Noah's Ark 2004

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by cerridwen, May 14, 2004.

  1. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Burgess Shale fossil site occurs at elevation 7,500 feet, within the Stephen Formation in Burgess Pass on the southwest side of the saddle between Mount Wapta and Mount Field.

    Mount Wapta stands at 9,115 feet; Mount Field at 8,672 feet.

    Burgess Shale is over 1,000 feet below the nearest peaks.

    It is entirely possible that plate tectonics lifted these fossils into their present location. You should also know that they were discovered because they were partially eroded and exposed.

    I have seen no explanation that includes Superlakes in any of the links I have visited. Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock...
     
  2. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lets just review your lilting last paragraph. (You would probably add "Shall we?")

    You seem to know enough of the SuperLake theory that you had tried to 'Teach' it back to me several posts earlier.

    Unfortunately you did not see anything about Superlakes in any of the links you have visited.

    [Note: Just a post earlier you did not 'believe me' there were marine fossils at the peaks of the Rocky Mountains]

    Even though you never heard of the Burgess Shale fossils and even though Superlake theory is a new 'pet theory' of your evolutionists you once again feel you should pretend the you are the teacher and instructor and advise me:

    "Perhaps you shouldn't speak unless you can back it up Brock..."

    MHS - I am the backup.

    Btw.. nice big fake attempt to 'Instruct me' on the Burgess Shale you half-wit.
    You just hoped know one would notice YOU believed they were fictional just 2 posts earlier, yet expect me to believe you are not intructing me on "What I should know"

    (Now watch this next part because its hilarious)

    Burgess Shale fossils are no more exposed by erosion than one would expect after a few thousand years.
    Unfortunately your tectonic plate theory is really screwed when this erosion is measured.
    (although Im sure erosion only began 5,000 years ago according to your Evolutionist buddies)

    You have to build a new explanation now - Lakes must have filled the basins to this 7,500 ft level.
    (btw.. since water has a tendency to 'stay level' then the implications are far reaching here)

    Don't ask me to explain a chicken-out theory evolutionists have anyway.
    Scientificaly speaking the only thing we do know is that these areas were once under water.

    Only an Evolutionist would rather believe the Mountains were flat instead of admitting water was high.
     
  3. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your summary, Brock.
    Though it's too bad you still havent given any REAL backing for your arguments...

    Yes Brock, I tried to clarify our understanding of the theory. And no, I have not heard of this theory anywhere else (and you have still yet to help me out with that).

    Why should I trust your word? You still speak of these fossils being at 'the peaks of the Rockies', when they are actually in Burgess Pass -over 1,000 feet below the peaks.

    You have yet to back up any of your information with credible sources.

    I actually have heard of the Burgess Shale fossils, I once cited them as evidence of pre-athropods.

    o....k....

    Ill just pretend I didn't read that...

    No, I never thought they were fictional. As I explained, I didn't trust your word on their location -rightfully so-.

    Exactly, the fossils were deeper inside the mountain, protected from erosion, until fairly recently (in geologic time). Why is this so unbelieveable? Tell me. Why?

    Please, look at this diagram-


    [​IMG]
     
  4. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Your splitting hairs and playing legalism games MNS.
    Marine fossils 85% of the way up the highest mountains in the world and your little trick is to play word games "Over" 1000 feet from the 'Peak'.

    Well presumably not much rests on the highest points for long.

    I have seen the location and anyone with a pick can break shale and find marine fossils.

    Just like your 'Plea Bargaining' over other floods - you have to play word games and 'explain' what 1/20th of the glass is empty (as if you discovered it)

    I have looked at your embarrassing diagram.

    Yes, its very colourful and has 'Motion Arrows' (therefore it must be real?).

    Please back up your theory by explaining away Erosion.

    Presumably you believe that Erosion 'Evolved' and did not exist for 30 million years?
    You can 'Back up' you disbanded theory to me, thanks.
     
