The only fantasy here is your interpretation of these fossils as being proof of a flood.
You finally got something right!
You are on a roll!
Except for the thrust faults that are responsible.
Mostly, but not in all cases. Carbonates are not typically the result of moving water, nor are evaporites. Coal is not the result of moving water nor are eolian deposits.
Extinction events are found throughout the fossil record, not just 5,000 years ago. What does that mean for the other (and in some cases MUCH larger) extinction events?
That is correct.
Volcanism has been occurring on earth since it’s formation. Why should it be a surprise to find volcanic rocks interbedded with sedimentary rocks? That is very strong evidence for an old earth because we can date those volcanic deposits and because, obviously, the deeper rocks are older than the volcanics. So either you have misinterpreted your source or you have been mislead.
If you misapply a technique, you will get erroneous data. I gave some links before, so I won’t do it again, but I suggest you re-read them as they explain how easy it is to get bad data using bad technique or inappropriate methods.
You were good until the last two sentences. There is no physical (as in physics, your favorite subject
) way for a flood to have caused plate tectonics that would give us the geomorphology of the earth we have today.If there is no evidence for it, I would call it fantasy. Therefore, I call your claims fantasy.
Really? Why don’t you try using some science then instead of fundamentalist propaganda? The things you are claiming as science don’t exist and the things you are dismissing have been very thoroughly studied over the past couple of hundred years by many people who come to the same conclusions. So, tell me again, why are your “theories” as valid as those who actually have studied the things you dismiss?
rheins2000 said:
A claim without support.
It’s good to see that your point was that radiometric dating methods have been used to measure reliably the ages of rocks, the earth, meteorites and the moon!
Yep, your’e right, a couple of crazy creationists.
rheins2000 said:
No doctorate, only a bachelors degree in geology. How about you?
Wow! 200 more? That settles it then! Since numbers mean so much to you, here you go:
You need to back off of the name calling. Phil gave you a direct quote and a link to the document. It says what it says regardless if you don’t like it.
He gave you a DIRECT QUOTE!
Phil gave you a direct quote and a link so that you could check it out. Please give citation and/or links to your material. You owe Phil at least that much courtesy not to mention it is the ethical way of quoting other people’s work.
Once again, watch the name calling. This discussion should not be so personal to you that you lose your sense of charity.
Please provide a reference where a 200 year old lava was properly sampled and analyzed and gave a date of 10.5 billion years.
Actually, scientists are always looking at the errors inherent within any testing procedure. What analytical test do you know of that does not have a margin of error? Or are you speaking of someone like Austin who intentionally selects samples that will give misleading dates to sample?
amazing to me that anyone would reference this guy (who doesn’t even have the guts to go by his own name). This is the same fellow who claims that the geologic column is false because no complete section can be found anywhere in the world even though that is demonstrably false.
Falling back on quote mining, are we? The last gasp refuge of those who can’t make the argument themselves.
The Pope commonly tells us it is ok to believe something that is not true!
Oh Please! This “result” has been handled already in the discussion by Henke and links contained therein. Read them all; it is really a nice, measured discussion. If you take a sample badly, or take a good sample and process it badly, or if you send it to a lab that tells you up front it cannot analyse certain types of samples, but you send it to them anyway, is it really a surprise when you get results that are all over the map? Hopefully, this is a rhetorical question.
Really ??? Gosh, how much force is required to move the continents? How much water would this require?
You still have your left hand???
Yes they have. As Leonardo da Vinci noticed, they do not support a global floodIf the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.
Your source may possibly be correct about trees, but there are older living things than trees. There is a Creosote bush in California that is over 11,000 years old and there is a bush in Tasmania that has been measured at over 40,000 years old, see here. The evidence here does not support a global flood.
I do not think that the Yellow River in China is “near” Ararat, nor is the Indus River in India, nor is the Nile in Egypt. We even have written records from China and Egypt dating back before the usual dates for the flood and neither mention such an event. Certainly Mesopotamian civilisation appeared near Ararat (ancient Uruartu) but that is not surprising since the Biblical flood story is a reworking of an old Sumerian flood story. The evidence here does not support a global flood.
