Evidence for local flooding is evidence for local flooding, not evidence for global flooding. Also, why do you contend that evidence for a global flood will look exactly like no flood occurred?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
[/list]Good stuff. This evidence actually supports my contention. Certain local areas will reveal evidence of a huge flood, but there isn't widespread evidence. This is because the flood's 'footprint' isn't the same in all areas. We're on the same page.
Evidence for local flooding is evidence for local flooding, not evidence for global flooding.
Topography determines inflow and outwash water velocity and thus erosion and deposition. As the terrain isn't uniform there can be no uniform evidence.
Also, why do you contend that evidence for a global flood will look exactly like no flood occurred?
Most floods have fast and slow water. Slow water might leave no evidence at all. Also weathering over the past 4000 or so years would alter or erase evidence especially where there was little evidence to begin with.
Topography determines inflow and outwash water velocity and thus erosion and deposition. As the terrain isn't uniform there can be no uniform evidence.
Most floods have fast and slow water. Slow water might leave no evidence at all.
In other words no you can not. That is what I thought.
Agreed. However is cartilage considered bone? I am foggy on this one. If it is, I would question the taxonomy of that. I find it funny, I normally never question taxonomy. That is usually the hobby of the evolutionist, because of their hate for species and various classifications and taxonomy. Nevertheless, I would have to question that one. Cartilage would not be considered bone, Else what would you do with your joints? Cushion them with more bone? OR what about the cartilage disks in the spinal column? Again no answers.Wow. It is just really hard for you to admit you were wrong, isn't it? If an organism has a backbone, it is a vertebrate.
wouldn't it be called back-cartilage, not back-bone? Thats technically what should it should be named.It does not need to be made of bone, it can be cartilage.
1. Fish are not invertebrates. They have a skeleton.
Any organism with an endoskeleton is a vertebrate.
here after being criticized you change the bars and state something different.If an organism has a backbone, it is a vertebrate.
Wikipedia on invertebrate said:The word vertebrate derives from the Latin word vertebratus (Pliny), meaning joint of the spine.[6] It is closely related to the word vertebra, which refers to any of the bones or segments of the spinal column.[7]
I am saying that fossils of a marine environment are indicative of a marine environment. Not a flood. Got it now?
Marine, lake and river environments are not examples of any flood. Water does not mean "The Flood."
well some ideas of what is called "continental sprint" were later converted to the slower counterpart "continental drift" by another scientist in another country, 50 years later. An astronomer If I believe correctly.You claimed plate tectonics was an idea created by creationists and stolen by evolutionists and twisted by them.
what is false? What exactly do you disagree with. Lets start there.This is false.
.I never claimed that no creationist had come up with the idea that the continents were once together.
"Evolutionists" (whatever that means) did not adopt anything from creationists. Plate tectonics arose from Continental Drift theory, as its primary mechanism.
This is hardly the same as plate tectonics
though the concepts are obviously related.
you are wrong, once again. Wegner did indeed have a mechanism for continental drift, it was the "pole fleeing force" theory. It was not correct, but He did in fact have a mechanism for what caused continental drift, or plate tectonics.In fact it was Alfred Wegener who described what he called continental drift in 1912. He actually proved more evidence than just the shape of the continents, but had no mechanism. It was the mapping of the ocean floor that provided the definitive evidence and the mechanism which became plate tectonics.
Please do. Also please show us your vast knowledge of vertebrate biology while you are at it.
I pointed out there was no original data and very little data at all provided by the paper you cited. For
you citing links is really nothing more than a game. Thank you for admitting this.
If you are using the bible as an historical guide, then it is quite telling that no ice age following the flood is indicated in the bible. The bible in fact goes into some detail concerning the events of flood and those following it. How could there have been an ice age immediately after the flood with no documentation in the bible? That would be like telling the history of 20th century Europe and including WWI but not WWII. If nothing else, this would indicate that the bible is a flawed history source, which still puts you in the same arkward position if relying on it as your ultimate source of information on earth's history.
Paragraphs makes things easier to read you know.
