Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (9006 total)
57 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 881,027 Year: 12,775/23,288 Month: 500/1,527 Week: 179/207 Day: 1/39 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 132 of 519 (488852)
11-18-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-25-2008 4:41 AM


1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture,

How does this follow from your premise?

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

How do these assertions harm a Genesis flood?

Thus you have a logical contradiction.

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

What contradiction?

How did this OP get past PNT?

All you have done in this last paragraph is to state (rather poorly) the evolution explanation.

The Creationism explanation is the Great Flood.

Half of all adults in the U.S. accept the Creationism explanation.

Once again: we have one set of evidence and two major explanations.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2008 4:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2008 8:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 133 of 519 (488853)
11-18-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
11-17-2008 10:14 PM


Re: Setting The Record Straight
That YEC brush, which is neither Biblical or scientific, works to weaken creationist's credibility in these science threads.

I agree 100 percent.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2008 10:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 135 of 519 (488856)
11-18-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Coyote
11-18-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
The creationists' explanation for the facts was tested by science and rejected between 150 and 200 years ago.

I thought you believed Creationism was not testable?

It is only the creationists, using their illegitimate version of science -- creation "science" -- who refuse to accept the findings of science due to religious reasons.

If this means we accept a Great Flood because the Bible says so I would agree that this is the first and foremost reason. The second reason is because the physical evidence corroborates. In this context I would say that evolutionists reject the Bible for anti-religious reasons. Presuppositions determine interpretation of evidence. Darwinism presupposes the Flood false because otherwise evolution is false. Creationism presupposes the Flood true because the Bible is the most credible Source ever assembled. The criteria for canonicity was "was the writing Divinely inspired?"

You can blind yourselves to reality, you can misrepresent and ignore those inconvenient facts, but you can't claim what you do is science, nor that your explanations are equally legitimate as scientific ones.

In a recent different thread I readily admitted that 20th century Creationism is not science. Of course 20th century Darwinism is not science either because of its starting presuppositions (pro-Materialism-Naturalism).

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 4:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by bluescat48, posted 11-18-2008 5:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 138 by obvious Child, posted 11-18-2008 6:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 141 of 519 (488875)
11-18-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RAZD
11-18-2008 8:14 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
If the marine growth in question occurred during the flood, then there had to be enough time to grow all that complex inter-related ecology, including layers of clams with shells that have growth rings showing 10, 20, 30 years of growth, in an undisturbed environment, and found in many multiples layers.

Thus one possibility is that the flood lasted much longer than the advertised time, in order to provide sufficient time for all this complex growth.

Commentary presupposes said growth to have occurred on location on mountain tops that were under the sea. Why couldn't these growths been transported to the locations in the form we find them by the churning waters in upheaval? Of course you are going to say, or have said, that multiple layers exist, which appears not to have been caused by a Genesis flood since mountain tops under the sea for less than year does not correspond to the phenomena. Genesis specifically states that there were TWO sources causing the flood: torrential rains and fountains of the deep bursting open. The latter is speaking about sources of water originating at the sea bottom causing the levels to rise catastrophically. This would account for thick layer, or layers, or the phenomena seen. I am saying that your emphasis on "multiple layers" presupposes uniformitarian time. A catastrophe like a Great Flood, in view of the facts mentioned, could easily cause these layers, since they only exist at the top.

Are you aware that modern geology accounts for much land terrain or shores near seas as being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward?

RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.

Creationists claim that these fossils are evidence of the flood. I just want to understand how that works.

What I want to see is an explanation for the obvious solid rock evidence of long term marine growth that is found in multiple layers on many many mountains, an explanation that shows it must be evidence of a flood -- and that no other explanation will cover all the facts as well.

Something a little more thought out than this:

Option 1
(premise a) there are seashells on mountains
(premise b) seashells grow under water
therefore: the mountains must have been underwater
(premise c) can't think of any way to make mountains
therefore: the flood covered the mountains

Something a little less ridiculously circular than this:

Option 2
(premise q) the flood also involved made up tectonic mixing
(premise r) this mixing jumbled all the earths surface, making mountains etc
therefore: what you see is all mixed up from what was before
(unstated assumption used as premise s) ignore layering, ignore sorting of fossils, ignore evidence of dry formations in between marine ones, etc etc etc
therefore: the flood caused everything to look exactly like you see it because if it didn't look like due to a flood that then there could be no flood but there was a flood so therefore it made it look exactly like the way you see it ...

Everything written in the above blue box simply denigrates the Creationist explanation, asserting it not to be a explanation. This is long-winded question begging, RAZD. My previous comments (above) place the ball back in your court. And for the record: the evolution explanation is deranged and unbelievable. It amounts to no explanation since you have mountain tops to have been sea floor caused by slow steady plate conflict----yeah right----simply preposterous. In other words you don't know.

So you go with option #1? That doesn't explain the layers of undisturbed growth of layer after layer of such fossils or the continuity of those layers around the world. I need the details, Ray. See if you can fill it in:

I have made an explanation (above). Continuity is explained by the Catastrophe. Lack of similar phenomena from mountain base to the top falsifies your deranged explanation.

The fallacy of the argument from popularity. Do you really want to go there, and compare which half is which?

Argument from Popularity is not always a fallacy. Reference available upon request.

No, we have one explanation: plate tectonics and the natural history of life on earth preserved in the fossil record as it happened, ...

Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood. Your rebuttal, in its entirety, consists of assuming the logical expectation to not be logical----when it is perfectly logical.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2008 8:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 11:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 145 by The Matt, posted 11-19-2008 3:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 146 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2008 5:12 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 147 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2008 7:18 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 148 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 1:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2008 7:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 164 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-21-2008 12:35 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 143 of 519 (488880)
11-18-2008 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
11-18-2008 11:10 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence
--Kettering's Law

Given this, I'll stick to evidence and you can play around with logic and religious belief all you want.

Your comments admit that your explanation is anti-logical and that the Creationist explanation is logical.

Evolution defies logic; this is why it is rejected by tens of millions of Americans. Admitting as much exceeds our most wild expectations. Thanks for your objectivity and honesty.

Ray

{(Biological) evolution is off-topic here, unless it is clearly and specifically tied to considerations of "the flood". Please, no "evolution" discussion responses that do not have such flood connections. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Evolution is off-topic comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 11:10 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AdminNosy, posted 11-19-2008 12:58 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 149 of 519 (488920)
11-19-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
11-18-2008 11:10 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence
--Kettering's Law

Given this, I'll stick to evidence and you can play around with logic and religious belief all you want.

Your comments admit that your explanation is anti-logical and that the Creationist explanation is logical.

Admitting as much exceeds our most wild expectations. Thanks for your objectivity and honesty. If I have misunderstood your message and its point please take the time and effort to show me the error?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 11:10 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 150 of 519 (488921)
11-19-2008 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by The Matt
11-19-2008 3:16 AM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Are you seriously trying to imply that mountains only have fossils on their peaks? Please, go and do some fossil hunting.

According to the argument initiated by RAZD, multi-layered fossilized marine life located on mountain tops is the object of explanation. Neither RAZD nor I have put forth the ridiculous implication seen in your blue box comment.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by The Matt, posted 11-19-2008 3:16 AM The Matt has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 151 of 519 (488922)
11-19-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by roxrkool
11-19-2008 1:21 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this.

Then you are out of touch.

How does anyone confirm the claim about yourself?

We do generally feel that portions of the geologic record are the result of 'mini' catastrophic events, such as localized flooding. How much of the geologic record is represented by these mini catastrophic events, however, is arguable.

No one person speaks for Geology; therefore, to start your comments by saying "we" is horribly inaccurate.

And I never said a word about "mini catastrophic events" or "localized flooding."

As for the "fountains of the deep" portion of your statement. You have been misinformed. That is absolutely not true at all.

You are out of touch. Ridged terrain sea shores is now known to be caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea.

First of all, mountains do not jut up ever upward.

No one said they did. You need to develop better reading skills.

Second of all, some mountains are in fact full of fossils. Some mountains also have fossils only at their bases. Some mountains only have fossils in their middles.

No one denied any of these facts----you have misunderstood.

You again have been misinformed regarding the location of fossils and mountains

You have not read the pertinent exchanges. RAZD and I are discussing layers of fossilized marine life at the tops, attempting to determine the best explanation of said phenomena. If the phenomena was caused by plate conflict, as RAZD asserts, then I have asked why the entire mountain is not embedded with such phenomena since mountains, according to the so called natural explanation, are raised sea floor?

RAZD says said layers could not have been formed in a year, that they were formed in a time scale corresponding to uniformitarian expectations. But if the phenomena at issue is only located at the tops then catastrophic upheaval is certainly a viable explanation. Of course, as far as I am aware, science does not know how a wide spectrum of rocks and material behave in churning waters, and how the same settles.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 1:21 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by rueh, posted 11-19-2008 4:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 156 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 5:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 166 by edge, posted 11-23-2008 11:21 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 152 of 519 (488923)
11-19-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by bluescat48
11-19-2008 7:18 AM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
So explain why there are no chordate fossils in the area explained? If the results were from your mythological global flood there should be fossils of all types of sea creatures not just arthropods, mollusks & worms.

Why do we find sea shells in abundance on sea shores?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2008 7:18 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 154 of 519 (488925)
11-19-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by rueh
11-19-2008 4:11 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Do you have any examples of mountains that only contain fossilized marine life at their peaks and nowhere else along them?

No.

I am assuming. I have asked RAZD basically the same question.

Do you mean waves instead of fountains?

Except for waves caused by avalanche----no.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by rueh, posted 11-19-2008 4:11 PM rueh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 4:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 159 of 519 (488938)
11-19-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
11-19-2008 7:31 PM


Re: fountains don't make mountains
Thanks Ray,

For what?

RAZD writes:

Commentary presupposes ...
Are you aware that modern geology ...
RAZD: your explanation of plates ...

Bizarre phrase-mining.

Ray writes:

Genesis specifically states that there were TWO sources causing the flood: torrential rains and fountains of the deep bursting open. The latter is speaking about sources of water originating at the sea bottom causing the levels to rise catastrophically.

RAZD in response writes:

Interestingly there have been no known instances of fountains making hills, to say nothing of mountains, so this explains neither fossils nor mountains.

Non-sequitur evading context.

And I have said no such things.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2008 7:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1670 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 160 of 519 (488941)
11-19-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
11-19-2008 7:31 PM


Re: fountains don't make mountains
And yet, astonishingly, your "explanation" is no more credible than what I gave as examples. All you have done is try to dodge the issue with a hand waving "great upheaval" wishing-it-were-so story. Can you tell me where the "great upheaval" is mentioned in the published accounts? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along.

"Great upheaval" is a phrase meant to be understood as a synonym for the Great Genesis Flood.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2008 7:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-19-2008 11:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2008 8:26 AM Cold Foreign Object 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 © 2020