|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Just a quickie. Did the flood cover all land?
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: If I'm going to bite, I may as well ask the obvious ones. 1/What time period are we talking? 2/Where did all the water come from? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-18-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Could you elaborate & supply mechanisms for the "fountains of the deep" & "windows of heaven" pls.
quote: Plate tectonics & mountain uplift are adequately explained by mainstrean geology. What aspects are not explained by mainstream geology that are BETTER explained by the Flood scenario. Also, pls provide biblical quotes for such catastrophism beyond the water, please. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: theres a lot here, & I hope to answer you properly, but I'd like the biblical quotes detailing the tectonic activity as well pls, so I can argue from both perspectives. There are so many creationist accounts, that I need to know all that I'm dealing with before I answer, just saves time. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2001] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Thank you, one last thing, your original quote mentions calculations, if they are relevent please post them.
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Thanks again. For clarification, were saying ALL water was magmatic in origin, & that it entered the atmosphere, gave up its heat & precipitated as rain? As opposed to a "vapour canopy"
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2001] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-19-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TrueCreation, sorry for the wait & the previous posts, I needed to understand your pov before I could argue it. Also, I'm not used to "real" reasearch. ie books & not links
Here goes.......
quote: This just describes mainstream sciences view.
quote: Magma contains a small amount of water by volume, its true. However, if the water covered Everest by 20 feet it had to be in excess of 6 miles in depth. Everest, along with the rest of the Himalayas was formed by the Indian sub-continent colliding with southern Asia. Continental movements are MEASURED to be between 1-10 cm/ year. There is no evidence that they ever moved significantly faster. (Australia is fastest, 7 cm/year. In 4000 years it would have moved 280m.) Even 280 m horizontal movement in the flood scenarios timeline does not allow everest to be much lower 4,000 years ago. The most pronounced conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of laser measurements taken on LAGEOS FROM 1979 TO 1982 is that movement between the plates was measured & therefore confirmed. The motions we are measuring, albeit preliminary, agree overall in magnitude & direction with those found in the geological record.which reflect plate movements over millions of years. (Christodoulidis et al., 1985, p9261) Also, magnetic anomalies, translated into a symmetrical, mirror image set of stripes of alternating magnetic polarity either side of the mid ocean ridges show a general cyclical reversal of polarities. The basalt, as it solidified, aligned itself in accordance with field strength & polarity as existed at the time of solidification. As polarity changed, newly formed basalt (pushing the older rock outward, away from the ridge) was aligned magnetically opposite to the previous band. As time goes by & more & more basalt is deposited, polarity bands emerge. The width of the bands are indicative of the speed of continental drift as intervals between magnetic polarity reversals are corroborated. There IS small variation, but nothing that would send India hurtling into the Asian mainland, that would cause the uplift of the Himalayas inside 4,000 years. Staying on magnetism. The horizontal sedimentation on the seabed corroborates the ages of the basalt anomalies, as different sedimentary ages (layer upon layer) are also aligned by magnetic polarity, providing evidence that sedimentation was laid down slowly over millions of years, & not in a single year. If the one year flood were true, no magnetic anomalies would appear in the deposits. Corroborative evidences are; 1/Radiometric ages of basalts at the ridge, & expected increased ages the further basalts are from those ridges. There is no sudden increase in basalts of 4,000 years age at the ridge that would indicate increased continental drift, or catacysm for that matter, at the alleged time of the flood. 