This is a straw man argument. Creationism does not teach that all animals would be found in the same strata. You would expect to find them on different layers based on 1) their ability to run away from the flood to higher ground, and 2) if they are sea based or land based creatures. So a mollusk should be found in a different layer to a monkey. This is exactly what the geological column of fossils show.
Strawman? Hardly. With the argument being that the entire world was flooded, it must have happened at such speeds that escape was out of the question to begin with. Besides, how can something escape on high ground ABOVE where something else was already supposedly killed by the flood?
@narutofan9999 Look at the flood model and you'll understand, but the stuff on the sea bed would have been covered by sediment immediately and the waters would have risen fast but a monkey would still have time to climb a tree.
@webhutspain Everything that dies before the Imaginary Flood should be in one unstratified bottom layer, unless somebody dug the bodies up, then reburied them later. That is one reason that the flood is imaginary.
@webhutspain I never said fossils were imaginary, I said the flood was. And bones, artifacts, the entire city of Enoch, should all be in one unstratified layer below those flood layers, fossilized or not. (Why wouldn't they fossilize anyway, they would have been under the flood?) Where is that unstratified layer?
@InternetDarkLord No, because the rock strata/layers and fossils were created by the flood in a matter of weeks. The catastrophic tectonic and volcanic reshaping of the earth would have obliterated anything prior to that.
@webhutspain Bull Shit, fossils are formed by minerals replacing the materials in dead living things, there is no reason a flood would obliterate preflood bodies already buried, then fossilize flood victims.
Many strata are not even formed by water, desert varnish by air, Coconino Sandstone by desert, tillite by glaciers, and so on. Care to explain? Where is Enoch?
@InternetDarkLord Oh yeah I forgot, minerals replacing dead things over millions of years. That's why we see fossils of jellyfish and other soft-tissue creatures lie there for millions of years without disintegrating. Or hemoglobin in dinosaur bones!
Care to explain why strata is even layered without any sign of erosion? Layering can appear in a matter of hours not millions of years. We have evidence of that, you don't for millions of years. Evidence is on our side.
@webhutspain Nonsense, soft tissue can also be replaced by minerals, and the hemoglobin is biofilm.
Why are some strata like desert varnish, not formed by water, in those layers?
Many strata are not even layered or eroded, look at a roadcut or the Grand Canyon. And why would layers form in hours, anyway? And where the hell was all that sediment BEFORE the flood?
Where are all those pre-flood bodies, fossils, or the city of Enoch? Care to explain?
@InternetDarkLord I think you need help if you expect to find a dead jellyfish lying there waiting to be fossilized for millions of years. Really, you need help.
@InternetDarkLord So how are fossils of jellyfish made? You're avoiding the question by telling me to read a geology book. And tell me which geology book this is in. I'll buy one to frame it, because it will be the first one that does explain it.
@webhutspain Rapid burial can preserve impressions, like the avalanches that created the Burgess Shale, or carbon dioxide eruptions that formed Messel Shale. What the hell are you reading? Those are common geology facts. Google them!
Are you ever going to answer my questions? Or are you just blatantly ignorant?
@webhutspain BULL SHIT, I said the Burgess Shale was formed by an undersea avalanche. The Messel Shale was LAND ANIMALS buried by a volcanic burst of Carbon Dioxide. I never said ALL fossils are formed that way, or by a flood. Thank you for proving you have NO UNDERSTANDING of paleontology. The silt hardened over long timespans, too.
Care to explain why there is no pre-flood layer?
Or layers not formed by water, like desert varnish?
@InternetDarkLord Exactly, rapid burial, just like I said. Yet we are told fossils are created over millions of years. Care to show the evidence for that?
@webhutspain OK, limestone releases 11,290 joules per gram as it hardens, so the 5.6 octillion joules of all that limestone would vaporize all that water.
There are coral and bryozoan reefs or 300 years of desert varnish, formed by contact with air, BETWEEN sedimentary layers.
The fossils preserved in the strata like crinoids are GREATER than the surface area of the entire planet.
Then there is: chronostratigraphic dating, radiometric dating, Milankovitch cycles, Mitochondrial DNA .
@InternetDarkLord bla bla bla bla - But you are avoiding the issue here...None of this, absolutely none of this explains why soft tissue like a jellyfish would last millions of years or even why we find hemoglobin in a t-rex bone. Was the t-rex in an avalanche there too? I think it's time you guys recalibrated your measuring instruments.
@jmdnarri That's a lie. And the fact that you lie about this just show your contempt for the truth. Why continue talking to you when you simply lie when confronted with a valid scientific truth?
@webhutspain I did explain that, and so have several other posts. The hemoglobin was biofilm, the soft tissue was replaced over time by minerals, it did not last.
HOW would a flood make fossils of anything?
YOU never answered ONE question I asked, I can only conclude you cannot answer my questions!
@InternetDarkLord The "hemoglobin was biofilm". No it wasn't, it is hemoglobin. They've tried to prove it wasn't hemoglobin, and guess what, they haven't been able to. I can give you a quote by the secular scientist that says its hemoglobin.
As for soft tissue replaced over time by minerals. Tell me please, how long was this "time" say for a jellyfish fossil?
I'll answer your questions when you manage to answer the simple questions I'm putting forward.
@webhutspain Quote secular scientists how old that stuff really is, no matter what you think it is. You just cherry pick, and many scientists still say biofilm!
I told you, sometimes fossils form from IMPRESSIONS.
@InternetDarkLord It may answer questions in your head. Doesn't answer how that soft tissue stayed there for millions of years to make the impression, neither does it explain why we find hemoglobin in a t-rex bone. Scientists have tried to discredit it is hemoglobin by even injecting it into mice, and guess what? It acts like hemoglobin, so it cannot be biofilm.
But you can continue to believe in it being biofilm in the face of evidence to the contrary. I on the other hand seek truth.
@InternetDarkLord You can't see the wood for the tress can you. This wan't even a fossil! It was a bone. Bones don't last 65 million years either, but you look right passed then show me a research paper on fossils. This particular incident the scientist in question Schweitzer has tried to discount it being hemoglobin - she hasn't succeeded. She says so herself. What's more when injected into rats it, the antibodies created are identical to when hemoglobin is injected. Biofilm would not do that.
@webhutspain Bull Shit, how do you know that? What is your source? Quote her. She also said that the material in question was over 65 million years old, no matter what you believe it was, so why disbelieve that?
@InternetDarkLord First you say BS, then you ask me how I know this.
That's called bias. So whatever I show you you will just call it BS. So what's the point? But I'll leave you with this and I won't answer you again because of your bias....
Journal of Proteme Research "sep 4th 2009", confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.
@webhutspain Nonsense, this paper confirms callogen, and discusses the possiblity that the hemoglobin is dinosaur. It also says that if the stuff is from a dinosaur, it matches birds closely, since dinosaurs evolved into birds that would confirm evolution and its timeline.
It openly says the fossil is over 65 million years old, you forgot that part.
@webhutspain Jellyfish don't fossilize! They are about 96% water! The rest is salt and proteins. Like you've been told pick up a geology book and take off your God Goggles!!!
@gateman42 I think YOU need to take your biased glasses off because there ARE fossilized jellyfish, like we have fossilized animals giving birth, a fossil of a child's car, a fossil of a man's hat is tasmania, a fossil of a fish eating another fish. These show that fossils do not take millions of years. But you won't find this in geology textbooks.
@webhutspain Fossils of animals giving birth, and eating eachother only show that they died suddenly and were burried quickly, not that they fossilized quickly. The child's car and hat would not be fossils, but simply mineralized (covered in a layer of minerals) but your creationist leaders want you to think its all the same thing, but its not.
@jmdnarri Oh I see, sorry, I misunderstood, they were buried quickly but their soft tissue was preserved for millions of years while the fossilization process took place.
@webhutspain soft bodied animals such as jellyfish do not leave a 3-D fossil the way a skeleton does, animals like jellyfish only leave a fossilized imprint on the sediment that burries them.
@webhutspain Very rarely, happy now? Rapid burial from volcanic ash or fine silt from a slide. Hats? NO, preserved! I see you have a hard on for kent hovind's bullshit, fossil toys??? Your an idiot!!! How can that show that fossils do not take millions of years? All it shows is that they died and became fossilized. What they were doing at the time of death has no bearing on them becoming fossils!
