The bible records a flood that wiped all living creatures off the earth. This biblical account is buttressed by several scientific evidences including:

1. polystrate fossils
2. The existence of these fossils
3. Turbudity currents
4. Extensive Strata and pancake layering
5. Fossil Whales and several others.

please can you explain how this "several scientific evidences" that you have listed above support the noah's flood?

O

Cyberfreak:


Are you really expecting him to answer? When have you ever seen a post by noetic that actually made sense?

he just made some very  wild assertions without even knowing what they means as "scientific" evidence for his mythical story so i just want him to explain them and show how they support that which he said.

Oya noetic over to you. . . . . . .

Neotic where are you?

J

Cyberfreak:

LOLZ.
I would like to see what he'd do. Ignore the thread or google up and paste some information ]he doesn't even understand.

, where is neotic?

We have to reason together to answer ur questions, cos it seems like a line has been drawn. I am only interested in . . . . . .

Lets start from the first: what do understand by polystrate fossils? . . . . . . . in a few words.

noetic2:

We have to reason together to answer ur questions, cos it seems like a line has been drawn. I am only interested in . . . . . .

Lets start from the first: what do understand by polystrate fossils? . . . . . . . in a few words.

You made an assertion so its up to you to explain it in the simplest of terms, I will advice you to read mazaje's post on evolution.  Its up to you to explain those in simplest of terms and show how they support the noah's flood that is said to have occured word wide. Its not a difficult task at all is it?

toneyb:

You made an assertion so its up to you to explain it in the simplest of terms, I will advice you to read mazaje's post on evolution.  Its up to you to explain those in simplest of terms and show how they support the noah's flood that is said to have occured word wide. Its not a difficult task at all is it?

I saw ur initial post, I disregarded them for "known" reasons (like I have done to all ur previous posts).

where is mazaje?

noetic2:

where is mazaje?

i am here and i am still waiting for you to provided evidence for how your "scientific evidence" supports the noah's flood. . . .  . . . .

if you can't then i will go ahead and provide scientific and hostorical evidence that disprove the mythical noah's flood that never happened.

mazaje:

if you can't then i will go ahead and provide scientific and hostorical evidence that disprove the mythical noah's flood that never happened.

you see. . . .This was why I wanted clarification, before I go on.

Do you want me to defend/analyse my initial statement about scientific evidences that suggest noah's flood

OR

Do u want to debate the possibility of Noah's flood happening. I chose to do this cos I am aware of ur diversion and "lying" techniques.

noetic2:

you see. . . .This was why I wanted clarification, before I go on.

Do you want me to defend/analyse my initial statement about scientific evidences that suggest noah's flood

OR

Do u want to debate the possibility of Noah's flood happening. I chose to do this cos I am aware of ur diversion and "lying" techniques.

i want you to do the part i highlighted in bold.

what is so hard neotic you should have done this already, why are you wasting time?

I am assuming u have a basic understanding of polystrate fossils,  . . . .

Polystrate fossils.

These are best explained as fossil trees that lie upright or prostrate above the surface of the ground. They are buried within a strata in either prostrate, oblique or upright positions. A collection of these upright trees are called a fossil forest.

Some of these fossil plants are found in Nova scotia strats in sydney as well as the united states and europe and other parts of the world. There are several evidences that suggest that these fossils were not planted in their current location but were transported there by massive water. . . . . NOAH'S FLOOD. Do u at least now have an idea of what a polystate fossil is now?

These evidences include that buttresses this fact include :

1. Quite unlike primordial geologist assumptions that these fossils were planted because of their long root, on closer observation, these assumption is found to be false based on the composition of these fossils,   . . . .I will lay more emphasis in other evidences.
There are massive sheet-like, sedimentary, flat lying deposits all over the world, which could NOT have been planted.

2. The top of the fossils on closer inspection is as preserved as the base of the fossils when unearthed from their burial spot. These other facts are deducible
a. The roots are truncated:
b. The roots are two feet long
c: The top is broken of, it is assumed that the top might be 10-15 feet high.

The truncated root implies that these trees were uprooted.     . . ,  . . . .mazaje, from where?
The broken off top suggests that it was taller and did break off along a transporting process. . . . . . . .mazaje, how did it break off?

An appreciative understanding of this is deducible from the fact that many of these rootless fossils are buried individually. . . . This lay credence to the fact that these trees did not grow there but were deposited there.

