Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[Silent Hunter]

Don't look now, but you just did.

Sure, they have.

My conversation with you hasn't lead to a sudden epiphany on the nature of reality. My understanding of how sedimentary rock forms wasn't your doing, but, as I expected, you are eager to take the credit and declare a victory.

Is it reality that snakes talk and miracles happen? Is it reality that there was a global flood and that alone is how the turtles were buried in sediment? If so, present your evidence and make sure you do it rationally.

Conditions necessary for the formation of sedimentary rock?

Certainly the COMPONENTS of sedimentary rock have been discussed.

I know you would like to stop there to wave your little flag and say, "Hey, everybody, look at me. I was not even wrong!" but you haven't even come close to discussing HOW those components came to be mixed together.

Was it through a global flood or was it a local event? An answer such as, "The evidence is consistent with the biblical global flood model," (ala 6days) simply won't suffice. You will need to explain WHY that is the only possible mechanism. Present your evidence and make sure you do it rationally.

How long ago did it happen? Was it 30,000,000 years ago, 4,500 years ago, or was it last Thursday? Present your evidence and make sure you do it rationally.

You are eager to "try to bracket what is possible and eliminate what is impossible" are you not? Is a local flood an impossibility as 6days would like for everyone to blindly accept?

How about we look at it in another way? Convince me (us) as to which event is more PROBABLE without resorting to the same sort of circular logic for which 6days is so famous.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

My conversation with you hasn't lead to a sudden epiphany on the nature of reality.

Did someone claim that it did? :idunno:

My understanding of how sedimentary rock forms wasn't your doing, but, as I expected, you are eager to take the credit and declare a victory.

It is you who has all the victory when you concede reality.

You haven't even come close to discussing HOW those components came to be mixed together.

Of course I have. And I've already corrected you on this. Is this going to be the next issue you use to avoid a sensible discussion?

Was it through a global flood or was it a local event? An answer such as, "The evidence is consistent with the biblical global flood model," (ala 6days) simply won't suffice. You will need to explain WHY that is the only possible mechanism. Present your evidence and make sure you do it rationally.

Darwinists hate reading.

Is a local flood an impossibility?

Normal floods don't dump cement or sediment to form rocks.

How about we look at it in another way?

How about we stick with what we've got. :up:

 

[Jonahdog]

Stripe; How long ago were the turtles fossilized and what EVIDENCE do you have to support that?
Should be a simple answer for someone so learned in the process of fossilization as you seem to claim.

 

[6days]

You should probably reconsider the answer you gave in post #219 in response to:
Question: Global flood? Is there absolutely no possible way it was a local flood?
Answer: Absolutely not.

Apologies...it seems I was unclear.

'Noah's' flood in Genesis was "absolutely not" a local flood. The text is very clear.

The fossilized turtles are evidence of the global flood, especially when you consider examples of rapid fossilization found around the world.

So, to be clear, this is what I said in the OP
Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.
2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.
3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”
4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.

... miracles don't happen. That's reality.

That's your belief... not reality. Your statement explains why evolutionists have such problems with science. They start with the conclusion then try shoehorn the evidence to fit their beliefs.

Also, your statement reveals a denial of reality. For example, we know that life comes from life, yet atheists have no choice other than to deny that reality.

 

[Jonahdog]

6 days: what % of fossils are the result of The Flood? Please provide some of that science you just wrote about as EVIDENCE for your claim.

 

[6days]

6 days: what % of fossils are the result of The Flood? Please provide some of that science you just wrote about as EVIDENCE for your claim.

Hey Jonah... I hadn't mentioned anything about a percentage. That would be interesting to know though.

What I did say though is.....
"The fossilized turtles are evidence of the global flood, especially when you consider examples of rapid fossilization found around the world.

Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.
2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.
3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”
4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word."

 

[Silent Hunter]

Apologies...it seems I was unclear.

'Noah's' flood in Genesis was "absolutely not" a local flood. The text is very clear.

The fossilized turtles are evidence of the global flood, especially when you consider examples of rapid fossilization found around the world.

