You've gotta love PZMyers' combination of snarky humor.

Here's his tagline for the article:

they do not appear in the fossil record. Experts, of course, recognize that the antediluvian plushies were mostly soft creatures, containing very few hard parts that could readily become fossilized

or families or stuffed toys out and then, what? They have to begin EVOLVING into the many species that are present today. Wait a minute...

Did WE evolve from plushies???!!!

They have (R) after their names....

I don't understand furries in the least

give me a nice normal fetish like water sports or BDSM-something that makes sense

It is alright as long as it cements their faith,it is for a higher purpose.
Turning all the children of the world to Christianity so that they may be fleeced every Sunday and Wednesday at the collection plate.

It's a type of drug addiction from the chemicals created in the body.

When they are on an adrenaline high and want to continue with it, they know that the things that will bring them down off the high (from what they otherwise see, hear, remember) have to be disregarded.

This world is only 6,000 years old? We've undoubtedly have had religious charlatans for more than 6,000 years.

What the fuck is THAT?

It shows the weak logic of both sides.
On the atheist side they will point out that only eight people escaped the flood cause that is all that is mentioned in the bible...(imagine that, the atheist believing literally what the bible says)
No mention of the same story in other cultures, of people escaping the flood.
No mention of the fact in many cultures rich people...rich enough to build a big arc, had servants...but would not be mentioned in any text cause they were just servants....and when the family goes they take their servants....again the atheist will accept the literal interpretation of the bible....if it says eight people that is all there were....if it says one arch that is all there were.

And on the creationist side they too will insist that it be taking literally and that if it mentioned only 8 it must be only 8....and the preachers have made an article of faith, and can explain away contrary things with miracles of God....and cult like resistance begins.

And other rational people just sit in amazement at how it is all so constructed so that no one wins and no one ever learns anything from it but hate for the other side.
But that is where we are in 2012.

The 'atheist side' is not "the atheist believing literally what the bible says". It's saying that it's fictional; which is what non-literal Christians, and believers in other religions, also think. It's saying that literal belief is absurd.

"The same story" does not turn up in other cultures. The Genesis story explicitly says the 8 people, and no-one else, survived ("I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground ... I am going to put an end to all people ... Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.&quot Other cultures have different flooding myths. Of course, physics and archaeology tell us there was never a worldwide flood, whatever myth you look at. It's not just a matter of whether the number of humans or species works out; it's a question of where the water would come from, or if you'd believe the dry land would simultaneously all across the world. Flood myths indicate that devastating floods happen in many places, and people remember them, and talk about them.

We all laugh at the creationists, not hate them. You're right that no-one learns anything from the Genesis flood myth; that's why it's funny that the creationists persist in trying to do so.

The evidence that it sounds wrong?...How rational is that?
How many stories have been told from experiences that actually happened and they came down through the ages changed but still basically real?....the art of storytelling has never been where people just make shit up...it is mostly based on real events.

And you are wrong...the story is in every culture...on every continent.
But look at it this way....If Noah was a real man and recorded his experiences with the flood and he said "the waters covered the whole earth" would you take that to mean the Noah knew and saw the whole earth?...no reasonable people would say he spoke of what HE saw not what happened in the whole world.....(and this is where the religious help you out by declaring the bible gods word and so god told Noah what was happening on the whole planet)

But where the watter came from is an interesting one indeed....Genesis says it came from "the fountains of the deep"....and only recently we have learned about Methane hydrates....which is in the deep and is similar to ice but contains mostly watter and Methane gas in a solid form...and there are vast deposits of this in the deep.
One speculation of this is that this vast deposit was fractured and the release of all that Methane gas would have created a tsunami of immense size that could have been the flood...the release of the gas expands the volume of watter.

And we then agree no one learns anything by this ....but how does it make you feel if some one ridicules you?....laughs at you...What do you think they feel?....which is never considered.
What if you did not laugh at them but presented your case with no ridicule of theirs?...could things be different?....could they learn from you?...could you learn from them?....could we learn from each other?

