Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:19 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,595 Year: 3,632/19,786 Month: 627/1,087 Week: 217/212 Day: 32/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
30Next
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2446 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 361 of 445 (611450)
04-08-2011 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Admin
04-05-2011 7:44 AM


Admin writes:

Hi Robert,

That you can't provide what I'm asking for tells me that you either don't understand the request, or you have no answer but are responding anyway. Either way, the net result is that you're repeating your unsupported claims over and over again, which is disallowed by the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

What you need to do is describe evidence of at least an arguably scientific nature that causes you to conclude that the K-T boundary is a flood layer from around 4400 years ago. That it exists, which is the only evidence you've cited so far, is not evidence for a flood or for any particular age.

Perhaps it would help if a stepwise approach were taken by posing one specific question at a time for you, for example: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary is around 4400 years old?

For those of a countervailing opinion I ask the opposite question: What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary is around 65 million years old?

I think I gave a excellent answer to the whole matter.
Your the boss.

Since all must understand sedimentary rock is from laid sediment by water and this is what is found on earth then your complaint must be why I assert its from 4500 years ago!
We do start from biblical boundaries .
Then we look at the field evidence of what is sitting there.
I guess all I can say is there is no reason to know when the sediment was laid in and of itself.
its all about other associations.
Its just water layered sediment and so a creationist interpretates it as the big flood that laid it.
It still is about interpretation of stuff in the ground.
I am having trouble understanding the complaint here.
Nobody witnessed it being laid. its only from other ideas and associations that conclusions are drawn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Admin, posted 04-05-2011 7:44 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Admin, posted 04-08-2011 7:11 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16237
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 362 of 445 (611454)
04-08-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 12:35 AM


Robert Byers writes:

We would say very little remains relative to that world actually survive as fossils.


You haven't thought this through. There are fossils below the K-T boundary, which you call the flood line. That's where the dinosaurs are - and they're not all big dinosaurs. Some of them are similar in size to humans, or smaller.

The question, again, is: Why are there dinosaur fossils only before the flood and human fossils only after? Where are the fossils of the humans who died before the flood?


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 12:35 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:23 AM ringo has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 363 of 445 (611478)
04-08-2011 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 12:35 AM


The population would of been in certain areas on earth and nothing would remain of them or their society. Its just the wilderness areas that are found in fossil form.

So then explain why there are no large mammals of any kind below the K-T line? No Giant Ground sloths, no mammoths, no camels, no saber tooth cats, not even one bone whereas whole skeletons of dinosaurs are found.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 12:35 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:28 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 364 of 445 (611480)
04-08-2011 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Robert Byers
04-08-2011 12:49 AM


Hi Robert,

You continue to describe what you believe without providing any real world evidence for why you believe it. If someone with an opposing viewpoint were to say, "The radiometric evidence for the K-T boundary says that it was deposited 65 million years ago," what could you offer in rebuttal?

Others of your statements that require evidence:

Robert Byers writes:

Since all must understand sedimentary rock is from laid sediment by water...Its just water layered sediment...

What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary layer was a sedimentary layer deposited by water?

It still is about interpretation of stuff in the ground.

Please describe the details of the "stuff in the ground" that you are interpreting (appearance, context, compositiion, results of chemical and radiometric analysis, etc.) and the details of your method of interpretation.

Nobody witnessed it being laid. its only from other ideas and associations that conclusions are drawn.

If this is an argument that "No one was there therefore no one could know," that means you couldn't know either and should not be arguing that you do know from your interpretation (still undescribed) of the evidence you're looking at (still undescribed).

Say you were conducting a science class in how to interpret geological layers, and your example was the K-T boundary. Please explain how you would teach the class to analyze and interpret this layer in order to reach the conclusion that it is a sedimentary layer around 4500 years old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Robert Byers, posted 04-08-2011 12:49 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:43 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2446 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 365 of 445 (611899)
04-12-2011 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by ringo
04-08-2011 1:13 AM


ringo writes:

Robert Byers writes:

We would say very little remains relative to that world actually survive as fossils.


You haven't thought this through. There are fossils below the K-T boundary, which you call the flood line. That's where the dinosaurs are - and they're not all big dinosaurs. Some of them are similar in size to humans, or smaller.

The question, again, is: Why are there dinosaur fossils only before the flood and human fossils only after? Where are the fossils of the humans who died before the flood?

I don't expect to find human remains from before the flood. the areas humans lived in would of been covered by hundreds of feet of sediment. again they would of lived in areas covering a small part of earth and in fact possibly are not under the sea in some areas.
The world was shattered by the flood in many ways.

