Another issue is where did they dispose of all their "shit" (animal and human shit). Where is the shalanga?

So what was the purpose of destroying the earth with a flood assuming the story were true? Why destroy all of humanity and leave out the devil who was responsible for leading them astray in the first place according to the story. After destroying humanity people continued to sin and rebel against this deity. So what was the purpose of the flood? what did it accomplish?

Can someone please address the main issue, the purpose of the flood.

mazaje:



OK baby I will read with my eyes open. . . . . . . .


What is this? can you even prove the mythical flood you subscribe to

this guy- no let mr tpia catch you oh.

I no wan lose this second mr tpia oh. The first one vanished and I have no idea where he is.

as per the rest- knock yourself out sugar.

sarmy:

Can someone please address the main issue, the purpose of the flood.

I wonder oh.

toneyb:



I don't have to provide scientific evidence against the mythical flood because a fellow christian has already provided that evidence which is the hydrodynamic sorting, there are more than enough scientific evidence that proves that the flood only happened in the pages of the bible according to mazaje.

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? [/b]Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. ([b]the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

This is my own historical reason to believe that the flood is a myth because it is reported only in the bible and other civilizations that were keeping records at that time did not mention it at all.

when will this guy start to think for himself and stop referencing ridiculous articles? . . .how many times have u carried out this shameless excercise?

noetic15:

when will this guy start to think for himself and stop referencing ridiculous articles? . . .how many times have u carried out this shameless excercise?

The person that referenced ridiculous articles that do not even make any sense is you. You referenced a NON scientific source as scientific evidence for a global flood, a reference that NO geologist on earth agrees with. I told you to name just ONE geologist that agrees with you that "polystrate fossil" is a scientific evidence for a global flood, please name just one geologist that agrees with your ridiculous position. You can begin by providing your own personal evidence for a global flood. I will provide my personal evidence against it and we will compare and see whose position coincides with reality. No copying other peoples arguments just provide your own personal evidence for a global flood and I will provide my own personal evidence against it. No need for any scientific evidence since you don't have any besides hydrodynamic sorting proves hands down that a global flood did not occur.

toneyb:

The person that referenced ridiculous articles that do not even make any sense is you. You referenced a NON scientific source as scientific evidence for a global flood, a reference that NO geologist on earth agrees with. I told you to name just ONE geologist that agrees with you that "polystrate fossil" is a scientific evidence for a global flood, please name just one geologist that agrees with your ridiculous position. You can begin by providing your own personal evidence for a global flood. I will provide my personal evidence against it and we will compare and see whose position coincides with reality. No copying other peoples arguments just provide your own personal evidence for a global flood and I will provide my own personal evidence against it. No need for any scientific evidence since you don't have any besides hydrodynamic sorting proves hands down that a global flood did not occur.

I simply asked ur illiterate self and mazaje if u understood what "polystrate fossils meant"? . . , . both of u declined to answer and when I did make an analysis. . . u both started screaming foul

A. WHAT DO U UNDERSTAND BY POLYSTRATE FOSSILS?
B. HOW DID THEY COME INTO EXISTENCE?
C. WHATS THE BASIS OF THEIR PRESENT LOCATION?

answer questions for once and stop referncing ridiculous articles

noetic15:

I simply asked your illiterate self and mazaje if u understood what "polystrate fossils meant"? . . ,  . both of u declined to answer and when I did make an analysis. . . u both started screaming foul

What is this? Who really is the illiterate amongst us? You who shamelessly provided a non scientific evidence and claim it is an evidence for your mythical flood or me that provided actual scientific evidence (hydrodynamic sorting)that shows that the mythical flood never happened?

A. WHAT DO U UNDERSTAND BY POLYSTRATE FOSSILS?

It is a term is used for fossils which intersect several beds (layers), usually in sedimentary rocks they also extend through more than one geological stratum.

B. HOW DID THEY COME INTO EXISTENCE?

Scientist(geologist) have provided so many explanations for their existence. In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors. For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.