2/ Radiometric ages of sediments, younger upon older. As expected, greater depth of sediment, & greater age of base sediment the further samples are taken from the ridge. That is to say, base sediments, sitting upon basalt of similar to younger age. This is true of any part of the ridge system. A flood scenario would have no age differentiation in sediments. 3/ Basalts & sediments magnetic orientations match, given their ages. 4/ Sea bed sediments elsewhere corroborate magnetic polarity timeline. Everest is in excess of 6 miles above sea level now, & there is no evidence to suggest there was significant difference 4,000 years ago, quite the opposite. The biblical flood scenario will have to account for extra water to that depth. Now, the water. To raise the water level to Mt. Everests height requires 4.4 bn. cubic kilometres of the wet stuff. For this to exist as gas would require the atmosphere to have a pressure 840 times higher than today, & it would be 99.9% water. Unbreathable. Even adding the water in 40, single increments results in an oxygen content dropping from 20.95% to under 1%. Unbreathable. Latent heat of vaporisation during a 40 day period would raise the atmospheric temperature of the entire earth to over 3,500 deg C. (6,400 F) (Heat cannot be dissipated into space as fast as it is being created on a daily basis). This would boil the oceans & cremate the Ark & everyone/thing on it. For comparison the surface of the sun is 6,000 C. For such a volume to move through the crust in 40 days, porosity must be 50% (the crust would be half open spaces). (Soroka & Nelson 1983 p.136). There is no mechanism or evidence for these purported occurrences. Even if there were, no organism could survive it, whether they breath through their nostrils or not. Even if some water existed (ICR says 12m) in the atmosphere to account for the "deluge", the rest (still 6 miles) would still have to be made up by subterranean sources. Incidentally 12m of liquid water alone translates to 40% increase in atmospheric pressure, also a corresponding drop in oxygen globally, if the 12m of water existed as a gas. & the latent heat of the 12m of water, representing 40% of atmospheric mass, would still need to be added. Given temperatures that lie beneath the crust (1,200 C is hottest recorded magma), & if vast reservoirs of water did exist, & spurt out of the springs of the great deep the temperature of the water, & heating of the atmosphere as a result would still cook the Ark. Now, the flood scenario has taken a 4.4 bn. cubic kilometre volume of water (not to mention magma), equating to a depth 6 miles from beneath the crust. That’s all the crust, all around the world. This would result in a vacuum of 4.4 bn. cubic kilometres under the the crust. This would result in a marble (core/remaining mantle) rattling around a ping pong ball (crust). The crust would collapse to a depth of said 6 miles. There is no evidence of this collapse. Given the crustal collapse, there's nowhere for the water to recede to, so where did it go? What mechanism caused it to spurt forth for forty days & stop? Globally, every where at once? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What mechanism allows the Flood waters to erode, then stop for a couple of hours or days?
quote: Why aren’t pterosaurs found in recent deposits with birds? In fact, the flood scenario does nothing to explain why reptiles stop appearing at a certain point, why amphibians, & mammals do the same. What mechanism in the flood would separate a 1kg Amphibian, a 1kg Reptile, or a 1kg mammal to such a degree that repiles are not found pre permian, mammals not found pre-triassic , & amphibians not found pre devonian? Not a single terrestrial organism is found pre- Silurian. & Fishes, the should-be great survivors were the first vertebrates to be buried! The whales managed to escape, & they live in exactly the same depth band as fishes. Why were single celled organisms, the lightest, least dense, most easily suspendable organisms the first to be buried?
quote: Why aren’t angiosperms & gymnosperms found together in pre-cretaceous rocks? Given your arguments, they should.
quote: Whales survived, they breath exclusively through their nostrils.
quote: How on earth are insects not a problem? How did they survive drowning if they weren’t on the Ark?
quote: Not sure of the point you make on plants.
quote: The fossil record shows it to have been both wetter& drier.
