Jump to content


Photo

False Predictions Of Eons Fitting With The Rock Record


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 April 2018 - 04:54 PM

First I will just ask you this Wibble; would you concede that even if to your mind there seems to be no way by which a flood could create the chalk beds, would you concede that at least technically speaking, there could possibly be some unknown factor, you aren't aware of, that might mean that somehow a flood could have laid them down? I am sure you would concede that neither you nor I nor anyone else here, is all-knowing, that for something as unknown as a world-scale catastrophe which we cannot test, it would seem at least somewhat probable there may be factors involved we do not know?

If your answer is, "yes, it's possible there is some unknown factors, at least technically", then obviously if that is true, the conclusion "there is no way a flood could do it", is really this conclusion; "it is impossible". And if that is your conclusion, then it doesn't follow if in fact it is physically possible but we either don't know how or don't quite know how.


Of course nor I or anyone else is all knowing but you can’t get out of every crushing argument against the flood/YEC by appealing to some unknown factor to rescue your position. Perhaps all those coccoliths rained down from outer space ?

So as you can see, I am a creationist, but logic has led me to an implication which would favour long ages. That means I have the ability to use critical thinking objectively without involving my own personal agenda.


That’s good, I don’t think a couple of others on here I could mention would have the honesty to admit that.

You certainly can't say it is impossible for a flood, based on something less than 100% knowledge. Indeed, it has been shown that there can be a change in the rate of the production of the necessary organic ooze if there are blooms. There is enough we don't know to rule out your dogmatic conclusion that it, "can't" be a flood.


Yes incredible coccolithophore blooms is the standard creationist argument given by Snelling in CMI and ICR articles, which in turn is based on the earlier work of creationists Roth and Woodmorappe. They have to think of something to counter the stark evidence of massive chalk beds but their argument fails completely (astonishingly, they claim that it all could have been laid by three successive blooms in six days !!).

While blooms are a real phenomenon when conditions are favourable, the creationist arguments ignore the obvious limiting factors that would inevitably prevent a bloom becoming so dense that it could deposit 1500m of calcareous ooze in a few days. It is not possible to dissolve anywhere near that much calcium carbonate in water and a bloom would quickly strip it out anyway as the algal cells died and the coccoliths slowly sank to the seabed. A dense bloom would also be self limiting because being photosynthetic algae, they require light (and indeed coccolithophores can only reproduce in the photic zone which limits the depth of the bloom to 100m at best, which further limits ooze production potential).

There are fossils from benthic (seafloor dwelling) fauna like sea urchins throughout which should only exist at the base of the chalk if subjected to sudden burial by hundreds of metres of ooze. As mentioned before, they can’t have been all scooped up by flood currents and dumped with the ooze because there is a clear evolutionary progression of the aforementioned urchins and other organisms.

All these problems are not even mentioned by the creationist authors let alone tackled. That’s because they don’t want their readers to be aware of these issues.

You can appeal to unknown factors as much as you like but whichever way you look at it you are snookered because attempts at solving one problem only creates others.


Wow.. You put us in a tough situation! We can either believe God and Snelling OR we can believe You and Piasan... Hmmm... Not an easy decision! (Just Kidding) LOL..


Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.
When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.
Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?

Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale.

To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.
Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:11 AM

Blitzking I like that post because that's a prime example of how each side can build a compelling case. 

 

That's why I don't accept arguments based on persuasion. Because when I read Wibble's post I was convinced he must be right about the chalk, but then when I read yours I was persuaded that your case is right and not his.

 

That's the problem with arguments which seem to be proving X or disproving X, but really they're not conclusive arguments, the authors just think they are. 

 

It seems to me Wibble, you can't conceive of a flood scenario for how the chalk beds were formed, so you create problems for a flood scenario without knowing yourself whether your objections really would stop a flood because you have no way to test your scenario.

 

I want a scientific test. SURMISING isn't enough. To surmise is to come to a conclusion without showing the evidence an experiment would give you. There could have been atmospheric or geologic or other conditions, which did create the blooms. My point is, logically speaking, it's not physically impossible. If it is not physically impossible, then how can you can conclude it, "can't be a flood", if there was a flood action that could create a build up of this stuff then cement it by hydraulic action? Or if somehow the ooze was present in a certain amount pre-flood? 

 

You admit there are blooms so;

 

1. Blooms are possible, and you don't know how much material they could create in UNKNOWN/UNTESTED BY SCIENCE, catastrophic conditions of a world scale size. (so just admit it and stop pretending I'm wrong)

2. You don't know if atmospheric, catastrophic, hydraulic inundation, volcanic, and or other forces could cement and deposit chalk beds rather than slow compaction, because you just weren't there at the time no matter what persuasive argument you offer. 

