 |
| |
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Then again the question arises, what happened to the dinosaurs and Trilobites and certain other species where we to date find only fossils (but no living relatives remain)? |
The fossil record is very patchy, eg the Woolemi Pine tree up to the last decade had been declared extinct for 300million years, but a small population of the tree has been recently found in an isolated rugged valley in the Blue Mountains near Sydney, Australia. So on evolutionist's reckoning this plant could survive for 300 million years dispite dramatic climate changes in that time, and leave no fossil evidence behind. However not all species have survived the climate changes, and more probably the encroachment of man, eg giant kangaroos disappeared from Australia after its colonization by the Aborigine population.There is considerable evidence of some dinosaurs existing, although rare to about 1700AD (check earlier post where I gave references- page 3 or 4 of this thread I think), some of these reference relate stories of tribal people in the Americas killing giant dinosaur birds, because they were eating people, so humans were instrumental in killing the last of the dinosaurs and making the family extinct.
In general species would adapt over a number of generations, so lowering the temperature for your tropical fish would not work, However, in a larger population of tropical fish with some genetic diversity, if the water temperature was lowered by 1C every generation, no doubt the species would continue to survive.
quote:
Originally, trev cited memory as something science cannot explain. Now that he's proven wrong, he back padelled to claimed that the complexity of memory is too complicated to have evolved naturally. |
Science has offered insight into some of the processes involved in forming memory, and these processes are too complex to have evolved through evolution. But this fact does not alter my earlier views that science has not yet explained memory satisfactorily. How does the brain KNOW how to INTERPRET the synapses that has been set in the brain? This has not been explained and it was this question my proposed solution was trying to answer. Science has tried to answer how memery is set, but cannot answer how it is interpreted, and probably will not unless they look at ideas similar to what I posted
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:29
|
|
Boris Gudonov:
quote:
It did not take until Linnaeus to realize that birds and bats were distinctly different classifications of animals. Birds have feathers and beaks, bats certainly do not. The phyla, while open to some flexibility, are not arbitrary classifications. Through genetic biology, we can tell that bats are far, far removed from birds. If the Bible were inerrant, you would think that the divine guidance would prevent the ancient authors from making such a mistake about claiming they are of the same category of animal. |
Well, this might be an example of semantic change. I'm sure 17th C Swedes realized that birds and insects were quite different, yet they refered to both as fåglar, which in today's language means "birds". This is no stranger than that a word meaning basically "flying animals" got restricted to a particular class of such.
@UR: Read Gen. 1:2.
beingofone wrote:
quote:
How did Einstein sit at his desk with a pencil and paper and explore the entire universe? How is that possible with no lab equipment? |
This relates to your apparent insanity and apostacy how?
quote:
There is only one singularity that exists in reality symbolized by the number zero, do you know what that is?
Your esoteric counsciousness, which is the only reality you have ever or will be aware of.
Perhaps the answer to the question is so easy a child understands it and "adults" overcomplicate it. Its so easy it becomes hard. |
My consciousness is zero? That's quite possibly the cleverest insults I've heard in several days ...
As a child, I believed in the God of the Bible, and I was much too intelligent to equate him with infinity. I've since lost my faith, but not my ability of thinking straight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
[quote:
Originally posted by trev
The fossil record is very patchy, eg the Woolemi Pine tree up to the last decade had been declared extinct for 300million years, but a small population of the tree has been recently found in an isolated rugged valley in the Blue Mountains near Sydney, Australia. So on evolutionist's reckoning this plant could survive for 300 million years dispite dramatic climate changes in that time, and leave no fossil evidence behind. However not all species have survived the climate changes, and more probably the encroachment of man, eg giant kangaroos disappeared from Australia after its colonization by the Aborigine population.There is considerable evidence of some dinosaurs existing, although rare to about 1700AD (check earlier post where I gave references- page 3 or 4 of this thread I think), some of these reference relate stories of tribal people in the Americas killing giant dinosaur birds, because they were eating people, so humans were instrumental in killing the last of the dinosaurs and making the family extinct.
In general species would adapt over a number of generations, so lowering the temperature for your tropical fish would not work, However, in a larger population of tropical fish with some genetic diversity, if the water temperature was lowered by 1C every generation, no doubt the species would continue to survive.
|
And how do they adapt in your model?
In Evolution Adaption works by having those members of a species who are (because of their genetic layout) better adapted to an environment getting more offspring, while those who aren´t fitted as well for their environment have fewer offspring.
