Global Flood?

[Calypsis4]

Son: Gasp! Dad, look at all these dead animals...all these fossils in the same place!

Professor: Right, son. It is amazing to see so many in one place.

Son: But how did this happen? Did they all just migrate here at the same time and die together in the same place?

Professor: It sure looks that way.

Son: But the tour guide told us that there are tens of thousands of these fossils of all kinds. What would cause a thing like this?

Professor: Maybe they were looking for food.

Son: But they're all tangled up and enmeshed with each other. It's like they all got crushed together at the same time. Didn't the tour guide say that this place has a lot of volcanic ash?

Professor: Watch it son, you're starting to talk like a creationist.

Son: But, Dad...

Professor: No, but's son. We don't think like that now do we?

Son: 10-4, Dad. Where did you say we were going next?

Professor: the Big Horn, Wyoming. It's nothing like this place though.

Son: And then?

Professor: From there we will fly to the Keroo area of South Africa.

Professor: Before this is all over I'll have you totally convinced that the animal and plant life on this planet were never destroyed by some 'world-wide' flood.

 

[Calypsis4]

Fish evolve, right?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Calypsis posting a bunch of pictures with random factually incorrect anecdotes without actually responding to something? Yeah, that's never happened before...

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is still on the Hawaii post.

 

[Calypsis4]

Professor: Son, the flood thing is impossible. There are millions of varves laid down in many places and varves are annual things. That proves the world is millions of year old and the Genesis flood is not a factor.

Son: But what do I do with this neat thing I found at the last place we visited?"

Professor: (gasp!) uh...I...better take a look at this.

Son: Those are varves aren't they?

Professor: Uh, well, maybe.

Son: But Dad, you told me how to identify varves. Those are varves. How'd that leaf survive nearly seven years of varves without crumbling into dust before all those layers covered it?

Professor: That can only mean ONE thing, son?

Son: What's that Dad?

Professor: Those are not varves! (He tosses the specimen out the window and drives on).

 

[Calypsis4]

Calypsis posting a bunch of pictures with random factually incorrect anecdotes without actually responding to something? Yeah, that's never happened before...

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is still on the Hawaii post.

Then stay there.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Then stay there.

You still haven't actually responded to that post.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Scientist talking to a creationist while climbing near the summit of the Andes Mountains:

Professor: So you really believe in the Genesis flood stuff?

Creationist: Sure do.

Professor: And where do you find evidence for such a claim?

Creationist: All over the earth.

Professor: That's ridiculous. Do you really think that water covered these mountains? Do you realize how high they are?

Creationist: Say what's that laying there? It's looks like....

Professor: Uh, it's a...group of...clams!

Creationist:

Well, first, those are not fossil clams- merely weathered fragments of layered sedimentary rock.

Now we do find real clam fossils on the summit of Mt. Everest- but they got there because the Himalayas were once an ancient sea bed that was thrust up by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates.

The land moved up, not the oceans.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Boy: Wow, grandpa, this canyon is a pretty big one. Why'd you bring me here?

Grandpa: Cuz I want you to see how canyons are made.

Boy: This must be the 'Grand Canyon' they tell us about at school. It musta took jillions of yrs to get like this, right grandpa?

Grandpa: Nope. It's the canyon caused by Mount St. Helens and it was carved out in one day, the day of the eruption in 1980.

Boy: You mean that stream of water didn't carve it out over jillions of yrs?

Grandpa: Nope. It happened in a very short time.

Boy: What's that picture you got there in your hand, grandpa?

Grandpa: A picture of the Grand Canyon.

Boy: Wow, it's a lot bigger. I guess it took a few more days to make that canyon, huh, gramps?

Grandpa: You're catching on fast, boy.

But grandpa- does it matter that the "canyons" in the Mt. St Helens area were carved out of unconsolidated volcanic ash and similar, easily eroded material; while the Grand Canyon is solid rock?

And grandpa- if the Biblical flood caused the Grand Canyon, why isn't the entire world's landscape dominated by canyons of the same magnitude?

 

[Calypsis4]

Bottom (ventral) side of a remarkably well-preserved head of the Late Cretaceous shark, Cretoxyrhina mantelli, from western Kansas, showing numerous teeth in place on its jaws. Dr. Shimada has extensively studied the skeletal and dental anatomy of this shark. The specimen is exhibited at the Sternberg Museum of Natural History, Hays, Kansas.​

Son: But Dad, how is this evidence against the creationist belief in a universal deluge that destroyed the whole world?​

Scientist: I....yuh...well, I think, uh. Obviously these things took enormous time to develop, and, uh...​

​

 

[Calypsis4]

But grandpa- does it matter that the "canyons" in the Mt. St Helens area were carved out of unconsolidated volcanic ash and similar, easily eroded material; while the Grand Canyon is solid rock?

And grandpa- if the Biblical flood caused the Grand Canyon, why isn't the entire world's landscape dominated by canyons of the same magnitude?

Grandpa: Here's why...