 

CONCLUSION: the conclusion, "a flood can't do it" is the same as saying "it is impossible", but given those two points, how can you know that, since the blooms are possible and for all anyone knows a flood could deposit them as chalk beds because of all of the cementing agents it would create and so forth? Tomorrow morning if they invented a world-scale tsunami wave higher than mountains, for all we know it could deposit a chalk bed. How can we know? Answer - we can't know so don't pretend that you do.

 

So if you are saying "it looks bad for a flood, a better case is eons", you can make your case, just as BK made his case but "can't" means impossible, and you don't know that. That's all I'm saying, that you just don't know that. Just like you don't know if soft tissue is actually thousands not millions of years old and the science would appear to confirm thousands so you have to rely on special pleading. It's not enough to bring in lines of evidence you believe thwart a flood and leave out all of the evidence that could well thwart long eons, my lad. If you're going to raid the topic with lines of evidence you believe are anti-flood, I believe debate-etiquette means that this then gives me permission to raid the topic with all of the anti-evolution anti-long ages, evidence. Though note I was willing to keep it friendly, and Piasan seems to have, "got" that I wasn't being argumentative. But you always want to make it into a black and white, fight it would seem.



#23 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 April 2018 - 02:22 PM

Blitzking I like that post because that's a prime example of how each side can build a compelling case. 
 
That's why I don't accept arguments based on persuasion. Because when I read Wibble's post I was convinced he must be right about the chalk, but then when I read yours I was persuaded that your case is right and not his.


You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG.

Where in it was the rebuttals to my points about the observed evolutionary progression of benthic fauna, and the question of how there are macrofossils throughout supposedly rapidly produced coccolith ooze. What about how 1500m of chalk (calcium carbonate) was deposited from less than 200m (the photic zone) of water in a matter of days/weeks ? Do you think seawater can dissolve a limitless quantity of CaCO3 and coccolithophores can rampantly reproduce in complete darkness ? Shouldn’t you be demanding answers to these questions as well ?

 
 

Wow.. You put us in a tough situation! We can either believe God and Snelling OR we can believe You and Piasan... Hmmm... Not an easy decision! (Just Kidding) LOL..

It's not about "believing", its about taking an objective look at the facts, which you are not willing to do. (cue BK again bringing up dino C14 and RBCs...yawn)
 

Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.
When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.


I'm sure the water conditions would be very different in such a flood - and not one conducive to coccolithophore blooms, which require relatively still, clear waters. It doesn't matter how much you alter chemical parameters, it is not physically possible to dissolve anything like enough calcium carbonate in seawater to produce 1500m of chalk rock in a few weeks. And as is always ignored a super dense bloom would be self limiting, because algae are photosynthetic, and the water would be completely dark very quickly below the water surface.
 

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.


No and no. The reason we have extensive chalk beds is because sea level was about 200m higher (no polar ice caps) in the late Cretaceous. Therefore low lying areas of continents were inundated. That is why chalk is so pure because deposition occurred on continental shelf areas far from contaminating terrestrial input of darker clays. However, continents weren't completely covered, AiG have invented that. Chalk is limited to certain regions, not everywhere.
 

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.


That's because, as previously mentioned, continental margins were below sea level in the late Cretaceous (that's why we don't have late Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in southern England - it was all under water far from land.)
 

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?

Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale.


How would you know what's buried on today's ocean floor ? Also, Mike, as you are reading this, did you see the epithets there "massive" and "catastrophic". Trying to insinuate that large vertebrates, including terrestrial dinosaurs are commonplace in Chalk - they are certainly not. There are some, but most are fragmentary. There are rare well preserved specimens, but no one is arguing they were buried slowly. On a continental slope building up ooze over the millennia, slumping will occasionally occur, rapidly burying whole animals. Is that not a reasonable scenario ?
 

To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.


One grain at a time strawman already addressed. Regarding fish, how are fish skeletons (which are rare anyway) showing "no sign of decay"
 

Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes.


Why does the distribution of chalk beds require a global flood ? It did perhaps require a global sea rise to flood continental margins, which is already understood to be the case. If chalk completely covers the whole globe, you might have half a case, but it doesn't.

 

You need to do better than ignore all my points and plump for an AiG copy paste as if that answers everything Blitzking.



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:09 PM

 

 

Wibble: You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG.

