Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (9005 total)
51 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ringo (3 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,125 Year: 12,873/23,288 Month: 598/1,527 Week: 37/240 Day: 4/14 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?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 519 (482071)
09-14-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Architect-426
09-14-2008 1:14 PM


Nonsense
Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV). And the mass part of the destruction was clearly through volcanic activity on a massive, massive scale.

The global flood is placed, by biblical scholars, at about 4,350 years ago.

That time period is very familiar to archaeologists and sedimentologists around the world (note--archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists. Geologists deal primarily with rock, while archaeologists and sedimentologists deal with soils.)

If there was a massive volcanic or flood event it would show clearly in the soil layers.

In the Pacific Northwest the ash from Mt. Mazama, which formed Crater Lake when it blew nearly 7,000 years ago, is found in archaeological sites. It is a useful time marker. Earlier volcanic events, such as Mt. St. Helens, are also visible.

There is no worldide volcanic event, nor a flood erosion/deposition event, about 4,350 years ago.

Why can we see these older events in the soils, going back tens of thousands of years, but can't find a supposedly much larger event that was much more recent?

Answer: It didn't happen. The "flood" is a local tribal myth, not an actual worldwide event.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 1:14 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 519 (482185)
09-15-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jason777
09-15-2008 5:23 AM


Assumptions again
There are a few assumptions that go with dating fossil marine layers,but nowhere near as many as there is with radiometric dating etc.

Are you making the common creationist mistake of equating "assumptions" with "wrong?"

If so, you are making an argument that is weak even for a creationist.

If you think some of the assumptions involved in radiometric dating are wrong, perhaps you could show how and why they are wrong.

I would prefer you address this to radiocarbon (C14) dating, as that is a field that I know.

But it might be best if you find a still-active thread dealing with radiocarbon dating and add to that rather than doing so here.

I look forward to helping you understand C14 dating better, and realizing that "assumption" does not automatically mean "wrong."


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 5:23 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 59 of 519 (484594)
09-29-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Architect-426
09-29-2008 7:00 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Now take this event, say times 1,000, and apply it in dozens of regions all over the globe. You get massive rain, massive tsunamis, massive loss of land, massive fissure type eruptions, massive mountains, massive quakes, earth debris mixed with super-heated water and hard shelled aquatic "critters" turning into layers of rock and fossils, etc.....

Don't forget, this all happened about 4,350 years ago, not in geological time millions of years ago.

You are dealing with sediments (soils) at that age, not rocks. You don't care a whit what trilobites, mountains, or marine deposits did or didn't do. At this very recent age you must look to archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists, for your evidence.

I know of no archaeological evidence for a worldwide flood, let alone the kinds of other catastrophies you describe at 4,350 years ago.

Besides, you would think that the Egyptians and other early civilizations would have noticed. They weren't wiped out, nor did they report being flooded out and destroyed.

Face it, the idea of a global flood 4,350 years ago is a religious belief, one that is contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of science.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Architect-426, posted 09-29-2008 7:00 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 8:28 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 96 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 6:34 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 61 of 519 (484597)
09-29-2008 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 8:28 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Why are you stuck on a date of 4,350 years ago?

We have these date estimates for the global flood according to various sources and scholars:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

About 4,350 years ago seems to be a general consensus.

If not then, what would you propose? Remember, it has to be less than 6,000 years ago. We're not talking geologic time in any case.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 8:28 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:13 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 63 of 519 (484600)
09-29-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:13 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
So you accept that information of a date of 4,350 years ago as a general consensus from those sources as you put it?

Beats me. That's what these folks say. But then I've seen folks claiming the Cambrian explosion (which lasted for tens of millions of years) was the result of the global flood.

As far as I am concerned, I have not seen evidence in the areas in which I do archaeology that can be connected to a global flood. The most I have seen is the Channeled Scablands of eastern and southern Washington, which are clearly connected to late ice age floods from ice dams in the Idaho panhandle area. Those floods were not on the same scale as ascribed to the global flood.

The problem I find with the flood is that a lot of folks are unwilling to commit a specific date because then science can examine that date and check for evidence of a flood. So far there is no evidence of a global flood at any time during which humans have been around.

So you tell me, when did the aledged global flood occur?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:13 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:24 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 66 of 519 (484604)
09-29-2008 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:24 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
It sounds to me like you are now turning away from a date of 4,350 years ago & the general consensus from those sources as you described them.

What's this, some kind of gotcha question?

I found a bunch of biblical scholars whose estimates center around that date, so that's the one I use.

