TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
False. Such a flood would leave evidence.
That evidence doesn't exist.
Hence it didn't occur.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
About fossils -- would you say this is true?
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
False. Such a flood would leave evidence.
That evidence doesn't exist.
Hence it didn't occur.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You flunked geology, or never were educated in it, were you?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's not even remotely what he said.
Why would you bear false witness like that?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's "controversy" about humans landing on the moon as well. But not all "controversy" is worthy of that name. It depends where that "controversy" exists and what motivates it.
And it doesn't exist in academic circles where people actually know and understand what they are talking about.
Audie
Veteran Member
" just by looking...suggests"
is the very definition of "facile".
Which way of thought is the very foundation stone of creationism.
Audie
Veteran Member
Essential to creationist critique of science
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
A world-wide flood is one of the most out-landish ideas with no evidence whatsoever.
This Wikipedia article is a good beginning if you would care to read it: Fossil - Wikipedia
"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis, lit. 'obtained by digging') is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood and DNA remnants."
Last edited:
That wood and charred elements could be who knows how old? Ridiculous to think dating of charcoal means how old the people using the charcoal are.
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
That’s a case of using fossils to date geological ages and then vice versa. Like dating stars by rocks and then rocks by stars. Fuzzy logic.
Fuzzy logic is a technique for representing and manipulating uncertain information.
You will know all this but will still want to go on misleading people, if there’s any.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay. please be specific. What is your version of the flood? What did it do? What is the evidence for it? For example, did it kill off all land life except what was in the Ark? Did other humans survive? How many? Did other animals survive? If so how many?
Didn't you say something about sedimentary rocks being evidence for the flood? If so that model was refuted by the picture that I posted.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is not ridiculous. In a cave stuff gets walked on. It gets dirty. If it you want to claim that it was afire pit other fires get built upon it. It is very reasonable to assume that the charcoal was rather fresh when it was used.
You are looking for excuses to justify your mythological beliefs. By doing so you only tell others how weak your beliefs are.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now you are using both strawman arguments and bad logic. The "fuzzy logic" is yours. You should also know some of the history of geology.
Originally, before radiometric dating, there was only relative aging. We can get a relative age of strata by the fossils that we have in them. There is no "fuzzy logic" in doing that. Radiometric dating is used mostly for igneous rocks. If we have an igneous rock layer that can give us an absolute date, and there is no "fuzzy logic" involved with that.. You may not understand how it is dated, but that is your problem. Would you like to learn? There are many ways to test and confirm that dating.
By the way, we can tell by how the beds were laid down that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. For example some strata have millions of annual layers. So relative dates within that strata can be measured very precisely.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Not at all. Charcoal has to be manufactured by cutting wood and partially burning it. So the date the wood was cut will probably be at least within one generation of the date it was used for drawing.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
The archeologist who investigate these things are looking at all of the available evidence to come to sound conclusions.
Not only are the drawings dated, but also the burned woof within a fire pit are dated.
Usually, but not always, stone tools will also be located in these caves. Our ancestors had "styles" just as we do today. The tools are found in various strata (layers of sediments) that have built up over thousands of years. Each different strata can be dated through dating the various organic materials in those layers. That gives the date of the stone tool plus or minus 20 years found within different layers.
Humans tend to come up with the same "styles" over a large area either through trade, exposure to others or just thinking the same way.
So, when I find an 11,000 uear old paleo spear point on my lake, I do not need to go through the process of dating because it has already been done on the same style in many other places.
It's kind of like finding a Ford
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
Genesis provides the only information. That probably won’t be good enough for you, even though you like hypothetical science. I didn’t say something about sedimentary rocks being evidence for the flood.
Annual layers? I don’t think so. Your guessing again.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
a Ford 1896 Quadricylce in the woods. You do not need to bother dating it because it has already been done by others who know the age of the Ford
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, Genesis does not provide any information. It only gives us refuted myths. You do seem to know that any model that you propose will he easily refuted.
And no, we know that they are annual layers. You have to believe a book that is just a fairy tale.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Nope. It is your ignorance that is showing: Varve - Wikipedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, and this is the example that I had in mind. Of course there is another one that I had in mind when I asked how many times the Flood dried up. I am still waiting for an answer to that:
Green River Formation - Wikipedia
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
“varves were considered likely to give similar information to dendrochronology”. It is already proven in dendrochronology that tree rings are not always annular rings. Many can be formed over a year. Another inaccurate dating system. How do you know there has been uniformity over the millennia and can you offer irrefutable proof there was no worldwide flood 5000 years ago.