|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 27, 2021 2:03:11 GMT
Evolutionists and creationists both accept Pangaea. This was a supercontinent that broke apart after_____(fill in the blank). As a result of the Flood, landmass rapidly eroded, land bridges collapsed into the ocean, and water dominated the surface of our planet. We have large ocean basins because of the Flood. But if we were to rise up those ocean basis to pre-Flood levels, melt the ice caps, the whole world would be Flooded again. But since the aftermath of the Flood caused such deep ocean basins, no such Flood will ever happen again as God promised. The Flood has ancient witnesses. Maine fossils have been found in all the highest mountain tops in the world, including Mt.Everest. Several whale fossils have been found up in the Andes mountains. The fossils are found in sedimentary rock. That makes perfect sense if one accepts the Flood.
So the water didn't go anywhere, the earth shrank to hold all the water, while also adding land bridges under the water further raising the water level.
You can't seriously believe the shit you're spewing.
Alright I'll bite, where did all the "earth" go since the amount of water has stayed the same?
He. Is. Out. Of. His. Fucking. Mind. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 27, 2021 7:10:07 GMT
So the water didn't go anywhere, the earth shrank to hold all the water, while also adding land bridges under the water further raising the water level.
You can't seriously believe the shit you're spewing.
Alright I'll bite, where did all the "earth" go since the amount of water has stayed the same?
You did not answer my question. When did these creatures become fossils and what caused them to become fossils? Lets start there. When means date on evolutionary timeline. How means explanation of fossilization. You are suggesting geological uplifts put fossils on mountains. So when did that marine life become fossilized? Date according to evolutionary timeline please. How were they fossilized? Can you answer this? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 27, 2021 7:12:24 GMT
So the water didn't go anywhere, the earth shrank to hold all the water, while also adding land bridges under the water further raising the water level.
You can't seriously believe the shit you're spewing.
Alright I'll bite, where did all the "earth" go since the amount of water has stayed the same?
He. Is. Out. Of. His. Fucking. Mind. I don't see you contributing to this topic. Do you lack so much scientific knowledge that all you can resort to are petty insults? I'm challenging your knowledge in real science. So far you are doing very poorly in this debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 27, 2021 13:33:47 GMT
I might be offended by that if not for your consistent and demonstrable misinterpretation. The fossil record is not layered by "size." It's not layered by "locomotive ability of organisms." It's laid down according to what might be expected by evolutionary development. You don't see rodents beside trilobites. You don't see mastodons beside triceratops. You don't see eohippi beside great danes. Why not? Because it didn't happen through a giant flood. Hope that's clear enough. Here again you spout theory but the fossils do not obey theory. Misplaced fossils discredit the theory. In order for uniformitarism to be true, there cannot be any misplaced fossils. There are plenty of misplaced fossils. The fossils are arranged exactly as Flood geologists expected them to be. The proof is found in all the marine fossils found at the peaks of mountains. That's Checkmate# No, seismic shifts can can cause "misplaced fossils" (if you're talking about segments of strata in the "wrong place." I never said "some fossils are always at the bottom" and "some are always found at the top." I said, you don't see certain fossils beside each other in the same stratum. Once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying, because you cannot contest what I'm saying. If you can, present specific examples. Checkmate, indeed.🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 27, 2021 15:06:57 GMT
Here again you spout theory but the fossils do not obey theory. Misplaced fossils discredit the theory. In order for uniformitarism to be true, there cannot be any misplaced fossils. There are plenty of misplaced fossils. The fossils are arranged exactly as Flood geologists expected them to be. The proof is found in all the marine fossils found at the peaks of mountains. That's Checkmate# No, seismic shifts can can cause "misplaced fossils" (if you're talking about segments of strata in the "wrong place." I never said "some fossils are always at the bottom" and "some are always found at the top." I said, you don't see certain fossils beside each other in the same stratum. Once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying, because you cannot contest what I'm saying. If you can, present specific examples. Checkmate, indeed.🙄 Notice how he never cites evidence of exactly what fossils are found where and by whom? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 27, 2021 15:35:16 GMT
No, seismic shifts can can cause "misplaced fossils" (if you're talking about segments of strata in the "wrong place." I never said "some fossils are always at the bottom" and "some are always found at the top." I said, you don't see certain fossils beside each other in the same stratum. Once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying, because you cannot contest what I'm saying. If you can, present specific examples. Checkmate, indeed.🙄 Notice how he never cites evidence of exactly what fossils are found where and by whom?
His biggest issue is he claims to know the science and cites part of the evidence and then ignores the overall conclusions from the same science. If he's a troll, he's not even a very good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 27, 2021 16:04:37 GMT
Notice how he never cites evidence of exactly what fossils are found where and by whom?
His biggest issue is he claims to know the science and cites part of the evidence and then ignores the overall conclusions from the same science. If he's a troll, he's not even a very good one.
I considered he's a troll. I've concluded he's batshit crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 28, 2021 0:20:38 GMT
No, seismic shifts can can cause "misplaced fossils" (if you're talking about segments of strata in the "wrong place." I never said "some fossils are always at the bottom" and "some are always found at the top." I said, you don't see certain fossils beside each other in the same stratum. Once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying, because you cannot contest what I'm saying. If you can, present specific examples. Checkmate, indeed.🙄 Notice how he never cites evidence of exactly what fossils are found where and by whom? I asked a question. You did not answer it. We just started this topic. This is the topic you atheists wanted by request. Now I'm gonna follow you down the rabbit hole and scientifically prove to you--yes prove--that tectonic uplifts did not place any fossils up in the mountains. But we need to establish a timeline of when these marine creatures lived and what the world looked like at this time according to the evolution timeline. Do you trust your own timeline? If you have conviction that evolution is true then you will answer my question using the timeline. I ask you when this event happened and how exactly these marine creatures became fossils before uplifts began to allegedly move them up? These questions are important because they separate philosophy from science. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 28, 2021 0:28:17 GMT
Here again you spout theory but the fossils do not obey theory. Misplaced fossils discredit the theory. In order for uniformitarism to be true, there cannot be any misplaced fossils. There are plenty of misplaced fossils. The fossils are arranged exactly as Flood geologists expected them to be. The proof is found in all the marine fossils found at the peaks of mountains. That's Checkmate# No, seismic shifts can can cause "misplaced fossils" (if you're talking about segments of strata in the "wrong place." I never said "some fossils are always at the bottom" and "some are always found at the top." I said, you don't see certain fossils beside each other in the same stratum. Once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying, because you cannot contest what I'm saying. If you can, present specific examples. Checkmate, indeed.🙄 Yes, there is ample proof of dino and mammal fossils found together. Misplaced fossils are hard proof that uniformitarianism is to be discredited. Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer. |
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 28, 2021 0:43:24 GMT
Same old same old.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 28, 2021 1:08:12 GMT
If you cannot answer my question then you are a troll. If you know evolution is true then you can answer my scientific question. If you lack conviction in evolution then you will dodge my question and continue to troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 28, 2021 11:43:38 GMT
No, seismic shifts can can cause "misplaced fossils" (if you're talking about segments of strata in the "wrong place." I never said "some fossils are always at the bottom" and "some are always found at the top." I said, you don't see certain fossils beside each other in the same stratum. Once again, you're arguing against something I'm not saying, because you cannot contest what I'm saying. If you can, present specific examples. Checkmate, indeed.🙄 Yes, there is ample proof of dino and mammal fossils found together. Misplaced fossils are hard proof that uniformitarianism is to be discredited. Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer. Present examples. They should be everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 28, 2021 12:10:27 GMT
Yes, there is ample proof of dino and mammal fossils found together. Misplaced fossils are hard proof that uniformitarianism is to be discredited. Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer. Present examples. They should be everywhere. Here's a link. creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaursRemember, all it takes is one out of place fossil to discredit uniformitarianism. If you want to hold that view then the entire fossil record must conform to the evolutionary scheme. Living fossils also discredit uniformitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 28, 2021 12:13:03 GMT
Now can you please answer my question? If I don't get an answer to my question then I win the debate. If none of you have an answer it means you don't know geology. But I do know geology which is why I'm challenging philosophers.
Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 28, 2021 17:01:23 GMT
Now can you please answer my question? If I don't get an answer to my question then I win the debate. If none of you have an answer it means you don't know geology. But I do know geology which is why I'm challenging philosophers. Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer.
Science says there was no global flood. That's the scientific answer.
When did tectonic uplifts happen? What does it matter, the answer is going to be different depending on the land mass or area you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 28, 2021 17:34:46 GMT
Now can you please answer my question? If I don't get an answer to my question then I win the debate. If none of you have an answer it means you don't know geology. But I do know geology which is why I'm challenging philosophers. Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer.
Science says there was no global flood. That's the scientific answer.
When did tectonic uplifts happen? What does it matter, the answer is going to be different depending on the land mass or area you are talking about.
Whatever happened to the whale fossils being found on top of mountain ranges?   |
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 28, 2021 17:40:23 GMT
Present examples. They should be everywhere. Here's a link. creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaursRemember, all it takes is one out of place fossil to discredit uniformitarianism. If you want to hold that view then the entire fossil record must conform to the evolutionary scheme. Living fossils also discredit uniformitarianism. Creation fucking dot com!😲 Are you a charter member of the Ark Encounter Museum?  |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 29, 2021 1:15:31 GMT
Now can you please answer my question? If I don't get an answer to my question then I win the debate. If none of you have an answer it means you don't know geology. But I do know geology which is why I'm challenging philosophers. Now how did marine fossils get to the top of all the mountainous ranges in the world? If you say tectonic uplifts did it, then when did this happen and how exactly did these marine creatures become fossils that they would be moved up by tectonic uplifts? So I'm asking a scientific question that requires a scientific answer.
Science says there was no global flood. That's the scientific answer.
When did tectonic uplifts happen? What does it matter, the answer is going to be different depending on the land mass or area you are talking about.
That is not the scientific answer. Do I have to remind you that modern science was founded by Christians? Many of those great minds of science were Young Earth Creationists! They invented everything and still invent useful things today. There are many scientists who agree with the Flood. These are the same type of scientists who founded and established modern science. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/44684/threadIt matters a lot. I want to show you the difference between science and philosophy. The philosopher makes up an idea and then pushes a narrative. The philosopher doesn't know science. I can prove to you that the philosopher is in error. So here's a new question: When did marine fossils in the country of Chile become the fossils that tectonic plates would move up as mountains grew? More importantly, how did those marine fossils become fossils prior to the uplifts? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 29, 2021 1:48:28 GMT
Science says there was no global flood. That's the scientific answer.
When did tectonic uplifts happen? What does it matter, the answer is going to be different depending on the land mass or area you are talking about.
That is not the scientific answer. Do I have to remind you that modern science was founded by Christians? Many of those great minds of science were Young Earth Creationists! They invented everything and still invent useful things today. There are many scientists who agree with the Flood. These are the same type of scientists who founded and established modern science. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/44684/threadIt matters a lot. I want to show you the difference between science and philosophy. The philosopher makes up an idea and then pushes a narrative. The philosopher doesn't know science. I can prove to you that the philosopher is in error. So here's a new question: When did marine fossils in the country of Chile become the fossils that tectonic plates would move up as mountains grew? More importantly, how did those marine fossils become fossils prior to the uplifts?
Yes, it is the scientific answer. You'd be laughed out of scientific circles coming in with crap like you're saying is fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on Mar 29, 2021 3:44:14 GMT
That is not the scientific answer. Do I have to remind you that modern science was founded by Christians? Many of those great minds of science were Young Earth Creationists! They invented everything and still invent useful things today. There are many scientists who agree with the Flood. These are the same type of scientists who founded and established modern science. libertynewsforum.boards.net/post/44684/threadIt matters a lot. I want to show you the difference between science and philosophy. The philosopher makes up an idea and then pushes a narrative. The philosopher doesn't know science. I can prove to you that the philosopher is in error. So here's a new question: When did marine fossils in the country of Chile become the fossils that tectonic plates would move up as mountains grew? More importantly, how did those marine fossils become fossils prior to the uplifts?
Yes, it is the scientific answer. You'd be laughed out of scientific circles coming in with crap like you're saying is fact.
As well as being the laughingstock of LNF. But it is fun. |
|