  5. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fossils were further inside the mountain and were not directly affected by erosion until recently. This is possible because of plate tectonics -a proven mechanism-.

    What is happening in this case, is that the Rockies are being stretched, thus the surface area of the mountains is expanding, and new -previously concealed- rocks are emerging to fill the new spaces.

    Imagine if the mountains kept stretching until they became flat. The entire substance of these gigantic collections of earth would be laid out- able to be seen.

    As mountains stretch, more and more of their substance becomes visible.

    I have no reason to believe this theory has been disbanded.

    Also, a mountain peak and a mountain pass are two very different things my friend. Especially in regard to geology.
     
  6. bandit28

    bandit28 Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    0
    MNS, this is what I see from your posts. The earths surface was basicly flat at somepoint in time where no mountains existed. Then, with your plate tectonics mountains were created. Now you are talking about how mountains are slowly reversing in size because slowly but surely they are flatening out again. Yup, go back and read your posts. In your attempts to be a "smart young lad" you goofed up and said to much crap.

    One thing you keep forgetting. You can't proove anything did or didn't happen thousands of years ago. Nor can I. I go off of a strong faith in my God and from archeological findings. You go from theories and a science created by my God. Is there any way that you could proove that all of the land mass was not connected at some point in time? No you can't. Also, I find it difficult to understand how you think so many things could happen without a creator(like life begining, land being formed, gras growing from nothing at all) and yet still put limitations on what this earth could or could not handle. You say that the earth did not have enough water to be able to be flooded entirely. I say how can you proove this. It happened some 5,000 years ago. You see where your beliefs are putting restrictions on things? This is what so confuses me about people like you. You think we came from some omeba that formed from nothing. And this omeba split up in so many different ways, multiplied itself millions of times, and bam, life on earth. So what created earth?

    How about we just do this. You keep believing that nothing is possible unless you can duplicate it in a lab, I'll keep having faith in God. When we die, we will see who is right.
     
  7. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    For the record, the Shale on the side of the mountains is not deep inside the mountains.

    It all but on the surface.
    If you are up there.. you will be well aware you are on top of a mountain.

    Having said all that.
    The commonly held theory is that an Ice Age pushed Glaciers over this region.
    Eventually the Glaciers melted and naturally left massive Superlakes between the Mountains.

    This is now used to explain how marine life is at the highest peaks.

    I can't believe a 'Old Age' geology student would not know this is the current excuse for marine fossils at the highest of locations.
    Its not my theory anyway so Im not going to try and justify it.

    One thing we DO KNOW is that marine life will be washed up on the sides of Mountains by a huge flood.
    That is one obvious option.

    But .. then again. .probably not for a Genesis denier. They MUST pick any and all other options.

    :p
     
  8. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bandit, go back and read my post.

    "What is happening in this case, is that the Rockies are being stretched..."

    Each mountain range is affected by unique tectonic conditions. Not all mountians are flattening out.

    My mention of a mountian range flattening out completely was an illustrative supposition, a mental image to better understand the concept of what happens when the Rockies stretch.

    Water recycles itself here on earth. The water that existed 5,000 years ago is still here today, and it can be measured. It is not, and was not, enough to completely flood the continents.

    Oembas would not come from nothing. They are a chemistry of organic matter.

    What created Earth? I guess the simple answer would be accretion: electromagnetic attraction and gravity.

    Good deal :p
     
  9. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brock, brother, this really shouldnt be so difficult.

    I previously explained-

    "Exactly, the fossils were deeper inside the mountain, protected from erosion, until fairly recently (in geologic time)."

    "The fossils were further inside the mountain and were not directly affected by erosion until recently. This is possible because of plate tectonics -a proven mechanism-."

    I am not a geology student... yet.

    All Im asking for is a link. Where did YOU get this information?

    Brock, this doesn't work.
    These marine creatures would need to be rapidly buried in sediment to fossilize, because many did not have skeletons (and there were a great number of creatures buried together). Rapid burial does not happen on a slope. Mud flows covered the creatures and deposited them in deep waters where decay is limited and slow. It was after their burial and fossilization that tectonic movement transported these specimens to where they can be seen today.
     