So, to be clear, this is what I said in the OP
Observations
1. A catastrophic event (flood) must have rapidly buried these turtles in sediment before they had a chance to cease and desist.
2. Fossilization happened rapidly. They are extremely well preserved.
3. Thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils are in the same area including "insects and feathers (birds) that still have hints of their original colors.”
4. The turtles are very similar to turtles that exist today, (the Carettochelys insculpta) although the fossilized ones are much larger.

The observations are all expected within the creation / flood model. God's Word is absolute truth, and the world around us supports His Word.


That's your belief... not reality. Your statement explains why evolutionists have such problems with science. They start with the conclusion then try shoehorn the evidence to fit their beliefs.

Also, your statement reveals a denial of reality. For example, we know that life comes from life, yet atheists have no choice other than to deny that reality.

Unclear?

No, you were quite clear.

You said that a global was the ONLY possible explanation. Do you still stand by that answer?

Perhaps you don't realize that your "evidence" is completely circumstantial but, then again, you are famous for picking and choosing the "evidence" you choose to recognize and consider.

When did this "global flood" occur? What is your evidence.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Did someone claim that it did? :idunno:

It is you who has all the victory when you concede reality.

Of course I have. And I've already corrected you on this. Is this going to be the next issue you use to avoid a sensible discussion?

Darwinists hate reading.

Normal floods don't dump cement or sediment to form rocks.

How about we stick with what we've got. :up:

:yawn:

Define "normal flood".

Is it possible that a catastrophic local event and not some "global flood" could have caused the result of burying the turtles. If not, why?

I understand why you would rather not expand the discussion beyond, "water, sediment, and a binding agent "cement". There's no way for you to lose when the totality of your argument consists of something on which is already agreed.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Define "normal flood".

You don't know what a flood is? :AMR:

Perhaps you shouldn't be in this conversation.

I understand why you would rather not expand the discussion beyond, "water, sediment, and a binding agent "cement". There's no way for you to lose when the totality of your argument consists of something on which is already agreed.

We'd be happy to extend the discussion, but the Darwinists get so hooked up on beliefs instead of sticking with what is necessary.

 

[6days]

You said that a global was the ONLY possible explanation. Do you still stand by that answer?

Hunter.... I did not say that..
I did say that the Genesis flood was "absolutely not" a local flood. Perhaps read the OP again to see what i said about the fossil evidence.

Is it possible that a catastrophic local event and not some "global flood" could have caused the result of burying the turtles.

Sure... I agree. It is evidence of a catastrophic event. When we consider the entirety of the fossil record, it is evidence of the global flood.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hunter.... I did not say that..

:rotfl:

Well, if you said that a local flood couldn't have caused the burial of the turtles then the only conclusion is that a global flood is the only possible explanation ... right?

WHY is a global flood the ONLY possible explanation?

I did say that the Genesis flood was "absolutely not" a local flood. Perhaps read the OP again to see what i said about the fossil evidence.

Well, no kidding! I agee that the flood STORY in Genesis describes a global flood.

I have to give you credit for ignoring my question in favor of your own explanation though.

Perhaps, you would answer MY question. Could the turtles have been buried in a local flood?

Sure... I agree. It is evidence of a catastrophic event.

Good job, you did it again. You ignored my question in favor of answering the part with which we agree.

A flood, in general, is a major event. Some can be catastrophic as well, agreed?

Could a catastrophic LOCAL flood have buried the turtles?

When we consider the entirety of the fossil record, it is evidence of the global flood.

The problem is your statement is entirely untrue, you only consider the "evidence" that agrees with you to "satisfy" your understanding of the Genesis story.

Conveniently, you again ignore an important question. How long ago were the turtles buried? What is your evidence?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

When we consider the entirety of the fossil record, it is evidence of the global flood.

Is it absolutely impossible that the evidence is suggestive of many local floods? Why not?



Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Well, if you said that a local flood couldn't have caused the burial of the turtles then the only conclusion is that a global flood is the only possible explanation ... right?

