Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – another challenger who is sure that the bible flood happened, Diana Lesperance

not so polite dinner conversation 8 Minutes
from http://www.atheistrepublic.com/atheist-quotes-sayings
from http://www.atheistrepublic.com/atheist-quotes-sayings

(this was more enjoyable to write than reviewing bad television(which is damning with faint praise), but we’ll get to that next post.  And yes, it’s long.  Such a great surprise 🙂 ).

Diana’s claims about science are always curious, but nothing new in the realm of young earth creationist claims. I reviewed her claims about the universe here. She came back to tell me I was wrong, notably without addressing any points or questions I had. Diana now wants to teach me about geology and fossilization. You can find her post here. I thought this deserved a blog post on its own, as an opportunity to point out creationist failures and lies again. All of these topics have been covered before in this blog, so if you are a long time reader, you may want to give this post a pass.

Update: There is much information and discussion down in the comments.  

This is written addressed to Diana.

For someone who claimed she was so very ignorant, it is pleasantly edifying to see that your claim was false. You are still quite ignorant of the subject under discussion, but you thought that you could lie in order to bait me. It is fascinating when Christians intentionally lie. It does seem to indicate that you have no more belief in it than I do.

It is also interesting that you think to ask me these questions rather than reading a book by a known expert in the subject of fossilization and evolutionary theory. One would think that those are simply too scary for you to consider since they might show you that you are wrong. I will of course do my best to show that. I know that you are not interested in learning, but in search of any evidence at all that your creationist claim are true. I do believe that you are a young earth creationist. I have recently encountered an old earth creationist Christians who is sure that the earth isn’t only a couple of thousand years old nor that all animals poofed into existence as they appear now, nor that there was a world-wide flood. I wonder, which of you should I believe? It seems none of you since neither one of you has any evidence whatsoever. And you both insist that you are the Christian with the “truth”.

The silliest thing is that you, Diana, have no problem in accepting the same science that supports evolutionary theory and fossil formation as long as it provides you with modern comforts. You are quite a hypocrite.

You ask what is the necessary environment for fossils to be formed? And then you acknowledge that you know what paleontologists say and what I have already said. Are you looking for a different answer? Why?   I have no idea why you give me a link to something I already know and that is filthy with popups. What bizarre behavior. If you wish a good site, with plenty of reference to scientific journals, I would recommend the Wikipedia entry on fossils. It has an excellent bibliography.

Why is there such a profuse fossil record all over the world?   Because there were biological entities all over the world and there was the proper conditions for fossilization, see above.

Yes, fossilization does seem to usually require quick burial. It doesn’t always; something could have been died, mummified, then been covered; something could have been reduced to its hard parts before fossilization and that’s all that was fossilized (coral, calcareous shells, bones, etc), etc.

Why yes, sedimentary rocks are formed by deposition in different ways and in different environments. I took a couple of courses on this in exhaustive detail (I’m a geologist) and most 7th graders know the basics. Again, what bizarre behavior to tell me something I already know. I really do advice that you find other websites than those that are for educating children. The concepts are understandably simplified but they do no present the entire picture.

Coal can be the fossil record of forests. It’s more likely to be the fossil record of swamps or peat bogs. It comes from anaerobic environments, burial and compression(which causes heating). Western PA is noted for coal. There was large river delta there at one point, full of swamps as is the Mississippi Delta. The mountains to the east eroded and buried this feature, causing the compression and then the coalification.

Quite a non-sequitor, your baseless claim that “For there to be so many fossils to suddenly appear is a miracle.” Now we are back talking about the Cambrian Explosion. Your ignorance in this is quite notable, so dependent on being willfully ignorant.

Sometimes-Evolution-SucksThe Cambrian “explosion” is not a sudden event, as you, Diana, so desperately try to claim. I believe I have already told you this. The Cambrian period was around 40-53 million years long. In contrast, humans, chimps etc split about 5 million years ago (8 – 10 times as short). If we compare it to the claims of young earth creationists, 53 millions years just for one period (which was around 540 million year ago) is 4000 to 5300 times as long as the supposed age of the earth. As I have already told you, there was likely a great extinction event just before the Cambrian started and that opened up a lot of niches for critters to evolve into, just like how evolutionary theory predicts and is thus shown accurate. I would ask you a question here: Do you know what evolutionary theory says? If you don’t, it’s curious to watch someone who doesn’t understand something to attack it as wrong. I would recommend a couple of books to learn about it: Why Evolution is True by Coyne and Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation by Nye. If you are indeed interested in learning as you claim, then you will read these books or others. You can get them for free from your local library or through it through interlibrary loan.

The fossil record is not “actually massive proof of a world-wide flood.”   If there had been a world-wide flood, it would be very easy to see the remains. One question I will ask you directly, Diana, is when did this magic flood occur?   How many years ago? Surely you know since you know how old the earth is, correct? We can see just how ridiculous the whole bible flood myth is right here in all its gory details.

But let’s pretend this magic flood did happen like the bible describes: “on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.” Most creationists claim that this was a very violent event. A very violent event, blowing rocks and earth apart, would suspend a lot of sediment in the water (whole ocean basins full if we are to believe Brown and Baumgardner (the other claims are even more silly, see above flood link). This sediment would be of various grain sizes, from colloid particles (what you need a high power microscope to see), clay sized particles (less than 2 micrometers), silt, sand, gravel, pebbles, cobbles and boulders (boulders can be quite big).

We would also have all of the detritus swept up in the flood, plants, and dead bodies of humans, animals, fish etc. Fish would be quite dead because salt water fish and fresh water don’t like the same conditions.

Now all of these physical objects, from the colloid particles up to the boulders, whales and dinosaurs have physical characteristics, like buoyancy, suspension, etc. If there was one singular event that placed all of these objects into motion, and it settled within a year (per the bible), we would have one singular layer of sediment that was sorted hydrologically from coarse at the bottom to fine at the top that was meters thick. We do not have this. In this layer, we would see all other detritus sorted by similar construction and buoyancy, dependent on rotting. There could be some mats of floating plants. And there could be some animals and humans that gained temporary safety there. However, most animals and humans would not have such refuge. They would die, bloat, rot and sink, forming a layer of hydrologically sorted remains of similar properties, for instance humans with similarly sized dinosaurs and lobsters with trilobites. We don’t see this at all.  There could be a possibility of a another layer of these remains from the possible mats higher up in the layer with the finer material also hydrologically sorted. We don’t see that either. We do see flood deposits aka diliviums, but not for some ridiculous world-wide event. We know exactly what they should look like.

What we do see is very defined types of sediment layers and fossils are sorted by complexity across layers. Only within layers do we see hydrological sorting. This means no magical flood.

We also have Potholer54’s most excellent videos that show how sedimentary rocks form layers, which also demonstrates that your magical world-wide flood never happened. Here is part 1 and part 2.

It’s also just wonderful to note that TrueChristians can’t even agree on how such a world-wide magic flood could have occurred. They all have such hypotheses but they all fail showing any evidence.  They all also such absolute ignorance of basic science that they are just a riot to read.

Now, you could insist that your flood, and every other “miraculous” event in the bible magically had the evidence removed by you god. That’s called the last Tuesday gambit, where you may as well claim that we were created last Tuesday and that we only remember anything before that, with all of the evidence we see created to intentionally give us a false impression.

Again, there is nothing “quick” as you claim. Fossils were made of different animals from different eras over billions of years.   Nothing supports the lie of young earth creationists that the earth is only thousands of years old. Not physics, not chemistry, nothing. You depend on an a priori assumption that your god exists and that your particular version of your particular religion is the only right answer. Nothing supports this at all.

from atheistmemebase.com
from atheistmemebase.com

What you think is rather hilarious. Geologists haven’t believed in uniformitarianism as you are trying to define it for decades, so you depend on superseded information to retain your beliefs. This entire assumption: “I think this leaves scientists in a quandary. If they admit to a catastrophe, then their uniformitarian (millions of years) views on the formation of the fossil record go out the window, but if they don’t admit to a catastrophe then they have to explain the Cambrian explosion, and the pre-Cambrian fossil record does not explain the varied life forms found in the Cambrian explosion.” Is built on a lie that you have created for yourself through your willful ignorance.

What geologists theorize, and the evidence supports it, is that the same events that happen now happened in the past, and that includes catastrophes. Geologists are sure that there were catastrophes: the Siberians traps, the Deccan traps, the Chixulub impactor, various jokulhlaups (glacial outburst floods, the Channeled Scablands are one cool instance; and the English Channel seems to be another) This shows us that you aren’t interested in learning at all; you are only interested in supporting your false claims. It’s as silly as watching someone insist that bodily humors are still followed by modern endocrinologists.

Diana, your world view is false. The claims you make are intentional lies because you have kept yourself intentionally ignorant of the actual research and have demonstrated that to be true by your actions.   You are a hypocrite because you accept science when it makes you comfy but not when it equally shows that your myths are nonsense. You are one more reason to know that your religion has no claim to truths or a decent humane morality.   There are indeed Christians who are good honest people but the religion doesn’t make them that way.

Note: I found a new site for quotes about atheism and religion: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/atheist-quotes-sayings  Looks like it has some good forums and other bits for atheists too.

Published by clubschadenfreude

intelligent, female, atheist, science fiction fan, great cook, excellent alewife, cat lover

Published

61 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – another challenger who is sure that the bible flood happened, Diana Lesperance”

  1. I only just started reading your post, but I want to make it clear, I’m not a scientist, and I didn’t lie. I just did as you suggested and Googled some stuff.

    There is no way I will be able to overcome your condescending attitude, but I will subject myself to it because I enjoy learning. For example, I never knew how fossils were formed. Now I do! And it’s amazing! Millions and billions of fossils around the world which could only have gotten there through sudden burial. I never knew that.

    Just that little amount of learning has blessed me.

    I will enjoy trying to understand your explanation for how they got there.

    Blessings…

    Like

    Reply

    1. You have made false claims based on your willful ignorance. You have made no attempt to find out anything that doesn’t satisfy your worldview, including looking at what modern scientists know e.g. that whole sad thing about catastrophes.

      For all of the things that you know claim not to know anything about, it’s just funny as heck that someone who ignorant has repeatedly claimed that evolutionary theory is wrong without making one step to even learn about it for how many years, Diana? 20? More?