C. WHATS THE BASIS OF THEIR PRESENT LOCATION?

According to scientists, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous examples, which have been found at numerous locations, of polystrate, upright, trees completely buried within either late Holocene or historic sediments. These polystrate trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized. Unfossilized, late Pleistocene polystrate trees have been found buried beneath glacial deposits within North America along the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet. These polystrate forests were created when the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet locally dammed valleys. As a result, meltwater lakes filled these valleys and submerged forests within them. Sediments released by the melting of the adjacent ice sheet rapidly filled these lakes, which quickly buried and preserved the submerged forests lying within them. One forest of in situ, 24,000 year-old unfossilized polystrate trees was exposed by excavations for a quarry near Charleston, Illinois.

answer questions for once and stop referncing ridiculous articles 

I have answered them can you name just one geologist that agrees with your illiterate  position that polystrate fossils were caused as a result of the mythical flood? Please name just one geologist that agrees with your shameful and illiterate position.

Noetic please can you explain to me why the "Polystrate fossils" aren't all the same age and why they aren't in the same layer which is what one would expect if they were caused by a single worldwide event. Please go and do some learning before coming here to embarrass yourself please. In addition to what I have written there are "Polystrate fossils" that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently.

sarmy:

Can someone please address the main issue, the purpose of the flood.

The mythical flood was a fiasco because the mythical being called satan was not killed in the flood, he survived it and continued to cause havoc according to the bible. Why will the biblegod bother with opening windows in the firmament, bursting the waters of the deep and all that rain not to mention the difficulty of building and getting all those animals into the mysterious ark? In genesis 1, all what the biblegod had to do was to speak things into existence according to the story, so the biblegod could easily have spoken what he didn't want out of existence since the story claims that he can do all things. He can speak them into and out of existence.

Genesis 7 might then have read:-

Then God said, "Let every living thing that moves on the earth perishbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Let everything on dry land that has the breath of life in its nostrils die." And it was so. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah and his family were left, and the livestock that were with him and the pairs of selected wild animals wherever they lived.

Then there's that odd bit about the biblegod liking the smell of burning flesh and the rainbow?

toneyb:

What is this? Who really is the illiterate amongst us? You who shamelessly provided a non scientific evidence and claim it is an evidence for your mythical flood or me that provided actual scientific evidence (hydrodynamic sorting)that shows that the mythical flood never happened?


It is a term is used for fossils which intersect several beds (layers), usually in sedimentary rocks they also extend through more than one geological stratum.

good to know u have a definition.

Scientist(geologist) have provided so many explanations for their existence. In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors. For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.

is there anywhere above where u mentioned the source of existence of polystrate fossils? . . . . I cant see anything above that states that.

According to scientists, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous examples, which have been found at numerous locations, of polystrate, upright, trees completely buried within either late Holocene or historic sediments. These polystrate trees demonstrate that conventional geologic processes are capable of burying and preserving trees in an upright position such that in time, they will become fossilized. Unfossilized, late Pleistocene polystrate trees have been found buried beneath glacial deposits within North America along the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet. These polystrate forests were created when the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet locally dammed valleys. As a result, meltwater lakes filled these valleys and submerged forests within them. Sediments released by the melting of the adjacent ice sheet rapidly filled these lakes, which quickly buried and preserved the submerged forests lying within them. One forest of in situ, 24,000 year-old unfossilized polystrate trees was exposed by excavations for a quarry near Charleston, Illinois.

All they have done is simply to express an opinion that has not been proven. why should geologists express an opinion on a term (polystrate fossils) u claimed they considered unacceptable?  does that make any sense? are u confused? 

Do u mind educating me on how else the polystrate fossils got to their present locations since they have no roots?

