The TRVE history of the Flood...

I've proved it from evidence many many times. There's something wrong with the dating methods, sorry.

You need to stop posting falsehoods Faith.The fact is that even the Bible proves that the Biblical Flood never happened and is just myth. That's why there are two mutually exclusive and contradictory flood tales in the Bible.Unreliable witnesses like the Bible should not be believed when the real evidence contradicts the story.

No, you've denied it many times. And yet the distribution of radioactive parent and daughter isotopes follows an obvious pattern which demands explanation. For which you have none. Just like the thousands of other observed facts for which you have no explanation other than magic.

You have proved nothing, as evidenced by the things you cannot explain with your model.The sorted trilobites
The sorted foraminifera
The sorted diatoms(Note that these are marine species living in the ocean environment)The sorted radioactive isotope quantitiesThe tree rings that count over 12,000 years of age for the earth
The varves that count over 35,000 years of age for the earthThe matching of 14C levels in tree rings from different dendrochronologies and the varvesThe consilience of different age measurements that use different systems but derive the same datesWhy are they all wrong in precisely the same degree every time Faith?Saying "There's something wrong with the dating methods" doesn't cut it Faith, you have to show what is wrong, how it is wrong and why they are all wrong in precisely the same degree every time.Until you do that you have proven nothing except that you are willfully denying reality.Enjoy

The sorting is a secondary issue when the trilobites climb the supposed Geological Time Scale for hundreds of millions of years without changing any more than we see any creature microevolving in a few observable years in current time, same as the coelecanths, while evo theory has reptiles evolving into mammals in a time period or two. The whole thing is a big fat sham.

quote:

---

The sorting is a secondary issue when the trilobites climb the supposed Geological Time Scale for hundreds of millions of years without changing any more than we see any creature microevolving in a few observable years in current time, same as the coelecanths, while evo theory has reptiles evolving into mammals in a time period or two.

---

Solid evidence beats poor arguments. Yes, the rate of evolution varies (although you don't seem to have any idea of the variety of trilobites - and it is pretty rare for significant changes to happen in just a few years). I doubt you could even quantify the differences between early mammals and their reptile ancestors.The only joke is your argument.

But sorting (and dating and reality) is an issue that absolutely, totally, completely and irrevocably proves that the Biblical flood never happened.Sorry but it really is that simple.Sorting == REALBiblical Flood == FALSE

Sure I can and did. It would not have deposited in both places, a vertical mile apart, in the same way, the flat Claron as well as the eroded layer above it -- both had to be there before the raising of the land to the right of the fault; and new deposition should have piled up against the fault line too instead of splitting neatly as it did. Also, he dike penetrates to the very top of the formation, and it's associated with the rising of the land right there and therefore with the fault. Oh I think it's quite clear that all the faulting and the general upheaval shown on that cross section, the dike, the raising of the land at the far north as well as over the Grand Canyon, all of it was part of one great tectonic upheaval. That fault you mention occurs at a point of great stress, near where the land starts to rise to the south, where one of the cliffs formed, and there are other places to the south where the land is cut, all along that rising level. Well of course it's all interpretive, isn't it? The standard interpretation is a piecemeal affair because the whole Geo Time Scale is a piecemeal affair. As for the Great Unconformity I wanted to exclude it for the sake of this discussion so as not to get into all that again, but of course I believe it too occurred at the same time as all the rest of the disturbances shown there, and there are two main evidences I would point to: 1) the fact that the lowest layer in the intact strata above it is raised up at the unconformity, showing that the rising of the land at the very top into which the canyon is cut was all part of the same action, which had to happen after the strata were down because they wouldn't deposit on a hill like that; and 2) the great quartzite boulder that isn't shown on the cross section but is found embedded in the Tapeats sandstone a quarter mile from its point of origin in the Shinumo layer, showing that the land slid a great distance at the unconformity which fits beautifully with my theory about how it occurred.And here's that beautiful cross section again for reference, because I know you love it as much as I do: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sure I can and did. It would not have deposited in both places, a vertical mile apart, in the same way, the flat Claron as well as the eroded layer above it -- both had to be there before the raising of the land to the right of the fault; and new deposition should have piled up against the fault line too instead of splitting neatly as it did.

