Another Flood Question

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, thanks for your condescension

It's true that I don't have a response that agrees with your view; if you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your view coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.

So you can’t think on your own, but need to be told what to believe by those that add 96% ad-hoc theory because they can’t get Relativity to work correctly outside the solar system, even if it has been tested to a 99% accuracy without those ad-hoc theories in the solar system?

 

[Jimmy D]

Catastrophic event. Show me a single bone beginning fossilization not involved in a catastrophic event? Just one?

That all but a few hundred are found in sedimentary strata, well, come to the correct conclusion on your own.

Have you heard of Pompeii?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you can’t think on your own, but need to be told what to believe by those that add 96% ad-hoc theory because they can’t get Relativity to work correctly outside the solar system, even if it has been tested to a 99% accuracy without those ad-hoc theories in the solar system?

If you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your Twin Paradox and/or Special Relativity views coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.

Or is it that you don't have any reference or citation - that you are right, and all the experts are wrong? If so, who would you expect me to take more seriously about Special Relativity, some bloke on the Christian Forums or the physicists who use it for a living?

Incidentally, I found an interesting TP variation that does away with accelerations:

One way to eliminate the hassle with the traveller's reference frames is to set up a version of the twin paradox in which no-one does any accelerating during the course of the experiment.

We set up Ann, who simply floats in space with a clock. Passing her at some high fraction of the speed of light is Betty, who synchronizes her clock with Ann's as they pass. After a while, Betty meets Carol, who is heading in the opposite direction, also at a high fraction of the speed of light relative to Ann. Carol synchronizes her clock with Betty's as they pass. Finally, Carol encounters Ann, still floating patiently with her clock, and the pair compare clock readings as they pass each other. They find that Carol's clock reads an earlier time than Ann's.

Now that experiment can be viewed from the inertial frame of any of the participants with equal ease. Each participant sees the clocks of the other two running slowly, because they are in relative motion. (Betty, for instance, sees Ann moving quickly, and Carol moving even quicker.) And yet all agree that Carol's clock will show an earlier time than Ann's. The reason this occurs is because there's a switch in simultaneity as the clock readings are handed over from one reference frame to the next.

Grant Hutchison

And here's an explanation dealing solely with what each twin observes (diagrams seem to be missing unfortunately).​

 

[Jimmy D]

Who rejects science? Those that accept a flood, or those that reject it, when 73% of the earths surface is sedimentary? Local floods? Then why do we not see one single flood in the last 4,000 years that has buried animals starting the process of fossilization? There simply is not enough sediment deposited in a small flood to bury animals quickly enough and deeply enough to prevent decay and begin fossilization.

No, only those rejecting science reject a global flood. Every fossil found is found in sedimentary rock, yet we see no fossils forming today from any of the claimed processes that lead to sedimentation, including small local floods. Every single one decays to the point of non-existance over time. Millions of buffalo were killed on the American plains and left to rot. Yet not a single bone began to fossilize, almost all are completely decayed away. In 65 million years there will be no record left of today’s animals through fossils, because no catastrophic event has occurred capable of causing fossilization. Those fossils are not fossils spread out over millions of years, but the results of catastrophic events that caused their deaths and burial in tons of sediment.

Science could easily prove this false by showing me one bone, even by your account of time, that has started to fossilize in the last 4,000 years? Not even one? Of course not, because no catastrophic event has occurred to bury them fast enough or deep enough to prevent their total decay.

Preservation

Of all land environments, lakes provide the best conditions for accumulating fossils quietly (without damage) and protecting them in an oxygen-low pile of sediment.

....................................

Some igneous rocks act like sediments, however. Volcanic ash is produced from molten material as it blows apart, but ash rains down and behaves like a sediment. It too can bury organisms, dead or alive, and fossilize them.

.....................................

So the shallow sea is better for accumulating sediments (and fossils). The shallow sea is a very productive habitat in terms of nutrients brought down by rivers, and in terms of photosynthesis by surface and seafloor algae, so this habitat typically teems with life. The life often contains many animals with shells and skeletons that would make them good fossils, and as a result we have better data and more complete understanding of the Earth's fossil record of shallow marine organisms than of any other environment.

