A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[JoeyKnothead]

Playing catchup, please forgive...

From Page 43 Post 429

Emphasis mine. The wiki article was cognizant of your objection but concluded that the KT boundary has been falsified. If you don't like it then submitt a correction request to Wikipedia.

My point was your claim that Castorocauda was a mammal was incorrect.
-------------------------------

Grumpy seems to do his usual great job with the rest of posts I've missed, so I'll jump to current posts:
-------------------------------
From Page 46 Post 454

>quote mining for brevity and clarity<

Your argument doesnt fly. In a highly-advanced Western civilization, people seek a higher supernatural power.

Argument from popularity. It doesn't so much matter what folks believe, but what of that belief can be proven. The many different religions, sects, and their derivatives indicate folks will place a god in those parts of their own experiences or knowledge for which they have no other answers.

wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that atheists who are a 5% minority, are fearful of judgment and fabricated the idea of "no God" to appease themselves?

I'd say it's more reasonable to conclude atheists have seen the lack of evidence and made a determination.

Everything can be explained by natural laws? Listed below are five phenomena I articulated in post #443. You attempted to explain only #1 and failed.

1. Humans tend to believe in a supreme being.
2. Love & hate
3. My wifes name "Lena" was predicted 32 years prior to meeting her.
4. Friedrich Kekul discovered the benzene molecules ring shape in a dream.
5. "speaking in tongues"

1. Argument from popularity, see above.
2. Emotions for which no god can be shown to directly affect, other than as human thought or action.
3. Is there any way to verify this claim, beyond your personal testimony?
4. I've come up with some great ideas while dreaming. All I know is I "thought" them, and have no way of proving a God was involved in such.
5. No way to verify the claim, other than personal testimony from folks who already believe.
-----------------------------
From Page 46 Post 455

Why are fossil fuels referred to as Non-Renewable?

Answer: Because world-wide floods aren't happening anymore.

Or is it because they're not dying at a rate sufficient to create new deposits in time for our use?

The city where I live is planning to utilize the landfill to extract methane gas from the trash heaps for an alternate source of energy. If hydrocarbon fuels can be produced in a relative short time, why arent we seeing coal and oil produced naturally today in large volumes?

Is coal and oil liable to the same laws of creation as methane? Or are the three byproducts of otherwise different parts or processes of decay?

Can someone provide me a photo of a pile of organic material sitting on the ocean floor waiting to be turned into future oil?

Do you deny there are dead animals on the seafloor?

How about a photo of organic material sitting somewhere on dry land waiting to be turned into coal or oil?

Do you deny that when land animals die they "fall" to the ground?

My guess is you wont find that either unless of course YOU PAY FOR THOUSANDS OF DUMP TRUCKS TO PILE UP A MASS OF ORGANIC GARBAGE AND DEBRIS. But why bother? One big global flood will do it for you. And youll have it distributed EVERYWHERE!

It's just a shame no evidence for a global flood itself gets strewn in amongst all that.

The debate seems to be headed in the direction of whether the FM can account for the large amount of fossil fuel deposits. How did the Earth get all of its carbon in the first place? When Fred Hoyle thought upon the same, he ceased being an atheist:

Hoyle ain't the first one to place God in the gaps of his knowledge, I doubt he'll be the last.

All Hoyle offers is an argument from incredulity, an argument from ignorance, or an "argument from incredible ignorance".

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Everything can be explained by natural laws? Listed below are five phenomena I articulated in post #443. You attempted to explain only #1 and failed.

1. Humans tend to believe in a supreme being.
2. Love & hate
3. My wifes name "Lena" was predicted 32 years prior to meeting her.
4. Friedrich Kekul discovered the benzene molecules ring shape in a dream.
5. "speaking in tongues"

1. And human's raised in a Muslim society believe overwhelmingly in Allah, those raised in a Buddist society in Budda, those in a Jewish society in Yahweh, in a Christian society, Jehovah and and those raised in the societies of the Scandinavion countries believe in no gods whatsoever. What you have pointed out is a trait of societies, not a natural law.

2. Love is nature's way of increasing the odds that a species can reproduce. Hate is an emotion that increases the odds that YOUR progeny will survive, instead of your rival's.

3. So you say. I would normally just respond with an awkward silence, mostly to avoid being rude and telling you what I really thought. I react similarly to those who speak of being abducted by aliens, seeing Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster(though this one is MARGINALLY possible)or claiming to see dead people. Let's just leave it at that.