  10. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    You often make hypothesis and back it up with conjecture you know?


    You just state (out of your own imagination) that marine life would not be in sediment (Im guessing you see the mud sliding down hill in your imagination?)
    on the side of the mountain.

    Then you seem to 'explain' this theory 'as if' it were proof in inself.

    Another example is you believe the fossils were deep inside the mountain and later pushed out and exposed by erosion.
    You cite your theory as if it is evidence or demonstration of your theory?

    The Shale is on the side of the mountain.
    I guaruntee you this.
    Ive been there.
    I am the link to the information.

    You keep pretending your theory the fossils were once deep inside the mountain as an 'explanation'.
    No.
    You are just imagining that it must have been that way.

    The main thing is this - we DO AGREE that the mountains are being uplifted by continental drift.
    YOU have the problem trying to reconcile your outrageous old-age times with the evidence.
    Genesis has no problem at all making its numbers work.

    You better trying and create an explanation for the lack of erosion for 30 million years or those fossils were left there by floods.
    Most of your buddies have abandoned the 'once a seabed' theory because scientific facts forced them too.
     
  11. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brock, allow me to do something that you have not done throughout this entire discussion (even though it has been asked of you repeatedly)-
    [watch this..lol.]

    "Following periodic mud slumps Burgess Shale organisms were transported downslope and deposited into anoxic waters..."
    http://park.org/Canada/Museum/burgessshale/pres.html

    "The animals were preserved after the sediments where they lived failed and
    flowed down the slope; there may have been more than 50 flows."
    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1366/burgess.html


    "The Burgess Shale was deposited at the base of this cliff..."
    http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/

    My imagination huh?

    Yes Brock, clearly the fossils are now exposed on the side of the mountain, but it hasn't always been this way. And I will explain how this could be so.

    Ok, lets start with this premise. Burgess Shale is 30 million years old.

    Right. As my links show us, these fossils were preserved by mud slides. The mud slides which trapped these creatures were not the last mud slides to occur at the base of this slope. Over time, the Burgess shale fossils were buried deeper and deeper within sediment (perhaps the upper layers also contained fossils, but have since been eroded away). By the time conditions changed and the shale was actually out of water and suseptible to erosion (likely millions of years later), the fossils we see today were protected under many other layers of rock. It would then take a great deal of time for erosion to work through these upper layers. This whole process easily could have taken 30 million years.

    Brock, to be honest with you, it is quite frustrating to me that you make such claims with ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT.

    I have searched the internet and found NOTHING about evolutionists abandoning the seabed theory. NOTHING!

    I have heard of absolutely no scientific facts that could cause this either.

    WHERE ARE THESE 'FACTS' BROCK? WHERE ARE THE LINKS? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
     
  12. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do you realise that you keep citing the theory as 'proof' of the theory?

    do you?

    No, you do not. You continue to suggest the theory of the million year old mudslides by QUOTING THE THEORY ITSELF "AS IF" IT "EXPLAINED" TO US THE THEORY IS VALID!?

    Please stop doing that.

    Also, YOU can provide me with Proof.
    Unfortunately your 'Facts' are nothing more than the theory itself presented in 'Instructional' Formatting.

    Not cool MNS. Not cool at all.
     
  13. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok Brock, you are not contributing any new information to the discussion. You do not directly address or refute any of my well-made points that I back up with multiple sources.

    You CANNOT possibly deny that mudslides were what preserved these fossils because that's what every website on the subject agrees with.

    -Excellent preservation of soft parts in these marine creatures requires rapid burial.

    -Lack of scavenging and decay requires rapid burial.

