Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 47 (37518)
04-22-2003 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:25 AM


Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, why do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with seashells?
Why was a whale's skeleton found on a 3000-foot mountaintop?
Why was Pillow Lava Found on a 15000-foot mountain (pillow lava forms ONLY underwater)?
Maybe you've heard of a little thing called "plate tectonics"? See, all the continents are on these big "plates" that float on top of the earth's fluid mantle. When they run into each other, they push each other up (like wrinkles in a carpet.)
Sometimes this means that areas that were underwater for millenia are thrust up above the water. If they go high enough we call them "mountains."
Seriously, this is like grade-school stuff. How did you miss this? We've only known that the earth's continents move for about 60 years or so (and been measuring it for 20-30 or so.)
The Smithsonian is responsible for hiding much evidence that goes against evolution, so i've heard (that sounds bias on their part).
Hey, I've heard that Elvis is alive and well in a Louisiana trailer park (and he's pregnant with JFK's love-child.) Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.
Anyway, so what? The Smithsonian isn't the be-all end-all of science. Plenty (in fact the majority) of science goes on without any involvment from the Smithsonian. You'll have to do a little better than this. Especially for a guy who said he was a "smart creation scientist" and that he never lost arguments with evolutionists...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:25 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2532 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 17 of 47 (37571)
04-22-2003 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:25 AM


booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Okay, but if there was no evidence of a flood, why
do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with
seashells?"
-------------
As a previous poster wrote, it is called plate
tectonics. The continents of India and Eurasia are
colliding and the Himalayas are being uplifted. When
India and Eurasia collided, an ancient seaway was
crushed and uplifted between them. There are many
books that discuss what has happened in the
Himalayas in great detail. Some online
web pages are:
1. The Himalayas: Two continents collide
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html
2. Himalayan tectonics
404: Earth and Environment
3. Geology of the Himalayan Mountains
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
4. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesis
http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html
5. PLATE T-48 HIMALAYAN FRONT AND TIBETAN PLATEAU
GES DISC
Using satellite GPS surveying, scientists can
observe the Himalayas grow in real time. Some
references are:
1. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan Plateau
Determined from GPS Observations by Jinwei Ren
http://center.shao.ac.cn/APSG/pdfs/Renjinwei.pdf.
2. Jouanne, F., Mugnier, J. L., Pandey, M. R.,
Gamond, J. F., Le Fort, P., Serrurier, L., Vigny, C.
and Avouac, J. P., 1999, Oblique convergence in the
Himalayas of western Nepal deduced from preliminary
results of GPS measurements. Geophysical Research
Letters. vol. 26 , no. 13 , p. 1933. - Abstract
no. 1999GL900416 at
http://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.html
3. Thompson, S. C., 2001, Active tectonics in the central
Tien Shan, Kyrgyz Republic. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Earth and Space Sciences,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. On-line
at:
http://louie.geology.washington.edu/...han_web/tienshan.html
Some random references:
Bilham and others, 1997, GPS measurements of present-day
convergence across the Nepal Himalayas: Nature, v. 386,
pp. 61-64.
Searle, M. P., and Treloar, P. J., 1993, Himalayan
tectonics - an introduction. In Himalayan Tectonics,
P. J. Treloar and M. P. Searle, pp.1-7. Geological
Society of london special Publication no. 74,
Geological society of London, London, England.
Shen, and others, 2000, Contemporary crustal deformation
in east Asia constrained by Global Positioning System
measurements, Journal of Geophysical Research. vol. 105,
pp. 5721-5734.
+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"why was a whale's skeleton found on a 3000-foot
mountaintop?"
-------
Since you don't provide the specifics of location, it is
most impossible to give a specific answer. In the Andes
of South America, whales are found at such elevation
because of plate tectonics and mountain building. Even
Darwin in his voyages of the Beagle observed the Andes
being actively uplifted. Nothing is mysterious about such
whales if a person takes the time to look up and read
what has been published in the scientific literature
about them.
+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Why was Pillow Lava Found on a 15000-foot mountain
(pillow lava forms ONLY underwater)?"
--------
Again, without an exact location for these pillow
lavas, it is difficult to give a specific answer.
However, many of these pillow lavas were part of
oceanic crust either uplift when an ancient seaway
was crushed and uplifted between two continental
plates or when oceanic crust was scraped off against
a continental plate to form coastal mountains as
as the rest of the plate was subducted.
Those people who don't know what pillow lavas are
can go read:
Pillow Lava
This service is temporarily unavailable
Photo glossary of volcano terms
Volcano Hazards Program
Volcano Hazards Program
WORLD'S (?) GREATEST PILLOW LAVA
http://www.cuesta.edu/deptinfo/geology/pillow_lava.htm
It is nothing that a person can sleep on. :-) :-)
+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Study astronomy and geology: the earth is tilted
on its axis. However, stonehenge and the Ramses
star-map of Egypt do not line up well as how they
should. In fact, if you mapped out how the earth's
axis is 'wobbly' you'll find that it is behaving
like a spinning top that was struck forcefully
about 4.5 thousand years ago (4500 y.a.) That is
about the same time as the flood of Noah,
according to the Bible. Interesting."
--------
I am not an archaeologist, so I can't answer this
question. However, if Mr. booboocruise wants
an answer to this question, he can post it to the
Hall of "Ma'at" Messageboard at:
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/post.php?f=1
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/index.php
This messageboard is run by lay people who are very
interested and knowledgeable about Egypt and other
ancient sites. Without a doubt, they can any question
that he might have about the Ramses star-map of
Egypt and Stonehenge. In fact, they have very
frequent discussions about the astronomy and
ancient people, including the Egyptians. The above
question can be easily answered by the people who
post to this messagboard.
+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"The Smithsonian is responsible for hiding much evidence
bias on their part)."
-------
Not everything a person hears is true. :-)
This is standard excuse of the "true believers" in alien
abductions, exterrestrial visitors to Earth, Atlantic,
and anybody else whose ideas visibly lack any hard,
evidence to support their claims or beliefs. The excuse
that either some governmental agency, group of
conventional scientists, or combination thereof is
suppressing all evidence of the existence of some
knowledge is the favorite theme of fictional books and
TV shows, e.g., "X-Files". What it does is twists the lack
of evidence supporting a specific idea to evidence of a
conspiracy to suppress this idea. The absence of
evidence is magically transmuted from the lack of
proof for a specific position to evidence of a
conspiracy against this position by whatever the
supporters of this position consider the "establishment".
Essentially, claims, such as the "The Smithsonian is
responsible for hiding much evidence...", is just mean-
spirited slander by the people that Mr. booboocruise
heard it from of the type that often characterizes Texas
politics. Not only does this excuse explain the lack
of evidence for a position, it also has the purpose of
tarring and feathering the opposition as evil people
who indulge in deceit and fraud and can't be trusted.
This excuse is at its basic core nothing more than
a personal attack on the integrity of ones opponents
instead of discussing the evidence or lack of that
might exist.
+++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Many musuems I have BEEN TO will hide the fact that
there exist polystrate fossils and human remains
that were found "out of place" in the geologic column."
-------
This is not true. The polystrate fossils and human
remains that Mr. booboocruise have been published
openly in the scientific literature. The problem is
that conventional scientists don't interpret them
the same as YE creationists do.
For example, a forthright discussion about one
set of alleged "out-of-place" human remains can be
read online in "The Life and Death of Malachite
Man by Glen J. Kuban at:
http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm
The Malachite Man is also discussed in:
Coulam, N. J., and Schroedl, A. R., III, 1995, The
Keystone Azurite Mine in Southeastern Utah. Utah
Archaeology. vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-122.
Strahler, A. N., 1987, Science and Earth history;
the evolution/ creation controversy. Prometheus Books.
Buffalo, New York, 552 pp.
In another example, a significant number of these
so called "out-of-place" human remains are
openly discussed by Michael Brass in his book "The
Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records
Explored".
Page not found – The Antiquity of Man
Page not found – The Antiquity of Man
Publications | Human Nature
As far as polystrate fossils are concerned, go read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/...lystrate/polystrate_trees.html ,
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/..._origins/polystrate_trees.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html , and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/dawson_tree2.html .
++++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Seriously, the only place that the geologic column
really exists is in the textbook (much of the fossils
found in the rock layers do not 'support' their
theory, so they simply disregard the evidence for the
Flood."
--------
Actually there many places where a complete geologic
column exists. This is discussed in detail by Glenn
Morton in "The Geologic Column and Its Implications
to the Flood" at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm
Glenn Morton's otherw eb pages can be found at:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
and
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fld.htm
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/yungerth.htm
In case of the geologic column existing, Glenn Morton
certainly is not the person disregarding the evidence
:-) :-)
++++++++
booboocruise wrote in message 14 of 16
"Do not believe that there is NO evidence for the
flood--there is more evidence FOR it... but
evolutionists, from my experience, are very good at
covering up or making you believe there is no evidence."
------
This, in my opinion, nothing more than a personal
attack on the integrity of conventional scientists
that falsely tars and feathers them as being deceitful
in the manner in which they discuss the topic of a
Noachian Flood. The above statement simply dismisses
the arguments on the part of conventional scientists
against a Noachian Flood as being fraudulent instead
arguing the specific merits and demerits of their
arguments.
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
Houston, Texas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:25 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 18 of 47 (37574)
04-22-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:25 AM