---

None of that is evidence that the tilting of the strata happened after the Claron was deposited. It only addresses the movement associated with the fault.

quote:

---

Also, he dike penetrates to the very top of the formation, and it's associated with the rising of the land right there and therefore with the fault.

---

Again, no evidence relating to the tilt of the lower strata.So unless you beg the question by assuming that all the events happened at the same time it's cleat that your "can and did" is really "can't and didn't even try".

quote:

---

Oh I think it's quite clear that all the faulting and the general upheaval shown on that cross section, the dike, the raising of the land at the far north as well as over the Grand Canyon, all of it was part of one great tectonic upheaval. That fault you mention occurs at a point of great stress, near where the land starts to rise to the south, where one of the cliffs formed, and there are other places to the south where the land is cut, all along that rising level.

---

Looks to me like you're just assuming without evidence. Certainly you don't cite any.

quote:

---

Well of course it's all interpretive, isn't it

---

The interpretation has to be based on the evidence. You can't answer the lack of evidence for your interpretation by saying "it's all interpretive". If the evidence for your "interpretation" isn't there it isn't a good interpretation.

quote:

---

As for the Great Unconformity I wanted to exclude it for the sake of this discussion so as not to get into all that again, but of course I believe it too occurred at the same time as all the rest of the disturbances shown there

---

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. For instance the fact that the upper strata do not share the same tilt is pretty strong evidence against it.

quote:

---

1) the fact that the lowest layer in the intact strata above it is raised up at the unconformity, showing that the rising of the land at the very top into which the canyon is cut was all part of the same action, which had to happen after the strata were down because they wouldn't deposit on a hill like that;

---

You aren't making sense. At the Canyon itself the tilted strata tilt up, while the strata above them dip down. That makes much more sense if the shape of the upper strata is due to a separate, later event.

quote:

---

2) the great quartzite boulder that isn't shown on the cross section but is found embedded in the Tapeats sandstone a quarter mile from its point of origin in the Shinumo layer, showing that the land slid a great distance at the unconformity which fits beautifully with my theory about how it occurred.

---

Which in fact shows that the Shimuno was already lithified and was being eroded at the time that the Tapeats were deposited. An explanation which actually does make sense, unlike yours.Really Faith you do need to try to think clearly about all this instead of either talking about the wrong thing entirely or inventing silly ways to try and fit the evidence to your beliefs.

Proving you have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

What are Trilobites?

​

Trilobites are remarkable, hard-shelled, segmented creatures that existed over 520 million years ago in the Earth's ancient seas. They went extinct before dinosaurs even came into existence, and are one of the key signature creatures of the Paleozoic Era, the first era to exhibit a proliferation of the complex life-forms that established the foundation of life as it is today. Although dinosaurs are the most well-known fossil animals, trilobites are also a favorite among those familiar with Paleontology (the study of the development of life on Earth), and are found in the rocks of all continents.

​

ANCIENT ARTHROPODS
Trilobites were among the early arthropods, a phylum of hard-shelled creatures with multiple body segments and jointed legs (although the legs, antennae and other finer structures of trilobites only rarely are preserved). They constitute an extinct class of arthropods, the Trilobita, made up of ten orders, over 150 families, about 5,000 genera, and over 20,000 described species. New species of trilobites are unearthed and described every year. This makes trilobites the single most diverse class of extinct organisms, and within the generalized body plan of trilobites there was a great deal of diversity of size and form. The smallest known trilobite species is under a millimeter long, while the largest include species from 30 to over 70 cm in length (roughly a foot to over two feet long!). With such a diversity of species and sizes, speculations on the ecology of trilobites includes planktonic, swimming, and crawling forms, and we can presume they filled a varied set of trophic (feeding) niches, although perhaps mostly as detritivores, predators, or scavengers. Most trilobites are about an inch long, and part of their appeal is that you can hold and examine an entire fossil animal and turn it about in your hand. Try that with your average dinosaur!

