What Would Falsify the Flood?

[Black Akuma]

We are in an ice age? That's news to me, since it ended about 12,000 years ago

It didn't. You just sort of stop reading when you see what you want to see, don't you?

Ice Ages are composed of glacial periods - basically, cold spots. The last glacial period was 12,000 years ago, but a glacial period is NOT an ice age.

Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even the link you posted says this. In the first sentence.

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.[1]

Current ice age. Current. As in 'happening right now'.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Mammoths are even younger, and have been found with human bones completely fossilized.

Mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://personalpages.to.infn.it/~zaninett/projects/storia/einstein1936.pdf

"All the bones, both of the human and the mammoth, were in a high state of complete fossilization and heavily coated with rock (sandstone and conglomerate)"

So not only were they fossilized, but coated in solid rock, another process you claim takes millions of years to form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just show me one scientific paper that shows the processes of fossils forming. They are not forming because there have been no catastrophic events to rapidly cover thousands of animals to keep them from decaying and so that the majority that do decay some will still be left.

We are in an ice age? That's news to me, since it ended about 12,000 years ago, which should mean ice melting, which we see, more water rising, which we see, and therefore more sediment, yet not a fossil forming on the bottom of rivers, or lakes.

Last glacial period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We don't have no depositional deposits today because we don't have a global flood that deposited all the layers to begin with. We know none are forming because we have dredged rivers and lakes, yet found no bones in the process of fossil formation, because slow sediment drift is not rapid enough to prevent decay.

Lack of sediments is not the problem, it is quantity of sediments deposited quickly. Archeologists are constantly digging up ruins from a mere few thousand years ago, buried beneath the earth, so we know that in just a few thousand years entire cities can be buried if not kept up. It is lack of sediments quickly burying creatures under huge amounts of sediments that allow fossilization to proceed.

Wrong, there are coral reefs growing right as we speak. What do you think happens to those corals, or wait, you don't understand coral at all. Let me see if I can think of another example.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It didn't. You just sort of stop reading when you see what you want to see, don't you?

Ice Ages are composed of glacial periods - basically, cold spots. The last glacial period was 12,000 years ago, but a glacial period is NOT an ice age.



Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glaciers that are steadily receding, showing the ice age is over, and ended 12,000 years ago when the glaciers began to recede. Double-talk all you like, the ice age ended long ago, it simply takes time for vast sheets of ice to melt.

And it was termed a "little ice age" because it was not very extensive.

Decreasing frequency of forest fires in the southern boreal zone of Québec and its relation to global warming since the end of the 'Little Ice Age'

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.glaciologia.it/wp-content/uploads/Abstracts/Abstract_23_2/04-Maisch%20139-151.pdf

So, believe scientists or you? Hmm, that is such a hard choice, since you all always claim scientists know what they are talking about. Or is that only when it comes to evolution and theories that match your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It didn't. You just sort of stop reading when you see what you want to see, don't you?

Ice Ages are composed of glacial periods - basically, cold spots. The last glacial period was 12,000 years ago, but a glacial period is NOT an ice age.



Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even the link you posted says this. In the first sentence.



Current ice age. Current. As in 'happening right now'.

Yes, to debunk Justa most of the time all that you have to do is to read the rest of the link that he supplies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Glaciers that are steadily receding, showing the ice age is over, and ended 12,000 years ago when the glaciers began to recede. Double-talk all you like, the ice age ended long ago, it simply takes time for vast sheets of ice to melt.

And it was termed a "little ice age" because it was not very extensive.

Decreasing frequency of forest fires in the southern boreal zone of Québec and its relation to global warming since the end of the 'Little Ice Age'

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.glaciologia.it/wp-content/uploads/Abstracts/Abstract_23_2/04-Maisch%20139-151.pdf

So, believe scientists or you? Hmm, that is such a hard choice, since you all always claim scientists know what they are talking about. Or is that only when it comes to evolution and theories that match your beliefs?

If the ice age is over why don't you camp out at the South Pole? Or in the middle of Greenland.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mammoths are even younger, and have been found with human bones completely fossilized.

Mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://personalpages.to.infn.it/~zaninett/projects/storia/einstein1936.pdf

"All the bones, both of the human and the mammoth, were in a high state of complete fossilization and heavily coated with rock (sandstone and conglomerate)"

So not only were they fossilized, but coated in solid rock, another process you claim takes millions of years to form.

Your link that is supposed to support your quote does not work.

 

[Black Akuma]

Glaciers that are steadily receding, showing the ice age is over

You're still talking about a glacial period, not an ICE AGE. Again, from the part of my post that you cut out:

Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist

By the official definition of the term 'ice age' we are STILL in an ice age. What part of this aren't you getting? Maybe you don't like that definition, sure, but that IS the definition. There's nothing really to argue, here - we're in an Ice Age.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong, there are coral reefs growing right as we speak. What do you think happens to those corals, or wait, you don't understand coral at all. Let me see if I can think of another example.

You mean like your claim of how slow they grew, until I showed you scientific papers showing they grow up to 80 feet in 100 years? And you never answered my question either, how thick are your coral beds you claim prove those long elapsed times? Ahh, you forgot all about that false claim of your being shown wrong didn't you, is your memory that short? But since you brang it back up, answer the question I asked long ago.


How thick are these coral beds you claim show the elapse of millions of years? You know I am going to research your answer, so you might as well save yourself the humiliation and admit you have no clue.

Because unlike you, I look stuff up before I open my mouth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like your claim of how slow they grew, until I showed you scientific papers showing they grow up to 80 feet in 100 years? And you never answered my question either, how thick are your coral beds you claim prove those long elapsed times? Ahh, you forgot all about that false claim of your being shown wrong didn't you, is your memory that short? But since you brang it back up, answer the question I asked long ago.


How thick are these coral beds you claim show the elapse of millions of years? You know I am going to research your answer, so you might as well save yourself the humiliation and admit you have no clue.

Because unlike you, I look stuff up before I open my mouth.

Do you mean your complete failure that you still don't understand?

There is no point in giving you any links. I even explained the incredibly foolish mistake that you made. You never gave a link that said how fast coral reefs grow. When you give one of those then I will give you all of the material that you need.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh what the heck. Here is an actual article on coral reef growth (the bold letters are a hint at your previous error Justa):

Continuous record of reef growth over the past 14 k.y. on the mid-Pacific island of Tahiti

It shows that growth rates are in this case from 1 to 2 cm a year.

 

[mzungu]

I bet Justa doesn't know the difference between climate and weather let alone ice age to glacial.

 

[biggles53]

Creationists think that ignorance of a subject is all they need to be an expert in that subject, so much for home schooling.
They cut and paste without any idea of what they are doing, this forum is a mad house for the ignorant.

Is ignorance of evolution mandatory for a creationist? we already know gullibility is.
I have never read anything like the idiot tripe I read here.

Welcome...!

I like the cut of your jib......you'll do well here......

 

[mzungu]

Creationists think that ignorance of a subject is all they need to be an expert in that subject, so much for home schooling.
They cut and paste without any idea of what they are doing, this forum is a mad house for the ignorant.

Is ignorance of evolution mandatory for a creationist? we already know gullibility is.
I have never read anything like the idiot tripe I read here.

If you can survive these threads for over 1 year and keep your sanity then you can survive anything. Trying to convince creationists about science is like trying to convince a moth that the light is a flame.

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome...!

I like the cut of your jib......you'll do well here......

If you can survive these threads for over 1 year and keep your sanity then you can survive anything. Trying to convince creationists about science is like trying to convince a moth that the light is a flame.

Looks like consol has a couple of you guys fooled.

 

[46AND2]

Mammoths are even younger, and have been found with human bones completely fossilized.

Mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://personalpages.to.infn.it/~zaninett/projects/storia/einstein1936.pdf

"All the bones, both of the human and the mammoth, were in a high state of complete fossilization and heavily coated with rock (sandstone and conglomerate)"

So not only were they fossilized, but coated in solid rock, another process you claim takes millions of years to form.

Got a source more recent than 1936? You know, since we have learned more about the process of fossilization at the cellular level than they knew then?

Besides, so what if there is a case of rapid fossilization under unique circumstances? You still have to deal with the fact that the overwhelming vast majority of human, mammoth and mastodon and any other fossil buried in young strata are not completely fossilized, and the overwhelming vast majority of dinosaurs, trilobites, and other old strata fossils are. Why is this so if they were all buried during the same event?

 

[Split Rock]

Creationists think that ignorance of a subject is all they need to be an expert in that subject, so much for home schooling.
They cut and paste without any idea of what they are doing, this forum is a mad house for the ignorant.

Is ignorance of evolution mandatory for a creationist? we already know gullibility is.
I have never read anything like the idiot tripe I read here.

Consol ... is that you again?

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like consol has a couple of you guys fooled.

Consol ... is that you again?

Great minds think alike, eh?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And yet you can not point to any fossil finds not found in sediments except for the very "RARE" occurrence, showing it is you that ignores the evidence.

You're doing it again, Justa. Posting several times and yet failing to address the point I made. This is getting very familiar. Next comes the part where I point out your lack of integrity, then you respond with yet another evasive post that tries to force the discussion away from the point you know proves you wrong. You like to boast about how you always back up your claims with scientific citations (though apparently you think Ask.com qualifies?), and yet you have failed over and over to provide any support whatsoever for the existence of the pattern your model predicts. You claim that your model would produce a specific pattern and that pattern doesn't exist. That means you model is wrong. How about you quit with the cowardly and hypocritical evasion and show me that this nonexistent pattern actually exists. Don't worry, I'm happy to keep pointing out your lack of integrity until you do respond directly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you mean your complete failure that you still don't understand?

There is no point in giving you any links. I even explained the incredibly foolish mistake that you made. You never gave a link that said how fast coral reefs grow. When you give one of those then I will give you all of the material that you need.

In other words you have nothing.

But that's ok, I already looked it up for you.

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"but at least two continental fossil reef complexes have been discovered to be about 3,000 ft (1,000 m) thick."

So 80 feet per 100 years / 3000 * 100 = 3750 years to grow a 3000 ft coral bed.

Although coral beds thru drilling have been discovered to be 4750 ft thick recently. So we will give you the benefit of the doubt and say 6000 ft.

That only comes to 7,500 years, far short or your millions of years.


You know that is not true, you know I posted a link, but here let me repost so you can't claim that for the benefit of others.

Roth, A. A. --- Coral Reef Growth

"This species has been reported to grow as fast as 260 mm/year"

That is 10 inches per year, 1000 inches per 100 years / 12 = 83 ft which I rounded down to 80 feet.

The sad part is not that you make claims off the top of your head without bothering to do research, but that you find it necessary to attempt to make claims about other people not showing facts in an attempt to cover up your ignorance.

Ignorance can be fixed by learning and studying. Morals to blatantly deceive can never be fixed. Is your evidence so shallow you must deceive in an attempt to prove your case? Nor can those that practice such things be trusted in anything they say. So by doing so you make it that even if you do state a fact, no one is going to trust you.