      You keep lying. No, fossils don’t have to be from sudden burial, and definitely not from your magical flood.

      You google “some stuff” that you were already told and then added lots of nonsense that was false.

      Diana, don’t bother playing the martyr card here. You chose to come here and you made false claims about me and the sciences. You will be called out on these.

      I am curious, where am I being condescending to you? Is it condescending to tell you that you are wrong? If so, then you must have a lot of problems with people who know more than you do.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Diana, you did lie. You feigned ignorance on matters of biology, yet you have pointed out to me on a number of occasions that you studied biology at university. We’ve also had many conversations concerning fossils. Now, i must admit, I was surprised when I saw you lying like that. You hold utterly crazy beliefs, but I’d never before seen you willfully lie. Not to me, at least. Yes, you have always expressed views that have been proven so utterly wrong that to even repeat them is laughable madness, but i classify this as willful (purposeful) ignorance, not necessarily “lying.”

      Like

      Reply

  2. The truth of the matter about me is that I took a biology class in college where I learned evolutionary teachings. I have no scientific background beyond that. I can get out my old biology book once in a while but that’s all. I can also Google. I feel very inadequate when it comes to debating scientific issues. I DO enjoy debating the history of science and its impact on humanity, though.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Then it appears you did lie to me. I can’t recall the exact conversation, but its on my blog somewhere, where you quite clearly, and proudly, announced that you studied biology at university, implying, of course, that was your degree.

      But i’m doubly confused. Now you say you took a biology “class” at uni, but i see you say you studied history. A student can’t take an elective in a completely different faculty. So, what was this “biology class” you took? What University, and how did you do it when you were enrolled in different faculty?

      Like

      Reply

      1. Maybe it’s different in Brazil, but in the U.S. we have to take general education classes in different subjects in order to get a degree. Science is one of those requirements. I took biology. My degrees are in religion, history, and communications. I also began to study diplomacy for my masters, but I never completed it.

        If I remember correctly you studied public policy. 🙂

        Like

      2. I began my Masters in Law/Public Policy, in Brisbane, although I deferred it indefinitely after the first semester. My undergrad and postgrad work was in Canberra. And no, we don’t have any “general education classes” in Australian uni’s. I guess we sort all that out at school.

        Like

      4. John,
        At many schools in the U.S. you can take classes in different departments. Usually, classes have prerequisites, so it’s often very difficult to take higher level classes in a different department than one’s major. However, freshman or introductory courses are usually open to everyone.

        Often people start without “declaring a major.” I did that and then changed majors several times. I dropped out and then when back part time at night while I worked. I didn’t graduate until I was twenty-eight. I started at sixteen. The result of that is that I’ve taken classes in a lot of different areas, though mostly the humanities. Usually time and the sequence of courses prevents people from doing that.

        Later, when I wanted to go to graduate school in an entirely different field it was difficult because I didn’t have the prerequisites. By that time, I was living in Canada where their system was slightly different. I remember having to argue my way into a couple math classes because what I was doing was not the way they usually do it. (Transcripts are always a pain for me.)

        I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the Australian system, so I have no basis of comparison. The only Australian I know here in the U.S. didn’t go to college. (Self-taught programmer.)

        The Canadian (Or French Canadian) system splits what we in the U.S. call “college” into two halves. First, they have a year less of “polyvalent”, similar to the U.S. high school, then the go to something called “college”, which is either two or three years depending on the program. Then, they typically do three years of “university.” So, the length of time from kindergarten to the end of what we in the U.S. call the BA is the same. However, they divide it differently. By the time you get to “university” the Canadians have already begun to specialize more the the Americans have when we start “college” because it’s actually a year later. (I’m headed to bed and sleepy, so I apologize if I haven’t described it well.) You may have noticed that we say “college” when other people say “university.” My ex and I were both in school when we met, so we wound up having to understand one another’s systems.

        So, it’s more than possible that Diana took an intro level biology class.

        Some schools actually encourage people to take many courses outside their major. My first school required that you take at least two classes in one of each of their four divisions. My sister’s school required that everyone take an introductory philosophy class, a programming class and several other things. (I know of those because she called me for help.)

        Here in New York, a lot of ex-pats send their kids to schools that allow them to continue their studies as they would have at home so they don’t have a major break in they schooling when the family returns. I had some friends that went to an English school and that was awkward when they had to go to college. (The girl married an Australian, btw.)

        Does that help?

        Like

    1. Oh my, what a claim. Yep, you are certain that you are right about so many things but don’t know what a student in high school knows. I’ am guessing you have claimed that there are no transitional fossils. And then you claim you have no idea how fossils are made.

      What arrogance it takes to claim that something is wrong without knowing the most basic things about the subject.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Club,

    I read your links about catastrophes, (the English Channel and the Scablands) and I find it very interesting that scientists have discovered evidence for a “deluge” in the English Channel and a huge flood in the Scablands. These kinds of floods seemed to have happened all over the world–as in this example:

    World’s biggest dinosaur graveyard found in Alberta

    BY JEN GERSON, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE JUNE 18, 2010

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/World+biggest+dinosaur+graveyard+found+Alberta+scientists/3172490/story.html

    A piece from the Centrosaurus apertus bonebed.Photograph by: Colleen De Neve, Calgary Herald

    Scientists in northern Alberta say they’ve uncovered the largest dinosaur graveyard in the world and unlocked the mystery of why so many fossils are found in the province.

    A 2.3-square-kilometre bonebed containing thousands of bones belonging to a horned dinosaur called the centrosaurus was found near Hilda, Alta., a community near the Saskatchewan border, according to David Eberth, a senior research assistant with the province’s Royal Tyrrell Museum.

    The site, he said “is really ugly looking. The bonebed is actually exposed, it’s very patchy and exposed in outcrops along the beautiful landscapes along the South Saskatchewan River.”

    The dino graveyard was actually discovered in the late 1990s. However, reports confirming the discovery will be published this month.

    And it’s not just the size of the site that excites Eberth. Alberta is world-renowned for the high quantity of beautifully preserved dinosaur fossils found here.

    “We’ve always been puzzled by that. We’ve always enjoyed it, but it’s always been a puzzle,” he said. “This discovery is helping us understand why that is.”

    The Hilda bonebed, which preserved the remains of thousands of animals that died simultaneously, has given scientists a working theory as to why Alberta is a modern hot spot for paleontological discoveries.

    More than 76 million years ago, ancient Alberta was a lush tropical coastal area and the Hilda bonebed provides evidence that the region was periodically subject to catastrophic tropical storms that could drown thousands of large animals.

    When the centrosaurus roamed the area, it looked like a triceratops, with a horny head plate, but was about the same size as a cow.

    The centrosaurus was, however, much dumber than a cow.

    Geological data shows that hurricane-like storms could dump between four and five metres of water on the area.

    As the flood waters rose, the slow, dumb-witted creatures would have probably been unaware of the danger until it was too late. The flat, featureless landscape would have given them no high ground and no escape.

    When the flood overtook them “they would have tread water for a while, like cattle would do. But they would have tired very quickly and drowned,” Eberth said.

    Their remains would have then piled up as the water receded and been picked over by predators who had the good sense to get out of the way of the flood.

    It’s a little sad, he admits. But the death of thousands of centrosaurus has given scientists a key toward explaining why Alberta is home to so many beautiful fossils of large dinosaurs.

    “Alberta just doesn’t seem to be able to stop showing us new dinosaurs and new information about dinosaurs,” Eberth said. “What this bonebed is telling us is that there’s scads more work that needs to be done here.”

    Harold Whittaker, the vice-president of the Alberta Paleontological society, a group of amateur Paleontologists, said he was excited about the discovery.

    “That’s a great find, that’s a huge bonebed,” he said. “I look forward to going down there and getting a look at it.”

    Read more:http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/World+biggest+dinosaur+graveyard+found+Alberta+scientists/3172490/story.html#ixzz0rgvSAHbr

    My husband used to work in a limestone quarry here in Wisconsin and they would find fossils all the time.

    What I don’t understand is how the evolutionist views the fossil record. Do they believe that each layer of sediment represents a new catastrophic flood that would quickly envelope a plant or animal and lead to its fossilization?

    (I feel foolish for asking this, but I’m just trying to understand.)

    Like

    Reply

      3. Yes. I’ve been caring for 3 grandchildren–3, 4, and 6. Hard to think with them around. 🙂

        I don’t think I’m a young earth creationist. I’ve been studying the evidence and much evidence points to an old earth. Not an old human race, but an old earth. How old are the fossils? Have they dated them? Just wondering . . .

        Like

      4. Well, let me ask you a few questions that you can address while I create a post on fossils age: How old do you think the earth is? How old do you think humanity is? And how literally do you take the two creation stories in Genesis?

        What evidence do you think points to the earth’s age?

        Fossils can range vastly in ages because fossils have been forming at different times over billions of years. Dating methods are various and none of them are used alone.

        Like

      5. I don’t know how old the earth is…could be billions of years. That seems to be what the dating points to.

        I take the creation stories in Genesis literally. I think humanity is thousands of years old. The lineage in Genesis shows that.

        What I believe is the evidence around me . . . and I don’t think the scriptures conflict with that.

        On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” The beginning of the earth could have been a long time before that. (See Jeremiah 4:23 also. It appears that there was a previous judgment of the earth that left it without form or void. I’m not sure about this.)

        I don’t want to be ignorant . . . I want to be faithful to the truth–as it appears in nature and in the Word.

        Like

      6. If the earth is billions of years old, how can the two stories in genesis be literal if it took only days to create the universe, the sun/moon and earth as we see it today or as people saw it just a few thousand years ago? That is completely untrue, since it took billions of years for that to happen and we can be sure thanks to physics and chemistry.

        The bible says let there be light before anything that could make light existed. The order of events is ridiculously off from what we actually have evidence of in this universe. Jeremiah 4 seems to be a claim of prophecy of the desolation from the babylonian captivity or just more about the claims in Revelation, that’s at least what some Christians say. Why should your interpretation that this is somehow the past be considered more true than theirs?

        The lineage in Genesis is no more than myth, no more true than the stories of how the Chinese emperors descended from the gods. Humans have never lived to be more than 900 years old. There is no evidence for this at all, so nature does not support your religion’s claims.

        The world around you shows that animals weren’t all created in one day at all. Reality conflicts with your claim that the stories in Genesis are literal. No creation week, no magical flood.