quote: (Soroka & Nelson 1983, pp136-7) A comet of water ice, sufficiently large to supply necessary water, would on impact release so great an amount of heat as to raise the atmospheric temperature to over 6,800 C. the same is true if the comet is in pieces. How does a comet account for Martian canyons? Saturns rings require a very specific distribution of angular momentum for the planet/ring system. These are not explained by a comet. Give me the precise date of the Flood & I’ll check planetary positions, but don’t get too hopeful. The question remains. Where did all the water go? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I've gone to some lengths to show that there is no reason to believe tectonic activity proceeded at a very different rate from today, consequently the himalayas were that height 4,000 years ago. You need to argue evidence. What evidence is there that the ocean basins rose, & give evidence of mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: most likely lighter than birds is pure speculation, that flying reptiles have less-dense bones than terresstrial ones could be inferred by comparing bone densities of non-flying birds & flying ones. There are pterasaur species smaller than some birds & therefore I could reasonably infer that they were lighter, & of equal density, & that there should be pterasaurs today. There’s is nothing to say pterasaurs could glide any less well than modern albatross’. Given the high air pressure, even better. My point is, you don’t know either way & therefore shouldn’t speculate solutions that fit your argument just because they do. As I show, I also can speculate the opposite. Nothing is proven. That the air was more pressurised I require evidence for. What caused the extra density, & by how much was it denser? Reptiles, amphibians & mammals of similar size DO occupy the same habitats. Intelligence is irrelevant, none of them can rationalise an escape method, & all of them would retreat from advancing hot water. Also, this doesn’t explain why there ARE fossil amphibians, of the same size & body plan as carboniferous amphibian examples, in the same younger deposits as mammals & reptiles. If they’re so dense why aren’t they ALL deposited earlier?I need evidence to show all amphibians are denser than reptiles, & both are more dense than all mammals. Otherwise its just supposition. Taking the section of the geologic record that contains mammals, there are many examples that contain similar species like antelope, large felines, canines, primates, entirely consistent in size, habitat, & potential drag factors but exist as fossils in rocks exclusive of each other.
quote: But there are fossil fish bigger than some cetaceans, not to mention existing ones. Were not just talking whales here, ALL marine mammals, as well as the reptile nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs.So why would a whale not be buried as fast as a fish? You expect us to believe that the sum total of sedimentary rock was laid down in 190 days. An entire blue whale, let alone a dolphin, could be buried in a single day. quote: A fish or a whale could be buried in a single day, so there would be no decay.Whales are a bit touchy about being bathed in scalding water. Salinity is irrelevant, same goes for marine reptiles, alive & extinct. Given the rate of sedimentation & the muddyness of water, how will any predator/ scavenger do anything other than avoid being buried? Let alone find food. quote: There are single celled fossils in pre Cambrian rocks. These are very small & light, & DO suspend more easily in water than a dead fish. So, if countless billions of fish were killed in the fast changing conditions, why do other multicellular swimming organisms exist below them ? (Pikaia, Odontogriphus, Opabinia, Amiskwia, to name but four.) &, Why were most the easily suspended organisms of all deposited before all of them, without exception?The oldest undoubted fossils, primitive algae, exist in rocks 2.9 bn years old. (There are questionable example going back to 3.5bn years) What ever way you cook it, pre cambrian single celled life takes up at least 4/5ths of the fossil record. Whether you accept current dating or not. So why were these little fellas buried 5 times earlier than the fish, which you say were the first to be affected? quote: I understand your experiment was only designed to show flowering plants float. May I suggest a better experiment. Less practical to do at home, I know, but bear with me. Take examples from various groups of flowering plants, put them in a tank for 190 days, see if they still float. Keep a daily record of what floats & sinks. I put it to you that within days there would be sinking plants, & as such, flowering plants should be represented VERY early on in the fossil record. Try it with a wave tank for comparison. If 1 plant sinks in 19 days, then there should be 10% of flowering plants in the oldest 10% of rocks.That flowering plants float is not in issue, what is in issue is than gymnosperms (cone bearing), ferns etc. do as well. Gymnosperms exist earlier in the fossil record than angiosperms. Both float to the same degree. Both are hugely variable in the species they contain, from small plants to great trees. Examples of both can be found at all latitudes. So why are the gymnosperms buried after angiosperms, without exception? quote: How do all these insects survive on logs for 190 days without food? How do insects & other terrestrial arthropods survive, given they live on desert floors & lack access to vegetation?
quote: Gymnosperms have waxy leaves too. So do ferns, cycads etc. All are found at different times in the geologic record.
