Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkwhisper
Since when? Who truthfully answered my challenges above? No one.
The believers in Darwin's fairy tale either one (a) ignore such challenges, or (b) give answers that miss the mark.
Keep pretending, friend. Judgment day awaits you.
|
Really? I reproduce the posts and give answers - mine and others.
"Marine life near the summit of Mt. Everest":
Many of these mountain - fossils include fossil undersea worm burrows. Demonstrates that these are ancient sea - beds that were raised up over geological ages. This also answers:
"Water ripple marks in the mountains of Germany and Fossil fish in the Alps:"
Claim CC364:
Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.
Response:
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological
and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea. (Talk Origins)
"Millions of fossils of both land and marine life all over the world indicating rapid burial under cataclysmic conditions:It doesn't it indicates millions of years of time for the fossils to be produced in such numbers."
Answered - disproved - above.
"Polystrate fossils revealing trees extending through several 'million yrs' of geologic strata. Trees that could not possibly have stood for that long without rotting and going back to the earth."
Isn't it rather the case that polystrate fossils were made in a relatively short time (in connection with the 'Ark found' thread it was pointed out that, in mineral rich floodwater conditions, trees can petrify quite quickly) and the soil levels would build up and fossilize over geological time and thus fossil tree trunks would be set in a number of levels. That this occurred with the tops rotting away and the lower parts pertified indicates a partial water -immersion. A flood should result in trees lying flat with the branches still on. I'd say the polystrate fossils disprove a flood.
...is claimed that these stumps are transported, and therefore they could be deposited in a short time, rather than the long time it would take for growth of a forest, burial, and growth and burial of each of the succeeding forests.
This claim is not supported by the evidence. Several characteristics can distinguish between stumps that are transported and those that were buried in place (see Fritz, 1980 and the citations in Fritz, 1984, quoted below). The trees at Yellowstone have been examined, and only some tree specimens at some localities are transported. The Specimen Ridge examples, which are most commonly cited, consist of in-place stumps.
Like the modern environments around Mt. St. Helens, there is potential to bury stumps in-place *and* to transport them upright in a variety of sedimentary environments (although burial in-place is far more common). Distinguishing the two (or even recognizing the presence of both) is not difficult. To simply say, "tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed", is incorrect. The vast majority of occurrences can not be explained by transport.
It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft
condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst
marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of
these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."
I think it worth reading the whole.
More on "Polystrate" Fossils
"Many fossils found were in the act of (a) giving birth, or (b) eating other marine life: Which proves what? That they were trapped suddenly in a flood or that they died as result of trying to eat a rather too large fish (if one is not just superimposed fossil) and in a difficult child - birth. The Ichthyosaur (a fishlike air-breathing dinosaur) might well get into difficulties. On the other hand, a flood involving a gradual buildup of silt wouldn't 'suddenly' trap the fish like that. It argues for geologlical time -spans, not a flood.
Quixotic Hobbit responded to you on this also. Your reponse was "Give the names of the observers that entire land masses folded over other entire land masses."
This is silly. The evidence in the geology shows what happened. We don't need observers. And Noah is hardly a believable story.
Astron1000 gave you a link to evidence of plate techtonics.
Did you respond?
You repeat the ripples - already answered. Some of those 'ripple beaches have the tracks of herds of Iguanadon in and yet they are raised up and on their side. Geological movement, not evidence of a flood.
"These animals were instantly buried while fighting each other."
It looks like it, but who can say? Why couldn't they have fallen at separate times into a mud -pit, even if they were having a bundle. It is no proof of a flood. And again, the flood was not so fast that they didn't see what was coming upon them. It was a quick flooding, sure, but not so quick as the animals wouldn't break off scrapping to try to escape. These fossils do not support a flood.
"This is a fossil of a leaf embedded in varves. Varves supposedly support the evolutionary theory. But how? Did this leaf lay there for years without deteriorating? No way. The varves were laid down quickly."
Now that's a good one. I will check that out.
Most plant fossils found in glacial lake sediment are from terrestrial sources. As a result there can be a “lag” between the time the organism was alive and when it was finally transported to the lake and deposited with lake sediment. Storage on land, prior to transport and later deposition, may not cause an error in the age of the fossil, but there will be a potential mismatch or lag between the age of the fossil and the younger varve in which the fossil was eventually deposited.
North American Varve Chronology Project
That seems to be that response. It was a fossil washed in and sank into the varve - mud.
This point was made to you:
You will also not find marine and land life in the same layer, which would be the case in the event of a singe, catastrophic global flood.
You did not even try to answer that but just 'The evidence is there but like I once was, you are brainwashed to see things otherwise.'
I think that we can skip the insistance that Noah was an eyewitness. This is about answering your challenges about flood - evidence or not.
Were there dinosaurs on the ark or not?
"Probably, but we don't know for certain since they are not mentioned in Genesis."
No, but their tracks do appear in these supposed flood levels. How did they survive the flood if they were not on the ark?
"I have given you some outstanding evidence of the Noahic flood. Now why don't you deal with it?"
It was answered and you ignored it.
You cited erosion as evidence of a flood. It isn't it is evidence of geological ages of erosion. Just filling up the seas and emptying them in about a year would fill those valleys with sediment, not empty them. In fact hundreds of feet of geology is explained as flood - deposit.
The Alp upside down. I suspect that there is geological evidence of inverted strata - the pressures over geological ages inverted the strata and that is why we have the Alps. ..Yep Quixotic hobbit answered you
"The geologic layers in the Alps are complex. There are areas of folding where the layers are actually inverted (i.e., upside down). There is no doubt of this because of the numerous places where erosion has revealed the entire fold in stark relief, including the fold itself."
There is solid evidence for this in the geology.
You again cite petrified trees. I doubt that they really have no roots. but then if it was because they were ripped away if a flood, why are they upright? If there were ripped away, why is there no bark? You keep hinting at cataclysmic forces, but Flood enthusiasts understand that the flood, while deep, had to be a bit gentle otherwise the Ark and the animals aboard would not have survived. These fossils do not support your flood.
"So yes, the Alps can move 500 miles. ...Your observer for this phenomena?"
Again you miss the point. The movement of the Alps is clear in the strata record. By insisting on a person watching it happen you are just looking for an excuse to ignore the evidence.
"There are no two-celled, three-celled, four-celled, five-celled, organisms in the world and that all 6 to 20-celled organisms are parasites. That being so how could evolution possibly occur on this planet?"
I gave an answer of sorts but one that you wouldn't find satisfactory. "there is really so much evidence that evolution is fact an natural selection is the mechanism for how life developed that the question about why we don't have four - celled organisms and why the 6-20 celled ones are parasites is an interesting question that yet needs to be answered. It does not make even make a dent in evolution."
But then that's about evolution, not the flood. Still it's a challenge.
And your last:
"Who truthfully answered my challenges above? No one.
The believers in Darwin's fairy tale either one (a) ignore such challenges, or (b) give answers that miss the mark."
Well some of your challenges were answered but you responded by ignoring them and resorting to silliness - that you wouldn't accept evidence otber than some one watching geological strata piling up ove a million years.
If you were ever an evolutionist, you couldn't have known much about it and I don't wonder that the creationists could brainwash you.
I doubt this will satisfy you because some of your points are indeed not fully answered. However, you have made no attempt to look further into it, you just look for excuses to reject the answers. If you had, we could have all looked into it together. You have certainly not made any attempt to deal with the Ark and flood problems, other than to insist it is all true. Jesus said so - as though the NT was reliable.
So I do this, not to to put you down, much less persuade you, but just to make it clear (if anyone had any doubt) that you haven't made much of a case at all.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
