Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 264 of 320 (633914)
09-17-2011 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Adminnemooseus
09-11-2011 11:46 PM


I've deemed the following green box material to be, at best, marginally on-topic. It belongs somewhere in the "Dates and Dating" forum. In this topic, be cautious about replying to this material - Adminnemooseus
I find this akin to saying, We want you to tell us about the American Independence Day, but you are not allowed to mention the date of July the Fourth Seventeen hundred and Seventy Six. If the "age" of the strata is the evidence, then how can we present "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" without discussing the age of the strata? Remember, we are not talking about just any global flood, but a geologically RECENT global flood.
So the question is (since your the Man with all the power and his hand poised to pull the plug at any second), are we going to be permitted to discuss potential evidence for a global flood in the "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" thread, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-11-2011 11:46 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Pressie, posted 09-18-2011 9:36 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 265 of 320 (633915)
09-17-2011 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Coyote
09-11-2011 11:59 PM


If you read my post, above, I am referring to the initial claim by creationists of coal dating to 1680 years, instead of millions of years. This claim was made by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weil in The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73). This preceded Baumgardner's RATE study by quite a few years.
I did read your post. And my point still stands. If you did not intend to insinuate some sort of equation between the charcoal incident and the RATE coal testing, then to bring it up was meaningless. If you told me of a fossil that scientists believed to be a transitional, and I threw Piltdown man out there, the intent would be obvious. Which btw brings me to another point. If you want to have a contest between creationist blunders and evolutionist blunders, there are just as many stones to throw in each camp. Obviously this would be a pointless endeavour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2011 11:59 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Coyote, posted 09-17-2011 11:22 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 275 by Pressie, posted 09-18-2011 1:01 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 279 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2011 7:19 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 266 of 320 (633916)
09-17-2011 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by crashfrog
09-12-2011 12:00 AM


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.
Nothing significant about it. Trees just happen to be the most common and easiest to point to. But that doesn't mean the others don't exist. There is the 40-foot long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur excavation on private property along the banks of the Paluxy River in 1984.
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?
I've never seen a tree start growing in a depth below a couple of feet. And I have never seen them grow through other layers sedementary ROCK. The trees you suggest are an example of doing this, again have not been found growing through even one let alone more than one seem of coal.
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.
No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by not 50 years, as in your dad's pocket watch analogy, but rather millions of years. And the trees are supposed to have waited around for each "quick" layer to cover more of it up, until it was eventually fully covered and then presevered. That sir, I do not get at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2011 12:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-17-2011 5:04 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 272 by Pressie, posted 09-18-2011 9:54 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 273 by Pressie, posted 09-18-2011 12:05 PM Just being real 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