The order of fossils in the geological column

Dusty Bin said:

Not only to decompose, the fish would eat most of it, they wouldn't have known they were in a flood, for a fish there's always a flood, fish numbers would have doubled that year, which means God failed in his bid to wipe everything out,
if seeds grew when the flood subsided it would also mean that all the plant's were not killed either, another fail.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

God didn't intend to kill the life in the seas, only on land:

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23

Therefore God must have restored new life on the earth after the flood, as he did in the restoration of Gen 1.

Click to expand...

Atheos canadensis said:

Nope and nope. It is indeed strictly zonated. Please provide examples of cenozoic mammals in the same strata as dinosaurs. Can you find dolphins and ichthyosaurs in the same strata? Can you find scleractinian and rugosan corals in the same strata? Gymnosperms always show up before angiosperms. Pelicosaurs always show up before birds. And so on and so on and so on. Can we now move on to the part where you try to explain this zonation in the context of the Flood instead of trying to argue against an objective fact?

And no, no one showed that meanders form rapidly. I guarantee you that you can't link such a post. Dad did his usual song and dance about his endlessly convenient Former state, Juve tried to pretend that the GC was actually not meandering at all and you tried to use the distinctly non-meandering Scablands as evidence that floods cut meanders. But here's the thread; go ahead and find the post where the Flood is shown to have been capable of cutting meanders. I predict that you will either fail or more likely not even try.

You can indeed vanish as you please, it's just really rough on your credibility when your vanishing always coincides with you having difficulties with an argument.

Click to expand...

lasthero said:

True. Funny how you tend to do it when you're getting spanked. There's a rather long list of topics you've dropped out of in the 'ed runs away' tag.

Click to expand...

I could really care less how credible or not you think I am or how many false accusation you try to throw on me.

Click to expand...

I think you are not here to discuss anything.

Click to expand...

EternalDragon said:

Are you two years old?

Click to expand...

Dusty Bin said:

Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.

Click to expand...

lasthero said:

True. Funny how you tend to do it when you're getting spanked. There's a rather long list of topics you've dropped out of in the 'ed runs away' tag.

Click to expand...

I could really care less how credible or not

Click to expand...

lasthero said:

He hasn't thrown any false accusations of you - those are verifiable observations of reality. You do have a habit of dropping out of topics when things go poorly for you.

If that were the case, I don't think he would post so much about the discussion. You're the one who's blithely refusing to address his points.

Click to expand...

EternalDragon said:

Yet nothing has gone poorly for me. These forums usually go off on other tangents. Perhaps you confuse "dropping out" with simple boredom or others taking the discussion in other directions?

Click to expand...

Dusty Bin said:

Who better to know about that than you? a believer in fables, I wouldn't even begin to question you on the matter because I know nothing of such things, belief in the unbelievable or the unknowable has never been my thing.

Click to expand...

PsychoSarah said:

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine and bliss (sarcasm). This attitude isn't going to get you anywhere. 1) plenty of people aren't going to realize you are being sarcastic and 2) the ones that do won't listen to anything valid you have to say as a result of being like this.

Click to expand...

Dusty Bin said:

I'm not here to be a ray of sunshine I'm here countering ridiculous arguments.

Click to expand...

These forums usually go off on other tangents.

Click to expand...

Or even others making up false accusations towards me?

Click to expand...

But I'm flattered that you've taken such an interest in me and my posts.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

[.QUOTE=Atheos canadensis;65522335]

My model is supported by the story and vice versa, that no one except the eight survived. I cannot address suppositions that contradict the story, only those that support it.

Click to expand...

biggles53 said:

Oh, I see......does that mean then, that whales and dolphins and porpoises and seals and otters and crocodiles and dugongs and manatees survived the flood...? How about those animals which live partially within the seas...? How about turtles and iguanas and mudskippers and crabs.....did they survive the flood...? If so, what was the basis of your god's decision...? Why would all of those animals be permitted to survive, while all the others were condemned to a horrible tortured death...?

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

Atheos canadensis said:

My model is supported by the story and vice versa, that no one except the eight survived. I cannot address suppositions that contradict the story, only those that support it.

Click to expand...

Well that was disappointing. And you are wrong. You can address my points, you just can't refute them and have chosen instead to retreat to AV's stance of "Evidence can take a hike". Except AV is honest about it whereas you are trying to give the impression that your position fits the evidence in some way.

Here's the way it works: if your model doesn't fit the evidence, then your model is wrong. If you're going to ignore the evidence, don't pretend you're interested in having a real discussion. I'll repost my last post here in case you want to reconsider and actually try to defend your model. Or, as I said, you should just say that the evidence can take a hike like AV does very explicitly and stop pretending you care about the evidence fitting your model.

Atheos canadensis said:

You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:

1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).

2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..

3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.

4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.

I'm still waiting for:

1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air toxic
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing

Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.

I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

[.QUOTE]

It says what it says, that the flood was on the earth for forty days and the ark was lifted up. It's a clear timeline. The flood began when the rain started and the fountains of the deep were broken up. Forty days later the main floodwater reached and floated the ark. Several assumptions are evident, one being the probable location of the ark building site (based on the best method and routes to transport building materials). By calculating the elevation of that site and the forty days time during which the water advanced the speed of the incoming water can be calculated.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

[.QUOTE]

By definition a 'ship' must be able to navigate. The ark lacked this critical feature. I envision it like a very large building that floated. It's structure would not resemble a boat or ship in any way.

I have seen videos of buildings being swept away by floods and never once mistook them for boats.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

[.QUOTE]

That image was clearly a ship.



You haven't shown me that you can properly interpret scripture i.e. your misunderstanding of Exodus 2:3.



While the story contains some poetic language it is far too detailed to be considered mere allegory. That the ark floated above the mountains of Ararat for six months indicates a global flood.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

[.QUOTE]

They would have if they were describing a boat.




"And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink."

Notice that she didn't put the 'ark' into the river but in the reeds near the shore. It is astounding that so many believe that Pharaohs' daughter saw Moses 'floating by in a small boat' and rescued him.

Click to expand...

OldWiseGuy said:

[.QUOTE]

Sure. Gen 7:17,

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth."




Once again you are thinking tsunami. Would a tsunami take forty days to reach the ark?



They are if they keep coming in.

Click to expand...

[serious];65524169 said:

Can we please try to fix these broken tags as we reply?

Also, you can only address things that support your assertion? Sticking your head in the sand isn't a very strong argument

Click to expand...

EternalDragon said:

I could really care less how credible or not you think I am or how many false accusation you try to throw on me. I think you are not here to discuss anything.

Click to expand...

Atheos canadensis said:

Nope and nope. It is indeed strictly zonated. Please provide examples of cenozoic mammals in the same strata as dinosaurs. Can you find dolphins and ichthyosaurs in the same strata? Can you find scleractinian and rugosan corals in the same strata? Gymnosperms always show up before angiosperms. Pelicosaurs always show up before birds. And so on and so on and so on. Can we now move on to the part where you try to explain this zonation in the context of the Flood instead of trying to argue against an objective fact?

And no, no one showed that meanders form rapidly. I guarantee you that you can't link such a post. Dad did his usual song and dance about his endlessly convenient Former state, Juve tried to pretend that the GC was actually not meandering at all and you tried to use the distinctly non-meandering Scablands as evidence that floods cut meanders. But here's the thread; go ahead and find the post where the Flood is shown to have been capable of cutting meanders. I predict that you will either fail or more likely not even try.

Click to expand...