quote: Circular argument. Evidence supporting the flood was that, it was wetter then than now because of the flood . Taking size, drag, habitat etc. into consideration as a way to explain taxonomic deposition of fossils fails miserably. For every example of, this was denser, it flew, or it was large, or it was small can be countered by a plethora of examples from different classes/phyla of animals & plants that refute this reasoning.
quote: (Soroka & Nelson,1983, p136, & Science & Earth History, Arthur N. Strahler 1999, p 197) The magnetic field of the earth will not divert anything bigger than dust particles, as evidenced that meteorites can be seen at any latitude. The temperature rise is attributed to the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal. The tunguska incident was caused by a cometary ice fragment the size of a football field (defined mathematically). It laid waste an area of hundreds of sq. kilometres. You require an object many trillions the size of the tunguska object. Also, we were witness to cometary fragments impacting Jupiters surface in the form of Shoemaker-Levy 9. It caused explosions actually larger than the earth. S-L 9 was also trillions of times smaller than the mass you require.Also comets are made not only of water, but methane, ammonia etc. If the heat doesn’t kill ya, then the ammonia will, or the explosion caused by all that methane going up. quote: So it comes down to this, all other theories have too much heat, & don’t adequately explain where the water came from, or where it goes. The only adequate alternative is to use existing water. No adequate mechanism for the rise of the ocean basins, & their subsequent drop exists. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hey, Schrafinator, were you looking over my shoulder?
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-22-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: http://www.sci.port.ac.uk/geology/staff/dpetley/trep1c.html Unfortunately the table in the link above doesn't translate into the dialogue box very well. This shows uplift rate can exceed erosion in a part of the world with the highest erosion/rainfall. A quick check on other published data confirmed the order of uplifts & erosional rates in mountainous areas.Please could you give me a reference of the data that you get your conclusion from. I need Location, date, & if possible, method. Without seeing this data I can only speculate as to why the erosion is so high compared to uplift in your source. Possibly, data was taken from ranges where indeed erosion outweighed uplift, in older ranges where uplift has slowed, ceased, or even begun subsiding. Generality/locality is also an issue. The best example I can think of for this is where 20m of Mount Cook (N. Zealand) fell off the summit in spectacular fashion. Now, you could say that there was 20m erosion that year on Mt. Cook, but that would ignore the general uplift across the entire range. Regarding sharp peaks on mountains, given there is no flowing liquid water & the main erosion on bare rock mountain faces is hot/cold/frost action weathering resulting in flaking, cracking & falling away, why would you expect anything less than sharp edges? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-22-2001]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: The bones have cavities, like birds, ergo they are less dense. Pterosaur bones are adapted for flying. Its entirely possible they could fly better than birds. That they are extinct doesnt mean they died in the flood. Speculation, that could be applied either way does not explain the placement of pterosaurs in the fossil record. Bats manage perfectly well with membranes instead of feathers. Their flying skill, if anything, exceeds that of birds given their agility in the air.
quote: If there was a vapour canopy giving 50% extra air pressure, it would reasonably DECREASE oxygen levels by 33%, ie from 21% to 14% by volume. How did you get extra 50% air pressure giving 100% more oxygen? Obviously you assume that the water vapour exists on top of the atmosphere pushing it down increasing oxygen levels. I need evidence that shows water, representing 50% of atmospheric pressure can exist on top of the existing atmosphere. What mechanism allows this given the actual reverse is observed. Ie most water vapour exists at the bottom of the atmosphere, due to the density of water vapour compared to other gases?
quote: So I would last minutes longer than an 8 year old? What difference would intelligence make beyond knowing how to swim? If you put an ape, an iguana, & a snake in a forest area that was about to become what would be tantamount to the mid-pacific inside 24 hours, intelligence would be irrelevant, they would all die, mere hours would separate them.