YouTube - A Geologist Looks at Noah's Flood-John D. Morris Ph. D. part 4

 

[Calypsis4]

Two geologists; one an evolutionist and one a creationist explore the heights of Mt. Everest.

Evolutionist: You've got to be kidding, Fred. You can't be serious that Mt. Everest and the Himilayan range was once under the waters of Noah's flood.

Creationist: What makes you think this mountain range was this high before the flood?

Evolutionist: Because we know this strata is millions of yrs old. No flood waters could ever get this high and...say, what's that?

Creationist: It looks like...

Evolutionist: It can't be!



Creationist: Ahem!

Evolutionist: This can't be. I am not seeing this.

Creationist: Put it in the bag, Ralph, along with the rest of the stuff.

Evolutionist: Whatever. I assure you there is a logical explanation for this...maybe plate tectonics over millions of yrs.

Creationist: I say it was plate tectonics in less than a year...the year of Noah's flood.

Creationist: Ralph, do you know what you just tripped over?

Evolutionist: (mouth open, no answer)

Creationist: Say, I've got a book that says something about this. Let me read it to you.

Quote: "There are many big ammonite fossils in the Muktinath area of the Kali Gandaki valley, Nepal at around the elevation of 12,000 ft above sea level. This is one of the proofs that the Himalayas were indeed once under water. For many people who have faith in the Hindu religion, ammonite is one of the many forms of their Lord Vishnu. They keep the fossil in their worship room and worship it."

Evolutionist: I stick with the standard theory about this.

Creationist: Has anyone ever observed such a great land mass cover over another area this magnitude?

Evolutionist: Well, no. But no one ever saw your so-called Genesis flood either.

Creationist: Noah did. And he passed it down to following generations.

Global flood traditions

Dr. Duane Gish, in Dinosaurs by Design, says there are more than 270 stories from different cultures around the world about a devastating flood. This chart shows the similarities that several myths have with the Genesis account of Noah’s Flood. Although there are varying degrees of accuracy, these legends and stories all contain similarities to aspects of the same historical event—Noah’s Flood.

 

[Calypsis4]

Well, first, those are not fossil clams- merely weathered fragments of layered sedimentary rock.

Now we do find real clam fossils on the summit of Mt. Everest- but they got there because the Himalayas were once an ancient sea bed that was thrust up by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates.

The land moved up, not the oceans.

Wrong:



Figure 1: Marine Fossils on Top of the Andes Mountains. More than 500 giant fossilised oysters were found 3000 metres (about 2 miles) above sea level in Peru in 2001 by Arturo Vildozola, palaeontologist with the Andean Society of Paleontology.
(photo from AP/Wide World Photos)

AOL Search

 

[Papias]

Caly wrote

Son: But what do I do with this neat thing I found at the last place we visited?"

Professor: (gasp!) uh...I...better take a look at this.

Son: Those are varves aren't they?

Professor: Uh, well, maybe.

Son: But Dad, you told me how to identify varves. Those are varves. How'd that leaf survive nearly seven years of varves without crumbling into dust before all those layers covered it?

Time and again we see creationists make wild and silly statements, only to be shown to be wrong. That's almost OK, because anyone can be wrong. However, they go on to take these to another group of people, present them as fact again, and hope that no one knows about how this falsehood was exposed before. That shows a lack of integrity, just like the constant quotemining and outright hoaxes seen time and again.

In the case of caly, here, he's at the same creationist game - showing the same debunked hoaxes as if he hadn't been caught before.

Back in March of this year, Caly's sawed leaf fossil was exposed:

Papias wrote in March 2010:

Take a look at the leaf Calypsis posted. I think it is most consistent with a flat leaf fossil which has been cut by a saw, and the lines that calypsis called "varves" are saw marks. That would explain why they are straight (compare with the other varve image), and of the same thickness (real varves vary in thickness - also compare with the other varve image). Lastly, the saw marks can be seen to have abraded the top surface of leaf as well, that's why the top half is a different color than the bottom half.

Calypsis -

How did I attack you as a person? What name did I call you? Are not you the one who first called me a name (a heretic)?

On that same thread, he not only called me a heretic, but also himself quoted a person who denies the trinity (see post 268 on the thread below for links to the heretic stuff). The mangled leaf fossil is covered on post 270.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528-27/#post54272977

And now I see in this thread that Caly is up to it again, misrepresenting picture after picture, and bringing in new ones as the others are shown to be false, doing the Gish Gallop (which is neither a rational debating method nor even ethical behavior). He even mentions Gish favorably, as if Gish's actions haven't also driven untold numbers of people from Christianity (For one example of his repeated lying, see the "bullfrog" incident, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html).

With Chrisitans going around pushing hoaxes, denying science, quoteminging, repeating debunked claims when they've been caught using them in the past, then how can we be surprised when people in society begin to think that Christians lack integrity and are immoral? It is these kinds of actions by the creationists that do much more damage to Christiansity than any atheist could ever dream of. It's sad to see.

Papias

 

[Calypsis4]

Creationist: Here are some photos of just some of the human footprints crossing with the dinosaur prints in Glen Rose, Texas.



Evolutionist: Those were exposed as not real human footprints.

Creationist: And those that looked like dino prints were real?

Evolutionist: Of course.

What about the McFall footprints.



Evolutionist: Same thing.

Creationist: Really?

Evolutionist: Yup.

Creationist: What about the Ryals track?



Evolutinist: Fake. Someone did that to pull a deception.

Creationist: Who?

Evolutionist: Who knows?

Creationist: What about the Morris track?



Evolutionist: Same thing. Fake.

Creationist: And the Burdick track that was tested repeatedly for authenticity?




Evolutionist: Creationist fluff.

And the New Mexico tracks; the ones the Smithsonian called 'problematica' because they were so clearly human but in the wrong strata?



Evolutionist: Creationist fluff.

Creationist: What the Smithsonian said is 'creationist fluff'? Right.
What about the Turnage-Patton trail discovered several yrs ago?



Evolutionist: Same thing. Man, where do you come up with all this stuff?

Creationist: I've only just begun.

Evolutionist: All faked or illegitimate.

Creationist: Just because you & your comrades say so, right? I get you.

 

[Mallon]

With Chrisitans going around pushing hoaxes, denying science, quoteminging, repeating debunked claims when they've been caught using them in the past, then how can we be surprised when people in society begin to think that Christians lack integrity and are immoral? It is these kinds of actions by the creationists that do much more damage to Christiansity than any atheist could ever dream of. It's sad to see.

You're absolutely right, Papias. I remember it was garbage, dishonest arguments like the ones C4 is incessantly posting that were a big part of why I gave up on YECism. Thankfully, I held to my faith and did not give up on Christianity entirely.

(For what it's worth, even Answers in Genesis rejects many of the arguments C4 is posting, so you KNOW they're broken.)

 

[1whirlwind]

Evolutionist: Same thing. Man, where do you come up with all this stuff?

Creationist: I've only just begun.

Evolutionist: All faked or illegitimate.

Creationist: Just because you & your comrades say so, right? I get you.

It is so odd to me that all of the above is rejected as fake by evolutionists and yet the unproven "theory" of man from ape (or ape's ancestor as some prefer to claim) with not one fossilized remain...is so readily accepted. To do that, as a Christian, they must walk a tight line...picking and choosing, slicing and dicing the Creator's work to fit somehow with His Word.

.

 

[Calypsis4]

Caly wrote

Time and again we see creationists make wild and silly statements, only to be shown to be wrong. That's almost OK, because anyone can be wrong. However, they go on to take these to another group of people, present them as fact again, and hope that no one knows about how this falsehood was exposed before. That shows a lack of integrity, just like the constant quotemining and outright hoaxes seen time and again.

In the case of caly, here, he's at the same creationist game - showing the same debunked hoaxes as if he hadn't been caught before.

Back in March of this year, Caly's sawed leaf fossil was exposed:

Papias wrote in March 2010:

And he wrote then:

"Take a look at the leaf Calypsis posted. I think it is most consistent with a flat leaf fossil which has been cut by a saw, and the lines that calypsis called "varves" are saw marks. That would explain why they are straight (compare with the other varve image), and of the same thickness (real varves vary in thickness - also compare with the other varve image). Lastly, the saw marks can be seen to have abraded the top surface of leaf as well, that's why the top half is a different color than the bottom half."

That is mere opinion and not any documentations or definitive analysis giving proof that the fossil leaf is a fake or a fraud.

I reject that opinion and so should any honest reader.

 

[Calypsis4]

It is so odd to me that all of the above is rejected as fake by evolutionists and yet the unproven "theory" of man from ape (or ape's ancestor as some prefer to claim) with not one fossilized remain...is so readily accepted. To do that, as a Christian, they must walk a tight line...picking and choosing, slicing and dicing the Creator's work to fit somehow with His Word.

.

Yes. Thank you.

But that is because theistic evolutionists are dishonest in their hearts about scripture to begin with and therefore they won't accept ANY evidence that goes against their prejudices.

But the day will come when evolution theory will vanish from the earth forever. Lord Jesus come quickly!

 

[Mallon]

It is so odd to me that all of the above is rejected as fake by evolutionists

Actually, they're not just rejected by evolutionists. They're rejected by Answers in Genesis and other YEC organizations, too. Many of these supposed tracks have been demonstrated to be fakes, while others have been shown to be partially eroded dinosaur tracks. More here:
The Paluxy River Mystery
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
C4 is promoting proven falsehoods in the name of Christianity. It's embarrassing. And not very Christian.

 

[1whirlwind]

Actually, they're not just rejected by evolutionists. They're rejected by Answers in Genesis and other YEC organizations, too. Many of these supposed tracks have been demonstrated to be fakes, while others have been shown to be partially eroded dinosaur tracks. More here:
The Paluxy River Mystery
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
C4 is promoting proven falsehoods in the name of Christianity. It's embarrassing. And not very Christian.

C4 is presenting truth...I never find that to be embarassing and certainly not un-Christian.


.