Dinos are only a collective term for some kinds of creatures.
i only expect to find them below the k-t line. I see them as part of the unclean creatures. so the ark took on a ratio of 14:2 of clean to unclean which suggests the post flood world would be unlike the pre flood one. So dinos were the losers in numbers and these types went extinct before the post flood fossilization events happening a few centuries after the flood.
Remember also only the most sedate areas , relative, would have remains of creatures. so in the middle of great land masses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ringo, posted 04-08-2011 1:13 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ringo, posted 04-12-2011 3:03 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2446 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 366 of 445 (611900)
04-12-2011 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by bluescat48
04-08-2011 6:05 AM


bluescat48 writes:

The population would of been in certain areas on earth and nothing would remain of them or their society. Its just the wilderness areas that are found in fossil form.

So then explain why there are no large mammals of any kind below the K-T line? No Giant Ground sloths, no mammoths, no camels, no saber tooth cats, not even one bone whereas whole skeletons of dinosaurs are found.

Many answers.
First i don't except the classification systems used. tHere were no dinos. They are just kinds of creatures. There are no mammals. just creatures with a few like details.
Some dinos could simply be the later creatures found in the fossil record, above the k-t line, or living today.
Since i see few kinds i don't need to see camels , for example, on the ark.
Then many creatures could of been very segregated on earth.
So whole areas might not be represented in the fossil record below the k-t line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by bluescat48, posted 04-08-2011 6:05 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by bluescat48, posted 04-12-2011 9:41 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2446 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 367 of 445 (611901)
04-12-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Admin
04-08-2011 7:11 AM


Admin writes:

Hi Robert,

You continue to describe what you believe without providing any real world evidence for why you believe it. If someone with an opposing viewpoint were to say, "The radiometric evidence for the K-T boundary says that it was deposited 65 million years ago," what could you offer in rebuttal?

Others of your statements that require evidence:

Robert Byers writes:

Since all must understand sedimentary rock is from laid sediment by water...Its just water layered sediment...

What evidence leads you to conclude that the K-T boundary layer was a sedimentary layer deposited by water?

It still is about interpretation of stuff in the ground.

Please describe the details of the "stuff in the ground" that you are interpreting (appearance, context, compositiion, results of chemical and radiometric analysis, etc.) and the details of your method of interpretation.

Nobody witnessed it being laid. its only from other ideas and associations that conclusions are drawn.

If this is an argument that "No one was there therefore no one could know," that means you couldn't know either and should not be arguing that you do know from your interpretation (still undescribed) of the evidence you're looking at (still undescribed).

Say you were conducting a science class in how to interpret geological layers, and your example was the K-T boundary. Please explain how you would teach the class to analyze and interpret this layer in order to reach the conclusion that it is a sedimentary layer around 4500 years old.

dating methods are not actually geology but about more atomic matters. They need to prove their case first.

i don't mean the boundary level was laid by water.
I only mean, what everyone agrees, that water laid the sediment stratas. The line is other peoples idea. I just use it.
Both sides agree the sedimentary rock strata were laid by water. slow or fast. they say over great time different episodes. We say over one year time with great segregated flow events.
This creationist says the k-t line is the difference in the flood year and the later centuries.
I only use the common knowledge. Then reinterpretate it.
I invent nothing.
i use the important points they use. Fauna/flora difference at the boundary line.
The line doesn;t exist. Just the great difference in rock type and flora/fauna within in it.
I would say to any class look at the field evidence. look at what the non creationist side says about its deposition processes and time and look at the creationist ones.
it is just about interpretation of practical rocks in the field.
Our evidence is the same on both sides.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Admin, posted 04-08-2011 7:11 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 3:17 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16237
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 368 of 445 (611906)
04-12-2011 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 2:23 AM


Robert byers writes:

I don't expect to find human remains from before the flood.


I'm asking you why you'd expect to find dinosaur fossils before the flood but not human fossils. You claim that all human fossils remains were destroyed by the flood and dinosaur remains were not - but that's just empty speculation.

The Bible says nothing about humans being concentrated near the coast, nor does it say anything about the flood being more "sedate" in some areas than others.

You seem to be using the word "expect" dishonestly. Your so-called expectations are really nothing more than an ad hoc attempt to cover a rather silly statement about the K-T boundary. They have no basis in either fact or logic and no basis in the Bible.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:23 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 369 of 445 (611919)
04-12-2011 5:44 AM


Moderator Comment
Hi Everyone,

I'm going to suspend my efforts to actively moderate this thread for now, but I will continue to monitor it. Robert doesn't seem to understand anyone's requests for evidence, but he seems sincere and I don't think increased administrative pressure would be any more likely of success.

This has been a courteous and considerate discussion, but largely empty because Robert will present no specific evidence to support his case, instead making vague and unspecific references. He says, "I only use the common knowledge," but never tells us what he thinks that common knowledge is. He says, "I use the important points they use," but never tells us what he thinks those important points are. He says, "Look at what the non creationist side says about its deposition processes and time," but never tells us what he thinks the creationist side says.

It has been said many times here that you can't reason someone out of a position someone never reasoned themselves into, and Robert has revealed no reasons based on evidence for what he believes. I advise those arguing from evidence and pleading with Robert for evidence to be cautious in allocating their time to this thread.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 370 of 445 (611934)
04-12-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 2:28 AM


First i don't except the classification systems used. tHere were no dinos. They are just kinds of creatures. There are no mammals. just creatures with a few like details.

Just because you don't accept the classification of life doesn't make your ideas right. Whether the classification is right or wrong does not alter the point that there are no dinosaurs, ammonites, trilobites, or euripterids above the line and no cats, eagles, ground sloths, or humans below. If the dflood occurerred and all life existed at the time of the flood , then there would be all types of fossils below the line, regardless of relationship.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:28 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 371 of 445 (611935)
04-12-2011 9:45 AM


Withstanding the test of time
I can't believe this thread is still going strong.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by frako, posted 04-12-2011 2:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 372 of 445 (611982)
04-12-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Hyroglyphx
04-12-2011 9:45 AM


Re: Withstanding the test of time
I can't believe this thread is still going strong.

Well its impossible to convince someone when they reject reality and substitute their own.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-12-2011 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 373 of 445 (611985)
04-12-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 2:43 AM


dating methods are not actually geology but about more atomic matters. They need to prove their case first.

It is geology, and it has been proven. You can even measure the cooling of a granite formation using radiometric dating:


http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm

If cooling of a geologic formation is not geology, then what is?

i don't mean the boundary level was laid by water.

Then it would be a very poor marker for the global flood, wouldn't it?

Both sides agree the sedimentary rock strata were laid by water. slow or fast.

No, they don't. Such features as paleosols discussed in the link above were not laid down under water. The Coconino sandstones are another good example. These are fossilized sand dunes from a wind blown desert.

We say over one year time with great segregated flow events.

You say a lot of things. We are interested in the evidence that backs up what you say.

This creationist says the k-t line is the difference in the flood year and the later centuries.

Based on what evidence?

The line doesn;t exist. Just the great difference in rock type and flora/fauna within in it.

How do you explain the iridium signal at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the K/T tektites that date to ~65 million years before present found at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the absence of a single modern mammal below the K/T boundary? What evidence supports your explanations?

it is just about interpretation of practical rocks in the field.

Yes, look to see which interpretation is backed by evidence and which is backed by zero evidence. So far, you are pushing an interpretation backed by zero evidence. The interpretation of standard geology is backed by all of the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:43 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:12 AM Taq has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2446 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 374 of 445 (612376)
04-15-2011 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Taq
04-12-2011 3:17 PM


No. Cooling of rocks etc is not geology. Its concepts of atomic mechanisms. Geology is the processes that create and form materials of the earth.
Your dating stuff is speculative.
The thread seems to be cooling here.
The evidence for creationist ideas here is simply interpretation of practical field results. yes thers a biblical foundation but still the point is that nothing contradicts and indeed suggests greatly the biblical flood story by the rock strata and the k-t line.
All there is IS stuff in the field.
Then thinking about it.
the rocks make a creationist case or at least a creationist case fits with what is found.
Rock solid.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Taq, posted 04-12-2011 3:17 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by frako, posted 04-15-2011 6:23 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 376 by bluescat48, posted 04-15-2011 10:19 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 377 by Coyote, posted 04-15-2011 10:53 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 378 by Taq, posted 04-15-2011 11:42 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 375 of 445 (612397)
04-15-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:12 AM


Your dating stuff is speculative.

You can clearly see that because Robert Byers does not poses the intelectual capacity to understand it so it must be pure bullshit.

The evidence for creationist ideas here is simply interpretation of practical field results. yes thers a biblical foundation but still the point is that nothing contradicts and indeed suggests greatly the biblical flood story by the rock strata and the k-t line.

And still there where no human remains at the time to build a boat beat around the bush all you want that will not make the facts go away.

the rocks make a creationist case or at least a creationist case fits with what is found.

no it does not each line representing 1 million years

<---humans
<--- human like people (no humans)
<--- primate like animals(no humans no human like people)
<---diferent stuff no humans no human like people no primate like animals
<---diferent stuff no humans no human like people no primate like animals <---diferent stuff no humans no human like people no primate like animals
<---diferent stuff no humans no human like people no primate like animals
65x the same line down you get the K-T boundary then you get
-no mamals (humans) and you have dinosaurs
-no mamals (humans) and you have dinosaurs
450 of those lines i belieave
after thaose 450 lines you get
- then you get amphibians and stuff like that no dinosaurs no humans no primates for a "few" lines
- then you get allot of lines of no animals on land whatsoever only plants and water animals and definitively no humans

do you get it now trying to fit the food in to the K-t boundary is worse then trying to attribute the design of the Apollo rocket to the founders of the belief in the god Apollo thousands of years ago, even though it can be clearly seen that they did not have the understanding to grasp what they where designing. It is worse for your case because there WHERE NO HUMANS AT THE TIME NOT EVEN PEOPLE THAT LOOK HUMAN.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:12 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019