Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 71 of 320 (573429)
08-11-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 9:10 AM


Re: Back to the basics
one reason you did not see any evidence is that you picked the wrong soil, whether by age or location.
Location? It's a global flood, is it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 9:10 AM archaeologist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 174 of 320 (631594)
09-01-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Just being real
09-01-2011 8:57 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Actually I'm quite fond of all the evidences I mentioned. I feel that just as a preponderance of the evidence in a court room assists in swaying the scales of blind justice one way or another, likewise I think they are all very relevant to the discussion. I do like Panda's approach though and think it will simplify things to discuss each, one at a time.
That's fair and I agree with you about the preponderance of evidence. And please understand - nobody is asking you to leave your best evidence off the table or enjoin yourself from bringing up this or that evidence.
We find that discussions proceed on a more productive basis when narrowly focused. Percy is simply asking you to put forth your best piece of evidence for consideration so that you can be assured that it will be considered and discussed. If instead you drop a whole wheelbarrow of different evidence and different kinds of evidence on the table, things are going to be overlooked.
Over on our side of the table, we'd like not to be accused of ignoring the best evidence for the Noaic flood in order to attack the weakest. That's why Percy is asking you to put forth your best single piece of evidence. We're happy to address all the rest of your evidence as well, but in order to make sure that each piece gets the attention it deserves, why not proceed one at a time? Surely that's not unreasonable? We promise - we'll consider your evidence within the context of the preponderance you believe exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 8:57 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 10:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 320 (633011)
09-12-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize?
Let me just stop you here. Firstly, you mention "trees, dinosaurs, fish, and other organisms" but your examples given are only of trees. That strikes me as significant.
What also strikes me as significant is that trees grow into the ground, so the idea of a tree and its roots incurring itself through several deposited layers of soil, or a trunk finding itself buried under sedimentation doesn't strike me as unusual. Why should it, when we can look around and see it happening now?
And thirdly you appear to be continuing to make the same error in confusing age with process. When I say that my father's pocketwatch is 50 years old, that doesn't mean that it took 50 years to produce. Geological layers can be deposited relatively quickly. That does not in itself prove that every geologic layer is extremely young, or that every geologic layer that is millions of years old must therefore represent a million years of being laid down.
Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly, but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?
No. The layers are both deposited quickly and represent millions of years. Those ideas don't contradict - just because something is old, does not mean that it was created by a slow process. Fast processes occurred millions of years in the past just as they do today.
It was suggested that the creationists doing the testing were dimwitted and did not account for contaminants and other factors or possibly that they just overlooked them.
I think what was suggested, and which any actual, practicing bench scientist can understand, is that "zero" is actually an incredibly difficult thing to measure, and that nearly all instrumentation has some kind of general background reading below which you simply discriminate. Bumgartner, on the other hand, is certainly a dimwit. And his reply is largely non-responsive to Bertsche's extensive demolition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024