Where in it was the rebuttals to my points about the observed evolutionary progression of benthic fauna, and the question of how there are macrofossils throughout supposedly rapidly produced coccolith ooze

 

Yes but this is classic Wibble-style isn't it. Where in your response was the rebuttals to all the points in his copy and paste, that wouldn't fit with long ages?

 

Why do you not think this is a transparent tactic to me, that I will be unable to notice that you only EXALT your own points, as holy and sacrosanct and beyond rebuttal, and mention none of the points that don't favour your position whatsoever, then you repeat your points and ignore all of the points that go against your position.

 

You also read an article by creationists and deliberately raise points of contention already knowing the article doesn't say anything about that point, and then you will argue-from-silence, that they didn't answer your complaint, all the time knowing you specifically designed the complaint based on your knowledge that the writer didn't address the issue. Perhaps the PHD scientists don't answer such complaints because their knowledge would have them see that your points aren't educated ones? (just a suggestion).

 

If you want an answer to those concerns, why don't you ask the creationist scientists for an answer, they answer emails every day, instead of pretending their silence means something consequential, like when you pretend my silence means something more than the fact I am bored with your repetitive rhetorical persuasion.

 

:rotfl3: 



#25 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:15 PM

Yes but this is classic Wibble-style isn't it. Where in your response was the rebuttals to all the points in his copy and paste, that wouldn't fit with long ages?


?? What did I miss ? I answered every point.
 



#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:37 PM

 

 

Wibble: ?? What did I miss ? I answered every point.

 

Perhaps you did, "answer" every point. Does answer = rebuttal? Only in Wibble-world! When you, "answer" our points we don't think they are very satisfying answers like you don't think ours are, the difference is we don't repeat our points until the end of time, my lad, as a strategy for putting all of the focus on your points.

 

 

This, "answer" for example, is begging-the-question fallacy;

 

"That's because, as previously mentioned, continental margins were below sea level in the late Cretaceous (that's why we don't have late Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in southern England - it was all under water far from land.)"

 

Why? Because you are assuming what you are arguing. You don't know if this was the case in history, for example if the "Cretaceous" wasn't a time period but instead is a deposit, then this is false.  But this wasn't an, "answer", the point the creationist writer was making was that there aren't any chalk beds in todays world (bot the Cretaceous), showing that they are not forming because of a slow-over-eons build up of ooze on the sea floor, so the point was actually that we are not seeing any evidence that chalk beds are being created this way, over slow eons. 

 

So we aren't seeing chalk beds forming slowly anywhere. That was the point, not on land either, not where there is an ooze conducive to that material. Can you show a chalk bed in part, being formed where the ooze is in the world presently? That's the point. You did, "answer", yes, an irrelevant answer.  :gotcha: 



#27 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 April 2018 - 04:09 PM

This, "answer" for example, is begging-the-question fallacy;
 
"That's because, as previously mentioned, continental margins were below sea level in the late Cretaceous (that's why we don't have late Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in southern England - it was all under water far from land.)"


Now you are reduced to nitpicking minor points. I only stated this in response to the AiG article accusation that secular science "ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents". How is sea level rise being ignored if that is what secular science claims ? And of course the "completely flooded" bit of the AiG claim is not a fact as they assert, it is begging the question which is ironically what you have just falsely accused me of (there is much more evidence of a late Cretaceous high sea level than just chalk deposits).
 
Now stop trying to distract and either you or BK respond to my actual arguments. Please ?



#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 April 2018 - 04:21 PM

See, mine is a, "minor point", talk about question-begging-epithets. Lol. Is it a minor point that there isn't a shred of evidence that chalk beds form slowly over eons? And then your declaration, "now let's get back to my arguments."

 

So I was accurate, you only want to focus on your points but can never deal with significant ones against your position. Please show me where chalk beds are forming slowly. The thing about "uniformity" is that it means, "the same", the same conditions, but have you noticed there isn't any rock record being created. Why isn't there "some" chalk, if we measure the rate each year there should be at least some, if it's a stage between 0 and 100 and 100 is the chalk beds that exist, where at the chalk beds under the sea floor at stage 45? Or I'll be generous, stage 12. 

 

Nah - because there isn't any history over eons, the rock record is complete with all it's bizarre anomalies and the fact is if it was all a slow process we would see stages.

 

What about paraconformities? Flat gaps? See, you never answer for this do you? Only difference is I don't badger you about it. How can those gaps be unweathered and have no sediment in one place but in other places the same gap has thousands of years worth of sediment? How is the gaps are flat with no evidence of weathering over those thousands of years? Showing the top layers had to be laid down quickly.

