DINOSAUR BONES FOUND IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR THE FIRST TIME

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Huh?

That I can agree with, hands down!

God blesses! Jesus saves!

[Igakusei]

Gerry, since you brought up whales in the Andes, here's a paper for you:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/...73385414e28.pdf

Look at the lists of species that they found there, and tell me if you find a pattern.

If planes & computers do not appear on their own, are you saying you believe the inanimate things we see were created by a Creator/Master Designer? If so, then I plead guilty for mis-representing your position. But if not, then tell me how inanimate nature came to be, and how something not alive could give rise to something even more complex that is alive?

[Igakusei]

In any case, I find these discussions far more interesting when we can pick a single topic and dig deeply into specifics. My experience with most creationists is that every time I feel like I nail down one of their assertions, they simply change the subject. We jump from flood geology, to evolution, to abiogenesis, to the solar system, etc. I really liked your argument about these local floods and mountaintop fossils being evidence for a worldwide deluge of Noah, because I think that's an argument that I can very effectively and thoroughly burn to the ground for you. But it's going to be hard to do that if you keep talking about the Wright brothers, Cray computers, and the origin of sex. Can we pick one thing and stick to it for a bit? It's like playing whack-a-mole over here.

[Gerr]

I really liked your argument about these local floods and mountaintop fossils being evidence for a worldwide deluge of Noah, because I think that's an argument that I can very effectively and thoroughly burn to the ground for you.

Now you have me shaking in my slippers. But I'll ask you this anyway. How are fossils formed?

[Igakusei]

No, no, you don't get to keep changing the subject. I've already repeatedly asked you how you can generalize a bunch of local floods to a global one, considering that those local floods are understood by the geographical and temporal extent of the evidence they leave behind. Often with clearly defined borders on both fronts.

Answer that, and then maybe I'll play your pseudopaleontology game.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I've already repeatedly asked you how you can generalize a bunch of local floods to a global one, considering that those local floods are understood by the geographical and temporal extent of the evidence they leave behind. Often with clearly defined borders on both fronts.

The above is a fundamental question with critical importance.

I know of creationist, SDA, geologist, scientists who would agree with the above statement and would phrase their response as follows:

"The geological evidence neither supports the idea of a global flood, nor does it rule out a global flood."

Thea bottom line is: The geological evidence of a flood typically leaves defined boarders which do not support a global flood.

[phkrause]

"The geological evidence neither supports the idea of a global flood, nor does it rule out a global flood."

I can definitely agree with that statement, Gregory. I think once again it comes down to that one thing, at least for me, is "Faith and trust in what the Bible says about the Flood.

[Igakusei]

At the risk of giving Gerry something else to reply to instead of what I actually asked him to reply to, let me add some much needed context to that statement:

It depends a lot on exactly what type of flood you're envisioning. Geology neither provides evidence in support of nor rules out a global flood that managed to come and go without leaving a significant effect on the planet's topology, or perhaps one that occurred so far in the past that all of its effects have been replaced by younger rocks.

But geological evidence most certainly rules out the type of flood that most creationists tend to propose, which is one that alone and in the recent past explains a large portion of the Earth's current topography, fossil and coal distributions, geologic column, continental drift, etc. The geological evidence absolutely does rule out that sort of global flood (see OP).

It fails to rule out a global flood in the same way it fails to rule out that a small meteorite landed in the Atlantic Ocean ten thousand years ago leaving no lasting evidence.

[Gerr]

No, no, you don't get to keep changing the subject. I've already repeatedly asked you how you can generalize a bunch of local floods to a global one, considering that those local floods are understood by the geographical and temporal extent of the evidence they leave behind. Often with clearly defined borders on both fronts.

Answer that, and then maybe I'll play your pseudopaleontology game.

Or do you refuse to answer because of what it might lead to? Well, I'll answer it for you because it also provides the answer to what you are asking.

