|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined:
|
Just being real writes: First I would point out how interesting I find it that most who reject a global flood, overlook the fact that fossils require an anoxic environment in which to even form. Incorrect, although preservation can be enhanced in certain anoxic systems.
And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations Incorrect again, anoxic environments occur in many depositional settings including some with very low rates of sedimentation.
...rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions Incorrect again, there are many instances of high rates of sedimentary depostition which are unrelated to 'flooding'. First three sentences of a 1000+ word post, each factually incorrect or at the very least highly misleading. Perhaps we should get the basics sorted out before we bother with the rest of your tome?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form, and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly, this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly. How many times do you need this explaining to you? There is a difference between saying that something happened millions of years ago, and that it took millions of years to happen. These are two different claims. For example, look at the rock in the image below. We know exactly how it formed, because people were there to watch. It formed over a hundred years ago. And each doublet (pair of black and white layers) took a day to form. Do you see the difference? Each layer was formed in one day and was formed a hundred years ago. These are different claims about the chronology of the rock.
When you say the layers in which "polystrate" fossils are embedded did not take millions of years to form, you are in complete agreement with geologists, who say exactly the same thing. How do you get from complete, utter, unreserved agreement that geologists are right to your belief in the global flood they all say didn't happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Thanks RAZD. That was interesting!
This "polystrate fossil evidence" for a "global flood" is a perfect example of how creationists go about to do their "science". It also is an excellent example of why the scientific community sees creationism as nothing but pseudo-science. They tell lay people first that "geologists say that layers are deposited over millions of years". Their first step in deception on this subject. Geologists don't. Strata are deposited at different rates according to circumstances. Then they even make up their own word, "polystrate", and pretend that it is a scientific word. Their second piece of deception. Make up sciency-sounding words to pretend that they do science. Then they show pictures of "polystrate" fossils, and pretend that geologists can't explain this without a global flood. Their third piece of deception. It's already been successfully explained explained in the 1800's. They then go on and tell people that "geologists ignore" these fossils. Their fourth piece of deception. Already been published in the 1800's. Then go go and and tell people that it occurs wordwide and are such a threat to miners. Deception number 5. They aren't. They don't occur in the coal seams in my country. An excellent example of how they go about: deception. Nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Just being real writes: It was originally thought that coal beds and oil deposits formed very quickly in a global flood. As we were able to study the evidence and found no evidence for such a flood, we realized that we were completely wrong. So, no, originally we thought coal beds and oil deposits formed quickly. We were wrong. I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form,.... We've never been able to produce coal beds or oil deposits. If you are referring to processes like the Fischer —Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits. Never heard of a process in a lab to produce coal, though. Those products we produce are neither coal beds nor oil deposits. They are substitutes for oil. Even the chemistry differs widely from naturally forming oil.
Just being real writes: Why? We even have peat (the first stage of the coal forming process) accumulating now all over the world. We can see them forming right in front of our own very eyes. Those in my country are certainly are not buried quickly. They’re not buried at all. They just experience anaerobic conditions. All in nature. No global flood needed. .. and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly,.. Just being real writes: Ignoring the photos, what has already been said and references about "polystrate fossils", are you? this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly. The polystrate trees forming today are not forming quickly, as in a global flood quickly. They do take from a few days to a few weeks to a year to lots of years, depending on the circumstances. Right in front of our very own eyes. No global flood involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
He didn’t even mention the word layers (I might be mistaken, could you direct me to the word layer in that article?) Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself. My reference to the article was meant only to provide a basic understanding for Percy in the thinking of creationists as to how coal beds suggest a global flood. If you were expecting it to be a highly scientific peer reviewed composition then scratch and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations.