What level of detail do you want to go into?

"The evidence that it sounds wrong?...How rational is that? "

Very rational. why do you ask?

".the art of storytelling has never been where people just make shit up"

No, sometimes people make shit up. Like continents that don't exist, or time travel, or miracles.

"it is mostly based on real events. "

"Real events" meaning "mostly featuring humans", perhaps. But if you want that 'mostly' to mean something significant, then clarify the number of stories you've examined, and the level of detail you went into to determine if they were 'real events' or not.

"And you are wrong...the story is in every culture...on every continent. "

No. What, for instance, is 'the same story' in Celtic or Norse myth?

The myth does not just have Noah thinking his family is the only one left. It has God specifically telling him he will kill all the other humans and land animals, before it happens, because God doesn't like them (well, he doesn't like the people, but is happy to kill the animals with them).

"But where the watter came from is an interesting one indeed"

No, it's not. Because it's obvious to anyone who paid attention in school that it requires the miraculous creation of far greater amounts of water than the Earth has ever had, or the instantaneous moving of continents downwards by miles. I suggest you learn some basic mathematics before you ever pretend again that methane hydrates could cause anything that can be seen as a worldwide flood, as opposed to a tsunami that affects one coast (and which coast are you claiming could have been affected in that way, that then gave rise to a flood myth in the Jordan valley where the Genesis stories appeared?)

The thing is, you can point out how actual floods happen, and say "maybe the story relates to that", but the story is explicitly about wiping out everything not on the ark, and about all land being covered with water in all directions for scores of days. It bears no more relation to reality than me saying "I once knew a man a hundred feet tall!" and then excusing this as 'based on reality' by saying "some people are taller than others".

"how does it make you feel if some one ridicules you?"

It makes me feel like I need to learn something. How does it make you feel?

"presented your case with no ridicule of theirs" That has, of course, been done over hundreds of years, and the idiots still have not learnt. Instead, they indoctrinate children to ignore reality, and believe what is written in one book. So we laugh at them too.

"could you learn from them?"

No. They are idiots who refuse to look at reality, because they have been brought up to be ignorant, and proud of it. They think it's a virtue to believe a book when it flies in the face of reality.

You claim that science has proven a negative.....and that is not what science does....so it can all be dismissed as science.

But look we can take these things one at a time and discuss them, and I can present a rational alternative view, but unlike you I will not tell you that I know it is true cause I don't and can't....however your side insists on claiming proof that it is true, and when presented with evidence that brings it into question claims the evidence is wrong or mistaken or made up. but always sticks to the position that they DO know it all.
And of course holds them to a strict literal interpretation of all ancient text and that the text of the bible spoke in some universal context to where a single man, Noah, knew what was happening in the whole world, even the fact that the flood waters overtopped Himalaya mountains....cause he said the Waters covered the whole earth and that could not mean the whole earth that HE knew about.....and taking all the animals of the earth meant all over the earth not just the animals in the earth He knew about...and that all men on the whole planet perished and he could not have meant all the people in his land cause he knew all the people of the earth and everything...and so one straw man after the other you knock down as the religious are forced to prop them up so you can knock them down again.

Sorry but I think this is all silly shit on both sides....both sides claiming to know things they can't possibly know.

But I guess it is a teaching method that what you do is find out what people think then ridicule it if it does not fit with your view....that makes them eager to learn your POV I suppose....perhaps I should ridicule you and you would be more open to what I am saying.....or get mad at me and put me on ignore.

You claim that science has proven a negative.....and that is not what science does....so it can all be dismissed as science.

But to disagree with your story I will look foolish....and that is my greatest fear, to look foolish.

But we could take those things one by one and I could dispute them with science and it would still not be enough because any argument I would make would be foolish to someone who believes the matter is settled and only the fool would question it.

And I have had this conversation before...and it is always the same....I dispute some claim you make and you dismiss all the evidence I present and say I am just a creationist fool using creationist tools.

