[dr a]Is mass fossilization the usual sequel in the locale of a localized non-magical flood? Please provide evidence that this is the case.Well, Portillo has things backwards here. It appears that he just didn't stop to think things through. When he points out that we don't see fossils today but only in the past, clearly he is not thinking of everyday local floods but THE Flood, but what he actually SAYS refers only to local floods, and he's certainly wrong about them. Why is it that the evolutionists on the thread don't notice this discrepancy but just carry on as if he meant to say that local floods create fossils when clearly he didn't.
If not, then I would have no such expectation.[Portillo]Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past? Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.
Portillo's sloppy post is one of the problems at EvC that makes the discussion there a torture to read, but the answers to him just compound the torture.
By the time we get to Pressie the topic is already a torturous mess, but he manages to make it even more torturous.
SURELY Pressie could have figured out that Portillo isn't saying what he means. CLEARLY Portillo doesn't mean we don't FIND fossils today, he means they aren't FORMING today. Portillo should probably be put on probation until he can learn to say what he means, or be ejected from the debate for causing such confusion, but then the others by taking his confused message straight make things worse, and Pressie the worst of all.[portillo]Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past?We actually find fossils, all over the world, today. Someone is finding a fossil, somewhere in the world, as you sleep. Do you think that a finding remains of a mammoth counts as a fossil or not? It didn’t just happen in the past.
[Portillo]Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly.This isn't true, Portillo, it's just one major way that fossils occur and the Flood provided this condition for billions of them to be fossilized. With that condition no longer occurring we DON'T see many fossils forming today. You aren't thinking before you write. But Pressie just takes him straight because he's not thinking either:
Not true. Even Wiki can tell you that this is false.Actually Wiki agrees with what Portillo apparently MEANT to say. Obviously the exceptions are rare, and otherwise "for an organism to be fossilized, the remains NORMALLY need to be covered by sedimehnt as soon as possible."[Wiki I assume] Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Then you want to have a rational conversation with specialists on the subject and also tell them all that they all are wrong? There’s a very good phsycological word for this, you know?How about a word for what YOU are doing here? Something like "So consumed by taking offense he doesn't even know what he's taking offense at."
. In this case Pressie didn't even notice that it was not Portillo who said this, but Dr. Adequate, whom Portillo was quoting. That's what happens when you let your rage get the better of you. Also, while amber and freezing and the other "rare" forms of fossilization do occur, they aren't particularly relevant to the Flood. The preservation of mammoths MAY be related to the Flood but for this discussion it's of little importance. What is of relevance here is the fossils IN THE STRATA which were obviously laid down along with wet sediments quite rapidly and they are the VAST MAJORITY of fossils as well.[Portillo]If not, then I would have no such expectation.Ever thought of Amber, for example. No flood involved. You shouldn’t have any expectation. You know too little
Like Pompei I suppose. A whole different kind of fossil not all that common either by comparison with the fossils in the strata which exist in the billions. Why can't a creationist make the simple point that all those fossils in those strata look like they were laid down by a catastrophic Flood? It's a very simple point. True, Portillo garbled his post and perhaps doesn't sufficiently understand even what he was trying to say, but it's nuts for the evolutionists not to recognize what the creationist argument IS.[Portillo]Thats exactly what happens when a flood occurs. Have you ever wondered why we dont find fossils of animals today, only the past?No, you should wonder about this. Ever heard what is required for mineralization to occur? Not just a flood. It happens lots of ways. A flood could be the first step, not in all circumstances. Pyroclastic deposits for example. It happens often.
[Pressie]Well, the argument is that the fossils in the strata could only have been created by a worldwide Flood event. Nothing Pressie said even remotely touched on this standard creationist claim. He's more concerned to get all the t's cross and the i's dotted on behalf of his profession, even against a guy who couldn't get his argument stated clearly.
However, there’s no evidence for a global flood to have occurred in the last 10 000 years. So, I guess, your “argument” doesn’t even exist.
[Portillo] Thats because to be fossilised, an animal has to be laid down by water and buried quickly. Yeah, tell that to all those hundreds of thousands of specialists on the subject, who actually know what they are doing. Tell that to the guys who study amber, for example.My last few posts ought to demonstrate that Geology itself hasn't a clue what the difference is between fiction and fact. And Pressie, WE all know that you are not going to address the subject in any way that enhances the discussion but just have a tantrum every time a creationist dares to suggest geologists aren't God, however miserably inadequate his argument is.
Portillo, we all know that, it doesn't matter how many times you are shown to be incorrect, you'll never believe it. Other people can be distinguish fiction from facts, you know?