|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. This is, of course, not true. That's what's required for soft-tissue preservation. Which is extremely rare.
And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions. That's an interesting use of the phrase "of course", but back in the real world we can see rapid sedimentary deposition without floods. And we invariably see it without global floods.
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 type which are oriented in all directions. If you are trying to say that under normal conditions burrowing animals never burrow up or down, then you are wrong. If you are saying that there's a greater proportion of such burrows than there should be, then we need a couple of figures from you: (a) What proportion of burrows in the fossil record have a vertical component?(b) What should the proportion be, if geologists were right about geology? Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).
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! If you are trying to say that there are too few paleosol deposits, I should like you to present your figures for: (a) How many there are.(b) How many there should be if geologists were right about geology. Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b).
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. However fossilized amphibians tracks have been found in the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Perhaps in Opposite World the tracks of land animals with, y'know, feet, are only deposited underwater. In the real world, not so much.
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 instant current shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally eroding sediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the WWGF scenario described in the Bible. Your point is obscure, can you clarify it? It contains terms not to be found in geology textbooks, or at least not the ones I've read.
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 not to have taken several million years to form, a distinction which creationists seem unable to grasp, because they are idiots.
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. Or several days, depending on the circumstances under which they were laid down. By the way, weren't you pretending it was "millions of years" in the last paragraph? Yes, yes you were.
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. So now you're complaining that there aren't enough polystrate fossils? Seriously? Well, again, we need a couple of figures: (a) How many are there?(b) How many should there be if geologists were right about geology? Please give references for (a) and show your working for (b). Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
To avoid massive posts, I'll pick one point at a time...
Just being real writes:
These surface imprints are common? Well, so are floods. But have you ever considered the fact that in most of these strata layers, "surface imprints" which have been fossilized, are common? Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions? Under usual conditions these features are quickly 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.You have provided an argument that areas of land are often flooded. I doubt anyone would argue against that. Please explain why these features were not preserved by the normal localised flooding that we still see happening today.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The date of the "global flood" is widely placed at about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.
At that time period you are dealing with soils, not geological formations (rocks). Also, you are dealing with bones, not fossils. All of your examples dealing with fossils and geological strata are rendered moot by this fact alone. We have an excellent record of that time period produced by archaeologists (not geologists). I have excavated perhaps a hundred sites that cross-cut that time period and provide evidence of what occurred back then. Neither I nor my thousands of colleagues around the world have found evidence supporting a global flood at that time. Another bit of evidence: we now have well-dated mtDNA from both before and after that time period. If the global flood idea were correct, we would have a massive discontinuity at about 4,350 years ago. All previous mtDNA haplotypes would be eliminated, to replaced by those from Noah's female kin. This is not the case. A skeleton from On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska produced a rare mtDNA haplotype. That skeleton was radiocarbon dated to 10,300 years ago. That mtDNA haplotype has been found in a number of living individuals. If there had been a global flood that mtDNA haplotype would have been eliminated, to be replaced by a near-eastern type. Another example from my own archaeological research: a skeleton from the western US dated to 5,350 years ago was found to be a mtDNA match for living individuals in the same area. Again, a global flood would have eliminated that haplotype in favor of one coming from the near east. This evidence strongly suggests that there was no global flood at that time. If you disagree, you need to deal with two very specific issues: 1) The date of the "global flood" is recent, during human history, not back in the Cambrian or some such. You need to deal with soils, not geological strata. You need to deal with bones, not fossils. You need to deal with human history, not 500 million years before humans evolved. 2) There are examples of continuity across the 4,350 date in all areas of the world. Contrarily, there is no evidence for a global flood at that time. The evidence for continuity comes from human cultures, fauna and flora, sediments, DNA, and so on. There is no evidence for a global flood (discontinuity of the above items) at that time period. Nor is there positive evidence such as flood strata, massive erosion, etc. However, if you disagree, then please pick the precise time period when you believe the global flood occurred. It does you no good to pick-and-choose from various events spanning 500 or more million years. You have to pick one specific date, and provide your reasoning for that date. This is the science forum, you know.