If you are referring to processes like the Fischer —Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits. No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time. Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood, holding a knife over the female body of a stabbing victim. Investigators discover the man has a substantial monetary motivation, as the dead woman was his estranged wife who was in the process of a nasty divorce with him. Witnesses heard the man threaten to kill the victim on numerous occasions. The man also has an arrest history for assaulting the victim on three occasions. The man claims he arrived to find her already stabbed and got the blood on him while trying to perform CPR. He also says he pulled the knife out of her and didn't stab her. However He is right handed and there is no blood in the palm of his right hand. Likewise there is no blood on the handle of the knife where his right hand palm print is found (the only prints found). The accumulation of the evidence points to the man as the murderer. However a defense attorney can dissect each and every one of those pieces of evidence presented, and find legitimate separate reasons for their existence. That's what he gets paid for. He is not at all motivated to find the truth. Only to defend his position. Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3964 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
So the Wiki page itself is not a Creationist page. It just parrots Creationist statements and advises the readers that the information is typically only found in creationist publications. No the Wikipedia article does not say that the fossils information are "only found in creationist publications" but just that the "term" polystrate is normally only found there. It was in fact a term coined in the late 60's by a Dutch geologist (a creationist-so what) named N.A. Rupke. There is nothing mystical or scary about the term. He coined the term by taking the word poly (meaning more than one) and joined it with the word strata, to form the word poly-strata (crossing through many strata) fossils. Nothing here to get your panties in a wad over. The fact of the matter the article clearly says the fossils are very common when you seemed to imply to the contrary.
quote: I refuted that these fossils are "so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines.". Well perhaps the source that I got the information from is older and refers to mining practices long since improved upon. Yipee... your friends and family are safe. Let's move on past the trivia to something relevant okay.
I refute your claim that they are common. Hey don't refute me refute Wikipedia when they say: "Entire fossil forests of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata." I agree that Wikipedia is not reliable to use as scientific peer reviewed evidence, but in general definitions and explanations of terms, I have no problems with them at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. No they haven't. Stop making stuff up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Just being real writes:
This is fine. I make no secret that I am riding on the shoulders of much greater men than I who have much more knowledge than I in those fields. We all stand on the shoulders of someone. But I would have expected these great men to have shown their working. Where is their evidence? Just being real writes:
If I was to claim that there is no life on Mars, then that would not be evidence. Again Panda, it is a negative statement, and if you know it is false, all it would take is one example to demonstrate so. Someone would have to go search for life on Mars before I could claim to have evidence of there being no life on Mars. So, do you have any links to any research?Or is it just a bare assertion? Because so far you have not supplied any evidence. Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
JBR writes: ...but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time. Pressie writes: Those products we produce are neither coal beds nor oil deposits. They are substitutes for oil. Even the chemistry differs widely from naturally forming oil.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Just being real writes: My, we're getting snarky, aren't we? Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself.... and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations. In message 181, you replied to Percy’s question in message 180 (RE-so coal beds are flood deposits?) as Yes, I believe most of the strata layers are. There’s absolutely no relation between the question you were asked and the answer you gave. Just being real writes: Oh, were you? Why didn’t you mention it earlier, then? Nothing to do with strata layers at all. No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. Which scientist on earth would try to do carbon dating on coal beds? In the first place, rainwater percolates through coal beds which ensures that significant amounts of carbon 14 would always be present in any coal bed. Just go down any mine in my country, the coal beds are the most permeable strata in the sequence and look like rivers. it absorbes moisture like spunges. That’s why real scientists know not to even try to measure the carbon 14 in coal beds. A second reason is that the C 14 method only works on organic material less than around 50 000 years old. No real scientist would be as unscientific as even attempt to determine the age of coal beds using the Carbon dating. You’ll never get an accurate answer. (Hold press-apparently some creationist did. Another attempt at deception, I guess. We know that they don’t do science, anyway, so it’s another very good reason to just laugh at them!) Just being real writes: Artificially producing oil is not an oil deposit, as you claimed in message 194. It is oil made in labs or industrially. Not a deposit. Even the chemical composition varies considerably from natural-formed oil deposits. Do you actually know what a deposit is? And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time. Just being real writes: Long story about a court case.. I don’t know what this has to do with a global flood. Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood,. Only to defend his position.Just being real writes: You see, this is where your story falls apart. Nobody’s ever claimed that those strata are millions of years apart. That statement of yours is not the truth. Telling porkies about those strata won’t help your case at all. You continually repeating it also won’t turn that statement into the truth. Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. Just being real writes: If somebody is caught telling porkies in a court case, he is dismissed. Ecspecially if he keeps on repeating the same porkie over and over again. Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling! Edited by Pressie, : Another spelling mistake Edited by Pressie, : I had an extra not in there. It changed the sentence completely. Hopefully this was the last edit!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