There IS evidence for the flood, in the sediment and elsewhere but you will and have dismissed any evidence that counters your claim to have proven the negative that the flood did not happen and that Noah did not exist and neither does any kind of god.
And that really is a problem when science adopts this kind of dogma because it attempts to squelch inquiry that does not match the official story....just as that same kind of dogma holds people in religion in check.....you must believe or you are liable to be called stupid. which it the ultimate insult to the academic..and so all adopt the same story and belief and fear deviation from it....same as religion....and so it becomes a war not an inquiry, and as we know, truth is the first casualty of war.

I don't know what the real truth is...and neither do you...but science should be curious not dogmatic and open minded not closed and willing to let the science speak for itself....no matter what it says....and not try to make theory into accepted fact and claim to know things they cannot know.

It's nothing short of insulting.

Science is not religion. Science is not dogma. Science does not encourage or reward conformity.

Academic scientists must compete with one another for grants, ergo there is real incentive for a scientist to set himself and his research apart from his peers by proving them wrong. You speak as if there's some cabal of scientists hiding out in an ivory tower somewhere, slapping each other on the back while raving about how right they all are. The fact of the matter is this: science is cutthroat, and no one is more critical of a scientist than another scientist of the same field.

The fact that certain theories - such as evolution - have endured throughout the years speaks not to a "scientific dogmatism", but to the evidential strength of these theories.

That aside, allow me to address a few other problems with your thinking:

1) Science isn't concerned with truth, but fact. If it is truth you're interested in, we should be discussing philosophy.

2) Knock it off with this "I have the evidence but I'm not going to present it because you're not going to believe it anyway" poisoning-the-well crap. If you have the evidence, then present it.

3) No, you can't test a negative assertion. However, with the abject dearth of credible evidence suggesting a one-time global flood makes it permissible to say things like "there was no global flood" in casual conversation. If you want to be a semantic nitpicker, then the properly scientific way to address the flood claim is this: "There is no evidence of a global flood".

So the saying goes....but heat always comes when faced with critical thinking.

And yes science is all about critical thinking....but academia don't like it much if you contradict their theories...which is human...and scientist are human after all and many have big egos.

But I know what happens if I produce evedence....you then will say it is bogus and has been thoroughly debunked....(they always say thoroughly and I don't know why)....then I have to prove the evidence is evidence which I can't because it has been debunked and so does not exist.
Then I present another piece and you do the same to that....and bottom line you control what evidence is real and what evidence is not...and nothing I present is.

Yep it is a war of the intellect...and no one learns from it and no one wins....and every one must chose up sides or piss them all off.

I can't believe you found anyone to argue with you. It's a riot! Now tell the truth...this is an act. The give away was the "war of the intellect".
Good job!

I am not sure if that is good or bad considering I am the one who is critical of your thinking....Anyone can use critical thinking on those that disagree with the established thought...the real critical thinking is when you think outside the box and are not afraid to do it

But thanks for your approval.

Wild speculation and reason are two different things. But you knew that you wiley satirist! I'll bet you could write a book. Keep up the good work!

It is possible to produce predictions from the flood hypothesis eg Genetic bottlenecks, sedimentary deposits, erosion features, mass extinctions of the types I describe. Your claims are dismissed because they are based on ignorance and, possibly deliberate, misinterpretation.

Now read what I said not what you would have liked me to have said. You claim that there is evidence of a massive worldwide flood in sedimentary deposits (which is a religiously inspired delusion); what I said on the nature of sedimentation was:

Of saying I am ignorant because I have a different hypothesis than you, and sense it disagree with you it must be formed from ignorance.
And I had never heard of Eric Hovind cause I am not a creationist...never have been...and my hypothesis is not based on anything they have said.
If I had to pick a person most influential in my hypothesis was Vallitosky after reading "Worlds in Collision"....he opened my eyes to new possibilities to explain things with.
For instance if a dark body or some small planet came into our universe and passed close to the earth it would cause cataclysms on the earth....and so a crack started in the earth crust in the deep sea and that crack fractured the vast deposits of methane hydrates that caused a big tsunami like wave thousands of feet high wash over the continents and sense most of humanity perished except for a few, who told the stories that we now call myths.
And by the way when methane hydrates fracture they expand the volume of watter greatly....so the flood waters would stay around a while as the methane escaped into the air.
That crack exists and so does evidence of sedimentation from it....but you will not hear it cause you are locked in a battle with Christians who make easy targets for ridicule.

