Originally posted by Proper Knob You're quote mining again, which is a form of deception. Why don't you post the rest of Mr Browne's article Ronald?
Here it is -
Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief.
Originally posted by Proper Knob You're quote mining again, which is a form of deception. Why don't you post the rest of Mr Browne's article Ronald?
Because he is an evolutionist and looks at the evidence from the point of view of millions of years. That part does not serve the point I am making, but any one can read it here:
Originally posted by RJHinds Because he is an evolutionist and looks at the evidence from the point of view of millions of years. That part does not serve the point I am making, but any one can read it here:
You're taking what Mr Browne is saying completely out of context. He's talking about 'very rapidly' in terms of 'geologic time', ie a rise of 5000ft in 20 million years. Not 'very rapidly' as you are trying to insinuate. This is nothing more than dishonesty on your part.
Originally posted by RJHinds You need to learn to read better.
I can read quite well thank you. It is you that seems to have a problem understanding what they said. They do not tell us how much they think the Mediterranean rose. It could have been as little as one foot. All they say is that it rose until it got over a land barrier, and then flooded the Black Sea. How much the Black Sea rose, tells us nothing about the state of global sea levels.
Originally posted by Proper Knob You're taking what Mr Browne is saying completely out of context. He's talking about 'very rapidly' in terms of 'geologic time', ie a rise of 5000ft in 20 million years. Not 'very rapidly' as you are trying to insinuate. This is nothing more than dishonesty on your part.
Like I said he is looking at it believing that millions of years must have taken place because of his evolution indocrination. He actually can not prove it happened over a million of years, but to him that is quickly compared to the way he has been taught that things like that might happen.
It is just like the Cambrian explosion where all the fossil of animals suddenly appeared. Suddenly to them is millions of years compared to the way they believe things should have happened according to the evolution theory. But again they are just guessing at the time and do not know exactly how quickly it happened.
Originally posted by RJHinds Like I said he is looking at it believing that millions of years must have taken place because of his evolution indocrination. He actually can not prove it happened over a million of years, but to him that is quickly compared to the way he has been taught that things like that might happen.
It is just like the Cambrian explosion where all the fossil of an ...[text shortened]... . But again they are just guessing at the time and do not know exactly how quickly it happened.
Originally posted by twhitehead I can read quite well thank you. It is you that seems to have a problem understanding what they said. They do not tell us how much they think the Mediterranean rose. It could have been as little as one foot. All they say is that it rose until it got over a land barrier, and then flooded the Black Sea. How much the Black Sea rose, tells us nothing about the state of global sea levels.
There may be other explanations, but I am referring to what they say they believe and Ballard said they were looking for something really big, "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level."
Originally posted by RJHinds Like I said he is looking at it believing that millions of years must have taken place because of his evolution indocrination. He actually can not prove it happened over a million of years, but to him that is quickly compared to the way he has been taught that things like that might happen.
It is just like the Cambrian explosion where all the fossil of an ...[text shortened]... . But again they are just guessing at the time and do not know exactly how quickly it happened.
Once again, if those mountains rose up in say one century, they would have been melted from the extreme friction and the attendant earthquakes that would have made the Fukajima quake look like walking across a soft wooden floor. You don't have the imagination to even contemplate the forces involved in your truly stupid scheme.
Like I have said before, even ten year old kids are getting way ahead of you scientifically, you are being left behind in the dust with your head firmly up your useless ass and stuck in the sand wondering what happened to all the OTHER YEC idiot trolls.
Originally posted by sonhouse Once again, if those mountains rose up in say one century, they would have been melted from the extreme friction and the attendant earthquakes that would have made the Fukajima quake look like walking across a soft wooden floor. You don't have the imagination to even contemplate the forces involved in your truly stupid scheme.
Like I have said before, e ...[text shortened]... our useless ass and stuck in the sand wondering what happened to all the OTHER YEC idiot trolls.
None of what you said has been proven scientifically or else you would have produced the information on the peer reviewed scientific papers. We are just giving our opinions and my opinion is just as good as yours, if not better.
Originally posted by RJHinds There may be other explanations, but I am referring to what they say they believe and Ballard said they were looking for something really big, "Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level."
No, you are referring to what you mistakenly understood from what they wrote because your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. There is nothing whatsoever in what they wrote that suggests significant global sea level rise. The 400 feet referred to is for the Black Sea only.
But most importantly of all, none of what they say supports the idea of a global flood.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, you are referring to what you mistakenly understood from what they wrote because your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. There is nothing whatsoever in what they wrote that suggests significant global sea level rise. The 400 feet referred to is for the Black Sea only.
But most importantly of all, none of what they say supports the idea of a global flood.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, there is no possibility at all that what they wrote is evidence for a global flood.
So then you believe these scientists are wrong in thinking this is evidence for Noah'w flood?
Removed
Joined
03 Jan '13
Moves
13080
08 Aug '14 12:492 edits
Tell me something RJ. I am curious.
The New Testament says that the Gospel was preached to all creation under heaven -
" ... the gospel, which you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I Paul became a minister." (See Colossians 1:23)
Now when Paul wrote that, I suspect that there was an amoeba somewhere in one of the tributaries to the Amazon River in what we now call South America. That amoeba WAS a creature and WAS under heaven.
Taking the word literally as you take the account of Noah's Flood, do you believe that the gospel was also announced to the South American amoeba "under heaven" when Paul wrote Colossians ?
Evidence Noah's Flood Happened
08 Aug '14 09:54
Back to Top