Fossilized Termite Nests and the Flood

[Jet Black]

Unless you find nests buried in them, you can't say that nests were buried deep in them. As it remains, we all know that termites make thier homes in rocks, dirt, or any other type of envirornment available. This isn't evidence against a flood at all.

that's just it, we do in formations like the chinle.

This is a different topic from your first post. In your first post, you wanted to know specifically about termite nests. You are now moving your own goalpost.

not really, I am just pointing out some other stuff. Limestone came up earlier in this thread, and I though I would bring it back a bit.

 

[shinbits]

iow making things up, because you haven't checked to see if your ideas float

Is there any evidence that the ideas I've expressed don't work? If there isn't, then it stands.

"Yeah, there's lots of evidence that what you've said doesn't work."

Don't just make blanket statements. Show examples of it then.

It never occured to you that there is evidence. for a start we know that erosion happens

You observe erosion happens; has erosion of entire sand dunes been observed?

 

[shinbits]

that's just it, we do in formations like the chinle.

How deeply buried was the nest in this formation?

not really, I am just pointing out some other stuff. Limestone came up earlier in this thread, and I though I would bring it back a bit.

Your first post is almost entirely different from the post you're talking about. Most of what you brought up in that post should be in a separate thread.

As far as the OP and termite nests, it seems every question has been answered sufficently. If not, bring them up now.

 

[Jet Black]

Is there any evidence that the ideas I've expressed don't work? If there isn't, then it stands.

"Yeah, there's lots of evidence that what you've said doesn't work."

Don't just make blanket statements. Show examples of it then.

I already have done, you bypassed it.

You observe erosion happens; has erosion of entire sand dunes been observed?

you have missed what I was saying. The point is that we are talking about observed processes, and trivial extrapolations as to what would happen over time, whereas you are talking about unobserved processes and just assuming that these things would happen. Let me give an example. If every year, a harsh wind eroded 1mm of material from an area, then after 10,000 years, the ground would have lost 10m of material. pretty trivial? whereas you on the other hand are saying that a global cataclysmic flood would bury termite nests and form thick limestone deposits, all in the space of a year, despite the fact that we (a) never see termite nests or other structures surviving such events

here is what floods do:

http://www.jugendserver-dresden.de/media/files/nach-flut-15.jpg

and (b) never see limestone being formed that rapidly.

so there is a world of difference between other peoples' arguments and yours.

 

[Jet Black]

How deeply buried was the nest in this formation?

about 300ft.

Your first post is almost entirely different from the post you're talking about. Most of what you brought up in that post should be in a separate thread.

it probably should yes, but I have been skimming through the 75 pages of this thread and it seems a bit meandering.

As far as the OP and termite nests, it seems every question has been answered sufficently. If not, bring them up now.

you haven't even answered them though, so what is there to bring up?

 

[shinbits]

I already have done, you bypassed it.

You're stalling.

What did I bypass?

you have missed what I was saying. The point is that we are talking about observed processes, and trivial extrapolations as to what would happen over time, whereas you are talking about unobserved processes and just assuming that these things would happen.

Large sand dunes completely eroding is an unobserved process.

If every year, a harsh wind eroded 1mm of material from an area, then after 10,000 years, the ground would have lost 10m of material. pretty trivial?

Here's what's wrong with your statement: the word if.

See, what you've done is make an assumption to provide plausibility for another assumption.

The rediculous assumption you have to make: That this much material is being eroded at a constant rate in the first place; a silly assumption considering that weather is largly unpredictable and random.

You are have to assume that ALL of it would eventually erode in order to expose the nest; that's also silly, because that would mean you have to assume that sand would never, in ten thousand years, signifacantly cover the area that's been uncovered. Now why would that happen?

This is the huge flaw with all these arguments.

whereas you on the other hand are saying that a global cataclysmic flood would bury termite nests and form thick limestone deposits, all in the space of a year, despite the fact that we (a) never see termite nests or other structures surviving such events

First off, the thickness of the limestones, and thier length, was never given for the areas where the nests were found. I asked over and over and over again, but all people did was say "whatever it is, it probably took longer then you think."

