|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is your best arguments against a world wide flood. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, why do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with seashells? Why was a whale's skeleton found on a 3000-foot mountaintop? Why was Pillow Lava Found on a 15000-foot mountain (pillow lava forms ONLY underwater)? Maybe you've heard of a little thing called "plate tectonics"? See, all the continents are on these big "plates" that float on top of the earth's fluid mantle. When they run into each other, they push each other up (like wrinkles in a carpet.) Sometimes this means that areas that were underwater for millenia are thrust up above the water. If they go high enough we call them "mountains." Seriously, this is like grade-school stuff. How did you miss this? We've only known that the earth's continents move for about 60 years or so (and been measuring it for 20-30 or so.)
The Smithsonian is responsible for hiding much evidence that goes against evolution, so i've heard (that sounds bias on their part). Hey, I've heard that Elvis is alive and well in a Louisiana trailer park (and he's pregnant with JFK's love-child.) Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear. Anyway, so what? The Smithsonian isn't the be-all end-all of science. Plenty (in fact the majority) of science goes on without any involvment from the Smithsonian. You'll have to do a little better than this. Especially for a guy who said he was a "smart creation scientist" and that he never lost arguments with evolutionists...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bill Birkeland Member (Idle past 2532 days) Posts: 165 From: Louisiana Joined: |
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, whydo we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with seashells?" ------------- As a previous poster wrote, it is called plate tectonics. The continents of India and Eurasia are colliding and the Himalayas are being uplifted. When India and Eurasia collided, an ancient seaway was crushed and uplifted between them. There are many books that discuss what has happened in the Himalayas in great detail. Some online web pages are: 1. The Himalayas: Two continents collidehttp://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html 2. Himalayan tectonics404: Earth and Environment 3. Geology of the Himalayan Mountainshttp://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html 4. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesishttp://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html 5. PLATE T-48 HIMALAYAN FRONT AND TIBETAN PLATEAUGES DISC Using satellite GPS surveying, scientists canobserve the Himalayas grow in real time. Some references are: 1. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan PlateauDetermined from GPS Observations by Jinwei Ren http://center.shao.ac.cn/APSG/pdfs/Renjinwei.pdf. 2. Jouanne, F., Mugnier, J. L., Pandey, M. R.,Gamond, J. F., Le Fort, P., Serrurier, L., Vigny, C. and Avouac, J. P., 1999, Oblique convergence in the Himalayas of western Nepal deduced from preliminary results of GPS measurements. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 26 , no. 13 , p. 1933. - Abstract no. 1999GL900416 at http://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.html 3. Thompson, S. C., 2001, Active tectonics in the centralTien Shan, Kyrgyz Republic. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. On-line at: http://louie.geology.washington.edu/...han_web/tienshan.html Some random references: Bilham and others, 1997, GPS measurements of present-dayconvergence across the Nepal Himalayas: Nature, v. 386, pp. 61-64. Searle, M. P., and Treloar, P. J., 1993, Himalayantectonics - an introduction. In Himalayan Tectonics, P. J. Treloar and M. P. Searle, pp.1-7. Geological Society of london special Publication no. 74, Geological society of London, London, England. Shen, and others, 2000, Contemporary crustal deformationin east Asia constrained by Global Positioning System measurements, Journal of Geophysical Research. vol. 105, pp. 5721-5734. +++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "why was a whale's skeleton found on a 3000-footmountaintop?" ------- Since you don't provide the specifics of location, it ismost impossible to give a specific answer. In the Andes of South America, whales are found at such elevation because of plate tectonics and mountain building. Even Darwin in his voyages of the Beagle observed the Andes being actively uplifted. Nothing is mysterious about such whales if a person takes the time to look up and read what has been published in the scientific literature about them. +++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Why was Pillow Lava Found on a 15000-foot mountain(pillow lava forms ONLY underwater)?" -------- Again, without an exact location for these pillowlavas, it is difficult to give a specific answer. However, many of these pillow lavas were part of oceanic crust either uplift when an ancient seaway was crushed and uplifted between two continental plates or when oceanic crust was scraped off against a continental plate to form coastal mountains as as the rest of the plate was subducted. Those people who don't know what pillow lavas arecan go read: Pillow LavaThis service is temporarily unavailable Photo glossary of volcano termsVolcano Hazards Program Volcano Hazards Program WORLD'S (?) GREATEST PILLOW LAVAhttp://www.cuesta.edu/deptinfo/geology/pillow_lava.htm It is nothing that a person can sleep on. :-) :-) +++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Study astronomy and geology: the earth is tiltedon its axis. However, stonehenge and the Ramses star-map of Egypt do not line up well as how they should. In fact, if you mapped out how the earth's axis is 'wobbly' you'll find that it is behaving like a spinning top that was struck forcefully about 4.5 thousand years ago (4500 y.a.) That is about the same time as the flood of Noah, according to the Bible. Interesting." -------- I am not an