​

Trilobite Order Galleries
Click on any of the (Order names)* below to be sent to a gallery featuring photos of trilobites in that Order

​

agnostida	redlichiida	corynexochida	odontopleurida	lichida ​
phacopida	asaphida	proetida	harpetida	ptychopariida

---

* - (adapted to table format with links on names instead of pictures) Wrong. Note: "... ten orders, over 150 families, about 5,000 genera, and over 20,000 described species. New species of trilobites are unearthed and described every year. This makes trilobites the single most diverse class of extinct organisms, and within the generalized body plan of trilobites there was a great deal of diversity of size and form. ..."Some were bottom feeders others were swimmers. Some ate vegetation, some preyed on other organisms. And wrong again.

quote:

---

The coelacanths ... constitute a now rare order of fish that includes two extant species in the genus Latimeria: the West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) primarily found near the Comoro Islands off the east coast of Africa and the Indonesian coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis).[2] They follow the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and tetrapods), which means they are more closely related to lungfish, reptiles, and mammals than to the common ray-finned fishes. They are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean and Indonesia.[3][4] Since there are only two species of coelacanth and both are threatened, it is the most endangered order of animals in the world. The West Indian Ocean coelacanth is a critically endangered species.

​

Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish related to lungfish and certain extinct Devonian fish such as osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys.[5] Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[6][7]

​

The coelacanth was long considered a "living fossil" because it was believed to be the sole remaining member of a taxon otherwise known only from fossils, with no close relations alive,[5] and to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago.[1] However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than previously thought.[8][9][10]

​

Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing, is that the coelacanths are still evolving today (but at a relatively slow rate). This contradicts the earlier thought that these creatures were "living fossils." What this means is that they were thought to be a prehistoric species that has remained unchanged over millions of years. With the discovery of their evolution, "living fossil" no longer seems like an appropriate term to describe these unique creatures.[34]

​

Reasons for such slow evolution by the coelacanths could be the lack of evolutionary pressure on these organisms. They have few predators, and they live deep in the Indian Ocean where conditions are said to be very stable. Without much pressure for these organisms to adapt to survive, the rate at which they need to evolve is much slower in comparison to other organisms.[34]

​

Taxonomy

​

The following is a classification of known coelacanth genera and families:[5][10][26][35][36][37][38]

​

• Order Coelacanthiformes
  • Family Whiteiidae (Triassic)
    • Piveteauia
    • Whiteia
  • Family Rebellatricidae (Triassic)
    • Rebellatrix
  • Family Coelacanthidae (Permian to Jurassic)
    • Axelia
    • Coelacanthus
    • Ticinepomis
    • Wimania
• Suborder Latimerioidei
  • Family Mawsoniidae (Triassic to Jurassic)
    • Alcoveria
    • Axelrodichthys
    • Chinlea
    • Diplurus
    • Garnbergia
    • Mawsonia
    • Parnaibaia
  • Family Latimeriidae L. S. Berg, 1940 (Triassic to Holocene)
    • Holophagus
    • Latimeria J. L. B. Smith, 1939
      • Latimeria chalumnae J. L. B. Smith, 1939 (West Indian Ocean coelacanth)
      • Latimeria menadoensis Pouyaud, Wirjoatmodjo, Rachmatika, Tjakrawidjaja, Hadiaty & Hadie, 1999 (Indonesian coelacanth)
    • Libys
    • Macropoma
    • Macropomoides
    • Megacoelacanthus
    • Swenzia
    • Undina

---

While not as numerous and diverse as the trilobites, they still show "more we see any creature microevolving in a few observable years in current time."Ignorance is no refutation of the real world facts.Enjoy(copying this to Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? Message 481)Edited by RAZD, : .

Poor poor Science. Can't tell a trilobite from a nontrilobite.

That's all you have? Your cognitive dissonance is showing.Enjoy

Typical Faith, trying to blame someone else for her own faults.It's rather pointless really. If you get caught making ignorant mistakes - even trying to build an argument on them - lying is only going to make things worse.

I guess it hardly matters, but nothing RAZD had to say changed anything I had said about the trilobites and coelecanths as evidence against the Time Scale; all it shows is that Science has a fetish about classifying things to fit the ToE.

You DO mean the tilted strata to the north of the fault? How could it not happen afterward if the vertical mile drop happened afterward? And again edge said a long time ago that the tilting is something that faults do, they drag the strata like that.Hm. After reading the rest of your post I'm going to leave it at that. I made my case, you are just floundering around trying to find something to object to. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.