 

See, I can do the same as you Wibble, I know the types of evidence there are no evolution answers for. What did you think I came down in the last shower because I don't use your tactics in debate? Now I will badger you with this point until page 400 of this thread, like you would. :P



#29 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 April 2018 - 10:18 PM

Blitzking I like that post because that's a prime example of how each side can build a compelling case. 
 That's why I don't accept arguments based on persuasion. Because when I read Wibble's post I was convinced he must be right about the chalk, but then when I read yours I was persuaded that your case is right and not his.

You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG.
Where in it was the rebuttals to my points about the observed evolutionary progression of benthic fauna, and the question of how there are macrofossils throughout supposedly rapidly produced coccolith ooze. What about how 1500m of chalk (calcium carbonate) was deposited from less than 200m (the photic zone) of water in a matter of days/weeks ? Do you think seawater can dissolve a limitless quantity of CaCO3 and coccolithophores can rampantly reproduce in complete darkness ? Shouldn’t you be demanding answers to these questions as well ?
 
 

Wow.. You put us in a tough situation! We can either believe God and Snelling OR we can believe You and Piasan... Hmmm... Not an easy decision! (Just Kidding) LOL..

It's not about "believing", its about taking an objective look at the facts, which you are not willing to do. (cue BK again bringing up dino C14 and RBCs...yawn)
 

Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.
When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.

I'm sure the water conditions would be very different in such a flood - and not one conducive to coccolithophore blooms, which require relatively still, clear waters. It doesn't matter how much you alter chemical parameters, it is not physically possible to dissolve anything like enough calcium carbonate in seawater to produce 1500m of chalk rock in a few weeks. And as is always ignored a super dense bloom would be self limiting, because algae are photosynthetic, and the water would be completely dark very quickly below the water surface.
 

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.

No and no. The reason we have extensive chalk beds is because sea level was about 200m higher (no polar ice caps) in the late Cretaceous. Therefore low lying areas of continents were inundated. That is why chalk is so pure because deposition occurred on continental shelf areas far from contaminating terrestrial input of darker clays. However, continents weren't completely covered, AiG have invented that. Chalk is limited to certain regions, not everywhere.
 

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.

That's because, as previously mentioned, continental margins were below sea level in the late Cretaceous (that's why we don't have late Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in southern England - it was all under water far from land.)
 

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?
Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale.

How would you know what's buried on today's ocean floor ? Also, Mike, as you are reading this, did you see the epithets there "massive" and "catastrophic". Trying to insinuate that large vertebrates, including terrestrial dinosaurs are commonplace in Chalk - they are certainly not. There are some, but most are fragmentary. There are rare well preserved specimens, but no one is arguing they were buried slowly. On a continental slope building up ooze over the millennia, slumping will occasionally occur, rapidly burying whole animals. Is that not a reasonable scenario ?
 

To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.

One grain at a time strawman already addressed. Regarding fish, how are fish skeletons (which are rare anyway) showing "no sign of decay"
 

Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes.

Why does the distribution of chalk beds require a global flood ? It did perhaps require a global sea rise to flood continental margins, which is already understood to be the case. If chalk completely covers the whole globe, you might have half a case, but it doesn't.
 
You need to do better than ignore all my points and plump for an AiG copy paste as if that answers everything Blitzking.


"You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

Who do you think wrote that article
I posted RIGHT AFTER I wrote this????

We can either believe GOD and SNELLING or...

Guess what? It wasn't God! It was Snelling!!
Amazing what you can observe if you choose to
open your eyes instear of swinging wildly like
a punch drunk boxer trying to attack people
unjustly just because you are getting hammered
in this "Debate".. Dont blame me for just being
the one who has the guts to tell you what you
dont want to hear.. The truth.. Evolution is a
FAIRYTALE just like this website says..


"A close inspection discovers an empirical impossibility to be inherent in the idea of evolution."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Swedish botanist and geneticist,

#30 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 April 2018 - 10:47 PM

Blitzking I like that post because that's a prime example of how each side can build a compelling case.
That's why I don't accept arguments based on persuasion. Because when I read Wibble's post I was convinced he must be right about the chalk, but then when I read yours I was persuaded that your case is right and not his.