.....................................

The Formation of Fossils

Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream.

.................................................


These are just the first couple I found, I could go on but frankly I can't be bothered only one example would be necessary.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The gift that keeps on giving....


Dear readers - please let this burn into your memories.

This latest YEC expert on all science (despite clearly NOT being an expert on any science) has declared that diversity comes from the mating of a breeding pair in possession of nearly identical sets of alleles.

You heard it here first!

Dear readers, let it be known that the only time a new form has been observed despite some claims to the contrary, is when the Asian mates with the African, the Husky mates with the Mastiff, the black bear mates with the Grizzly, and on and on and on.

That mutation has never once been seen to change an Asian into anything, nor an African, nor a Husky, nor a Mastiff, nor a black bear, nor a red tailed deer, nor a Cardinal, nor even a finch. Only when they mate with another subspecies has actual change been observed, despite mutations happening at every birth across thousands of generations. But of course we just can’t see it because it takes millions of years, wink, wink. Yet see it in 9 months when we don’t close our eyes to reality.

Yes, you did hear it here first, and yet the Asian and African despite sharing almost identical genes, creates the Afro-Asian. And yet the Husky and Mastiff despite sharing almost identical genes creates the Chinook. As a matter of fact, wolves, despite sharing almost identicle genes, created almost 100 breeds of dogs. But who want to talk about reality when we can’t all pretend variation happens over millions of years we’re it can’t be tested and people can make any cliaim. No, best to ignore how we actually observe it to happen.

WHERE DID THE DISTINCT GENES COME FROM???

You keep ignoring this question, or giving some silly, 3rd grade type of response (hybriization!).

No hybridization is their silly response. But that’s because they ignore the definition of subspecies.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

98% of the genome is NOT non-functional - in fact, creationists claim that it is almost all functional! I think it is hilarious when one YEC expert on all science directly contradicts other YEC experts on all science.

I’m just going by the science you claim to accept, what, rejecting science now?

Kimura predicted, based on neutral mutation rates (and other things) way back in the 1960s that the genome of a large, 'slow breeding' organism (like mammals) would be about the size that ours (and other mammals, around 30,000 genes and genomes of about 3 billion bps) are and have about as many genes as we do - in fact, his prediction based on mutation rates was more accurate than other prediction of the time that were based on extrapolations of concepts of 'complexity' and the like (on the order of 100,000+ for humans).

Hmm, so knowing the answer, he predicted the answer?

Slow breeding, that’s the key point under discussion you are ignoring, isn’t it?

The ark inhabitants were descendants of Adam and Eve, right?

That means that the genetic diversity that they possessed was premised solely on the nearly identical genomes of Adam and Eve - so the usual un-answered question remains -

WHERE DID THE GENETIC DIVERSITY COME FROM???

And yet an Asian and African create an Afro Asian. A Husky and Mastiff create a Chinook, despite almost identicle genes.

You can NOT claim 'interbreeding', because ALL of Adam and Eve's descendants would have had nearly identical genomes, and since you folks like to claim that they were "perfect" genomes there would have been no mutation (which you folks like to claim is a God punishment for the 'fall' - despite the fact that God apparently also gave us mutation correcting mechanisms... Couldn't make up His mind?).

Why not? We got over 100 breeds of dogs from almost identicle wolf genes. Keep interbreeding different races and selecting for specific traits and you’ll end up with 100’s of races, despite almost identicle genes.

Are you implying that there were other non-biblical peoples around to interbreed with?

Not anymore than if you take a Husky and Mastiff, mate them to get a Chinook, then mate the Chinook with the Mastiff, then select for specific traits and in a few generations mate that back to the Husky. And why lo and behold, you will have 4 or 5 different breeds where you started with just two.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that mutations produce new alleles, despite admitting that mutations occur (sometimes)!

They don’t, they simply copy what already exists into a new format. You just don’t understand what copy means.

And there you go.

If God did this, then why did God give us mutation correction mechanisms (and the genes for it)?

To prevent birth defects as much as possible.

You cobbled together some phoney-baloney "genetics" to justify your dismissal of reality, then fall back on God-magic when you run out of fake science.

Only one of us isn’t denying the reality that Asian remain Asian and African remain African and neither evolve into the Afro-Asian by mutation.

Goody for you.

Do you understand yet that YOU are not the descendant of a single person or breeding pair?

Do you understand that in a real family tree, that it in the end it always leads back to two, if you can trace it back far enough? Otherwise if they start from 10,000 unrelated individuals, there is no shared ancestory, except perhaps thousands of generations down the line as they begin interbreeding, but then that’s not what evolutionists claim, now is it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you have a reference to or citation of an authoritative source that explains your Twin Paradox and/or Special Relativity views coherently, I'd be very interested to read it.

Everyone agrees with me. The traveling twin sees incorrectly the stationary twins clock rate. They just call it a paradox, instead of just admitting the twin was wrong.

Or is it that you don't have any reference or citation - that you are right, and all the experts are wrong? If so, who would you expect me to take more seriously about Special Relativity, some bloke on the Christian Forums or the physicists who use it for a living?

Take your pick of any one of them. Then show me where the traveling twin didn’t age less, even if he believed the stationary twins clocks were slower and they should have aged less. That’s not a paradox, that’s just plain error.

Incidentally, I found an interesting TP variation that does away with accelerations:

And here's an explanation dealing solely with what each twin observes (diagrams seem to be missing unfortunately).​

How can you do away with accelerations? One twin clearly accelerates away. If he didn’t he would go nowhere, correct? And one twin sees things incorrectly, because he sees the other ones clocks slow when they never did.

There is no paradox' just perceptional error on the part of the one in motion.

 

[tas8831]

Hmm, so they are easily identified as Precambrian rocks, just as all Precambrian strata is easily identified, because they are uniform in consistency world wide.

Um, no - they are identified as Precambrian because they are dated to the Precambrian.

“In terrestrial sediments of the Cenozoic Era”

Palaeos Cenozoic: The Cenozoic Era

“More than 95% of the Cenozoic era belongs to the Tertiary period, an unreasonable division which reflects the arbitrary manner in which the geological epochs were first named. From 1760 to 1770, Giovanni Arduino, inspector of mines in Tuscany and later professor of mineralogy at Padua, set forth the first classification of geological time, dividing the sequence of the Earth's rocks into Primitive, Secondary, and Tertiary. During the 18th century the names Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary were given to successive rock strata, the Primary being the oldest, the Tertiary the more recent. In 1829 a fourth division, the Quaternary, was added by P. G. Desnoyers. These terms were later abandoned, the Primitive or Primary becoming the Paleozoic Era, and the Secondary the Mesozoic.“

Doesn’t sound all jumbled up to me, sounds like they are distinct and in successive layers.

Yes, time-wise.

You do not seem able to grasp that different strata can be independently dated to the same time periods.

You seem to think that mass extinctions are basically single, short duration events. That is laughable.

And where are the fossils for the last 10,000 years?

Relevance?

None are even forming as we speak, even from local floods. We killed millions of Buffalo, certainly some of there bones should be fossilizing for someone to find in 65 million years?

So it is your position that nowhere on the earth right now, not a single fossil is being made.

Awesome.

Tell me genius - why would FISH suffer a mass extinction during a flood? Why would only certain plants and animals die in a mass extinction if it was a world-wide flood?

Ok I’ll tell you.
Flooding causes fish kills in Withlacoochee River

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/634570/Fish-Kills-FAQ-August-2011.pdf

But let’s ignore the increased mud in the waters, lowering oxygen. Reduced visibility for hunting... nah, let’s ignore reality so you can sustain your fantasies.

There you go genius, reality.

awesome.

So, I guess fish had to be on the ark, too.

You keep sinking your ark and not even knowing it.

I know, they were on the Ark.

Yup. All of them. That is why there are no human fossils anywhere in contemporaneous strata with any dinosaurs or other long-extinct critters. This ark must have been like the size of Rhode Island.

Yah well, others on here dismiss relativity too.

Right - i see that along with genetics, geology, etc., you now pretend to be an expert in physics.

And chapter and verse for the 4 other world wide floods?

Every fossil is found in sedimentary strata, how many chapters and versus if the actual creation do you need?

I need 4 more since the bible only mentions 1.

And you still don't understand why no fossils are found in volcanic rock (not referring to volcanic ash)?

Sure I do, but do you not understand why with but a few exceptions they are found in sedimentary rock?

Obviously I do, but you seem to think all such fossils are due to mass extinction world-wide floods for which there is 0 evidence.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

Hmm, from inbreeding, we’re [sic] you not the one arguing animals don’t do that in the other thread?

No, not at all.
It is you that are claiming that inbreeding animals can pop out entirely new races and subspecies and species.

And now want to present inbreeding as evidence? Of course we get exactly what we expect to see, significant deviations. They were genealogically relations to begin with, so you reproduced what you started with?

So this is, I think, the 4th creationist on this forum to misrepresent/misinterpret/not understand this paper.

You see, Mr.Dunning-Kruger, these mice were chosen because their genealogy is known. It is known because these mice have been bred for decades for research purposes, and meticulous files were kept on who mated with who and so on.
The other part of this is that each mouse pup possesses mutations. Because reality-based people understand that mutations happen and sometimes get passed on to offspring.
This knowledge was then applied to testing the methods used to create phylogenies.

That way, it would be possible to compare test results with what was known, and to assess the reliability of the methods.

Not that hard to grasp,providing your sole purpose is to find a way to dismiss it all.

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

Hmm, I predict that I can predict the lineage of known ancestors, and my test will confirm they are ancestors, and then I’ll claim see, I predicted it with 98% certainty, knowing the answer before I started.

Hmmm... way to misrepresent, bro!

Hmmmm.... I am a desperate but under-informed creationist - what can I do to prop up my unsupportable beliefs? I know - I will just be a jerk and misrepresent and mock evidence that proves me wrong! Yeah, thats the ticket!


In reality, this is another example of testing methods on knowns - in this case, a generated lineage.

Too much for the creationist to grasp.

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

I’m other words if we leave in a big enough fudge factor so we can say what we like by playing with the numbers.

wow, great assessment!

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

A whole 90 kB in a dna strand billions of bits long? My, so comprehensive.

So you don't understand sampling, wither - no surprise there.

Of course, 90kb of data is 90kb more than you have presented for your wacky 3rd grade genetics, isn't it?

And of course the most favorable section cut from the rest of the parts that had no relation.

What is this referring to? Another fantasy of yours?

Let’s see, I’ll start with 20 red apples and 500 green apples. I’ll throw away 499 of the green apples, compare what’s left to 20 other red apples and declare, why look, all apples share a 98% similarity in color. If you say so.

Just making stuff up again, no surprise.

I'm sorry, but if this is how you handle actual science - by making dopey commentary like a child - then it just proves how far out of your depth you are. As if we didn't already know that, what with your Adam was tetraploid claim and all...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Preservation

Of all land environments, lakes provide the best conditions for accumulating fossils quietly (without damage) and protecting them in an oxygen-low pile of sediment.

Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?

....................................

Some igneous rocks act like sediments, however. Volcanic ash is produced from molten material as it blows apart, but ash rains down and behaves like a sediment. It too can bury organisms, dead or alive, and fossilize them.

A catastrophic event, we agree.

.....................................

So the shallow sea is better for accumulating sediments (and fossils). The shallow sea is a very productive habitat in terms of nutrients brought down by rivers, and in terms of photosynthesis by surface and seafloor algae, so this habitat typically teems with life. The life often contains many animals with shells and skeletons that would make them good fossils, and as a result we have better data and more complete understanding of the Earth's fossil record of shallow marine organisms than of any other environment.

Hmm, so large bodies of water preserve shells, which are already calcium to begin with. But again, show me any preserved recent animals in the ocean?

.....................................

The Formation of Fossils

Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream.

And yet we have billions of fossils of land animals, each and every one of which died in a watery environment. Along with those land plants, much softer than bone as well.

.................................................

These are just the first couple I found, I could go on but frankly I can't be bothered only one example would be necessary.

And every one needs water but catastrophic volcanic explosions, burying animals quickly.

And yet you failed to provide one single creature in the recent past beginning to fossilize by the means described above. So it only happens that way in the past, right? There are no fish bones in any lake undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones in the ocean undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones fossilizing anywhere, nor any land animals or plants swept into any of these by recent floods. Each and every one is decaying to the point of non-existence.

I mean if you could find even one, well, you might have evidence to base your claims upon. That the only ones we do find are those buried in meters of sedimentary rock. Quickly, in both individual and mass grave sites.

You could go on, but it would just be more of the same, with no correlation to recorded history where every single bone found in these environments is degrading away into nothing, not a single one lasting to begin fossilization. Because again, nothing catastrophic has happened in recorded history. And btw, the bones found in Pompei for example, are not fossilized, they are mummified, tWo seperate processes. As Mastadon bones are frozen and mummified, not fossilized. So that a volcanic eruption might occur and capture bones already fossilized, well, but that would require going into the differences between mummification and fossilization. Not sure you can distinguish between the two.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is like saying "and yet almost every almost every loaf of bread contains wheat flour"...

And every loaf of bread does, except that made by corn flour. So we find one or two in volcanic ash, a catastrophic event.

But I’m still waiting for that one animal bone undergoing fossilization in the recent past? You all claim it’s happening, so it shouldn’t be too hard to find one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Have you heard of Pompeii?

I sure have. But apparently I understand the difference between mummification and fossilization, which apparently you are confused on that point.

CT scans of Pompeii victims reveal bodies in unprecedented detail | Daily Mail Online

Mummification VS. Fossilization

The evolutionists just refuses to accept his own logic, because a mummified body will continue to decay into nothing but dust if exposed to air, whereas a fossil will continue to exist. Such is why mummies are kept in sealed rooms, and fossils need not be. No, they are not both fossilized, and require completely different processes. Such is why as he states, no mummified ancestors have ever been found, because they will decay over time as soon as the conditions change. And according to geology, the conditions change often. Some people just really don’t understand the difference between dried out things and fossilized things, when the dried out things will continue to decompose and not become fossilized if exposed to the air. In fact, no mummified animal will ever fossilize at al, no matter how long it is left in a dry environment or frozen one. And as soon as exposed to conditions that cause fossilization, wet sediment, will imediately start to decay, not fossilize.

But evolutionary PR being what it is, one can expect nothing less from people that really understand nothing. One requires dry arid conditions, the other requires moist conditions. One actually preserves for millions of years, the other a few thousand. Sure you can call them the same thing if you like, just don’t expect me to believe you when they are not even formed by the same conditions and mummified remains can never be fossilized or last more than a few thousand years. Hence no mummified remains of dinosaurs or anything older than a few thousand years, which will decay into nothing in a few thousand more.

Because they were not buried rapidly in a sedimentary grave.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?

....................................


A catastrophic event, we agree.

.....................................

Hmm, so large bodies of water preserve shells, which are already calcium to begin with. But again, show me any preserved recent animals in the ocean?

.....................................

And yet we have billions of fossils of land animals, each and every one of which died in a watery environment. Along with those land plants, much softer than bone as well.

.................................................


And every one needs water but catastrophic volcanic explosions, burying animals quickly.

And yet you failed to provide one single creature in the recent past beginning to fossilize by the means described above. So it only happens that way in the past, right? There are no fish bones in any lake undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones in the ocean undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones fossilizing anywhere, nor any land animals or plants swept into any of these by recent floods. Each and every one is decaying to the point of non-existence.

I mean if you could find even one, well, you might have evidence to base your claims upon. That the only ones we do find are those buried in meters of sedimentary rock. Quickly, in both individual and mass grave sites.

You could go on, but it would just be more of the same, with no correlation to recorded history where every single bone found in these environments is degrading away into nothing, not a single one lasting to begin fossilization. Because again, nothing catastrophic has happened in recorded history. And btw, the bones found in Pompei for example, are not fossilized, they are mummified, tWo seperate processes. As Mastadon bones are frozen and mummified, not fossilized. So that a volcanic eruption might occur and capture bones already fossilized, well, but that would require going into the differences between mummification and fossilization. Not sure you can distinguish between the two.

Then you won’t mind showing me fossils beginning to form in any lakes would you?

....................................


A catastrophic event, we agree.

.....................................

Hmm, so large bodies of water preserve shells, which are already calcium to begin with. But again, show me any preserved recent animals in the ocean?

.....................................

And yet we have billions of fossils of land animals, each and every one of which died in a watery environment. Along with those land plants, much softer than bone as well.

.................................................


And every one needs water but catastrophic volcanic explosions, burying animals quickly.

And yet you failed to provide one single creature in the recent past beginning to fossilize by the means described above. So it only happens that way in the past, right? There are no fish bones in any lake undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones in the ocean undergoing fossilization in the recent past. No fish bones fossilizing anywhere, nor any land animals or plants swept into any of these by recent floods. Each and every one is decaying to the point of non-existence.

I mean if you could find even one, well, you might have evidence to base your claims upon. That the only ones we do find are those buried in meters of sedimentary rock. Quickly, in both individual and mass grave sites.

You could go on, but it would just be more of the same, with no correlation to recorded history where every single bone found in these environments is degrading away into nothing, not a single one lasting to begin fossilization. Because again, nothing catastrophic has happened in recorded history. And btw, the bones found in Pompei for example, are not fossilized, they are mummified, tWo seperate processes. As Mastadon bones are frozen and mummified, not fossilized. So that a volcanic eruption might occur and capture bones already fossilized, well, but that would require going into the differences between mummification and fossilization. Not sure you can distinguish between the two.

Lakes and streams mate, lakes and streams. That’s enough to refute your assertions, palaeontologists have actually studied this stuff you know.

It seems you lack a basic knowledge of how fossils are formed and are making outlandish claims based on that ignorance.

I have no desire to play pigeon chess with you on this topic as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that your bizarre claims about a worldwide sedimentary strata due to a global flood and fossilisation only occurring in catastrophic floods are pure fantasy.

Your claim that fossilisation isn’t occurring now is even more bizarre, how on earth can you pretend to know such a thing.

When you can provide evidence of these things let me know, until then I’ll leave it thanks. Your own posts do more to demonstrate the craziness of your position than any rebuttal could.

 

[David_M]

And that's why you will hold onto that the whole earth cant be flooded.

The text books you rely on are apart of the false paradigm.

Until you, yourself, get up into the heights of where a rocket can take you, you will always rely on the screen (TV, PC monitor) or a sanctioned text book to accept so called reality, or the mathematical equations within the false paradigm.

Your statement is 100% incorrect. It is a common claim by FE adherents who ignore the mountain of direct evidence that proves the earth is not flat. Evidence that can be gathered by simple observation.

The differing night sky rotation and visible stars north and south of the equator, especially considering that people in Australia and South America can look at the night sky AT THE SAME MOMENT on the longest nights of the year and see the same stars to their south, conclusively proves that the FE map is garbage and the earth cannot be flat.

Measurements made with precise optical instruments (that are not that expensive) can easily show that the objects do disappear slowly due to the earths curvature..

There is no stalemate for people who accept evidence.

 

[David_M]

Its the fundamental truth, that destroys the false claim of (no world wide flood)

All the evidence for a flood is discarded due to mathematical equations within the false paradigm.

The pretence that the earth is a globe orbiting the sun.

When the exact opposite is true.

More incorrect statements, in fact if the earth was flat a global flood would be slightly more difficult to believe as it would have an edge that would always have to be higher than the highest piece of land). For a globe earth there is no real problem with sufficient water (which is a real problem for the flood no matter the shape of the earth).

 

[David_M]

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age. "

Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

What is the pretence in the above?

Is it a solar system? (heliocentricm)

You do realise that geocentrists accept that the solar system does exist, they just place the earth at its centre.

So just another ignorant point that has no validity. All that the determination requires is that the solar system was created at about the same time. Whether it is heliocentric or geocentric would make no difference.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

You do realise that geocentrists accept that the solar system does exist, they just place the earth at its centre.

So just another ignorant point that has no validity. All that the determination requires is that the solar system was created at about the same time. Whether it is heliocentric or geocentric would make no difference.

I'm saying the earth is the centre of creation

"In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the universe with Earth at the center. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbited Earth.[1] The geocentric model served as the predominant description of the cosmos in many ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle and Ptolemy."

 

[I'm_Sorry]

More incorrect statements, in fact if the earth was flat a global flood would be slightly more difficult to believe as it would have an edge that would always have to be higher than the highest piece of land). For a globe earth there is no real problem with sufficient water (which is a real problem for the flood no matter the shape of the earth).

Dome/Firmament.

Enclose, like filling up an upside down fish tank with waters above the firmament and below.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Your statement is 100% incorrect. It is a common claim by FE adherents who ignore the mountain of direct evidence that proves the earth is not flat. Evidence that can be gathered by simple observation.

The differing night sky rotation and visible stars north and south of the equator, especially considering that people in Australia and South America can look at the night sky AT THE SAME MOMENT on the longest nights of the year and see the same stars to their south, conclusively proves that the FE map is garbage and the earth cannot be flat.

Measurements made with precise optical instruments (that are not that expensive) can easily show that the objects do disappear slowly due to the earths curvature..

There is no stalemate for people who accept evidence.

Until I can simply observe the earth from the heights that a rocket can go, I will not rely on what someone else has told me they observe with their evidence akin to low resolution ufo videos or modern CGI.

e.g:

 

[Ophiolite]

But I’m still waiting for that one animal bone undergoing fossilization in the recent past? You all claim it’s happening, so it shouldn’t be too hard to find one.

Here's an abstract of a study of fossilisation of shells in Texas. Note that they are following the process from surface (now), to some depth (earlier).

[What! You don't think gastropods and lamellibranchs count as animals? So, you could eat snails and still be on a vegetarian diet?]

If you search for taphonomic processes on Google Scholar you get over 37,000 hits. I've given you just one of them. Now you have two principle choices:

• Display a genuine desire to educate yourself on a subject that you are understandably skeptical about because you are ignorant of it. Do this by studying a number of the papers and asking for clarification of anything that is unclear, or that you believe to be in error.
  
• Choose to refuse the opportunity, ignore the data and continue to demand others do all the work for you.

Before you decide, remember that the wrong decision ensures your continued igorance on this topic and casts your behaviour in a bad light. I hope you have the courage and good sense to make the right choice, in which case I'll be glad to help you out.

 

[ruthiesea]

What evidence? That all remains are found in sedimentary strata?

I'm not going to repeat thousands of pages of evidence. Perhaps you know about the evidence of an object striking off the coast of what is now the Yucatan Peninsular. That, plus the iridium layer found worldwide is evidence of something other than a flood, for which there is no evidence.

Yes, much of the evidence is found in sedimentary rock. However, it is the ages of that rock that supports the interpretation of the evidence.

 

[David_M]

I'm saying the earth is the centre of creation

"In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the universe with Earth at the center. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all orbited Earth.[1] The geocentric model served as the predominant description of the cosmos in many ancient civilizations, such as those of Aristotle and Ptolemy."

An irrelevant answer. The assumption that the objects of our solar system are of approximately the same age is not affected by whether the solar system is geocentric or heliocentric.

Lets say that the earth is the centre of the universe, that does not cause any issues for the meteors in close orbit around it being of the same age as the earth.

Of course, according to your holy book, all these celestial objects are of exactly the same age (give or take a couple of days).

Oh, there is no Firmament, no dome.