Therefore the Adaption you mention could be explained very well by Evolution, especially as you mention a large population and a large genetic diversity as prerequisite.
So am I correct to assume that you don´t disgaree with the model for Adaption which is part of the Theory of Evolution?
And, as you mention that very slow gradual changes are necessary to adapt:
How fast were the changes in environment during the flood?
Especially the changes whithin the ocean should appear very fast [changes in salinity, but especially increases in water pressure on the ground of the oceans] as according to the bible within 40 days the water level hat reached its peak.
(and especially for sessile lifeforms [not only plants, but also marine lifeforms who live at the ground of the oceans] how were they affected by the sudden increase in water pressure [as, unlike fish, they couldn´t just swim to the higher areas where water pressure is much lower]
[but also for Fish the change in salinity by the flood should also much higher than the change you propose] )
There´s also another question which was posted in this thread by Boris, but AFAIK not yet answered, i.e. the question of what became of the diseases.
quote:
Disease Germs
For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark.
Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the Ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each “kind” are supposed to have been on the Ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the Ark embarked. He recovered, but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct!
Creationists can't pin the blame for germs on Satan. If they do, the immediate question is: How do we know Satan didn't create the rest of the universe? That has frequently been proposed, and if Satan can create one thing, he can create another. If a creationist tries to claim germs are mutations of otherwise benign organisms (degenerate forms, of course), he will actually be arguing for evolution. Such hypothetical mutations could only be considered favorable, since only the mutated forms survived.
|
Taken from:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...767#post3575767
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 27-01-2005 at 20:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
For numerous communicable diseases, the only known “reservoir” is man. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis and gonorrhea. Was it Adam or Eve who was created with gonorrhea? How about syphilis? The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, where the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every one of these diseases. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's Ark. |
Bacteria and viruses were all created during the six days of creation. As the creation was said to be 'very good' by God at the completion of those six days, all of the bacteria performed useful functions in the environment, or within their hosts. After the sin of Adam and Eve, God withdrew some of his preserving power from the creation and therefore it has gradually deteriorated since. Mutations have allowed some viruses and bacteria which were formerly useful to their host to become harmful and cause disease. In other cases they still perform useful functions in their original host, but a mutation allows them to jump to another species where they cause disease. But many bacteria still perform their useful functions in our bodies,particularly in our digestive system as originally created. Included in our DNA code and the DNA code of most species is DNA from viruses if I understand scientists correctly. This viral DNA was placed there at the time of creation so our bodies could create viruses as they were needed to perform their useful functions. But mutations have eroded the usefulness of most viruses over time. A probable useful function of viruses was to repair damage caused by the aging process to DNA and cellular functions. The erosion of this function has resulted in a shortening of human life from 900 years preflood, to 500 years post flood for Shem, about 150 years for Abraham, 120 years for Moses and later to about 60 -70 years. Modern medicine has allowed us to regain some of the lost lifespan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Another problem with the "Flood made the mountains" hypothesis is that many, many valleys are obviously a product of glacial erosion. As is abudantly known, such erosion takes a long, long time. Certainly much more than 4,000 years. |
During the last stages of the flood and its immediate aftermath, sedimentary rocks were still solidifying, so mudflows and massive drainage flows as the floods left the earth's surface would have caused very rapid erosion in the still soft rock resulting in the amount of erosion that might normally take millions of years occurring in days or months. The first valleys formed would have been very broad, and as the rock hardened, the valleys would begin to narrow, thus accounting for the many valley shapes that are present today. Some of course were later deepened by glacial actions during colder periods in the earths history
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
You have been refuted conclusively - there are many observed instances of speciation. |
True, speciation has been observed but there has been no observed instance of new families of animals, plants etc. My statements allow for sufficient adaptability to create new species, but not sufficient for new families, and generally not new genuses.
What are classified as 'kind' in the bible would relate better to genus and family classifications than species classification. This is verified by the potential for limited interbreeding that is sometimes possible by closely related species ie interbreeding of zebra and donkey, of lion and tiger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
During the last stages of the flood and its immediate aftermath, sedimentary rocks were still solidifying, so mudflows and massive drainage flows as the floods left the earth's surface would have caused very rapid erosion in the still soft rock resulting in the amount of erosion that might normally take millions of years occurring in days or months. |
What are you talking about?
1. Seimentary rocks form at the bottom of oceans, and they do not form in days.
2. There was no place for "mudflows and massive drainage flows" to go. The entire surface of the Earth was supposedly covered by water in your scenario - where would the water go?
3. Mountains don't form in years or even thousands of years. It takes billions of years.
quote:
Originally posted by trev
The first valleys formed would have been very broad, and as the rock hardened, the valleys would begin to narrow, thus accounting for the many valley shapes that are present today. |
Sedimentary rocks don't harden due to loss of water or baking in the sun. They got that way because of the tremendous pressure from the huge column of sea water and sediment above. You remove that, and there's no hardening.
You have major problem with sedimentary rock layers. Not only do they take millions of years to form, but they also come in discrete, relatively thin layers. A massive flood from your scenario will create a very, very thick layer. We don't see anything like that.
So your scenario can't even explain the most basic things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
I give up because I have found proof that species evolve.
 Attachment: knifewasp.jpg
This has been downloaded 65 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
Last Conformist
quote:
Well, this might be an example of semantic change. |
I respect a devotion to truth - THANKS LC
quote:
This relates to your apparent insanity and apostacy how? |
LOL - Hey wait was that a joke?
Refer to my attachment.
quote:
My consciousness is zero? That's quite possibly the cleverest insults I've heard in several days ... |
It is funny that I have no formal training in physics, but I have sat in on roundtables with some of my friends who are. I do not know the terminology but they are open to new concepts - true science and truth seekers always are.
They have even adobted some of my ideas - hmm.
Attachment: mental.jpg
This has been downloaded 67 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
There was an objection raised by trev about "polystrate" tree fossils. These are fossilised trees that penetrate through several layers of stata. I just suddenly remembered the name of these things so I am posting a reply. |
I have read the linked article and several secondary links within the article. These articles are offer very unsatisfactory answers to the problem of 'polystrate' tree fossils. In particular they offer no evolutionary answer to the issue of polystrate tree fossils that pass through one or more seams of coal, although they do offer a plausible solution to the case of polystrate tree fossils that pass through other sedimentary materials. This plausible solution suggests a rapid deposit of sedimentary material is needed to explain the phenomena.
As the rapid deposition of sedimentary material is most likely in a major flood event, it is not surprising that creationist's see this as evidence for Noah's flood, particularly as this can explain polystrate tree fossils through several coal seams as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
I have read the linked article and several secondary links within the article. These articles are offer very unsatisfactory answers to the problem of 'polystrate' tree fossils. In particular they offer no evolutionary answer to the issue of polystrate tree fossils that pass through one or more seams of coal, although they do offer a plausible solution to the case of polystrate tree fossils that pass through other sedimentary materials. This plausible solution suggests a rapid deposit of sedimentary material is needed to explain the phenomena.
As the rapid deposition of sedimentary material is most likely in a major flood event, it is not surprising that creationist's see this as evidence for Noah's flood, particularly as this can explain polystrate tree fossils through several coal seams as well. |
You clearly doesn't know anything about sedimentation. Every major river does this on a daily basis - good examples are Yangtze, The nile, Amazonas, Mississippi - the list goes on.
Try read a little here :
http://oregonstate.edu/~jeffersa/mississippi.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
You clearly doesn't know anything about sedimentation. Every major river does this on a daily basis - good examples are Yangtze, The nile, Amazonas, Mississippi - the list goes on.
|
Mmm, I wonder why ancient civilizations had similar stories of floods.
What conditions could possibly have been common to all of them?
Did they exist on or near large river systems, on river flood plains, or near deltas?
Were the rivers prone to flooding large areas?
Did they thrive on or next to the coast?
Did they flourish downstream from large mountain ranges?
Let's see- Egypt. Yes, river, delta and seasonal flooding.
Greece- islands and coastal cities in an area where volcanic activity and earthquakes and waves generated by seaquakes occur.
The Indus Valley civilization- why yes, the Indus River, and melt water from a large mountain system, and seasonal flooding.
The civilizations of the fertile crescent? Well, Iraq's national anthem is 'Land of Two Rivers'- I wonder if that gives us some kind of clue.
And so on, ad nauseam.
Good grief, even the Neolithic sites in Orkney have been prone to inundation, and parts of the East Coast of England are even now being undermined and eroded by the action of the North Sea.
But let's just ignore that, and say it's divine judgment instead. And skip earth sciences as being just too hard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Another good one is :
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~fjmagill/levees_espl.pdf
Look at page 10 - a deposition of more than 8.2 mill cubic meters of sand should be able to cover something, and this happend over a very short period (the 1993 flodding in US)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Look at page 10 - a deposition of more than 8.2 mill cubic meters of sand should be able to cover something, and this happend over a very short period (the 1993 flodding in US) |
This still DOES NOT solve the phenomena of polystrate tree fossils going through several coal seams, because coal seams require according to evolutionary theory thousands of years of vegetation buildup as peat, prior to covering by sediment and formation of coal. The tree WOULD NOT REMAIN THERE for that period of time.
The only time coal formation has been observed in nature has been rapid formation as a result of the Mt St Helens eruptions which destroyed forests, and the resultant ash/mud flows deposited the destoyed vegetation in the Spirit lakes resulting in the some coal formation and the obsevation of tree stumps with roots being deposited in the lakes in 'polystrate aspect'. But for some unknown reason, this evidence is totally disregarded by evolutionists as irrelevant in favour of theories deduced by their reasoning requiring processes that have never actually been observed in nature. Discounting the observed in favour of the unobserved is a very strange sort of logic and will not convince me
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
Since trev doesn't know the difference between evolution and geology, I'm a bit suprised it's still going on.
Trev, che already pointed out that nobody is ignoring those issues. On the contrary, geologists have more than adequate answeres for them. You yourself acknowledge that such coal seams can also be the result of volcanic eruptions.
I find your line about "Discounting the observed in favour of the unobserved is a very strange sort of logic and will not convince me" extremely amusing, because that's what YECs do all the time. You've not offered a single explanation for the things I mentioned should be visible in geology due to a global flood but aren't and have instead retreated to this coal seam nonsense, which you've indirectly acknowledged has a perfectly satisfactory non-flood explanation. Until you account for the massive amount of geological evidence against the flood, such retreats are hardly convincing. In fact, it seems to be a last, desperate stand.
And we realize any sort of logical argument and the use of facts won't convince you, because you're more interested in justifying a presumption rather than objectively considering the evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
This still DOES NOT solve the phenomena of polystrate tree fossils going through several coal seams, because coal seams require according to evolutionary theory thousands of years of vegetation buildup as peat, prior to covering by sediment and formation of coal. The tree WOULD NOT REMAIN THERE for that period of time.
The only time coal formation has been observed in nature has been rapid formation as a result of the Mt St Helens eruptions which destroyed forests, and the resultant ash/mud flows deposited the destoyed vegetation in the Spirit lakes resulting in the some coal formation and the obsevation of tree stumps with roots being deposited in the lakes in 'polystrate aspect'. But for some unknown reason, this evidence is totally disregarded by evolutionists as irrelevant in favour of theories deduced by their reasoning requiring processes that have never actually been observed in nature. Discounting the observed in favour of the unobserved is a very strange sort of logic and will not convince me |
Have you read this page :
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/waton/s931.html
quote:
If the streams burst their banks before a forest could establish properly and a peat layer could develop from its detritus, the bases of the pioneer trees would be surrounded by the sheet sands from the crevasse splays and would be killed (Fig. 5,6). It is interesting to note that the former vertical tree trunks found at Joggins are invariably rooted in fine grained sediment although the base of the trunk is usually surrounded by a sandstone (Fig. 5B). Such trees would no doubt have their tops blown off once they had rotted. Sediment would accumulate around them and eventually spill into the hollowed interior once it had reached the level of the rim of the stump (Fig. 5D).
There are many variants to this general mode of infilling. The interiors of some trunks have a layer of charcoal-like material below the sedimentary infilling. This material is the remains of the vascular bundles of the tree stump which rotted and fe ll into its base prior to the sediment spilling over the rim and preserving it. Others have siderite (iron carbonate) filling in their bases and adjacent root systems. This was presumably precipitated from standing water in the hollow stump before it wa s filled in by sediment. Short stumps usually have well preserved root systems (Stigmaria) because they were filled in before the weight of accumulating sediment was sufficient to crush them. Tall stumps on the other hand have root systems which are difficult to see because they caved in under the weight of the overlying sediment long before it had accumulated enough to spill over the rim of the trunk and thereby enter the roots (Ferguson, 1988b).
The infilled stigmarian root systems are often exposed on the foreshore and in the cliffs complete with attached rootlets. These sizable fossils may be several metres long and up to 15 or 20 cm in diameter. Broken segments of Stigmaria are com mon on the beach.