You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG.
Where in it was the rebuttals to my points about the observed evolutionary progression of benthic fauna, and the question of how there are macrofossils throughout supposedly rapidly produced coccolith ooze. What about how 1500m of chalk (calcium carbonate) was deposited from less than 200m (the photic zone) of water in a matter of days/weeks ? Do you think seawater can dissolve a limitless quantity of CaCO3 and coccolithophores can rampantly reproduce in complete darkness ? Shouldn’t you be demanding answers to these questions as well ?


Wow.. You put us in a tough situation! We can either believe God and Snelling OR we can believe You and Piasan... Hmmm... Not an easy decision! (Just Kidding) LOL..

It's not about "believing", its about taking an objective look at the facts, which you are not willing to do. (cue BK again bringing up dino C14 and RBCs...yawn)

Skeptics claim that it is impossible for the chalk beds to have been rapidly deposited during the yearlong biblical Flood. They say it would take a long time for the trillions of foraminifers and coccoliths to breed, grow, die, and be buried to produce these thick chalk beds all around the globe.
When they say this, they assume that ocean water conditions have always been like they are today. But during the global Flood cataclysm, water conditions were very different—hot volcanic waters and nutrients changed the water temperature and chemistry, which caused the rapid blooming of foraminifers and coccoliths in just hours, days, or weeks, not millions of years.

I'm sure the water conditions would be very different in such a flood - and not one conducive to coccolithophore blooms, which require relatively still, clear waters. It doesn't matter how much you alter chemical parameters, it is not physically possible to dissolve anything like enough calcium carbonate in seawater to produce 1500m of chalk rock in a few weeks. And as is always ignored a super dense bloom would be self limiting, because algae are photosynthetic, and the water would be completely dark very quickly below the water surface.

These skeptics also ignore the fact that these chalk beds were deposited across the continents by ocean waters that rose high enough to completely flood the continents.

No and no. The reason we have extensive chalk beds is because sea level was about 200m higher (no polar ice caps) in the late Cretaceous. Therefore low lying areas of continents were inundated. That is why chalk is so pure because deposition occurred on continental shelf areas far from contaminating terrestrial input of darker clays. However, continents weren't completely covered, AiG have invented that. Chalk is limited to certain regions, not everywhere.

Meanwhile, the chalk beds are not found under the ocean floor where the limey ooze is today. And today’s limey oozes are nowhere near as pure in calcium carbonate as the chalk beds formed in the past.

That's because, as previously mentioned, continental margins were below sea level in the late Cretaceous (that's why we don't have late Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in southern England - it was all under water far from land.)

Where do we see limey ooze slowly accumulating on the continents today—and burying and fossilizing huge ocean dwellers (like the extinct plesiosaurs and mosasaurs) together with large land dwellers (like the extinct dinosaurs and pterosaurs)? Or what about the fossil found in the Kansas beds of the voracious predatory fish Xiphactinus audax, 13 feet (4 m) long with a nearly perfectly preserved 6-foot-long (1.8 m) fish Gillicus arcuatus inside of it?
Nowhere! We simply do not see such burial and fossilization happening today on such a massive and catastrophic scale.

How would you know what's buried on today's ocean floor ? Also, Mike, as you are reading this, did you see the epithets there "massive" and "catastrophic". Trying to insinuate that large vertebrates, including terrestrial dinosaurs are commonplace in Chalk - they are certainly not. There are some, but most are fragmentary. There are rare well preserved specimens, but no one is arguing they were buried slowly. On a continental slope building up ooze over the millennia, slumping will occasionally occur, rapidly burying whole animals. Is that not a reasonable scenario ?

To fossilize such large creatures, ginormous amounts of sediments had to bury them instantly before the creatures had time to escape. Fish are known to decompose quickly unless they are completely buried within a few days. Yet the fish found fossilized in the chalk beds show no signs of decay. So the claim that the chalk beds accumulated slowly—one grain at a time falling to the bottom of a placid sea—is demolished by the evidence of all these catastrophically buried fossils.

One grain at a time strawman already addressed. Regarding fish, how are fish skeletons (which are rare anyway) showing "no sign of decay"

Now also remember that these chalk beds stretch around the globe. So a global distribution of the chalk beds required a global Flood cataclysm, just as the Bible describes.

Why does the distribution of chalk beds require a global flood ? It did perhaps require a global sea rise to flood continental margins, which is already understood to be the case. If chalk completely covers the whole globe, you might have half a case, but it doesn't.

You need to do better than ignore all my points and plump for an AiG copy paste as if that answers everything Blitzking.

(cue BK again bringing up dino C14 and RBCs...yawn)

Think about Mike's sunken treasure chest of gold dubloons dating from 1550 to 1600, BUT with one US quarter dated at 1976... You can squirm and squeal, complain and whine, hate that quarter and wish it didn't exist and bemoan your fate but that WILL NOT CHANGE the date on that quarter... As an International Chess Master, I have a knack for exploiting the weaknesses in my opponents position and going after them.. Sorry.. I bring it up because it is death for Darwins fairytale..

Here is a great video by Charles Jackson on the very same topic.




Doubtful you will watch it for the same reasons you decided not to ask Professor Andy one more time to please give just ONE plausible order of the 10 vital organs.... You have a strong emotional attachment to Evolution due to it's IMPLICATIONS.. But.. I must admit, You deserve credit for at least asking Andy the question to begin with AND for coming on here and not simply hanging out all day in one of the many echo chambers like TalkOrigins.

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."

(Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist)
  • mike the wiz likes this

#31 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 April 2018 - 02:59 PM

See, mine is a, "minor point", talk about question-begging-epithets. Lol. Is it a minor point that there isn't a shred of evidence that chalk beds form slowly over eons?


It was a minor point as I explained. It was simply a response to BK being duped by AiG into believing scientists “ignore” higher sea level in the past, I was just addressing his ignorance.

I am obviously arguing with someone in denial if you still really believe that the presence of chalk beds don’t scream eons. Massively thick chalks beds exist, and they are almost entirely composed of the calcareous remains of coccoliths and foraminifera, which today accumulate on the seafloor forming a major constituent of the deep ooze deposits found there where the right conditions exist (calcium carbonate is forced back into solution in the deeper parts). Chalk rock obviously indicates vast time over a few weeks to any rational person. You haven’t attempted to answer how you could possibly get so much calcium carbonate out of the water in such a short time, nor have you any answer for the lack of available light problem. These are vital problems for your position (amongst many others) and you choose to continue to ignore them, which says it all about the integrity of your position.
 

So I was accurate, you only want to focus on your points but can never deal with significant ones against your position. Please show me where chalk beds are forming slowly.


This is from 200m depth into the ooze on the Pacific seafloor (which at that depth is Miocene in age but ignore that assessment if you want since you don’t believe that sort of thing..)

 

https://library.ucsd...ject/bb4915762n

 

Nah - because there isn't any history over eons, the rock record is complete with all it's bizarre anomalies and the fact is if it was all a slow process we would see stages.

 

Just asserting there has been no deep time won’t make it any truer.

 

Diagenesis of deep seafloor sediment has been studied by several extensive drilling programs. You can read an overview of the subject here.

 

 

What about paraconformities? Flat gaps? See, you never answer for this do you?


If you started a topic about these I may well partake but you always throw them in desperation as off topic remarks when you’ve lost the on topic debate.(much like this one)

You seem to think the mere mention of these things instead of actually making a case is like a magic bullet to rescue your position. If you want to discuss them, start a new topic, in fact I dare you. Judging by the planation topic which I started because you similarly was always throwing that one word into other debates irrelevant to it, you will have very little to back your case.

 



#32 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 April 2018 - 03:21 PM

"You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG"

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

Who do you think wrote that article
I posted RIGHT AFTER I wrote this????

We can either believe GOD and SNELLING or...

Guess what? It wasn't God! It was Snelling!!
Amazing what you can observe if you choose to
open your eyes instear of swinging wildly like
a punch drunk boxer trying to attack people
unjustly just because you are getting hammered
in this "Debate"..


What am I talking about ? I said you copied and pasted from AiG, this article in fact

 

https://answersingen...t-global-flood/

 

I had already mentioned Snelling in the post you quoted, so you did not make it clear that you were quoting him. In fact, Mike, when he said that he initially thought my case compelling but then read 'your' reply spoke of it as your case rather than AiG/Snelling' so it appears he thought it was your words.

 

Anyway, as I said just arbitrarily 'believing' Snelling over anything I say just because he shares your worldview is a pretty terrible way of reaching an objective conclusion about a subject. You seem to think you can just 'believe' Snelling and therefore exempt yourself from having to think.

 

As for me being hammered on this topic, get real. Unless ignoring my main arguments about the impossibility of so much chalk being formed in a couple of weeks somehow constitutes a hammering in BK fantasy world ?
 



#33 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 April 2018 - 03:52 PM

"You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG"
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Who do you think wrote that article
I posted RIGHT AFTER I wrote this????
We can either believe GOD and SNELLING or...
Guess what? It wasn't God! It was Snelling!!
Amazing what you can observe if you choose to
open your eyes instear of swinging wildly like
a punch drunk boxer trying to attack people
unjustly just because you are getting hammered
in this "Debate"..