You are missing far too much info, which is why your agument is so lacking.

 

[shinbits]

about 300ft.

Good. Now how far into the rock was the nest buried?

you haven't even answered them though, so what is there to bring up?

Haven't answered what?

 

[Jet Black]

You're stalling.

What did I bypass?

stuff like the limestones and the nests being found in multiple layers. how many times do I have to repeat myself.

Large sand dunes completely eroding is an unobserved process.

but that isn'T a process, it is an event. erosion is the observed process.

Here's what's wrong with your statement: the word if.

it's a flipping hypothetical.

See, what you've done is make an assumption to provide plausibility for another assumption.

sheesh, do you need this spoon feeding to you?

The rediculous assumption you have to make: That this much material is being eroded at a constant rate in the first place; a silly assumption considering that weather is largly unpredictable and random.

Average. for crying out loud, you do know that things happen with averages, you know, like the erosion of the himalayas and stuff.

You are have to assume that ALL of it would eventually erode in order to expose the nest; that's also silly, because that would mean you have to assume that sand would never, in ten thousand years, signifacantly cover the area that's been uncovered. Now why would that happen?

average

This is the huge flaw with all these arguments.

the huge flaw is your inability to understand simple concepts.

First off, the thickness of the limestones, and thier length, was never given for the areas where the nests were found.

hundreds of feet, are you completely unable to look up the thickness of the kaibab formation or the white cliffs of dover? Is it really that much of a trial? I mean, you found a picture using google, is that as far as your investigative skills stretch?

 

[caravelair]

Great picture... can you verify its authenticity? How do we know the water doesn't just back up to the "sand dune" , if that is what it is, and it occurred naturally, right?

the photo is from an area called "Leba" in Poland, that is well known for its moving sand dunes.

just search google for "moving sand dunes" and you will find plenty of information about this.

perhaps this example makes it clearer what is going on:

 

[caravelair]

Dude, I'm talking about the ALL the ones that were uncovered.

How is it possible that ALL these uncovered nests were covered by tons of sand then neatly uncovered?

how is it that you do not understand that if they were buried by the flood, then the exact same questions apply. tell me now, "How is it possible that ALL these uncovered nests were covered by tons of sediment from the flood then neatly uncovered?"

hmm? why do you apply this skepticism to our explanation only, and not to your own? you don't see the double standard there?

 

[caravelair]

the Bible says that the waters receeded. There's no chance or coincidence here, the waters just have to go down, viola. Just look up.

so you are saying that these somehow fossilized DURING the flood?! you do know that they need to be buried in sediment in order for fossilization to occur, right?

Big difference from the incredible luck you'd need to use sand dunes as an alternative to a flood.

you would not need luck, you would only need wind and/or water.

 

[shinbits]

stuff like the limestones and the nests being found in multiple layers. how many times do I have to repeat myself.

And I've repeated many many times, that info on limestone, like how much was found, is missing.

it's a flipping hypothetical.

Like my floating termite nests?

hundreds of feet, are you completely unable to look up the thickness of the kaibab formation or the white cliffs of dover? Is it really that much of a trial? I mean, you found a picture using google, is that as far as your investigative skills stretch?

If it's as simple as you say, why haven't you posted it yet? Post the info, since it's so easy.

 

[shinbits]

so you are saying that these somehow fossilized DURING the flood?! you do know that they need to be buried in sediment in order for fossilization to occur, right?

The flood would do exactly that. It's been explained how many many times in this thread.

you would not need luck, you would only need wind and/or water.

For tons of sand to neatly erode away and reveal a nest, that would require incredible luck. The wind and water would have to consitantly erode off the nest without covering it up again, for thousands of years.

Also known as: luck.

 

[shinbits]

And Jet, you've said that a nest was found buried 300 feet deep......I'm still waiting for an answer as to how far into the rock the nest found was, from outside of the rock.

Such vital info, conveniently enough, is missing.