JBR,
Ok, lets just forget about my comment regarding where the creationist term polystrate comes from. It makes no difference to the arguement. What you do need to do is provide some sources for your claims. So far, you have provided a wiki article that refutes your arguement by providing the standard scientific explanation for their existence. So you have provided no support for your claim that polystrate fossils are evidence for a global flood. So far, from your posts alone, this is the score -Global flood - 0 no global flood - 1 Well perhaps the source that I got the information from is older and refers to mining practices long since improved upon. Yipee... your friends and family are safe. Let's move on past the trivia to something relevant okay. I agree, I provided a large response to your claims and you have so far only been able to deal with the trivial. If you want to deal with something relevant, how about dealing with the issues I brought up in Message 186 my comment - I refute your claim that they are common. your reply - Hey don't refute me refute Wikipedia when they say: "Entire fossil forests of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata." I did refute wiki. And I explained why. Here it is again from Message 195 Also, be careful using wikipedia as your primary source of information. The quote you have provided is sourced. The title of the source claiming the fossils are found "in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia" is "Pennsylvanian fossil forests' in growth position" (http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/handle/10088/15971). The word Australia does not appear in the body of the document at all. There is no verification of this claim at all. How about you check out the original reply and deal with the issues discussed there. How about you discuss the global flood?I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Which scientist on earth would try to do carbon dating on coal beds? ...
Yeah, the RATE (Radioisotopes And The Age of the Earth) group. They tested coal and diamond. The amounts they found were "above instrument background" but minuscule. They ignored the fact that 14C can be produced in situ (although we don't know if it was), and they played fast and loose with the meaning of "background". Bottom line: there's no good reason to believe that any coal or diamonds are young enough for their 14C "dates" to indicate their age. (Hold press-apparently some creationist did. Another attempt at deception, I guess. We know that they don’t do science, anyway, so it’s another very good reason to just laugh at them!) See RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? (published by a Christian organization and written by a Christian, FWIW). (Dr. Baumgardner tried to defend his results at another discussion board a few years ago. After a day or two of pointed questions he couldn't or wouldn't answer, he disappeared in a puff of Pascal's wager).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hey Panda, if they don't even attempt to publish their findings in scientific publications, how on earth is a scientist to know about that "research"?
Oh, don't mind. I know why. Trying to do an C14 age determination on a coal seam is so absolutely ridiculously stupid, they could only be published in cartoons, anyway. The pseudo sciences; all of them always the same. Clowns who don't tell the truth to to the ignorant. Deceive the lay people. That's it. Sorry, it was JonF, not Panda I replied to. Edited by Pressie, : Wrong name
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Just being real, just a single point at a time eh?
No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. You need to provide your sources again. I think you will find that the levels are just above the measurable threshold, which is not a "very significant amount" IMHO (of course this being a subjective statement it could be to you -- more likely the author of the site you got this from used those words to impress you). Do you understand how carbon-14 dating works? How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorksHow Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks quote: So the limit of detecting carbon-14 consumed by plants and animals that originally came from the atmosphere has a practical limit of 50 to 60 thousand years. This is not the only source of carbon-14 however. Carbon-14 is also found the graphite (carbon) rods used to control nuclear reactors, and can be formed from carbon-13 in natural nuclear reactions where they are near deposits of uranium. There is a HIGH correlation of coal containing carbon-14 with deposits of uranium, while other deposits of coal with NO uranium do not have any measurable levels of carbon-14 -- meaning they must be older than 50-60k years and contradict the YEC earth age concepts. Now if you want to discuss the validity of carbon-14 dating, that is off topic here, but there are several sites in this forum where you can go, read the current information there, and then provide your opinions: Forum on Dates and Dating
Also see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for a general overview of the correlations of many dating methods that show the earth is older than any YEC concept. I'll be happy to discuss carbon-14 and other dating mechanisms with you on any of these threads. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024