@webhutspain The classical fossil is one that is a replacement of a hard part by other minerals.Very soft things like a jellyfish are impressions that filled in by very fine sediments. Something that does not happen in an energetic event like a flood. Kind of like fossil raindrop impressions. Ichnofossils like that require very calm conditions and losts of time. And references? "Historical Geology, R Moore, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1933".
@NorthForkFisherman I'm not sure you get the point. A jellyfish will last only a few days if it's lucky and not devoured by something even in these pristine calm conditions you talk about. In fact I had the privilege of seeing this first hand on the Mediterranean coast last year on a balmy, calm 2 week holiday. Wasn't there after a few days. However, you require "lots of time" like you say. Why not say it how it is, you require that jellyfish to be there for millions of years. Utter nonsense.
@webhutspain Oh I get the point alright. You however do not. As you said, "A jellyfish will last only a few days if it's lucky and not devoured by something even in these pristine calm conditions". This directly rules out Noah's Flood. Which is after all, the subject of this video.
@webhutspain And which one might that be? Flood model, I mena. It does help to understand the basics of your process before we can examine it more critically.
@NorthForkFisherman "This directly rules out Noah's Flood." Was your response to the jellyfish issue. "How so?" was my question. When, or if you can answer this, you'll realize that the model you are using is one you have invented in your head.
@webhutspain Damn, you're dense. I've already answered this. Any global flood would've been too energetic and shredded the animal before it could leave an impression. It was a gentle covering with a fine layer of sand. You don't even understand the implications and requirements of your own doctrine? Little wonder YECers are so easy to lead and defraud.
@NorthForkFisherman What a load of tosh. Too energetic, why? Because you say so? Fossils are created when things are buried rapidly in wet sediment. That's why we see fossils of jellyfish, fossils of animals giving birth, fossils of fish eating another fish. Fossils of clams on top of mountains are ALL closed (ie. alive). This all points to a quick, energetic catastrophic event. You expect me to believe that the jellyfish soft tissue stayed there for millions of years while it left an imprint?
@webhutspain "Because I say so"? No, it's because the math says so. To get the amount of water to cover the Earth to the required depth you would need a downpour of about 150 inches per hour. The amount of energy that releases would've destroyed any soft-bodied organism. Or if you suscribe to the hydro-plate theory, the amount of heat that is required for that would've boiled off all the waterand left a charred dead cinder. Even if you look at what the rocks do say, it all shows too much heat.
@NorthForkFisherman What on earth are you talking about. The average depth at which jellyfish swim is 4 meters below the surface, but actually go up or down depending on breading and species. A downpour not matter how large would not affect it as the sea would act as a buffer.
What I find astounding is that you'll look at the reasons why soft tissue couldn't survive a downpour to the point of trying to use math, but think it feasible that soft tissue can last millions of years! Amazing.
@webhutspain It's irrelevant what you find astounding. What matters is what you cna prove. And clearly, the rock record shows that Noah's Flood never happend. Now if you wish to keep grasping at straws because you don't understand what I'm tlaking about, be my guest. You simply can't refute the physics and math involved so you try to change the subject.
A great quote from you. Now, prove that soft tissue can last millions of years to create a fossil imprint. Can you prove this? If not why do you believe it?
To use another of your great quotes:"you wish to keep grasping at straws"
Next, show me the research paper that suggests a downpour would tear apart a jellyfish 4 meters below the surface of the water. This is not physics!
oh thank goodness... If the layer was there... damn, I might have to say that god exists.. thank goodness it doesn't... Now what the heck created the universe?!?! was it always there?!?!
The problem lies with the "I'm rubber you're glue" creationist argument. They continually bombard us with questions to avoid answering their own. when clear, precise and abundant evidence is presented, it gets brushed off with another question. Creationists will never accept reasonable and overwhelming evidence. They will never accept continuity across several fields of science and research. They want you however, to accept supernatural and faith opinions of a stagnant never changing belief.
@rkyeun You are redirecting my point onto something else in order to include your deifintion of the word simple. Let me be rephrase what I wrote earlier... the reasons for your denial IS SIMPLE. There is nothing simple about God or creationism. There is not one man on the planet who can comprehened all that is God.
@rkyeun Here's logc A -> B. Everything in this universe that exists has a creator. You want to deny your Creator because you don't want to acknowledge your sinful nature. You don't want to deal with having to reconcile with your Creator for beaking his laws. It's sthat simple.
In order for this argument to work, you have to show:
1) The evidence (logical or physical) for your second sentence.
2) A sinful nature exists (and thereby sin).
3) It is, indeed, our intent to deny a creator JUST because we want to sin.
Good luck on that, though. You'll probably get the answers pretty readily since you're so intelligent that you "know" that our reasons are different from not only what we tell you but what we know it to be ourselves.
@DuhEnlightenedOne Modus Ponens is a valid form, but not always true. So it seems you are being intentionally misleading. Nothing has mass. This is one of the greatest discoveries of the last 10 years, and provides ample evidence that not everything has a cause, and certainly not a creator. There is no "creator", and no "laws". That's a purely delusional fantasy.
@DuhEnlightenedOne It's kind of sad that you think we deny some Magic Man in the Sky just so we can sin....the ancient world believed in Him just fine and they sinned all the time, so why would we have to go to the extreme of denying his existance?
I live a good life, I am kind to others, I do charity, I give to worthy causes (secular), I am an educator as a profession because I want to better the lives of children through education, etc.
@OkamsRazer you say you "live a good life, I am kind to others, I do charity, I give to worthy causes". That's part of the problem. Your list doesn't include the most important thing of all, and your neglect to mention it shows just how lost you are.
Why would the maker of the Universe IF he existed want your unending devotion and praise for every good detail of your life. But yet when something bad happens,either 'the devil is behind it', 'God is testing you', or 'God works in mysterious ways'.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that you are a human being responsible not only for your failings (your idea of sins) but also your successes('God's Blessings')....can you only accept one but not another?
@OkamsRazer Why does a parent want their child to be respectful and obedient? Why does a judge require everyone to stand when he walks into the court room? Why does the Queen have people bow to her? You already have the answers to your questions.
@DuhEnlightenedOne Being respectful to one's parent, showing respect to a honorable judge, showing respect to a respected monarch is NOT the same as spending your whole life giving praise to those human people. Why does God command you shoud praise Him unceasingly? Why is Heaven described as an afterlife in which you spend your time in the Bliss of singing and praising His glory?
Is God so unerringly self-centered that he requires such devotions?
All you can say is I am a coward who denies his Creator just so I can do bad things...
IF I truly believed in God and try to deny Him to sin , then that line of logic means I already believe in Him, thus I am sinning with full knowledge of His existance so what would be the point in denying Him?
That would be like someone who absolutely knows the laws of gravity exist who persists in jumping off roofs trying to fly by denying gravity.
Why is it so hard for you to understand these very simple, simple statements.
We DO NOT believe in your God.
We think He is a MYTH.
HE is NOT real.
YOU are DELUSIONAL.
We do NOT believe in the concept of sin.
The only reason you are so convinced that we must simply be believers who are trying to convince ourselves of his non-existance is because that is precisely what YOU do every day when you try to figure out why there is NO natural evidence for your God to prove Him.
In denying any belief in your God we are in essence calling into question your self image because psychologically God is a projection of your desires for the world, and by denying Him we are denying YOU and this brings out feelings of rejection.
You try to rationalize that we are not really rejecting your God (and you). We are just lying that we are so in truth we DO accept Him (and you by extension) but we are somehow cowering from your "Great Truth".
this might be the stupidest video on youtube. to say a kangaroo stopped hopping and decided to drown. He could have drown at the top of the hill and washed to another area where its body came to rest. DUH.
@DuhEnlightenedOne Hmmm. I thought maybe you were taking the sabbath off from making silly arguments and threatening to punch people, but I guess you've just decided not to respond to my posts.
Well, my dog claims he did it. Of course, just because someone makes an off the wall claim doesn't make it true, right?
I called it magic because the story requires a complete suspension of the laws of physics in order to be true and a complete suspension of disbelief in order to be believed. There was no global flood. The way trees such as the one you describe come to be buried as they are very well understood.
Just for sake of argument, how do you know the tree wasn't already buried before the flood? Maybe the flood was only responsible for some of the sediment.