The earth is round. Isaiah spoke of God who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth (40:22). This is a remarkably accurate description for an eighth-century B.C. prophet (see ISAIAH, DEUTERO). And Solomon had given the same truth in the tenth-century B.C. (Prov. 8:27)./QUOTE]
Norm Geisler is not a Semitic culture scholar. If he were, he would know that there is nothing remarkable about "the circle of the earth." Like many other ancient cultures, the Hebrew looked all around them to the horizon, and what did they see? They saw a CIRCLE, a DISK! Indeed, ERETZ does not mean "planet earth", it means "land" or "country". The LAND an observer on the ground sees when he looks to the horizon in all directions is THE CIRCLE OF THE ERETZ ("the circle of land", a disk.)
The efforts of Geisler et al to change "circle" into SPHERE is something Hebrew lexicographers laugh at.
I'm a born-again Christian who reveres the Biblical text. But I don't lie about it just to sensationalize the text and sell books. "Stormin Norman" Geisler (as his ETS friends like to call him) has always been a bombastic expositor---but those of us who know him take his claims with a grain of salt, especially when he speaks outside of his areas of expertise.
The ancient Hebrews had words to express THREE DIMENSIONAL concepts like spheres. Yet the Hebrew word you refer to applies to two-dimensional circles, NOT spheres. And that's why the top Hebrew lexicons don't back up Geisler's claim.
is the post null and void because of the lack of paragraph indentions, or because you didn't like what the material of those paragraphs contained?
Ever heard of the Arctic Circle?Neither. It is frustrating because of the nonsense "logic" and factual errors.
The Bible stands well on its own. It should not be blamed for nonsense that is imposed upon it----such as "the circle of the ERETZ" efforts to turn CIRCLE into SPHERE.
Ever heard of the Arctic Circle?
is the post null and void because of the lack of paragraph indentions, or because you didn't like what the material of those paragraphs contained? I see you are part agnostic, and part Christian. Welcome!
Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,Yes.... an actual circle.... not a 3-dimensional object....
Ah, I see what you have done. You've looked at the origin of the word 'vertebrate' rather than how it is used in taxonomy.
The classification of animals is far far far more complex than simply vertebrates and invertebrates.
I would question the use of colloguialism regarding to "backbone" since online technical journals such as this one:The vertebral column can be made of bone or cartilage. The word 'backbone' is a colloquial term. Vertebral column - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only 3% of animal species are vertebrates (that is, fit into the subphylum vertebrata in the phylum chordata). The rest are invertebrates which is a broad and unspecific term for all other animals and has no accurate scientific meaning.
This offers a glimpse at animal phyla. Phylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't got getting picky over someone else's use of terms until you've done some research.
Wouldn't know since I didn't bother to read it. If the author can't be bothered with readability, why should I be bothered to read it?
Neither. It is frustrating because of the nonsense "logic" and factual errors.
The Bible stands well on its own. It should not be blamed for nonsense that is imposed upon it----such as "the circle of the ERETZ" efforts to turn CIRCLE into SPHERE.
All you e-scientists who like to say the Bible teaches flat earth ... feel free to jump right in here and answer this.Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
The Arctic Circle goes around the earth, does it not?
Can NASA launch a satellite that can circumnavigate the Arctic Circle around its z-axis?
Anyone who thinks that passage is talking about a flat earth is intentionally interpreting it that way.
don't get too excited,
I was just using the etymology as a support for my valid theory that cartilage is not bone, and therefore should not (not is currently, but should not be) classified as a "back bone", hence the reply : it should be called a "back-cartilage not a back -bone."
I understand this very well thankyou. I have debated evolutionists of taxonomy for years.
I would question the use of colloguialism regarding to "backbone" since online technical journals such as this one:
"animals that have [do not have] a backbone followed by lists of vertebrates
and invertebrates - ...[amphibians. ... Circle the animals that have (do not have) a backbone, given a diverse list of ver- tebrates and invertebrates. Page 8."
Trowbridge, John E., and Joel J. Mintzes. "Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross‐age study." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25.7 (1988): 547-571.
and agian cited in this more recent article:
ScienceDirect.com - The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology - No backbone but lots of Sox: Invertebrate Sox genes
so it would appear the word back bone, is technically and widely accepted as a term to describe vertebrates.
okay that comment has nothing to do with this debate, and shall be considered "word filler" - and given in order to gain attention and a following where a lack of original premise or factual matter does not exist (on your part). secondly, The amount of vertebrates is completely arbitrary and a red herring off of the original topic.
yes, have been looking at these cites for years, thank you.
well it seems you need to do some reasearch yourself, sir.
and welcome to the debate!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?