the earth is tilted on its axis. However, stonehenge and the Ramses star-map of Egypt do not line up well as how they should. In fact, if you mapped out how the earth's axis is 'wobbly' you'll find that it is behaving like a spinning top that was struck forcefully about 4.5 thousand years ago (4500 y.a.)
Why do all the other rapidly spinning planets precess like that? Were they struck forcefully by a flood, too? Why does a spinning top that has not been struck by anything precess like that? You need to read some elementary physics, booboo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:25 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 19 of 47 (37634)
04-22-2003 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 1:25 AM


She sells seashells
and you've been sold a load of c...
quote:
do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with seashells?
Booboo what kind of shells are those? Are they of species that are currently alive? If not why not?
Are they from species found rather deeper in the geologic layers anywhere else?
Others have already told you about plate tectonics. Had you really not heard of that? I'd find that astonishing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 1:25 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 1:31 AM NosyNed has replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 47 (37639)
04-23-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by NosyNed
04-22-2003 11:32 PM


Re: She sells seashells
Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atop Sanhorn Mountain in the North Sea (an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift).
Also, It is difficult to tell what kind of sea shells are atop the Himalayas (they are fossilized). HOWEVER, being fossilized does not prove they are millions of years old. I have, in my basement, a piece of petrified wood that was recently hand-carved (it was normal wood not too long ago). Also, the logs in Spirit Lake (I've been to Washington myself) are already beginning to petrify (they are not even three decades old and left over from Mt. St. Helens).
So, the sea shells found at Mt. Everest are, I believe, oysters (for some of the sea shells are several feet wide, and oysters are known to grow larger than most clams and mussels).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2003 11:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 2:02 AM booboocruise has replied
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-23-2003 2:46 AM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 31 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-23-2003 4:33 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 04-23-2003 5:09 PM booboocruise has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 47 (37641)
04-23-2003 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 1:31 AM


references
I'm afraid you need specific references on work done by people who know what the shells are. Not your guesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 1:31 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:58 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 22 of 47 (37644)
04-23-2003 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 1:31 AM


Sanhorn
quote:
Actually, The whale's skeleton was unearthed atop Sanhorn Mountain in the North Sea (an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift).
Can you tell me where this mountain is - give me a map location of it? You seem familiar with the geology of the area so I presume this won't be too much trouble. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 1:31 AM booboocruise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2003 4:19 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 47 (37646)
04-23-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mister Pamboli
04-23-2003 2:46 AM