Also, why would a global flood have deposited 1300 feet of sediment in Alaska? Is your contention that the magic flood deposited a uniform layer of magic silt everywhere in the world? If not how did it choose where to deposit silt and where to cut canyons?
@VerminM It would not be uniform layer everywhere in the world. Evidently the landscape of Alaska with it's mountains and valleys could help water to pool which would lead to sediment deposit.
@DuhEnlightenedOne And then, according to you, the water pooled, because of the terrain or something, and deposited 1300 feet of sediment. So how deep was the pool?
@VerminM dude, I don't know. Maybe the tree was in a valley, and water flowed into the valley and deposited stuff. God created it all. Without God, the alternative is that space/time/matter popped into existence simultaneously with no initial cause. In the beginning, God created time, then space, then mass. That is the only order it can happen, and that is what the bible confirms.
@DuhEnlightenedOne And what ceated god? Why is it more plausible that god exists and has no ceator than it is that the universe has no creator? Regardless, the Bible is not a credible source of information.
@VerminM The answer to that is very simple. The universe requires time/space/matter. Therefore it requires a creator. God does not exist in time/space or matter, and that is what enables God to have existed always. God is eternal. the alpha and omega (just like the bible says).
@VerminM Yes, i have documented evidence. There is a document that is accepted by every court in the United States to be the 100% accurate Word of God. It is the bible, and every court in america has the bible and use it to swear people in. It is the Word of God and within it is the testimony of God himself telling us about His creation of the world.
Atheists and evolutionists: If flood never happened then why is there a 300 foot tree buried standing up in alaska under 1000 feet of the surface? 300 feet trees dontr grow in alaska anymore.
@Silent33091 it proves the flood was at least 1000 feet high in some areas. This proves that it wasn't a local flood but a global flood. Thank you and good night. YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCHOOLED BY THE BIBLE!
so let me get this straight, a type of tree has died out in alaska a long time ago and a specimen has been fosilized, and has been buried during that long period of time under (mutiple types of) earth/rock that proves the flood how?
@Silent33091 it proves a flood because it means the deposits settled around the tree FAST. If the deposits were built up over time, the tree would have died and fell over. But the tree was standing which means it was alive when it was buried. Likewise, grand canyon is proof of flood because slow moving rivers don't have the force to carve the canyon.
@Silent33091 WRONG. Noah's flood is described as resulting from 40 days of rain in addition to fountains from the deep breaking open. The flooding was a slow process over many weeks. Lower areas of course would be subject to less forces than higher areas. Trees were felled. Not all trees. Not the one that was buried standing straight up. Not all areas were subject to the same forces of any rushing waters. YOU ARE NOT A CRITICAL THINKER. DO NOT REPLY BACK. YOU ARE STUPID.
@VerminM yes, of course they are real. They exist today. Familiar with geysers? Familiar with superheated water jets under the ocean that jet through the ocean floor? Familiar with well water available in just about all parts of the world?
@DuhEnlightenedOne That is not the same thing. There is nowhere near enough water beneath the earth's surface to flood it in the manner described in the magic flood myth. There is simply not enough water on the planet.
There is no evidence that the global flood took place. The story is nonsense. You weaken your position by embracing it.
You know how much force would apply on that "TALL" tree, even if it had huge giant roots the torque would break the water soaked tree like its nothing, and before you try to correct me on this matter im well educated on the fields of mechanics/physics...
Well the fact that the tree is standing kinda proves my point dont you think?
(on a side note: the tree doesnt necessary has to be fossilized it might as well be carbonized since u didnt state the age of the tree)
admit it your evidence is false, a 300 tall tree would survive the biggest flood ever, and the mudslides, violent currents and keep on standing, whats that tree made of 15-5PH stainless steel or what?+ aqua dynamic properties of a submarine? xD
@DuhEnlightenedOne You're bragging about being smarter than one percent of the population? You certainly are a force to be reckoned with. I'll bet you can kill a yak. With MIND BULLETS!
No it doesn't. That's just your explanation as to how the tree got buried, and it's an astonishingly silly one. You're also wrong. There are many trees over 300 ft tall in Alaska.
To prove which of the things I've said? The thing about your explanation being silly? I'm sure you'll figure that out on your own if you give it some thought. The thing about the trees? Google "Douglas Fir" or Sitka Spruce.
You can't operate google? Sitka spruce trees still exist in North America that are well over 300 feet. If you don't believe me, check the wikipedia page. If the flood killed all the 300 footers in Alaska, why didn't it kill the rest of them? If it did, why did they grow back in other places, but not in Alaska? Regardless, why do you think a magical death flood is the only way a tree could be buried?
Ooops! Ya got us there. Derp dee derp! You've come up with a problem no scientist has ever recognized, Derp! The buried tree mystery sure is a stumper. Dee derp!
I was ready to refute your argument until I realized I have no idea why you think a 300 foot tree buried 1000ft down is a problem for evolution. It's not. Why do you think it is?
Sedimentry rock formations and the sorting of fossils does not prove there was not a great flood.This earth is constantly changing due to erosion ,floods ,volcanic eruptions ,tectonic plate movement this earth is in flux .Mt Everest ,the tallest mountain in the world should not have limestone and fossils on its peak due to the time it has been exposed to erosion .Sedimentry rocks and fossils are useless evidence to debunk a great flood..postulated piffel proves nothing
@InternetDarkLord "NONSENSE, erosion would not erode all the limestone off the peak yet, why would it?"
The considered age of Mt Everest the rate of erosion and the rate of formation There should not be any limestone on mt Everest . Do some research and elementry maths. you ignorant clown.
some rock strata like desert varnish or Tillite does not form underwater.
@2karriizman I am backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence all over the planet. GO to a library and read ten random books by ten random geologists, ignorant idiot. RESEARCH bears me out, not you.
There is no reason limestone of sufficient thickness could not last that long.
Without geologic strata, what evidence do you have for a flood?
@warriorprince1010 So much wrong where do I start? Even if you choose not to believe in radiometric dating (and it would be carbon dating in this case) do you disagree with ice cores and Dendrochronology? these date to 80,000 years and 11,000 respectively and have no evidence of the ice age.
@warriorprince1010 In answer to your point about till - the last glacial maximum was 10,000 years ago - 6,000 years after your "flood" - Till is made of the material a glacier has eroded so yes it does consist often contain the same rock type as the mountain the glacier is based on - but that is obvious and has nothing to do with a flood. Glacial deposits are found under many layers of other sediment - there has been many many ice ages on this planet.
@warriorprince1010 That does not answer my question, I gave you an example of a terrestrial deposit, evident around in the world in very thick sediments and with a very clear deposition processes, and asked you to explain how a flood could have formed it? I even helped you out because part of this deposit is formed by flooding by the river (not by a global flood however) please explain how a terrestial meandering river deposit is formed.
@warriorprince1010 how does (as an example of a terrestrial deposit) are meandering river deposits featuring laterally discontinous river channels (with lenticular bedded sandstones, tabular cross bedding and an erosive surface) and laterally continuous river bars (with much finer sandstone sediment, tabular bedding and planar crossbedding) formed by a flood?
@pandorachild Dude, we see fish all around us today. They are obviously 5 times smarter than the trilobites. The trilobites were idiots that's why they drowned first. Yeah, dude, the trilobites.. drowned, wait, um, no... yeah, yeah, take that!
Let me guess because the flood happened 4400yrs vago so C14 dating can only go that far back? Please list for source for this, and also the other claim that those are the only 2 dating methods accepted by science
Is Hovind still in prison? If he is, does anyone know where? lol I want to order a copy of his psych records. I am curious to see how he is behaving in prison.
"support creation"......I almost fell off my chair laughing.
I am embarrassed on your behalf. It seems that there isn`t a single scientists who has seen the peer reviewed paper where any dating method supports creation. Yet you seem to think you know more than all the world`s scientists. It`s nonsense based on lamentable ignorance.
Do yourself a favor and don`t try to use science in your arguments when it`s so obvious you don`t understand it.
@warriorprince1010 lol, radiometric dating has been refuted. Even if you are right about this we would still have other ways to date things, tada a small list.
