|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz, the link I gave you to Oetzi totally refutes Baumgartners position. He is simply wrong, end ofr subject.
In case you missed it here it is again.
quote: No difference in genome, plants, animals, people, temperature, air pressure, anything. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4657 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
I would absolutely LOVE to see Buz explain the physics behind his "vapor canopy."
- How the equivalent amount of water could be suspended in the upper atmosphere without causing debilitating pressures beneath- How the equivalent amount of water could precipitate without poaching the earth's atmosphere - How the equivalent amount of water could possibly affect the decay rates of multiple radioactive isotopes in a congruent fashion. - How the equivalent amount of water could possibly allow enough light to traverse to foster photosynthesis at the earth's surface. This vapor canopy thing is so absurd. Creationists would be much better off saying that the flood was a miracle and can not be proven or disproven by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Misha writes: I would absolutely LOVE to see Buz explain the physics behind his "vapor canopy." - How the equivalent amount of water could be suspended in the upper atmosphere without causing debilitating pressures beneath- How the equivalent amount of water could precipitate without poaching the earth's atmosphere - How the equivalent amount of water could possibly affect the decay rates of multiple radioactive isotopes in a congruent fashion. - How the equivalent amount of water could possibly allow enough light to traverse to foster photosynthesis at the earth's surface. Buzsaw's vapor canopy does exist (except for the affecting decay rates part). The problem is that planet is not Earth, it is Venus. Yeah, I know, virtually no water vapor and lots of carbon dioxide, but that is what happens when a planet gets 'poached.' One should remember, the Buzsaw (Woodmorappe) hypothesis is literally "out of this world," meaning it has nothing remotely rational to do with this planet or its inhabitants. It is about Venus. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it. The tried to radiocarbon date mineralized organic material from the Cretaceous? That's like trying to find out how old I am by sawing me in half and counting my growth rings. It is guaranteed to get the wrong result, because I am not a tree. And even using a method guaranteed to fail, they still got results several times older than their imaginary Young Earth ... at which point the unsubstantiated ad hoc excuses start. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
misha Member (Idle past 4657 days) Posts: 69 From: Atlanta Joined: |
One should remember, the Buzsaw (Woodmorappe) hypothesis is literally "out of this world," meaning it has nothing remotely rational to do with this planet or its inhabitants. It is about Venus.
That's what makes the "vapor canopy" claim so peculiar. We know the results it would produce because we have a test case next door. Yet they continue to promote it despite the evidence against them. But, then again, facts have never stopped them before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
*puts on creationist cap*
You've never been to Venus, so you can't know *takes off creationist cap, feels slightly more stupid* Edited by hooah212002, : mis-spelled stupid, of all words "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Surely the removal of that particular cap would not result in feeling 'more' stupid would it?
(I suppose one could argue that a proper humility and admission of ignorance is a central feature of science, as opposed to an unwarranted, arrogant and insupportable certainty...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
[off topic clarification]
It wasn't the removal that made me feel as such, but the donning of said headwear at all.
[/off topic clarification] "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is a good thread for archaeologist to present his evidence for the global flood.
Archaeologist keeps claiming that the bible is 100% accurate and that there is no evidence of error. This is a perfect thread for him to present his refutation to all of the evidence we have presented in various threads showing the belief in a global flood about 4,350 years ago is erroneous. On many of those other threads a detailed discussion of flood evidence would be off topic, but this thread is perfect! So please, archaeologist, show where the posts I have made in several places are incorrect. And don't just recite your catechism. Bring evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Too late!
He didn't learn here either. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I addressed those claims, but he never responded. And he hasn't responded on the other threads either.
One might begin to think he has catechism and dogma, but no real evidence, eh? Archaeologist, here's your big chance! Present your evidence for the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago and refute the evidence I have presented on several different threads. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Bump for archaeologist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Bumped for "Just being real".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
Panda: The bible claims that there was a global flood. Yet it is a known archaeological fact that there was no global flood.. 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. And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions. Therefore I would predict that had the Earth (which is 70% covered in water now) truly once been covered in a world wide global flood (WWGF), that it's crust would have layer upon layer of sediments that would be filled with millions of fossilized dead things.... . . Did you know that the Earth's crust is comprised of layer upon layer of sediments that are filled with millions of fossilized dead things? The typical uniformitarian geologist, of course, believes that these layers were laid down over millions of years. But have you ever considered the fact that in most of these stratalayers, "surface imprints" which have been fossilized, are common? Featureslike ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions? Under usual conditions these features arequickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth. Secondly, there's often burrows preserved and fossilized that are oriented starting from lower strata and moving upward. These are like what you would expect had an animal been buried by the sediment and tried to dig its way out. They are very different from the normal typewhich are oriented in all directions. A third thing to notice while looking at the geologic record, is that it consists mostly of "rocks"but very few paleo-soils. Normally, poorly consolidated rocks aren't considered to be made of ancient materials that have ever been actual soils. Evolutionary thinking in geology says that land surfaces supported an abundance of life for hundreds of millions of years. So where's all the paleo-soils in the record that supported that life? It's not there! Fourth, consider what we see evidence in the Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon area. Uniformitarian geologists date this sandstone to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. If you didn't know, the Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. Howeverfossilized amphibians tracks have been foundin the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Almost all geologists would have drawn this same conclusion if it weren't for the implications it poses. The amounts and movements of water can easily be calculated by the amount of sand deposited. Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude to create the Coconino sandstone layers. Fifth, we can further conclude that the Coconino was not laid down under a dry desert condition, by noticing that directly under it is a "blade edged"thin layer of Hermit shale. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later? Sixth, these blade edged flat layers, such as the Hermit, completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between deposits, (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid deposition took place with almost instantcurrent shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally erodingsediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the WWGF scenario described in the Bible. Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers) These fossils are so common that they are oftena real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide. The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years while waiting forthe other layers to gradually be deposited in around them to preserve them? The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay. They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal. Eighth, consider how at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved.Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. How's it possible for the upper portions to survive several season cycles before being covered? Ninth is the lack of bio-turbation between conforming layers of strata. If millions of years really took place between the deposits of conformable layers, why are their surfaces so scarce of millions of years of life? By that I mean things like burrows, root formations, etc... are mostly missing from the record. How could large land masses have existed for millions of years virtually untouched by life, with life being so abundant? I'll stop here for now. We can continue when ever you wish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
It really doesn't matter how much (even false) evidence you present in support of the Biblical Flood, it has been totally refuted; there is absolute evidence that it never happened.
The Biblical Flood is simply myth and fantasy. In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:
quote: In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:
quote: We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:
quote: and in Genesis 7:
quote: In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things. If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7. Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals). Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck. We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species. BUT... If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period. Talk about a big RED flag. That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see. So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood. If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support. If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted. The marker is not there. The Biblical Flood is totally, completely refuted.
{In my judgement, this is rather a Jar boilerplate rant and is in little or no way a reply to the content of the message it is a reply to. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note in red.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024