The most common way that fossils form requires a catastrophic, rapid, and permanent burial/entombment in sediment brought in by water. So to answer your question about evidence for a North American flood, and yes, a universal flood, there are fossils all over North America, and indeed, on every large land mass on this planet and even high mountains. To me this is best explained by a universal flood rather than just a series of local floods. Furthermore, a universal cretaceous layer can only mean one thing - a universal deluge that deposited this sediment layer.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

universal flood,

Please use the term, global flood.

You may think that I am nitpicking: But, to say "universal flood" looks foolish to many people. I don't think that creationists need to go out of their way to look foolish.

[Igakusei]

That was actually the reigning paradigm before the 16th century, when the Aristotelian idea that we could simply think our way to reliable truths began being replaced by the novel idea that we should actually carefully examine the evidence in nature before forming our conclusions out of thin air.

When natural philosophers actually began carefully recording and analyzing the patterns found among those fossils and the layers they were found in, they fairly quickly replaced the now untenable idea that a global flood was responsible for it with the idea that Noah's flood might only explain the uppermost layers where we found humans and other extant organisms. Later that too was replaced as we began to understand things like glaciers.

The reason modern geology doesn't accept Noah's flood as the explanation for all of your fossils is because we learned hundreds of years ago that when you actually look at the details, it simply doesn't make sense. The puzzle pieces simply don't fit together that way, no matter how hard you try to force them.

It only makes sense in the vague hand-wavey fashion of those that lived before the scientific revolution, before educated people decided that it wasn't enough to simply assert what seems plausible and accept that as truth. Hundreds of years, Gerry, that's how far out of date your idea is. Here are a few examples:

http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/elders-flood-report.htm

[Gerr]

Quote:

universal flood,

Please use the term, global flood.

You may think that I am nitpicking: But, to say "universal flood" looks foolish to many people. I don't think that creationists need to go out of their way to look foolish.

I stand corrected. But you know what I meant.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I knew what you meant.

Many creationists use the term "universal flood." I used to use it myself and still have to catch myself to keep from doing it.

I decided to quit when I became aware of how others reacted to my using the term "universal flood."

[fccool]

Quote:

The most common way that fossils form requires a catastrophic, rapid, and permanent burial/entombment in sediment brought in by water.

It doesn't have to be merely water. There are sand storms, there are volcanic eruptions, there are mud slides... all of these can create adequate conditions for fossilization.

The problem you have to explain in a flood scenario - why would the fossils be so rare, given the global flood scenario? If flood buried everything in one particular instance, the fossil record would be much more diverse, and massive.

We don't see that.

Quote:

So to answer your question about evidence for a North American flood, and yes, a universal flood, there are fossils all over North America, and indeed, on every large land mass on this planet and even high mountains.

You know how mountains form, right?

Quote:

To me this is best explained by a universal flood rather than just a series of local floods.

Perhaps you should expand your scope of possibility, and examine data without presupposing the answers.

Quote:

Furthermore, a universal cretaceous layer can only mean one thing - a universal deluge that deposited this sediment layer.

Really... only one thing? That's brilliant!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

Furthermore, a universal cretaceous layer can only mean one thing - a universal deluge that deposited this sediment layer.

Really... only one thing? That's brilliant!

So tell me how a universal, errr, global cretaceous layer with all the marine life in it is formed by volcanic, sandstorm, or whatever else you have in mind?

[Igakusei]

First, can you clearly state which layers were and were not laid down by the flood?

Second, I hope you realize that the Cretaceous rocks include a variety of different depositional environments.

[fccool]

Quote:

So tell me how a universal, errr, global cretaceous layer with all the marine life in it is formed by volcanic, sandstorm, or whatever else you have in mind?

Well, it's not really my job to do that, but your high-school science teacher, who should have at the very least introduced you to this guy... who won a Nobel Prize for his body of work.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1968/alvarez-bio.html

Among one of these discoveries was something that's called a K-T Boundary, which has 100s of times more concentration of Iridium than you'd expect from a marine or any other sediment layers.

It would seem like at that event boundary that we notice mass extinction of a wide variety of animal life.

So, the speculation goes that an asteroid (which are rich in Iridium) crashed on earth, pulverizing its contents into atmosphere, which then settled into that layer. That dust cloud blocked the sunlight, and killed off much of the reptile life, which was not suited for life in the cold... at least such is the educated speculation.

I'd like to see you give it a try as to how a global flood would be responsible for the abnormal iridium quantities that we find in that layer.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I decided to quit when I became aware of how others reacted to my using the term "universal flood."

Why? Doesn't the term "universal flood", especially talking of biblical knowledge, refer only to this world?

"Noah was 600 years old when the flood covered the earth."Genesis 7:6 NLT

"You clothed the earth with floods of water, water that covered even the mountains."Psalm 104:6 NLT

Quote:

But, to say "universal flood" looks foolish to many people.

Considering that a large portion of the population of the earth consider any belief in the Holy Scripture, especially as it relates to Jesus being One with God and the only God, see believers as, at the minimum naive, how far should we go to change the wording of the Holy Bible to make it palatable to them, especially in light of this reality below?

"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’"Matthew 4:4 NASB

Jesus/God saves!

[Igakusei]

fccool have you read this book? It tells that story from the perspective of the scientists who uncovered it. Pretty fascinating:

http://www.amazon.com/Crater-Doom-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691131031/

This other one by the same author is also an extremely well-written book on geology which I would recommend to anyone:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mountains-Saint-Francis-Discovering/dp/039306185X

[fccool]

fccool have you read this book? It tells that story from the perspective of the scientists who uncovered it. Pretty fascinating:

http://www.amazon.com/Crater-Doom-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691131031/

This other one by the same author is also an extremely well-written book on geology which I would recommend to anyone:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mountains-Saint-Francis-Discovering/dp/039306185X

I haven't read the book, but it seems to be by the son of Luis Alvarez... it was a father-son research team.

Thanks for the link. It's on Kindle, and I'll definitely check it out!

[Gregory Matthews]

Thea Bible may teach a global flood, although that statement is challenged by some.

Most people today understand the term "universal" to apply outside this solar system to the entire universe. To them, to suggest that there was a flood of water that at some time engaged planets outside of our solar system is beyond the belief of any intelligent person.

I do not believe that in the name of Christ and the Bible, we need to go out of our way to look foolish when it is not necessary.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

to suggest that there was a flood of water that at some time engaged planets outside of our solar system is beyond the belief of any intelligent person.

I do not believe that in the name of Christ and the Bible, we need to go out of our way to look foolish when it is not necessary.

Bold mine LHC

I would personally agree with the attempt to avoid looking foolish, except when it is necessary to be a key to spreading the Word where it is needed.

OTOH when the Word is no longer accepted, looking foolish may be the need, especially as we see events leading up to the close of time.

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."Mark 8:38 KJV

"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,"Acts 7:52-55 KJV

God cares! Jesus saves!

[Gerr]

Quote:

So tell me how a universal, errr, global cretaceous layer with all the marine life in it is formed by volcanic, sandstorm, or whatever else you have in mind?

Well, it's not really my job to do that, but your high-school science teacher, who should have at the very least introduced you to this guy... who won a Nobel Prize for his body of work.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1968/alvarez-bio.html

Among one of these discoveries was something that's called a K-T Boundary, which has 100s of times more concentration of Iridium than you'd expect from a marine or any other sediment layers.

It would seem like at that event boundary that we notice mass extinction of a wide variety of animal life.

So, the speculation goes that an asteroid (which are rich in Iridium) crashed on earth, pulverizing its contents into atmosphere, which then settled into that layer. That dust cloud blocked the sunlight, and killed off much of the reptile life, which was not suited for life in the cold... at least such is the educated speculation.

I'd like to see you give it a try as to how a global flood would be responsible for the abnormal iridium quantities that we find in that layer.

Oh yea, I've read about Alvarez. If I recall correctly, he was the one who proposed the theory that some asteroid was responsible for what happened. I heard similar tales in grade school but my grade school teacher pooh-poohed it. That's probably why I didn't hear much about it in high school. The teacher even told us the tale about people ascending, or is it descending? from monkeys. I said, how could that be? Monkeys are so hairy and have tails, and the only hair I had was on my head. The teacher said some very smart people said that when the monkeys decided to become people, they just decided they didn't need the hair and the tail anymore, so they just shed them off. So I said, "If my grand-father (bald by this time) wished to get his hair back, could he get it back? Besides, why would they want to shed off that tail? I loved climbing trees, and that tail could have come very handy!"

Ah, yes the iridium. Is an asteroid hit the only possible explanation? China has most of the known rare earth deposits. Wouldn't a catastrophic event like Noah's Flood be able to disperse those rare earth deposits globally? Wouldn't that be a possibility?

When a physician is faced with a puzzling set of signs and symptoms, he makes a list of the different possible diseases (differential diagnosis). It doesn't matter how far-fetched some of them might be, but they are included anyway.

Have you ever wondered why non-Bible believing scientists would not even consider a Noachian Flood in their list of different possibilities? Oh, they would entertain local floods, theories like some asteroid with some protein or some precursor life form entered this planet and started the whole thing! They seem to forget that an asteroid or meteorite becomes sterilized as it goes through the atmosphere. They also seem to ignore the obvious question, where did the asteroid come from? Or that an asteroid killed all the dinosaurs! Evolution forbid that such a thing as a global flood ever happened, or that a Supreme Intelligence created all things!!! What ever this evolution is, it/he/she must be a very intelligent and powerful being!!!

You can no more reproduce what you think happened than I can recreate Noah's Flood. No matter how scientific you might think your position is, it is still a matter of speculation. You think your explanation makes more sense than mine. Well, that's a matter of opinion! You have already admitted that 747s and computers do not appear out of the blue, yet when I make the same conclusion about a galaxy, a planet, or a living organism, then I'm illogical and unscientific?

Since neither of us can repeat the events/process that we think produced what we see, then to paraphrase the president, let me say this, "If you like your fairy tale you can keep your fairy tale!"

[fccool]

Quote:

Ah, yes the iridium. Is an asteroid hit the only possible explanation? China has most of the known rare earth deposits. Wouldn't a catastrophic event like Noah's Flood be able to disperse those rare earth deposits globally? Wouldn't that be a possibility?

Flood couldn't have carried a non-soluble metal, and distributed it in quantities that are otherwise not generally observed in any marine sediment environments... and that's the point.

The question is whether your explanation is better, and it doesn't appear to be.

Unless you have a better explanation that's actually matches reality... then why would you ignore the better explanations that actually match the real world data?

[fccool]

Quote:

You can no more reproduce what you think happened than I can recreate Noah's Flood. No matter how scientific you might think your position is, it is still a matter of speculation.

Sure, we have to depend on some degree of speculation, but the explanation that has the least amount of it is generally more reliable. This principle has proven itself over and over again, and that's what scientific method rests upon.

It's not about... "Well, you are speculating too", but it's about "I'm speculating much less than you do".

Quote:

You think your explanation makes more sense than mine. Well, that's a matter of opinion!

No, it's a matter of observable data. You keep devolving into cosmology and 747s as though these points somehow make the flood story viable. It's irrelevant to what we observe from geology - little to no evidence of global flood, and better suited hypotheses when it comes to interpreting the data.

There are plenty of scientists who could simply blow the lid open on the worldwide flood story, but the evidence is simply not there. Instead, there are evidence for other hypothesis that explains the events and fit the observable data better.

Quote:

You have already admitted that 747s and computers do not appear out of the blue, yet when I make the same conclusion about a galaxy, a planet, or a living organism, then I'm illogical and unscientific?

What's unscientific is your slippery slope assumptions that a non-physical cosmic brain did it, when in reality:

1) We have no evidence or example of a mind outside of a brain. The only examples of "the mind" that we have is within the confines of the brain.

2) Humans make 747s and computers, and we have plentiful examples of humans doing these. We don't have any examples of God or angels putting computers and 747s together, needless to say galaxies and stars.

Therefore, you rest solely on assumption. Science doesn't have to accept that answer.