Dating methods 1.2 Cosmogenic Nuclide Geochronology 1.3 Luminescence dating 1.4 Incremental dating 1.5 Magnetostratigraphy 1.6 Correlation of marker horizons
Sadly, I bet your creationist mind will just ignore all of those.
@warriorprince1010 Yes, there are desert isopods, google it and read over 600 results, image search for over 100. Go to the Grand Canyon like me, and you will see desert isopod, reptile, scorpion etc. footprints. Now name one marine echinoderm, coral, or seashell found in the Coco Sandstone. THEN ANSWER THESE, RETARDO:
@warriorprince1010 All animals in the Coco Sandstone are found in a desert, go to the Grand Canyon and see, like I did. Read the website. You need to find unique marine echinoderms, mollusks, coral, etc, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS:
Why would a beach form a broad layer?
Why would a flood leaving no land create a beach in the first place?
Why is it BETWEEN, not BESIDE, sedimentary layers?
You need to answer my questions or get another brain.
@warriorprince1010 I gave you data. All animals in the Coconino Sandstone are desert animals. Read the Grand Canyon National Park website's data. Also, My FOUR unanswered questions are all based on widely known data, which is why you are far too ignorant to answer any.
Where are the damn SEASHELLS?
Why would a NARROW beach form a BROAD layer?
Why would a flood, leaving no land, form any beaches at all?
Why is it BETWEEN, not BESIDE, the other sedimentary layers?
@warriorprince1010 Isopods and scorpions are found in the desert, the footprints are reptiles. WHERE are the seashells, driftwood, crabs, echinoderms, etc in that layer?
Why would a beach, an narrow EDGE, form a broad LAYER?
Why is it BETWEEN sedimentary layers, when a beach is BESIDE the water?
A seashore the boundary between water and land, so why would a global flood, leaving no land, even form a beach in the first place?
@warriorprince1010 There are reptile prints in the Coco Sandstone, but no seashells, or crabs, or anything that should be in those layers. Camels are not reptiles. There are many dating tests besides radiometric tests, and they were only refuted in your imagination. SO: If the Coco Sandstone is a beach, why is it a LAYER, when beaches are only an edge? Why would a flood, leaving no land, deposit a beach? Why is it BETWEEN other layers, not BESIDE them, like a beach?
@warriorprince1010 Desert snakes and camels are from a later time. All the animals in the Coco Sandstone are found in deserts, but there are no seashells or seastars, etc. Read the Grand Canyon National Park website for details. Also,a global flood means no land for a seashore, why would a global flood form a beach? Why would a beach form a LAYER, when a beach is the EDGE of land, so there should be no layer?
@warriorprince1010 No, isopods and spiders are found in deserts too. You never found any amphibian prints. You still have no mollusks is the Coco Sandstone. Now ANSWER the questions: If the flood was global, why would there be a beach? Why is the "beach" a layer, beaches don't form layers? Where are the sea shells in the Coco Sandstone? Why would flood layers even be ABOVE or BELOW a beach, which would be BESIDE the water, not above or below? Any answers?
@warriorprince1010 Everything I listed is found in deserts, but you have nothing that should be in the seashore in the Coconino Sandstone, like seashells or crabs.
If there is no land, there is no seashore by definition. So why would there be a beach in flood layers in the first place?
Why is the Sandstone a layer, a beach is merely the edge of the water anyway. So why a broad layer?
@warriorprince1010 Bull Shit, those layers are not in the Coconino Sandstone. WHERE are all the beach animals in the damn sandstone, not other layers? You did not prove they are the same.
@warriorprince1010 Nonsense, there are desert isopods, like Hemilepistus, desert spiders, desert millipedes, like Orthoporus, desert scorpions, and desert reptiles. Meanwhile, you claimed these footprints were amphibians, remember? And where are all those fossil sea shells, sea stars, crinoids, coral, etc that are found at the sea shore? Clam bake ate them? Thank you for showing you make it up as you go. Visit the Grand Canyon someday, and stop making things up!
@warriorprince1010 The Coconino Sandstone has footprints of millipedes, isopods, spiders, and reptiles, read the Grand Canyon page on the National Park site, look at the photos, or hike it yourself. Stop making up BULL SHIT as you go or get medical help.
@warriorprince1010 I answered your bull shit on another channel already, remember my post s about Coconino Sandstone? You are a pathological liar, call and get medical help!
Good video series..very interesting, just love this Geology stuff..
karlbuttler 2 days ago
This is a straw man argument. Creationism does not teach that all animals would be found in the same strata. You would expect to find them on different layers based on 1) their ability to run away from the flood to higher ground, and 2) if they are sea based or land based creatures. So a mollusk should be found in a different layer to a monkey. This is exactly what the geological column of fossils show.
webhutspain 3 weeks ago
@webhutspain
Strawman? Hardly. With the argument being that the entire world was flooded, it must have happened at such speeds that escape was out of the question to begin with. Besides, how can something escape on high ground ABOVE where something else was already supposedly killed by the flood?
narutofan9999 3 weeks ago
@narutofan9999 Look at the flood model and you'll understand, but the stuff on the sea bed would have been covered by sediment immediately and the waters would have risen fast but a monkey would still have time to climb a tree.
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain What about everything that died BEFORE the Imaginary Flood?
InternetDarkLord 2 weeks ago
@InternetDarkLord What about it? And if it's imaginary why are you interested in knowing.
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain Everything that dies before the Imaginary Flood should be in one unstratified bottom layer, unless somebody dug the bodies up, then reburied them later. That is one reason that the flood is imaginary.
InternetDarkLord 2 weeks ago
@InternetDarkLord Fossils are imaginary too then? I wouldn't expect fossils before the flood, because they were created by the flood.
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain I never said fossils were imaginary, I said the flood was. And bones, artifacts, the entire city of Enoch, should all be in one unstratified layer below those flood layers, fossilized or not. (Why wouldn't they fossilize anyway, they would have been under the flood?) Where is that unstratified layer?
InternetDarkLord 2 weeks ago
@InternetDarkLord No, because the rock strata/layers and fossils were created by the flood in a matter of weeks. The catastrophic tectonic and volcanic reshaping of the earth would have obliterated anything prior to that.
Tell me how do you think fossils are made?
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain Bull Shit, fossils are formed by minerals replacing the materials in dead living things, there is no reason a flood would obliterate preflood bodies already buried, then fossilize flood victims.
Many strata are not even formed by water, desert varnish by air, Coconino Sandstone by desert, tillite by glaciers, and so on. Care to explain? Where is Enoch?
InternetDarkLord 2 weeks ago
@InternetDarkLord Oh yeah I forgot, minerals replacing dead things over millions of years. That's why we see fossils of jellyfish and other soft-tissue creatures lie there for millions of years without disintegrating. Or hemoglobin in dinosaur bones!
Care to explain why strata is even layered without any sign of erosion? Layering can appear in a matter of hours not millions of years. We have evidence of that, you don't for millions of years. Evidence is on our side.
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain Nonsense, soft tissue can also be replaced by minerals, and the hemoglobin is biofilm.
Why are some strata like desert varnish, not formed by water, in those layers?
Many strata are not even layered or eroded, look at a roadcut or the Grand Canyon. And why would layers form in hours, anyway? And where the hell was all that sediment BEFORE the flood?
Where are all those pre-flood bodies, fossils, or the city of Enoch? Care to explain?
InternetDarkLord 2 weeks ago
@InternetDarkLord I think you need help if you expect to find a dead jellyfish lying there waiting to be fossilized for millions of years. Really, you need help.
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain I never said that, soft tissue rapidly buried can form impressions, for example. Its called a geology book, read one.
Why did the flood fail to cause inbreeding and incest among survivors?
Why are there many strata, like desert varnish, not formed by water?
Why are there massive coral or bryozoan reefs between sedimentary layers?
Where are those pre-flood deposits?
How is it possible to gather "male and female" pairs of all animals, not all have 2 genders?
InternetDarkLord 2 weeks ago
@InternetDarkLord So how are fossils of jellyfish made? You're avoiding the question by telling me to read a geology book. And tell me which geology book this is in. I'll buy one to frame it, because it will be the first one that does explain it.
webhutspain 2 weeks ago
@webhutspain Rapid burial can preserve impressions, like the avalanches that created the Burgess Shale, or carbon dioxide eruptions that formed Messel Shale. What the hell are you reading? Those are common geology facts. Google them!
