Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

The evidence for Noah's Flood is overwhelming!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    I did not say an absurdity - you did to my question. So what flood evidence do you mean?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]11856[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]11855[/ATTACH]
    I mean nearly the entire part which is sedimentary rock or where metamorphic rock shows traces of sediments of aquatic nature with marine fossils, while being on land.

    I mean the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, anywhere you get fossils. I mean Permian before Triassic as well as Palaeocene after Cretaceous.

    Permian and Triassic in Karoo? Flood in Karoo. Jurassic in Bristol? Flood in Bristol. Palaeocene in Linz? Flood in Linz. And so on. I consider all of these as evidence of the Flood. And since you get things like that all over the world, I consider it was global.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      What you need to do is show a single layer that stretch across the entire planet was underwater. That is something that nobody can do and not for a want of trying.
      Unless the fossil finds like from "Permian" or "Palaeocene" or "Mesozoic" or "Precambrian" are in fact a single layer of bioosphere, where even land vertebrates fossilise due to lots of water bringing on lots of mud.
      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Things like deserts, paleosols, evaporites, forests stacked one atop another and even limestone or chalk layers (the latter of which while formed underwater cannot happen during a flood).
        Limestone can be from shrimps getting caught in acid during flood.
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Ouch. Actually, it is a long discredited myth that oil fields are the result of decaying dinosaur remains. In short, petroleum was formed from the remains of microscopic plants and animals (primarily the plants) that lived in the oceans millions of years ago that got buried and were acted upon by bacteria while under tremendous amounts of pressure and heat. No dinosaurs or other terrestrial animals were involved in the making in spite of what some oil companies implied in the advertising years ago (which wasn't really intended to be taken seriously)
          Apart from "millions of years ago", this is interesting. Flood with lots of mud layers provides the pressure. Some places also the heat.

          In fact, if acid burns shrimps to limestone, the heat from that reaction may have helped forming the petrol.

          Now, the petrol coming from microscopic plants and animals is very interesting, meaning that if so, no human remains were involved in producing petrol. While using plastic objects I am on and off wondering whether I should give the poor nephelim a decent burial, but on your view that might not be necessary?
          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
            Unless the fossil finds like from "Permian" or "Palaeocene" or "Mesozoic" or "Precambrian" are in fact a single layer of bioosphere, where even land vertebrates fossilise due to lots of water bringing on lots of mud.
            We have a lot of fossils that formed that cannot be the result of a flood. Just sticking with those that include dinosaurs for the sake of brevity and simplicity we can start with those that are the result of a collapsing sand dune.

            The famous fossil of a Velociraptor locked in combat with a Protoceratops discovered in the southern Gobi Desert in 1971 is just such an example (although there is a small chance a sand storm was responsible -- either way a global flood was hardly responsible).




            And that's hardly the only Protoceratops that had been discovered that had been buried alive in aeolian (wind deposited) sediments and not drowned. Due to its orientation this guy was buried (again probably under a collapsing sand dune or something similar and not something that drowned) and was trying to dig its way out when it died.




            Aside from Protoceratops, several examples of another early certopsian dinosaur that lived in Asia, Psittacosaurus, has also been found that have either been buried in massive sandstorms or under collapsing sand dunes.

            And like the aforementioned Velociraptor and Protoceratops there is also yet another ceratopsian, this time the iconic Triceratops, that has been found in sandstone in Montana with a Nanotyrannus (a small tyrannosaurid relative of the T rex). In this case it appears that they killed each other and the corpses had been picked over by scavengers before being buried under sand. What exactly took place is still unknown since, at least the last time I heard, the discoverer is selling the fossils still encased in their plaster field jackets on the open market at Bonham’s auction house in New York without them being properly scientifically examined. The only thing known for certain was that they had been buried in dry sand.




            ETA: Another non-ceratopsian dinosaur, this time a relatively small sauropod known as Seitaad was found a couple years ago in Utah and had also been entombed by the collapse of a sand dune.

            And that is just dinosaur fossils resulting from collapsing sand dunes or sandstorms.

            Now let's turn to another major source for dinosaur fossils that have absolutely nothing to do with flooding. In fact in this cases it is the exact opposite -- the result of severe drought.