        Like

      7. As I mentioned, fossils are of vastly differing ages. This is because they were alive, dead then fossilized over a couple of billion years. The only way your question makes sense is if you are still trying to claim that all fossils, and all animals existed at one time and there was a worldwide flood that was miles deep. That event never happened. There is not one scrap of evidence for it. We do have fossil evidence of change through time: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/fossilrecord.html#null I tried to find a Wisconsin version of this, but Indiana has a great illustration on how geology and fossils work out in Indiana: http://igs.indiana.edu/images/geologicalTimeline.jpg Here’s a fossil guide to Wisconsin: http://www.nehmlab.org/Nehm_Lab/Pubs_files/Nehm%20Bemis.pdf

        Fossilization can take varying amounts of time depending on method. It takes time, heat, pressure, minerals and the way to convey minerals to make fossils. These same effects that make fossils have occurred all throughout time, which confirms again the idea that the same physical and chemical processes that occur now did the same billions of years ago. Some of the neatest fossils are made of opals, which I had forgotten to mention earlier. http://www.australianopalcentre.com/fossils.php

        How fossils are dated isn’t a “one and done” process. Most of the dating uses half-lifes of radioactive elements, more than one of them. Most creationists try to attack this but it’s simple to destroy those attacks. Half-lives are what make nuclear reactors work; they are constant. If you are using electricity, then chances are you are getting it from a reactor. I live about 7 miles from Three Mile Island, the site of the partial meltdown in 1979. It did exactly what physicists knew it would because of nuclear theory. Physics isn’t random, not on the levels we usually experience. Here’s an article: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html and here’s one: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044 and here’s one https://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24

        Again, ask questions if you need clarification. No one is trying to humiliate you by showing you evidence. I can understand it does feel embarrassing if you don’t know those facts. When I was learning how to tell time, digital clocks appeared. I got so confused, and thought that if someone said it was a “quarter til 6” this meant it was 25 minutes to 6, because a quarter is 25 cents. I was so embarrassed when the teacher explained this to me I wanted to just die (and that is literal since I was desperately introverted and shy then). Regular old ignorance is curable.

        I am still curious on where you got your degrees from.

        Like

      8. This is my alma mater:

        http://lakeland.edu/

        I will look into the information you posted.

        In reply to John Zande, thank you for the interesting link. It led me to another link by some “old earth creationists” that really laid out the issue for me. I am very interested in forming a position on this subject.

        You’re not humiliating me by showing me evidence, Clubschadenfreude. It’s just the tone of the videos seems arrogant to me. This makes it difficult for me to trust the speaker. (Pride comes before a fall!) I admitted ignorance from the beginning, so I’m not too concerned about looking foolish.

        Just for the record, I think the article by Wintery Knight that I posted on my web site had an air of arrogance too.

        Like

      9. You can call me Vel, if you’d like. After reading about your college, it’s no wonder you don’t know much about the sciences. I know that not all colleges can offer all things, but that place doesn’t even offer some of the basics. It makes me wince when a place like that says it wants to teach critical thinking and the course list shows that they don’t offer much in the way of that.

        I’m not sure why you think so many people are arrogant. Can you explain why they seem arrogant to you?

        Like

      12. Did you ask me my alma mater just so you could find fault with it? I already told you I don’t have a science background, so why does it matter what is contained in the science program at my college?

        Like

      13. No, I was wondering what your educational background was to know why you didn’t know much science. Your college’s curriculum explains that. At most colleges and universities, you have to take some science classes. These ones are very basic but they do go into some of the things you aren’ t familiar with. That someone has gone to college and doesn’t know some of these things is unusual. For example, where I went, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a small state school, we had an earth science class that everyone called “rocks for jocks”. I used to have to run some of that class since it was in the planetarium and that was my work study job. There was also basic biology, basic chem/physics. There was a requirement of taking at least some basic science courses even if you were a elementary ed major, a comm major, etc.

        This was not meant as a personal attack. It was meant to let me and any readers/commenters know how basic of information you don’t know.

        Like

    2. I’ll answer the rest later, but no, geologists do not believe that each layer is a catastrophic flood. If you would have watched the videos I linked to, you would know this. I’m sorry you haven’t bothered.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I watched the videos, but honestly, I didn’t fully understand (or trust) them. The narrator sounded so arrogant and full of disdain that I thought he was just trying to humiliate and mock me as a believer in Jesus.

        Like

      2. What didn’t you understand about the videos? They showed that a sudden catastrophic flood could not make layered beds as we see. You can try the experiments yourself if you don’t trust them. They will still work and then you can trust them.

        It is only your fear that makes you assume everyone who knows more than you is arrogant or full of distain. You appear to be seeking any excuse you can think of to ignore what people are saying and showing you. I am, and the maker of the video, are trying to show you that you beleive in things that are simply not true. It is not to humiliate you. It is to allow you to make well informed decisions, so you can decide for yourself what is true.

        I know that it is hard to believe that a fellow Christian could lie to you. I felt the same way when i was learning about this stuff and seeing how creationists often intentionally misrepresent facts, quotes by scientists, etc.

        Like

    3. It’s never foolish to ask questions to understand. However, it can be a little strange to ask questions that were answered already. I do expect you to read the links I give and to watch the videos I post, Diana.

      You seem intent on twisting anything into evidence for your religion’s myths. That’s what happens when you have an a priori assumption and aren’t willing to learn anything else.

      Let’s look at your need to do this with the glacial floods. Those floods were nowhere around the same time, but you have to try to claim that they are evidence of your “deluge”, by ignoring the actual facts. This is the type of willful ignorance and lying that is far too common with creationists.

      I don’t like people who try to tell me false things because it shows that they have no concern for me and wish to take away my ability to make an informed decision based on their selfish desires.

      Why do you bother wasting space by cutting and pasting articles in your posts? The link is sufficient. The article is about a large deposit of dino bones. Again, this does not demonstrate that your magical flood happened at all, it is a local event that has exactly what we would expect from a flood during the late Cretaceous, more than 70 million years ago, in a tropical area (evidence of plate tectonics) where the conditions were good for fossil preservation. If it did, then we would have the evidence I detailed in my comment. It seems that you didn’t even read the article, but just regurgitated it because you saw the word “flood”.

      Floods have happened all over the earth. Again, they didn’t happen at the same time, so your desperate attempts to play pretend fail. I asked you when the supposed Noah flood happened. You said: “I believe the Bible. I don’t know the exact date, but I think it might teach a few thousand years ago.”

      Have you ever read your bible, Diana? The entire thing from cover to cover? It seems not. Let me tell you what your bible says. In Genesis 5, we have the supposed years of when the various men in the line of Adam had sons and how old they are when they died. The ages are ridiculous but if you calculate them one comes up to 1656. Now, Christian creationists can’t even agree on how many years this covers. Some say 1100, some say 1656. You may believe in the bible but you don’t even know what it says.

      We know that there was no world-wide flood that covered all of the mountains a “few thousand years ago” or 3671 or 3115 years ago. Your bible is unbelievable as are the claims of its believers. We have no evidence for it at all, and evidence that plenty of other things were happening at that time.

      Fossils are often found in limestone quarries. Now, do you know how limestone is deposited?

      I’ve already addressed this but I will again: no, geologists and paleontologists do not think that each layer of sediment represents a catastrophic flood. Again, you seem to be reluctant to believe what I have said about fossil formation and are returning to your old nonsense. Sedimentary layers can be deposited in many different ways. The deposition can be sudden or very slowly. It can be from water, wind,erosion and evaporation. The videos by potholer54 do a very good job at showing how this makes distinct layers and how there is no evidence for a world wide flood catastrophe.

      My home state, Pennsylvania, is a very good place to see evidence for sedimentary deposition and for layering. I did a blog post on it here https://clubschadenfreude.com/2012/08/20/what-the-boss-likes-pennsylvania-geology/ , which some nice photos (taken by me) and a video of a highway cut thanks to Google maps. The mountains that run through the center of the state, currently called the Appalachians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains , (there have been about three mountain building events in this area), once were higher than the Rockies are today, and have eroded down to what we see now. All of that sediment went somewhere and that somewhere is in layers of sedimentary rock in Pennsylvania, where we get all of our coal, oil and gas.

      Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock it has a good bibliography

      Please ask whatever questions you need to.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Thank you for your informative reply, Vel.

        1. I read your material, but I still have many questions. For example, if scientists agree that fossils are formed suddenly, rather than through natural means (due to decomposition and scavenging), how did huge fossil graveyards, where life forms from all geological eras are thrust together in a lump, occur all over the world? Some examples:

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071210-dinosaur-grave.html

        http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2014/06/05/dinosaur-graveyard-discovered-in-southern-chile-nearly-50-entire-fossils-found/

        http://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html

        2. I also noticed that many scientists, in trying to deal with things like mass extinction as seen in fossil graveyards (and oil and coal fields) have admitted to occurrences of catastrophes. For example, many scientists have turned to the possibility of asteroid or meteorite strikes, as noted in this Smithsonian article:

        “The causes of extinction are many and highly variable. They vary from environmental changes brought about by events such as floods, volcanic eruptions, or meteorite impacts, to fluctuations in sea level or climate, to competition between species.”

        http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/index.html

        Is it fair to call it a “magical flood” when there is evidence that a flood occurred, even if the source wasn’t supernatural?

        3. I also think it is deceptive to explain that one of these fossil graveyards (located in Utah) was formed in this way:

        [Dinosaur National Monument, Utah] “There is an unusually large concentration of bones in one place, as this area was once a watering hole. The rock around the fossil bones tells us that an ancient river once flowed there. Scientists believe that at one time, about 150 million years ago, the river dried up during a drought. The last watering hole was located where the Quarry Visitor Center is today. As the watering hole vanished, the dinosaurs died. Their carcasses were scattered about the dried riverbed. After the drought ended, the river again began to flow. Over time, dinosaur bones were buried under sand and gravel, and the fossilization process began.”

        This explanation is inadequate because this isn’t how fossils are formed!

        The dinosaurs shown in the “wall” at the museum are complete. If they were buried over time by flowing water in a river bed they wouldn’t be completely preserved. The bones would have fallen apart and spread around.

