Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[Jose Fly]

E
Jose... you were slaughtered before with your statements on isochron dating. You are forgetful.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....we all know your script. You'll say you already addressed this, but when we ask where you won't say, and when we ask what your argument was, you won't say that either.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Don't you get bored of doing this over and over, or do you believe God gives points for sheer repetition?

God's Word tells us Psalm 104:6"You clothed the earth with floods of water,
water that covered even the mountains.
7
At your command, the water fled;
at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.
8
Mountains rose and valleys sank
to the levels you decreed.
9
Then you set a firm boundary for the seas,
so they would never again cover the earth."

Oh, so now the Himalayas were there when the flood happened? Before you argued they weren't, which triggered a discussion of how you make entire mountain ranges without generating so much heat that the oceans boil off.

Creationists need to make up their minds.

 

[George Affleck]

I've often wondered, given that there are millions of fossils found in thousands of locations throughout the world that were supposedly laid down in a massive global flood, why absolutely no ("modern") human fossils have been found.

What is more surprising is that, according to evolutionists, dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for roughly 135 million years. That's a lot of generations of dinosaurs Jack! (ref. to Jack Horner, famous paleontologist) "Gazillions" is a word that comes to mind.

Yet the world has only discovered roughly 200 specimens that are represented by more than one bone. In addition, it is now coming to light that many of them have tissue remnants!

In 1971 Lin Ottinger found 2 modern human skeletons in a Cretaceous age sandstone; supposedly more than 65 million years old. These could be pre-flood specimens but whatever they are, they are very interesting.

 

[Silent Hunter]

What is more surprising is that, according to evolutionists, dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for roughly 135 million years. That's a lot of generations of dinosaurs Jack! (ref. to Jack Horner, famous paleontologist) "Gazillions" is a word that comes to mind.

Yet the world has only discovered roughly 200 specimens that are represented by more than one bone. In addition, it is now coming to light that many of them have tissue remnants!

In 1971 Lin Ottinger found 2 modern human skeletons in a Cretaceous age sandstone; supposedly more than 65 million years old. These could be pre-flood specimens but whatever they are, they are very interesting.

... and your source?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moab_Man

I think you've been misled by the same creationist propaganda that dominates 6days irrational thought process.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Before you argued (the mountains are post flood features

Very good.... Suddenly your memory returns. So see.... We did discuss before how the fossils are on the mountain tops, and how it's evidence for the truth of God's Word. The Bible tells us that the mountains rose.

 

[6days]

(ref. to Jack Horner, famous paleontologist)

Isn't that the guy who mistakenly thinks he can 'evolve' a chicken into a dinosaur.:duh:

In 1971 Lin Ottinger found 2 modern human skeletons in a Cretaceous age sandstone; supposedly more than 65 million years old. These could be pre-flood specimens but whatever they are, they are very interesting.

Evolutionists (most of them) would never believe that but would gladly believe that Neandertals were dim witted, inarticulate hairy beasts.....and that a tiny monkey like creature was a missing link to humanity.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Very good.... Suddenly your memory returns. So see.... We did discuss before how the fossils are on the mountain tops, and how it's evidence for the truth of God's Word. The Bible tells us that the mountains rose.

... and yet you're totally unwilling to explain why a massive global flood is the only explanation for the turtle fossils in the OP without resorting to circular logic...

:sigh:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

... and yet you're totally unwilling to explain why a massive global flood is the only explanation for the turtle fossils in the OP without resorting to circular logic..

That's a wee bit of a Strawman. Nobody argued that a global flood is the only explanation. However, the fossilized turtles are consistent with the global flood model of rapid burial in sediment. We find evidence of rapid burial in sediment throughout the world...pods of whales....nesting birds...feeding fish...Schools of jellyfish, etc.

Science and evidence from the world around us is always consistent with God's Word.

 

[Jose Fly]

Very good.... Suddenly your memory returns. So see.... We did discuss before how the fossils are on the mountain tops, and how it's evidence for the truth of God's Word. The Bible tells us that the mountains rose.

Did you ever figure out how to do that without boiling the oceans away?

the fossilized turtles are consistent with the global flood model of rapid burial in sediment

How so? You keep saying they are, but you've yet to explain how.

 

[Jonahdog]

Very good.... Suddenly your memory returns. So see.... We did discuss before how the fossils are on the mountain tops, and how it's evidence for the truth of God's Word. The Bible tells us that the mountains rose.

No, it is evidence of millions of years and plate tectonics. But you will continue to babble on based on goat herder myth.

 

[Jonahdog]

That's a wee bit of a Strawman. Nobody argued that a global flood is the only explanation. However, the fossilized turtles are consistent with the global flood model of rapid burial in sediment. We find evidence of rapid burial in sediment throughout the world...pods of whales....nesting birds...feeding fish...Schools of jellyfish, etc.

Science and evidence from the world around us is always consistent with God's Word.

Then dating methods should all suggest fossilization within a short time frame less than 6000 years ago. Please cite to that EVIDENCE.

 

[Silent Hunter]

That's a wee bit of a Strawman. Nobody argued that a global flood is the only explanation. However, the fossilized turtles are consistent with the global flood model of rapid burial in sediment. We find evidence of rapid burial in sediment throughout the world...pods of whales....nesting birds...feeding fish...Schools of jellyfish, etc.

Science and evidence from the world around us is always consistent with God's Word.

:rotfl:

You should probably reconsider the answer you gave in post #219 in response to:

Question: Global flood? Is there absolutely no possible way it was a local flood?

Answer: Absolutely not.

:chuckle:

Why do you so often resort to circular logic?

:think:



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

How about engage on the evidence?

Turtles frozen in rock. :up:

Also, necessary conditions. :thumb:

Ok, they're in rock. So?

Darwinists hate reading.

Just so I am up-to-speed on your understanding of the science, how do fossils form?

Please explain how a global flood is the ONLY explanation for the event in question.

If you cared to read, you'd find that I'm not interested in defending any particular hypothesis; I'm trying to focus on the evidence and the necessary conditions to try to bracket what is possible and eliminate what is impossible.

The necessary conditions are the presence of water, sediment and cement on top of the turtles.

 

[Jonahdog]

Stripe, please provide a date for when those turtles were fossilized, and the scientific EVIDENCE used to come to that conclusion.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Turtles frozen in rock. :up:

Also, necessary conditions. :thumb:

Darwinists hate reading.

Just so I am up-to-speed on your understanding of the science, how do fossils form?

If you cared to read, you'd find that I'm not interested in defending any particular hypothesis; I'm trying to focus on the evidence and the necessary conditions to try to bracket what is possible and eliminate what is impossible.

The necessary conditions are the presence of water, sediment and cement on top of the turtles.

Yeo, the fossils are in rock. What is your hypothesis on how they got there and the mechanism involved.

Do you hate reading and doing your own research like most creatinists?

You aren't much interested in anything other than shifting the burden of proof much less defending any particular hypothesis.

If you are interested in "what is possible and eliminate what is impossible", explain why a global flood is a better explanation (possible) than a local flood (impossible).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

What is your hypothesis on how they got there and the mechanism involved.

Darwinists hate reading.

You aren't much interested in anything other than shifting the burden of proof much less defending any particular hypothesis.

Feel free to find another thread. :idunno:

Here, we are interested in the necessary conditions.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Darwinists hate reading.

Feel free to find another thread. :idunno:

Here, we are interested in the necessary conditions.

:chuckle:

Three things are fundamental to the formation of sedimentary rock:

Water.

Sediment.

A binding agent (cement).

Ok.

(Somehow I suspect you will claim some sort of victory here when one doesn't actually exist.)

I'm wondering why you think I have denied this. Perhaps you hate reading. :idunno:

The formation of sedimentary rock isnt a necessary precursor to the formation of fossils but you would know this if you have done your homework.

Now that we seem to be in agreement on how sedimentary rock can be formed, something we were never at odds about, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why, when it comes to encasing turtles in water, sediment, and "cement", a global flood is a better explanation (possible) than a local flood (impossible).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

:chuckle:Three things are fundamental to the formation of sedimentary rock:Water.Sediment.A binding agent (cement).Ok.(Somehow I suspect you will claim some sort of victory here when one doesn't actually exist.)

You win when you concede reality. :up:

I'm wondering why you think I have denied this.

I'm wondering why you think I accused you of denying this.

Cabinethead did deny cementation, but then, he's not very bright. Case in point, he denied cement by describing cementation. :chuckle:

The formation of sedimentary rock isnt a necessary precursor to the formation of fossils but you would know this if you have done your homework.

It is in this case.

The turtles are found in sedimentary rock, not amber or coal.

Now that we seem to be in agreement on how sedimentary rock can be formed, something we were never at odds about, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why, when it comes to encasing turtles in water, sediment, and "cement", a global flood is a better explanation (possible) than a local flood (impossible).

You're not buying into the concept here: I'm not bringing a particular explanation to the table. I'm looking at the necessary conditions and ruling out the impossible.

 

[Jonahdog]

Darwinists hate reading.

Stripe hates to respond to specific questions. Stripe, how long ago did the turtles fossilize and what specific EVIDENCE supports that date?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You win when you concede reality. :up:

I'm wondering why you think I accused you of denying this.

Cabinethead did deny cementation, but then, he's not very bright. Case in point, he denied cement by describing cementation. :chuckle:

It is in this case.

The turtles are found in sedimentary rock, not amber or coal.



You're not buying into the concept here: I'm not bringing a particular explanation to the table. I'm looking at the necessary conditions and ruling out the impossible.

Concede reality?
Me? Never.
Creationists? Pretty much all of the time.
Snakes don't talk and miracles don't happen. That's reality.

Denying how sedimentary rock forms?
Perhaps you should read the conversation from the beginning.

Precursor to fossil formation?
Perhaps you could answer the question asked earlier. How long ago were the turtles encased in the sediment. What is your evidence for that date.

Necessary conditions?
Perhaps you are confusing "conditions" with "components". The components of sedimentary rock are water, sediment, and a binding agent (cement). The necessary conditions to bring those components together haven't been discussed, at least by you.

So, was that condition a local flood or a global flood? What is your evidence?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Concede reality? Me? Never.

Don't look now, but you just did.

Perhaps you are confusing "conditions" with "components". The components of sedimentary rock are water, sediment, and a binding agent (cement). The necessary conditions to bring those components together haven't been discussed, at least by you.

Sure, they have.