No science does not claim incontrovertible truth ....People do however and claim that science is doing it....and they become just as unyielding as the Christian fundamentalist they are at war with.
Every word in the bible must be proven not true....not a thing can be yielded to the Christian fundies...everything about the bible must be discredited and if anyone deviates from that they must be fundies too or complete idiots.
And the Fundies know their place in this game....and they use it to convince their following that Science is full of the evil ones and science should be disregarded completely.....it is the perfect game...never ending and rewards both sides with feelings of righteousness.....and the results is that people are made stupider on both sides.

Citing "Vallitosky" as being "a person most influential in my hypothesis" puts you so far down the credibility ladder that you'll not likely ever climb out again. Leaving aside laughable grammar, it's Velikovsky, dude. That you can't even spell the name of your "most influential" person right makes me wonder if you've actually read a word of what he wrote, let alone been able to examine it critically. Even leaving that aside, his hypotheses have been so thoroughly discredited that no sane and remotely knowledgeable person gives them any credence whatsoever. Yeah, yeah..we know...there's EVIDENCE in favor of them, right? No, there isn't. Not a shred that passes even the most superficial critical examination.

Having a "different" hypothesis does not give that hypothesis equal standing, not even when you wahwahwah about the rigidity of science and our unwillingness to consider the evidence you won't even present.

That is why I used Vallatosky...It was a sure thing....but I did expect more to swoop down on me though.

But it is an absolute thing....not a shred of evidence....and any shred produced is well debunked....I know I know...had this conversation so many times I know it by heart...I cannot win ever cause you have it all covered completely with your righteousness of science programed debunking....you always win.

over lack of evidence. Your claims fall into the latter category, so yes...you lose.

And you're tiresome. Have fun in your little fantasy world.

the bible makes extraordinary claims about supernatural events. "Every word in the bible must be proven not true....not a thing can be yielded to the Christian fundies...everything about the bible must be discredited and if anyone deviates from that they must be fundies too or complete idiots." not so: the uncontroversial facts related in the bible are passed over in favor of the extraordinary claims. the bible got it right that egypt used to have pharaohs no big deal. the big deal is that moses parted the ocean with his magic stick or that jesus walked on water. the bible discredits itself.

Just as there was no Troy because Homer said Achilles was the spawn of a god that left him with a bad heal....oh that's right Troy was real...The Iliad and Odyssey discredited itself.
What does that tell us, but that what we think of as myth has it's basis in truth.

That Troy existed is not evidence that every word in The Iliad is true.

That not everything is true in anything dealing with a long gone past....and I would not expect the bible to be any different.
The Iliad does not have to be all true for Troy to have existed....the Bible does not have to be all true for the flood to have happened....same rules should apply.

Any first year student of geology would find there to be no "evidence" of a flood that was worldwide.

Learning what is evidence, (and what is not), and how that evidence can either confirm or negate an hypothesis is what learning SCIENCE is about. Perhaps you can start there.

Belief in any existent hypothesis is not equivalent to the validity of that hypothesis.

In this specific case, you have decided to believe in the hypothesis of a worldwide flood without bothering to examine any of the evidence, you have chosen to believe in it, simply because it is in the Bible.

Or is that a proven fact in your mind?....that somehow you proved the negative.

And you have chosen to believe that such a flood could not happen, and so anyone that thinks it might needs to be schooled at the basic levels so that they will come into line with your way of thinking....cause your way of thinking is the right way....and your evidence is the good stuff and all other evidence that might contradict it just does not exist....there is NO evidence you say... none what soever.....
I can't tell you how many times I have heard the exact argument before on this....I have come to believe that it is taught somewhere and people just learn it by route....and it is always NO evidence, as if weak evidence or little evidence would blow the whole thing up.
Well maybe it would....I sense insecurity when I hear such things.

