27 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'd say a singular world wide event could produce similar results around
A mass dieing over such a short time would make fossils of different species more likely to be found together not less. Human fossils are not found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils, not even close. You have to explain this as a global flood explanation is going to produce strata of the same type everywhere and you need human fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils if humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.
the world such as similarly looking strata an the same levels around
the world, why wouldn’t it? I’d also think that like creatures would be
found in similar places, creatures of different size and compositions
could be affected differently as the effects of fossilizations work them
over. The range of possibilities is very vast, yet simply questioning the
common beliefs about the world around us gets us labeled something
less than.
Kelly
27 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayHumans, by which I mean Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis, buried their dead. This is one reason why there is a relatively good record of human and neanderthals. In a catastrophe there is no possibility for this, further people would be killed where they were, and doing what they were doing - this includes hunting or farming the beasts. So yes, I stand by this. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted then you should find direct evidence of this in the fossil records.
Really, and why is that, if you were a person and something so bad
was about to happen to you were about to be buried alive so fast you
would turn into a fossil you'd run to where the very large animals were
for protection?
Kelly
Further I do not require that they are found in exactly the same location, merely that they are found in geologically compatible strata. They are not. Explain this.
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNot everything would have been killed where they were, how they
Humans, by which I mean Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis, buried their dead. This is one reason why there is a relatively good record of human and neanderthals. In a catastrophe there is no possibility for this, further people would be killed where they were, and doing what they were doing - this includes hunting or farming the beasts. So yes, I st ...[text shortened]... ion, merely that they are found in geologically compatible strata. They are not. Explain this.
were thrown about or buried would directly be related to where they
were at the moment the event occurred and how large or small they
were too, not to mention how they reacted or could react to what
was coming. Some creatures bolt, some stand their ground, some
bury their heads in the ground and so on, there are a thousand
reasons why you don't see them next to each other. With respect to
the various strata where we find fossils, I'd like to see what it is you
are basing that on, there a strata map with all the locations of all
finds laid out some where, or is that just a common belief without
verification?
Kelly
28 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayFlood:
Not everything would have been killed where they were, how they
were thrown about or buried would directly be related to where they
were at the moment the event occurred and how large or small they
were too, not to mention how they reacted or could react to what
was coming. Some creatures bolt, some stand their ground, some
bury their heads in the grou all
finds laid out some where, or is that just a common belief without
verification?
Kelly
This is all very well for some kind of localized catastrophe, But you are talking about a global calamity - where are they going to run to? In your scenario populations of millions were wiped out in a short time you have to provide a better explanation as to why humans are not found with dinosaur fossils. The process you describe is going to homogenize the distribution of corpses not separate them out. (*)
Strata & Fossil formation:
The difficulty is that the scenario you are describing and the whole fossil record are incompatible on timing alone, The model for fossil formation needs a few million years just for the strata to form,
However, specific species are found within specific strata (a species might range over several strata depending on how long it lasted). The K-T boundary (when the dinosaurs died out) has a higher level of irridium, which is taken as evidence of a large meterorite impact, so you´d expect some kind of similar tell tale with a flood. If the event happened a mere 4,000 years ago (Egypt is older than this for pitys sake) then there would be copious amounts of evidence.
I do not know of a central map of all finds, however each find (by anyone half way professional) is carefully documented ideally with photographs of the find with respect to its surroundings, the distribution of species within strata is well documented.
Edit: (*) Just checked this in the bible, the flood took 40 days to cover the earth and there were 150 days of submersion. In these circumstances you should get concentrations of bodies at high points.
28 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtMore than rain was going on during that period, actually read it.
Flood:
This is all very well for some kind of localized catastrophe, But you are talking about a global calamity - where are they going to run to? In your scenario populations of millions were wiped out in a short time you have to provide a better explanation as to why humans are not found with dinosaur fossils. The process you describe is going to h ...[text shortened]... s of submersion. In these circumstances you should get concentrations of bodies at high points.
Kelly
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, this is ridiculous. If there was enough water around to do that then there wouldn´t be any land. Really the onus of proof is on you for this. If we are talking the creation of life from non-living matter 4 billion years ago then, since status of the scientific explanation depends mostly on there not being any credible alternatives, you can reasonably ask us for proof. But when you are talking about dinosaurs and humans coexisting during the bronze age I think that it´s up to you to demonstrate that the possibility is even remotely credible.
More than rain was going on during that period, actually read it.
Kelly
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHe cannot give any proof of this. He tried once and came up with a link to some rotten deep sea creatures. It's a matter of his religion, and he means that that's proof enough.
No, this is ridiculous. If there was enough water around to do that then there wouldn´t be any land. Really the onus of proof is on you for this. If we are talking the creation of life from non-living matter 4 billion years ago then, since status of the scientific explanation depends mostly on there not being any credible alternatives, you can reasona ...[text shortened]... e age I think that it´s up to you to demonstrate that the possibility is even remotely credible.
He really thinks that there were dinosaurs on the ark of Noah. Why? He's a creationst, and creationists can believe that.
31 Mar 09
1 edit
The peak of Mount Everest is 8.848 km above sea level. For the flood myth to be literally true this means that you need approximately 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water. Given that a cubic metre of water weighs a tonne, that is 4.5 billion giga-tonnes of water or 4.5E21 kg. The earths mass is 5.9E24 kg, so this adds 0.076% to the mass of the earth. Where do you get 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water from?
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAs I said you need to read the account if you want to discuss it, who
The peak of Mount Everest is 8.848 km above sea level. For the flood myth to be literally true this means that you need approximately 4.5 [b]billion cubic kilometres of water. Given that a cubic metre of water weighs a tonne, that is 4.5 billion giga-tonnes of water or 4.5E21 kg. The earths mass is 5.9E24 kg, so this adds 0.076% to the mass of the earth. Where do you get 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water from?[/b]
told you the land mass we see today was the same as it was before
and after the flood?
Kelly
31 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt is simple, I acknowledge that at some point God has to act because
No, this is ridiculous. If there was enough water around to do that then there wouldn´t be any land. Really the onus of proof is on you for this. If we are talking the creation of life from non-living matter 4 billion years ago then, since status of the scientific explanation depends mostly on there not being any credible alternatives, you can reasona ...[text shortened]... e age I think that it´s up to you to demonstrate that the possibility is even remotely credible.
what we know today would not allow somethings to occur, example
where did everything come from? Many have complained here that
in order to have a designer the designer must be designed, yet at
the same time they do not hold the same standards to their own
beliefs, they are very comfortable with saying we can ignore everything
from nothing which is the same issue they demanded from those that
talk about design.
The issue you are worried about with water, doesn't even have to go
there that God acted and so we either got more water than we have
now or less. Simply moving land around water could cover the land,
simply opening up the underground you create space for water to go,
it does not take God acting in what we call the supernatural.
As I pointed out to you if you read the events in scripture you'll see
that the earth also was going through some changes too.
Gen. 7 NLT
"11 When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the underground waters erupted from the earth..."
The earth was going through changes as well.
Kelly