    "Through additional work on the site, it was determined that the Burgess Shale included multiple fossil bearing layers of about 2 meters thick stacked 150 meters high and over 60,000 unique fossils have been found." Perfect model for mud slides!
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

    "Fossils are therefore found in random orientation, indicative of a violent mudslide engulfing many of the Cambrian organisms. There is also evidence that these organisms died instantly. First, in the presence of an anaerobic environment, such as mud, marine invertebrates normally curl up upon dying. Fossils of the Burgess Shale locality do not exhibit this coiling. Secondly, there is no evidence of any attempt by these organisms to burrow out of their mud "prison." Killed instantly by the mudslides, preservation began immediately."
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

    You provide NO information to the contrary.
    There is no alternative.
     
  14. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Again, you keep citing some Evolutionist theory as 'A backup' or ' a source'.


    The funny part of this.. you are conceding more to Genesis than you know.

    Your arguing that marine life was trapped in sediment. Ok. Good. I agree and so do the facts.

    As far as contributing to this discussion, your welcome.
    You have been educated here.

    Just taking information supplied to you and then pretending you are the one 'teaching it back' to me does not 'make it so'.

    Thanks for admitting marine life fossils are found at 7,000 ft elevations.
    Glad you are willing to concede that fossils are made from lifeforms encased in sediment (mud).
    Your also willing to accept that (at some point) most of the Pacific NorthWest has been underwater.
    ..and you agree that evidence is overwhelming the Black Sea region of Earth has been deluged.

    I have no doubt there are thousands of Evolutionists scrambling to 'Explain away' these facts.
    They count on gullible students to accept their 'hypothesising' excuses as 'Back Up' or 'Research' but its not.

    Citing a theory that the Rockies were a flat seabed IS the debate, not an 'Evidence' just because someone told you it 'was so'.

    Just out of curiousity - why do you figure there are now extint lifeforms encased in sediment all over the Earth (incl at high mountainous altitudes like the ones YOU were informed of recently)
    ?
     
  15. mother_nature's_son

    mother_nature's_son Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you cite a creationist theory without any backup or source!

    I dont have to argue that marine life was trapped in sediment, this is entirely obvious.
    I also don't have to argue that these creatures were trapped in a mudslide; with enough investigation of the fossils, this is entirely obvious as well.

    You have not contributed a single link or bit of cited information. How you can think you are putting up an argument from this position, I truly do not understand.

    An yes, I have been educated by information gathered by real geologists.

    lol. Gee, thats really a tough one to admit there.

    As our discussion here shows, evolutionists have a much easier time explaining these facts than creationists. That's why you can't come up with any links or sources that support your view!

     
  16. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let me know what you think of Walt Browns HydroPlate theory?


    (btw Walter Brown is a 'real' geologist in case you want to be smart)

    http://www.creationscience.com/

    Of course its not perfect, but it goes a lot further to explain the Earth than evolutionistscience has imo.

    For the record, everyone believes the Rockies are being pushed up.
    This is because the Earth is dividing.
    Genesis told YOU that btw.
     
  17. StonerBill

    StonerBill Learn

    Messages:
    12,544
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think a point that has been missed is that in order for a worldwide flood to cause the effects brock is claiming, it would have to be around for a lot longer than 40 days or wahtever. it woul dhave to be around for thousands of years. longer even.


    Both of you adress this NOW!
     
  18. Brocktoon

    Brocktoon Banned

    Messages:
    950
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi StonerBill!


    Oh yes.. MNS and Myself were both present at that time but we didnt see you there. Must have just missed ya?

    Maybe you should explain further how and why it would take more than 40 days for the flood waters to subside (at least.. as low as the Ararat Mountain Range anyway)?

    Thanks
     
  19. StonerBill

    StonerBill Learn

    Messages:
    12,544
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, thats waht you need to explain, its your flood.
     
  20. JesusDiedForU

    JesusDiedForU Banned

    Messages:
    2,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure the same God that parted the Red Sea can make the water of the flood subside after 40 days. People seem to replace God with science and say well through science that does not fit. But you must understand through God anything is possible.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice