Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for a global flood

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 2:04:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

The oldest living tree is 9550 years old:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

And dendrochronology has a maximum of abnout 11k years dating
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So your argument on both counts is simply wrong.

There is no evidence for a global flood, merely evidence of localized flooding at various different times in geological history.

There is only evidence for a global flood if you look at the evidence, throw away everything that disagrees with a global flood; which is pretty much all of it.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 2:44:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

Actually the tree with the most rings only has ~5,000, yet the Bible indicates a global Flood happened around 4,500 years ago.

Some something doesn't add up. If the Flood happened, either the tree survived the Flood, or something caused it to make more rings than normal.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 3:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

Actually, the "global flood" would have happened around 4500 years ago, so perhaps you can explain how trees survived a global flood? I am sure there may have been a great flood, but it must have been a localized event.

If you're trying to suggest the Earth is only 6000 years old, then you have many other claims which are completely squashed by objective evidence.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 3:46:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 2:04:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

The oldest living tree is 9550 years old:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

PRESUMED to be that old. And it's a clone of it's predecessors, which date back to that time. And since free carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant, That age is not really reliable. Bristle cone pines are some of the oldest trees, at 4500 years. Yes I had my info wrong in my OP. And the flood happened about 4500 years ago. Not 6000. My memory's not what it used to be. So the confirmed age of the oldest trees do indeed coincide with the Biblical flood.

And dendrochronology has a maximum of abnout 11k years dating
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So your argument on both counts is simply wrong.

There is no evidence for a global flood, merely evidence of localized flooding at various different times in geological history.

There is plenty of evidence.

There is only evidence for a global flood if you look at the evidence, throw away everything that disagrees with a global flood; which is pretty much all of it.

I could say the exact opposite. There is only evidence against a global flood if you ignore the obvious and believe what a bunch of biased, atheist scientists say.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 3:57:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:46:05 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/10/2014 2:04:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

The oldest living tree is 9550 years old:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

PRESUMED to be that old. And it's a clone of it's predecessors, which date back to that time. And since free carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant, That age is not really reliable. Bristle cone pines are some of the oldest trees, at 4500 years. Yes I had my info wrong in my OP. And the flood happened about 4500 years ago. Not 6000. My memory's not what it used to be. So the confirmed age of the oldest trees do indeed coincide with the Biblical flood.

And dendrochronology has a maximum of abnout 11k years dating
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So your argument on both counts is simply wrong.

There is no evidence for a global flood, merely evidence of localized flooding at various different times in geological history.

There is plenty of evidence.

No there isn't. The evidence for "a massive global flood that occured several thousand years ago" is non existant.

As I continued to say, the only evidence that has EVER been presented is presented in a way that simply ignores the consequences of what a global flood would actually involve. EG: "omg sea creature fossiles on mountains", but ignoring the fact that no where are sea creatures and other animals found at the same time.

Each "fact" produced in support, comes with about a dozen caveats and instances of unsubstantiated speculation and assumptions that do not hold up to any sort of scrutiny. However, even though every instance of evidence has been thoroughly debunked due to poor understanding of geology, science or plain quackery; the fact that someone held something up and said "omg evidence", is the thing that is remembered by those who have the same sort of weird confirmation bias as those who believe in astrology.

There is only evidence for a global flood if you look at the evidence, throw away everything that disagrees with a global flood; which is pretty much all of it.

I could say the exact opposite. There is only evidence against a global flood if you ignore the obvious and believe what a bunch of biased, atheist scientists say.

Demonstrate it. Because most of the "evidence" ever presented is interpretation that ignores almost all science where it is not simply flat out contradicted with most other evidence.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 4:57:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:46:05 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
[...]

Did you seriously just completely ignore my post? You got the number of rings in the tree with the most rings wrong TWICE because you ignored me.

It's not 4,500, it's 5,000 rings.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2014 7:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:46:05 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/10/2014 2:04:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

The oldest living tree is 9550 years old:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

PRESUMED to be that old. And it's a clone of it's predecessors, which date back to that time. And since free carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant, That age is not really reliable. Bristle cone pines are some of the oldest trees, at 4500 years. Yes I had my info wrong in my OP. And the flood happened about 4500 years ago. Not 6000. My memory's not what it used to be. So the confirmed age of the oldest trees do indeed coincide with the Biblical flood.

And dendrochronology has a maximum of abnout 11k years dating
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So your argument on both counts is simply wrong.

There is no evidence for a global flood, merely evidence of localized flooding at various different times in geological history.

There is plenty of evidence.

Such as?
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:18:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.

Here is the MAJOR difference.

When you were taught creation, you were taught that Creation was correct. There is no evidence for it, just dogmatic teaching.

When I, and others, were taught evolution, we were shown EVIDENCE of it being correct. You can EASILY find evidence for evolution if you bother to look.

Evolution is one of the MOST supported scientific theories. Creation is only a scientific hypothesis.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:20:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.

I was taught evolution in Grade 10 science class. I can assure that I, along with everyone else in my class, were not getting our mothers milk at that age. Maybe you were, but we were not.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:26:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:18:44 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.

Here is the MAJOR difference.

When you were taught creation, you were taught that Creation was correct. There is no evidence for it, just dogmatic teaching.

When I, and others, were taught evolution, we were shown EVIDENCE of it being correct. You can EASILY find evidence for evolution if you bother to look.

Evolution is one of the MOST supported scientific theories. Creation is only a scientific hypothesis.

There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. You would realize this, if you looked at it objectively. Every piece of evidence I've seen can be contested, on scientific grounds. Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke. There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils. There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it, occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries. Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:42:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:46:05 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/10/2014 2:04:29 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

The oldest living tree is 9550 years old:
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

PRESUMED to be that old.

No. It was tested to be that old. They didn't just look at it and go, "Hmm. Well, it looks 9 thousand years old."

And it's a clone of it's predecessors, which date back to that time. And since free carbon 14 in the atmosphere is not constant, That age is not really reliable

Define: reliable.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:07:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:26:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:18:44 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.

Here is the MAJOR difference.

When you were taught creation, you were taught that Creation was correct. There is no evidence for it, just dogmatic teaching.

When I, and others, were taught evolution, we were shown EVIDENCE of it being correct. You can EASILY find evidence for evolution if you bother to look.

Evolution is one of the MOST supported scientific theories. Creation is only a scientific hypothesis.

There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. You would realize this, if you looked at it objectively. Every piece of evidence I've seen can be contested, on scientific grounds.

Really? Contest genetics.

Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke.

No they dont.

There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils.

Archeopteryx. There, I just named a transitional fossil.

There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it, occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries.

Yes, thats how science works. It changes based on the evidence, and does not ignore the evidence, like creationism.

Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.

Since you have failed to provide any evidence against evolution, maybe you should learn about how science works before you start rallying against it?
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:11:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:26:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:18:44 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.

Here is the MAJOR difference.

When you were taught creation, you were taught that Creation was correct. There is no evidence for it, just dogmatic teaching.

When I, and others, were taught evolution, we were shown EVIDENCE of it being correct. You can EASILY find evidence for evolution if you bother to look.

Evolution is one of the MOST supported scientific theories. Creation is only a scientific hypothesis.

There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution. You would realize this, if you looked at it objectively.

I do look at it objectively. There is A LOT of evidence. Are you one of the people that believe that there is a conspiracy between scientists to disprove the Bible?

Every piece of evidence I've seen can be contested, on scientific grounds. Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke. There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils.

No transitional fossils? Really? Have you even done your research?
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it,

First, example please?
Also, science changes when more facts are found, it conforms to the facts.
Religion does not conform to the facts, it makes claims and expects people to dogmatically follow them.

occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries. Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.

You obviously have not even researched evolution. Maybe you have on creationist websites, but still. The one thing that shows that is you saying there are no transitional fossils, which we have discovered many.

It is obvious that you have been brainwashed by your cult, and are unable to look at the scientific evidence objectively.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:11:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke. There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils. There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it, occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries. Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.

We do not have every possible transitional fossil, but conveniently for you, every time one is found you have two more holes that need a transitional fossils to explain them. Why don't you show us where actual educated supporters of evolution think the fossil record is a joke. It's a joke, really, that you claim that. Apparently, you don't understand how science works if you're claiming "It's so flawed they have to rewrite it because of new discoveries". (I paraphrased) Science doesn't claim to have proved anything, it claims 'this is the best explanation when we consider all the evidence available to us now'. About the only reason to reject evolution is due to religious reasons, and the common method is to argue from ignorance. Educate yourself.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 1:27:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:26:12 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:18:44 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:13 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:57:32 AM, lifemeansevolutionisgood wrote:
People, just ignore this guy. He is the type of guy that has been brainwashed by his cult, and won't accept any view that contradicts his cult's.

LOL! You could say the same thing about anyone who believes in evolution. Children are taught it early, in school. Many of them get it with their mothers milk. And you call US brainwashed? It is to laugh.

Here is the MAJOR difference.

When you were taught creation, you were taught that Creation was correct. There is no evidence for it, just dogmatic teaching.

When I, and others, were taught evolution, we were shown EVIDENCE of it being correct. You can EASILY find evidence for evolution if you bother to look.

Evolution is one of the MOST supported scientific theories. Creation is only a scientific hypothesis.

There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Only in the eyes of those who don't bother to read up on the evidence or those who choose to ignore it.

You would realize this, if you looked at it objectively. Every piece of evidence I've seen can be contested, on scientific grounds. Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke.

Wait, what? Where did you even get that the fossil record is considered a joke by professionals? I'm guessing you just made that up to make your claim seem a bit more credible.

There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils.

Yet another claim you either made up or didn't bother to look up at all. We actually have transitional fossils, for example, in the evolution of primates to humans, in the evolution of fish to tetrapods, in the evolution of land animals to whales, in the evolution of dinosaurs to birds etc.

There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it, occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries.

Um, that's the whole point of science. You gather new evidence and either update existing theories or discard them if they are incompatible with evidence.

Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.

A creationist saying how we were all brainwashed? Pretty ironic if you ask me.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

1. While Pando isn't technically the oldest individual tree, this clonal colony of Quaking Aspen in Utah is truly ancient, and at 6,615 tons, it is also the heaviest known living organism on earth.. The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system.

The "trembling giant" got its start at least 80,000 years ago, when all of our human ancestors were still exploring the Great Rift Valley. But some estimate the woodland could be as old as 1 million years, which would mean Pando predates the earliest Homo sapiens by 800,000 years.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 4:20:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:57:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
..., but ignoring the fact that no where are sea creatures and other animals found at the same time.


no evidence is "found at the same time". Just saying - evidence is found, for instance, in the same strata, from which time can be derived. But history is inferred, not observed.

It's important when you're debating a conclusion to state what the actual evidence is, not just rehash the contested conclusions. Often the evidence is subject to different interpretations. For instance, strata would be laid down very differently in a global flood than in other scenarios, so that having specimens in different strata might not necessarily mean they were separate in time.

It requires a lot of expertise to argue something like this, expertise I don't have, so that's just by $.02 there.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 4:29:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 10:11:49 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke. There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils. There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it, occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries. Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.

We do not have every possible transitional fossil, but conveniently for you, every time one is found you have two more holes that need a transitional fossils to explain them. Why don't you show us where actual educated supporters of evolution think the fossil record is a joke. It's a joke, really, that you claim that. Apparently, you don't understand how science works if you're claiming "It's so flawed they have to rewrite it because of new discoveries". (I paraphrased) Science doesn't claim to have proved anything, it claims 'this is the best explanation when we consider all the evidence available to us now'.

Well, in other fields hypotheses are tested. "Best I can come up with right now" doesn't pass for science in other fields. Being able to actually demonstrate your ideas is the mark of true science. So demonstrate evolution already, and shut all the doubters up.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 4:32:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 1:36:44 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

1. While Pando isn't technically the oldest individual tree, this clonal colony of Quaking Aspen in Utah is truly ancient, and at 6,615 tons, it is also the heaviest known living organism on earth.. The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system.

The "trembling giant" got its start at least 80,000 years ago, when all of our human ancestors were still exploring the Great Rift Valley. But some estimate the woodland could be as old as 1 million years, which would mean Pando predates the earliest Homo sapiens by 800,000 years.

And not even a hint of evidence for these claims. I'm not disagreeing with you even, just observing that you don't even attempt to defend these claims. I don't see how you're any different from somebody claiming a flood "because the Bible says so"
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 4:46:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 4:20:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/10/2014 3:57:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
..., but ignoring the fact that no where are sea creatures and other animals found at the same time.


no evidence is "found at the same time". Just saying - evidence is found, for instance, in the same strata, from which time can be derived. But history is inferred, not observed.

History, events, especially one as big as a global flood leaves evidence that is observable. You cannot cover the entire planet with water and not leave some form of trace.

However you are mostly right, sediments containing a particular type of fossiles are generally referred to as strata, they contain a lot of them. A hell of a lot of them. But the issue is they are never mixed together,

It's important when you're debating a conclusion to state what the actual evidence is, not just rehash the contested conclusions. Often the evidence is subject to different interpretations. For instance, strata would be laid down very differently in a global flood than in other scenarios, so that having specimens in different strata might not necessarily mean they were separate in time

Strata laid down in a flood are very different from ones that aren't. But we can actually see the strata laid down by floods, and see that they are completely different in nature and content from the strata that is being called evidence from a global flood.

This is the problem. You simply say a bunch if stuff, but don't pay any attention to the reality of the science, because saying you have evidence, rather than actually having evidence is all that is required.

It requires a lot of expertise to argue something like this, expertise I don't have, that's just by $.02 there.

This much is true, you don't have the expertise to argue that,
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 4:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 4:32:20 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/11/2014 1:36:44 PM, The_Immortal_Emris wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

1. While Pando isn't technically the oldest individual tree, this clonal colony of Quaking Aspen in Utah is truly ancient, and at 6,615 tons, it is also the heaviest known living organism on earth.. The 105-acre colony is made of genetically identical trees, called stems, connected by a single root system.

The "trembling giant" got its start at least 80,000 years ago, when all of our human ancestors were still exploring the Great Rift Valley. But some estimate the woodland could be as old as 1 million years, which would mean Pando predates the earliest Homo sapiens by 800,000 years.

And not even a hint of evidence for these claims. I'm not disagreeing with you even, just observing that you don't even attempt to defend these claims. I don't see how you're any different from somebody claiming a flood "because the Bible says so"

1. This isn't an actual debate. I can post factual information with the assumption readers can google. If they choose not to do so, that's their fault.

2. Here are the sources, since it is such an imposition to search "pando":

http://en.wikipedia.org...(tree)

http://www.atlasobscura.com...

"In the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, a giant has lived quietly for the past 80,000 years.
The Trembling Giant, or Pando, is a enormous grove of quaking aspens that takes the "forest as a single organism" metaphor and literalizes it: the grove really is a single organism. Each of the approximately 47,000 or so trees in the grove is genetically identical and all the trees share a single root system. "

http://www.mnn.com...

A far cry more easily sourced than the bible.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:22:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 4:20:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/10/2014 3:57:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
..., but ignoring the fact that no where are sea creatures and other animals found at the same time.


no evidence is "found at the same time". Just saying - evidence is found, for instance, in the same strata, from which time can be derived. But history is inferred, not observed.

I think hes talking about the timeframe, i.e. they are found in the same, or similar strata, and therefore in the relative timeframe. But this is not something that is inferred, this is something that is, for all intents and purposes, demonstrated.

It's important when you're debating a conclusion to state what the actual evidence is, not just rehash the contested conclusions. Often the evidence is subject to different interpretations. For instance, strata would be laid down very differently in a global flood than in other scenarios, so that having specimens in different strata might not necessarily mean they were separate in time.

Its only contested by a few, much like the moon landing or 9/11 is contested. And yet, we seem to have no problems rehashing these "Contested" conclusions, such as the moon landing actually occuring, as if it were true.

With regards to the Global flood, we already understand more than enough regarding hydrologic sorting, or how a flood would deposit layers and strata, to know that this isnt what happened. The people who are contesting this amount to nothing more than moon landing deniers.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:24:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 4:29:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/11/2014 10:11:49 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Take the fossil record, for instance. Even many supporters of evolution consider it to be a joke. There is also the fact that there are no transitional fossils. There are so many problems with the theory that they have to rewrite it, occasionally, so it makes sense in light of recent scientific discoveries. Even if I wasn't religious, I would not believe it. There are also many atheists who think it is nothing but wishful thinking. Like I said. BRAINWASHED.

We do not have every possible transitional fossil, but conveniently for you, every time one is found you have two more holes that need a transitional fossils to explain them. Why don't you show us where actual educated supporters of evolution think the fossil record is a joke. It's a joke, really, that you claim that. Apparently, you don't understand how science works if you're claiming "It's so flawed they have to rewrite it because of new discoveries". (I paraphrased) Science doesn't claim to have proved anything, it claims 'this is the best explanation when we consider all the evidence available to us now'.

Well, in other fields hypotheses are tested. "Best I can come up with right now" doesn't pass for science in other fields. Being able to actually demonstrate your ideas is the mark of true science. So demonstrate evolution already, and shut all the doubters up.

Yes, they are tested and demonstrated using evidence. Which is why evolution has already been demonstrated to be scientific and true, because of all the evidence that supports it, and the utter lack of any evidence that contradicts it.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:51:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:22:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/11/2014 4:20:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/10/2014 3:57:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
..., but ignoring the fact that no where are sea creatures and other animals found at the same time.


no evidence is "found at the same time". Just saying - evidence is found, for instance, in the same strata, from which time can be derived. But history is inferred, not observed.

I think hes talking about the timeframe, i.e. they are found in the same, or similar strata, and therefore in the relative timeframe. But this is not something that is inferred, this is something that is, for all intents and purposes, demonstrated.

Are you kidding me? Declaring something "demonstrated for all intents and purposes" doesn't make it so. And obviously, people who accept Noah's Flood disagree with you.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:55:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/10/2014 3:21:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/10/2014 12:51:57 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
OK. This got me to thinking. It is an observable fact. I'm not aware of any evidence that refutes it. The oldest known trees are about 6,000 years old. We know this by counting the number of rings they have. Now, the Bible claims that there was a global flood about 6,000 years ago. This is the same age as the trees. This flood would have killed all life, including trees. These trees are also nowhere near the end of their life spans. So why don't we see trees that are older? Can anyone explain this?

Actually, the "global flood" would have happened around 4500 years ago, so perhaps you can explain how trees survived a global flood? I am sure there may have been a great flood, but it must have been a localized event.

If you're trying to suggest the Earth is only 6000 years old, then you have many other claims which are completely squashed by objective evidence.

Trees really like water, duh.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:51:01 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:22:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 8/11/2014 4:20:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 8/10/2014 3:57:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
..., but ignoring the fact that no where are sea creatures and other animals found at the same time.


no evidence is "found at the same time". Just saying - evidence is found, for instance, in the same strata, from which time can be derived. But history is inferred, not observed.

I think hes talking about the timeframe, i.e. they are found in the same, or similar strata, and therefore in the relative timeframe. But this is not something that is inferred, this is something that is, for all intents and purposes, demonstrated.

Are you kidding me? Declaring something "demonstrated for all intents and purposes" doesn't make it so.

Are you kidding me? When did i state that i am merely making a claim, and that there was no evidence that demonstrates this? If you want to discuss the evidence, Id be happy to, as i was not aware that the discussion must end there and now with no chance for us to discuss the evidence and simply leave this as an unsubstantiated claim.

Next time, instead of making an accusation that someone is making a claim without evidence, why not try asking whether that person has evidence, first? Take a clue from Ramshutu and say "Demonstrate it", or take a clue from me and say "Such as?"

And obviously, people who accept Noah's Flood disagree with you.

Sure. And i bet the Moon Landing deniers disagree with everyone else, too. Whats your point? The fact that something has been demonstrated, doesnt mean that people cant be stupid and ignore, disregard it.

But with regards to this, not even the people who accept Noahs Flood, would be stupid enough to disagree with this. They too, accept that two fossils found in the same strata, means that both the fossils were deposited at the same time. None of the creationists that i am aware of, have ever argued that parts of the same strata, same sediment layer, was deposited at different times. Their argument is to the speed at which it was deposited, and not with whether or not parts of the same sedimentary layer, especially within the same location, was deposited during different times.