        4. Also, your Wisconsin fossil guide revealed that many marine fossils are found in Wisconsin. How did saltwater fossils get to the Midwest of the United States? Even jellyfish fossils have been found here:

        http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/17/local/me-28479

        Note that the last line in the article mentions the speed in which they were buried.

        5. I also discovered that sedimentary rocks are only able to be dated according to the date of the mother rock they came from (usually igneous).

        “Dating sedimentary rock by using radiometric techniques will tell the age of the original igneous rock, not the time since the sedimentary rock formed.”

        http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/index.html

        Doesn’t this mean it’s difficult to give an actual age for fossils?

        I just have to look at many sides of an issue to try to understand.

        Blessings to you, Vel.

        Diana

        Like

      2. Hi Diana. Vel, a geologist, is far better qualified than I to answer your questions here, but if I may at least broach one of the issues you’ve raised. A few scattered concentrations of fossilised remains (graveyards) is not remarkable. What these represent are localised populations who were caught in some local event: a flood or volcanic eruption, for example, and by pure chance have maintained a coherent form over millions upon millions of years. Think total population numbers here. I’ve forgotten where I saw it, and the exact percentages quoted, but it was suggested that something like 00.00001 of all animals have a chance of being fossilied. Now consider the natural erosive motions of the earth, including tectonic activity. Of that 1 in a million most will be erased by secondary forces over millions of years. For this reason, fossils are very, very, very rare.

        Like

      5. Diana, you make completely incorrect statements and try to claim that “scientists” have said them. Paleontologists and geologists, etc, do not agree that “fossils are formed suddenly” and that’s the only way they form. I have told you what they do think and you seem to be ignoring what I have written for no more reason than you don’t like the truth. This does get annoying. Fossils can be formed from parts of animals that could have rotted, been dragged place by scavengers, been washed into places where they were covered in sediments long after death and then fossilized there, etc as well as from catastrophic events. One has to look at fossils as one would look at evidence at a scene of a death that one didn’t witness. Forensics is used just like forensics is used at a crime scene.

        Fossils don’t only form in big graveyards of remains. You don’t seem to quite understand that or you are again are trying to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit with your flood myth. We get plenty of singles too. For instance, most fossils found in caves are singles or very small numbers, that accumulate over time. Something goes in, gets trapped and dies, gets covered and fossilizes. Something else wanders in, sick and wanting to hide, dies in a nice stable environment like a cave, gets covered and fossilzes. A local flood happens and some things get washed into the cave since most caves are low-lying. All expected and all showing that there was no worldwide flood to have happened because there aren’t big piles of mixed fossils of dinos and modern mammals like your flood story ridiculously claims. A couple of articles on some caves like this are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naracoorte_Caves_National_Park http://news.ucsc.edu/2010/04/3658.html (more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_sediba) We also have singles and small groups of fossils in tar pits, which again don’t have a thing to do with your supposed world wide mountain deep flood. Here is a good site that has how a lot of fossils are made, in all sort of different kinds of ways: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossilsarchive/permin.html

        As John has already explained, and as I have already explained, the graveyards are local events that happened at different times in history. They did not happen all at once, and one can tell that because we do not have different kinds of animals in them. The animals are from one time period only, and not a mix which would be the case if your myth was true. Floods happen all of the time along rivers, and can kill lots of animals at once. Landslides happen all of the time, and can kill lots of animals at once. So, no huge fossil grave yards have happened “where there are life forms from all geological era are thrust together in a lump”. Your articles do not say that at all. It makes me wonder if you read the articles you have cited. The livesciene article has the date of that fossil graveyard as 76 million years, the foxnews article has the animals in the bed were around 246 to 90 million years ago, which means that the fossil had to be put down millions of years before the other, and the Nat Geo article has that this bed is 70 million years old. Again, more evidence that the events did not happen at the same time.

        Again, Diana, in your #2 comment, you again try tell false things about geologists and paleontologists. I have already told you and shown you that we do not believe in the old version of uniformitarianism as people back in the 19th and early 20th century did. Geologists and paleontologists have accepted catastrophes for decades now. Your nonsense about how scientists are supposedly now just “admitting” stuff is pure nonsense since we have been doing so for decades. Your claims depend on ignorance of what scientists have and are really doing, and this is what creationists depend on, repeating false claims. This is what make me disgusted with creationists. They insist that they now what is wrong with evolutionary theory, paleontology and geology but don’t even take the time to learn about the basics of the stuff they are attacking. Yep, floods (note the plural), volcanoes, impactors, climate change, etc can cause animals to die and then some of them become fossilized if they are in the correct environments. Lots of evidence for this all over the earth. Not one scrap for a world-wide flood that covered all of the mountains like what you and your bible claim.

        It is quite fair to declare your magical bible flood to be utter nonsense because the article you quoted from the Smithsonian Institution said floods, plural, not magical flood, singular. This article does not support your claims either. The link you gave was not the link that contains the quote you used. This is: http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life4.html You appear to have decided to take this quote and then ignore what the rest of the page says. The quote you took is from this paragraph:

        “Extinction is the complete demise of a species. It takes place when all individuals of a species die out. Extinction has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth. It is the ultimate fate of all species. In fact, it has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. The causes of extinction are many and highly variable. They vary from environmental changes brought about by events such as floods, volcanic eruptions, or meteorite impacts, to fluctuations in sea level or climate, to competition between species. In the past 25,000 years humans have become a significant additional cause of extinction for many species.”

        Lots of information on that page, showing that geologists and paleontologists know that there have been catastrophes throughout time, and that the earth and humans have been around much longer than you and your bible claim. No mention of some magical world-wide flood at all, but lots of things that happened in place of this supposed flood.

        Diana, you are also need to educate yourself in how oil and gas was formed in the geological formations it is found in. It was not all from some mass extinction. Those probably helped, but the bulk of it is from the very very slow deposition of dead microscopic plants and animals which were buried, compressed, heated and then changed to oil and gas. http://www.adventuresinenergy.org/What-are-Oil-and-Natural-Gas/How-Are-Oil-Natural-Gas-Formed.html Same with the white cliffs of Dover and limestone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone .

        There is nothing “deceptive” about this paragraph from the National Park Services’ webpage on the Douglas Quarry: http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/dino/douglas.html Your claim “This explanation is inadequate because this isn’t how fossils are formed!” Unfortunately for you, Diana, this is exactly how fossils are formed and the paragraphs which follow this go into even more detail on how these fossils are formed. Let’s see the rest of that page: “As ages passed, that river vanished. Other rivers and seas came and went, leaving layer after layer of sand and mud that slowly solidified into rock. As water seeping through the ground filled the buried bones with dissolved silica, they became rock hard.
        About 65 million years ago, strong vise-like forces began squeezing the Earth’s crust, bending and tilting the rock layer in this area. Think of how the pages of a paperback book bend if you push on it from opposite sides. The more the rocks were pushed upward, the more they were worn down by rain, snow, frost, and wind. layer by layer.
        Eventually, some of the long-buried dinosaur bones began to show up near the top of a steep hill where Earl Douglass found them.”

        There is also nothing that says that the “The dinosaurs shown in the “wall” at the museum are complete.” What it does say is “The rock layer containing the fossil bones forms a massive wall of the Quarry Visitor Center where more than 1,400 bones can be seen. The Quarry face is divided into sections. Each bone has a catalog number and is keyed to a grid system that allows visitors to locate the fossils.” If you go out the virtual tour, you can see the wall that you mention, and look at it in detail. The description to the side says that “Some of the bones on the cliff face are still connected to other bones from the same skeleton, just like when the dinosaur was alive. Paleontologists call these bones articulated.” http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/dino/vr/virtu-quarry.html All of your claims about this are wrong.

        I am going to ask you a direct question: Did you not bother reading all of this page and that is why you made a false statement, or did you read it and then chose to misrepresent what it said intentionally not giving a link so that someone would have trouble finding out what you did?

        There are saltwater fossils in Wisconsin since there were warm inland seas covering a good part of Wisconsin. You could have found that out yourself, but chose not to evidently to retain your ignorance. These seas are where the limestone came from too. http://www.paleoportal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space&sectionnav=state&name=Wisconsin Yep, we got jellyfish, trilobites, everything that shows that there once was a saltwater sea in Wisconsin. What we don’t have is again anything that shows that these jellyfish, trilobites, etc were caught up in a magical flood that would have mixed all similarly sized animals together from all eras. Why yes, we do have that a bunch of the same jellyfish were washed up together and buried together by a storm. And again, Diana, that is no surprise since geologists and paleontologists know and have known for decades that catastrophes can make fossils too, as well as slow deposition. Your attempts at telling falsehoods about what scientists know fail again.

        Again, you misrepresent geology. It is untrue that sedimentary rocks are “only able to be dated according to the date of the mother rock they came from.” It’s interesting that you post links that don’t have the quotes you use on them. Here’s the link that the quote you used came from: http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html The paragraph goes on to say that: “Dating sedimentary rock by using radiometric techniques will tell the age of the original igneous rock, not the time since the sedimentary rock formed. (Although sometimes the two ages are very similar, for example when a volcanic explosion deposits ash on a surface and that ash is quickly incorporated into sediments. The age of the ash and the age of the sedimentary rock would then be very similar.) Metamorphic rock, by contrast, is formed from earlier rock through intense heat and pressure. Metamorphism can reset some radiometric clocks (Potassium-Argon is particularly susceptible), so that radiometric dates record the time of alteration rather than the date when the earlier rock first solidified from magma or was deposited as sediment. Other parent-daughter pairs are less susceptible to alteration.”
        The rest of the pages about dating, seen to the left of the main text here: http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating1.html Goes into detail about other dating techniques, which shows that no it is not difficult to give an actual age for fossils. These links and the links I gave you before,

        “How fossils are dated isn’t a “one and done” process. Most of the dating uses half-lifes of radioactive elements, more than one of them. Most creationists try to attack this but it’s simple to destroy those attacks. Half-lives are what make nuclear reactors work; they are constant. If you are using electricity, then chances are you are getting it from a reactor. I live about 7 miles from Three Mile Island, the site of the partial meltdown in 1979. It did exactly what physicists knew it would because of nuclear theory. Physics isn’t random, not on the levels we usually experience. Here’s an article: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html and here’s one: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044 and here’s one https://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24”
        which you seem not to have read, also tell exactly how this works, and it is not as you keep on baselessly claiming it does.

        Please do read the links I give, and please do answer the questions I have asked. I read the sources of your quotes, and the links you give and I try to answer your questions. I am still curious on why you call others “arrogant”.

        Like

  5. It’s very difficult to respond to such lengthy posts.

    You miss my point about fossilization. All scientists agree that the process of fossilization is rare. It doesn’t happen very often because bodies decompose or are scavenged before the fossil can form. Fossils, especially those containing soft tissues, require rapid burial, otherwise the soft tissues, such as eyes and skin, wouldn’t remain intact. The Burgess Shale, for example, contains many examples of soft tissues, even undigested food, being fossilized. The Wisconsin fossils are of the soft-tissued jellyfish.

    Whether the flood(s) that fossilized these creatures had a natural or supernatural explanation, the geological evidence reveals that there was massive flooding–enough flooding that large dinosaurs were inundated all over the world, and their bones were thrust together in massive lumps, or graveyards, such as the “Wall” found at the National Dinosaur Monument in Utah, where entire dinosaur remains can be seen exposed in the Wall.

    How scientists interpret the evidence before them is the issue. Uniformitarianism used to be (and in many cases still is) the primary explanation for the fossil layers seen around the world, but in many cases localized flooding can’t explain what is seen. That is why there had to be an acknowledgment by the scientific community that catastrophes, even to the point of mass extinction, couldn’t be ruled out as a possible explanation for what is seen in the geological record. I’m glad that you acknowledge that catastrophism is a scientific option.

    You say there were once warm, saltwater, inland seas in Wisconsin, but that doesn’t explain how saltwater fossils appear in Ohio, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota . . . in fact the entire United States is covered with saltwater fossils. . . in fact, Canada is also covered with saltwater fossils. . . . in fact China is covered with saltwater fossils . . .in fact all the continents of the world are covered with saltwater fossils that were preserved quickly in non-aerobic environments.

    Localized floods of small inland seas don’t explain this. Localized floods don’t explain dinosaur graveyards either. If we saw one, or even a few, examples of huge dinosaur formations, then perhaps, but HUGE formations that cover portions of continents, such as the Karoo formation in South Africa, cannot be explained by localized floods.

    The point I’m making is this: there is evidence for a worldwide flood–how it happened is open to interpretation, but the evidence is there.

    You have called me a hypocrite, liar, and ignorant. (Things I haven’t denied. I’m guilty of all three!) You also said I “accept science when it makes you comfy but not when it equally shows that your myths are nonsense.” I think this could describe you. I think you would be surprised by the contributions creationists have made to the cause of science and medicine.

    http://narrowwayapologetics.com/2011/11/30/the-creationist-contribution-to-medicine/

    http://narrowwayapologetics.com/2013/09/13/evolutions-insignificant-impact-on-modern-medicine/

    http://narrowwayapologetics.com/2014/02/08/why-virginia-heffernan-is-right-to-side-with-the-scriptures-over-science/

    I think your attitude toward me has been very arrogant.

    ar·ro·gant adjective \ˈer-ə-gənt, ˈa-rə-\
    : having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people : having or showing arrogance

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogant

    I’m still grappling with the age of the earth.

    Blessings,

    Diana

    Like

    Reply

    1. Diana, Vel will answer you, but I want you to do something: do a quick head count of every individual fossil found in these few “graveyards” across the planet. Now, ignoring the fact that none of these graveyards line up exactly in age, what do you think that total number of those fossils would be? A few dozen? Now ask yourself: How many organisms are alive on the planet at any given moment. Of course, this number will vary depending on the age, but I assure you, it’s in the hundreds of billions to the many, many trillions. Now, do you think a few dozen fossil from a few disparate (freak) events represents a single global catastrophe?

      Please, be reasonable….

      Like

      Reply

    2. My posts are long because they require explanation, showing how your claims are wrong and using examples to do so. I do have a suggestion. When I have a long post to address, I cut and paste the post into a word processor like Word. Then I can address it in chunks at my leisure. If it makes it easier, make your responses into parts as you address my comments. This post is a two parter, for example.

      I am not missing your point about fossilization, I am saying it is wrong. Geologists and paleontologists do agree that the process of fossilization is rare. It does often take rapid burial to get fossils of soft tissues, but it does not always take that. You keep insisting that fossils are formed in one single way and they are not. I have repeatedly told you how fossils can form in other ways and you are apparently ignoring me. Again, your attempts to try to claim that all fossils are from one world-wide flood event fail. Yes, the Burgess Shale fossils probably required quick burial in an anoxic environment as did the Wisconsin jellyfish. That does not mean that all fossils form like this. For instance, we have places that will become fossil graveyards, thanks to wildebeests migrating and dying in the hundreds: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440385700398 this particular article is about surveying a graveyard and figuring out the details. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall, but it serves as an example of this happening completely sans magical flood.

      No, the geological evidence does not reveal that there was a world-wide mountain deep flood. I have given you evidence that your claim is not true. You have no evidence it is. This will not change no matter how many times you repeat the same false information. Again, the dino graveyards happened at vastly different times. The sedimentary layers that they are in are graded from coarse to fine in each different layer they are in, and are not in one giant layer that mixes different types of dinos. Thus there was no magical bible flood, nor was there any natural flood that mimicked it.

      It is also sadly evident that you did not read my comment or look at the links I cited. The remains on the wall at the Nat’l Dino Monument are mostly in pieces which goes against the claim you made that they were all intact: “The dinosaurs shown in the “wall” at the museum are complete.”.

      Diana, you are still trying to spread false information about what geologists and paleontologists believe about uniformitarianism. And it is not simply a matter of interpretation as you, and so many creationists, would try to claim. Scientists use a far more stringent and fact supported concept of interpretation than what the layman does or what the theist does. Geologists and paleontologists use the scientific method, observation/asking a question, forming a hypothesis, analysis of the facts, replication of the processes if possible, and then forming a theory, defined far more stringently than the common use of the term. Potholer54’s videos show how these experiments can be done, and can show that there is no evidence at all for some world-wide catastrophic flood that covered mountains and swept up animals from dinos, to tribolites to cats and dogs and humans, in one event.

      I will tell you again because it seems you are ignoring me. There has long been an acknowledgement by the scientific community that catastrophes happen. It has been that way for decades. Catastrophes can cause animals to die and become fossilized. No one disputes that at all. The evidence supports this all over the place. What the evidence does not support is some world-wide flood that covered mountains and killed every animals, and mixed them together. I am indeed repeating myself and will keep doing so. What I am not doing is agreeing with you that catastrophism as you are defining it with your magic flood is an option. It is pure nonsense. This magic flood could not have produced what we see.

      I just have to facepalm when you so poorly try to do a gotcha with your new attempt at claiming I can’t explain the saltwater fossils appear in your list of states. I can explain that easily because those states also had saltwater bodies of water in them at different points in earth’s history. If you would have just did a little research on your own you would have found that out. Willful ignorance does make you look completely ridiculous. However, I do try not to attribute to malice what I can attribute to ignorance. The continents are not “covered” by saltwater fossils. They do indeed have some on them where the environment was right for it. I’m guessing you also believe in that utter nonsense that tries to claim that the magic flood was over Mt. Everest because one can find fossils that too. It doesn’t, it just shows that plate tectonics work just like the theory predicts. We also know that you are wrong because most of these salt water fossils you mention aren’t soft body preservation, but only calcareous preservation of the hard bits. All of your beliefs are built on misunderstanding, well, just about everything about the sciences you claim are wrong. You don’t even know the basics.

      Yes, localized inland seas completely explain the places where you find salt water fossils, because your claim that the continents are “covered” with supposed soft body fossils is entirely wrong. And yes, localized floods do explain dino graveyards, and storms explain fossilized jellyfish, and landslides explain soft body preservation. You have this mistaken idea that formations are the same as graveyards and that somehow formations are wall to wall packed with fossils. They aren’t and no scientist every said there were because there isn’t any evidence for this nonsense. Your ignorance betrays you again. Let’s look at what the Karoo formation is, rather than what you want to claim it is.

      The Karoo “formation” actually isn’t. It’s a supergroup of formations. One can see lots of info on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Supergroup Now, formations don’t uniformly cover an area, they can tail off, can be thicker in one place than other, be entirely absent from erosion. What’s amusing about your claims is that the Karoo is mostly not marine in origin and you’d know that if you were interested in learning rather than trying to desperately find evidence for your myths. The Karoo covers around 120 million years, from the big plant and insect times to the early dinos. The Karoo does a lovely job in showing your magical world flood never happened because we have those nice formations that all sort within themselves, and not one big layer that mixes everything together. Deposition of sediments does not need a massive flood, that is one of the more uncommon ways for it to happen.

      There is no evidence for a world-wide mountain deep flood. None at all. What evidence is there is not open to interpretation at all. There is nothing to support the kind of flood you claim, and we do know exactly what to look for. What we find does not support your nonsense at all, it entirely precludes it. Unfortunately for you, no one gets their own set of facts just because they want them.

      I have indeed called you a liar, a hypocrite and ignorant and you have supplied evidence for all of these yourself by your actions. These all show that there is no reason to believe much that you say, including the nonsense about your religion. There is no problem with ignorance, it can always be helped. What is inexcusable is your poor attempts at lying and your insistence on being a hypocrite, when you accept science for one thing and decry it for others.

      The age of the earth is supported by evidence. The evidence doesn’t care what you want. We have the speed of light, radioactivity, lake varves, sedimentation rates, ice cores, etc that all say that the earth and universe is far older than young earth creationists claim and quite different from what old earth creationists want to claim. There is nothing that supports your bible’s creation story nor the claims of its other essential events.

      Like

      Reply

    3. Part 2
      I thought it necessary to split this part out because it does not entirely deal with what we were discussing.

      It is no surprise that you try to trot out more nonsense. Your post about creationist contributions to medicine is full of nonsense. I love how you complain about revisionist history and then promptly do exactly that yourself. I like this sentence “Redi, Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Lister, and Snow, to name a few, all made great scientific advances merely because they rejected the belief that non-living matter could produce life.” Leeuwenhoek developed the microscope. I suggest you read his biography and perhaps watch the most recent Cosmos series because it discusses him. It seems that you are doing the usual false claims of a creationist, trying to claim that all scientists were “really” in your camp when that is demonstrably not true. Leeuwenhoek did attribute creation to the Christian god, and his work did show that the idea of spontaneous generation was probably not true. Now, who did keep that bit of nonsense going? Ah, yes, the Christian Church. So, Leeuwenhoek was working against what Christainity said was true, the spontaneous creation of life from non-life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Adoption_in_Christianity

      Pasteur did the same thing. Redi did the same thing. Lister did the same thing. I have no idea which Snow you are referring do sicne you conveniently have not put up links, links which show your claims to be wrong.

      Your other link is just as full of nonsense and false claims. It’s always a tell when a creationist has to try to use arguments from authority, from people who were dead long before a lot of research was done that supports modern science. We also have you citing an article by Skell, about evolution in experimental biology. One can read the entire article here: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/ There is one major problem, that claims of interviewing “eminent scientists” is entirely anecdotal. We have no idea who Skell talked to. We also have you taking quote from Skell (a quote that he mined himself)and claiming it says one thing when it does not. Skell quotes this “”While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,” but intentionally doesn’t put the rest of the quote in “Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to the development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them.” Skell himself does not discount that evolutionary theory is true, or that it does support biological research, the only thing he is can support is that one doesn’t need it directly to do biological experiments. It explains the results of the experiments, but you don’t need to know the theory to get the same results.

      The quote from Sean Carroll is the usual quote mining from an article that the creationist’ didn’t’ bother to read but just thought this was a good sound bite. The article is here: http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/35055637?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=template2 I was able to see it for free, but it may require a rental. Carroll is not saying for one moment that evolution has nothing to do with biology or medical research. The article is about a disagreement in terminology not in results. He also calls out the common creationist nonsense trying to separate “macro evolution from “microevolution”.

      You have intentionally tried to spread false information again. You whine that people are arrogant. What you seem to be doing is trying to claim that knowing far more than you do is arrogant. No, it’s caring to know the truth. I know that I know the facts better than you and am trying to teach you about the things you claim to be interested in. You seem to be wanting to complain “How dare anyone tell me I’m wrong? That’s so arrogant.” and all that looks like is an excuse, an attempt to devalue knowledge. Virginia Heffman is no better than you, and just as willfully ignorant.

      Like

      Reply

  6. Hi John,

    I’m not sure if I’m responding properly to your point, but fossil graveyards (or formations) are prolific around the world. Here are a few that have abundant dinosaur remains:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Mountain_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Park_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djadochta_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bissekty_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Creek_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Canyon_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiufotang_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashanpu_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Medicine_Formation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niobrara_Formation

    And this is just a few from a long list that’s readily available on Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stratigraphic_units_with_dinosaur_body_fossils

    There’s also another list of fossil sites around the world:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites

    Here’s a link to a video produced at just one site in China:

    http://www.zdm.cn/en/vod/video.htm

    I think it’s very interesting that most of these sites have mixtures of land creatures with saltwater creatures.

    Blessings,

    Diana

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’ll get to this in detail later, but the main problem with your claims here, Diana, is that formations aren’t the same as fossil graveyards. You are conflating two different ideas, and you again are ignoring the fact that formations, and graveyards, can have vastly differing dates.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I still don’t understand how marine fossils are found all over the world. For example, just look at this list of fossil sites for Tennessee and Illinois, both inland states, yet saltwater fossils are found everywhere, just as in Wisconsin.

        http://www.fossilsites.com/STATES/TN.HTM

        http://www.fossilsites.com/STATES/IL.HTM

        How is this possible without a worldwide flood? Even if I mixed up the concept of formations and graveyards, how are the graveyards, like those listed here, explained by evolutionists?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte

        3 things to note about these fossil beds (“lagerstatten”):

        1. There is an amazing amount of soft tissue preservation at these sites–meaning there was rapid burial.

        2. There is a mixture of saltwater and land animals mixed together. Dinosaurs, mammals, and sea animals are often found in the same sedimentary layers.

        3. Some of the fossil formations are vast. The Karoo Supergroup covers almost all of South Africa. This does NOT speak of localized floods. It speaks of massive flooding.

        I think it’s amazing that there’s so much evidence for a worldwide flood! I had no idea how profuse the evidence was until I began to learn about it with you, Vel.

        Like

      3. Diana, get above 5,000 meters in the Himalaya (where’s I’ve spent quite a bit of time) and you’re not walking on dirt, but seashells. Billions upon trillions of seashells. The earth, you know, is not still. Oceans come and go.

        Like

      4. In my response to Zel, I mentioned the seashells in the mountains of Brazil. I should have said the seashells in the Himalayas. I was wrong about that. I don’t even know if there are mountains in Brazil. I’m going to look that up.

        Like

      5. You seem to think that no one looks at the links you provide or notes that you do not tell the truth about them.

        Again, there were plenty of shallow inland seas to account for salt water fossils. There are also instances of sea beds being uplifted by plate tectonics to put those fossils up where we think it is dry now.

        The wiki entry for Lagerstatten doesn’t say what you enumerated. It says this:
        1. “Konzentrat-Lagerstätten (concentration Lagerstätten) are deposits with a particular “concentration” of disarticulated organic hard parts, such as a bone bed. These Lagerstättenare less spectacular than the more famous Konservat-Lagerstätten. Their contents invariably display a large degree of time averaging, as the accumulation of bones in the absence of other sediment takes some time. Deposits with a high concentration of fossils that represent an in situ community, such as reefs or oyster beds, are not consideredLagerstätten.
        2. Konservat-Lagerstätten (conservation Lagerstätten) are deposits known for the exceptional preservation of fossilized organisms or traces. The individual taphonomy of the fossils varies with the sites. Conservation Lagerstätten are crucial in providing answers to important moments in the history and evolution of life. For example, the Burgess Shale of British Columbia is associated with the Cambrian explosion, and the Solnhofen limestone with the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx.”

        Again, you are trying to get people to believe false things. #1 is only applies to conservation lagerstatten, which you would know if you read the article, or you do know and have chosen to omit it. Where does it say that lagerstatten have: “2. There is a mixture of saltwater and land animals mixed together. Dinosaurs, mammals, and sea animals are often found in the same sedimentary layers.” It doesn’t on the links you gave. Did you just make it up?

        And #3, where did you find this information: “The Karoo Supergroup covers almost all of South Africa. This does NOT speak of localized floods. It speaks of massive flooding.” Again, you try to tell false things. The supergroup does cover quite a bit of the southern tip of Africa. Here’s a map: http://www.mapsofworld.com/africa/regions/southern-africa-map.html . Now, look at how big just Africa is. And then the world. Again, it does not speak of a world-wide flood which is what you claim happened. From what I can tell, you did not even read why these sediments are there; you just tried to claim they are from your flood with no evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoo_Supergroup

        Diana, no matter how much you try to make it sounds like geology and paleontology support your magical world-wide, mountain covering, flood, it doesn’t.

        Like

  7. Hi Vel,

    I have a lot of other personal demands right now. (My daughter is about to have a baby and I need to help her feather her nest; plus I have a lot of bookkeeping responsibilities for our family business.) But I wanted to respond to a few of your points. Please don’t think I’m ignoring you if I don’t get back to you quickly. I will be painting walls for the next week in order to finish before the baby (Lucy<3) comes.

    First of all, I never said fossils didn't form in ways other than through rapid burial. But it's rare. There have to be special circumstances in order for fossils to form. There are rare instances where fossils have formed, such as the La Brea tar pits, but generally speaking, fossils, especially with soft tissue evidence preserved (skin, eyes, veins, etc . . .), were created through rapid burial in massive amounts of sediment.

    You said:

    "There is also nothing that says that the “The dinosaurs shown in the “wall” at the museum are complete.” What it does say is “The rock layer containing the fossil bones forms a massive wall of the Quarry Visitor Center where more than 1,400 bones can be seen. The Quarry face is divided into sections. Each bone has a catalog number and is keyed to a grid system that allows visitors to locate the fossils.” If you go out the virtual tour, you can see the wall that you mention, and look at it in detail. The description to the side says that “Some of the bones on the cliff face are still connected to other bones from the same skeleton, just like when the dinosaur was alive. Paleontologists call these bones articulated.”
    http://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/dino/vr/virtu-quarry.html All of your claims about this are wrong."

    The word "articulated" basically means "intact."

    http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/lookup.php?category=&where=headword&terms=articulated

    At least a dozen "articulated" sauropods were discovered in this outcropping of the Morrison Formation which geologists say runs from Mexico to Canada and covers over 700,000 square miles. (That's some localized flood!)

    Not only did they find sauropods, they also found "Louise," the brontosaurus (now called Apatosaurus Louisae) which was transported to the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh. It was an "articulated" dinosaur found in the Wall at Utah.

    http://www.carnegiemnh.org/online/dinosaurs/apatosaurus.html

    There are pictures of the intact dinosaur in the Wall here:

    http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/feature.php?id=52

    Not only were intact dinosaurs preserved in this massive flood, thousands of dinosaur bones were jumbled up together with snails and clams.

    Also, I can't go much into this, but the Karoo Supergroup may be divided into several formations, but it still covers a large part (maybe a quarter) of the African continent.

    You also said:

    "It is untrue that sedimentary rocks are “only able to be dated according to the date of the mother rock they came from."

    Then you cut and paste the quote I gave you. The quote clearly states that sedimentary rock (which is where most fossils are found) is not able to be dated according to when the "rock formed." Sedimentary rock is rock formed by mud and sand and then hardening. Its age is determined by the age of the igneous rocks that make up the sand or mud. How can a scientist know when a sedimentary layer was formed?

    According to the Smithsonsian's paleontology department:

    "Dating sedimentary rock by using radiometric techniques will tell the age of the original igneous rock, NOT THE TIME SINCE THE SEDIMENTARY ROCK FORMED. (Although sometimes the two ages are very similar, for example when a volcanic explosion deposits ash on a surface and that ash is quickly incorporated into sediments. The age of the ash and the age of the sedimentary rock would then be very similar.)"

    http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html

    If you read closely, there are two types of dating: relative and absolute. Relative dating is done through determining the placement of the fossil in the different layers. Absolute dating is done through radiometric dating, but sedimentary rock isn't dated by when it was laid down–that isn't possible. It's dated by the age of the igneous rocks that created the sediment (sand or mud). Therefore, the age of the fossil layers can't be determined by the age of the sediment, which means there is no way to determine the age of the fossils through dating the age of the rocks (or sediment they are encased in).

    This would help us to understand why scientists are now discovering so many fossils with soft tissues, like blood and veins still intact, in fossils which are found in "so-called" million-year old fossil formations.

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-from-stone/

    Of course these articles try to maintain the "millions of year" timeline, and try to explain their find through the use of "iron," but the point is that there is evidence that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones. And if scientists hadn't made assumptions about the age (therefore not looking for soft tissue) then they might have found more evidence over the years.

    You also said:

    "I just have to facepalm when you so poorly try to do a gotcha with your new attempt at claiming I can’t explain the saltwater fossils appear in your list of states. I can explain that easily because those states also had saltwater bodies of water in them at different points in earth’s history. If you would have just did a little research on your own you would have found that out. Willful ignorance does make you look completely ridiculous. However, I do try not to attribute to malice what I can attribute to ignorance. The continents are not “covered” by saltwater fossils."

    I'm not sure how you can claim inland saltwater seas existed in every state and every continent (because marine fossils exist en masse on every continent) without just making an assertion. But the fact that marine fossils (which are mostly preserved through rapid burial–since fossilization of marine creatures is a rare event today due to scavengers and decomposition on the ocean floor) still makes it difficult to explain without the existence of a massive flood which spread sea creatures over the land. Your assertions don't seem to match your evidence.

    You also said:

    "I will tell you again because it seems you are ignoring me. There has long been an acknowledgement by the scientific community that catastrophes happen. It has been that way for decades. Catastrophes can cause animals to die and become fossilized. No one disputes that at all. The evidence supports this all over the place. What the evidence does not support is some world-wide flood that covered mountains and killed every animals, and mixed them together. I am indeed repeating myself and will keep doing so. What I am not doing is agreeing with you that catastrophism as you are defining it with your magic flood is an option. It is pure nonsense. This magic flood could not have produced what we see."

    I already addressed the evidence for a world-wide flood: fossil graveyards formed through rapid burial (just do a Google image search of "fossil graveyards"), massive sedimentary formations that cover large portions of continents, inability to date the sedimentary layers that are found, to the "millions-of-years" claims made by scientists, the acknowledgment by scientists that, indeed, there is evidence for catastrophism (and even extinction events). I showed all this to you from your own "scientific" sources, not from creationist propaganda.

    In the quote above, you even acknowledge that there is evidence for catastrophism. (Perhaps not a flood that covered the MOUNTAINS though . . although John's experience of seeing seashells on the mountains of Brazil could prop up my case.)

    The one thing you don't want to acknowledge is the Biblical record of the account. This is alright. You can reject the story of Noah if you want, but you can't reject the EVIDENCE for a massive worldwide flood. It exists. Whether it was caused by an asteroid, climate change, tectonic action–whatever–the evidence exists that a massive flood occurred, and it killed off the dinosaurs who were encased in the sediment caused by the flood, and it deposited saltwater creatures (who were also encased in sediment) all over the world, even in the middle of continents.

    I wish I had more time to address your second response, but my daughter awaits.

    Blessings,

    Diana

    Like

    Reply

    1. Diana, I know you have a life outside of this. Come back or not, it makes not much difference to me. I’ll be here in any case.

      You did say that fossils form in only rapid burial. You have tried to claim that this is all that happens in order to try to make believe your magic flood was real. If you need chapter and verse cited, I can do that: “1. There is an amazing amount of soft tissue preservation at these sites–meaning there was rapid burial.” “Fossils, especially those containing soft tissues, require rapid burial, otherwise the soft tissues, such as eyes and skin, wouldn’t remain intact.” And “For example, if scientists agree that fossils are formed suddenly, rather than through natural means (due to decomposition and scavenging), how did huge fossil graveyards, where life forms from all geological eras are thrust together in a lump, occur all over the world?”I can go on but there’s not much point.
      Yes, there has to be special circumstances for fossils to form. And none of these circumstances show that there was a world-wide flood that covered mountains. The vast bulk of fossils, the calcareous shells of micrcoscopic ocean life, show that your flood is myth. The other fossils show that your flood is a myth. The very small number of fossils that do preserve soft tissues are very far apart in time, in geological provenance and do not cover the world.
      You made false claims of what the links you gave said. No, articulated does “basically mean “intact””. That is a false statement. The link says that some of the bones are connected, e.g. articulated. Articulated means that two or more parts are joined, that’s all. It does not mean that the bones are together like we would see in a museum reconstruction. You may wish to look up words before making a claim about what they mean if you don’t really know. Again, parts of them were together and parts were not. There were at least a dozen parts of articulated dinos, not that they were completely intact.
      You are also again trying to claim that all formations are from localized flooding or from flooding period in order to make believer your world-wide mountain-high flood was real. You have been told and shown that is not the case repeatedly. All it seems you are doing is trying to conflate one with the other in an intentional attempt to lie. It makes it seem that you don’t want to learn but want to use me to come up with information that you can misrepresent. The Morrison Formation is not from localized flooding, but from erosion and deposition plus some limestone forming seas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrison_Formation

      Yep, they did find dinos in the Morrison formation, and again, nothing shows that it was a massive flood. You have been repeatedly told how fossils can form and again you ignore it. Louise was not completely articulated as you again try to falsely claim. It was a partial skeleton that was named for the wife of Andrew Carnegie. How we know it wasn’t complete is that it had the wrong head on it for years. http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_issue/1997/novdec/feat5.htm Scientists figured that out, not some theist; just like how scientists figured out that Piltdown man was a hoax. Some dinos can be completely or nearly so articulated, like the stegosaurus with the armor plates in place and some in the Morrison formation, but you have tried to present the information as if they all are and thus it support=s your flood myth. But you are making false claims when you try to claim they all are. We can also have rapid deposition from volcanic eruptions, something else that makes your flood complete nonsense.

      They probably have indeed found dino bones with clams and snails, all appropriate to their time period since those changed with time. If you can show otherwise, do so. If you can’t, then again your flood story is completely nonsense.

      No, the Karoo Supergroup does not cover a “large part” or a quarter of the African continent. We know that from the description on the wiki page and the maps we can get: http://www.adelmann.geosciences.de/abb/FIG2.GIF and here: http://www.saforums.co.za/rlt/index.php?topic=4335.0
      Again, you have not bothered to actually do research but try to claim things that are not true. You seem to think no one will question you. Why you do this, I have no idea.

      Sedimentary rocks are not only able to be dated by the mother rock they come from. Again, I have showed you how rocks are dated and you ignore it. Denying information doesn’t make it go away, Diana. Sedimentary rocks can be dated to when they formed if they formed with dateable material in it, like carbon bearing items, volcanic ashes, etc. Sedimentary rocks are not only formed by mud and sand and then hardening. Again, you ignore anything you don’t like. Sedimentary rocks are formed by limestones, wind-borne sediments, volcanic sediments, plant materials, etc. I have already given you how sedimentary rocks are dated. It is your choice not to read it. It does get frustrating when you do this, but I will counter your nonsense every time because the only thing that allows creationist nonsense to exist is to not challenge all of the misinformation intentionally given. Unsupringly, you again try to misquote the Smithsonian site and ignore all of the other parts that explain the stuff you seem to want to play stupid about.

      Please don’t try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, Diana. I know that there is relative and absolute dating. The age of the fossils can be determined by both and is. It’s the same with using carbon dating, which can be questionable if taken alone but with other methods one can come up with a very good date. Now, if your mythical flood happened, we could use such dating on that because we’d have plenty of carbon bearing material in it. Funny thing is, we don’t. The fossils are far too old for it to work. But ah, Christians love carbon dating if it supports their nonsense as they pretend it does with the Shroud of Turin or some relic from the bronze age. Again, everything shows your myth to be ridiculous and completely untrue.

      You seem to not understand how layers of rock can allow dating. Let’s say we have a layer of a dateable volcanic ash fall. Then we know that everything under that is older than what is above, unless we see evidence of disturbance of the layers, like folding, an earthquake that opened up cracks that newer sediments can get into, etc. If the fossils are under the ash, we know they are older; if above, younger. Now, if we had a flood deposit that had plants in it, we could do the same, carbon dating gets us a date, below is older, above is younger. If we have a layer of minerals that were very old, but were very hard and showed signs of rounding, then we know that it takes “x” amount of time to make a jagged piece of quartz into a smooth pebble and again we know date and that it eroded off something else.

      Again, if your flood was real, we would see a layer of hydraulically sorted sediments and lots of very rough chunks, called breccias which we don’t see very often at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breccia . We don’t. We see the nice conglomerates that have lots of quartz pebbles in them from the erosion and deposition of granite.

      We are not finding “so many fossils with soft tissues, like blood and veins, still intact”. It seems you are again misreading the real research and making things up. Your link is one baseless claim by someone who claims to have found such a thing and not surprisingly, there is no evidence for his claim. Pacific Justice Institute is a conservative Christian group that spends its time trying to keep people from getting married if they don’t like them, and trying to bully people into accepting baseless claims about biology. The person saying he found soft tissue was a microscope technician, and was only published in a pay for play journal “Science Direct”. All of his other publications are from journals that are not peer reviewed and come from places like the Institute for Creation Research.

      What have been found are biofilms, squished proteins, not flesh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer

      Again, the articles have evidence for the millions of years dating and you have nothing to show your flood was real. You repeatedly try to misrepresent information. The point is that soft tissue as you are trying to pretend has not been found in dino bones, only proteins have and we do know the ages.

      Yep, I certainly do have to facepalm when you try such antics. Again, Diana, I don’t care if you can’t bring yourself to accept facts. It’s a fact that there were saltwater seas on continents. Marine fossils do exist on most every continent, exactly where we expect them to. They don’t exist where there weren’t saltwater seas, and they don’t cover continents entirely, as would be necessary for your flood. The fact that there are uninterrupted hugely think layers of marine fossils is yet more evidence that your flood is simply garbage is that it takes very long times for such things to accumulate. Limestones, chalks and cherts accumulate in very calm water over millions of years. Again, if your flood nonsense were true we woldn’t have such layers of calcareous sedimentary rock, only one layer of a mix of silt, clay, some calcareous marine life, sand, huge uneroded boulders, etc. We don’t. And you have been told this again and again. No layer like this, no magic flood. And again, no, marine fossils are not mostly preserved through rapid burial. You seem to just think you can pretend that as long as you don’t acknowledge a fact, it vanishes and no one else will know about it. Nope, they’re still there and its no wonder that creationists always want to limit education since their nonsense depend on ignorance. You are all terrified of anyone knowing more than you do, because that makes you silly.
      Sea creatures were rarely “spread over the land”. Sometimes they were washed up, but most marine fossils are where we expect to find them, in sediments found in the chemical environments that they can form in. They only reason they appear on what we see now as dry land is that land rises and falls thanks to plate tectonics. You keep trying to pretend I am asserting something that I am not, and that’s a bit sad since it is so easy to see. I’m sure you probably don’t believe in those either. So, all of your claims are baseless because you simply are ignorant of how reality works. You keep returning to the same false claims even though you have been shown that your assumptions are wrong. This makes me more convinced that you have no real interest in learning anything.

      You have not addressed evidence for a world-wide flood. Fossil graveyard do not support your myths, and I have already shown why. They occur at different times, do not mix biological entities that we know did not live together, and are in completely different sediments. You ignore this. There are no massive sedimentary formations that replicate what a world-wide mountain deep flood would leave. The formations that you intentionally misrepresent are not widespread as you claim, are made up of vastly differing layers, and again, and have the fossils in them that sort exactly as expected, from simple to complex. All of your claims are false, and at this time, considering you have been shown that they are materially wrong, seem to be intentional lies on your part. You have lied about what scientists have said, in order to support your false claims. You haven’t shown any of this to me from scientific sources, you have made claims directly against what those sources said and have told lies about those sources you used that I have exposed again and again. You keep returning to your lies like a dog returns to vomit. Again, scientists have long known that catastrophies happen. We know how do look for evidence of them, and have found them. Again, none of this says your magic flood occurred. It is no surprise we have found nothing to support a ludicrous claim of a magic flood that covered mountains.

      Of course I know that there have been catastropies and extinction events. You trumpet this as if it is something special, that I am somehow agreeing with you. That is again a lie. Again, nothing supports your magical flood, which your bible claims covered mountains. Are you saying the bible is wrong, Diana? John saw seashells in the Himalayas and told you why that happens. Let me explain it for you, so your ignorance is helped. The Himalayas are a mountain range that has occurred from the collision of the sub-continent of India with the southern edge of Asia. This cause the Indian plate to go down into the crust. For millions of years, there was water between the continent plates, that gradually got shallower and shallower, making a wonderful environment for shelled invertebrates and limestones. The continents crushed and lifted the seafloor and it’s still being lifted today. That’s why we also have that nifty pink salt from the Himalayas, where the sea as it was being lifted dehydrated, one more bit of evidence that there was no massive flood that came and when in a year since it takes far longer to make such thick salt. We also have areas where between layers of sediment, there is raindrops imprints and cracks from drying mud, all again, impossible with your flood myth.

      The biblical record of the account is nonsense. Yep, it’s a story Funny how no one noticed this flood, because we did have humans around before, during and since this flood was supposed to have occurred. Folks in Egypt didn’t notice, in China, in caves, no one noticed this flood that supposed ripped up the entire earth and covered. I can reject your lies and false claims that a world wide flood happened and shown you that there is no evidence for it, even if you thinking writing “evidence” in caps makes is more true.

      You have chosen to ignore the simple experiments that shows directly that your flood didn’t occur. If an asteroid hit, again, we would see the geological evidence and we do not. Not one massive layer all over the world that has all of the sediment sorted within the layer. We would not see layers of limestone in amongst conglomerate layers, sand layers, silt layers, etc. Tectonics do not do maked magical world-wide floods, and again, we do not see the layer we would expect. Climate change would be interesting but your ignorance defeats you in this too because we would see that in the record, in the ice cores, in the deposition rates of calcareous minerals. WE have tens of thousands of years of lake layers and not one worldwide flood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

      Your worldwide flood did not kill the dinos. We know that they were evidently killed off by an asteroid impact that started huge fires and a localized tidal wave (we can see the geological evidence of this), and likely volcanic mega-eruptions. We know that it wasn’t a flood. We know that for a fact. We know that saltwater was not all over the earth, and we know that because the limestones and shells we have were laid down over a far longer time than the year or so your myth claims.

      You seem to be desperate for evidence and cannot accept that there is none for your faith. I can understand that you are afraid, but that does not give you some right to intentionally lie to people in order to prevent them from making an informed decision just so you can get external validation.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Hi Club,

        I’ve been gone for a long time for several reasons. I just finished my new book. You can see a little about it here:

        http://narrowwayapologetics.com/2015/04/17/my-new-book-will-you-be-found-faithful-caring-about-the-heart-of-god-in-an-age-of-apostasy/

        I also have a brand new grandbaby named Lucy. I’ve been overwhelmed by all the other parts of life too.

        Wow! You just said a mouthful. I wouldn’t even know where to start to respond. I guess I’ll just ask a few questions because I don’t quite understand a few things.

        1. How do you know there were inland seas at one time? How do inland seas explain the saltwater fossils found in my husband’s limestone quarry in Wisconsin? How do these supposed inland seas explain how saltwater fossils are distributed almost evenly throughout the landscape of the continent? By this I mean that saltwater fossils can be found in any place that has exposed layers, such as when roads are cut through hills and the layers of dirt and rock are exposed. These saltwater fossils are found all over, not just in pockets.

        2. If there’s no volcano nearby, and no volcanic ash found in the sedimentary layers, or no tar pits nearby, how else are giant creatures, such as dinosaurs, fossilized? I was of the understanding that if they died without rapid burial their carcasses would be scavenged and destroyed.

        3. You say:

        “The biblical record of the account is nonsense. Yep, it’s a story. Funny how no one noticed this flood, because we did have humans around before, during and since this flood was supposed to have occurred. Folks in Egypt didn’t notice, in China, in caves, no one noticed this flood that supposed ripped up the entire earth and covered.”

        Why are you saying that the Egyptians and the Chinese didn’t notice the flood? Is this what you’re saying or am I misunderstanding your statement?

        4. Why is there no evidence for any civilization older than the approximate age of when the flood occurred?

        Like

      2. Hi Diana,

        Thanks for coming back. I’ll address your post in a day or two. I still expect you to give evidence for your claims.

        Anyone can have a book printed. Unfortunately, the days of having a book printed meaning anything special are long gone.

        Like

      4. So, still no evidence for your claims.

        Congratulations on the new grandchild. I wonder what you will do if Lucy decides that your claims are nonsense. Will you turn her out like other Christians have done to their children when they don’t get the external validation that they so desire? A friend of mine was the child of a pastor. They were thrown out of the house when it became obvious that they were gay. The real tragedy was that the pastor was gay too and he lived a lie and harmed his son intentionally.

        It’s great fun to watch you ask question and ask for evidence but when I do the same, you don’t provide the same.
        That’s why I don’t believe you and know that Christianity is no guarantee of a good person. Where is the evidence for your claims, Diana?

        How do I know that there were inland seas? Because chemistry and physics work the same now as it did millions of years ago. The same chemistry that lets your bones form also makes evidence that inland seas existed. Inland seas can be salt water or fresh. We know that because we have the remnants of inland seas, called the Great Salt Lake and the Dead Sea. Again, you are lying when you claim that salt water fossils are “distributed almost evenly across the landscape of the continent”. That is not the case and you intentionally try to claim that is so. We do not find saltwater fossils distributed evenly nor do we find salt water fossils in every layer of sediment. Diana Lespeance is a liar and an intentional liar. Saltwater fossils are not found all over. Salt water fossils are not found in any place that has exposed layers. If you wish to claim so, you need to provide evidence of your claim. If you cannot, again you are intentionally spreading lies. There are plenty of exposures that do not show saltwater fossils. Western PA is full of road cuts and they are all of freshwater sediments.

        You have been already been told how fossils form. You ask a question again desperately hoping for a different answer, intentionally trying to spread lies. Fossils happen because of mineralization. Again, it is no surprise a Christian intentionally lies and intentionally ignores what she has been told. Again, you try to lie and spread lies ignoring what you have been told. It is a shame that you choose to lie and can be shown to be a liar so easily. You do show that you have no more respect for your god or your bible than I have. Thank you for being a great example of how so many Christians act.

        To repeat myself, fossils generally form in anoxic environments, no oxygen means no rotting. This means that they are buried, fast or slow, and the bones are replaced by minerals. Bones can be found in large deposits from floods where again, they are buried. The reason that we do not find fossils of every single animal is that they can be scavenged and destroyed. Many are, some are not. Again, you were told and shown this and you try to ignore it and ask the same questions again trying to find some weakness in the argument and show that you have intentionally not read what was given to you. You depend on willful ignorance to keep your faith.

        It’s hilarious that you try to lie again and twist my words. I do love the written medium because we can see you intentionally lie repeatedly. Yep, I am saying that Christians can’t agree on when their magical flood happened. Christians can’t agree on when the magical flood happened, that no one knows when this ludicrous world-wide, mountain covering flood happened.
        When did it happen, Diana? Tell me the date if you are so sure that you know how old the earth is.

        The ancient Chinese and the ancient Egyptians did not experience the magical bible flood. Neolithic humans did not experience your ludicrous flood. No one experienced your magical flood. There is no evidence for such a flood. It’s a lie that your bible tells and a lie that you try to spread. Still waiting for evidence from you for your claims.

        When did the flood occur, Diana? Tell me the date. Show me the evidence it occurred. Give me a date.

        Like

    2. And still waiting for you to answer this:

      “Again, you are trying to get people to believe false things. #1 is only applies to conservation lagerstatten, which you would know if you read the article, or you do know and have chosen to omit it. Where does it say that lagerstatten have: “2. There is a mixture of saltwater and land animals mixed together. Dinosaurs, mammals, and sea animals are often found in the same sedimentary layers.” It doesn’t on the links you gave. Did you just make it up? “

      Like

      Reply
  8. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a list of questions | Club Schadenfreude
  9. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Evidence and personal experience | Club Schadenfreude
  10. Pingback: Ray Comfort (Christian Apologist) vs. Vel the Atheist (from Club Schadenfreude Blogs) – Real Seeker Ministries
  11. Pingback: Understanding the Genesis Creation, Fall & Flood Accounts (with Omar Fakhoury, Travis Worth & Bob Rucker) – Real Seeker Ministries

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.