A flood is not the only way to make sedimentary rock. Most sedimentary deposits are laid down under oceans, which accounts for the marine shells that you and Leonardo mentioned. One problem with building up a lot of rock in a short one year flood is all the non-sedimentary rock that has to be produced as well. There are large volumes of volcanic rock: two examples are the Deccan Traps and the Siberian Traps. That is millions of cubic kilometres of red hot lava. If all that volcanic activity was concentrated into a single year it would have had noticeable effects, like boiling away a portion of the ocean. Likewise all the meteorite impact craters found in all those geological periods you mention would have happened in a single year. Each meteorite impact delivers yet more heat to the system, all within a single year. By the end of the flood year if Noah had managed to avoid all the meteorite impacts and the consequent tsunamis he would have been parboiled by the heat of the oceans which would have been pretty much turned to steam. Trying to compress geological time into a single year gets you into immense problems with overheating. Too much energy is delivered into the oceans at once so they boil. The evidence here does not support a global flood.
I’m glad you mentioned that. When you calculate the energy needed to move a continent you need a great deal of “force” which inevitably produces a great deal of heat (friction etc.) When you calculate the speed needed to move all the continents to where they are now with in the space of a year the friction gets even worse. Continents currently move at about the rate a fingernail grows. If the oceans hadn’t already been boiled by the volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts then the heat from the “continental quick-step” would have boiled them all over again. Again your biggest problem with the flood is keeping things cool enough for Noah to survive the year. The evidence does not support a global flood.
where the particular point is supported.Since when does Darwin and the Big Bang go hand in hand? Secondly, there are explanations as to what the nature of the “Big Bang” theory is. My understanding is that with the observation of the outward expansion of the universe known as the “red shift,” it becomes plausible that if everything is moving in an even, outward bound path, then it must find it’s source in an intial centered point. This centered point, according to contemporary theory and thus, the laws of physics state that this was an infintely dense, infinitely grave (gravity) particle. At some point it lost stability and exploded. I’m not exactly sure of what their explanation is as to what effected it, but here is an excerpt of my conversation with someone regarding the “Big Bang” and proof of God:
"Either it was created by an outside source or it created itself. Either way, it cannot be of eternal existence as the universe contains process and processes necessitate intiation, or source. If the universe stood in flux, unchanged, then you could say that it was never created, it simply existed. With that said, the universe, the planets, the stars, the red shift, all reveal change, and thus, require initiation. Take for example the infinitely dense particle at the source of the “Big Bang” theory. While one could certainly argue that the particle exists in eternity outside of time, that it was never created but always “was,” one would have to ignore the fact that it was processed. If the particle where to simply sit there for eternity, you could argue the point. The idea that it blew necessitates stimulus, an external variant that lies outside of “existence” and into the realm of eternal entity/deity. Even if you argued that there are multiple universes, one would simply have to go to the source, the initial change that effected our particular universe. With that said, the universe(s) is(are) created. http://media.teamxbox.com/forum/smilies/wink.gif
The point of the philosophy is that it explains how there can be change, including cyclical change. Not everything is purely cyclical though. If you are familiar with the red shift of the universe, you should know that the only possible source finds itself in that infinitely dense particle. What effected that particle? If all that was, including light and matter would have been contained within it and as such, as physics state, an infinitely dense particle contains infinite gravity, there was no reason for it to have changed state, unless something beyond material existence was somehow able to affect it. In order for that non-material effect to exist, it must lie outside of time as eternally existing, beyond creation. Regardless of the philisophical nature of the universe, we still must agree that the universe is bound by law. Law of physics, law of relativety, law of conservation of matter. The law itself is ordered and exists beyond creation. The law is both timeless and unchanging but even the law has one exception, the creation of the universe(s). The law says that an infinately dense, infinately grave particle would remain as such unless acted upon by an outside force. The laws of inertia and gravity state that an infinetely dense particle cannot be moved or effected and thus, any change to that entity must be done so by an “outside” force that also happens to be outside of the law. The law, and therefore all matter, is subject to this force that is both eternal and beyond created/material existence.
Hey, you still waiting for this??
This is interesting, but we are drifting away from the OP.
In post #12, Orogeny replied:
In post #13, rhein2000 said:
In post #39, Orogeny replied to this rhein2000 post:
In post #9, rheins2000 made a claim of finding human artifacts in-situ with coal deposits. I have not seen any supporting evidence of this contention in any of your replies, rheins2000. The George Hill article seems to discuss only the rapid artificial formation of coal. Where is the evidence of human artifacts? If you have any, please provide a citation or citations.
And thats their conclusion about your side…And they’ve been at it longer than you.
Ummm, Im pretty sure its not millions, since there are not even millions of creation scientists that have ever been alive…
No, actualy you might try reading what I wrote. The above sentance clearly does not make sense. Please refer tomy post where I actually said: