EternalDragon
Counselor
We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.
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.
Instead of trying to pass your creationist claims onto us; I have only this question to ask:
What evidence do we need to find in order to falsify the flood?
All you have to do is answer this simple question and we will take it from there. OK?
What differentiates a "transitory" species from a "well defined species?" If you cannot answer that, then you have no case. For example, lets look at the horse series. Which species are "well defined" and which are "transitory?" Are the three-toed horses "transitory?" Why or why not?You can not explain how the incomplete fossil record only affects transitory species, but not well defined species. Darwin insisted transitory species must be innumerable and outnumber the well defined. But why does this incomplete fossil record not seem to affect the well defined species? If your theory of an incomplete fossil record were true, then the number of well defined species we find should be even less than the transitory species. Yet 60,000+ fossils all in one area, and not a single transitory.
Mass graves are found throughout the world, but hardly account for most sights where fossils are found. Why do you ignore the others? Fossils are found in sedimentary rock, because they cannot be found in igneous rock, and those in metamorphic rock are usually destroyed in the metamorphorsizing process. There are also other conditions than floods that allow for fossilization, including peat bogs and anoxic lower levels of lakes, etc.Your arguments are conflicting and do not fit the observations. Your obvious desire to deny flood theory has led you to ignore the amassed data. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Mass graves are common throughout the world, where species are all jumbled together or flattened from being buried by tons of sediment quickly before fossilization. Not a single bone has been observed in the process of fossilization, evolutionists just like to claim it is happening all the time yet can provide no evidence. They can provide no evidence because unless animals are buried in-mass to prevent decay by bacteria and scavengers, the process never begins. Mass burial is required to explain the numbers of fossils found, since undoubtedly not all that were buried were fossilized, unless one admits to miraculous conditions. Not once, but many times worldwide.
Simple. There are no sedimentary layers in the geological column that can be attributed to a world-wide flood. This was determined back in the 1800s by Christian geologists who looked for such layers. See: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young EarthThe real question is what evidence do you have that doesn't point to flood theory?
We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.
That is not evidence. Unless you do not know what evidence means I am willing to bet that you are purposely avoiding answering the question.
No that is what seems to have happened. With closer examination a detective may conclude that this was a staged scene. More evidence would be required like if the owner of the house had insured the valuables and when. If the owner of the house was in debt. All manner of evidences will be required before a conclusion of what exactly happened was met.I have a crime scene where someone broke into a house. The glass is shattered inwards, there is a stone inside the window and items of value were taken. There is also eyewitness testimony from multiple sources.
Indeed and I would have to justify that claim with EVIDENCE.I ask you to falsify the break in. The only thing you could say is that it would have to appear differently than it does.
First of all the Grand Canyon could not have formed by a world wide flood. see Age of the Grand Canyon | How Old is the Grand CanyonSo no Grand Canyon, no ice age, no fossils buried in sediments all over the earth, no worldwide flood myths in nearly every culture, no mass extinctions in said fossil record, if there was still a fossil record of some sort, no coral reefs, no mid-Atlantic ridge on the ocean floor, no sea fossils all over inland continents, sediment laid down slow and not fast, no record in the Bible of such an event.....would all be clear evidence to falsify a worldwide flood.
And yet you can not show me more than a half a dozen fossils that have ever been found in rocks not formed by water causes.
We would need to find a different set of circumstances than we find on Earth.
no ice age
no fossils buried in sediments all over the earth
no worldwide flood myths in nearly every culture
no mass extinctions in said fossil record
no coral reefs
no mid-Atlantic ridge on the ocean floor
no sea fossils all over inland continents
sediment laid down slow and not fast
With so many hikes you must wear out a lot of hiking boots!
And yet you can not show me more than a half a dozen fossils that have ever been found in rocks not formed by water causes. You can't explain to me how 60,000 fossils with more being dug up in one spot caused by as the scientists admit a catastrophe and transported to the spot happened except by denying your own scientists.
We all agree fossilization is a rare occurrence, so we agree that many more than have been found in these mass graves all over the world must have been there originally and simply decayed.
You can not explain how the incomplete fossil record only affects transitory species, but not well defined species. Darwin insisted transitory species must be innumerable and outnumber the well defined. But why does this incomplete fossil record not seem to affect the well defined species? If your theory of an incomplete fossil record were true, then the number of well defined species we find should be even less than the transitory species. Yet 60,000+ fossils all in one area, and not a single transitory.
Your arguments are conflicting and do not fit the observations. Your obvious desire to deny flood theory has led you to ignore the amassed data. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Mass graves are common throughout the world, where species are all jumbled together or flattened from being buried by tons of sediment quickly before fossilization. Not a single bone has been observed in the process of fossilization, evolutionists just like to claim it is happening all the time yet can provide no evidence. They can provide no evidence because unless animals are buried in-mass to prevent decay by bacteria and scavengers, the process never begins. Mass burial is required to explain the numbers of fossils found, since undoubtedly not all that were buried were fossilized, unless one admits to miraculous conditions. Not once, but many times worldwide.
The real question is what evidence do you have that doesn't point to flood theory?
So no Grand Canyon...
Clearing my mind with trivia!
Implying that the GC supports the notion of a global flood, which it doesn't. I assume you believe the GC to have been carved by vast cascades of Floodwater, yes? And you are aware that the GC follows a meandering course across the landscape, yes? How do you reconcile the former with the latter? We know from modern observations that catastrophic deluges of water produce straight channels and there is no reason for this to be any different in the context of a global Flood. If the GC was carved by the Flood, why does it meander (as you would expect if it were carved by a normal river) instead of running straight across the landscape?
Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.
The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.
Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis
Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.
The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.
Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis
Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.
The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.
Grand Canyon - Answers in Genesis
Receding flood waters. I never stated that the GC was carved by the flood waters themselves.
The lower parts are hardened and cracked, the upper layers bent and not cracked meaning they are younger and deposited during the flood. After the flood a dam wall broke and carved the canyon out rapidly.
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?