Are you ever going to answer my questions? Or are you just blatantly ignorant?
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord Then you agree with me, that fossils are created by rapid burial. Thank you.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain BULL SHIT, I said the Burgess Shale was formed by an undersea avalanche. The Messel Shale was LAND ANIMALS buried by a volcanic burst of Carbon Dioxide. I never said ALL fossils are formed that way, or by a flood. Thank you for proving you have NO UNDERSTANDING of paleontology. The silt hardened over long timespans, too.
Care to explain why there is no pre-flood layer?
Or layers not formed by water, like desert varnish?
Or why a big flood would form fossils so fast?
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord Exactly, rapid burial, just like I said. Yet we are told fossils are created over millions of years. Care to show the evidence for that?
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain OK, limestone releases 11,290 joules per gram as it hardens, so the 5.6 octillion joules of all that limestone would vaporize all that water.
There are coral and bryozoan reefs or 300 years of desert varnish, formed by contact with air, BETWEEN sedimentary layers.
The fossils preserved in the strata like crinoids are GREATER than the surface area of the entire planet.
Then there is: chronostratigraphic dating, radiometric dating, Milankovitch cycles, Mitochondrial DNA .
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord bla bla bla bla - But you are avoiding the issue here...None of this, absolutely none of this explains why soft tissue like a jellyfish would last millions of years or even why we find hemoglobin in a t-rex bone. Was the t-rex in an avalanche there too? I think it's time you guys recalibrated your measuring instruments.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain There was no T-rex hemoglobin, that was a stunt put on by creationists.
jmdnarri 1 week ago
@jmdnarri That's a lie. And the fact that you lie about this just show your contempt for the truth. Why continue talking to you when you simply lie when confronted with a valid scientific truth?
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain Good, please stop talking to me.
jmdnarri 1 week ago
@webhutspain I did explain that, and so have several other posts. The hemoglobin was biofilm, the soft tissue was replaced over time by minerals, it did not last.
HOW would a flood make fossils of anything?
YOU never answered ONE question I asked, I can only conclude you cannot answer my questions!
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord The "hemoglobin was biofilm". No it wasn't, it is hemoglobin. They've tried to prove it wasn't hemoglobin, and guess what, they haven't been able to. I can give you a quote by the secular scientist that says its hemoglobin.
As for soft tissue replaced over time by minerals. Tell me please, how long was this "time" say for a jellyfish fossil?
I'll answer your questions when you manage to answer the simple questions I'm putting forward.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain Quote secular scientists how old that stuff really is, no matter what you think it is. You just cherry pick, and many scientists still say biofilm!
I told you, sometimes fossils form from IMPRESSIONS.
SO: ANSWER ALL my questions.
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord It may answer questions in your head. Doesn't answer how that soft tissue stayed there for millions of years to make the impression, neither does it explain why we find hemoglobin in a t-rex bone. Scientists have tried to discredit it is hemoglobin by even injecting it into mice, and guess what? It acts like hemoglobin, so it cannot be biofilm.
But you can continue to believe in it being biofilm in the face of evidence to the contrary. I on the other hand seek truth.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain Read the peer-reviewed science yourself "Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Primary Soft Tissue in the fossil and extant archosaurs."
Name and QUOTE the peer reviewed paper saying anything in that T-Rex bone is less than 65 million years old, and we will talk.
InternetDarkLord 1 week ago
@InternetDarkLord You can't see the wood for the tress can you. This wan't even a fossil! It was a bone. Bones don't last 65 million years either, but you look right passed then show me a research paper on fossils. This particular incident the scientist in question Schweitzer has tried to discount it being hemoglobin - she hasn't succeeded. She says so herself. What's more when injected into rats it, the antibodies created are identical to when hemoglobin is injected. Biofilm would not do that.
webhutspain 6 days ago
@webhutspain Bull Shit, how do you know that? What is your source? Quote her. She also said that the material in question was over 65 million years old, no matter what you believe it was, so why disbelieve that?
InternetDarkLord 5 days ago
@InternetDarkLord First you say BS, then you ask me how I know this.
That's called bias. So whatever I show you you will just call it BS. So what's the point? But I'll leave you with this and I won't answer you again because of your bias....
Journal of Proteme Research "sep 4th 2009", confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.
GoodBye.
webhutspain 4 days ago
@webhutspain Nonsense, this paper confirms callogen, and discusses the possiblity that the hemoglobin is dinosaur. It also says that if the stuff is from a dinosaur, it matches birds closely, since dinosaurs evolved into birds that would confirm evolution and its timeline.
It openly says the fossil is over 65 million years old, you forgot that part.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
@InternetDarkLord Here you go
/watch?v=6hhsx80P1PQ
Goodbye
webhutspain 4 days ago
@webhutspain Read my comments on the published paper itself.
InternetDarkLord 3 days ago
@webhutspain Jellyfish don't fossilize! They are about 96% water! The rest is salt and proteins. Like you've been told pick up a geology book and take off your God Goggles!!!
gateman42 1 week ago
@gateman42 I think YOU need to take your biased glasses off because there ARE fossilized jellyfish, like we have fossilized animals giving birth, a fossil of a child's car, a fossil of a man's hat is tasmania, a fossil of a fish eating another fish. These show that fossils do not take millions of years. But you won't find this in geology textbooks.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain Fossils of animals giving birth, and eating eachother only show that they died suddenly and were burried quickly, not that they fossilized quickly. The child's car and hat would not be fossils, but simply mineralized (covered in a layer of minerals) but your creationist leaders want you to think its all the same thing, but its not.
jmdnarri 1 week ago
@jmdnarri Oh I see, sorry, I misunderstood, they were buried quickly but their soft tissue was preserved for millions of years while the fossilization process took place.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain soft bodied animals such as jellyfish do not leave a 3-D fossil the way a skeleton does, animals like jellyfish only leave a fossilized imprint on the sediment that burries them.
jmdnarri 1 week ago
@jmdnarri lol, tell me, this ever changing fosilization process you talk about, how long does it take to make the imprint and solidify?
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain The soft bodies leave an impression in the sediment only, as there is no solid tissue to be fossilized.
jmdnarri 1 week ago
@webhutspain Very rarely, happy now? Rapid burial from volcanic ash or fine silt from a slide. Hats? NO, preserved! I see you have a hard on for kent hovind's bullshit, fossil toys??? Your an idiot!!! How can that show that fossils do not take millions of years? All it shows is that they died and became fossilized. What they were doing at the time of death has no bearing on them becoming fossils!
gateman42 1 week ago
@gateman42 Vary Rarely? mmm. Care to put a figure on that? Or was that made up?
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain The classical fossil is one that is a replacement of a hard part by other minerals.Very soft things like a jellyfish are impressions that filled in by very fine sediments. Something that does not happen in an energetic event like a flood. Kind of like fossil raindrop impressions. Ichnofossils like that require very calm conditions and losts of time. And references? "Historical Geology, R Moore, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1933".
NorthForkFisherman 1 week ago
@NorthForkFisherman I'm not sure you get the point. A jellyfish will last only a few days if it's lucky and not devoured by something even in these pristine calm conditions you talk about. In fact I had the privilege of seeing this first hand on the Mediterranean coast last year on a balmy, calm 2 week holiday. Wasn't there after a few days. However, you require "lots of time" like you say. Why not say it how it is, you require that jellyfish to be there for millions of years. Utter nonsense.
webhutspain 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@webhutspain Oh I get the point alright. You however do not. As you said, "A jellyfish will last only a few days if it's lucky and not devoured by something even in these pristine calm conditions". This directly rules out Noah's Flood. Which is after all, the subject of this video.
NorthForkFisherman 1 week ago
@NorthForkFisherman How so? I think you must have a different flood model to the one I know of.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain And which one might that be? Flood model, I mena. It does help to understand the basics of your process before we can examine it more critically.
NorthForkFisherman 1 week ago
@NorthForkFisherman "This directly rules out Noah's Flood." Was your response to the jellyfish issue. "How so?" was my question. When, or if you can answer this, you'll realize that the model you are using is one you have invented in your head.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain Damn, you're dense. I've already answered this. Any global flood would've been too energetic and shredded the animal before it could leave an impression. It was a gentle covering with a fine layer of sand. You don't even understand the implications and requirements of your own doctrine? Little wonder YECers are so easy to lead and defraud.
NorthForkFisherman 1 week ago
@NorthForkFisherman What a load of tosh. Too energetic, why? Because you say so? Fossils are created when things are buried rapidly in wet sediment. That's why we see fossils of jellyfish, fossils of animals giving birth, fossils of fish eating another fish. Fossils of clams on top of mountains are ALL closed (ie. alive). This all points to a quick, energetic catastrophic event. You expect me to believe that the jellyfish soft tissue stayed there for millions of years while it left an imprint?
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain "Because I say so"? No, it's because the math says so. To get the amount of water to cover the Earth to the required depth you would need a downpour of about 150 inches per hour. The amount of energy that releases would've destroyed any soft-bodied organism. Or if you suscribe to the hydro-plate theory, the amount of heat that is required for that would've boiled off all the waterand left a charred dead cinder. Even if you look at what the rocks do say, it all shows too much heat.
NorthForkFisherman 1 week ago
@NorthForkFisherman What on earth are you talking about. The average depth at which jellyfish swim is 4 meters below the surface, but actually go up or down depending on breading and species. A downpour not matter how large would not affect it as the sea would act as a buffer.
What I find astounding is that you'll look at the reasons why soft tissue couldn't survive a downpour to the point of trying to use math, but think it feasible that soft tissue can last millions of years! Amazing.
webhutspain 1 week ago
@webhutspain It's irrelevant what you find astounding. What matters is what you cna prove. And clearly, the rock record shows that Noah's Flood never happend. Now if you wish to keep grasping at straws because you don't understand what I'm tlaking about, be my guest. You simply can't refute the physics and math involved so you try to change the subject.
NorthForkFisherman 1 week ago
@NorthForkFisherman
"What matters is what you cna[sic] prove."
A great quote from you. Now, prove that soft tissue can last millions of years to create a fossil imprint. Can you prove this? If not why do you believe it?
To use another of your great quotes:"you wish to keep grasping at straws"
Next, show me the research paper that suggests a downpour would tear apart a jellyfish 4 meters below the surface of the water. This is not physics!
Pot calling the kettle springs to mind
webhutspain 1 week ago
oh thank goodness... If the layer was there... damn, I might have to say that god exists.. thank goodness it doesn't... Now what the heck created the universe?!?! was it always there?!?!
sniped101 3 weeks ago
@sniped101 God used magic. Is that the correct answer? Did I win something? :D
maartenjohannes 3 weeks ago
buoyancy? seriously? so the most buoyant animals floated up through thousands of tons of sediment and rock?
viking977 1 month ago
The problem lies with the "I'm rubber you're glue" creationist argument. They continually bombard us with questions to avoid answering their own. when clear, precise and abundant evidence is presented, it gets brushed off with another question. Creationists will never accept reasonable and overwhelming evidence. They will never accept continuity across several fields of science and research. They want you however, to accept supernatural and faith opinions of a stagnant never changing belief.
paramattic70 1 month ago
@rkyeun No. Yes and yes.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@rkyeun You are redirecting my point onto something else in order to include your deifintion of the word simple. Let me be rephrase what I wrote earlier... the reasons for your denial IS SIMPLE. There is nothing simple about God or creationism. There is not one man on the planet who can comprehened all that is God.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@rkyeun Here's logc A -> B. Everything in this universe that exists has a creator. You want to deny your Creator because you don't want to acknowledge your sinful nature. You don't want to deal with having to reconcile with your Creator for beaking his laws. It's sthat simple.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
In order for this argument to work, you have to show:
1) The evidence (logical or physical) for your second sentence.
2) A sinful nature exists (and thereby sin).
3) It is, indeed, our intent to deny a creator JUST because we want to sin.
Good luck on that, though. You'll probably get the answers pretty readily since you're so intelligent that you "know" that our reasons are different from not only what we tell you but what we know it to be ourselves.
SirDeathDark 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne Modus Ponens is a valid form, but not always true. So it seems you are being intentionally misleading. Nothing has mass. This is one of the greatest discoveries of the last 10 years, and provides ample evidence that not everything has a cause, and certainly not a creator. There is no "creator", and no "laws". That's a purely delusional fantasy.
Exmech2 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne It's kind of sad that you think we deny some Magic Man in the Sky just so we can sin....the ancient world believed in Him just fine and they sinned all the time, so why would we have to go to the extreme of denying his existance?
I live a good life, I am kind to others, I do charity, I give to worthy causes (secular), I am an educator as a profession because I want to better the lives of children through education, etc.
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
@OkamsRazer you say you "live a good life, I am kind to others, I do charity, I give to worthy causes". That's part of the problem. Your list doesn't include the most important thing of all, and your neglect to mention it shows just how lost you are.
DuhEnlightenedOne 3 weeks ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne oh do you mean spending every free moment of my life praising a omnipotent God who seems to need my praise to feel powerful?
An Omnipotent God with an inferiority complex? How Ironic.
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Why would the maker of the Universe IF he existed want your unending devotion and praise for every good detail of your life. But yet when something bad happens,either 'the devil is behind it', 'God is testing you', or 'God works in mysterious ways'.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that you are a human being responsible not only for your failings (your idea of sins) but also your successes('God's Blessings')....can you only accept one but not another?
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
@OkamsRazer Why does a parent want their child to be respectful and obedient? Why does a judge require everyone to stand when he walks into the court room? Why does the Queen have people bow to her? You already have the answers to your questions.
DuhEnlightenedOne 3 weeks ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne Being respectful to one's parent, showing respect to a honorable judge, showing respect to a respected monarch is NOT the same as spending your whole life giving praise to those human people. Why does God command you shoud praise Him unceasingly? Why is Heaven described as an afterlife in which you spend your time in the Bliss of singing and praising His glory?
Is God so unerringly self-centered that he requires such devotions?
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
All you can say is I am a coward who denies his Creator just so I can do bad things...
IF I truly believed in God and try to deny Him to sin , then that line of logic means I already believe in Him, thus I am sinning with full knowledge of His existance so what would be the point in denying Him?
That would be like someone who absolutely knows the laws of gravity exist who persists in jumping off roofs trying to fly by denying gravity.
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
Why is it so hard for you to understand these very simple, simple statements.
We DO NOT believe in your God.
We think He is a MYTH.
HE is NOT real.
YOU are DELUSIONAL.
We do NOT believe in the concept of sin.
The only reason you are so convinced that we must simply be believers who are trying to convince ourselves of his non-existance is because that is precisely what YOU do every day when you try to figure out why there is NO natural evidence for your God to prove Him.
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
In denying any belief in your God we are in essence calling into question your self image because psychologically God is a projection of your desires for the world, and by denying Him we are denying YOU and this brings out feelings of rejection.
You try to rationalize that we are not really rejecting your God (and you). We are just lying that we are so in truth we DO accept Him (and you by extension) but we are somehow cowering from your "Great Truth".
OkamsRazer 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Stating "Er, no. That doesn't follow." is a really really weak reply. Tell me WHY it doesn't follow.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
i knew the bible swearing thing would come back and bite us in the ass
geetarthrasher 1 month ago
this might be the stupidest video on youtube. to say a kangaroo stopped hopping and decided to drown. He could have drown at the top of the hill and washed to another area where its body came to rest. DUH.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne Hmmm. I thought maybe you were taking the sabbath off from making silly arguments and threatening to punch people, but I guess you've just decided not to respond to my posts.
VerminM 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Is it fun being wrong all the time?
VerminM 1 month ago
I believe a flood buried the tree because I cant think of any other cause. Can you? not sure why you call it a magical flood.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Well, my dog claims he did it. Of course, just because someone makes an off the wall claim doesn't make it true, right?
I called it magic because the story requires a complete suspension of the laws of physics in order to be true and a complete suspension of disbelief in order to be believed. There was no global flood. The way trees such as the one you describe come to be buried as they are very well understood.
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Just for sake of argument, how do you know the tree wasn't already buried before the flood? Maybe the flood was only responsible for some of the sediment.
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Also, why would a global flood have deposited 1300 feet of sediment in Alaska? Is your contention that the magic flood deposited a uniform layer of magic silt everywhere in the world? If not how did it choose where to deposit silt and where to cut canyons?
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM It would not be uniform layer everywhere in the world. Evidently the landscape of Alaska with it's mountains and valleys could help water to pool which would lead to sediment deposit.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Good god. Read a damn science book.
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne So if the pool of magic water contained 1300 ft of sediment, how deep was the pool to begin with?
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM There wasn't a pool to begin with. It was dry land with a tree.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne And then, according to you, the water pooled, because of the terrain or something, and deposited 1300 feet of sediment. So how deep was the pool?
VerminM 1 month ago
Comment removed
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne Maybe one of the "fountains of the deep" opened directly beneath the tree and brought magic sediment with it.
Ha! I'm better at creationism than you are.
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM dude, I don't know. Maybe the tree was in a valley, and water flowed into the valley and deposited stuff. God created it all. Without God, the alternative is that space/time/matter popped into existence simultaneously with no initial cause. In the beginning, God created time, then space, then mass. That is the only order it can happen, and that is what the bible confirms.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne And what ceated god? Why is it more plausible that god exists and has no ceator than it is that the universe has no creator? Regardless, the Bible is not a credible source of information.
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM The answer to that is very simple. The universe requires time/space/matter. Therefore it requires a creator. God does not exist in time/space or matter, and that is what enables God to have existed always. God is eternal. the alpha and omega (just like the bible says).
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne You have no evidence of any of that.
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM Yes, i have documented evidence. There is a document that is accepted by every court in the United States to be the 100% accurate Word of God. It is the bible, and every court in america has the bible and use it to swear people in. It is the Word of God and within it is the testimony of God himself telling us about His creation of the world.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne Oh yeah? What court ruled that? In fact, courts have routinely held it to be inacurate.
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM If you call it a magic flood one more time, I'm going to punch you in the nose and watch some magic blood flow.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
My, that's very Christian of you.
I'm not scared of your pretend god, your magic flood, or you, you creationist paulbot retard.
VerminM 1 month ago
Atheists and evolutionists: If flood never happened then why is there a 300 foot tree buried standing up in alaska under 1000 feet of the surface? 300 feet trees dontr grow in alaska anymore.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
how does that prove anything?
Silent33091 1 month ago
@Silent33091 it proves the flood was at least 1000 feet high in some areas. This proves that it wasn't a local flood but a global flood. Thank you and good night. YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCHOOLED BY THE BIBLE!
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
so let me get this straight, a type of tree has died out in alaska a long time ago and a specimen has been fosilized, and has been buried during that long period of time under (mutiple types of) earth/rock that proves the flood how?
Silent33091 1 month ago
@Silent33091 it proves a flood because it means the deposits settled around the tree FAST. If the deposits were built up over time, the tree would have died and fell over. But the tree was standing which means it was alive when it was buried. Likewise, grand canyon is proof of flood because slow moving rivers don't have the force to carve the canyon.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
actually a flood even 4 times smaller than the flood your talking about would have felled the tree thus your claim proved your on theory false...
"YOU HAVE JUST BEEN SCHOOLED BY": common sense
Silent33091 1 month ago
@Silent33091 WRONG. Noah's flood is described as resulting from 40 days of rain in addition to fountains from the deep breaking open. The flooding was a slow process over many weeks. Lower areas of course would be subject to less forces than higher areas. Trees were felled. Not all trees. Not the one that was buried standing straight up. Not all areas were subject to the same forces of any rushing waters. YOU ARE NOT A CRITICAL THINKER. DO NOT REPLY BACK. YOU ARE STUPID.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne CORRECTION: lower areas woulf be subject to MORE water forces than higher areas.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne Ah yes, the "fountains of the deep." Those are real, right?
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM yes, of course they are real. They exist today. Familiar with geysers? Familiar with superheated water jets under the ocean that jet through the ocean floor? Familiar with well water available in just about all parts of the world?
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne That is not the same thing. There is nowhere near enough water beneath the earth's surface to flood it in the manner described in the magic flood myth. There is simply not enough water on the planet.
There is no evidence that the global flood took place. The story is nonsense. You weaken your position by embracing it.
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
You know how much force would apply on that "TALL" tree, even if it had huge giant roots the torque would break the water soaked tree like its nothing, and before you try to correct me on this matter im well educated on the fields of mechanics/physics...
Silent33091 1 month ago
Comment removed
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Well the fact that the tree is standing kinda proves my point dont you think?
(on a side note: the tree doesnt necessary has to be fossilized it might as well be carbonized since u didnt state the age of the tree)
admit it your evidence is false, a 300 tall tree would survive the biggest flood ever, and the mudslides, violent currents and keep on standing, whats that tree made of 15-5PH stainless steel or what?+ aqua dynamic properties of a submarine? xD
Silent33091 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Im quite curious about the guy who made up this bullsh**, pls post a link to the original article :D
Silent33091 1 month ago
Comment removed
VerminM 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DuhEnlightenedOne You're bragging about being smarter than one percent of the population? You certainly are a force to be reckoned with. I'll bet you can kill a yak. With MIND BULLETS!
The rest of your post is garbage.
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
No it doesn't. That's just your explanation as to how the tree got buried, and it's an astonishingly silly one. You're also wrong. There are many trees over 300 ft tall in Alaska.
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM provide a link to prove what you say.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
Comment removed
VerminM 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DuhEnlightenedOne
To prove which of the things I've said? The thing about your explanation being silly? I'm sure you'll figure that out on your own if you give it some thought. The thing about the trees? Google "Douglas Fir" or Sitka Spruce.
VerminM 1 month ago
@VerminM give a link that shows or describes a tree in Alaska as tall as 300 feet.
DuhEnlightenedOne 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
You can't operate google? Sitka spruce trees still exist in North America that are well over 300 feet. If you don't believe me, check the wikipedia page. If the flood killed all the 300 footers in Alaska, why didn't it kill the rest of them? If it did, why did they grow back in other places, but not in Alaska? Regardless, why do you think a magical death flood is the only way a tree could be buried?
VerminM 1 month ago
@DuhEnlightenedOne
Ooops! Ya got us there. Derp dee derp! You've come up with a problem no scientist has ever recognized, Derp! The buried tree mystery sure is a stumper. Dee derp!
I was ready to refute your argument until I realized I have no idea why you think a 300 foot tree buried 1000ft down is a problem for evolution. It's not. Why do you think it is?
VerminM 1 month ago
Sedimentry rock formations and the sorting of fossils does not prove there was not a great flood.This earth is constantly changing due to erosion ,floods ,volcanic eruptions ,tectonic plate movement this earth is in flux .Mt Everest ,the tallest mountain in the world should not have limestone and fossils on its peak due to the time it has been exposed to erosion .Sedimentry rocks and fossils are useless evidence to debunk a great flood..postulated piffel proves nothing
2karriizman 1 month ago
@2karriizman NONSENSE, erosion would not erode all the limestone off the peak yet, why would it?
Sedimentary rock does prove there was no flood, for example, some rock strata like desert varnish or Tillite does not form underwater.
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
@InternetDarkLord "NONSENSE, erosion would not erode all the limestone off the peak yet, why would it?"
The considered age of Mt Everest the rate of erosion and the rate of formation There should not be any limestone on mt Everest . Do some research and elementry maths. you ignorant clown.
some rock strata like desert varnish or Tillite does not form underwater.
SO WHAT ?
2karriizman 1 month ago
@2karriizman I am backed up by overwhelming scientific evidence all over the planet. GO to a library and read ten random books by ten random geologists, ignorant idiot. RESEARCH bears me out, not you.
There is no reason limestone of sufficient thickness could not last that long.
Without geologic strata, what evidence do you have for a flood?
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
@InternetDarkLord So how long do you think the limestone has lasted ?IMBECILE!
What evidence using geological strata do you have there was no flood ? NONE!
2karriizman 1 month ago
@2karriizman Limestone has been dated by geologists. Just read 10 geology books in the library.
There is no evidence in geology of a global flood in millions of years. So none happened in history.
