|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 19:11:07 GMT
Is your argument that "fossils would not exist if not for the Flood"? Or is your argument "whales on the top of mountains are proof of a worldwide Flood"? I'm not a philosopher so I don't care about silly arguments. I asked you a question that you do not want to answer. I really don't blame you for not answering because any attempt you make to try and prove that tectonic uplifts put the fossils there will be destroyed by knowable geology. Yeah, you first issued the challenge about how whale fossils get to the tops of mountains (evidence of which have yet to offer). When that was rebutted, you changed the question. So...are you suggesting that the only way whale fossils get to the tops of mountains is because those mountains were once covered by water? There is no way that they could get there because of tectonic shifts? If that's what you're saying (and it might not be), are you then suggesting that these tectonic shifts (as revealed by the photo I provided) did not happen before the Flood?
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 23:47:22 GMT
I'm not a philosopher so I don't care about silly arguments. I asked you a question that you do not want to answer. I really don't blame you for not answering because any attempt you make to try and prove that tectonic uplifts put the fossils there will be destroyed by knowable geology. Yeah, you first issued the challenge about how whale fossils get to the tops of mountains (evidence of which have yet to offer). When that was rebutted, you changed the question. So...are you suggesting that the only way whale fossils get to the tops of mountains is because those mountains were once covered by water? There is no way that they could get there because of tectonic shifts? If that's what you're saying (and it might not be), are you then suggesting that these tectonic shifts (as revealed by the photo I provided) did not happen before the Flood? If you are saying tectonic shifts did it then you are no longer talking about Flood geology but uniformitarianism (i.e., atheism). The Flood has all the geological proof needed to call it proven. The fossils at the peaks of every mountains and the sedimentation visibly seen on all these mountains is proof that these mountains were all once under water where erosion and fossilization occurred. But don't fool yourself into think that tectonic uplifts explain the rapid process of fossilization because it doesn't. So you need to explain what happened that these whales and other marine creatures that caused them to become fossils in the first place? Does a dead whale fall to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil? What happened to those whales that caused them to become fossils? That's the question I'm asking you.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 23:54:26 GMT
Yeah, you first issued the challenge about how whale fossils get to the tops of mountains (evidence of which have yet to offer). When that was rebutted, you changed the question. So...are you suggesting that the only way whale fossils get to the tops of mountains is because those mountains were once covered by water? There is no way that they could get there because of tectonic shifts? If that's what you're saying (and it might not be), are you then suggesting that these tectonic shifts (as revealed by the photo I provided) did not happen before the Flood? If you are saying tectonic shifts did it then you are no longer talking about Flood geology but uniformitarianism (i.e., atheism). The Flood has all the geological proof needed to call it proven. The fossils at the peaks of every mountains and the sedimentation visibly seen on all these mountains is proof that these mountains were all once under water where erosion and fossilization occurred. But don't fool yourself into think that tectonic uplifts explain the rapid process of fossilization because it doesn't. So you need to explain what happened that these whales and other marine creatures that caused them to become fossils in the first place? Does a dead whale fall to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil? What happened to those whales that caused them to become fossils? That's the question I'm asking you. No, "uniformitarianism" is a fancy word in the vain attempt to legitimize bad arguments by Young Earth Creationists. I might have been impressed by that as a teen. No longer. Here's another neat picture:
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 1:33:56 GMT
If you are saying tectonic shifts did it then you are no longer talking about Flood geology but uniformitarianism (i.e., atheism). The Flood has all the geological proof needed to call it proven. The fossils at the peaks of every mountains and the sedimentation visibly seen on all these mountains is proof that these mountains were all once under water where erosion and fossilization occurred. But don't fool yourself into think that tectonic uplifts explain the rapid process of fossilization because it doesn't. So you need to explain what happened that these whales and other marine creatures that caused them to become fossils in the first place? Does a dead whale fall to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil? What happened to those whales that caused them to become fossils? That's the question I'm asking you. No, "uniformitarianism" is a fancy word in the vain attempt to legitimize bad arguments by Young Earth Creationists. I might have been impressed by that as a teen. No longer. Here's another neat picture: But, you really place a lot of stock in pictures. I asked for an answer to a question and you show me a picture of a dead beached whale without expressing any reason for posting it. I'm about done with your intellectual cowardice approach to discussion. You're like a clown here to entertain atheists. Your inability to answer my question exposes your scientific ignorance and disingenuous approach to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 1:37:53 GMT
So far no answers to my questions which I asked early on in this discussion. Just crickets from atheists. I always knew atheists didn't know science.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 1:47:48 GMT
No, "uniformitarianism" is a fancy word in the vain attempt to legitimize bad arguments by Young Earth Creationists. I might have been impressed by that as a teen. No longer. Here's another neat picture: But, you really place a lot of stock in pictures. I asked for an answer to a question and you show me a picture of a dead beached whale without expressing any reason for posting it. I'm about done with your intellectual cowardice approach to discussion. You're like a clown here to entertain atheists. Your inability to answer my question exposes your scientific ignorance and disingenuous approach to this discussion. I think you should be intelligent enough to understand the rebuttal of the claim that "dead whale bodies sinking to the bottom of the ocean don't produce fossils." Not every whale dies asea. My point is...ummm...glaringly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 3:42:33 GMT
But, you really place a lot of stock in pictures. I asked for an answer to a question and you show me a picture of a dead beached whale without expressing any reason for posting it. I'm about done with your intellectual cowardice approach to discussion. You're like a clown here to entertain atheists. Your inability to answer my question exposes your scientific ignorance and disingenuous approach to this discussion. I think you should be intelligent enough to understand the rebuttal of the claim that "dead whale bodies sinking to the bottom of the ocean don't produce fossils." Not every whale dies asea. My point is...ummm...glaringly obvious. No duh. So do you think a beached whale becomes a fossil? Yes, No, Maybe? You still haven't answered my question. Like a typical intellectual coward you dodge the question in fear that truth will be revealed and your dubious beliefs scientifically proven wrong. Stop being a coward and answer my questions. Are all you liberals complete intellectual pussies?
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 13:45:50 GMT
I think you should be intelligent enough to understand the rebuttal of the claim that "dead whale bodies sinking to the bottom of the ocean don't produce fossils." Not every whale dies asea. My point is...ummm...glaringly obvious. No duh. So do you think a beached whale becomes a fossil? Yes, No, Maybe? You still haven't answered my question. Like a typical intellectual coward you dodge the question in fear that truth will be revealed and your dubious beliefs scientifically proven wrong. Stop being a coward and answer my questions. Are all you liberals complete intellectual pussies? A beached whale could become a fossil. No? Either way, it's clear that not every whale dies and falls to the bottom of the ocean. I'll go back at some point and try to find those questions you want answered.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 15:24:01 GMT
No duh. So do you think a beached whale becomes a fossil? Yes, No, Maybe? You still haven't answered my question. Like a typical intellectual coward you dodge the question in fear that truth will be revealed and your dubious beliefs scientifically proven wrong. Stop being a coward and answer my questions. Are all you liberals complete intellectual pussies? A beached whale could become a fossil. No? Either way, it's clear that not every whale dies and falls to the bottom of the ocean. I'll go back at some point and try to find those questions you want answered. A beached whale is subject to decay. Fossilization only happens in rare conditions. Not every living thing that dies becomes a fossil. And a beached whale is not in the mountains either. As for whale deaths, whales tend to die and fall to the ocean floor (for the exception of beached whales).
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 15:41:45 GMT
A beached whale could become a fossil. No? Either way, it's clear that not every whale dies and falls to the bottom of the ocean. I'll go back at some point and try to find those questions you want answered. A beached whale is subject to decay. Fossilization only happens in rare conditions. Not every living thing that dies becomes a fossil. And a beached whale is not in the mountains either. As for whale deaths, whales tend to die and fall to the ocean floor (for the exception of beached whales). Completely circular. You are contending that whales are fossilized in the mountains because their fossils were found in the mountains (a claim for which you have yet to show any evidence). Thus "a beached whale is not in the mountains either" is just circular. Thus, irrelevant. It doesn't add to your case. Fossilization only happens in rare conditions. Yeah, and it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a reasonable scenario under which a whale might beach, die, and get covered up, creating the conditions under which a fossil might be left behind.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 16:02:46 GMT
A beached whale is subject to decay. Fossilization only happens in rare conditions. Not every living thing that dies becomes a fossil. And a beached whale is not in the mountains either. As for whale deaths, whales tend to die and fall to the ocean floor (for the exception of beached whales). Completely circular. You are contending that whales are fossilized in the mountains because their fossils were found in the mountains (a claim for which you have yet to show any evidence). Thus "a beached whale is not in the mountains either" is just circular. Thus, irrelevant. It doesn't add to your case. Fossilization only happens in rare conditions. Yeah, and it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a reasonable scenario under which a whale might beach, die, and get covered up, creating the conditions under which a fossil might be left behind. Fossilization is a rapid process. A beached whale will decay...not become a fossil. Whales during the Flood found themselves in elevated positions where they would die and be rapidly buried in the sediments. These whales where already at mountain level when this occurred. Their fossils speak for themselves. Exactly how high the mountains were at this time I don't pretend to know. But the ark landed on a mountain so we know mountains existed at the time. This tectonic uplift just-so story doesn't hold water. It doesn't explain fossilization or what caused the conditions of fossilization before these alleged uplifts. It just wildly assumes that whale fossils miraculously found their way up in the mountains. It also assumes mountains did not exist prior to these uplifts, as though everything was flat surface or something to that nature. i don't deny that the mountains have increased in size since the Flood. But there is no real evidence that says mountains didn't always exist (or at least not since the earth has been created). I'm totally not into philosophy. I focus only on what is knowable and provable and don't fuss over those things we don't know or cannot know. If we just focus on the facts we see the Flood is well proven in science. Funny, NASA says there was a near global flood on Mars while denying the reality that we had a global Flood right here on earth! The hypocrisy among evolutionists is astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 20:14:39 GMT
Completely circular. You are contending that whales are fossilized in the mountains because their fossils were found in the mountains (a claim for which you have yet to show any evidence). Thus "a beached whale is not in the mountains either" is just circular. Thus, irrelevant. It doesn't add to your case. Fossilization only happens in rare conditions. Yeah, and it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a reasonable scenario under which a whale might beach, die, and get covered up, creating the conditions under which a fossil might be left behind. Fossilization is a rapid process. A beached whale will decay...not become a fossil. Whales during the Flood found themselves in elevated positions where they would die and be rapidly buried in the sediments. These whales where already at mountain level when this occurred. Their fossils speak for themselves. Exactly how high the mountains were at this time I don't pretend to know. But the ark landed on a mountain so we know mountains existed at the time. This tectonic uplift just-so story doesn't hold water. It doesn't explain fossilization or what caused the conditions of fossilization before these alleged uplifts. It just wildly assumes that whale fossils miraculously found their way up in the mountains. It also assumes mountains did not exist prior to these uplifts, as though everything was flat surface or something to that nature. i don't deny that the mountains have increased in size since the Flood. But there is no real evidence that says mountains didn't always exist (or at least not since the earth has been created). I'm totally not into philosophy. I focus only on what is knowable and provable and don't fuss over those things we don't know or cannot know. If we just focus on the facts we see the Flood is well proven in science. Funny, NASA says there was a near global flood on Mars while denying the reality that we had a global Flood right here on earth! The hypocrisy among evolutionists is astounding. Once again, you didn't even read what I posted. "...it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a reasonable scenario under which a whale might beach, die, and get covered up, creating the conditions under which a fossil might be left behind."
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 2, 2021 17:19:28 GMT
Areas that are mountaintops now were once underwater. That is evidence that a one particular area was once underwater. It is not evidence of a global flood within the last 10,000 years that covered Mount Everest.
It's worth noting that global catastrophes leave striking, unmistakable records for us to find. The non-avian dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. (Birds, which are descended from dinosaurs, survived.) Not only could we find a record of their disappearance 65 million years later, we also found two plausible causes: massive, sustained volcanic eruptions in South Asia and a meteor that crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This global catastrophe left striking, unmistakable clues.
If water had covered the entire Earth, including Mt. Everest, within the last 10,000 years, it would be absolutely unmistakable from a dozen different branches of science: genetics, linguistics, radioactive dating, geological formations, anthropology, and on and on. The evidence just is not there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2021 20:19:30 GMT
Areas that are mountaintops now were once underwater. That is evidence that a one particular area was once underwater. It is not evidence of a global flood within the last 10,000 years that covered Mount Everest. It's worth noting that global catastrophes leave striking, unmistakable records for us to find. The non-avian dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. (Birds, which are descended from dinosaurs, survived.) Not only could we find a record of their disappearance 65 million years later, we also found two plausible causes: massive, sustained volcanic eruptions in South Asia and a meteor that crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This global catastrophe left striking, unmistakable clues. If water had covered the entire Earth, including Mt. Everest, within the last 10,000 years, it would be absolutely unmistakable from a dozen different branches of science: genetics, linguistics, radioactive dating, geological formations, anthropology, and on and on. The evidence just is not there. Actually we have now very good reasons to believe that the crash of the meteor was what triggered the massive volcanic eruptions, so it is in fact the combination of these correlated events that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 3, 2021 0:13:38 GMT
Fossilization is a rapid process. A beached whale will decay...not become a fossil. Whales during the Flood found themselves in elevated positions where they would die and be rapidly buried in the sediments. These whales where already at mountain level when this occurred. Their fossils speak for themselves. Exactly how high the mountains were at this time I don't pretend to know. But the ark landed on a mountain so we know mountains existed at the time. This tectonic uplift just-so story doesn't hold water. It doesn't explain fossilization or what caused the conditions of fossilization before these alleged uplifts. It just wildly assumes that whale fossils miraculously found their way up in the mountains. It also assumes mountains did not exist prior to these uplifts, as though everything was flat surface or something to that nature. i don't deny that the mountains have increased in size since the Flood. But there is no real evidence that says mountains didn't always exist (or at least not since the earth has been created). I'm totally not into philosophy. I focus only on what is knowable and provable and don't fuss over those things we don't know or cannot know. If we just focus on the facts we see the Flood is well proven in science. Funny, NASA says there was a near global flood on Mars while denying the reality that we had a global Flood right here on earth! The hypocrisy among evolutionists is astounding. Once again, you didn't even read what I posted. "...it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a reasonable scenario under which a whale might beach, die, and get covered up, creating the conditions under which a fossil might be left behind." No. It won't. It will decay in the sun and be eaten by scavengers. Beached whales do not become fossils.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 3, 2021 0:15:21 GMT
Areas that are mountaintops now were once underwater. That is evidence that a one particular area was once underwater. It is not evidence of a global flood within the last 10,000 years that covered Mount Everest. It's worth noting that global catastrophes leave striking, unmistakable records for us to find. The non-avian dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. (Birds, which are descended from dinosaurs, survived.) Not only could we find a record of their disappearance 65 million years later, we also found two plausible causes: massive, sustained volcanic eruptions in South Asia and a meteor that crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This global catastrophe left striking, unmistakable clues. If water had covered the entire Earth, including Mt. Everest, within the last 10,000 years, it would be absolutely unmistakable from a dozen different branches of science: genetics, linguistics, radioactive dating, geological formations, anthropology, and on and on. The evidence just is not there. Actually we have now very good reasons to believe that the crash of the meteor was what triggered the massive volcanic eruptions, so it is in fact the combination of these correlated events that caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. Do you hold to the global firestorm version of this tail or the local firestorm version of it? Explain where this alleged asteroid made impact and what happened afterwords.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 3, 2021 1:13:33 GMT
Areas that are mountaintops now were once underwater. That is evidence that a one particular area was once underwater. It is not evidence of a global flood within the last 10,000 years that covered Mount Everest. It's worth noting that global catastrophes leave striking, unmistakable records for us to find. The non-avian dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. (Birds, which are descended from dinosaurs, survived.) Not only could we find a record of their disappearance 65 million years later, we also found two plausible causes: massive, sustained volcanic eruptions in South Asia and a meteor that crashed into the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This global catastrophe left striking, unmistakable clues. If water had covered the entire Earth, including Mt. Everest, within the last 10,000 years, it would be absolutely unmistakable from a dozen different branches of science: genetics, linguistics, radioactive dating, geological formations, anthropology, and on and on. The evidence just is not there. Finally, someone who wants to participate in discussion. Now we are getting somewhere. This is a philosophical belief only know in modern times. Even the pagans knew there was a global Flood. So evolutionists have gone against world history on the matter. So I have very important scientific questions for you. 1 - When were these landmasses that would become mountains under water? 2 - What caused the fossilization of marine creatures (including large whales)? If you want to believe tectonic uplifts did it then it needs to be backed up by knowable science. There is sedimentary rock found all over the world in every country in the world. This is caused mainly by the erosive force of water. Though we find volcanic activity was happening during the Flood which is to be expected in a global Flood. There are historical records of this Flood as far back as human history records. Obviously when ancient antiquity agrees with this event it must have been something the ancients wanted us to remember. Here we see Job give us an ancient geological survey which he attributes to the Flood: Job 14:18-19, 18 “But as a mountain falls and crumbles away, And as a rock is moved from its place; 19 As water wears away stones, And as torrents wash away the soil of the earth; So You destroy the hope of man." www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+14%3A18-19&version=NKJVHe is observing the aftermath of the Flood 1000 years after the Flood happened around 3000 B.C. (Job lived about 2000 B.C.). For his time this is outstanding geology!! Birds have very a fragile respiratory system. How would birds survive the K/Pg event is beyond biological reasoning. They say the T-rex evolved into a chicken which I find laughable. So when exactly did this evolution from T-rex to chicken occur: (1) while the T-rex was running from the firestorm, or (2) after the T-rex was burned up in the extreme heat? Are birds resistant to extreme heat? Evolutionists still hold the view that only little rodents survived this killer asteroid. so we humans all evolved from little rodents, from mice to men? And what evidence is there that an asteroid bigger and heavier that Mt.Everest landed in the Yucatan? Really? Here is a video put out by evolutionists from Discovery Channel who demonstrate what a large asteroid impact big enough to cause a global firestorm would do to the earth. Those who read the captions on the video should have also read, "The firestorm encircles the Earth, vaporizing all life in its way. Within one day, the surface of the Earth is uninhabitable. The evidence shows that this has happened at least six times in Earth's history."
I don't believe this ever happened once! Absolutely nothing can survive an asteroid large enough to produce a global firestorm!! And you believe birds somehow survived this? Or maybe you believe the local firestorm version now? Ancient antiquity records it. There is sedimentary rock all over the earth. The fossils are found in sedimentary rock. There are marine fossils at the peaks of every mountain range. I'd say that proves the Flood. All these things are what we'd expect to find if there was a global Flood. Here are just three pictures showing you sedimentary rock. That's caused from the erosive force of water...not firestorms. Rapid erosion from the force of water rushing through the mountains did this....not a firestorm.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2021 14:15:51 GMT
Once again, you didn't even read what I posted. "...it doesn't take too much imagination to come up with a reasonable scenario under which a whale might beach, die, and get covered up, creating the conditions under which a fossil might be left behind." No. It won't. It will decay in the sun and be eaten by scavengers. Beached whales do not become fossils. So...no imagination then. What about...a volcano? Oh...I see reading previous posts that volcanic activity has now come up. Disregarding any other physical phenomena, what about "just a volcano"?
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 3, 2021 22:12:33 GMT
I like how atheists pretend to understand geology while denying the proof for the Flood. So I figure why not open an entertaining topic exposing the ignorance of atheists. Should be easy. 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. But if one wants to entertain the lie that an asteroid did it, then we should find any fossils at all, especially in the K-Pg blast zone. How is this "operational science"? Lets just say there were eye witnesses to the Flood and the aftermath of the Flood. The Flood was such a major event that all ancient antiquity records it. There are even three or four Flood legends know to the native Americans. If the world was covered in water then we'd expect to find fossils in sedimentary rock. We'd see sedimentation on all the mountains. All these things we see. The fossils at the peaks of each mountain confirms all these things.
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 3, 2021 22:23:44 GMT
No. It won't. It will decay in the sun and be eaten by scavengers. Beached whales do not become fossils. So...no imagination then. What about...a volcano? Oh...I see reading previous posts that volcanic activity has now come up. Disregarding any other physical phenomena, what about "just a volcano"? Just a volcano will not product sedimentary rock all over the world. It does explain some of the record though. A world under water will experience volcanic activity. I have no doubts about that. But sedimentary rock is best explained by a whole lotta water that, as Job observes, erodes the mountains and rocks, moving them from their place. That passage in Job is outstanding geology for back in 2000 B.C.! Then again, Job and his friends were actually very intelligent people who were thousands of years ahead of modern science. If you never read Job before then I recommend reading it. Its one of those Books you can read in one sitting. Job reads best in the KJV but that Tyndale Bibles are also good. Its just that the KJV translators seemed to do a fine job translating Job--slightly better than the Tyndale Bibles even. The most widely accepted theory by evolutionists of what happened that left such a mass fossil record is to claim an asteroid larger and heavier than Mt.Everest smashed into the Yucatan Peninsula. This is called the K-T event or the K-Pg event. The K-Pg event is used more often in recent years. This view is insane and has no evidence to show for it. No scientific method applied there. Just one assumption after another.
|
|