3. Fossils are formed when a plant or animal dies and is buried immediately. They are not formed in lakes, seas or the ocean. The present location of these fossils supports the notion of a massive flood that happened ages ago.

I cant paste images. . . . I could go on and on. . .  . .but please go do some reading. . . . .



Extensive Strata Or Pancake Layering:

Evolutionists believe that pancaked layer strata all over the world are either river deposits, delta deposits or deposits made over millions of years.

As u now know, Evolutionists are almost always WRONG,  . . . The facts that there are no evidences of erosion between the layers. And the size of these layers, which could as big as a city could not have been formed by rivers or delta's.

These layers also consist of marine fossils deposited by a ocean currents whose magnitude and effect could only have been caused by NOAH'S FLOOD.



be right back. . .

noetic2:

I am assuming u have a basic understanding of polystrate fossils,  . . . .

Polystrate fossils.

These are best explained as fossil trees that lie upright or prostrate above the surface of the ground. They are buried within a strata in either prostrate, oblique or upright positions. A collection of these upright trees are called a fossil forest.

Some of these fossil plants are found in Nova scotia strats in sydney as well as the united states and europe and other parts of the world. There are several evidences that suggest that these fossils were not planted in their current location but were transported there by massive water. . . . . NOAH'S FLOOD. Do u at least now have an idea of what a polystate fossil is now?

These evidences include that buttresses this fact include :

1. Quite unlike primordial geologist assumptions that these fossils were planted because of their long root, on closer observation, these assumption is found to be false based on the composition of these fossils,   . . . .I will lay more emphasis in other evidences.
There are massive sheet-like, sedimentary, flat lying deposits all over the world, which could NOT have been planted.

2. The top of the fossils on closer inspection is as preserved as the base of the fossils when unearthed from their burial spot. These other facts are deducible
a. The roots are truncated:
b. The roots are two feet long
c: The top is broken of, it is assumed that the top might be 10-15 feet high.

The truncated root implies that these trees were uprooted.     . . ,  . . . .mazaje, from where?
The broken off top suggests that it was taller and did break off along a transporting process. . . . . . . .mazaje, how did it break off?

An appreciative understanding of this is deducible from the fact that many of these rootless fossils are buried individually. . . . This lay credence to the fact that these trees did not grow there but were deposited there.

3. Fossils are formed when a plant or animal dies and is buried immediately. They are not formed in lakes, seas or the ocean. The present location of these fossils supports the notion of a massive flood that happened ages ago.

I cant paste images. . . . I could go on and on. . .  . .but please go do some reading. . . . .



Extensive Strata Or Pancake Layering:

Evolutionists believe that pancaked layer strata all over the world are either river deposits, delta deposits or deposits made over millions of years.

As u now know, Evolutionists are almost always WRONG,  . . . The facts that there are no evidences of erosion between the layers. And the size of these layers, which could as big as a city could not have been formed by rivers or delta's.

These layers also consist of marine fossils deposited by a ocean currents whose magnitude and effect could only have been caused by NOAH'S FLOOD.



be right back. . .

I am a geologist and I know for SURE that you do not know what you are taking about here, when next you visit creationist websites and steal their work make sure that you give some acknowledgements. Stop plagiarizing other peoples work without acknowledging them.

by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM so get your facts right before copying and pasting what you have absolute no knowledge of and stop lying for jesus all the time. creationists don't understand mountains basically, they find fossils in the tops of mountains and think that that is proof of noah's flood. now why they're in the mountain tops instead of on the mountain tops is something they rarely answer at all.

The larger botanical fossil record contradicts flood geology over and over. For example, any Colorado Plateau tourist can view a petrified forest of conifers and tree ferns in the Chinle Formation, another within the Morrison Formation, and thousands of feet of rock in between these layers, including the desert Navajo Sandstone. There are no fossils of land plants at all in Cambrian rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or in Cambrian rocks anywhere on Earth for that matter. Thousands of feet of marine limestones overlie Grand Canyon Cambrian rocks. Above these, fossil fern leaves can be seen along the Kaibab trail in the Permian Hermit Shale . This layer is capped by a desert sandstone, then a limestone reef deposit. These all lie underneath the Chinle to the east, which is full of petrified wood. There are no flowering plant fossils (angiosperms) in any of this. For those you must go near to the top of the Grand Staircase. All this rock is interpreted by YE Creationists (and CESM in particular) as deposited in a single global flood! Why, then, are the major plants on Earth today never found in rocks below those with primitive tree ferns and cycads, for example? YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other.


An upright tree preserved in the cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 35 of Dawson [1].

So where are we? YE Creationists effectively say that stubby vertical fossil tree trunks prove a single flood was responsible for 2 vertical miles of rock near where I live. Even though these fossil localities are quite limited in extent, they conclude the flood was global. I’m frankly astonished that anyone would think this leap of irrational imagination is persuasive! Nevertheless, I suspect the argument will stay around and provide another iota of false comfort to those who believe YE Creationism for reasons that have nothing to do with empirical evidence and everything to do with wishful thinking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

http://www.astrobio.nau.edu/blog/?p=17

noetic2:


be right back. . .

when you come back make sure you acknowledge or give the source where you copied and pasted what you will post again, and pls try to make sure you use standard geological terms to support your claims, "polystrate fossils" is NOT even a standard geological term it is a term formulated by your forever lying christian apologist wh love lying for jesus all the time.

mazaje:

I am a geologist and I know for SURE that you do not know what you are taking about here, when next you visit creationist websites and steal their work make sure that you give some acknowledgements. Stop plagiarizing other peoples work without acknowledging them.

and the "geologist" does NOTHING to refute noetic's claim, all he does is promptly rush to talkorigins website and paste a load of nonsense.

mazaje:

when you come back make sure you acknowledge or give the source where you copied and pasted what you will post again, and pls try to make sure you use standard geological terms to support your claims, "polystrate fossils" is NOT even a standard geological term it is a term formulated by your forever lying christian apologist wh love lying for jesus all the time.

and you copied this from wikipedia . . . why didnt you give an acknowledgement?

davidylan:

and the "geologist" does NOTHING to refute noetic's claim, all he does is promptly rush to talkorigins website and paste a load of nonsense.

why should i refute his baseless claims when he uses non standard geological terms as evidence for his mystical noah's flood that never happened?   are you guys these desperate?

davidylan:

and you copied this from wikipedia . . . why didnt you give an acknowledgement?

at lest i am not like you that uses  wikipedia when i want to prove non existent points to muslims. but turn around almost immediately and call it an anti god site. if it is an anti god site as you claim when do you use it to prove non existent points to the muslims? thou ridiculous and directionless hypocrite?

mazaje:

why should i refute his claims when he uses non standard geological terms as evidence for his mystical noah's flood that never happened?   are you guys these desperate?

you're not "refuting" because even you are clueless. I notice a trend, it always takes you guys close to 30mins to respond to a post and usually 90% of your response is a quote from another website, very little (except insults of course) in terms of genuine response from you.

- you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com

- you accused him of using non-standard geological terms . . . when in fact you dont know, you're simply parroting what you saw on wikipedia. the term "polystrate fossils" was coined in the 1970s by a Dutch Geologist with a PhD from Princeton University here in the USA . . . NOT by christian apologetics as you FALSELY implied.

- you claim to be a "geologist" yet cannot provide a genuine counter-argument to noetic's claims.

Dude, we are not all stupid here.

By the way take another 30 mins to go ferret thru talkorigins for a response.

davidylan:

you're not "refuting" because even you are clueless. I notice a trend, it always takes you guys close to 30mins to respond to a post and usually 90% of your response is a quote from another website, very little (except insults of course) in terms of genuine response from you.

The entry from talkorigin perfectly refutes all his clueless arguments.

- you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com

when will this block-headed wannabe descendant of the mythical abraham learn to read. do you read with ur anus? i rightly accused him of not citing his reference and sources. i provided my own source which is there for every one to see.

- you accused him of using non-standard geological terms . . . when in fact you dont know, you're simply parroting what you saw on wikipedia. the term "polystrate fossils" was coined in the 1970s by a Dutch Geologist with a PhD from Princeton University here in the USA . . . NOT by christian apologetics as you FALSELY implied.

i didnt see that in wikipedia you are the one that did.

- you claim to be a "geologist" yet cannot provide a genuine counter-argument to noetic's claims.

are you blind?  , how did i even expect you that sees and reasons with ur anus to see anything at all.

Dude, we are not all stupid here.

you have clearly demonstrated that you are very stupid because you clearly can not read.

mazaje:

The entry from talkorigin perfectly refutes all his clueless arguments.

Isnt it absurd that you a supposed "geologist" has to go ferret through talkorigins to refute noetic? Why have you NO idea of polystrate fossils yourself?

Besides the entry from talkorigins DID NOT refute noetic's claim, it was simply 6 lines of propaganda (with NO EXPLANATION), a copied drawing from wikipedia and the rest insults to creationists.

The irony of the entire post was this - YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other.

Isnt it funny that this same talkorigins folks NIT-PICK isolated (artificially reconstructed) bones as EVIDENCE of our own evolution?

mazaje:

when will this block-headed wannabe descendant of the mythical abraham learn to read. do you read with ur anus? i accused him if not citing his reference.

Makes no difference . . . you were equally copying from websites . . . at least he tried to put his in context. You didnt even bother to read what you copied.

mazaje:

i didnt see that in wikipedia you are the one that did.

I'm sure you did, you're just lying because there is very little difference with the way both you and wikipedia phrased your statements. See below:

Wikipedia - The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials. (unfortunately there was no citation for this claim . . . as usual).

Mazaje - by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM

Judge for thyself.

mazaje:

are you blind? , how did i even expect you that sees and reasons with ur anus to see anything at all.

you have clearly demonstrated that you are very stupid because you clearly can not read.

As usual . . . this must be what you learnt in geology class.

davidylan:



- you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com

Did you write this because you want to show how stupid and senseless you are or because you really believe what you have written?

bindex:

Did you write this because you want to show how stupid and senseless you are or because you really believe what you have written?

thou fool . . . what's the problem with what i wrote?

You accuse someone of quoting from other websites best not be quoting from A RIVAL WEBSITE in response.

If you cant understand that then you have a warped mind.

I find it funny that many of you foolish atheists usually have NOTHING of substance to contribute to threads besides chipping in insults from time to time. When someone has nothing to complain about but grammatical structure then you know something is amiss.

davidylan:

Isnt it absurd that you a supposed "geologist" has to go ferret through talkorigins to refute noetic? Why have[b] you NO idea of polystrate fossils yourself[/b]?

i think i am very right when i say you are a block-headed slowpoke.

Besides the entry from talkorigins DID NOT refute noetic's claim, it was simply 6 lines of propaganda (with NO EXPLANATION), a copied drawing from wikipedia and the rest insults to creationists.

how will you see the refutations when you did not read it?

Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?

Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.


An upright tree preserved in the cliffs at Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 35 of Dawson [1].


Stratigraphy in association with an upright tree stump, Joggins, Nova Scotia.
Figure 41 of Dawson [1]
Original Caption:
"1.=Shale. 2.=Shaly coal, 1 foot. 3. Underclay with rootlets, 1 foot 2 inches. 4. Gray sandstone passing downwards into shale, 3 feet. Erect tree with Stigmaria roots (e) on the coal. 5. Coal, 1 inch. 6. Underclay with roots, 10 inches. 7. Gray sandstone, 1 foot 5 inches. Stigmaria rootlet continued from the bed above; erect Calamites. 8. Gray shale, with pyrites. Flattened plants."

The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins:

In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:

   "[, ]

   "Fossil trees trunks, which extend upward through multiple layers of limestone, have been found in many areas of the world including Kingston, Ontario [there are no such trees in Kingston, Ontario -AM] and Joggins, Nova Scotia [emphasis added].

   "This suggests that these very thick deposits were deposited very rapidly. Similar polystata trees have been found extending upright through successive seams of coal. Some of these trees have supposedly stood upright while successive cycles of oceans and peat swamp have pasted through an area. You be the judge as to the most logical interpretation,  slow accumulation over thousands of years or,  rapid burial during a massive world wide flood."

One of the best, and longest-known "fossil forest" occurrences is a locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia. It is Carboniferous in age, and was first described in detail in the late 1800s. Here is a quote from Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180) on the nature of the trees at this locality, in a beautiful cliff section over 1km thick:

   "In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader will observe the words 'Underclay, Stigmaria [a type of fossil tree trunk]' frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a seam of coal. An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30). The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.

   "It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."

There is very little, with the exception of terminology, that would be different in a "modern" interpretation of these features, and Dawson has much more detail on the other sedimentological features found at Joggins that support his interpretation. Dawson records well over a dozen horizons with large upright trees, and smaller ones are even more common. The section at Joggins can still be visited today, and is particularly well-known for the small reptile fossils found there (they often occur inside the upright tree stumps, apparently they fell in the hollow stump). There are usually a few upright trees exposed on the shore, although the rapid erosion of the 10m+ high cliffs means the exposed examples change every year.

Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and many other "fossil forest" localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not been recognized by modern "young Earth global flood" [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and say, "See? They could be transported during the flood.". This argument is completely fallacious, because most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The "transported floating upright stumps" model [2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

One of the most compelling features of Dawson's comments, from a YEGF creationist's perspective, may be the closing remarks of his book, in the conclusion section on p.671. Statements expressing similar sentiments can be found in most geological books of the period (e.g., Murchison's "Siluria", where the Silurian and other Paleozoic systems are first defined):

   "Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work."

Dawson has no theological problems with the conclusions he drew, which are basically similar to the ones drawn by geologists now. Many other geologists of the period were devoutly religious, and clearly expressed the fact in their publications.

Apparently, many 19th century geologists share a common philosophical framework with modern creationists, but, strangely enough, modern creationists come to completely different conclusions from both the 19th century geologists and current geologists. The common appeal by modern creationists to an "atheistic" or "humanistic" philosophical framework that "taints" the interpretations of science is quite ridiculous in light of the strong beliefs of many historical scientists, particularly in geology. Why should creationists still have a problem with their conclusions, more than 100 years later?

Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.

The irony of the entire post was this - YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other.

Isnt it funny that this same talkorigins folks NIT-PICK isolated (artificially reconstructed) bones as EVIDENCE of our own evolution?

can you show me this quotes from talkorigin.org ? are you completely stupid? did you bother to understand where are what you were reading, or did you just type because you were too much in a haste to sound stupid?

Makes no difference . . . you were equally copying from websites . . . at least he tried to put his in context. You didnt even bother to read what you copied.

makes a lot of difference you were able to know my source because i sighted it. by the way i don't expect fools to understand simple english.

I'm sure you did, you're just lying because there is very little difference with the way both you and wikipedia phrased your statements. See below:

Wikipedia - The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials. (unfortunately there was no citation for this claim . . . as usual).

Mazaje - by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM

Judge for thyself.

so because i use a word that is also found in wiki pedia that means i MUST have copied it from wikipedia? If i say that jesus died on the cross and the same comment is found in wikipedia that means i must have copied it from wikipedia, do you have a brain at all?

As usual . . . this must be what you learnt in geology class.

of course.

mazaje:

I am a geologist and I know for SURE that you do not know what you are taking about here, when next you visit creationist websites and steal their work make sure that you give some acknowledgements. Stop plagiarizing other peoples work without acknowledging them.

by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM so get your facts right before copying and pasting what you have absolute no knowledge of and stop lying for jesus all the time. creationists don't understand mountains basically, they find fossils in the tops of mountains and think that that is proof of noah's flood. now why they're in the mountain tops instead of on the mountain tops is something they rarely answer at all.

whats the meaning of all this?. . . . . . .u have made no point here. . . . .what are holes in my assertions?

I started by asking if u knew what polystrate fossils are. . . . . because I knew u would turn this all on its head.

noetic2:

whats the meaning of all this?. . . . . . .u have made no point here. . . . .what are holes in my assertions?

I started by asking if u knew what polystrate fossils are. . . . . because I knew u would turn this all on its head.

you actually expected him to intelligently pick thru your arguments? All you're going to get is a long long tome from another website. Dont waste your time.

they are so stupid they even copy and paste personal correspondence - The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins:

In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes:

davidylan:

thou fool . . . what's the problem with what i wrote?

The problem with what you wrote is that it showed that you were more interested in sounding stupid than making any sense. He didn't accuse your fellow believer in the fable of the global flood for copying from other sites, he simply told him to site his sources

You accuse someone of quoting from other websites best not be quoting from A RIVAL WEBSITE in response.

The fact that you always stupidly accuse others of quoting from other websites does not mean every body thinks foolishly like you, he only accused the guy of not stating his source, that is very different from accusing someone of quoting from another site.

If you cant understand that then you have a warped mind.

I find it funny that many of you foolish atheists usually have NOTHING of substance to contribute to threads besides chipping in insults from time to time. When someone has nothing to complain about but grammatical structure then you know something is amiss.

Bla, bla bla when next you make sense I will respond to you.