I have answered them can you name just one geologist that agrees with your illiterate  position that polystrate fossils were caused as a result of the mythical flood? Please name just one geologist that agrees with your shameful and illiterate position.

google would be very useful for your search,  . .go ahead and consult google.

toneyb:

Noetic please can you explain to me why the "Polystrate fossils" aren't all the same age and why they aren't in the same layer which is what one would expect if they were caused by a single worldwide event. Please go and do some learning before coming here to embarrass yourself please. In addition to what I have written there are "Polystrate fossils" that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently.

a. what mechanism was used to detect the age of polystrate fossils? is this mechanism porous when it comes to elements that have lived in water?

b. why do the polystrate fossils found in Australia have no root? what happened to their roots?

toneyb:

The mythical flood was a fiasco because the mythical being called satan was not killed in the flood, he survived it and continued to cause havoc according to the bible. Why will the biblegod bother with opening windows in the firmament, bursting the waters of the deep and all that rain not to mention the difficulty of building and getting all those animals into the mysterious ark? In genesis 1, all what the biblegod had to do was to speak things into existence according to the story, so the biblegod could easily have spoken what he didn't want out of existence since the story claims that he can do all things. He can speak them into and out of existence.

Genesis 7 might then have read:-

Then God said, "Let every living thing that moves on the earth perishbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Let everything on dry land that has the breath of life in its nostrils die." And it was so. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah and his family were left, and the livestock that were with him and the pairs of selected wild animals wherever they lived.

Then there's that odd bit about the biblegod liking the smell of burning flesh and the rainbow?

I would like to read a good response to this issue, the purpose of the flood

Adam and Eve should have been deleted and a new set of people created rather than killing several babies including animals etc with flood without them asking to be born or created.

If some of the stories in the bible are real, they seem to project God wrongly.

mantraa:

Another question: What did they use for lighting inside the ark? To use oil lamps with all that methane around would have explosive results.

They used Floodlights 

noetic15:

good to know u have a definition.

is there anywhere above where u mentioned the source of existence of polystrate fossils? . . . . I cant see anything above that states that.

You are a VERY dishonest person, once your ignorance and dishonesty has been exposed you come up with your meaningless one liners that only show how dishonest you are. Here it is  once again. [b]Scientist(geologist) have provided so many explanations for their existence. In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors. For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.
[/b]

All they have done is simply to express an opinion that has not been proven. why should geologists express an opinion on a term (polystrate fossils) u claimed they considered unacceptable?  does that make any sense? are u confused? 

How has it not been proven? Has your own ridicolous lies been proven? you are yet to name ONE geologist that agrees with your ignorant and lying position, Can you name just ONE geologist that agrees with your position that polystrate fossils were formed as a result of a global flood? Geologist were only responding to the creationist lies that polystrate fossils came about as a reslut of global flood. Let me repeat what I have written before can you explain to me why the "Polystrate fossils" aren't all the same age and why they aren't in the same layer which is what one would expect if they were caused by a single worldwide event. Please go and do some learning before coming here to embarrass yourself please. In addition to what I have written there are "Polystrate fossils" that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently.

Do u mind educating me on how else the polystrate fossils got to their present locations since they have no roots?

Must you keep disgracing yourself? In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.

google would be very useful for your search,  . .go ahead and consult google.

Are you putting your tail inbetween your legs

noetic15:

a. what mechanism was used to detect the age of polystrate fossils? is this mechanism porous when it comes to elements that have lived in water?

b. why do the polystrate fossils found in Australia have no root? what happened to their roots?

Please go and educate yourself and stop displaying your ignorance on a public forum its very clear that you did not even read my post you were too much in a hurry to display your ignorance and usual stupidity.

Can somebody tell me how the Plant kingdom survived the floods. Plant could not have survived the salt water as a result of a global flood. Noah would have needed to take the seed of every seeding plant and a sample of every seedless plant.

Or maybe God recreated all the plants.

wirinet:

Can somebody tell me how the Plant kingdom survived the floods. Plant could not have survived the salt water as a result of a global flood. Noah would have needed to take the seed of every seeding plant and a sample of every seedless plant.

Or maybe God recreated all the plants.

Most myths were not written to make any sense at all.

toneyb:




You are a VERY dishonest person, once your ignorance and dishonesty has been exposed you come up with your meaningless one liners that only show how dishonest you are. Here it is  once again. [b]Scientist(geologist) have provided so many explanations for their existence. In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors. For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.
[/b]

How has it not been proven? Has your own ridicolous lies been proven? you are yet to name ONE geologist that agrees with your ignorant and lying position, Can you name just ONE geologist that agrees with your position that polystrate fossils were formed as a result of a global flood? Geologist were only responding to the creationist lies that polystrate fossils came about as a reslut of global flood. Let me repeat what I have written before can you explain to me why the "Polystrate fossils" aren't all the same age and why they aren't in the same layer which is what one would expect if they were caused by a single worldwide event. Please go and do some learning before coming here to embarrass yourself please. In addition to what I have written there are "Polystrate fossils" that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently.

Must you keep disgracing yourself? In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.

Are you putting your tail inbetween your legs

Can anyone read and make sense of what this deluded goon is saying? 

1. what evidence supports the ridiculous claims u foolishly stated above as arguments from Rydel and Waldron? who buried this fossils? how were they buried? when?
The process involved in the formation of this fossils as u claim. . .was it scientific? . . . . , does this EMPTY head understand simple english? 

2. Can this deluded Ignorant hunchback show any evidence or research material to suggest that polystrate fossils in Nova Scotia developed where they are without having roots?
can he tell us why it is impossible for this polystrate fossils to have been transported by a global flood? what explanation does the IGNORAMUS have on the numerous locations of the flood?
does this guy have a brain at all? 

3. can this empty head in very simple words . . .for the third time in asking. . .tell me why polystrate fossils found have no root? . ,  . .does your last post make any sense?  does it give any scientific insight on the rootless nature of polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia? are u sick? 

4. how does the support of a geologist support ur ridiculous assertions?

wirinet:

Can somebody tell me how the Plant kingdom survived the floods. Plant could not have survived the salt water as a result of a global flood. Noah would have needed to take the seed of every seeding plant and a sample of every seedless plant.

Or maybe God recreated all the plants.

a. how did the plants come into existence in the first place?

b. does ALL rain water contain salt?

i laugh in shorthand

noetic15:

a. how did the plants come into existence in the first place?

b. does ALL rain water contain salt?

The same old Noetic we know, spewing ignorance, insults, one liners and anything his fingers can type, just to defend his untenable dogmatic position.

So you do not know that majority, (over 90%) of the water on earth is Salt water, and that salt water covers about 70% of the earth's surface. So if the surface of the whole earth should be covered by water, you expect it to be fresh water?

Please always think before you hit the reply button

wirinet:

The same old Noetic we know, spewing ignorance, insults, one liners and anything his fingers can type, just to defend his untenable dogmatic position.

So you do not know that majority, (over 90%) of the water on earth is Salt water, and that salt water covers about 70% of the earth's surface. So if the surface of the whole earth should be covered by water, you expect it to be fresh water?

Please always think before you hit the reply button

Same old wirinet. . . . .always running round in circles.

1. u still have not told me how the plants came into existence? . . , .if u can answer this, then we can assume that all plants died during the flood and then find out how come we have plants today.

2. does ALL rain water contain salt? . . . . NO. . . . .could a saltless water/flood have killed the plants? . . .yes. . , . do plants grow sporadically?. . . . , YES YES YES

U must b completely ignorant 2 believe d flood myth. Doesnt dis story make u question intelligence of dis biblical god.
Think about the story itself, does it honestly make any sense 2 u? Wit d measurement of d ark in d bible, imagine d possiblity of 2 of every species of animals we have in dis world.
Anywayz, wat are clean & unclean animals. Cuz noah tuk 7 of d clean & 2 of d unclean.
Dat story is pure fantasy.

Another issue is where did they dispose of all their "shit" (animal and human shit). Where is the shalanga?

good question oh.