What am I talking about ? I said you copied and pasted from AiG, this article in fact

https://answersingen...t-global-flood/

I had already mentioned Snelling in the post you quoted, so you did not make it clear that you were quoting him. In fact, Mike, when he said that he initially thought my case compelling but then read 'your' reply spoke of it as your case rather than AiG/Snelling' so it appears he thought it was your words.

Anyway, as I said just arbitrarily 'believing' Snelling over anything I say just because he shares your worldview is a pretty terrible way of reaching an objective conclusion about a subject. You seem to think you can just 'believe' Snelling and therefore exempt yourself from having to think.

As for me being hammered on this topic, get real. Unless ignoring my main arguments about the impossibility of so much chalk being formed in a couple of weeks somehow constitutes a hammering in BK fantasy world ?

"I had already mentioned Snelling in the post you quoted, so you did not make it clear that you were quoting him. In fact, Mike, when he said that he initially thought my case compelling but then read 'your' reply spoke of it as your case rather than AiG/Snelling' so it appears he thought it was your words."


NOPE


You made a baseless assertion to Mike based on your opinion that Snelling's piece was discredited (Which is is not) So I decided to post it for all to see so they can make up thier minds for themselves instead of just taking your word for it.. You have zero credibility because you still believe in things like the "Geologic Column" when 99.9% of the rest of us realize that it is another myth...

It seemed quite clear to me that Snelling was being quoted... I am sorry if you thought I was quoting someone else... LOL... But that isnt what really bothers you about the post, is it...


"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated"

(Sidney W. Fox, "The Origins of Pre-Biological Systems)

#34 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 April 2018 - 04:18 PM

NOPE

 

YEP

 

But that isnt what really bothers you about the post, is it...


Looks like I need to ask you again. How did many hundreds of metres of calcium carbonate ooze magically fall out of the seawater in a matter of days or weeks, and not only that but maintained seafloor restricted organisms such as urchins and clams throughout from top to bottom ?

Remember, ignoring it does not win you the argument.
 



#35 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 April 2018 - 12:43 AM

NOPE

 
YEP

 

But that isnt what really bothers you about the post, is it...

Looks like I need to ask you again. How did many hundreds of metres of calcium carbonate ooze magically fall out of the seawater in a matter of days or weeks, and not only that but maintained seafloor restricted organisms such as urchins and clams throughout from top to bottom ?
Remember, ignoring it does not win you the argument.




"Remember, ignoring it does not win you the argument."


I am not an expert on this subject..

THEREFORE

How would I know?

I can believe God and Snelling

OR

I can believe You and Piasan...

Hmmm.. Tough dilemma... LOL


"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought's after it...It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

(Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British astronomer and mathematician)

#36 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 April 2018 - 12:50 AM

"You really shouldn’t be impressed by Blitzking’s copy and paste which he failed to attribute to AiG"
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Who do you think wrote that article
I posted RIGHT AFTER I wrote this????
We can either believe GOD and SNELLING or...
Guess what? It wasn't God! It was Snelling!!
Amazing what you can observe if you choose to
open your eyes instear of swinging wildly like
a punch drunk boxer trying to attack people
unjustly just because you are getting hammered
in this "Debate"..

What am I talking about ? I said you copied and pasted from AiG, this article in fact

https://answersingen...t-global-flood/

I had already mentioned Snelling in the post you quoted, so you did not make it clear that you were quoting him. In fact, Mike, when he said that he initially thought my case compelling but then read 'your' reply spoke of it as your case rather than AiG/Snelling' so it appears he thought it was your words.

Anyway, as I said just arbitrarily 'believing' Snelling over anything I say just because he shares your worldview is a pretty terrible way of reaching an objective conclusion about a subject. You seem to think you can just 'believe' Snelling and therefore exempt yourself from having to think.

As for me being hammered on this topic, get real. Unless ignoring my main arguments about the impossibility of so much chalk being formed in a couple of weeks somehow constitutes a hammering in BK fantasy world ?

"Anyway, as I said just arbitrarily 'believing' Snelling over anything I say just because he shares your worldview is a pretty terrible way of reaching an objective conclusion about a subject."

It isn't "just because he shares my worldview" there are a myriad of other reasons.. One of them is that Snelling has reasons not to lie due to moral accountabity. You however, have no such restrictions... One of the "Perks" of being an Atheist I guess..