{In my judgement, this is rather a Coyote 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.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Funny how the only impacting verse is left out here! The flood was a regional flood; the animals mentioned are limited to Noah's domestic household:
quote: Hm. I wonder what 'all thy house' refers to - any clues anyone? I wonder why no wild animals are listed - how about lions, snakes, elephants? Even when many animals are specifically referred to ['Take with you seven of every kind']. I wonder how come those wild animals are still around - can it be this is a regional flood, in an area infamous for such floods - you think? Well, we still have the big issue of ALL THE EARTH BEING COVERED ['I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."']. How does one get around that one!? Can it be that there was no Tasmania, London or Krakow at this time? Can it be that had those cities been listed it would imply a fake? Can it be the people of that time never left their villagers all their lives? Can it be that the flood, seeing it covered their town, would look like the whole earth was indeed submerged - why not? Can it be a book mentioning Mount Ararat for the first time, in its correct geographical location, and listing pages of geneologies in a biological thread and using 100% authentic names hailed by every Paleontologist as 100% authentic - can still be guilty of making such a foolish error which today's brilliant minds have so easily negated as myth? Hey - show us another item in this book which is not authentic! Wrong names, wrong dob's, wrong cities, wrong populations, wrong historical items, wrong grammar, wrong alphabeticals, wrong groups, wrong - anything? Anything whatsoeverwhich is incorrect?
{In my judgement, this is a reply to a message that itself was a very bad reply to a message. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and note in red.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: We've heard of such balony passed ff as credible science. Its not forgotten: 1. For a 100 years the neo archeologists claimed King David was a myth. Then the Tel Dan discovery happened - those archeologists have never recovered from their shame. 2. We've heard how the migration of the Israelites under Joshua never happened in Jerico. The archeologist [a woman; forgot her name], made very authentic sounding claims, even forgetting that the Israelites had indeed established themselves in Canaan and held that land as sovereign for 1000 years. Then she was negated by further archeologists who opened better layers of earth. 3. We heard all the parades of scientists dismissing the entire exodus as myth and that the Israelites were never in Egypt. Then popped up a 3,500 year Egyptian stelle mentioning a war with 'ISRAEL' by name! 4. We saw how both the first and seond Temples of Jerusalem were called Zionist Plots. Then the ground itself spat out a host of relics, coins and scrolls, affirming more than 70% of the Hebrew bible. 5. We heard how the prophetic writings were later written, centuries after the dating of their authors, well after 500 BCE. Then popped up the bits of Scrolls whch predated 600 BCE. Fact: There is no ancient writings on the planet with near equivalent or better evidence than that of the Hebrew bible. Name one? Take your time - no hurry.
{In my judgement, this is a reply to a message that itself was a very bad reply to a message. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner and note in red.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Hey - show us another item in this book which is not authentic! Wrong names, wrong dob's, wrong cities, wrong populations, wrong historical items, wrong grammar, wrong alphabeticals, wrong groups, wrong - anything? Anything whatsoeverwhich is incorrect? The topic is the Biblical Flood. The Biblical Flood has been totally refuted. It really is that simple.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You have not even attempted to refute a single point I made.
Perhaps you should give it a try and provide some evidence to refute my points. (And yes, I saw you try to change the subject.)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I clearly showed you quoted the text wrong. What's there to prove - aside from your comprehension!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The only stuff proven is the authenticity of that writings, in 100's of examples spread across its verses. It is clear you omitted the only pivotal verse which I pointed out - take responsibility for your errors. Its that simple.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I quoted no texts.
I cited the consensus of biblical scholars for the date of the "global flood" and archaeological evidence beyond that. And you still have not refuted a single point I made. Your dodging and weaving is noted.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Coyote writes:
You are trying to have an honest debate with a dishonest debater. I quoted no texts. It is a waste of your time. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.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: |
Yes, I agree. It's futile to even try and have an honest conversation with creos. Found that out some time ago, after having to debate very dishonest users of word salads. Still have no idea what they said.
That's why the debates around scientific subjects are done in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Real scientific journals, not religious tracts who pretend to do science. Not in oral debates, but on paper, where experts can evaluate every word written. Untrue statements are quickly picked up that way. That's an effective way of weeding dishonest debaters out. Once they are weeded out, real honest debate can begin. That's also why word salads don't do too well in scientific journals. They're weeded out. Technical terms work, because the experts all know exactly what every word means. They don't have to guess about the meaning of words.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
Hi IamJoseph,
The topic is evidence for a global flood. If you're not going to contribute constructively to discussion of the thread's topic then please stop participating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You never cited anything. The fulcrum verse was left out and not confronted, which was pointed out - and you have not retracted.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The topic is of a global flood. The Noah story ends in Mount Ararat - which shows only a regional scenario; coupled with the term 'YOUR POSSESSIONS' - this seems conclusive.
Who is being dishonest when cherry picking and avoiding everything relevant and impacting?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024