It should be mentioned that horizontal tree trunks are rare in the Joggins section (but do occur in the base of some of the larger channels). Petrification of woody tissue is also extremely rare in the Joggins trees. Only one example has been found b y the writer in the last thirty-one years (Fig. 7).
|
quote:
When the surface of the accumulating sediment was flush with the rim of a hollow tree stump the stump acted as a very effective trap for any unwary amphibians or reptiles crawling over the forest or jungle floor. The first vertebrate remains found ins ide the Joggins tree trunks were discovered by Sir Charles Lyell and William Dawson in 1851. It was the discovery of these early reptiles which really put the locality on the map and made it world famous.
Up to thirteen vertebrate skeletons have been found inside one tree trunk (as successive levels of infilling) and it is obvious that the trunks provided an ideal situation for fossilization since the animals’ remains were destined to be "rapidly burrie d in a protective medium" as the accumulating sediment had already reached the rim of the trunk and was in the process of filling it (Fig. 5D). The trunks of the larger trees are almost a metre in diameter near their base and the reptiles and amphibians found inside them are appreciably less than that in length.
One of the well known early reptiles from Joggins (Hylonomus lyelli) appears on one of Canada Post’s fossil stamps issues in the spring of 1992. Another animal which is known to have been relatively abundant at Joggins is Arthropleura – a very large myriapod which is perhaps best compared to a giant woodlouse or sowbug. These attained a length of about two metres and were obviously able to avoid being trapped in the tree trunks as they would not be so prone to toppling in to them as wou ld be the quadrupeds. Only fragments of their exoskeletons have been found at Joggins, but their abundance is indicated by the frequency of the discovery of their distinctive trackways on the surface of some of the sedimentary layers (see cover picture a nd Figure 8).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Such trees would no doubt have their tops blown off once they had rotted. |
quote:
It should be mentioned that horizontal tree trunks are rare in the Joggins section |
Where are the blown off tops? It should be noted that with dead trees, the rotting process occurs quickest at the point where the tree intersects with the ground. If the tree did not rot at this point which appears to be the situation here, then the sedimentation process must have been rapid, rapid enough to have preserved the tree tops as well ( I have spent many years employed as a Technical Assistant working in conifer forests, so I am well aware of how the rotting process works with dead trees). But the lack of horizontal logs is a serious problem with the explanations offered in the article. Therefore a scenario such as occured and has been observed at Mt St Helens seems much more likely where the tree tops were blown off by the initial volcanic eruption and resultant winds, and then later the tree trunks were washed down the mountainside in ash/mud slides with intact roots (as observed at Mt St Helens) into the Spirit Lakes where they settled and sunk in the vertical (polystrate) aspect. Incidentally this process also results in the vegation layers also being mixed with clay/ash layers, these layers have been shown to be necessary for the formation of coal. For the uninformed coal requires acidity (which the volcanic ash supplies) and a catalyst (many clays are suitable catalysts) for formation from decaying vegetation or peat as well as some pressure and warmth. Simply placing a layer of vegetation under a heavy sedimentary load will not form coal. Again I prefer to use an explanation that involves observed processes than just simple deductive reasoning which ignores the observations at Spirit Lakes and normal rotting processes for conifer trees
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
It should be noted that with dead trees, the rotting process occurs quickest at the point where the tree intersects with the ground. If the tree did not rot at this point which appears to be the situation here, then the sedimentation process must have been rapid, rapid enough to have preserved the tree tops as well ( I have spent many years employed as a Technical Assistant working in conifer forests, so I am well aware of how the rotting process works with dead trees). But the lack of horizontal logs is a serious problem with the explanations offered in the article. Therefore a scenario such as occured and has been observed at Mt St Helens seems much more likely where the tree tops were blown off by the initial volcanic eruption and resultant winds, and then later the tree trunks were washed down the mountainside in ash/mud slides with intact roots (as observed at Mt St Helens) into the Spirit Lakes where they settled and sunk in the vertical (polystrate) aspect. Incidentally this process also results in the vegation layers also being mixed with clay/ash layers, these layers have been shown to be necessary for the formation of coal. For the uninformed coal requires acidity (which the volcanic ash supplies) and a catalyst (many clays are suitable catalysts) for formation from decaying vegetation or peat as well as some pressure and warmth. Simply placing a layer of vegetation under a heavy sedimentary load will not form coal. Again I prefer to use an explanation that involves observed processes than just simple deductive reasoning which ignores the observations at Spirit Lakes and normal rotting processes for conifer trees |
And this proves a global flood how? If anything, it only proves what we've been sayng all along, that natural forces can account for the phenomenon that you ascribe to a great flood. Furthermore, considering that 'polystrate' trees are rare, and not found globally, and all in one section of the rock layer, that would argue greatly against a global flood.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-01-2005 18:04
|