If you have a better date, I would like to hear about it. And your reason for selecting that date.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:24 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:53 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 68 of 519 (484608)
09-29-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:53 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
Dates of events or phenomena can get rather squishy the further back we go, and so you accept a consensus to work with for a date of 4350 years ago.

Do you accept or reject the work of biblical scholars, and to what degree, or is it just on a flood date of 4350 years ago?

Biblical scholars and believers are the ones claiming there was a global flood. It is up to them to pin down a date; that flood can wander over a billion or more years of geologic history, always being "over there," but never here, where you just looked.

And no, I don't accept that there ever was a global flood; the evidence contradicts that contention.

So when do you think the supposed flood occurred?

{See messeage 71 below. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:53 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2008 11:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 99 of 519 (486087)
10-15-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 6:34 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!!
One small bit of evidence: when I excavate an archaeological site, and have a continuous record of cultural development for 6,000 years I feel that is good evidence that there was no global flood (with or without volcanoes) at the appointed time of 4,350 years ago.

If there was a flood of that magnitude I think I would notice some evidence. But no, the human cultures in my area developed happily for some 8-10,000 years untroubled by any such flood. The mtDNA was not replaced by that of Noah's kin either. There was continued development, in place, for all that time.

The conclusion: no flood.

You are welcome to your beliefs; just don't mistake them for science.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 6:34 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 114 of 519 (486429)
10-20-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Architect-426
10-20-2008 11:53 AM


The date of the flood
4. How the Flood did, or did not, have anything to do with the placement of fossilized specimens on mountains.

It would help if you could specify a time period for the purported flood.

It makes it very difficult to discuss these issues if the "flood" could have happened at any time between about 2250 B.C. and 3 billion years ago.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Architect-426, posted 10-20-2008 11:53 AM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2008 2:31 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 116 of 519 (486437)
10-20-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by RAZD
10-20-2008 2:31 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
I don't think we need to focus on this issue yet, rather I would like to see a mechanism for flood → movement of layers of rocks → present day formations. Once we have a mechanism for transporting whole layers of rocks with sedimentary layers virtually intact, then we can look at when those layers formed and when they may have been so transported.

I disagree. The date of the purported flood is critical in terms of where one would look for evidence.

First, those who believe in the flood really have to pin down a date. We can't have the "Its not there, its over there!" phenomenon every time we examine a stratum or time period and eliminate it from contention.

Second, if that date is during historic times, as most biblical scholars suggest, we don't want to be looking in geological formations at all. Plate tectonics and mountain formation are non-issues. We want to be looking in the soils, and in the uppermost layers of those soils.

But if you really want to debate mountains and plates, that's fine with me. I'll wait until another thread comes along.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2008 2:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by roxrkool, posted 10-20-2008 8:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 124 of 519 (488748)
11-16-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


Sorry, no flood
The very element that sustains and gives life has the utter power to completely destroy it, and God destroyed the earth with water.

Nonsense. This is just a local tribal myth.

However, if you want to try to support this then I would like to start with two basic questions.

1) What was the date of this flood (clearly during historic times)?

2) To what geological era does this flood correspond (i.e., where should we look in the earth for the evidence)?

If you can provide answers agreed-upon by creationists we can then proceed.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 134 of 519 (488854)
11-18-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 4:36 PM


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

No. Wrong. Totally and completely wrong.

The creationists' explanation for the facts was tested by science and rejected between 150 and 200 years ago.

Since then the scientific explanations have been tested and supported time and time again.

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.

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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 4:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 5:18 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 142 of 519 (488877)
11-18-2008 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood.

quote:
Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence

--Kettering's Law


From Talk Origins (response to creationist claim CC364):

1. Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

2. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

  • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
  • In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
  • Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 11:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 2:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 169 of 519 (490056)
12-02-2008 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Architect-426
12-01-2008 11:53 PM


Re: PLATE TECTONICS FAILS PHYSICS 101 – NO ENERGY = NO MOUNTAIN!!!
And that amount of horizontal velocity creates enough energy to produce the sheer amount of mechanical work required to build mountains? No way, dynamically, physically, structurally and mathematically impossible.

Are you forgetting the mass involved?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Architect-426, posted 12-01-2008 11:53 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 733 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 519 (810827)
06-01-2017 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by edge
06-01-2017 10:53 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

faith writes:

OK but I don't recall saying much about the dates. I did say that millions of years is ridiculous for a microevolution that we can see happening in real living time today.


Exactlly.

You SAY that it's ridiculous.

Over and over and over again.

But you never say why.


Faith has said why. Those dates contradict the bible, so they must be wrong. Somehow.

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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:53 PM edge 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