quote: If amphibians are the best adapted terrestrial vertebrates ie they live in water much of the time, they should be the last deposited, not first. You need to show that what affects reptiles, doesnt affect amphibians, doesnt affect mammals, etc. in earliest deposited examples of each, without exception. You are trying to introduce factors beyond denstity (rightly) that will affect an organisms taxanomic appearance in the fossil record. My point is, that these are so many & varied that you SHOULD be able to find large mammals with dinosaurs, & small pterosaurs/mice/moles/ etc. etc. etc. with early amphibians. Factors that affect one species of amphibian wont affect another, & given so many potential variables are involved, the clear defining points in the fossil record couldnt happen. There will always be a reason why a mole should be found with early fish. Why do shelled molluscs appear in the Cambrian & not at the bottom of the pre-cambrian? These babies go straight to the bottom. Also, why do soft bodied cephalopods first appear in the same layer, they should float, be suspended etc. I may have unintentionally mislead you as well, unicellular life appears about 2.9 bn years ago, but soft bodied stuff appears about 2 bn years ago. Jellyfish like stuff. Jellyfish most definitely should be the last to be deposited, they make a life out of floating, yet there they are, right near the bottom, BELOW shelled molluscs.
quote: Ill clarify, there are species of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc. that are all mammals, & exist in the same habitats, that are the same size, are all hairy, subsist with the same lifestyle etc. Yet still are not found in the same aged sediments as other examples of rodents, felines, bats, primates, proboscideans etc! Given the factors leading to their depostion, they should be. Same is true of all taxonomic classifications.
quote: But making the sediments lay down in fast deposits & having intervening periods, means even more is deposited at once, making it even more likely it was buried in one go. What would be big enough to eat a blue whale that didnt suffer extinction? & youre just addressing the blue whale. The other cetaceans that are of similar size to nothosaurs, plesiosaurs, & icthyosaurs survived where they didnt, why? Why did some cetaceans die out & not others?
quote: http://www.naturesafari.com/... Wisconsin
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/... China http://www.siu.no/noradrap.nsf/... East Africa http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/... Australia http://www.infoniagara.com/d-history-geo.html Canada http://www.kaibab.org/gc/geology/gc_layer.htm Grand Canyon http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/piedmont_kids.html Virginia http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/GY/faculty/... Montana & Idaho http://www.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/museum.nsf/... England I could go on for some time. Pre-cambrian rocks consist of about 4/5ths of the fossil record & there is no shortage of them. I did a search on Yahoo with pre cambrian rocks & the results just went on & on, these examples were drawn from the first 2 pages. Weve seen a LOT of these formations. Single celled organisms do exist in the fossil record at higher levels, but thats not the point. They (along with some soft bodied multicellular animals & plants) were buried before anything else, & they should have been last.
quote: As I have shown theres a lot of rock. How did the predators of unburied blue whales survive these hot waters? When cetaceans float, their lungs can fill with water, making them denser than water, making them sink. Ray finned fishes that have enclosed swim bladders, that cant fill with water. So cetaceans, nothosaurs, plesiosaurs & icthyosaurs should exist below the first ray finned fish. Multicellular life is found at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the lowest surface point on the planet, so I would expect these arthropods at the bottom of pre Cambrian sediment, along with shelled molluscs, & (not) single celled organisms. Single celled life in the oceans exist as phytoplankton in the upper layers, & are not distributed uniformly. The last to be deposited, not the first. Uplift rates would not allow marine strata to become terrestrial in 4,500 years. Need evidence if youre claiming otherwise.
quote: Mainstream geology doesnt suggest a uniformatarian deposition either (not saying you think it does, but just to clarify). Fish are already in the seas when the flood started, and countless billions would have died from quick environment changes in the water located too close to erupting underwater basins during the flood. - In response to my argument that fish should be late in the record because they are marine in the first place (when you thought the Cambrian was the beginning). However, when I pointed out that when the Cambrian period started the fossil record was already 4/5ths complete you changed your mind & said fish float when they die. So they could be later after all! This was a bit naughty of me, because I knew where I was going with this. The point I wanted to make was that you will say anything to explain anything, you have a theory to explain their early AND late deposition. So will the real fish theory please stand up!
