bindex:

If only you read what i wrote the second time you will see that i porvided the source and you won't be here be here making a fool of yourself. foolish fool.

where did you provide the source? Pls do tell. thankfully i already quoted a copy of the post.

Noetic since you said you are interested in a honest debate I want you go go through your creationsit websites and provide scientific answers that will disprove these scientific evidences that are against the occurrence of a global flood happened.

Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go?

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to
settle.

Pls show us where a source is indicated.

davidylan:

What an immature nuisance. the first one was from wikipedia and i DULY NOTED THAT. That is why the first word reads thus - [size=18pt]Wikipedia[/size]

I wasnt "copying" from wikipedia, i simply did what i have now become accustomed to doing, running posts from empty headed blowhards like you through software that automatically fetches the websites you are plagiarizing from. turns out mazaje's alleged claim on polystrate fossils is suspiciously too similar to one used on wikipedia which of course had no source.

The source on Prof Rupke did not come from wikipedia, that is common knowledge dude . . . we are not all brain dead like you fools. I thought mazaje would know . . . afterall he claimed to be a "geologist".

At least when we copy and paste we copy and paste what we agree with and stick with it till the end of our arguments unlike you that copies and paste things that you do not even agree with your previous statements and when you are caught you end up changing your positions all over the place. We know who the blow-hard brainless trolls are.

bindex:

At least when we copy and paste we copy and paste what we agree with and stick with it till the end of our arguments unlike you that copies and paste things that you do not even agree with your previous statements and when you are caught you end up changing your positions all over the place. We know who the blow-hard brainless trolls are.

yawn . . . pls respond to my last post. tired of this brainless and fruitless back and forth with these dishonest sons of belial.

If only you can read and understand what people are saying rather than hurrying to sound stupid and block-headed.

bindex:

If only you read what i wrote[b] the second time[/b] you will see that i provided the source and you won't be here be here making a fool of yourself. foolish fool.

bindex:

Now lets talk about the historical aspects? Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#r6Alley

Lean to read you brainless goon. Before ejaculating like a disturbed retard.

davidylan:

yawn . . . pls respond to my last post. tired of this brainless and fruitless back and forth with these dishonest sons of belial.

Of course I expect you to yawn to hide away your shame, the only person that has been caught plagiarizing and changing positions all over a single thread is you. I have responded your post you deluded, block-headed and ridiculous wannabe descendant of the mythical abraham.

Endless battles  , I am not a geologist I will only provide answers based on what I have read from both presentations, and Noetic can provide counter arguments. I am here to learn not throw insults.

noetic2:

Are u serious at all? The highlighted part makes a bold claim without stating facts to buttress this claim.

1. What is the proof that this fossils were not transported by the flood?

Talk origin says that because "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil). One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam. The "transported floating upright stumps" model is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.

2. whats the proof that the fossils grew in their present location?

[b]"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position." individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur[/b]

3. If they did not grow in their current location (2 above), how did they get to their present location?

Geologists believe episodic local floods are quite up to the task of rapid burial, “in situ trees.” In situ forests have been buried and sub-fossilized in historic times! Talk origin also states that conventional geologist do not interpret the occurrence the simple way you stated it.

davidylan:

What an immature nuisance. the first one was from wikipedia and i DULY NOTED THAT. That is why the first word reads thus - [size=18pt]Wikipedia[/size]

I wasnt "copying" from wikipedia, i[b] simply did what i have now become accustomed to doing, running posts from empty headed blowhards like you through software that automatically fetches the websites you are plagiarizing from.[/b] turns out mazaje's alleged claim on polystrate fossils is suspiciously too similar to one used on wikipedia which of course had no source.

The source on Prof Rupke did not come from wikipedia, that is common knowledge dude . . . we are not all brain dead like you fools. I thought mazaje would know . . . afterall he claimed to be a "geologist".

Why are you always trying so hard, I thought the same mazaje once exposed you for plagiarizing word for word on another Christian websites? Are you saying that you alone has the monopoly of plagiarism? You were so discredited on that thread because what you plagiarized did not even agree with all the things you had earlier stated and made you look very cheap.

dalaman:

Why are you always trying so hard, I thought the same mazaje once exposed you for plagiarizing word for word on another Christian websites? Are you saying that you alone has the monopoly of plagiarism? You were so discredited on that thread because what you plagiarized did not even agree with all the things you had earlier stated and made you look very cheap.

, Dalaman  What more do you expect from the father of all liars and hypocrites on nairaland?

I went through the article on wikipedia and it has answers to all your claims.

noetic2:


1. What is the proof that this fossils were not transported by the flood?

Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their(fossil trees) formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. And also "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil).

2. whats the proof that the fossils grew in their present location?

Geologists have recognized innumerable fossil soils (paleosols) throughout the strata containing polystrate fossils at Joggins, Nova Scotia, Yellowstone petrified forests, coal mines of the Black Warrior Basin of Alabama, and many other locations. The layer immediately underlying coal seams, often called either "seatearth or underclay", typically either consists of or contains a paleosol. Paleosols are soils which were formed by subaerial weathering during periods of very slow or no accumulation of sediments. Later, renewed sedimentation buried these soils to create paleosols. These paleosols are identified on the basis of the presence of structures and microstructures unique to soils; animal burrows and molds of plant roots of various sizes and types; recognizable soil profile development; and alteration of minerals by soil processes. In many cases, these paleosols are virtually identical to modern soils.

Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. Geologists, such as Falcon and Rygel et al., have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. Which are evidence to show that the fossil trees grew in their present locations.

3. If they did not grow in their current location (2 above), how did they get to their present location?

Geologist have said that they grew in their current location and were not carried there by any flood. Geologist such as Falcon and Rygel et al have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root system which are rooted within recognizable paleosols to show that they grew in their present locations and were not moved there at all.