InternetDarkLord 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 So much wrong where do I start? Even if you choose not to believe in radiometric dating (and it would be carbon dating in this case) do you disagree with ice cores and Dendrochronology? these date to 80,000 years and 11,000 respectively and have no evidence of the ice age.
roddyc55 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 In answer to your point about till - the last glacial maximum was 10,000 years ago - 6,000 years after your "flood" - Till is made of the material a glacier has eroded so yes it does consist often contain the same rock type as the mountain the glacier is based on - but that is obvious and has nothing to do with a flood. Glacial deposits are found under many layers of other sediment - there has been many many ice ages on this planet.
roddyc55 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 That does not answer my question, I gave you an example of a terrestrial deposit, evident around in the world in very thick sediments and with a very clear deposition processes, and asked you to explain how a flood could have formed it? I even helped you out because part of this deposit is formed by flooding by the river (not by a global flood however) please explain how a terrestial meandering river deposit is formed.
roddyc55 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 how does (as an example of a terrestrial deposit) are meandering river deposits featuring laterally discontinous river channels (with lenticular bedded sandstones, tabular cross bedding and an erosive surface) and laterally continuous river bars (with much finer sandstone sediment, tabular bedding and planar crossbedding) formed by a flood?
roddyc55 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 how about radiometric dating or ice cores to give two examples?
roddyc55 1 month ago
BOOOYA BITCH! Im waiting for a christian to explain why he thinks the flood was 4600 years ago :P
pandorachild 1 month ago
@pandorachild Dude, we see fish all around us today. They are obviously 5 times smarter than the trilobites. The trilobites were idiots that's why they drowned first. Yeah, dude, the trilobites.. drowned, wait, um, no... yeah, yeah, take that!
Just poein'.
MultiPaulinator 1 month ago
@MultiPaulinator LMFAO funny shit right there'
pandorachild 1 month ago
@pandorachild no lie his response" i heard it somewhere and its closer to the actual date than not knowing"
pandorachild 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010
lol
Where did you pull the 4400yrs out of?
Let me guess because the flood happened 4400yrs vago so C14 dating can only go that far back? Please list for source for this, and also the other claim that those are the only 2 dating methods accepted by science
TheDgdsn 1 month ago
Is Hovind still in prison? If he is, does anyone know where? lol I want to order a copy of his psych records. I am curious to see how he is behaving in prison.
shananagans5 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Potholer54debunks
@shananagans5 probably not so well. he is used to living like royalty off other people's money, no doubt.
MoralRapist 1 month ago
Ionly came back here to see how many stupid people clicked the 'dislike'.
MrRationalgaze 2 months ago
@warriorprince1010 You may as well keep believing in your magical, invisible wizard friend. You aren't smart enough to understand the truth.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
noahs ark still being accepted to this days proves the end times are coming. problem, ATHEISTS!!! *troll face*
wearestarstuffsagan 2 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan
lol. people have been talking about the end of times since, supposedly, jesus ascended to heaven.
defiantwon33 2 months ago
@warriorprince1010
"support creation"......I almost fell off my chair laughing.
I am embarrassed on your behalf. It seems that there isn`t a single scientists who has seen the peer reviewed paper where any dating method supports creation. Yet you seem to think you know more than all the world`s scientists. It`s nonsense based on lamentable ignorance.
Do yourself a favor and don`t try to use science in your arguments when it`s so obvious you don`t understand it.
BiiigT 2 months ago
@warriorprince1010 lol, radiometric dating has been refuted. Even if you are right about this we would still have other ways to date things, tada a small list.
Dating methods 1.2 Cosmogenic Nuclide Geochronology 1.3 Luminescence dating 1.4 Incremental dating 1.5 Magnetostratigraphy 1.6 Correlation of marker horizons
Sadly, I bet your creationist mind will just ignore all of those.
NathanWubs 2 months ago
Very well presented video. Favorited!
88rat88 2 months ago
@warriorprince1010 You have failed to show any unique seashore species, therefore you have lost the debate.
There are 88 pages on the Coconino Sandstone on the Grand Canyon's website, where do these scientists say it came from in those 88?
Yes, google, "desert isopods" and read.
Why is the sandstone a very broad layer?
Why would a global flood leave any beaches?
Why is the sandstone between, not beside, the other sedimentary layers.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Yes, there are desert isopods, google it and read over 600 results, image search for over 100. Go to the Grand Canyon like me, and you will see desert isopod, reptile, scorpion etc. footprints. Now name one marine echinoderm, coral, or seashell found in the Coco Sandstone. THEN ANSWER THESE, RETARDO:
Why would a global flood form a beach?
Why is it BETWEEN other sedimentary layers?
Why is it a LAYER if a beach formed it?
Another chance, moron.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 READ THE GRAND CANYON WEBSITE!!! Everything is desert in the Sandstone, nothing marine.
Where are the marine fossils?
Why would a planet covered with water have beaches?
Why is it BETWEEN sedimentary layers?
ARE YOU RETARDED?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 All animals in the Coco Sandstone are found in a desert, go to the Grand Canyon and see, like I did. Read the website. You need to find unique marine echinoderms, mollusks, coral, etc, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS:
Why would a beach form a broad layer?
Why would a flood leaving no land create a beach in the first place?
Why is it BETWEEN, not BESIDE, sedimentary layers?
You need to answer my questions or get another brain.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 I gave you data. All animals in the Coconino Sandstone are desert animals. Read the Grand Canyon National Park website's data. Also, My FOUR unanswered questions are all based on widely known data, which is why you are far too ignorant to answer any.
Where are the damn SEASHELLS?
Why would a NARROW beach form a BROAD layer?
Why would a flood, leaving no land, form any beaches at all?
Why is it BETWEEN, not BESIDE, the other sedimentary layers?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Isopods and scorpions are found in the desert, the footprints are reptiles. WHERE are the seashells, driftwood, crabs, echinoderms, etc in that layer?
Why would a beach, an narrow EDGE, form a broad LAYER?
Why is it BETWEEN sedimentary layers, when a beach is BESIDE the water?
A seashore the boundary between water and land, so why would a global flood, leaving no land, even form a beach in the first place?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 There are reptile prints in the Coco Sandstone, but no seashells, or crabs, or anything that should be in those layers. Camels are not reptiles. There are many dating tests besides radiometric tests, and they were only refuted in your imagination. SO: If the Coco Sandstone is a beach, why is it a LAYER, when beaches are only an edge? Why would a flood, leaving no land, deposit a beach? Why is it BETWEEN other layers, not BESIDE them, like a beach?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Desert snakes and camels are from a later time. All the animals in the Coco Sandstone are found in deserts, but there are no seashells or seastars, etc. Read the Grand Canyon National Park website for details. Also,a global flood means no land for a seashore, why would a global flood form a beach? Why would a beach form a LAYER, when a beach is the EDGE of land, so there should be no layer?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 No, isopods and spiders are found in deserts too. You never found any amphibian prints. You still have no mollusks is the Coco Sandstone. Now ANSWER the questions: If the flood was global, why would there be a beach? Why is the "beach" a layer, beaches don't form layers? Where are the sea shells in the Coco Sandstone? Why would flood layers even be ABOVE or BELOW a beach, which would be BESIDE the water, not above or below? Any answers?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Everything I listed is found in deserts, but you have nothing that should be in the seashore in the Coconino Sandstone, like seashells or crabs.
If there is no land, there is no seashore by definition. So why would there be a beach in flood layers in the first place?
Why is the Sandstone a layer, a beach is merely the edge of the water anyway. So why a broad layer?
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Bull Shit, those layers are not in the Coconino Sandstone. WHERE are all the beach animals in the damn sandstone, not other layers? You did not prove they are the same.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Nonsense, there are desert isopods, like Hemilepistus, desert spiders, desert millipedes, like Orthoporus, desert scorpions, and desert reptiles. Meanwhile, you claimed these footprints were amphibians, remember? And where are all those fossil sea shells, sea stars, crinoids, coral, etc that are found at the sea shore? Clam bake ate them? Thank you for showing you make it up as you go. Visit the Grand Canyon someday, and stop making things up!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 The Coconino Sandstone has footprints of millipedes, isopods, spiders, and reptiles, read the Grand Canyon page on the National Park site, look at the photos, or hike it yourself. Stop making up BULL SHIT as you go or get medical help.
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago
@warriorprince1010 I answered your bull shit on another channel already, remember my post s about Coconino Sandstone? You are a pathological liar, call and get medical help!
InternetDarkLord 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
good, but by being polite and less emotionnaly involved you would be more eloquent. Why so much anger?
resonate777