#37 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 19 April 2018 - 03:08 PM

"Anyway, as I said just arbitrarily 'believing' Snelling over anything I say just because he shares your worldview is a pretty terrible way of reaching an objective conclusion about a subject."

It isn't "just because he shares my worldview" there are a myriad of other reasons.. One of them is that Snelling has reasons not to lie due to moral accountabity.


Christians can lie as much as they want if they are "true believers" and repent cos God will just forgive them. Snelling isn't necessarily lying anyway, he could be deluded and actually believe his guff. I don't know if you are lying or just delusional when you claim you are one of the world's elite band of experts on 'origins'.

I suspect you are lying with the claim of the "myriad of other reasons" you have for believing Snelling rather than someone like me who accepts mainstream science. The word myriad means "countless or extremely great in number". You have had ample opportunity to explain even one reason why my view of chalk formation is wrong and is instead favoured in a global flood scenario but you have offered nothing but a Snelling copy paste which did not even address the rather obvious objections against your belief.
 

You however, have no such restrictions... One of the "Perks" of being an Atheist I guess..


Looks like you are accusing me of lying. Do show me where please.



#38 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 April 2018 - 03:47 PM

"Anyway, as I said just arbitrarily 'believing' Snelling over anything I say just because he shares your worldview is a pretty terrible way of reaching an objective conclusion about a subject."
It isn't "just because he shares my worldview" there are a myriad of other reasons.. One of them is that Snelling has reasons not to lie due to moral accountabity.

Christians can lie as much as they want if they are "true believers" and repent cos God will just forgive them. Snelling isn't necessarily lying anyway, he could be deluded and actually believe his guff. I don't know if you are lying or just delusional when you claim you are one of the world's elite band of experts on 'origins'.
I suspect you are lying with the claim of the "myriad of other reasons" you have for believing Snelling rather than someone like me who accepts mainstream science. The word myriad means "countless or extremely great in number". You have had ample opportunity to explain even one reason why my view of chalk formation is wrong and is instead favoured in a global flood scenario but you have offered nothing but a Snelling copy paste which did not even address the rather obvious objections against your belief.
 

You however, have no such restrictions... One of the "Perks" of being an Atheist I guess..

Looks like you are accusing me of lying. Do show me where please.



"Looks like you are accusing me of lying."

NOPE.. Merely that you believe that you have no moral accountability to your creator.

THEREFORE

You have absolutely no reason NOT TO (Lie) I play the percentages..


"I suspect you are lying with the claim of the "myriad of other reasons" you have for believing Snelling rather than someone like me who accepts mainstream science"

NOPE

My "Myriad of other reasons" to not believe you have ZERO to do with chalk formations and EVERYTHING to do with all of the OTHER fairytales that YOU and "Mainstream Science" assert to everyone as being true.. I can only absorb so many lies and mistruths from people or "mainstream opinion" before I need to call into question the reliability of ANYTHING that is presented to me as "Fact"

Here is a (Partial) list of those "Myriad of other reasons"..


"Evolution" doesnt need Abiogenesis to work

Chimp Man Similarities

Vestigial Organs

Junk DNA

Horse Evolution

Geologic Column

Embriological Recapitulation

Lucy

All scientists agree..

Piltdown

Irreducible Complexity has been refuted

Order of 10 Vital Organs doesnt need to be answered.

Red blood cells can last for 100 million years or more

Symbiotic relationships arent a problem for Darwins myth..

The Eye could have evolved slowly..

Finch variation is proof of evolution..

Bacterial resistance is evolution in action..

Just a few off the top o mi ol noggin..
Let me know if you want more..(I have lots)

#39 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 19 April 2018 - 04:00 PM

All completely irrelevant to both the thread and the specific topic currently being discussed within that (chalk formation and the veracity of global flood explanations for it).

 

But keep on ignoring the fatal problems to your beliefs, its what you do best



#40 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 April 2018 - 07:24 PM

All completely irrelevant to both the thread and the specific topic currently being discussed within that (chalk formation and the veracity of global flood explanations for it).

But keep on ignoring the fatal problems to your beliefs, its what you do best



"All completely irrelevant to both the thread"

NO, merely reasons why I shouldn't believe what "Mainstream Science" claims as fact..It all has to do with CREDIBILITY.. If I am assured that what I KNOW to be false is true.. Why should I believe you on a subject that I DONT know about especially when it attempts to paint God as a liar..

Sorry.. I don't think that I will be able to help you anymore..

God loves you anyway.. Even if you try to pretend he doesn't exist.. He wont force you to love him though..

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users