4. It has long been known that a problem which vexes a person while waking can be worked out by the subconcious while sleeping. Thus the common term "sleep on it"(a term which can have other meanings as well). This is an attribute of our brains structure and function, which is a product of evolution.

5. See number three. Anyone can babble away and call it a language that only you can understand. It is far from the strangest practice of religious ferver.

The city where I live is planning to utilize the landfill to extract methane gas from the trash heaps for an alternate source of energy. If hydrocarbon fuels can be produced in a relative short time, why arent we seeing coal and oil produced naturally today in large volumes?

The methane production is an example of the driving off of the hydrogen and nitrogen and oxygen that is a first step toward coal production. Come back in a few hundred thousand years if you want coal.

"Methane is a colorless, odorless gas with a wide distribution in nature. It is the principal component of natural gas, a mixture containing about 75% CH4, 15% ethane (C2H6), and 5% other hydrocarbons, such as propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10). The "firedamp" of coal mines is chiefly methane. Anaerobic bacterial decomposition of plant and animal matter, such as occurs under water, produces marsh gas, which is also methane. "

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/ME ... thane.html

Speaking of underwater...



This is a map showing various points where methane hydrates can be found. There is more MHs, in terms of BTU, than all the coal and oil ever found in the world. It is CONJECTURED(meaning there is some evidence for it, but it is not yet conclusive, just being honest here)that when large amounts of plant and animal material(including plankton) is buried under water and cooked for a few hundred thousand years you end up with crude oil and gas. Geologists have had excellent results in finding oil deposits using this information, especially off shore on the continental shelves.

Can someone provide me a photo of a pile of organic material sitting on the ocean floor waiting to be turned into future oil?

Do you really need a picture of mud on the ocean floor before you will accept it's existence?

How about a photo of organic material sitting somewhere on dry land waiting to be turned into coal or oil?

It's called a peat bog.

Grumpy

[otseng]

Finally, I still see that no one has addressed the AMOUNT of coal, oil, and gas that is present in the crust. The amount of these and other organic matter in the crust is simply of way too large a volume to have been created by life existing all at a single time. I raised this a number of posts back and no one has addressed this issue.

I'll address the issue of coal.

First, let's determine the total amount of coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

At the end of 2006 the recoverable coal reserves amounted around 800 or 900 gigatons.

The energy density of coal, i.e. its heating value, is roughly 24 megajoules per kilogram.

I'm not sure how much total coal we've used to date, but let's round the number up to 10^15 kg for total amount of coal.

So the total energy of coal deposits is 2.4 x 10^22 J.

Let's determine how much wood this is equivalent to.

Let's assume that a forest has 250 m3/ha of wood. (This article gives a number between 200 and 300 m3/ha of wood. I'm assuming this value is for usable wood. So, for a flood, the value would be greater since all the wood and not just usable wood would be buried, but I'll stick with 250. Also, it can be argued that trees were larger in the past than now.)

I'll use 6 MJ/kg for the energy density of wood.

And use an average mass density of wood to be 700 kg/m3.

So, wood would be able to produce 1.05 x 10^12 J/ha.

So, the equivalant area of forest required to generate the energy of total coal is 2.29 x 10^10 ha or 2.29 x 10^8 km2.

The total surface of the Earth is 5.1 x 10^8 km2.

So, 45% of the Earth covered by forest is sufficient to generate all the coal.

(Please check my math in all this)

[Grumpy]

otseng

1. Your total for the heating value of wood includes it's hydrogen content. Coal has very little hydrogen. In the process of creating charcoal this hydrogen content is driven off by heat(as well as SOME of the carbon), and it is enough to produce the needed heat to drive it off(it only needs a boost to reach a self sustaining process). Thus the thermal content of wood that you have calculated would be a good deal less when comparing apples to apples.

2. The efficiency of the burial process would not be anywhere near 100%.

3. The generation of coal is only one process that wood would be involved in.

4. You still have not considered the processes that give us gas and oil, nor considered the great volumes of gas that is generated that IS NOT sequestered underground, but is released directly into the atmosphere, where it turns into CO2 and water.

5. As in the immediately preceeding post, you have not considered the methane hydrate abundance which greatly exceeds all our coal, gas and oil deposits combined.

6. What about the vast deposits of chalk, diamatious earth, shales and limestones that are also the direct result of life. The amounts of plankton and other tiny creatures required to account for the White Cliffs of Dover and other such deposits would, if they existed at one time, transform our oceans into a thick stew of life. We are talking about deposits several hundreds of feet thick that consist of nothing but their tiny little shells in layer after layer, built up over 10s of millions of years(if not more)prior to the Cambrian(in lower levels)more than 800 million years ago.