quote: Why? Are you on the verge of a pterosaur claim again? Evidence.
quote: Firstly, to criticise my experiment that expands upon yours is a bit rich! Secondly,what are angiosperm/gymnosperm characteristics in water? This is an extraordinary claim that gymnosperms sink 1st! You must explain why gymnosperms of all sizes sink first.Evidence pls. Grass, a flowering plant appears in the fossil record. Given grass floats to the bottom quite fast (your words), it should appear much sooner. Its decay is irrelevant, it is COMMON in the record. How much faster do other angiosperms decay?
quote: So, what youre saying is, angiosperms & gymnosperms are buried at the same time, but we just havent seen it? Your claiming gymnosperms 1/ sink 1st, so we SHOULD see them in lower layers compared to angiosperms. 2/ are now saying that they are there all along, but we just haven't seen them in the same early layers! The fossil record is entirely consisent re angio/gymnosperms. Do angiosperms sink slower or not? Isnt this like the just because transitional fossils havent been found, doesnt mean they dont exist in the fossil record argument that were not allowed to make?Thats a no-go. In hundreds of years of study, not one instance of what you describe has been found. Additionally, were not just talking flowering plants & conifers, but horse tails, seed ferns, ferns, & club mosses, & you need to prove to me that they do indeed sink before angiosperms. Ive seen creationists argue that the fossil record is 99.9% complete & there are no transitional fossils. Make your mind up creationists!
quote: How do bees feed given dead vegetation doesnt produce nectar?How do colonies of insects survive without there nests, not to mention queens, & males that only emerge on a couple days every year? This day varies from species to species. How do 20-100 variations turn into hundreds of thousands in 4,500 years? quote: Ive given plenty, but fire some more at me & Ill just as reasonably say why something else should be the same, when it isnt. I didnt want to get into this, but if you insist. In fact its what weve been doing for a couple of posts now.
quote: The ONLY factors are mass & velocity. Are you saying one entered the atmosphere & gently alighted upon terra firma when all comets are observed to have VERY high velocities? To give one example.
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~mcombi/HST/hyaku.html In this case 53 km/s!
quote: Why would a comet trigger the vapour canopy, should such an unlikely thing exist? Mammoths could be found in place upright if they floated upright as water froze. So were not saying water comes from the comet now?
quote: The problem you dont see is there is no evidence, nor mechanism for it. This comes to the crux of my argument, you have claimed the evidence points towards a flood scenario. If so, which one? All of them? You need to cite these evidences so they can be discussed. You have said a lot of this might have, or I see no problem in using tectonic uplift but not produced evidence. So, if the evidence so clearly points to a flood, which scenario? & lets have that evidence. I quote myself in another thread.See my signature? Occams razor. For our purposes it means the best theory to fit all the evidence. Very simple, no contention there. But I've seen you say that the evidence points to a flood. So, I'm trying to pin you down to exactly what evidence you have, & what the theory you have doesn't explain, that other theories do, & vice versa. At the end of the day, the theory that best fits the evidence is exactly that, the best theory. I could theorise that salt water comes from a Galactic Goat that pisses brine, we could discuss it if you want. If you have evidence that points to different interpretations that CAN'T be explained by mainstream geology, lets have them. At the same time you need to consider what any flood theories don't explain. So, given you & others maintain there is evidence that makes a flood theory the best theory, lets have it! I'm not asking anything unreasonable. Just that you back up your claims. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001] [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001]
{Shortened display form of a bunch of URLs, which were causing the pages to be way overwide. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-22-2006 04:16 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Schraf, you missed the link for the fossil forests, I have info on these & would be interested in what it has to say. You wouldn't do me a favour & edit the post to include the link please?
Cheers, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
ty
Just to add to that. Some Yellowstone stumps have been discovered upright & with established root systems in place in the paleosols (ancient soil), (Science & Earth History. Arthur N. Strahler. 1999. p223) indicating that they did indeed die where they grew. ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2001]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024