Re: Sanhorn
The only references Google could find were on creationist sites, citing a geological paper from 1829. Sanhorn is not mentioned elsewhere - or in my atlas. I would expect it to be in Norway although there is no way to be sure.
Given that there is a nountain there it is obvious that there has been uplift, and the date of the paper clearly means that that possiiblity was not considered at the time. Given the obscurity of the source and location it is unlikely that there has been any serious check.
Here is one source mentioning a fossil whale found in Norway :
"At Smestad in Brum (near Oslo, Norway), a 20 metres long, almost complete skeleton of a baleen whale was found in 1978, in compact blue clay. The whalemust have stranded in a shallow bay, which seabottom sediments today lie 106 metres above sea level. This is due to the rising of the land (isostasy) after the last Ice Age. The whale died about 8500-9000 years ago."
[Added by Edit] At this point it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the whale fossil was found much lower on the mountain and that it was raised to that point by isostatic rebound. Rebounds of over 200m are apparent from the geology.
Until proper documentation of the find is available I will stick with this explanation.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-23-2003 2:46 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-23-2003 11:31 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 12:30 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 24 of 47 (37677)
04-23-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
04-23-2003 4:19 AM


Re: Sanhorn
quote:
The only references Google could find were on creationist sites, citing a geological paper from 1829. Sanhorn is not mentioned elsewhere - or in my atlas. I would expect it to be in Norway although there is no way to be sure.
Thanks for trying to find it, but don't worry, booboocruise can tell us exactly where it is as he is sufficiently familiar with the geology of the region to cite it as an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2003 4:19 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 25 of 47 (37681)
04-23-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
04-23-2003 4:19 AM


Re: Sanhorn
At this point it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that the whale fossil was found much lower on the mountain and that it was raised to that point by isostatic rebound. Rebounds of over 200m are apparent from the geology.
Note also that rebound has been measured at rates as high as 11 mm per year in this area - that's 11 meters each millenium, and that's in the present, now that the rate has slowed greatly since the initial icemelt.
Ref: Space-Geodetic Constraints on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Fennoscandia G. A. Milne et al., Science 2001 March 23; 291: 2381-2385.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2003 4:19 AM PaulK has not replied

  
booboocruise
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 47 (37706)
04-23-2003 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by NosyNed
04-23-2003 2:02 AM


Re: references
Why on earth should it matter WHAT KIND of seashells they are.
One thing I've noticed is that evolutionists are quite good at getting people to focus on the wrong part of the discussion. (Is that how you go about making fools of creationists--by ignoring their real evidence and just going to what isn't important)???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 2:02 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 04-23-2003 4:09 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 4:09 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 04-23-2003 4:11 PM booboocruise has not replied
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2003 4:28 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 27 of 47 (37712)
04-23-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:58 PM


Re: references
Why on earth should it matter WHAT KIND of seashells they are.
Find out for us what kind they are - you brought up the topic. I think that you will find that the reason it matters is that the suite of shells up there has not existed as living organisms for 20,000,000 years - that's how long that rock has been high and dry.
http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/eostxt.html
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:58 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 47 (37713)
04-23-2003 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:58 PM


kinds of seashells
I don't happen to know what kind of seashells they are but here's what I suggest they are.
The shells at high alitudes in the Himalayas are all of types extant at or before the time when the continent of India started to run into Asia. There are none from species only alive after that.
This is my prediction. If it is true then you have to explain why your flood of only 4500 years ago did that. If you can't offer an explanation of similar power to the plate tectonic one you will have lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:58 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 47 (37714)
04-23-2003 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:58 PM


important evidence
Ok, what is the "important" evidence? You've posted a whole bunch of stuff here. I think most or all of it has been shot full of holes. Are there any "important" ones left that need more work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:58 PM booboocruise has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 47 (37716)
04-23-2003 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by booboocruise
04-23-2003 3:58 PM


Re: references
One thing I've noticed is that evolutionists are quite good at getting people to focus on the wrong part of the discussion.
And one thing I've noticed about creationists is that they ignore clearly written rebuttals to their position, as you seem to have done in various topics that you yourself started.
We explained plate tectonics to you, do you have a rebuttal? Or is your silence to be taken as tacit agreement?
The type of seashells in relevant, but incidental. It would only provide specific confirmation of Himalayan tectonic action. But we know from other evidence (measuring the rate of continental drift and mountain uplift) that tectonic action is generally true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by booboocruise, posted 04-23-2003 3:58 PM booboocruise 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