I could go on, but as you can see your simplistic calculation doesn't even begin to explain the abundance of fossilized life these deposits entail. As micalta has pointed out, any one of these facts falsifies the FM. When are you going to deal with them? Or even answer the objections to your overly simplistic predictions, if that's where you want to start? Stop avoiding it or ignoring it or dismissing it and buckle down to the debate or admit defeat.

Grumpy

[Clownboat]

Everything can be explained by natural laws? Listed below are five phenomena I articulated in post #443. You attempted to explain only #1 and failed.

1. Humans tend to believe in a supreme being. - Like I addressed before, humans fear what they don't understand IE "death". Believing in a supreme being gives you somewhere to go after you die. (Also a control mechanism for authority)Believing you know what will happen after death will alleviate some fear. This is the reason humans tend to believe in a supreme being.
2. Love & hate - Love and hate are not supernatural qualities. They can be feelings that are hard to put to words though.
3. My wifes name "Lena" was predicted 32 years prior to meeting her. I propose, (and I base this off of my own experience with Ouiji boards) that 32 years ago the Ouiji board spelled out Bleno, not Lena. After all, 32 years is a lot of time to pass.
4. Friedrich Kekul discovered the benzene molecules ring shape in a dream. - I do not believe that dreams are supernatural either.
5. "speaking in tongues" - I personally know many people that believe what is coming out of their mouth is supernatural. I use to be one of them. Many others simply believe it is random words. I may not believe in speaking in tongues anymore, but I think I can still do it... Yup, I'm still fluent.

some people will recognize it [phenomenon #3] as a statistical probability

At 12-years of age, the Cold War was happening. I never heard of the Russian name Lena, so the derivation of it had to be random. The probability of deriving the name randomly is (1/26)^4 which is a chance of 1 in 456,976. But I could have surpassed the required number of characters (i.e. "angelena") or went under. Then to further lessen the probability, what are the odds of me marrying a person with that name? Of the Earths total population of females, what percentage has the name Lena? - Are you sure you don't mean Bleno?

I do not mean this as an insult, just an observation that I may be wrong about:
I believe you have a tendency to ascribe things to the supernatural due to your proposed list and other comments made. My mother is that way too. In her mind, if your drinking water tastes bad, it would be because satan has sent demons to infiltrate your drinking water. Many others do the opposite and look elsewhere for answers. To each their own.

[Alan Clarke]

And human's raised in a Muslim society believe overwhelmingly in Allah, those raised in a Buddist [sic] society in Budda [sic], those in a Jewish society in Yahweh, in a Christian society, Jehovah and and [sic] those...

And those "educated" in a predominate secular/govt.-funded education system (starting at an early age) are inclined to believe in an age-old Greek materialist philosophy which is cleverly re-packaged and sold as "Darwinian evolution". Internet users who can see, learn, and interpret evidences for themselves without the "guiding hand" of an evolutionist college professor are becoming increasingly empowered. A 2005 study conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that 64% of the public favors teaching creationism along side evolution in public schools while only 26% are opposed to it. What does history tell us when a minority ruling class clashes with the majority populace? My wife who was raised in the midst of the failing Soviet Union contends that her education, prior to 19 years of age, via schools and broadcast television was void in the areas of human origins, sociology, psychology, and political science.

"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Joseph Stalin

[Alan Clarke]

ARE SCIENTISTS COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE?

Remember Mary Schweitzer, the scientist who discovered the supposed 70 million-year-old T. Rex soft tissue? Refer to an excerpt from the Nov-Dec 2008 issue of "Ask" magazine below:


"SCIENCE" MAGAZINE FOR 7-10 YEAR OLDS

This scientist was once a kid like you
Mary Schweitzer became interested in dinosaurs at age five when her brother gave her a copy of The Enormous Egg by Oliver Butterworth. In it, a boy discovers his chicken sitting on an enormous egg that hatches to become " what? You think were going to tell you? Read the book!

Feathered Friends
Which living animal is most like a T. rex: a crocodile, a komodo dragon, or a chicken? If youre a dinosaur buff, you know its the chicken. It seems odd, but a T. rex and your average rooster share many similarities: hollow bones, gizzards to grind their food, the habit of sitting on their eggs to keep them warm, maybe even feathers.

The idea that birds and dinosaurs are related isnt new. Proposed in the 1800s, it fell out of favor until the 1960s when the discovery of a birdlike dinosaur skeleton made the link impossible to ignore.