IDINRETE:

Another issue is where did they dispose of all their "shit" (animal and human shit). Where is the shalanga?

Inside your wide-ass mouth.

no wonder idinrete is full of shit.

bawomolo:

no wonder idinrete is full of shit.

Lol. . . . .Ha!

noetic15:

Same old wirinet. . . . .always running round in circles.

1. u still have not told me how the plants came into existence? . . ,  .if u can answer this, then we can assume that all plants died during the flood and then find out how come we have plants today.

2. does ALL rain water contain salt? . . . . NO. . . . .could a saltless water/flood have killed the plants? . . .yes. . ,  . do plants grow sporadically?. . . . ,  YES YES YES

Senseless arguments, 

This thread is not about how plant came into existence but about the possibility of the Noah's story being true.  If the story did not make provision for plants that exists today, that is an evidence that the story is not true.

Yes rain water does not contain salt and yes saltless water will kill most plants, so what is your argument. What do you mean by plants growing sporadically, you mean they spring up from nothing? Please explain.

Furthermore where did the extra water that flooded the whole earth a few thousand meters above see level come from? The amount of water that is on earth is constant, and what happens in terms of rain is that water is evaporated from the oceans and deposited on land as rain. To increase the sea level by that account to cover mountains would require water from outer space. And then the increased water will never return but change our sea level for ever unless it was pumped back into space.

As was mentioned earlier, it would have been easier and more cost effective for God to just have decreed everything but Noah and family out of existence and recreated them again a day after. Afterall he created the universe and all that it contained in 6 days by decrees.

noetic15:

Can anyone read and make sense of what this deluded goon is saying? 

1. what evidence supports the ridiculous claims u foolishly stated above as arguments from Rydel and Waldron? who buried this fossils? how were they buried? when?
The process involved in the formation of this fossils as u claim. . .was it scientific? . . . . , does this EMPTY head understand simple english? 

The process is scientific, geologist have explained that there are different geological explanations for the different types of tree trunks(polystrate fossils ) we see around for example the in case of the polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest, which occur buried within the lahars and other volcanic deposits comprising the Lamar River Formation, the periods of rapid sedimentation are regarded by them to be the result of explosive volcanism.This type of volcanism generates and deposits large quantities of loose volcanic material as a blanket over the slope of a volcano as happened during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Both during and for years after a period of volcanism occurs, lahars and normal stream activity wash this loose volcanic material downslope. These processes result in the rapid burial of large areas of the surrounding countryside beneath several meters of sediment as directly observed during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. As is the case of modern lahar deposits, the sedimentary layers containing polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest and the individual forests, which these polystrate trees comprise, are discontinuous and very limited in their areal extent.

2. Can this deluded Ignorant hunchback show any evidence or research material to suggest that polystrate fossils in Nova Scotia developed where they are without having roots?
can he tell us why it is impossible for this polystrate fossils to have been transported by a global flood? what explanation does the IGNORAMUS have on the numerous locations of the flood?
does this guy have a brain at all? 

First of all you have to name just ONE geologist that agrees that tree trunks(polystrate fossils) were caused by a global flood. There are polystrate fossils that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently. Please NAME JUST ONE geologist that agrees with your position and stop crying all over the place. The explanations for the numerous locations of the polystrate fossils is because some were cause by volcanoes(volcanic deposits), others were caused by Holocene, and others were caused by local floods that is why the polystrate are of DIFFERENT ages and lay in different sediments and strata if they were caused by a global flood they would all be of the same age and lay in the same strata.

3. can this empty head in very simple words . . .for the third time in asking. . .tell me why polystrate fossils found have no root? . ,  . .does your last post make any sense?  does it give any scientific insight on the rootless nature of polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia? are u sick? 

Again you keep displaying your ignorance because tree trunks (polystarte fossils) have been discovered with roots. Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon and Rygel have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. [/b]In case of polystrate fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists, —again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin— found that the polystrate fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which polystrate trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them Either pictures or diagrams of the [b]Yellowstone polystrate fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997)

4. how does the support of a geologist support your ridiculous assertions?

You first have to tell me how my assertions are ridiculous, trying away and crying at the same time will do you no good. Geologist are the ONLY scientist that are experts in this field, Name ONE geologist that agrees with your illiterate and shameful position and assertions.

wirinet:

Senseless arguments,

This thread is not about how plant came into existence but about the possibility of the Noah's story being true. If the story did not make provision for plants that exists today, that is an evidence that the story is not true.

Yes rain water does not contain salt and yes saltless water will kill most plants, so what is your argument. What do you mean by plants growing sporadically, you mean they spring up from nothing? Please explain.

Furthermore where did the extra water that flooded the whole earth a few thousand meters above see level come from? The amount of water that is on earth is constant, and what happens in terms of rain is that water is evaporated from the oceans and deposited on land as rain. To increase the sea level by that account to cover mountains would require water from outer space. And then the increased water will never return but change our sea level for ever unless it was pumped back into space.

As was mentioned earlier, it would have been easier and more cost effective for God to just have decreed everything but Noah and family out of existence and recreated them again a day after. Afterall he created the universe and all that it contained in 6 days by decrees.

Ridiculous rhetoric.

The bible asserts that all living creatures died after a flood of 40 days that took 150 days to dry off. the plants were not intended to survive.
The question is . . .how did this plants come into existence in the first place?

toneyb:

The process is scientific, geologist have explained that there are different geological explanations for the different types of tree trunks(polystrate fossils ) we see around for example the in case of the polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest, which occur buried within the lahars and other volcanic deposits comprising the Lamar River Formation, the periods of rapid sedimentation are regarded by them to be the result of explosive volcanism.This type of volcanism generates and deposits large quantities of loose volcanic material as a blanket over the slope of a volcano as happened during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Both during and for years after a period of volcanism occurs, lahars and normal stream activity wash this loose volcanic material downslope. These processes result in the rapid burial of large areas of the surrounding countryside beneath several meters of sediment as directly observed during the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. As is the case of modern lahar deposits, the sedimentary layers containing polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest and the individual forests, which these polystrate trees comprise, are discontinuous and very limited in their areal extent.

can u tender the evidences or notes taken after the formation of these polystrate fossils were formed in Nova Scotia? . . . .u claimed it is a scientific process, as such it must have been observed.
who observed it? when? where and how?

First of all you have to name just ONE geologist that agrees that tree trunks(polystrate fossils) were caused by a global flood. There are polystrate fossils that are forming outside Anchorage Alaska in the USA where the earthquake that occured in the 60s sank that section of forest into salt water. Trees are still standing, and they are being buried in layers of sediment as they stand presently. Please NAME JUST ONE geologist that agrees with your position and stop crying all over the place. The explanations for the numerous locations of the polystrate fossils is because some were cause by volcanoes(volcanic deposits), others were caused by Holocene, and others were caused by local floods that is why the polystrate are of DIFFERENT ages and lay in different sediments and strata if they were caused by a global flood they would all be of the same age and lay in the same strata.

Again you keep displaying your ignorance because tree trunks (polystarte fossils) have been discovered with roots. Geologists who have studied polystrate fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described polystrate fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon and Rygel have published detailed field sketches and pictures of polystrate tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. [/b]In case of polystrate fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists, —again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin— found that the polystrate fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which polystrate trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them Either pictures or diagrams of the [b]Yellowstone polystrate fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997)


You first have to tell me how my assertions are ridiculous, trying away and crying at the same time will do you no good. Geologist are the ONLY scientist that are experts in this field, Name ONE geologist that agrees with your illiterate and shameful position and assertions.

When will this empty head learn to answer simple questions . . ,
I am particularly interested in the polystrate fossils found in Nova Scotia. how come they have no roots? how did they get there? could they not have been transported by a global flood? why not? . . , . . .