 

[timlamb]

I have checked out the first few pages of this and the last few, the arguement hasn't changed much. It is obvious that there are many reasons that this phenomenon could have happened many ways. The point being, those who wish to believe the bible go one way, and those wishing to discredit the bible go another.
It is interesting that this be about termites, as they are one creature often used to prove creation. They are a co-dependant creature. They need the protozoa in them to digest their food or they would not survive. The protozoa would not survive without the termite. Curious creation, impossable evolution.

I have another question. These nests are made from termite spit and earth. I experienced termites once, and the tunnels they made to my floor were quite hard. Maybe these could have survived submurtion. Another question, how long does it take a termite nest to fosselize? We are dealing with 1600 years before the flood, and more than 4000 years since.
Ultimately, the evidence for the flood is huge, and I choose the bible over the wisdom of man.
How hard does termite spit get? Does anyone know?
I'll check back.
timlamb

 

[Baggins]

I have checked out the first few pages of this and the last few, the arguement hasn't changed much. It is obvious that there are many reasons that this phenomenon could have happened many ways. The point being, those who wish to believe the bible go one way, and those wishing to discredit the bible go another.

Wrong, those who wish to believe the bible go one way, those who wish to believe physical evidence go another

It is interesting that this be about termites, as they are one creature often used to prove creation. They are a co-dependant creature. They need the protozoa in them to digest their food or they would not survive. The protozoa would not survive without the termite. Curious creation, impossable evolution.

Wrong, many different animals and plants have developed co-dependancies over the hundreds of millions of years of life on earth, the pathways are well known, you should do a bit of reading before coming up with statements about which you obviously know nothing.

I have another question. These nests are made from termite spit and earth. I experienced termites once, and the tunnels they made to my floor were quite hard. Maybe these could have survived submurtion.

That all depends on submurtion and what it is

Another question, how long does it take a termite nest to fosselize? We are dealing with 1600 years before the flood, and more than 4000 years since.

The deposits we are talking about are late Jurassic and end 148 million years ago, do you think that is long enough to fossilise what is already to all intents and purposes a lump of mudstone.

Ultimately, the evidence for the flood is huge, and I choose the bible over the wisdom of man.

Translation: I have asked a load of questions but I won't listen to any answers because my mind is closed.

How hard does termite spit get? Does anyone know?
I'll check back.
timlamb

Why bother if it isn't in the bible you won't accept th eevidence anyway.

 

[Baggins]

Someone said that fossils are buried under "unbelievable" or "unfathomable" amounts of sediment. Some word meaning incredible amounts. Then the person went on to say that this incredible amount of sediment piled on the termite nests, somehow eroded away and left a neatly uncovered nest.

That someone was me, and if you had even the smallest sliver of geological learning you would know it was the truth.

The surface of the world is not unchanging, sediments are buried and lithified and buried and buried, and then eroded back to the surface again, why do you think that the top of everest is composed of marine sediments?

Learn something man, you arguing about that which you know nothing, how can you appear anything but stupid, how can you be an advocate for your cause if you are so ignorant of basic concepts.


Shinbits

Have you read Turner and Paterson USGS 1998 yet. I reposted the link.

Did you read dlamberth's brilliant post of an article about the man who identified these termite mounds, 170 feet tall, buried in desert sands, topped off by a paleosoil

How does 7 million years of arid semi desert fit into your flood model.

 

[shinbits]

Wrong, those who wish to believe the bible go one way, those who wish to believe physical evidence go another

Wrong. All your "evidence" is theoretical garbage which relies on rediculous chance about which you can't even logically back up.

 

[shinbits]

.

 

[shinbits]

Shinbits
Have you read Turner and Paterson USGS 1998 yet. I reposted the link.

Not yet.

Did you read dlamberth's brilliant post of an article about the man who identified these termite mounds, 170 feet tall, buried in desert sands, topped off by a paleosoil

yes. And it's not brilliant, it's retarded.

How does 7 million years of arid semi desert fit into your flood model.

7 million years is wrong. But dating is a different topic.