            How do advocates of a global flood explain why a substantial number of the bonebeds that have been uncovered are the result of drought -- local water sources drying up -- in layers that they identify as being laid down during a global deluge? I had a thread listing a couple dozen such sites that contained the remains of dinosaurs (there are others containing creatures that lived at times when they weren't around) including the world famous Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry (CLDQ)[1] but it was lost during the great crash of 2013

            Other sites include the Mother's Day Quarry, Canyon Bone Bed, Dino Ridge Quarry and Westside Quarry all in Montana, Ghost Ranch in New Mexico, Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry in western Colorado, Douglas Quarry in Dinosaur National Monument, a quarry just west of Arches National Park in southeast Utah, the Patagonia, Argentina site where the remains of Titanosaur were discovered and a couple in northern Madagascar. And here is a thread I started in 2014 describing a bonebed full of pterosaur remains in Brazil that was the result of either drought or possibly a sandstorm.

            Next, what about those creatures that have fallen into death traps ranging from sink holes to tar pits and died? We find numerous such examples all over the world. A half a dozen Utahraptors were found in what once was quicksand in eastern Utah just north of Arches National Park last year and several Arrhinoceratops were found at the bottom of what is likely an ancient sinkhole north of Drumheller in Alberta are just two examples. Another is the still active Adams Hill Tar Pit (a.k.a. Fort Sill Tar Pit) in southwestern Oklahoma that has been trapping creatures (and people) for roughly 250 million years now.

            Finally, some of the most famous sites, like many of those found in northeastern China (for instance, the Cretaceous Yixian and Jiufotang formations that comprise the Jehol Biota), are the result of creatures being buried in volcanic ash and debris much like the humans living in Pompeii and ‎Herculaneum were in 79 AD. Below are images of a Psittacosaurus and a Mei long (a duck-sized troodontid dinosaur), the latter is preserved curled up in a bird-like sleeping position, indicating that it was killed by poisonous volcanic gases before being buried




            If these took place during a flood they would have mixed with the water and not left distinctive layers that we see.

            And please note I was only referring to dinosaurs in these examples. I could give many, many more examples involving other creatures but hopefully these should suffice to illustrate my point.








            1. See here for an account (written a few years before the paper cited) in the popular media: Utah Dinos May Have Been Killed by Drought
            Last edited by rogue06; 12-21-2016, 07:39 PM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              Limestone can be from shrimps getting caught in acid during flood.
              facepalm3.gif

              Especially limestone layers hundreds to thousands of feet thick that stretch for hundreds of miles and longer.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                We have a lot of fossils that formed that cannot be the result of a flood. Just sticking with those that include dinosaurs for the sake of brevity and simplicity we can start with those that are the result of a collapsing sand dune.
                Wait a second, but isn't sand among the deposits which a Flood can be counted on as getting along?

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]20209[/ATTACH]

                Especially limestone layers hundreds to thousands of feet thick that stretch for hundreds of miles and longer.
                I thought actually that when limestone layers are "thousands of feet thick", that is not limestone layers only, but sandstone in between, as I was looking at diagrams over North Dakota.

                But supposing one were so thick, well, very MUCH shellfish got mixed up there, in all those currents.
                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  Wait a second, but isn't sand among the deposits which a Flood can be counted on as getting along?
                  Look up the word aeolian.

                  Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                  I thought actually that when limestone layers are "thousands of feet thick", that is not limestone layers only, but sandstone in between, as I was looking at diagrams over North Dakota.
                  In some cases but look at the White Cliffs of Dover which rise over 300' above sea level IIRC their total thickness is something like 1300.' Note that chalk is a form of limestone. A very pure form. Now the White Cliffs are a tiny part of a chalk formation that stretches to the west across the British Isles to Northern Ireland. And in the east, across the English Channel goes from the coast of France across southern Scandinavia, Poland and into southern Russia (where it gets as thick as 1000 meters or 3280'), where it is eventually stops at the Ural Mountains.

                  Since Noah's Flood is supposed to have killed everything that was alive at the time and this chalk formation is supposed to have been laid down during the flood (it is a Cretaceous layer), this means there had to be enough coccoliths (the microscopic animal from whose shells the chalk is made of) alive at the time of the flood to have covered the entire planet to a depth of approximately 83 cm (a bit more than 32½" or 2'8½"). That's nearly 2¾' of just coccoliths covering every square inch of the planet. Now if it took approximately 10 million years to form as geologists estimate this poses no problem but it sure does if you contend it formed in less than a year.

                  And to be clear this is far from the only massive chalk formation in the world. There is also the Austin Chalk which underlies Dallas, Texas and averages 160 km (99½ miles) wide is roughly 120 meters (393') thick, and stretches from Mexico (where it is known as the San Felipe Formation) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into Louisiana -- a distance in excess of 800 km (497 miles). It contains enough coccoliths to cover the entire earth another 3 cm (1.1").

                  And when you add all the other massive chalk formations found throughout the world, if deposited at one time during a single flood, as YEC global flood advocates claim, it would require enough coccoliths to have covered the earth to a depth in excess of one meter (over 39"). When they were alive, what could they all have possibly eaten?

                  In fact that last question is rhetorical since it is impossible for that many of the necessary organisms to have existed. They would be packed so tightly and deeply that only only the top millimeter or so would receive any sunlight which is a problem since coccoliths require sunlight to exist. This means that only a tiny fraction of them could have ever lived under such circumstances.

                  Another problem with the idea of chalk layers being formed by a single flood is that flood geology doesn’t allow for the calm waters required for chalk deposits to form. The same rapid currents that are supposedly carving canyons all across the planet would disperse any collection of calcium carbonate, scattering their remains worldwide. Instead of the specific locations it is found in you would get NO chalk beds anywhere on the planet. Stokes Law demonstrates that a particle 150 microns across or less (chalk is made up of tiny coccolith shells that vary in size from 1 to 12 microns) would only sink to the bottom when water velocity is less than 0.053 kph or 0.033 mph, therefore the particles would never fall out of the ocean currents and dissolve as they were carried along.

                  Moreover, it takes a long time for these microscopic particles to settle even in calm waters. According to Stokes Law a 4 micron object (the size of the average coccolith) falls through the water at a speed of 0.00087cm/second. Now, along the southern Louisiana coastline there are around 22,860 meters (75,000’) of sedimentary deposits with a chalk layer buried approximately 6096 meters (20,000') down.

                  If a year long global flood was responsible for this, then how can it be explained that a pure layer of chalk, with each piece of it taking 125 days to settle, formed in the middle of other sediments, which were pouring down at a rate of nearly 205’/day (to account for 75,000’ in 1 year)? IOW, if chalk were deposited in a flood it would not be +90% pure coccolith as it is, but instead there would be a mixture of sand and shale in it.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Look up the word aeolian.
                    I know it means wind(-borne). That means scientists guess the sand came by wind.

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    In some cases but look at the White Cliffs of Dover which rise over 300' above sea level IIRC their total thickness is something like 1300.' Note that chalk is a form of limestone. A very pure form. Now the White Cliffs are a tiny part of a chalk formation that stretches to the west across the British Isles to Northern Ireland. And in the east, across the English Channel goes from the coast of France across southern Scandinavia, Poland and into southern Russia (where it gets as thick as 1000 meters or 3280'), where it is eventually stops at the Ural Mountains.
                    Has it been verified as extant in everyone of these places?

                    Or has it been verified as in some places absent "since the Cretaceous layer eroded after the time"?

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Since Noah's Flood is supposed to have killed everything that was alive at the time and this chalk formation is supposed to have been laid down during the flood (it is a Cretaceous layer), this means there had to be enough coccoliths (the microscopic animal from whose shells the chalk is made of) alive at the time of the flood to have covered the entire planet to a depth of approximately 83 cm (a bit more than 32½" or 2'8½"). That's nearly 2¾' of just coccoliths covering every square inch of the planet. Now if it took approximately 10 million years to form as geologists estimate this poses no problem but it sure does if you contend it formed in less than a year.
                    The coccoliths would certainly have been formed, both those dying into chalk and those surviving (if any) to live in our day, during the 2242 years between Creation and Flood.

                    83 cm world wide sounds much, but if on one hand Earth was c. 1/2 land, 1/2 sea, this means 1 m 66 seawide. And even if seas were not so deep back then , coccoliths 1 m 66 in compressed thickness could easily have been accomodated in seas much deeper than that even if much less deep than after Flood.

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    And to be clear this is far from the only massive chalk formation in the world. There is also the Austin Chalk which underlies Dallas, Texas and averages 160 km (99½ miles) wide is roughly 120 meters (393') thick, and stretches from Mexico (where it is known as the San Felipe Formation) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into Louisiana -- a distance in excess of 800 km (497 miles). It contains enough coccoliths to cover the entire earth another 3 cm (1.1").

                    And when you add all the other massive chalk formations found throughout the world, if deposited at one time during a single flood, as YEC global flood advocates claim, it would require enough coccoliths to have covered the earth to a depth in excess of one meter (over 39"). When they were alive, what could they all have possibly eaten?
                    Plancton of algae?

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    In fact that last question is rhetorical since it is impossible for that many of the necessary organisms to have existed. They would be packed so tightly and deeply that only only the top millimeter or so would receive any sunlight which is a problem since coccoliths require sunlight to exist. This means that only a tiny fraction of them could have ever lived under such circumstances.
                    A marine depth of 1 m 69 when compressed can have been decompressed to sufficiently spare for all of it to get sunlight.

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Another problem with the idea of chalk layers being formed by a single flood is that flood geology doesn’t allow for the calm waters required for chalk deposits to form. The same rapid currents that are supposedly carving canyons all across the planet would disperse any collection of calcium carbonate, scattering their remains worldwide. Instead of the specific locations it is found in you would get NO chalk beds anywhere on the planet. Stokes Law demonstrates that a particle 150 microns across or less (chalk is made up of tiny coccolith shells that vary in size from 1 to 12 microns) would only sink to the bottom when water velocity is less than 0.053 kph or 0.033 mph, therefore the particles would never fall out of the ocean currents and dissolve as they were carried along.
                    I am not talking, then, I suppose (check other Flood geologists who have studied geology professionally!) of coccoliths forming calcium carbonate, calcium carbonate dissolving in water and only after that finally settling.

                    I am, I suppose, talking of decompressed coccoliths being compressed and forming calcium carbonate in a compressed state which settles independently of Stokes law. On the same site as where it was formed.

                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Moreover, it takes a long time for these microscopic particles to settle even in calm waters. According to Stokes Law a 4 micron object (the size of the average coccolith) falls through the water at a speed of 0.00087cm/second. Now, along the southern Louisiana coastline there are around 22,860 meters (75,000’) of sedimentary deposits with a chalk layer buried approximately 6096 meters (20,000') down.

                    If a year long global flood was responsible for this, then how can it be explained that a pure layer of chalk, with each piece of it taking 125 days to settle, formed in the middle of other sediments, which were pouring down at a rate of nearly 205’/day (to account for 75,000’ in 1 year)? IOW, if chalk were deposited in a flood it would not be +90% pure coccolith as it is, but instead there would be a mixture of sand and shale in it.
                    The mixture problem has been accounted for by currents doing the deposition, with instantaneous sorting. Shale, sand, coccoliths, they all have specific shapes, sizes and "specific weight" and so sort spontaneously into diverse layers when depositing from a strong current of sediment saturated water.

                    As to the burial of the layer, that is part of the post-Flood restructuring of the world and part of how deep seas were taking care of the water from the Flood, so land could rise.
                    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      facepalmax.gif

                      There is only so much you can do for the willfully ignorant

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]20260[/ATTACH]

                        There is only so much you can do for the willfully ignorant
                        I take it you have no arguments to reply with?
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          I take it you have no arguments to reply with?
                          You didn't say anything worth replying to.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            You didn't say anything worth replying to.
                            I've heard that one before. From people having no arguments ...
                            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              rogue06 has nothing to say.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The earth's geology is in evidence. What part of it proves the Biblical flood?
                                Last edited by 37818; 05-16-2017, 10:17 PM.
                                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X