. You still have the problem that you are posting ridiculous nonsense. The surface does not suddenly turn to stone. That is a silly strawman that you made up.
quote: Most terrestrial environments are dominated by erosion, but for those that are not the creatures lived in areas where there was net deposition of sediment - as they do today. The deposited material buried them and only became rock much later
quote: It is obviously worse for us. You’re the one who insists on posting pathetic nonsense again and again. You don’t even attempt to answer the previous rebuttals. You could stop this ridiculous behaviour any time. But of course you won’t. you just can’t admit how badly wrong you are. So you just going on making a mockery of yourself. If you enjoy looking like a raving loon you can just keep going on. If Not - it’s up to you to stop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No, it doesn’t because there is nothing living there when it becomes rock. Everything is living on the surface or closer to it. We’ve been through this. You know it. Really what is the point of this idiocy? What we we supposed to think? That you are mentally ill is the kindest reaction possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: It’s likely untrue Extraterrestrial Liquid Water It is estimated that the outer crust of solid ice is approximately 10—30 km (6—19 mi) thick, including a ductile "warm ice" layer, which could mean that the liquid ocean underneath may be about 100 km (60 mi) deep.[17] This leads to a volume of Europa's oceans of 3 10^18 m3, slightly more than two times the volume of Earth's oceans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So? The ice isn’t counted. Europa likely has twice as much liquid water as Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: What an interesting assertion. So Earth had about 30x as much liquid water as it does now (Europa has ~6% Of Earth’s surface area) and a thick layer of ice on top of that. Please let me know what evidence you have for these claims,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I think that would depend on the cause of the Flood. If it is primarily rainwater, delivering 1100 feet of rain in 40 days and nights would require more than 25 feet of rain every day. Everywhere. If the area is restricted the amount of water delivered in those areas where it did rain would have to be accordingly greater.
quote: Doesn’t that deposit sediment in the flooded areas? And if it lasted longer, should there not be more sediment? Of course, the flood story is a myth and taking it literally is a mistake, and that’s why I wouldn’t expect any evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course it is a translation, so the exact wording is more like a few hundred years old. Do you have a workable explanation of these fountains of the deep and any evidence that supports them supplying this volume of water?
quote: Of course in the story the rain water is allowed through the firmament (the windows of heaven, another poetic phrase - but if the fountains of the deep are literal, why not the windows of heaven?).
quote: There are enough areas where it would be preserved that I think you should be able to detect a period of widespread and short-lived flooding, on a global scale. Not in every location, of course, but in every region.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This seems to be a very questionable assumption. Floods are not automatically erased from the record, and this flood was supposedly a bigger event than most. Even if it was erased in many places it is not going to be erased everywhere.
quote: So, according to you even local flooding will leave no trace?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Interesting that you said that it would leave the same traces as local floods when you meant that it would leave nothing. Of course catastrophic local floods have left some very severe mRks on the landscape - the channeled scablands of Washington.
These investigators were able to find evidence of ordinary flooding in the sediments they examined. The flood produced coarser-grained sediment. So, it is far from clear that a violent, deep and long-lasting flood would be impossible to detect, at least in areas which experienced net deposition after the flood. Of course, there are other lines of evidence which also rule out the flood as a literal world-wide event - which is likely why (in my experience) old-earth creationists often prefer to interpret it as a local flood.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024