archaeologist, so I can't answer thisquestion. However, if Mr. booboocruise wants an answer to this question, he can post it to the Hall of "Ma'at" Messageboard at: http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/post.php?f=1http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/index.php This messageboard is run by lay people who are veryinterested and knowledgeable about Egypt and other ancient sites. Without a doubt, they can any question that he might have about the Ramses star-map of Egypt and Stonehenge. In fact, they have very frequent discussions about the astronomy and ancient people, including the Egyptians. The above question can be easily answered by the people who post to this messagboard. +++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "The Smithsonian is responsible for hiding much evidencebias on their part)." ------- Not everything a person hears is true. :-) This is standard excuse of the "true believers" in alienabductions, exterrestrial visitors to Earth, Atlantic, and anybody else whose ideas visibly lack any hard, evidence to support their claims or beliefs. The excuse that either some governmental agency, group of conventional scientists, or combination thereof is suppressing all evidence of the existence of some knowledge is the favorite theme of fictional books and TV shows, e.g., "X-Files". What it does is twists the lack of evidence supporting a specific idea to evidence of a conspiracy to suppress this idea. The absence of evidence is magically transmuted from the lack of proof for a specific position to evidence of a conspiracy against this position by whatever the supporters of this position consider the "establishment". Essentially, claims, such as the "The Smithsonian isresponsible for hiding much evidence...", is just mean- spirited slander by the people that Mr. booboocruise heard it from of the type that often characterizes Texas politics. Not only does this excuse explain the lack of evidence for a position, it also has the purpose of tarring and feathering the opposition as evil people who indulge in deceit and fraud and can't be trusted. This excuse is at its basic core nothing more than a personal attack on the integrity of ones opponents instead of discussing the evidence or lack of that might exist. +++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Many musuems I have BEEN TO will hide the fact thatthere exist polystrate fossils and human remains that were found "out of place" in the geologic column." ------- This is not true. The polystrate fossils and humanremains that Mr. booboocruise have been published openly in the scientific literature. The problem is that conventional scientists don't interpret them the same as YE creationists do. For example, a forthright discussion about oneset of alleged "out-of-place" human remains can be read online in "The Life and Death of Malachite Man by Glen J. Kuban at: http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm The Malachite Man is also discussed in: Coulam, N. J., and Schroedl, A. R., III, 1995, TheKeystone Azurite Mine in Southeastern Utah. Utah Archaeology. vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-122. Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth history;the evolution/ creation controversy. Prometheus Books. Buffalo, New York, 552 pp. In another example, a significant number of theseso called "out-of-place" human remains are openly discussed by Michael Brass in his book "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records Explored". Page not found – The Antiquity of ManPage not found – The Antiquity of Man Publications | Human Nature As far as polystrate fossils are concerned, go read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html ,http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html , http://www.talkorigins.org/...lystrate/polystrate_trees.html , http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/..._origins/polystrate_trees.html , http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html , and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree2.html . ++++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Seriously, the only place that the geologic columnreally exists is in the textbook (much of the fossils found in the rock layers do not 'support' their theory, so they simply disregard the evidence for the Flood." -------- Actually there many places where a complete geologiccolumn exists. This is discussed in detail by Glenn Morton in "The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood" at: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm Glenn Morton's otherw eb pages can be found at: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm and http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fld.htmhttp://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/yungerth.htm In case of the geologic column existing, Glenn Mortoncertainly is not the person disregarding the evidence :-) :-) ++++++++booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16 "Do not believe that there is NO evidence for theflood--there is more evidence FOR it... but evolutionists, from my experience, are very good at covering up or making you believe there is no evidence." ------ This, in my opinion, nothing more than a personalattack on the integrity of conventional scientists that falsely tars and feathers them as being deceitful in the manner in which they discuss the topic of a Noachian Flood. The above statement simply dismisses the arguments on the part of conventional scientists against a Noachian Flood as being fraudulent instead arguing the specific merits and demerits of their arguments. Yours, Bill BirkelandHouston, Texas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
the earth is tilted on its axis. However, stonehenge and the Ramses star-map of Egypt do not line up well as how they should. In fact, if you mapped out how the earth's axis is 'wobbly' you'll find that it is behaving like a spinning top that was struck forcefully about 4.5 thousand years ago (4500 y.a.)
