Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[lvbuckeye]

That is incorrect. Fossilization occurs as a result of many different processes, not as a result of a single catastrophic event (Noah's Flood). Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are either local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as: burial in sediments in a river delta, burial in sediments from a local river flood, burial in a small landslide as along an eroded stream bank, burial in ash from a volcano and burial in a blown sand dune.

Patterns of fossilization are consistent with noncatastrophic processes such as those mentioned above. In fact, if Noah's Flood had actually happened we would expect to see a random mix of all species fossilized together such as Trilobites mixed with Dinosaurs, or on a much broader scale any modern animal mixed with species from the Paleozoic. But we don't this anywhere in the fossil record. How does the Bible explain that?

why are fossils not forming today?

 

[lvbuckeye]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

read this entire book. scientific evidence of the Flood.

 

[lvbuckeye]

That is incorrect. Fossilization occurs as a result of many different processes, not as a result of a single catastrophic event (Noah's Flood). Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are either local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as: burial in sediments in a river delta, burial in sediments from a local river flood, burial in a small landslide as along an eroded stream bank, burial in ash from a volcano and burial in a blown sand dune.

Patterns of fossilization are consistent with noncatastrophic processes such as those mentioned above. In fact, if Noah's Flood had actually happened we would expect to see a random mix of all species fossilized together such as Trilobites mixed with Dinosaurs, or on a much broader scale any modern animal mixed with species from the Paleozoic. But we don't this anywhere in the fossil record. How does the Bible explain that?

liquification of rock in a solution, and the specific density of the creatures explains the layers of the fossils. creatures that are more dense will be below creatures that are less dense. common sense...

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

liquification of rock in a solution, and the specific density of the creatures explains the layers of the fossils. creatures that are more dense will be below creatures that are less dense. common sense...

Not to mention that if one actually takes a look at the rock columns such as in the grand canyon it actually look like something literally threw layers of rock on top of each other kinda like what would happen in a flood. I am almost confused as to why Brewtus would claim fossils would be preserved in a riverbed which before anything actually became a rock would tear it to pieces.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Not to mention that if one actually takes a look at the rock columns such as in the grand canyon it actually look like something literally threw layers of rock on top of each other kinda like what would happen in a flood. I am almost confused as to why Brewtus would claim fossils would be preserved in a riverbed which before anything actually became a rock would tear it to pieces.

i don't think that any old age evolutionust really wants to talk about the Grand Canyon. if it was carved over millions of years, why is the delta about 1/100th of the size it should be? where did those 800 cubic MILES of rock go? also, how did that river manage to flow UPHILL? OTOH, if you look at the accompanying elevation of the plateau with the mountains settling down, and two enormous lakes forming, then breaching and emptying rapidly, then the carving out of relatively soft sedimentary rock in a short amount of time is entirely feasible...

oops, i said sedimentary rock. what laid all that sediment that became rock down over the entire planet? rivers? really? so, i guess that at some point, a river flowed over every sqaure in on the planet... yeah, right...

 

[Brewtus]

time to go back to school.
here's the important part:

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)

can you do math?

Well according to my calculations the amount of CO2 directly related to humans (22 billion tons) is 86 - 152 times MORE than volcanoes emit (145-255 million tons). Can you do math?

how about a BIG FUCKING BOAT in Turkey?

Ha, ha, you've got to be joking. This is your evidence for Noah's Flood? Yeah, these guys look credible. I'm sure they're not just trying to make a few bucks off gullible tourists.

why are fossils not forming today?

Fossils are still being formed today in the same manner that they always have; in sink holes and tar pits (like La Brea in recent times), volcanic eruptions (such as Pompeii and Mt. St. Helens), sediments from rivers still cover corpses in their deltas, and insects and plants are being covered by geyser deposits.

liquification of rock in a solution, and the specific density of the creatures explains the layers of the fossils. creatures that are more dense will be below creatures that are less dense. common sense...

No, this is not common sense and is not what we observe. What is a "more dense" creature and "less dense" creature anyway? There is no standardized sorting of fossils in any kind of order related to size, density or other physical characteristics. If you disagree please cite your references so I can look them over.

i don't think that any old age evolutionust really wants to talk about the Grand Canyon. if it was carved over millions of years, why is the delta about 1/100th of the size it should be? where did those 800 cubic MILES of rock go? also, how did that river manage to flow UPHILL? OTOH, if you look at the accompanying elevation of the plateau with the mountains settling down, and two enormous lakes forming, then breaching and emptying rapidly, then the carving out of relatively soft sedimentary rock in a short amount of time is entirely feasible...

oops, i said sedimentary rock. what laid all that sediment that became rock down over the entire planet? rivers? really? so, i guess that at some point, a river flowed over every sqaure in on the planet... yeah, right...

The Grand Canyon provides no evidence for a global cataclysmic flood. If the Canyon was formed by a massive flood we'd expect to see the following, but don't:

• a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
• anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
• coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
• streamlined relict islands.

And sedimentary rock is not only formed from rivers. It's also deposited in shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advances and retreates over tens of millions of years.

 

[lvbuckeye]

No, this is not common sense and is not what we observe. What is a "more dense" creature and "less dense" creature anyway? There is no standardized sorting of fossils in any kind of order related to size, density or other physical characteristics. If you disagree please cite your references so I can look them over.

how open minded to an opposing view are you? that is, is the dogma so firmly entrenched that you won't look at another scientific perspective? if you are going to dismiss this reference out of hand because it involves God, then i won't bother posting the link.

The Grand Canyon provides no evidence for a global cataclysmic flood. If the Canyon was formed by a massive flood we'd expect to see the following, but don't:

• a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
• anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
• coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
• streamlined relict islands.

WRT the Grand Canyon, i didn't say that it was formed by the flood. i said it was formed AFTER the flood when two huge lakes, Grand Lake and Hopi Lake rapidly drained.

And sedimentary rock is not only formed from rivers. It's also deposited in shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advances and retreates over tens of millions of years.

water in every instance... there's sedimentry rock at the top of the Himalayas. which kind of water dropped those sediments?

 

[Brewtus]

how open minded to an opposing view are you? that is, is the dogma so firmly entrenched that you won't look at another scientific perspective? if you are going to dismiss this reference out of hand because it involves God, then i won't bother posting the link.

If it's evidence that's based on scientific criteria and methods, then yes I will be open minded. But if you'll only be providing Biblical quotes or some amateur's bogus website as evidence then don't bother as that's no more defendable than simple opinion.

WRT the Grand Canyon, i didn't say that it was formed by the flood. i said it was formed AFTER the flood when two huge lakes, Grand Lake and Hopi Lake rapidly drained.

So the geology of the Grand Canyon doesn't show evidence that it was created by a global flood? Okay, we agree on something then. :)

water in every instance... there's sedimentry rock at the top of the Himalayas. which kind of water dropped those sediments?

See Plate Tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_techtonics) and Mountain Formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Mountains).

 

[Buckeyes85]

how open minded to an opposing view are you? that is, is the dogma so firmly entrenched that you won't look at another scientific perspective? if you are going to dismiss this reference out of hand because it involves God, then i won't bother posting the link.

A fundamentalist questioning whether someone else is too firmly entrenched in dogma to consider opposing views? I had to chuckle at that one.

If a theory first requires you to accept the existence of god before accepting the science attached to it, it isn't science at all. Stated conversely, many christian scientists accept that evolution occurs, or that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years. How many atheist or agnostic scientists accept that the grand canyon was formed as a result of noah's flood (or a massive flood by any name)? After all, if the science for such an event exists, it need not be attached to a biblical story in order to be validated.

 

[lvbuckeye]

If it's evidence that's based on scientific criteria and methods, then yes I will be open minded. But if you'll only be providing Biblical quotes or some amateur's bogus website as evidence then don't bother as that's no more defendable than simple opinion.

how about from someone who received a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT and was a National Science Foundation Fellow?

So the geology of the Grand Canyon doesn't show evidence that it was created by a global flood? Okay, we agree on something then. :)

created in the aftermath, as the waters receded...

See Plate Tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_techtonics) and Mountain Formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Mountains).

i'm well aware of the plate tectonics theories. however, Wiki is NOT a legitimate source. at any rate, among other things, the site addresses plate tectonics, lists several problems with the theory and proposes his own.

anyaway, here's the link. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html
i skipped ahead to part 2 in the link... don't read it with preconceived prejudices. read it with an open mind. all of the explanations are plausible and have scientific merit...

 

[lvbuckeye]

A fundamentalist questioning whether someone else is too firmly entrenched in dogma to consider opposing views? I had to chuckle at that one.

please don't paint me as a fundamentalist. i can't stand those hypocrites.

If a theory first requires you to accept the existence of god before accepting the science attached to it, it isn't science at all. Stated conversely, many christian scientists accept that evolution occurs, or that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years. How many atheist or agnostic scientists accept that the grand canyon was formed as a result of noah's flood (or a massive flood by any name)? After all, if the science for such an event exists, it need not be attached to a biblical story in order to be validated.

considering the fact that Newton, Kepler, Planck, Einstein, Galileo, and numerous other great scientists believed in the existance of God, i'd be careful what kind of light you want to paint that belief in... the link i provided does not use the Bible as a source...

do even know the history of Darwinian evolution? i'm talking about the origins of the theory? i'll give you a hint: it was originally the brainchild of Charles Darwin's GRANDFATHER Erasmus- a deist who beleived in a Prime Mover who set it all in motion and then took the rest of eternity off-, and was in its original iteration a RELIGIOUS ideology designed to replace Christianity.

 

[GoBucks89]

If a theory first requires you to accept the existence of god before accepting the science attached to it, it isn't science at all.

So you're saying science assumes atheism? Thanks for the rare moment of honesty.

 

[Bleed S & G]

So you're saying science assumes atheism? Thanks for the rare moment of honesty.

i'm fascinated by quantum physics and their theories.. especially 'the observer' theory.. but its fascinating to me that 'science' assumes atheism but when you get down to the brass tacks and the sub-atomic realm, it's seemingly stupid to assume there is no God.

 

[Buckeyes85]

So you're saying science assumes atheism? Thanks for the rare moment of honesty.

Pretty dumb since you know that's not what I said. Try again if you want to make a legitimate point.

 

[GoBucks89]

Pretty dumb since you know that's not what I said.

In that case, what were you trying to say?