Jump to content
IGNORED

Polystrate Fossils: Proof of Noah's Flood


ksolomon

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,028
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   451
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/24/2012
  • Status:  Offline

41 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm having trouble figuring out why presenting evidence would be logically inconsistent with your position. I'm not asking (and have never asked) for you to present radioisotopic dating evidence, or any other type of evidence that would be logically inconsistent with your world view. I asked for any evidence. And to this point, you have been completely disinclined to provide any, and insist that my persistence can only by motivated by my desire to set a trap for you. I do not understand your hesitancy to address this particular topic.

I found the following quote in the article you provided:

This is at least an explanation based on some reasoning. All I've asked for is some type of evidence supporting this type of hypothesis. I have not asked you to tie yourself into a logical pretzel in order to explain your hypothesis.

Just an observation I've personally experienced that was awesome in a way that's somewhat indescribable. But lead me to believe the oceans where lower for some time in the past.

Off of Cozumel Mexico, there is a  3000ft drop off called the Santa Rosa Wall. The floor at the drop off is 70ft and at the precipice there is an ancient reef much larger than any reef I dove on or saw pictures of elsewhere. We dove on the wall side and it was awe-striking with large Grouper and other fish, large plants growing on the reef but the reef was dead. It was too deep for coral life to exist and the size of the reef proved it was growing for a long time. From that experience of swimming alongside an ancient reef, I've always assumed the oceans had to be much lower. 

The article you stated above speaks of meters but this would only put the ocean levels at that sight 40ft, give or take, lower for an extended period of time for a reef to grow to that significant size. 

Like I said it was an observation a few decades ago I found interesting. Never really sought an explanation, I thought that was obvious. Not assuming I understand all that's being debated here simply picked up on the lower oceans thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

54 minutes ago, Zemke said:

Off of Cozumel Mexico, there is a  3000ft drop off called the Santa Rosa Wall. The floor at the drop off is 70ft and at the precipice there is an ancient reef much larger than any reef I dove on or saw pictures of elsewhere. We dove on the wall side and it was awe-striking with large Grouper and other fish, large plants growing on the reef but the reef was dead. It was too deep for coral life to exist and the size of the reef proved it was growing for a long time. From that experience of swimming alongside an ancient reef, I've always assumed the oceans had to be much lower. 

Thanks, Zemke, sounds like an awesome experience! I'm sure that ocean sea levels have been much different in the past history of the planet, I just haven't seen evidence that these geological differences have occurred in the last 3500-4000 years.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm having trouble figuring out why presenting evidence ...

I'm having trouble figuring out why presenting evidence would be logically inconsistent with your position

Your original question asked for two things;

Firstly, you asked if I had evidence of land bridges. This is a fair question. But since the claim of land bridges is common to both models (and is therefore not exclusive to my position), I figured you could probably find that for yourself. That is, since this is also a claim of the secular model, I am not exclusively obligated to provide this evidence.

You then asked if I had evidence that the land bridges occurred around 4000 years ago. Such an evidence would not be fact-based, but rather reliant upon some form of dating methodology. All dating methods about the unobserved past need uniformitarian assumptions. Given that I don't consider uniformitarian assumptions to be reliable, it would be logically inconsistent for me to provide such evidence in support of my own position.

By conflating the two questions and mandating they be answered together, you have constructed a logic trap. And that's the gotcha that you perceive you have, and have continued to use; for example, to @Zemke you said, “I'm sure that ocean sea levels have been much different in the past history of the planet, I just haven't seen evidence that these geological differences have occurred in the last 3500-4000 years

There it is – Gotcha!

If I wanted to play that game, I could ask you to provide evidence that land bridges occurred in the secular time frame (I think it's around 10 to 12kya) by methods that don't rely on any uniformitarian assumptions.

 

I found the following quote in the article you provided: … This is at least an explanation based on some reasoning”

This quote only addresses the first part of your conflated question. It doesn't deal with the trap element.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, Tristen said:

It doesn't deal with the trap element.

As I have said, if there is a trap, it is in your own imagination. It is impossible to inadvertently set a trap and I had no desire or intent to do so. I never asked for any specific dating, just evidence of anything that would lead to the conclusion that a bridge is more recent than typically thought. This is not a trap of my making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

As I have said, if there is a trap, it is in your own imagination. It is impossible to inadvertently set a trap and I had no desire or intent to do so. I never asked for any specific dating, just evidence of anything that would lead to the conclusion that a bridge is more recent than typically thought. This is not a trap of my making.

I can't employ uniformitarian assumptions without compromising my own logical integrity.

So how can I 'date' a putative event in the unobserved past without employing uniformitarian assumptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

5 minutes ago, Tristen said:

So how can I 'date' a putative event in the unobserved past without employing uniformitarian assumptions?

I never asked you to date anything. If I were attempting to provide evidence for a YEC-related claim, I would check ICR and AiG. Your behavior over this issue is just plain confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I never asked you to date anything. If I were attempting to provide evidence for a YEC-related claim, I would check ICR and AiG. Your behavior over this issue is just plain confusing.

The point is, you asked me to support my position with a specific type of evidence - a type of evidence that my position explicitly characterises as invalid.

Because of the way you asked the question, and the way you've used my responses, I am confident that you fully understand the implications. If you find that "ICR and AiG" have found a way to date things without uniformitarian assumptions, let me know - I'd be interested to see how they did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

52 minutes ago, Tristen said:

If you find that "ICR and AiG" have found a way to date things without uniformitarian assumptions, let me know - I'd be interested to see how they did it.

1. I never asked for any sort of date.

2. I never “set a trap”.

I hope you have a relaxing weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,028
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   451
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/24/2012
  • Status:  Offline

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 10:24 AM, one.opinion said:

Thanks, Zemke, sounds like an awesome experience! I'm sure that ocean sea levels have been much different in the past history of the planet, I just haven't seen evidence that these geological differences have occurred in the last 3500-4000 years.

 
 

If I understood the paragraph you quoted from the article, the depth or shallowness of the oceans they sighted seemed unrealistic. I know it wasn't your article. For a reef to grow the mass at the Santa Rosa Wall the depth would have had to be stable for a long time but only as I had said 40 ft give or take from our current level. 

Also, I've read where plates rise and fall in the oceans over time. Seems the science is a bit more complicated than assumed. 

Anyway thanks, it was the best dive day from sun up to sun down. The bus ride, the fairy to the Island, the Mexican dive master we stumbled into taking us out, it was my buddy and him on the dive, no other divers to concern ourselves with, the local restaurant afterwards, the journey back to the hotel and many things in between. I think I woke up with the same smile I fell asleep with. Not to bore you but my buddy has since passed, we met in eighth grade and were two opposites, many asked how we could even be friends but in life situations of danger and under the water we were like twins with that intuition thing. Trips and vacations can stress friendships but out conquering the world in our youth bound us. This life in this world can only offer so much but that day was as close to paradise we can get in this place. 

 

Diving was an excuse for male bonding adventure like hunting camp.  Along the way we got pretty good at diving but that was actually a sideline. We just wanted to disappear for a few weeks now and then. Back when we didn't care about going broke that is. 

Edited by Zemke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Near my house, polystrate fossils are forming now.   A dam produced a lake, and the dead trees in the shallows are slowly being buried in sediment.   Eventually you could have polystrate fossils.   Paleontologists figured this out a long time ago.

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...