The theory took another giant leap forward in the 1990s, when small, feathered dinosaurs, from the same family as the giant T. rex, were found in the

Why would Schweitzer base her work on a bird/dinosaur DNA relationship despite previously-known evidences (but unreported) that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs? Grumpy, wouldnt you hate it if I asked you a question and gave you five possible answers with no option of, None of the above? Wouldnt you also be repulsed if my list of questions were followed by a comment like, If you had any education, you would realize answer #4 is correct. ? Wouldnt it be near criminal if I performed my interrogation on an innocent child? Wouldnt that child loose their ability to think critically if each question was loaded with an insinuated right answer? I seriously doubt that any child reading the "Ask Magazine" article would conclude that T. Rex's are not necessarily related to chickens because its only a theory. The theory nature is not emphasized, whereas the right answer, "you know its the chicken", is emphasized.

[otseng]

I would say the prediction would not follow solely from the model as given, unless you add some assumptions or data on the timelines needed to create the features under discussion. In particular, I do not agree that the "dominant pattern" should be evidence of multiple different kinds of events appearing at the same geographical/geological locations all through the earth.

Now, part of my problem might be what you mean by "dominant pattern." What do you expect to see more of that we do not see in the geological record?

I guess the key is really this one sentence:

In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

What exactly do you mean by "uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas?"


If we can at least come to a common understanding on this, then we can get to my issue of how the timelines the SG postulates would effect what we should see. To do this, we ideally would look at some given geographical locations and consider how long it took for the features we see as we go down to form.

Here is an illustration to show my point.

Figure A has layers formed. Over time, erosion occurs and forms B. New layers are deposited and forms C. Over time, we should see D as commonplace.


http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic ... fault.html

I would expect that erosion would constantly be occuring through wind and water. It would not be normal that terrain would escape any erosion for any significant period of time. The time spans involved in rock stratas are on the order of millions of years in SG. So erosion should be evident in these stratas.

Faults would occur with less frequency than erosion, but one would expect a random distribution of these in the rock record.

Examples such as the below should be much more numerous than faults that extend all the way to the surface.



The same argument holds for folds and deformations.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Figure A has layers formed. Over time, erosion occurs and forms B. New layers are deposited and forms C. Over time, we should see D as commonplace.


http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic ... fault.html

A completely unrealistic strawman when it is misrepresented as being typical of ALL areas. Few areas would follow this pattern(though we DO see similar patterns to D in the Appalachian mountains, where I live). Each area will have a different pattern determined by it's history. It's history is the various forces and conditions unique to that area distributed over time. An area that WOULD NOT be expected to fit this pattern is the Williston Basin, which has never been subjected to folding or major erosion, it looks a whole lot like A or E. The Badlands of the Dakotas looks a whole lot like B, as does the Grand Canyon. Before the Colorado River existed the Plains the Grand Canyon was cut from looked a lot like A or E, having been layed down in a shallow sea by sediments from the Appalacian Mountains. But D is not going to be representative of very many areas and can not be used as a "typical" form for the SG, or at least not by an honest debater.

Alan Clarke

Why would Schweitzer base her work on a bird/dinosaur DNA relationship despite previously-known evidences (but unreported) that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs?

Because it is a fact that birds descended from dinosaurs, the evidence is too compeling to ignore. Just who is supposedly keeping secret this "previously-known(but unreported)" evidence? Kenneth Hamm?

its only a theory.

A theory is an explanation of the facts. The fact is that dinosaurs had feathers. All sorts of dinosaurs have now been found with feathers. Another fact is that birds are the ONLY animals alive today that have feathers, therefore the theory is that dinosaurs(or certain lineages of dinosaurs) eventually evolved into birds. The feathers are only one trait that birds and dinosaurs have in common, but I kept it simple so you could understand the principle without getting bogged down in the details.

Congratulations, you have now participated in an excersize in critical thinking.

A 2005 study conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that 64% of the public favors teaching creationism along side evolution in public schools while only 26% are opposed to it.

That same study also indicates that a majority favor allowing gays to serve in the military 58% to32%. 10% didn't know.

But that is beside the point. Creationism has been found in Federal Court to be religious in nature. The Constitution forbids the State from either promoting or interfering with religion, therefore Creationism or Creationism Light(ID) can not be taught in public schools or schools that recieve public funding.

The American public is poorly educated in science. In Europe they think we are slightly insane to even contemplate such an action, I have to agree. Creationism is not science, nor is ID.

Grumpy

[Alan Clarke]

That same study also indicates that a majority favor allowing gays to serve in the military 58% to32%.

Had to get a dig in about homosexuals, I see.