And welcome to DU.

Santa came down your chimney last Christmas Eve, it didn't happen!!!!!!!!

Nothing happened to show he was there, nothing happened to show your living room got more gifts than it had the night before.

Santa didn't arrive. The flood never happened. Equal lack of evidence.

Why is this such a difficult concept for people who pretend to be rational human beings to take in? Why are you so invested in the flood but not in believing Santa came down your chimney? Both of them are nice fantasies, and good fairy tales !! Neither of them have an ounce of evidence to support them.

Why would someone as well educated as yourself be so willing to dismiss one as a fairy tale yet so adamant to defend the other tale? Is there something deep down in you that finds one fairy tale harder to give up than the other one? THAT'S the real question you should be asking yourself, I already know the answer for me, your answers may differ from mine.

First you make statements that are patently NOT true by any measure of rational reasoning....like there is NO evidence what soever....you must know deep down that cannot be true and is not a true statement.

And then you compare it to Santa Clause coming down the chimney....talk about false equivalency, that is right up there with the best of them.

When I hear shit like that you loose credibility with me...those are things ideologues use to counter arguments with....absolute and suggestions that you might not be right in the head unless you believe like you do....or stupid
And by the way I am self educated...and from what I see when having discussions like this it might be a good thing....I have not been badgered into total acceptance of the official story.

Just what evidence do you have that supports a whole-earth flood hypothesis?

this is a subject that I was interested in over 30 years ago when we got our information from books.
But as I have found before that any things I could use to show as evidence will be impeached with the statement "that is what the creationist use"....and so nothing I could say I presume has not been used by them and therefore impeached. (as in any war the enemy cannot say or do anything right)
And sure enough when I search for something I learned way back when it will lead to a creationist web site and frankly this is not important enough to me to spend the time trying to look for evidence that they have not used...
And I know even if I find it somewhere else you will say it proves nothing and is not credible...Even if the source is credible it can be dismissed by saying that someone else has debunked it.
So it is just a run around in circles waste of time.

I mean, considering that there are literal mountains of evidence that do support the current geological model that does not include a world-wide flood due to the evidence contradicting the possibility of a world-wide flood, why do you persist in proclaiming its authenticity?

On what basis do you assert that the current model is incorrect and favor the world-wide flood?

Cause you have no evidence ether unless you are a archaeologist that has dug something up....you rely on those who do dig things up for your evidence.
But there is evidence that goes unseen by you and the public, that shows something different...but you chose not to consider it because it does not fit with the uniformitarianism favored by academia.

But let me be clear...I am not proclaiming anything but my willingness to be open minded....I don't think we know at all the true history of the earth or the men and creatures that live on it...and will never know it as long as ideology trumps real scientific inquire...and that applies to both sides.
Science should have no part in ideological wars....but it does.

Stop talking about this evidence and how it is being suppressed, and instead simply produce it. I will, with an open mind, review it, weigh it for adherence to the scientific method, and determine for myself how valid it is.


Just produce the evidence.

It's false when you state that "I am not proclaiming anything but my willingness to be open minded"; you say, in the very same post, that "there is evidence that goes unseen by you and the public, that shows something different". And then you berate us for not considering this secret evidence that we have not seen. And you still refuse to tell us what this evidence is.

Your posts in this thread are not even logically consistent, let alone your basis for thinking there was some global flood. I've looked at the occurrence of oyster beds on the Gulf coast; although it's not clear how that pointed to a global flood, I think we've seen that the actual thickness is compatible with uniformitarianism, and formation since the end of the last glacial period. You keep claiming that anything will be dismissed as 'coming from creationists'; but we've already shown that's not the case.

It is unseen because you don't want to look at it.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. 15 Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. 16 Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes: According to Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass." 17

"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 17
Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in that massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state.

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone, yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) "younger" sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19

There are plenty of examples of bones that get found covered in sediment, which is the first stage needed - being covered, they are unlikely to be disturbed by animals, and so mineralization of the bones in their original shape can start. No flood is going to accelerate the process after that.

As an example, you can have Lindow Man - a man murdered and dropped into a pool in a bog about 2000 years ago, and recently found by peat cutters - in other words, his bones (plus other hard to digest material, like some skin and hair) had been covered in sediment, which formed the peat. No catastrophic flood (or volcano) involved. If that peat had been further compressed, and mineralization had time to happen, you could get a fossil from it.

Clastic dikes may well be associated with a local flood or earthquake. They do not, however, indicate a global flood or similar catastrophe. I don't think any geologist says there can be no evidence of any earthquake or flood ever found anywhere. And they do not cause any problems for geology. 'Uniformitarianism' doesn't say that every rock formation has to be formed at exactly the same rate, day after day, year after year, forever; it says that they form from processes that we can see examples of, somewhere, today - sediment deposition, volcanic eruption, and so on. But not a completely different "global flood to a depth of many miles" scenario, which requires impossible sudden huge movements of whole continents, or different laws of physics.

Answer: nothing, other than a Bible that you choose to believe in, other than Santa Claus.

Equal Equilancy....you show no evidence of other than equivalency.

First Santa has nothing to do with the bible....never has.
But it is a myth that is based on a real person....just as most myths are.
But I really laugh at this;
"Education requires someone else to pronounce you so."
And if this is what you believe there is no point in continuing this conversation...you have just declared yourself to be blinded by institutionalism....and I will not tell you to seek treatment for that because it apparently is terminal and cronic/

however the flood claims are extraordinary, not mundane.

And floods are extraordinary?
But claiming you know the origins of man is not?....or claim you know that no catastrophic event ever took place on the earth is not extraordinary?....or that you know the story is a myth?
But it all comes back to the point that you make the rules about what is extraordinary and what is acceptable evidence....and funny thing....all that is acceptable is what you believe is true, and that which you don't believe is not.

And with those rules you can run people around in circles forever.

but yeah a global flood for which there is no credible evidence is up there as extraordinary claim along with walking on water.

i can muddy the water too -- if we are to bother taking noah story seriously we should be taking the water-walking miracle seriously as well, no?

and yet the walking on water claim is obviously preposterous and mythological. why should worldwide flood for which there is no evidence be considered a stronger claim than the former miracle?

Instead of the obvious untruth of NO evidence what so ever....so that is progress.

But just because the bible says something you don't think can happen dose not mean that there is no historical basses for some of what is said...like I said before, most myths are based in some truth....the example I used before is the Iliad which is full of gods and heroes...but also the truth of Troy.
But what you are trying to do is say that if you reject one you must reject all, which is a mental trap for people....and not realistic.
And ironically or not it is the same position the fundies take...if you believe one you must believe it all....as opposed to your position that says if you doubt one you doubt it all...

Giving one instance does not mean that most myths are based in truth. You yourself are taking the position "if you believe one you must believe it all", unless you can show you've considered a wide range of myths, investigated them, and have shown that a majority are "based in truth".

Based on the examples I have given and human nature.
When people experience things they don't understand they tend to interpret them in ways they do....or as in the case of Homer interpret in the more exciting and popular story of the time about the Gods and Heroes.

The Jersey Devil, Big Foot, Rumpelstiltskin all very credible.

the flood hypothesis is better off without any evidence at all than the laughable so-called evidence we saw so far.

what i dont understand is really who cares? its such a far out theory with no credible evidence i dont think i'll give it another thought.

A world-wide flood is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to support that claim. What is the evidence, be it ordinary or extraordinary, that supports the claim of a world-wide flood?

Simply produce that evidence so we can have a look. A link will be fine.

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. 9 Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets. 9

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9 This strongly suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were uprooted and re-deposited there.

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France. Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access. One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition. Curiously a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a 'black swan’ in geological literature. Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of the relevant phenomena was never published. However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils. In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." 12

Are there any peer-reviewed and published papers on this?


And a quick google search shows that "Polystrate fossils" are not even a geological or archaeological term. Where does that term come from?

And if it is factual and accepted evidence by the geological community, how does that fit with the thousands of other pieces of evidence that does not support a world-wide flood?

But look it up on Wikipedia and you will see that geological community call them upright fossils...and that cracked me up cause it illustrates the silliness of it all.
The creationists want to give it some Latin name like Polystrate so that it sounds scientific and credable...and the other side avoids the Latin and calls it upright to diminish it's significance...

And how the evidence fits is what it is all about...learning the truth...but you don't do that by ignoring evidence that does not fit an ideology...science should never be about that...but it always is as it becomes institutionalized....human nature being what it is.

Did this part of the entry give you any pause?

Cause only the established scientific community can use Latin names perhaps?...those words only have meaning when used by the proper authorities?
But we agree...science is not an ideology...but my point is that ideology dose effect science and should not....and it has always been so...just look back in history....what was commonly accepted by the scientific community was dominated by religious beliefs until Darwin and the advent the new ideology that broke from it.

But the consensus of the community is just that...a consensus....and if you go by consensus then no claims WILL be tested if they already are convinced of the outcome....

The scientific method applies across the board and spans ideologies and biases. It is the only way we have that tells us what is factual and what is fantasy.

The empirical evidence is the fact that things do exist when you are dealing with the science of geology and archeology....and I suppose that is why you hear so many say "there is no evidence"
If you find a human skeleton in a coal mine that is empirical evidence that it's a skeleton in a coal mine...but it also raises a legitimate question of how it got there if the strata was made millions of years ago

Here is examples that I am sure you will call bullshit...And I have no idea whether it is a creationist web site or not cause it is the first time there for me...but then if it were to contradict your view it must be a creationist web site though right?
https://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/87

and if you are in the scientific community and your faith is that the bible is 100% bullshit and so no such thing like a flood could possibly exist then finding such things is troublesome....and the easy way is to just ignore them and ridicule anyone that asks questions or brings it up.....then point to the fact that no one payed attention so it must be bullshit.

And I suggest I am giving you critical thought, but you don't like it.

It a yes or no question. Either it does or it does not. From what I see and read, the scientific community says it does not, which is why it is dismissed.

If you are in disagreement with the findings of the rest of the scientific community that puts these claims to the test of the scientific method, nothing is stopping you or anyone else from performing your own scientific tests and putting the results and findings of your research to the second step in the process: Peer Review.

If it stands up to the peer review process, you just may be on to something. Good luck with that, for the claims you have put forward have already been tested and peer reviewed (in the few cases where this "evidence" got that far), and found to be less than credible. That is not my opinion on the evidence, it is the fact of the matter, that this evidence did not stand up to the scientific method.

You can call me names and disparage me as much as you want, but nothing will change the FACT that this "evidence" does not pass the test of the scientific method. And if you really do grasp the concepts at work in the scientific method, you would not be so quick to proclaim that this "evidence" is factual.

You want to convince me? Here is how. Show me where this "evidence" stands up to the scientific method.

That's it. That's all it will take. That's as open as any rational mind can be. The ball is in your court. Where you go from here is up to you. Will it be science, facts, and reality, or will be creationism, biblical nonsense, and conspiracy?

Your test of what is true and not is dependent on the consensus of the community.....mine is not.

But when you think I am calling you names and disparaging you personally then it is time to end this....cause I surly never intended it in that way and it is a signal that no progress can be made.

so good luck.

a game.

As I said, there is NO geological evidence for a world-wide flood in the last 6000 years. None whatsoever.

You claim not to be a biblical literalist, yet with every one of your posts, that's exactly what you show yourself to be.

There is evidence you just don't like it.
And I show myself to be no such thing.
Now why should anyone take YOU seriously?

Be specific.

Seems a google serch would put that one to rest.

The person making the claim is supposed to back up the claim. YOU are the one insisting you have evidence of a world-wide flood. So let's see this alleged evidence. Put up or shut up.

I am hear to critique the system....and the system is biased and not fair and driven by ideology not science.

And what I am insisting on is that there IS EVEDENCE and to say there is none is blatantly untrue.

But I know the routine...I present something and you debunk it and once you debunk one thing it is settled and you claim victory....I present something else and you tell me that now I am making myself look foolish and that I need to go back to school and learn that it has all been debunked and therefore there is no evidence.

But if you have proof that the flood could never have happened then you should put it up and show it...I would be interested for sure...cause I don't know that.

Translation: "I cannot come up with any evidence for a world-wide flood (even though I said I had some) so I am running away from your demand that I present the evidence I say I have, and am blaming you for my refusal to present the evidence I say I have."

Or, to put that more another wayt, "Waaa! You're being mean to me, asking me to give you evidence I say I have! How dare you demand that I support my allegations!"

Or yet another way, "I have evidence to support my point, but you are unworthy of it. Thus, it is entirely your fault that I do not present it."

Grow up. Oh, and don't ask me to prove a negative.

OK I won't....so don't claim that science knows one.

I don't need or care to provide anything...you have a computer look it up.

But translated it comes down to play the game with me....you set it up and I knock it down....then I feel superior.

Science, or rather the Scientific Method, has shown that the earth's geology is layered, and that those layers took millions of years each to get there, and that within the layers are fossils that correspond to the organisms that lived during that time.

When it is claimed that the entire Earth was covered in a planetary flood of, biblical proportions, the evidence for that hypothesis is so small and unconvincing, that there is no way it can refute the widely supported evidence of layering. So the flood hypothesis is dismissed. Not because evidence is being suppressed, but because there is not enough evidence to support the flood hypothesis.

So if you want to continue to believe that the planet was covered in a world-wide flood, you need to provide enough evidence to not only to thoroughly support your flood hypothesis, but to refute the theories that show something completely different happened.

And you should do just that! Science relies on people just like you, who refuse to accept what others are saying, so they go out and prove everyone wrong. THAT is how science progresses human knowledge. Through people just like you.

No get out there and PROVE your hypothesis, and in the process, prove the rest of to be suckers. That alone should make it worth the effort.

Good luck.

All that I believe is that neither side in this has the truth, and never will as long as they are biased by their ideology.

But yep there are layers.....and maybe it took millions of years for them to form....except where there has been a great flood...where sediment it deposited rapidly...the way most fossils are formed....then you could have sediment a hundred feet thick that does not represent millions of years....and those places exist all over the planet....uniformitarianism makes no logical sense when we have seen the power of catastrophic events like the quakes and tsunamis and what that did....and from some big but not that unusual quake...yet people cling to it because it is the opposite of the young earth theory of the Christians....and so it must be the opposite and uniformitarianism provides that proof.

Well I expect no resolution to this difference we have...cause this is a battle between the atheist and the Christians and neither will admit to being wrong cause their whole world is built around that believe in the reality or the non reality of god.

So good luck to you too.

You win. I give up.

And for you to say, as you did, "I have evidence to support my allegation which I refuse to give you, and it's your fault that I won't" is both cowardly and childish.

Besides which, we all know that you have no evidence.

This kind of quantitative fact tends to stop the "global worldwide flood" adherents dead in their tracks.

Then, they have to claim all the water came from someplace else, inside the planet, or from outer space, (where temps are below freezing as low as 10 miles universally above Earth's surface), or somewhere else, perhaps from within the holy word of God in the Bible, itself.

How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

Very astounding but true graphical representation of the total amount of water, including that within our bodies, that within lakes and rivers, that in the oceans, as compared to the total surface of the planet.

This graphic will blow the minds of most people as being totally unbelievable. How could so little water support so much life on the planet, and how could the graphic be accurate? But it is!

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

here it is for those too lazy to click the link: