Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,268 Year: 22,304/19,786 Month: 867/1,834 Week: 367/500 Day: 0/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 1 of 445 (490765)
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


The following post by Peg was off topic http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=4...

I would like to open a topic to discuss this and other posts that many believe show causabilty of such a flood versus the simple coincident nature of these data.

AdminNosy: I've copied the linked post here to make this more complete


Your totally right, its pretty pointless using a 'what if' as a basis for any sort of arguement... so i take it back

so i'm going to offer some of the strange phenomenon that is found around the earth that makes the flood plausible

1. Fish fossils on mountain ranges.
This tells us that at some time in the past, there WAS water covering much of the earth... from the dessert regions of Lebanon to the driest of places like Australia. In the outback in Australia there are desserts covered in marine fossils which tell us that there was water there... a lot of water.
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/500/550/551/abisaad/

2. The Pleistocene Extinction! http://www.atlantisquest.com/Paleontology.html

The logical answer is that it came with the rapid change that occurred at the time of the Flood. With the removal of the insulating watery canopy, the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze, trapping animals that then lived far north of their present habitat. The proof that this was a sudden event, and not something that occurred over a long period of time, is the fact that even the green grass they were eating was quickly deepfrozen in their mouths and stomachs, where it has been discovered in modern times.

3. Creatures from the Jurassic Periods have been found with animals from Cretaceous.
You dont think its even remotely possible that perhaps scientists just might have their interpretations wrong on some things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...england/gloucestershire/7710415.stm

4. Seamounts
There is an estimated 30,000 seamounts across the globe, but only a few have ever been studied. These are mountains under water.If the world was indeed flooded , then surely the fact that thousands of mountains are found under water, make the flood plausible.

for me, someone who belives in the bible account, this is evidence of somethign greater...making the flood plausible and very possible

The final fact for all christians to remember is that Jesus Christ himself spoke of the flood as a real historical event. He was with God and therefore would have witnessed it from the heavens...its not likely he would endorse a myth and teach it to people if he knew it wasnt true.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix typo/spelling it topic title: "coinicdences" to "coincidences"


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2008 11:18 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Blue Jay, posted 12-08-2008 11:26 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 12-08-2008 11:53 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 12-08-2008 11:55 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-08-2008 1:35 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by roxrkool, posted 12-08-2008 2:28 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 7:22 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 11 by roxrkool, posted 12-08-2008 10:07 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 10:05 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded
 Message 250 by Just being real, posted 11-05-2010 6:11 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 445 (490767)
12-08-2008 10:20 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 3 of 445 (490774)
12-08-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


What if stories
Just for a start, Peg's response raises these two items as possible evidence for a global flood:

--Pleistocene extinctions
--Jurassic/Cretaceous mix

This is pretty typical of what we get from creation "science" -- "what if" stories.

The problem is that these two "events" Peg mentions as evidence for a global flood are separated by millions of years. The Jurassic occurred about 206-144 million years ago, and the Cretaceous about 144-65 million years ago. The Pleistocene dates to about 1.8 million years ago to 10,000 years ago.

So are we to believe that the flood lasted 200 million years or what? Or there was more than one flood? Or time was compressed? Or geology is all wrong?

Where is the serious proposal here? Where is the evidence? Sorry, no got.

There is no attempt to do science here, with a coherent proposal supported by evidence; its just a series of "what if" stories. The same applies to fossils on mountain tops -- well covered here in another thread.

And this is a significant difference between creation "science" and real science: creationists don't need evidence, as they already have belief. All they need is a "what if" story to create a potential gap in scientific evidence and to leave room for their belief.

Unfortunately, these "what if" stories are nothing more than Whac-A-Mole: knock one down and another pops up somewhere else.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1041 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 4 of 445 (490775)
12-08-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


The Flood... Again (sigh).
Hi, Cat.

And, Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

1. Fish fossils on mountain ranges.
This tells us that at some time in the past, there WAS water covering much of the earth...

Or, that at some point in the past, the mountains were in the ocean. It's going to take a thorough refutation of plate tectonics theory to make this claim fly, which means you pretty much have to prove that earthquakes and tidal waves don't happen.

Good luck.

Peg writes:

from the dessert regions of Lebanon to the driest of places like Australia.

Dessert regions!? That sounds like a nice place to live. :D Certainly better than living in desert regions, anyway.

Utah is a very dry place. But, during the Pleistocene, it was covered by a giant lake called Lake Bonneville. You can still see the "bathtub" rings where the lake reached its highest point. The fact that those rings exists pretty much proves that Lake Bonneville had defined boundaries, which shows that parts of the world can be covered in water without the entire Earth having been covered in water at one time.

Also, as I'm sure Coyote is going to point out sooner or later {AbE: looks like he beat me to it, actually :D }, there's this pesky thing called "radiometric dating" that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later. Like most creationists and IDists, you have simply assumed that you can just dismiss radiometric dating as “iffy” and “inaccurate” without having to actually resort to using evidence.

-----

Peg writes:

The Pleistocene Extinction!
The logical answer is that it came with the rapid change that occurred at the time of the Flood. With the removal of the insulating watery canopy, the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze, trapping animals that then lived far north of their present habitat.

Yet, curiously, radiometric dating and fossil discoveries show that there was no massive Flood that coincided with the Ice Age. Remember, Lake Bonneville was roughly contemporary with the Ice Age, and it had distinct maximum boundaries. Also note that the "bathtub" rings dilineating Lake Bonneville were not found in other places of the same age, so, clearly, the Flood was either restricted to Lake Bonneville, or didn't happen at that time. Besides, it’s unlikely that you’ll to find enough water to simultaneously flood the entire planet and freeze the poles over.

Furthermore, if you're attributing the Pleistocene extinction to the Flood, to what are you attributing the Devonian, Permian, Cretaceous and other extinction events?

-----

Peg writes:

3. Creatures from the Jurassic Periods have been found with animals from Cretaceous.
You dont think its even remotely possible that perhaps scientists just might have their interpretations wrong on some things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/7710415.stm

Now, this is an interesting statement.

First, there was only ever one Jurassic Period.

Second, your link leads to an article about a mammoth estimated to be 50,000 years old. By comparison, the Cretaceous Period was 65 to 145 million years ago, and the Jurassic was directly before that. I’m not sure why there is a mammoth article here at all.

Third, I’m calling your (or your source’s) bluff: nobody has found Jurassic creatures in the Cretaceous Period. I will gladly retract this statement if you show me the fossils in question.

Fourth, you don’t think it’s even remotely possible that perhaps the writers of the Bible just might have their intepretations wrong on some things, so why are you using the argument the somebody else might be relying too much on somebody’s words?

Please pay attention to the scientific literature and note that science is essentially nothing but arguing (we say “debating,” but , sometimes, that term is used far too generously). We attack, flame and slander each other as much as we attack, flame and slander creationists, so you’re not going to get very far with the argument that we just happily agree with everything that our colleagues say in a grand, united conspiracy bent on destroying Christianity.

-----

Peg writes:

4. Seamounts
There is an estimated 30,000 seamounts across the globe, but only a few have ever been studied. These are mountains under water. If the world was indeed flooded , then surely the fact that thousands of mountains are found under water, make the flood plausible.

So, is it your opinion that the seafloor should be completely flat in the absence of a flood? What is the seafloor but a piece of land covered by water? Do you know of any completely flat stretch of land anywhere on the earth? Even Nebraska has a couple of hills, Peg.

Edited by Bluejay, : Addition (marked in text)

Edited by Bluejay, : typo/spelling error


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 12-08-2008 11:35 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 5 of 445 (490776)
12-08-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Blue Jay
12-08-2008 11:26 AM


comments
You might comment, BlueJay, on the nature of the fish fossils. That is, age, taxa and order.

You might also ask about what type of mountains these seamounts are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Blue Jay, posted 12-08-2008 11:26 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5414
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.0


Message 6 of 445 (490780)
12-08-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


There is an estimated 30,000 seamounts across the globe, but only a few have ever been studied. These are mountains under water.

Heh. You've walked into one here, Peg.

There is a huge long chain of seamounts to the west of Hawaii, and it gets deeper and deeper to their summits as you go further west (and north). They also look more eroded as you go that same direction. They're all extinct volcanos, just like the islands of Hawaii are (except the Big Island, which is still active). Radiometric dates on lavas from the mounts and the islands get progressively, monotonously older as you go west from the Big Island.

Can you make a Fludde do all that? Modern geology can explain it all. Would you like to explain how a Fludde can, or would you like to learn what really happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Creation Guy, posted 08-15-2009 8:32 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19111
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 7 of 445 (490781)
12-08-2008 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


Peg writes:

You dont think its even remotely possible that perhaps scientists just might have their interpretations wrong on some things.

Peg, for yet a third time, "You might be wrong," is not a valid argument. Discussions like this should be about the evidence.

It's all well and good to throw out ideas, scientists do it all the time. "This could have happened," they'll postulate, "Or perhaps that might have happened." The research part of science is all about gathering evidence and figuring out what actually happened.

So if, for example, fish fossils on mountain ranges are the result of a flood, then examination of the evidence should tell us that they are indeed the result of a flood. So what does the evidence tell us? That the fish fossils are in deep layers, sometimes hundred of feet thick, that show change over time that has nothing to do with size or density. That many of the layers are of sea bottoms that persisted for a long time. That the layers date to millions and millions of years old. That the amount of life indicated by the layers is far more than could have existed at one time. Oh, and also that the layers do not in any way resemble flood sediments.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15664
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 445 (490790)
12-08-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


"Cretaceous" with Jurassic
quote:

3. Creatures from the Jurassic Periods have been found with animals from Cretaceous.
You dont think its even remotely possible that perhaps scientists just might have their interpretations wrong on some things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/7710415.stm

To take this one point, no there is no reason here to think that the scientists are wrong.

It says that Ice Age (NOT Cretaceous, but much later) and Jurassic remains were found at the same location. In itself that is not at all problematic for conventional geology, and in fact there is a very likely explanation that can be deduced from the nature of the location - a gravel pit.

Gravel is rock broken up into smaller fragments. If a fossil-bearing rock of Jurassic age were broken up into gravel then some fossils - especially durable fossils like belemnites would be found in the gravel itself. As the gravel is transported away from it's origin - other animal remains can become mixed in with it. And so the gravel would contain remains from two different periods - from the time of the rock that the gravel came from and from the time that the gravel was deposited. The BBC story does not give enough information to tell for sure, but it is entirely consistent with what IS said - and the vastly different ages of the remains.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 9 of 445 (490794)
12-08-2008 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


Peg observation:

1. Fish fossils found in marine-derived sedimentary rocks on top of mountains is not strange at all and is not BEST explained by a flood covering the mountains.

First of all, the fossils are contained IN the rock. They are part of the rock and as you go deeper into the stratigraphic layers, the fossils change systematically. Not only that, but the rocks and fossils also change systematically as you move laterally along the layers. This pattern of fossils is seen in individual mountains, mountain ranges, and you can see the same patterns on separate continents. The reason rocks and fossils change with stratigraphic height/depth, as well as laterally, is because of changing depositional environments.

If you imagine yourself at a beach, what are the possible depositional environments you can see from that vantage point?

You have a beach deposit where you are standing, where the sand is dense and gets wet as the tide moves in. In wet sand, what do you see? Footprints, some shells, vegetation, and clams if you dig down, maybe some crab debris. If you look into the ocean, the water gets deeper. You get fish, shellfish, carbonate minerals settling out of the water forming limestone, and reef systems. Even deeper out, you start getting clay settling out of the water because the water is too cold and dark to precipitate carbonate so you get shale. Different types of animals live in the deep ocean. Even deeper you may get siliceous ooze precipitating out on the seabed and again different types of sea life.

Looking towards land, you might see dune fields, with scorpians, lizards, shrubs, etc. Even further out see alluvial fans, braided stream environments, mountain ranges, valleys. All with different rocks and animal life and vegetation.

All these sediments, animals, and vegetation leave evidence of their existence in the rocks. This is why we know a great flood is NOT responsible for the rocks and fossils we see today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 10 of 445 (490811)
12-08-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


Rely to point #2
The late Pleistocene extinction is uncharacteristic of other mass extinction events. Extinction takes place at different times on different continents, but always targeting a specific kind of animal. From the following article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/pleistocene.html
What's more, climate change alone probably did not cause it. Over about 40,000 years, 200 or more groups of large herbivores are wiped out. With their prey absent from the food chain, many carnivores and scavengers also die off. Temperature fluctuates throughout the last ice ages, but the fossil record does not indicate an unusual concentration of death among smaller animals, plants, or marine creatures, at least some of which would likely have been affected by climate change. Instead, the loss of very large fauna almost always coincides with the arrival of humans to a continent. This suggests the possibility of over-hunting by early human settlers.

The point is that the pleistocene extinction is not a sinlge event but an event of over 40000 years. No flood lasts that long.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 11 of 445 (490826)
12-08-2008 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


Peg observation:

4. Sea mounts. I would add that, yes, the world has been flooded. Much of the ice that comprised alpine and continental glaciers -- for which we have abundant evidence -- melted. Glaciers are still melting and sea levels are still rising and sea mounts are getting deeper and deeper. However, we do not require a 4,000 to 10,000 (or ?) year old flood to explain why sea mounts are under water or why islands and continental coasts are currently facing future inundation. The explanation may be quite simple: wave erosion and climate.

Peg, for you the flood is plausible because you see the geological evidence around you as individual pieces of a puzzle. As isolated rock formations. What you need to understand is that all the rocks or formations around you represent ancient geologic events and processes that cannot have formed in the absence of the surrounding rock formations (i.e., events and processes). Therefore, you cannot consider the formation of the sea mounts, or extinction events, or fossils in rocks on mountain tops, etc. without considering what the rocks look like on the other side of the valley, or on the marine floor, or on the adjacent continent.

Once you start looking at how the rocks all intimately fit together over square miles, over hundreds of square miles, and from one continent to another, then you will realize that a global flood is a wholly inadequate model that consistently fails to explain the beautifully intricate and integrated geological puzzle before us.

If you are interested in learning why geologists have made the interpretations they have, pick up a book on historical geology. That's an excellent place to start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by anglagard, posted 12-09-2008 1:36 AM roxrkool has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 12 of 445 (490836)
12-09-2008 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by roxrkool
12-08-2008 10:07 PM


Beauty is Beyond Subservience to Mere Mortals
roxrkool writes:

Once you start looking at how the rocks all intimately fit together over square miles, over hundreds of square miles, and from one continent to another, then you will realize that a global flood is a wholly inadequate model that consistently fails to explain the beautifully intricate and integrated geological puzzle before us.

If you are interested in learning why geologists have made the interpretations they have, pick up a book on historical geology. That's an excellent place to start.

I could not agree more, but would like to add one other point. The entire field of geoscience is interlocked with all other sciences. To deny the radiometric dating requires not just a rejection of geology but also chemistry and physics. To deny an old earth or the requirement of a global flood requires even more, the rejection of anthropology, history, linguistics, and indeed what is commonly referred to as common sense. The list goes on into hundreds of ways all knowledge, in particular scientific knowledge, is not just interrelated but mutually supportive. And for what? an overly simplistic understanding of the Old Testament that dishonors both Christianity in general and the NT in the particular?

Where is the victory in allowing all people to starve to death or become something out of some sci-fi post apocalyptic nightmare because one must destroy all science that is not sanctified by the likes of Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute?

I wish everyone would take the time to see the tremendous beauty of mathematics, real science, and how it all fits together. It is far more awesome than some pompous self-proclaimed intermediary between us and God.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by roxrkool, posted 12-08-2008 10:07 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by roxrkool, posted 12-09-2008 2:58 AM anglagard has acknowledged this reply

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 13 of 445 (490848)
12-09-2008 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by anglagard
12-09-2008 1:36 AM


Re: Beauty is Beyond Subservience to Mere Mortals
Hear, hear!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by anglagard, posted 12-09-2008 1:36 AM anglagard has acknowledged this reply

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3273 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 445 (490850)
12-09-2008 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Blue Jay
12-08-2008 11:26 AM


Re: The Flood... Again (sigh).
gday bluejay

bluejay writes:

there's this pesky thing called "radiometric dating" that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later. Like most creationists and IDists, you have simply assumed that you can just dismiss radiometric dating as “iffy” and “inaccurate” without having to actually resort to using evidence.

Dating IS iffy, different labs have given different dates... an example of such was in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans.
First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. then the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.

So if the results of radiometric dating are not consistent, then their is something wrong with the method and it cant be trusted.

bluejay writes:

Second, your link leads to an article about a mammoth estimated to be 50,000 years old. By comparison, the Cretaceous Period was 65 to 145 million years ago, and the Jurassic was directly before that. I’m not sure why there is a mammoth article here at all.

Third, I’m calling your (or your source’s) bluff: nobody has found Jurassic creatures in the Cretaceous Period. I will gladly retract this statement if you show me the fossils in question.

that article shows that along side the mammoth fossil, they pulled up a "The hunt, involving 75 people, also unearthed the leg bone and vertebra from an Ice Age deer and belemnites, the remains of squid-like creatures from the Jurassic period, some 150m years ago"

bluejay writes:

So, is it your opinion that the seafloor should be completely flat in the absence of a flood?

no, my suggestion is that perhaps the earth is STILL flooded by water


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Blue Jay, posted 12-08-2008 11:26 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2008 5:07 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2008 7:20 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 12-09-2008 7:51 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 12-09-2008 12:08 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 12-09-2008 12:53 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 12:25 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 15 of 445 (490857)
12-09-2008 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The Flood... Again (sigh).
Hi Peg,

Dating IS iffy, different labs have given different dates... an example of such was in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania...

Can you back this claim up with a source please Peg?

that article shows that along side the mammoth fossil, they pulled up a "The hunt, involving 75 people, also unearthed the leg bone and vertebra from an Ice Age deer and belemnites, the remains of squid-like creatures from the Jurassic period, some 150m years ago"

I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but...

The above comment betrays a total ignorance of how fossils are found in situ. Nowhere in the BBC article does it say that the fossils were found in the same stratum. You know what a stratum (plural strata) is right? A layer of rock?

If the two fossils came straight out of the rock, both in the same stratum, now that would be problematic. But the article says no such thing. All it says is that mammoth and belemnite fossils were found on the same trip. In the same area, yes? In a gravel pit, where multiple fossils from multiple strata are all mixed together anyway.

It's not unusual to find one very old set of strata accompanied by a much younger set of strata. That's how stratigraphy works, by building layer upon layer. I recently visited a site in the Isle of Wight, where mammoths could be found in the strata from the top of the cliff, dinosaurs from the bottom. In one day, you could find fossils separated by hundreds of millions of years. This is quite typical. What you won't find however, are dinosaurs and mammoths in the same stratum and that's not what they found in your article. If they had, don't you think that the BBC might have mentioned this Earth-shattering news a little more explicitly?

Your link does absolutely nothing to challenge modern geological knowledge and certainly does noting to prove a flood. That you think it does betrays just how poorly qualified you are to be telling thousands of professional scientists that they are wrong.

no, my suggestion is that perhaps the earth is STILL flooded by water

It is indeed, but it has never been completely flooded, nor is that even possible.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2008 9:29 PM Granny Magda 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 © 2019