Why do all the other rapidly spinning planets precess like that? Were they struck forcefully by a flood, too? Why does a spinning top that has not been struck by anything precess like that? You need to read some elementary physics, booboo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
and you've been sold a load of c...
quote: Booboo what kind of shells are those? Are they of species that are currently alive? If not why not? Are they from species found rather deeper in the geologic layers anywhere else? Others have already told you about plate tectonics. Had you really not heard of that? I'd find that astonishing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atop Sanhorn Mountain in the North Sea (an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift).
Also, It is difficult to tell what kind of sea shells are atop the Himalayas (they are fossilized). HOWEVER, being fossilized does not prove they are millions of years old. I have, in my basement, a piece of petrified wood that was recently hand-carved (it was normal wood not too long ago). Also, the logs in Spirit Lake (I've been to Washington myself) are already beginning to petrify (they are not even three decades old and left over from Mt. St. Helens).So, the sea shells found at Mt. Everest are, I believe, oysters (for some of the sea shells are several feet wide, and oysters are known to grow larger than most clams and mussels).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm afraid you need specific references on work done by people who know what the shells are. Not your guesses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Can you tell me where this mountain is - give me a map location of it? You seem familiar with the geology of the area so I presume this won't be too much trouble. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The only references Google could find were on creationist sites, citing a geological paper from 1829. Sanhorn is not mentioned elsewhere - or in my atlas. I would expect it to be in Norway although there is no way to be sure.
Given that there is a nountain there it is obvious that there has been uplift, and the date of the paper clearly means that that possiiblity was not considered at the time. Given the obscurity of the source and location it is unlikely that there has been any serious check. Here is one source mentioning a fossil whale found in Norway :"At Smestad in Brum (near Oslo, Norway), a 20 metres long, almost complete skeleton of a baleen whale was found in 1978, in compact blue clay. The whalemust have stranded in a shallow bay, which seabottom sediments today lie 106 metres above sea level. This is due to the rising of the land (isostasy) after the last Ice Age. The whale died about 8500-9000 years ago." [Added by Edit] At this point it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the whale fossil was found much lower on the mountain and that it was raised to that point by isostatic rebound. Rebounds of over 200m are apparent from the geology.Until proper documentation of the find is available I will stick with this explanation. [This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Thanks for trying to find it, but don't worry, booboocruise can tell us exactly where it is as he is sufficiently familiar with the geology of the region to cite it as an example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
At this point it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the whale fossil was found much lower on the mountain and that it was raised to that point by isostatic rebound. Rebounds of over 200m are apparent from the geology.
Note also that rebound has been measured at rates as high as 11 mm per year in this area - that's 11 meters each millenium, and that's in the present, now that the rate has slowed greatly since the initial icemelt.Ref: Space-Geodetic Constraints on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Fennoscandia G. A. Milne et al., Science 2001 March 23; 291: 2381-2385.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
booboocruise Inactive Member |
Why on earth should it matter WHAT KIND of seashells they are.
One thing I've noticed is that evolutionists are quite good at getting people to focus on the wrong part of the discussion. (Is that how you go about making fools of creationists--by ignoring their real evidence and just going to what isn't important)???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Why on earth should it matter WHAT KIND of seashells they are.
Find out for us what kind they are - you brought up the topic. I think that you will find that the reason it matters is that the suite of shells up there has not existed as living organisms for 20,000,000 years - that's how long that rock has been high and dry.http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/eostxt.html [This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I don't happen to know what kind of seashells they are but here's what I suggest they are.
The shells at high alitudes in the Himalayas are all of types extant at or before the time when the continent of India started to run into Asia. There are none from species only alive after that. This is my prediction. If it is true then you have to explain why your flood of only 4500 years ago did that. If you can't offer an explanation of similar power to the plate tectonic one you will have lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Ok, what is the "important" evidence? You've posted a whole bunch of stuff here. I think most or all of it has been shot full of holes. Are there any "important" ones left that need more work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One thing I've noticed is that evolutionists are quite good at getting people to focus on the wrong part of the discussion. And one thing I've noticed about creationists is that they ignore clearly written rebuttals to their position, as you seem to have done in various topics that you yourself started. We explained plate tectonics to you, do you have a rebuttal? Or is your silence to be taken as tacit agreement? The type of seashells in relevant, but incidental. It would only provide specific confirmation of Himalayan tectonic action. But we know from other evidence (measuring the rate of continental drift and mountain uplift) that tectonic action is generally true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024