Wrong.

This is what's known as a false dichotomy.

When will you learn to engage rationally? Or is it true that you will talk about anything to avoid a sensible discussion over the evidence?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You don't know what a flood is?

:chuckle:

I know what a flood is, I just don't know what constitutes a "normal" flood. Is there only one degree of a flood?

Perhaps you shouldn't be in this conversation.

Perhaps you should learn how to engage the conversation rationally.

We'd be happy to extend the discussion, but the Darwinists get so hooked up on beliefs instead of sticking with what is necessary.

Really?

I've tried to discuss other aspects of what could have happened to bury the turtles but you seem hesitant to leave your confort zone of "water, sediment, cement". In fact you said you had little interest in "defending any particular hypothesis" (#252, #255, #257) only in "what we've got" (#262).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Wrong.

This is what's known as a false dichotomy.[/]Really?

Perhaps you can suggest another type of "flood". Up till now 6days has only considered two flood "models". Maybe it was a "normal" flood.

When will you learn to engage rationally?

... said the person not interested in engaging beyond "water, sediment, cement".

Or is it true that you will talk about anything to avoid a sensible discussion over the evidence?

We've covered "water, sediment, cement" pretty thoroughly. What else would you like to discuss?

 

[Stripe]

I know what a flood is.

Great. Then you'll know that they don't make fossils.

We've covered "water, sediment, cement" pretty thoroughly.

:AMR:

You've mentioned them.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Great. Then you'll know that they don't make fossils.

When did I ever say that floods made fossils?

If you're going to rail against a straw man be sure to do it rationally.

You've mentioned them.

Water, sediment, and cement are something that YOU brought into the discussion. I only mention them because they seem to be the only thing you are interested in.

While water, sediment, and a binding agent are important to fossil formation this was never what the conversation (that you butted into) between 6days and I (ie the OP) was/is about.

Everyone seems agreed (with the exception of you) that a flood (of water) caused the turtles to be covered in sediment. What we are not in agreement on is weather or not the flood was global (ala the so-called "Genesis" flood).

Now, if you were to argue a global flood was the respnsible event you are going to need more than "water, sediment, cement" and "god's word" to make your case.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

When did I ever say that floods made fossils?

Where did I ever say that you claimed floods make fossils?

We know why you're desperate to rail against a straw man, something that by definition cannot be done rationally.

Water, sediment, and cement are something that YOU brought into the discussion. I only mention them because they seem to be the only thing you are interested in.

They are what is necessary in this case.

It's called evidence. We know why you'd rather talk about something — anything — else.

While water, sediment, and a binding agent are important to fossil formation this was never what the conversation (that you butted into) between 6days and I (ie the OP) was/is about.

And yet it is the fundamentals of the science.

We know why you want to keep as far away as possible from those.

Everyone seems agreed (with the exception of you) that a flood (of water) caused the turtles to be covered in sediment. What we are not in agreement on is weather or not the flood was global (ala the so-called "Genesis" flood).

You think a flood buried the turtles? :AMR:

You truly don't know how floods work, do you. Here's a hint: They don't make fossils. :nono:

By the way, right here you at least tacitly admit that a flood made these fossils.

If you were to argue a global flood was the respnsible event you are going to need more than "water, sediment, cement" and "god's word" to make your case.

I'm prepared to look at the evidence without a particular story in mind. It's you that keeps demanding we bring our beliefs into it.

You seem more comfortable when it's people telling stories rather than evidence being analyzed. :think:

 

[6days]

Well, if you said that a local flood couldn't have caused the burial of the turtles then the only conclusion is that a global flood is the only possible explanation ... right?

Hunter.....I don't often quote Stripe on this, but in your case it applies..."evolutionists can't read". You are fabricating something that was not said, nor argued.

 

[6days]

Is it absolutely impossible that the evidence is suggestive of many local floods? Why not?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Answered by Stripe. Floods do not normally cause fossils. You need an event where organisms are rapidly buried and preserved in immense amounts of waterborne sediment.