Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic

"That's why I put the word in quotes, duhh!"
--Just making sure you know this."If you could render your rambles into intelligible English it would help. And I have tiresomely explained **repeatedly** why you need to state your position. I have patiently explained **repeatedly** that science has been unable to find any evidence in 200 years that there was anything like a global flood."
--My comment is completely understandable, but it apparently is one that you have wanted to ignore for quite a while now. You must have not read the whole post before you commented, my 'position' is toward the bottom."You are the one saying that you disagree with 200 years of science. It is therefore **incumbent** upon you to make your case, not for me to restate 200 years of science's lack of evidence for a global flood."
--Who ever said I disagree with 200 years of scientific study? Huh? IT obviously wasn't me, that's what I thought. I use that study to support my position..."Besides, I have already offered half-a-dozen URLs that explain this to you in immense detail. I am so sorry that you are unable to grasp any of this, but this is your problem, not mine.
--Oh please! immense detail! Your going to make my head explode from all my laughing. If you think that is 'immense detail' you have never sunk your mind into a text-book of specific geologic concepts. Also, if you think that parroting a bunch of links on the board and then continuing to parrot that this means your hypothesis is hot-wash, then I don't know what to tell you. You don't list links, you list arguments. You've only done this once."If that isn't jargon and irrelevant blather, I don't know what is."
--There is much more of this in your posts than in mine so your just slapping yourself in the face..."1. State your position ("Flood deposits were Cambrian --> Tertiary" doesn't do it. It offers no indication of how the flood transpired - where the water came from, where it went, when the flood happened, etc)"
--I've stated most of my position in my last post after that segment, though regarding these other queries:--Where the water came from - Pre-flood polar ice caps.
--Where it went - post-flood ice caps.
--When it happend ~4500-->4800ya."2. Set out your evidences that support your claim that flies in the face of 200 years of science that there was a global flood."
--Your not going to get this, your only going to get an alternative. I'm not trying to claim that flood geology stomps on mainstream.. I also don't have a problem with admitting that we have more problems than mainstream."There was only one question and I answered it. The type of organism is irrelevent, since there is no organism that can meet the requirements of the quote:
[Snip]"
--Yes it is completely relevant! I don't have to have a new population created after each turbidite deposit. All you've done is parrot this quote and credulously and ignorantly accepted it. You have given nothing to support you. Yes I did have another question in post #20:

quote:

---

I greatly question whether a turbidity current with the resources only allotting for millimeter and centimeter depositional thicknesses isn't going to eliminate the aquatic world and require repopulation. You need more data here.
--How large are the burrows? Given the data presented in the article, they shouldn't be more than about 5cm. Burrowing in fine grained sediments is not a difficult task that takes such a long time to occur. You need more data.

---

--So tell me, do you have no idea of the mechanics of turbidity currents or do I not have to have newly created populations after each deposit?"Blabbering jargon about turbidity currents does not address this specific issue (nor how the layers are so neatly preserved despite all this "turbidity")."
--The turbidity current is completely relevant since it is my(and yours!) explanation for the sandstone turbidite deposits. And yes that is something to note isn't it, that it was so small that it didn't bother to significantly erode underlying stratigraphy. Hence, its not going to wipe out my population of crustaceans or whatever the organism was."Now state your posiiton and make your case. Those are my terms for taking up your debate challenge. There will be no progress until you deal with that, since if you cannot make a case for a flood, there is nothing to discuss and you lose."
--And I 'lose'? That's funny. I've given you what you have asked and more for my position on Flood geology."Yep, it's brief. Now all you have to do is explain;
1. Where is the evidence that these particluar deposits are global flood-related whilst the others are not?"
--Because in Cambrian deposits, we begin to see something other than algae. Also, a paleosol which Joe Meert mentions in his article here which I see as indicative of a pre-flood paleosol:http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.gif
Figure 1: Paleosol located between the 1470 Ma Butler Hill Granite and the Cambrian Lamotte Sandstone. Photo taken by author in Missouri along State Highway 67.--The soil itself is 1470 Billion years old, however, no sedimentary deposits began to accumulate above it for 1Ga and so this supports a Cambrian/pre-cambrian beginning for flood deposits."2. How a catastrophic flood managed to layer everything so neatly. Creationists are obsessed with the laws of thermodynamics, yet never do they turn their microsocope on how it was that a massive and completely random flood could order the fossil record so magnificently."
--Fossils and strata were not "sorted", they met burial at different times in the fossil record and the global flood. And why is it that since strata are layered 'neatly' that that is troublesome for flood dynamics?"If there were a global flood, the entire Cambrian-Tertiary record should have one name, since it was laid down all at once, geologically speaking, rather than over massive amounts of time in the geologic periods that we know."
--What do you mean? It does have a name, at least with the exception of Quarternary sediments, its called the Phanarozoic."The granularity of the rock in the deposit under discussion should consistently move from coarser to finer as we go from the lowest deposits to the uppermost, since the heaviest particles would settle first."
--But the dynamics of it don't have anything to do with 'coarse to fine' sediments on a macro scale. It works like the mainstream, just much faster. Your misconception of the dynamics of the flood is that your trying to imagine a bathtub full of sand and just swish it around a bit, this model is a complete strawman and has no application to reality."The fossils should be consistently layered with the heaviest at bottom, grading to the lightest at the top, consistent with hydrodynamics."
--hydrodynamics sorting has no macro operation in the mechanisms of how deposition takes place during the flood."There should be a massive extinction record just 4,400 years ago (or whenever it is that TC is claiming this happened, coinciding with this global flood. There is not."
--Your trying to use my mechanics in your framework, you can't do this. There were flood extinctions. K/T, P/T, etc."The entire geologic record (Cambrian - Tertiary) should radiometrically date the same, and the fossils should all be in the same state of preservation. Indeed, if the flood took place only 4,400 years ago, we ought to be able to recover DNA from almost literally any fossil we find, if it is so recent. Of course, until TC states his position properly, we have no idea when he thinks it took place or what his evidence is to support his thinking. If all he has is the Bible story, he has lost before we start."
--We should be able to recover DNA from fossils whose condition allows for it. If their structure has been completely replaced with minerals, your not going to find this. And no I don't expect that isotopes be homologous throughout the flood sediments. What do you know about geochemistry and its application to the distribution of isotopes in the earths crust?"Do you want to explain the mechanics of this, or should we simply take it on faith? This URL:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
refutes any vapor canopy argument."
--This is not the infamous 'vapor canopy theory', I explained that the meteoric impacts which struck the earth during the flood, the dusts thrown into the atmosphere would be perfect for disallowing a global pressure cooker during the flood with all the water vapor in the air from large scale evaporation on the earth."Where did the water come from? How much was there? How deep was the flood? State your position."
--How deep was the flood? Well that depends on where your standing doesn't it? I explained the rest earlier."The fact there there is no evidence whatsoever of these things happening at the speed TC claims is, of course, irrelevent, I suppose. This URL:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
defeats these arguments, particularly the point about about catastrophic geologic reshaping under the header, "Where did all the heat go?"."
--This is a problem I'm currently working on. I started about a month ago, and am currently waiting for a response from Joe Meert. He told me he is currently vacationing, but that was about 3 weeks ago."And the evidence for this is where? Or is this just a belief?"
--The K-T Extinction is evidence."How did this happen? With a miracle?"
--No, it is deduced from the fact that it would take a bit more than a couple of hours to create a iridium layer at the K-T boundary."How did this happen? Where is the evidence? If the flood waters rushed off the land as the land raised up, then how come we still have soil on the land? Why didn't it all sluice off into the oceanic basins?"
--There may have or may not have been soils in various areas on the continents. I don't see the problem your trying to give me with soils 'slaucing off into the ocean basins'."More jargon from he who accuses others of endless jargon...."
--What the hell are you talking about?"You already explained that. Once again, what is the point of this thread if even you do not believe in it?"
--Who said I didn't believe in it? 40 years ago, geologists believed in the geosyncline theory for orogenic formation even thought they were completely wrong. Similarly, flood proponents are currently and will be for some time developing a consensus."200 years of science coming up empty-handed with regard to global flooding not enough for you, huh?"
--We are using all that information gathered in the last 200 years to our advantage. Do you know the difference between data and interpretation of the data?"Oh, really? And here I was under the obviously erroneous belief that science was forced into accepting evolution and an old Earth because the evidence for it was so massive and so global that it turned up no matter where scientists looked."
--Its a compound sentance! You completely ignored the latter segment as well as my next sentence:

quote:

---

but because there has been such an entirely vast quantity of research done on the theory in attempts to come up with a consensus regarding the ToE. While the 'consensus' changes constantly (if you were to present evolutionary theories from 40 years ago in detail today, you would be laughed off the stage) it is successful because there is one.

---

"And here you are concluding with a whine that you need evidence, after I presented you with half a dozen detailed refutations that you could not be bothered to read. Yep, you've convinced me that you are truly on a search for answers."
--Actually I have already read I'm sure, all of those references, more than once for some. The problem is that you need to give me arguments, not 'links'. Any three year old can do that.------------------

TC: "You must have not read the whole post before you commented, my 'position' is toward the bottom."Message number 15, to which I was replying, consists of one paragraph in which you summarise nothing. You *offer* to summarise your vapor canopy theory, but do not summarise it. Unless there is some other message (to which you need to refer me), your response is meaningless.Indeed, your entire vapor canopy argument (whatever it is), is meaningless if you are culling all your water from melted ice caps as you appear to be doing in the present argument.TC: "Who ever said I disagree with 200 years of scientific study? Huh?"You did when you claimed there was a global flood for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. Duhh! Once again, if you disagree with the findings of mainstream science it is incumbent upon you to make your case. You have consistently failed to do this.TC: "...if you think that parroting a bunch of links on the board and then continuing to parrot that this means your hypothesis is hot-wash (sic - I think he means hog-wash, and I think he means *his* hypothesis rather than mine), then I don't know what to tell you. You don't list links, you list arguments. You've only done this once."I have listed half-a-dozen links. You claimed that these demonstrated nothing, but when I referred you to a specific one of those links and quoted from it, you then turned 180 degrees around and said, "hey, we've got a discussion". This quite clearly reveals the self-serving blather in your claim that these links don't cut it. The truth is that you are too lazy to do the work, read the links, and understand the reasons why a global flood never happened.The fact is that these links were quoted (and I have said this before but you are apparently unable to grasp it) to support my case that there is no evidence of a global flood from mainstream science. This *once again highlights* that if you are flying in the face of mainstream science, as you are with your whacky flood claims, then you need to make the case, not ask others to re-demonstrate what mainstream science has already made crystal clear to anyone with the wherewithal to grasp it.And if you are going to Borger your way through this, this discussion is going to be a waste of time.TC: "I've stated most of my position in my last post after that segment"Then you need to refer me to the specific message number in which your position was stated, because I have not seen anything that looks to me like a position statement until the present message, and even this is woefully inadequate as I shall repeatedly demonstrate.TC: "Where the water came from - Pre-flood polar ice caps."You are defeated before you start. There was a time not that long ago when almost the entire northern hemisphere was completely covered by massive ice caps. These actually did melt and still we did not have a global flood, merely a relatively modest rise in ocean levels. Have you actually done the math and figured how much water would be needed to covered the highest mountains? Ice caps don't cut it. This again goes back to how deep the flood was - another question which you ducked in your "response".And note that you can only count ice caps on dry land. Ice caps such as the Arctic are sitting on water and therefore do not raise sea levels when they melt. The only ice caps you can count which are presently in situ are the Antarctic and Greenland.And once again you need to make your position clear. Are you supporting the global flood story as recounted in Genesis? (If you are not, then you once again need to come up with the basis for your global flood claim, because science cannot help you.)If you are supporting the Genesis story, what was the impetus which melted the ice caps sufficiently to raise sea levels as quickly as was recounted in Genesis? If you are relying on meteor impacts, then you need to account for the survival of anything, given the amount of heat which would be required to melt the ice caps. And where are the impact craters of the right age?For those who haven't noticed, There were huge civilisations in various parts of the planet just 4-5,000 years ago, with histories that cover the entire period (such as the Egyptian and Chinese civilisations). How come these civilisations record no such events as massive meteor impacts and global flooding (Fred Williams are you listening)?Greenland contains 10% of the world's fresh water in its ice cap. Antactica contains 70%. If all the ice in Greenland melted, it would raise seawater by a little over 20 feet according to an article here:
http://archive.panda.org/climate/cutting_edge/julmain_00.cfm
As a rough calculation, if Antarctica melted, it would raise sea by 7*20 feet,which is 140 feet, plus the 20 feet from Greenland, equals 160 feet. Even if we round this up to a 200-foot rise in sea levels, how could this cover all the mountains? Such a rise in sea levels is serious flooding, but it is still not a catastrophic global flood as recounted in Genesis.TC: "Where it went - post-flood ice caps."Nope! There isn't enough ice in those to flood the world, and it would take a long time for the ice caps to build up to the height they are now. It snows less than 3"/year in Antartica. How could those massive ice sheets reform in only 4-5,000 years?TC: "Your (sic) not going to get this, your only going to get an alternative. I'm not trying to claim that flood geology stomps on mainstream."You are claiming precisely this if you are claiming there was a global flood only 4-5,000 years ago - or ever, for that matter. There is no evidence whatsoever for it.TC: "Yes it is completely relevant! I don't have to have a new population created after each turbidite deposit. All you've done is parrot this quote and credulously and ignorantly accepted it."And here you are making up stories out of your hat and demanding I accept those. Again, if you are going to Borger your way through this, I am out of here, because there is nothing I enjoy less than hitting my head against a dumb brick wall.I'll go with mainstream science every time. If you are going to fly in the face of it and claim you know more than you need to amplify your case regarding turbidite deposits. Where is your evidence that this is what they are? How does even this explanation defeat the problem of the organisms being unable to create these tunnels fast enough with mud raining down at the rate of (getting on for) a foot per minute?Do turbidity currents leave these kinds of impressions between depositions:
Mollusks
mudcracks ripplemarks
gypsum
sandstone (cross-bedded)
Mudcracks
burrows
crossbedded sandstone
plants and vertebrate remains
ripple marks
mollusks
(this list from yet another of the links I quoted to you in the "worhtless" half-dozen that you keep whining about:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gflood.htm
(see item 6)If you are claiming a global, catastrophic flood, you are not claiming a clear ocean with the ocasional turbidity depositing a new stratum of graded material into which existing organisms can burrow. You are dealing with what must have been a thick mud soup, raining solids down at an incredible rate - and this material ought to be the same kind of material since it is thoroughly mixed up by the flood. The only sorting ought to be by hydrodynamic properties.First of all no living thing could survive in such appalling conditions, and secondly, I am still awaiting the case you were supposed to be making for how these organisms made so many burrows so quickly. Try this reference on for size - it may make it a little more clear to you (again, this is from the original list of links that I gave you - the links that you repeatedly try to pretend are irrelevant):
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/orkney.htmTC: "So tell me, do you have no idea of the mechanics of turbidity currents or do I not have to have newly created populations after each deposit?"Turbidity currents deposit or redeposit material washed from the land. They are characteristically graded from coarsest material to finest (bottom to top). There is no reason for burrows to be confined to one stratum. Again, see the article above.TC: "And I 'lose'? That's funny. I've given you what you have asked and more for my position on Flood geology."Dream on.TC: "Because in Cambrian deposits, we begin to see something other than algae."There is something other than algae in Pre-Cambrian deposits if I recall. Once again what does this have to do with your dividing line?TC: "Also, a paleosol which Joe Meert mentions in his article here which I see as indicative of a pre-flood paleosol:"A picture, in this case, does not paint a thousand words. Neither is a picture an article. And what does this have to do with flooding? If the entire planet flooded, how can there be any pre-flood paleosols?! All the soil would have been washed into the ocean basins by all that rain (which you have yet to explain, and which has been described by Frank Zindler as 'hydraulic mining':
The Question of Noah's Flood » Internet Infidels).TC: "The soil itself is 1470 Billion years old, however, no sedimentary deposits began to accumulate above it for 1Ga and so this supports a Cambrian/pre-cambrian beginning for flood deposits."Great argument. Now all you have to do is explain how this supports your case for a flood just 4-5,000 years ago.TC: "Fossils and strata were not "sorted""Yes they are - there are instances of them being sorted not by hydrodynamic properties, but by **shell design**. How did a flood manage this?TC: "...they met burial at different times in the fossil record and the global flood."How is this possible? At different times? Was there more than one global flood? If you are supporting the Genesis flood, then it was only one, it lasted only one year, and it created the entire fossil record since the pre-Cambrian, according to you. Everything was deposited at the same time, from a geologic perpspective.TC: "And why is it that since strata are layered 'neatly' that that is troublesome for flood dynamics?"Because, once again for the unprepared, the layers are specifically *not* sorted hydrodynamically. We do *not* see a gradation from heaviest, least buoyant fossils buried in coarsest strata at the bottom, to lightest, most buoyant fossils in the finest graded rock at the top.What we see instead is preservation of ecosystems and evolutionary groupings. We find no modern mammals - indeed, no mammals at all - in the Cambrian. Why not? Why do we find no hominids in any of the jurassic deposits along with similar sized dinosaurs of comparable hydrodynamic properties? Why do we find no modern birds with the pterosaurs?TC: "What do you mean? It does have a name, at least with the exception of Quarternary sediments, its called the Phanarozoic."Once again for the unprepared, the reason the formations have names is because they are distinct - they contain distinct flora and fauna and were laid down during distinct and separate geologic eras. They have widely differing radiometric dates.This could not possibly be the case if the entire rock-bed from the Cambrian onwards was laid down in one year-long flood. There ought to be a jumble of everything, and the entire rock-bed ought to be graded from coarsest material at the bottom to finest material at the top. It is not, as an examination of the Grand Canyon formation will demonstrate.TC: "But the dynamics of it don't have anything to do with 'coarse to fine' sediments on a macro scale."And you want me to simply take your word on this?TC: "It works like the mainstream, just much faster."Tha mainstream is that heaviest (i.e. coarsest) deposits first. Or do you have a new physics to propose along with your flood scenario?TC: "Your misconception of the dynamics of the flood is that your (sic) trying to imagine a bathtub full of sand and just swish it around a bit, this model is a complete strawman and has no application to reality."That's hilarious given that creationist Kent Hovind had precisely this as a demonstration at a creationist exhibit not long ago! Once again, where is your evidence (or even logic) that particles behave differently in a global flood?TC: "hydrodynamics sorting has no macro operation in the mechanisms of how deposition takes place during the flood."And of course, I will just take your word for this. Sure! Isn't it wonderful how creationists expect their just-so stories to be swallowed whole and without chewing? I don't suppose you have any evidence to support your case? Naw - that would be too much to ask. You're a creationist. Why would you have evidence? Or even logic?TC: "Your (sic) trying to use my mechanics in your framework, you can't do this. There were flood extinctions. K/T, P/T, etc."How many floods are you claiming? Once again, you need to make your position clear. Are you claiming just one flood 4-5,000 years ago? If so, then how to you account for the five massive extinctions by which five major geologic divisions are demarcated? How do you account for the differing flora and fauna evident in these periods? How could one single flood sort organisms like this?TC: "We should be able to recover DNA from fossils whose condition allows for it."This was a global flood. Why would conditions in one place be different from those in another? Why would preservation be different? Why would we find, as a general rule, that the older a fossil is, the more mineralised it is? All fossils should be in a roughly equal state of mineralisation if they were all buried in a geologic instant 4-5,000 years ago.TC: "And no I don't expect that isotopes be homologous throughout the flood sediments. What do you know about geochemistry and its application to the distribution of isotopes in the earths crust?"So you *do* require a new physics! I thought so. If the flood took place only 4-5,000 years ago, we ought to be able to date virtually every fossil with radiocarbon dating. Why is this not possible? Why do we find that the deeper we go in the fossil record, the more ancient the fossils and strata are when dated radiometrically? How could a random flood arrange materials so neatly? Any creationist student of thermodynamics want to answer this?TC: "This is not the infamous 'vapor canopy theory', I explained that the meteoric impacts which struck the earth during the flood..."For which there are no craters...TC: "...the dusts thrown into the atmosphere"For which there is no record...TC: "...would be perfect for disallowing a global pressure cooker during the flood with all the water vapor in the air from large scale evaporation on the earth."And this large scale evaporation somehow failed to cook all life and sterilise the planet? How convenient for you. Again, the links I listed for you (you know, those half-dozen worthless links), make it crystal clear that your scenario is impossible.TC's idea of a scientific answer: "How deep was the flood? Well that depends on where your (sic) standing doesn't it?"That was hilarious. Now do you want to answer the question or do you want to admit you are, shall I say, out of your depth? Let me make this so simple that even a high school student can grasp it:Was the flood the kind of flood described in the Bible, covering the mountains, in which case it has to be some 30,000 feet deep, or wasn't it? Answer the question.TC: "This is a problem I'm currently working on. I started about a month ago, and am currently waiting for a response from Joe Meert. He told me he is currently vacationing, but that was about 3 weeks ago."Another creationist who is conveniently at a loss for an answer. BTW, am I debating you or Meert? Why didn't you have the honesty to simply refer me to his web site when I asked what your position was?BTW, if there were massive meteorite impacts only 4-5,000 years ago, where is the iridium layer supporting this claim? Or are you claiming the K/T iridium layer is the one? If you are, then this opens a whole new can of worms. Be prepared.TC: "There may have or may not have been soils in various areas on the continents. I don't see the problem your trying to give me with soils 'slaucing (sic) off into the ocean basins'."Of course you don't because you haven't thought about this. If the soil sluiced off the land, how did we generate the present six feet or so of soil that we currently have in only 4-5,000 years, and what did the ancients use to grow things in before this layer of soil was in place?How did modern flora and fauna survive this global flood? On Noah's ark? Again, you need to make your position clear with regard to the Genesis flood story.TC: "...if you were to present evolutionary theories from 40 years ago in detail today, you would be laughed off the stage"So Darwin's natural selection and survival of the fittest from 140 years ago is now irrelevant? Do, please, explain.TC: "The problem is that you need to give me arguments, not 'links'. Any three year old can do that."Once again, since you utterly cannot grasp this, the links supported my case that *there is no case* for a global flood. And when you have read the links, thought about them, and refuted everything in them, then, perhaps, you can make a case for a global flood. Until then, whether you like the links or not, they are the basis of your demise, as I have shown repeatedly, by going back to them and demonstrating points that refute your case. You, too, could have done this without having to go through all this embarrassment. Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp this.Budikka

Moving this post to the parallel thread.[This message has been edited by John, 11-30-2002]

"Message number 15, to which I was replying, consists of one paragraph in which you summarise nothing. You *offer* to summarise your vapor canopy theory, but do not summarise it. Unless there is some other message (to which you need to refer me), your response is meaningless.Indeed, your entire vapor canopy argument (whatever it is), is meaningless if you are culling all your water from melted ice caps as you appear to be doing in the present argument."
--I was referring to the bottom of my post #31, not #15. I have no vapor canopy."You did when you claimed there was a global flood for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. Duhh! Once again, if you disagree with the findings of mainstream science it is incumbent upon you to make your case. You have consistently failed to do this.
--The point is that I don't disagree with any finding of mainstream science, I interpret it differentially."I have listed half-a-dozen links. "
--Which makes them half-a-dozen more pointless!"You claimed that these demonstrated nothing, but when I referred you to a specific one of those links and quoted from it, you then turned 180 degrees around and said, "hey, we've got a discussion". This quite clearly reveals the self-serving blather in your claim that these links don't cut it. The truth is that you are too lazy to do the work, read the links, and understand the reasons why a global flood never happened."
--Please read the post... I explained to you exactly what it takes from you to continue to support the tenability of your 'quote'. But obviously you never read the article, nor have the most basic understanding of geology because you don't know that turbidities produce turbidite deposits..
--Giving me a bunch of links is like me directing you to a bunch of AiG and ICR articles and telling you before you even comment that your an arrogant piece of evolutionary trash..."The fact is that these links were quoted (and I have said this before but you are apparently unable to grasp it) to support my case that there is no evidence of a global flood from mainstream science."
--I remember something about there being marine sedimentary deposits in the geologic record...this is evidence of the flood. The problem is that you don't think the evidence adds up to make the global flood a conclusive theory. Don't side-step this."You are defeated before you start."
--There is no such thing."There was a time not that long ago when almost the entire northern hemisphere was completely covered by massive ice caps. These actually did melt and still we did not have a global flood, merely a relatively modest rise in ocean levels. Have you actually done the math and figured how much water would be needed to covered the highest mountains? Ice caps don't cut it."
--Ever heard of orogenesis?"And note that you can only count ice caps on dry land. Ice caps such as the Arctic are sitting on water and therefore do not raise sea levels when they melt. The only ice caps you can count which are presently in situ are the Antarctic and Greenland."
--Ice is buoyant in water, where are you getting your information?"And once again you need to make your position clear. Are you supporting the global flood story as recounted in Genesis? (If you are not, then you once again need to come up with the basis for your global flood claim, because science cannot help you.)"
--What are you talking about? Science is what I am relying on. Yes I am supporting the global flood story as recounted in genesis. The objectivity is usually more important than the theology though."If you are supporting the Genesis story, what was the impetus which melted the ice caps sufficiently to raise sea levels as quickly as was recounted in Genesis? If you are relying on meteor impacts, then you need to account for the survival of anything, given the amount of heat which would be required to melt the ice caps. And where are the impact craters of the right age?"
--I'm not using meteoric impacts as a mechanism for melting ice caps. Catastrophic plate tectonics, their stresses, strains, and friction is the prominent source of heat."For those who haven't noticed, There were huge civilisations in various parts of the planet just 4-5,000 years ago, with histories that cover the entire period (such as the Egyptian and Chinese civilisations). How come these civilisations record no such events as massive meteor impacts and global flooding (Fred Williams are you listening)?"
--Because in theory, the recent civilizations came from those who got off that big ole boat."Nope! There isn't enough ice in those to flood the world, and it would take a long time for the ice caps to build up to the height they are now. It snows less than 3"/year in Antartica. How could those massive ice sheets reform in only 4-5,000 years?"
--Your trying to use today's values? Your not going to get anywhere doing that. With precipitation increase during and shortly after the flood, the rate of accumulation at poles would have been greatly increased."You are claiming precisely this if you are claiming there was a global flood only 4-5,000 years ago - or ever, for that matter. There is no evidence whatsoever for it."
--I'm laughing.. no really, I'm laughing..."And here you are making up stories out of your hat and demanding I accept those.
--Don't be a sore loser.. Just because you can't keep up with the discussion doesn't mean you should wine and go on a rampage and try to shove in my laughing face every other resource you have in your pathetic arsenal."I'll go with mainstream science every time. If you are going to fly in the face of it and claim you know more than you need to amplify your case regarding turbidite deposits. Where is your evidence that this is what they are? How does even this explanation defeat the problem of the organisms being unable to create these tunnels fast enough with mud raining down at the rate of (getting on for) a foot per minute?"
--Your values are bunk
--These are turbidite deposits! Did you even read the article you provided me?

quote:

---

The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits.

---

--Its not very often I have to bold anything in my posts, this shows how much of a non-geologist you obviously are."Do turbidity currents leave these kinds of impressions between depositions:
Mollusks
mudcracks ripplemarks
gypsum
sandstone (cross-bedded)
Mudcracks
burrows
crossbedded sandstone
plants and vertebrate remains
ripple marks
mollusks"
--Not the one were talking about with the exception of the cross bedded sandstones. Read your article and then you can come back when your ready.
--You obviously don't know what your talking about and hope that these foreign contents with titles along the lines of 'evidence against the flood' will help your arrogant position."If you are claiming a global, catastrophic flood, you are not claiming a clear ocean with the ocasional turbidity depositing a new stratum of graded material into which existing organisms can burrow. You are dealing with what must have been a thick mud soup, raining solids down at an incredible rate - and this material ought to be the same kind of material since it is thoroughly mixed up by the flood. The only sorting ought to be by hydrodynamic properties."
--You don't know what your talking about, please read your article and listen to what it says about sandstone cross beddings, you have no reasons as to why I cannot have this as an observation. Your horrible construction of a pathetic bathtub and a bunch of homologous contents is futile in this discussion."First of all no living thing could survive in such appalling conditions, and secondly, I am still awaiting the case you were supposed to be making for how these organisms made so many burrows so quickly. Try this reference on for size - it may make it a little more clear to you (again, this is from the original list of links that I gave you - the links that you repeatedly try to pretend are irrelevant):
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/orkney.htm"
--[1] - Your 'conditions' are a product of your own imaginative strawman.
--[2] - I can make so many burrows so quickly because none of them died by the turbidities.
--[3] - You aren't even reading the damn articles are you!? Please read that article and tell me what is of relevance to our discussion besides that they are talking about burrows."Turbidity currents deposit or redeposit material washed from the land. They are characteristically graded from coarsest material to finest (bottom to top). There is no reason for burrows to be confined to one stratum. Again, see the article above."
--The article has absolutely nothing to do with the turbidities of the Haymond Formation. You are skipping around arguments and you don't even know what your arguing. And you have shown here that you don't know what a turbidity current is, please go read up on the subject. Yes burrows will be confined to one stratum because that's what the article says, please go back and read your quote."There is something other than algae in Pre-Cambrian deposits if I recall. Once again what does this have to do with your dividing line?"
--Because it works with the consensus of flood dynamics. The boundary probably isn't exactly dead on Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary, though it is in the vicinity."A picture, in this case, does not paint a thousand words. Neither is a picture an article. And what does this have to do with flooding? If the entire planet flooded, how can there be any pre-flood paleosols?! All the soil would have been washed into the ocean basins by all that rain (which you have yet to explain, and which has been described by Frank Zindler as 'hydraulic mining':
The Question of Noah's Flood » Internet Infidels)."
--I don't have rain coming down anywhere near that fast.. My pre-flood soil was not disturbed."Great argument. Now all you have to do is explain how this supports your case for a flood just 4-5,000 years ago."
--Never said it did, you asked me for a flood boundary, I gave it to you. We don't have a dating method to give for the flood, we just use a date which can fit the data, we are, however, using the biblical date, and it doesn't have as many problems as you seem to think it has."Yes they are - there are instances of them being sorted not by hydrodynamic properties, but by **shell design**. How did a flood manage this?"
--What are you talking about? I am not using hydrodynamic sorting and it would have been no more effective than Walt Browns poor postulate of liquifaction. The distribution of fossils in the fossil record were caused by the places of burrial in various areas. Its an ecological thing."How is this possible? At different times? Was there more than one global flood? If you are supporting the Genesis flood, then it was only one, it lasted only one year, and it created the entire fossil record since the pre-Cambrian, according to you. Everything was deposited at the same time, from a geologic perpspective."
--Wrong, incorrect, and false. Your bathtub model doesn't have any place in this discussion! How many times must I iterate this to you?
--the principal of relative dating in regards to the geologic column and its strata is that that which is found above another is younger, and what is found below is older. This 'older' and 'younger' relative dates are older and younger times for burial."Because, once again for the unprepared, the layers are specifically *not* sorted hydrodynamically. "
--Good, I hope their not."We do *not* see a gradation from heaviest, least buoyant fossils buried in coarsest strata at the bottom, to lightest, most buoyant fossils in the finest graded rock at the top."
--Amen! If I must make it simple for your little mind to understand, please pick up one of those vases filled with sand which are displaced by their color at the dollar store and take as long as it takes for you to contemplate how they filled that bottle."What we see instead is preservation of ecosystems and evolutionary groupings. We find no modern mammals - indeed, no mammals at all - in the Cambrian. Why not?"
--Speciation. We do, however, find much in the fossil record which is extremely similar if not identical to modern flora and fauna. The new order of insect Gladiators. We have the remnants of the bug at 45 million years ago, their anatomy is identical to those existing today. I'm sure those fossils encased within Cambrian sediments will be fairly similar to something existing today."Once again for the unprepared, the reason the formations have names is because they are distinct - they contain distinct flora and fauna and were laid down during distinct and separate geologic eras. They have widely differing radiometric dates."
--And? I never argued against this.."This could not possibly be the case if the entire rock-bed from the Cambrian onwards was laid down in one year-long flood. There ought to be a jumble of everything, and the entire rock-bed ought to be graded from coarsest material at the bottom to finest material at the top. It is not, as an examination of the Grand Canyon formation will demonstrate."
--You have no idea what your talking about, throw away your bathtub and get back to reality."And you want me to simply take your word on this?"
--You don't have to! Grab yourself a textbook on geology and find out how sediments are deposited and their other diagenic processes."Tha mainstream is that heaviest (i.e. coarsest) deposits first. Or do you have a new physics to propose along with your flood scenario?"
--Depends on the depositional scenario. Either way, when you have Cretaceous sediments in an isolated area which were deposited a few weeks earlier, your not going to get sediments which lay down on top of that to just glide all the way down to the bottom of the Cambrian no matter the granulometric properties."That's hilarious given that creationist Kent Hovind had precisely this as a demonstration at a creationist exhibit not long ago! Once again, where is your evidence (or even logic) that particles behave differently in a global flood?"
--Hovind is a LOON, almost as ridiculous as yourself, and a complete waist of time and is making you look really bad in this discussion even considering that his ideas would have been accepted by me."And of course, I will just take your word for this. Sure! Isn't it wonderful how creationists expect their just-so stories to be swallowed whole and without chewing?"
--I don't know about you but I learned these geologic principals back when I was in 2nd grade."How many floods are you claiming? Once again, you need to make your position clear. Are you claiming just one flood 4-5,000 years ago? If so, then how to you account for the five massive extinctions by which five major geologic divisions are demarcated?"
--Because an extinction even would indicate a high point in the flood event such as a meteoric impact or a decrease in temperature, or something such as that. I am claiming one 'flood', yes, but you wont let go of your bath tub and bucket of mud."This was a global flood. Why would conditions in one place be different from those in another? "
--Are you just trying to agitate me or are you seriously just that ill-informed? Let me help you understand little one, If I dump a bucket of sand in America, the same doesn't happen in Africa does it?"So you *do* require a new physics! I thought so. If the flood took place only 4-5,000 years ago, we ought to be able to date virtually every fossil with radiocarbon dating. Why is this not possible? Why do we find that the deeper we go in the fossil record, the more ancient the fossils and strata are when dated radiometrically? How could a random flood arrange materials so neatly? Any creationist student of thermodynamics want to answer this?
--Maybe I need to reiterate what I said for the close-minded one, "What do you know about geochemistry and its application to the distribution of isotopes in the earths crust?""For which there are no craters..."
--ROFL! So your telling me that there have been no meteoric impacts in the last 600 million years of geologic time?"And this large scale evaporation somehow failed to cook all life and sterilise the planet? How convenient for you. Again, the links I listed for you (you know, those half-dozen worthless links), make it crystal clear that your scenario is impossible."
--You have shown that you don't even have the knowledge to argue in favor of any of your articles so why should I take your word for it? Also, some precipitation simulations have been done here"Was the flood the kind of flood described in the Bible, covering the mountains, in which case it has to be some 30,000 feet deep, or wasn't it? Answer the question."
--Again I must ask you if you know what orogenesis means. Forget about Mt. Everest!"Another creationist who is conveniently at a loss for an answer. BTW, am I debating you or Meert? Why didn't you have the honesty to simply refer me to his web site when I asked what your position was?"
--What the heck are you talking about? What has this got anything to do with Joe Meert? All I said is that I don't have the answer to the problem yet. I don't have a problem with admitting this, I'm 16 and I'm making you look like a fool, do you really think your discouraging me? Your arguments are so sloppily thrown every which way that I don't think I'm even learning anything here.."BTW, if there were massive meteorite impacts only 4-5,000 years ago, where is the iridium layer supporting this claim? Or are you claiming the K/T iridium layer is the one? If you are, then this opens a whole new can of worms. Be prepared."
--the K/T iridium would be one, yes. I have analyzed this a couple of times here on this board, so what's the problem?"Of course you don't because you haven't thought about this. If the soil sluiced off the land, how did we generate the present six feet or so of soil that we currently have in only 4-5,000 years, and what did the ancients use to grow things in before this layer of soil was in place?"
--Because I haven't thought about it? Sure, for the same reason I haven't considered Noahs boat being a rocket ship.. Do you know anything about pedogenesis? I have ~4500 years to work with to create a soil! The ancients most likely used Andisols, which would not be difficult to find after such an event.."How did modern flora and fauna survive this global flood? On Noah's ark? Again, you need to make your position clear with regard to the Genesis flood story."
--You've got the jist of it."So Darwin's natural selection and survival of the fittest from 140 years ago is now irrelevant? Do, please, explain."
--There's much which was not known long ago regarding evolutionary theory. Punctuated Equillibrium for instance, is a relatively new advancement."Once again, since you utterly cannot grasp this, the links supported my case that *there is no case* for a global flood. "
--[Yawn]"And when you have read the links, thought about them, and refuted everything in them, then, perhaps, you can make a case for a global flood. "
--I've read them, and you haven't, I'm not going to play your silly little pre-teen games."Until then, whether you like the links or not, they are the basis of your demise, as I have shown repeatedly, by going back to them and demonstrating points that refute your case. You, too, could have done this without having to go through all this embarrassment. Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp this."
--Embarrassment? Oh my, buddika you always make me laugh...you make me cry too, please do tell me when you get your mind out of Jr. High.--Edit - Your bathtub is for you to bathe in, and to bathe in only, not for simulating global floods, no matter how much you want it to. I don't have one of those bath tubs and I don't think you do either....------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-30-2002]

TC: "I was referring to the bottom of my post #31, not #15. I have no vapor canopy."Well you didn't make clear that you were referring to the same post in which you wrote this, something you could have completely cleared up if you had only typed the above quote instead of vaguely refering me off to something else.Your wording here (quoted from post #31) does not make it expressly clear that you do not hold to any vapor canopy theory. To the contrary - it could be interpreted, as I interpeted it, that you *do* hold to a vapor canopy, but not to the vapor being super-heated:
"...I explained that the meteoric impacts which struck the earth during the flood, the dusts thrown into the atmosphere would be perfect for disallowing a global pressure cooker during the flood with all the water vapor in the air from large scale evaporation on the earth."But since you do not, let's drop this and move on. As I believe I demonstrated in my reponse to post #31, you still had a lot to make clear - something I am guessing will not be changed by your present contribution, as judged from skimming the first couple of paragraphs.TC: "The point is that I don't disagree with any finding of mainstream science, I interpret it differentially. (sic)"In other words, you disagree with mainstream science. Duhh! BTW, I think you mean that you interpret it *differently*, not differentially.TC: "Please read the post..."That's exactly what I did when I replied to it piece by piece, as you would have realised if you had properly understood the responses. Of course I know that "turbidities produce turbidite deposits." - what else would they produce? Pink bunny rabbits?If you had actually read my responses, you would have seen that I discuss specifically these. But let's get down to brass tacks. Your interpretation of turbidite deposits, which flies in the face of mainstream science (since mainstream science does not intrepret these as providing evidence for a global flood, whereas you do), is entirely irrelevant to this discussion now, because we have much bigger fish to fry, and if you cannot deal with these fish, then your turbidity is totally becalmed.TC: "Giving me a bunch of links is like me directing you to a bunch of AiG and ICR articles and telling you before you even comment that your an arrogant piece of evolutionary trash"Nonsense. You specifically asked me for examples refuting the global flood myth. I gave you six links. You didn't say I could not list URLs. And once again, since no matter how many times I repeat this, it appears not to be getting through to you, I listed those links to specifically highlight my contention that mainstream science does not support a global flood. I did not list those links for you to respond to.TC: "I remember something about there being marine sedimentary deposits in the geologic record...this is evidence of the flood."No! It is evidence of sedimentation - and that is all! It is not evidence of a global flood. No-one is contending that there was never any flooding of any kind in the history of the Earth. Local flooding has been very common, and still is. Local flooding is not global flooding.What is clear - from the facts of geology - is that there never was a one-time catastrophic global flood that covered everything and wiped out virtually every living organism, as the Bible story in Genesis contends.If you have solid evidence to the contrary, then you should write a paper and get it published. You would become famous, not to mention becoming the darling of the creationists.TC: "The problem is that you don't think the evidence adds up to make the global flood a conclusive theory. Don't side-step this."No! The problem is that 200 years of geology and mainstream science does not think the evidence adds up to make the global flood a conclusive theory. Nor does it even add up to make a global flood a possibility. Once again, I am still awaiting evidence from you (or any creationist) that disproves this position.TC: "Ever heard of orogenesis?"This link (which again was one of the half-dozen so-called irrelevant links that you keep harping about) demonstrates more than adequately that you could not possibly beg orogensis to help you out in the 4-5,000 years since the flood:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
(read topic #7, "Producing the geological record", specifically the section on "Where did all the heat go?")Since the oceans clearly didn't boil away, there clearly could not have been the massive geologic reshaping you are so desperately begging for in the short time since the mythical flood receded. Once again if you had actually read the links I provided instead of blindly disimissing them, you would not now be making thoughtlessly arrogant statements like 'Ever heard of orogenesis?'" I gave you those links to save you such embarrassment.TC: "Ice is buoyant in water, where are you getting your information?"No one is claiming ice is not buoyant in water, but ice floating in water does not raise water levels when it melts. Ice is less dense than water, not more dense. This is a simple fact that anyone who pretends to be re-writing science ought to know! It is an embarrassment to your case that you apparently do not know this.TC: "What are you talking about? Science is what I am relying on. Yes I am supporting the global flood story as recounted in genesis."Paradox alert! Paradox alert!So you really actually believe in the Noah story? Is this what we need to address next - getting all those pairs of organisms onto the ark and having 8 people take care of them for a year?TC: "I'm not using meteoric impacts as a mechanism for melting ice caps."So where does all your rambling about meteors come from? What function do they serve in this myth? And what *did* melt the ice caps?!TC: "Catastrophic plate tectonics, their stresses, strains, and friction is the prominent source of heat."How come geologists cannot find any evidence of this? How come the Bible doesn't mention massive eruptions and earthquakes? How come the pyramids didn't fall down during all this? As I have explained, this could not have happened. So what did melt the ice caps?TC: "Because in theory, the recent civilizations came from those who got off that big ole boat."In theory? So those 8 people on the ark, at least five of whom were so closely related that they shared significant genetic material, set up the Egyptian civilisation, built the pyramids, and then moved south to set up African civilisations, and east to set up the Chinese civilisation, and native American civilsation? And not a single one of these civilisations tells a story of surviving a global flood that wiped out the whole world? All of them have different stories of our origins and worship different gods? And in just 4-5,000 years, they turned brownish and yellowish and reddish, and developed differing physiognomies? How did this happen? More magic?TC: "Your (sic) trying to use today's values?"I am using today's values to demonstrate what a massive amount of ice you would need for your myth to work - and I specifically referenced a time when today's values were insignificant compared with the amount of ice that was in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age, and reminding you that **when that melted** it did not cause a global flood. Your ice cap scenario does not work!And yes, today's values are relevant, because it is today's values, i.e., today's volume of ice, that you need to achieve in the 4-5,000 years since the mythical flood receded **in order to arrive at today's values**! Duhh!And yes, today's values are relevant, because that's where *you* are claiming the massive floods went! If there is not enough ice - using today's values - to flood the entire globe, then clearly your argument that the flood water from the entire globe went into the ice caps is entirely worthless! Duhh!The thickness of ice in Antarctica is up to 3 miles. It snows no more than 3"/year there. But let's say the ice is only 1.5 miles thick. It would take an annual snowfall of over 20 inches to create this thickness of ice in 5,000 years. To create a 3 mile thickness at 3"/year would take over 60,000 years. If you are claiming snowfall was greater than this, then you need to show where science supports you.Plus you need to explain how the flood waters receded rapidly enough by this means to allow the land to be colonised so quickly.And you need to answer my earlier question that you have now ducked twice, as to how deep the flood waters actually became.Me: "You are claiming precisely this if you are claiming there was a global flood only 4-5,000 years ago - or ever, for that matter. There is no evidence whatsoever for it."TC: "I'm laughing.. no really, I'm laughing..."You would do yourself a greater service if you would actually provide evidence for you case. Laughing at the facts isn't going to win anything for you, and makes you look like a jackass. I am sure, if you had evidence, you would provide it, so all I can conclude from your behavior is that you have no evidence and are forced to laugh to keep yourself from crying.TC: "Don't be a sore loser.. Just because you can't keep up with the discussion"What discussion? I am hitting you with hard numbers and you are laughing like a moron. You wanted this debate. Now dig in and deal with it. If your myth cannot actually cope with the facts, at least have the maturity to admit it.TC: "...doesn't mean you should wine and go on a rampage and try to shove in my laughing face every other resource you have in your pathetic arsenal."If you didn't want me to shove fact after fact in your slack jaw, then you should not have so arrogantly opened it by starting this thread. Now are you going to deal with the facts and respond, or are you not?You whined like a newborn baby that I gave you "URLs instead of argument". Now I am giving you argument and you are whining even louder about that! The more you respond with arrogant blather, the more of a loser you become. I will not let you Borger your way out of this any more than I let Borger Borger his way out of dealing with his failures.TC: "The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits."I don't believe I specifically denied that they were such deposits. The point is that such deposits are made from material drafted in by a current from, for example, a river emptying into an ocean and depositing its solid material. There is no problem explaining this in mainstream science.What *you* need to explain is how could this kind of thing happen so sedately yet so rapidly in a global flood in a raging ocean with effectively no rivers sending deposits out, and apparently with meteors, volcanoes and earthquakes blasting off all around.What I am trying to do is get you to make your case, something which you have suspiciously avoided. Once again, answer the question: What does this have to do with a global flood? Make your case and cut the blather.I notice that you very wisely avoided dealing with the specific layering issue I laid out for you (once again from the URLs that you repeatedly try to pretend are so useless).It makes not a jot of difference arguing one case of turbidite deposits (where you haven't even made any sort of case whatsoever demonstrating that these somehow support a global flood). The fact is that you are supposed to be arguing for a global flood - not a local flood. Now cut the blather and answer the question. Once again, if you have a case, make it, because I am tiring of asking you to make this non-existent case for this mythical flood of yours.Now I am going to have to repeat myself, because you did not address the question I asked in my previous post, instead, trying to Borger your way out of it. Here is what I asked:
"If you are claiming a global, catastrophic flood, you are not claiming a clear ocean with the ocasional turbidity depositing a new stratum of graded material into which existing organisms can burrow. You are dealing with what must have been a thick mud soup, raining solids down at an incredible rate - and this material ought to be the same kind of material since it is thoroughly mixed up by the flood. The only sorting ought to be by hydrodynamic properties."Are you denying that this flood consisted of thick mud soup? If so, then where did the **massive thickness** of extant sedimentary rock came from? If the flood was mud soup, then how could these cute little turbidite deposits form, and how could organisms survive in such a mess?Talking of ocean life, corals die very rapidly when subject to pollution or to too warm temperatures. How could any corals survive a flood of mud soup and temperatures warm enough to melt ice caps?TC: "I can make so many burrows so quickly because none of them died by the turbidities."I am sure you could, but we are talking not about you, but about little organisms which live out a tedious life. They are not motivated to burrow frenetically like you apparently are, they do only what is necessary. Why would they rush about just to please you? And please, do explain to me how turbidite deposits can achieve this:
(re-quote from that same "useless" URL)
"...the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited."What turbidity mechanism deposits 157 layers per day, and what organism would live in such circumstances, when less frantic ecological niches are to be found?Your blind blather about turbidity has been deleted since I defined turbidity quite clearly. If you are beset by one of your "differential interpretations" from mainstream science, then please do enlighten us by defining turbidity currents and turbidite deposits yourself, right here.TC: "Because it works with the consensus of flood dynamics. The boundary probably isn't exactly dead on Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary, though it is in the vicinity.""...consensus of flood dynamics" is yet more ridiculous jargon from he who has the nerve to accuse *me* of using jargon (and who has yet to supply even one example)! How predictably hypocritical!Talking of answering questions, do you really think I am going to let you get away with this blather? Please define how the "Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary" (or that vicinity) is the demarcation for the flood. What is it which draws the line here? What shows that the deposits above this line are global flood related while those below are not?Can I make this question any simpler for you? I have asked you this once. If you do not answer competently this time, I will be forced to assume you cannot define it, and that your claimed demarcation point for the flood deposits is yet more mythology.TC: "I don't have rain coming down anywhere near that fast.. My pre-flood soil was not disturbed."Yet you adhere to the Genesis account which demands 40 days and 40 nights of rain? Or is that particular section of the account mere mythology whilst the rest is hard fact?So pre-flood soil was not disturbed by a massive global flood caused by massive eruptions and earthquakes and supplemented by meteor impacts? What is this - another miracle required by the creationists? Don't I correctly recall you claiming that you are separating your science from your theology? Exactly how is this soil supposed to remain undisturbed when there is a global calamity in progress?TC: "Never said it did, you asked me for a flood boundary, I gave it to you. We don't have a dating method to give for the flood"Yet you have a clear demarcation line? Doesn't radiocarbon dating help you since this took place less than 5,000 years ago? If there were massive eruptions at that time, why can these not be found and dated? If you have no dating method, then where does your date estimate come from?And if the flood made the post pre-Cambrian deposits, what, pray tell, made the pre-Cambrian deposits?TC: "...we just use a date which can fit the data"This is another way of saying, "we made it up"! Just like the Noah story.TC: "we are, however, using the biblical date, and it doesn't have as many problems as you seem to think it has."Then prove it. How are you getting the biblical date? Adding up the ages of the mythical characters like Adam? Do you really believe the world was created in 4004 BC on some day in October at 9 o'clock in the morning?TC: "What are you talking about? I am not using hydrodynamic sorting...The distribution of fossils in the fossil record were caused by the places of burrial (sic) in various areas. Its an ecological thing."An ecological thing? That kept the dinosaurs and modern mammals apart? That prevented every single human being from being buried in the Cambrian or earlier? That kept pollen grains separated? That prevented even a single trilobite from being buried with modern marine fauna? Another myth, no doubt.TC: "the principal of relative dating in regards to the geologic column and its strata is that that which is found above another is younger, and what is found below is older. This 'older' and 'younger' relative dates are older and younger times for burial."So every single dinosaur somehow magically, miraculously managed to get deposited before even one single modern mammal, regardless of size or hydrodynamic qualities? Not one single human managed to get buried earlier than the first fish fossil despite the fact that fish can survive in the open oceans longer than can humans, and that humans weigh more than a good many fish and tend not to float so long, especially with the fish eating them?Me: "What we see instead is preservation of ecosystems and evolutionary groupings. We find no modern mammals - indeed, no mammals at all - in the Cambrian. Why not?"TC: "Speciation."Please thrill me with your erudition in explaining what the word "speciation" has to do with not a single mammal being found in layers that were buried earlier than the dinosaurs.TC: "We do, however, find much in the fossil record which is extremely similar if not identical to modern flora and fauna."And in which Cambrian deposits do we find whales? In fact, in which Cambrian deposits do we find any modern-looking flora or fauna? how come not one single fish can be found in the Cambrian? Is this due to speciation? Go on, you can tell me.TC: "I'm sure those fossils encased within Cambrian sediments will be fairly similar to something existing today."Another blind belief posing as creation science.Me: "Once again for the unprepared, the reason the formations have names is because they are distinct - they contain distinct flora and fauna and were laid down during distinct and separate geologic eras. They have widely differing radiometric dates."TC: "And? I never argued against this."Yes you did - the moment you took up creationist flood mythology. Once again, you need to explain **why** this circumstance exists. Once again, in a global flood, every organism would become mixed, and deposited indiscriminately, randomly, not ordered in evolutionary groupings and ecological niches. If you are claiming the flood somehow magically kept organisms separated, then you need to explain in detail what this mechanism was.And which hydrodynamic mechanism was it that consistently deposited the older-dating deposits before the younger-dating ones at the same time setting the radiometric clocks to give dates differing massively from 5,000 years?Me: "The mainstream is that heaviest (i.e. coarsest) deposits first."TC: "Depends on the depositional scenario."The depositional scenario was a massive, catastrophic, global flood. Not a series of modest little local floods, not turbidite deposits, not gentle sifting of material over extended time periods, but a massive flood that was the same the world over, that covered everything with a thick soup of material, that lasted a year and that disappeared as rapdily as it came. According to you.Now please explain what mechanism it was which prevented this flood from depositing material starting with the coarsest and ending with the finest? How did this flood manage to make so many mixed layers of sediment, interleaving fine and coarse granularity? What were the mechanics of this? Did physics somehow change so that the coarsest material was held suspended in the water for odd periods of time while finer materials deposited first?TC: "Hovind is a LOON, almost as ridiculous as yourself,"Please do give some clear, unequivocal examples to demonstrate this comparison.TC: "...and a complete waist (sic) of time and is making you look really bad in this discussion even considering that his ideas would have been accepted by me."I have a list of 300 lies and absurdities of Hovind that you failed to refute, remember? So please, let's not get into that. And am I reading you right: "Hovind is a loon...even considering that his ideas would have been accepted by me."?TC: "I don't know about you but I learned these geologic principals (sic) back when I was in 2nd grade."It's a pity you wasted so much time on that (given what you have subsequently done with it) and spent so little in your English composition classes.TC: "Because an extinction even (sic) would indicate a high point in the flood event"Excuse me? A high point in a massive, catastrophic, global flood? How could it get any worse that the entire planet being flooded? Are you saying that whole ecological systems somehow managed to stay afloat for weeks on end only to be all killed at exactly the same time by a big rock from the sky that somehow managed to take out entire phyla of organisms whilst leaving others untouched for another few weeks until another magic rock hit them?TC: "such as a meteoric impact or a decrease in temperature,"A decrease in temperature? This during a time when the entire Earth was being superheated by massive eruptions, earthquakes, and meteor impacts? This during the time when the entire icecaps, north and south were rapidly melting from the heat?TC: "or something such as that. I am claiming one 'flood', yes, but you wont let go of your bath tub and bucket of mud."I think "my" tub of mud (although this is a pure invention of yours) is a closer approximation to reality than you seem to be achieving! "or something such as that"? Is this what you call science? "or something such as that"?!BTW, please do explain how it is that the laws of physics, specifically the laws of hydrodynamics, magically differ in a flood from all other human experience. I can't wait for your explanation as to how coarser material would be suspended whilst finer material would be deposited, thereby contradicting the scenario I painted.TC's complete cluelessness: "Are you just trying to agitate me or are you seriously just that ill-informed? Let me help you understand little one, If I dump a bucket of sand in America, the same doesn't happen in Africa does it?"No, it sure doesn't. So I guess by your logic, if a massive global flood happens in America, then it doesn't happen in Africa? If I got that wrong, then please do explain how the physics of flooding and deposition are different, continent by continent, during a global flood, and discourse freely upon the causal mechanisms.TC's cluelessness gets worse: "Maybe I need to reiterate what I said for the close-minded one, "What do you know about geochemistry and its application to the distribution of isotopes in the earths crust?""Radiometry 101 for slow learners:
Radiocarbon is in every living thing. The level is renewed as long as things live, but the levels stop renewing and begin a permanent decay when those things die. The half-life is somewhere around 5,000 years. After some 50,000 years, it is useless for dating organic material.Got that?Now, if everything died in a one-year flood just 5,000 years ago, then the radiocarbon stopped being renewed in everything early in that one year - an instant in geologic time. Therefore virtually every fossil should show the same radiocarbon date, and it should be about 5,000 years. Clearly this flies in the face of what science actually does find, since we have widely-spread radiocarbon dates, and older fossils (as determined by relative position in the record) consistently fall well outside that date range.Get it now?TC: "ROFL! So your telling me that there have been no meteoric impacts in the last 600 million years of geologic time?"What 600 million years? We're talking about your young Earth global flood just 5,000 years ago, and the meteor impacts related to that - according to you. Or are you telling me the Bible was all wrong in dating the Earth to some 6,000 years ago, but exactly correct in dating the flood to 5,000 years ago? Which hat are you wearing? Do you even know?And please, let's not get started on meteor impacts, because they will kill you.TC: "What the heck are you talking about? What has this got anything to do with Joe Meert?"You seem to be referring to him rather a lot. I was just checking who is doing your work for you.TC: "All I said is that I don't have the answer to the problem yet. I don't have a problem with admitting this, I'm 16 and I'm making you look like a fool"In the same breath he says he doesn't have the answer, he claims he is making me look like a fool? You seem to be the one with no answers, so who is the more foolish-looking?TC: "I don't think I'm even learning anything here."Quite obviously not. But why should you when you are evidently learning so little in school?TC: "the K/T iridium would be one, yes. I have analyzed this a couple of times here on this board, so what's the problem?"The K/T iridium layer dates to some 65 million years ago, so you are a little out with your flood dates, that's the problem.TC on his complete lack of thought about where the soil came from: "I have ~4500 years to work with to create a soil! The ancients most likely used Andisols, which would not be difficult to find after such an event."Where did the andisols come from? Or are you claiming there was still massive volcanic activity after the floods, thereby rendering existence even more precarious? And since andisols deny plants phosphorus so adamantly, just what kind of flora are we talking about? I don't see Noah being able to grow grapes so readily in fresh volcanic soil....Clearly andisols do not get the job done. If there was enough generated after the flood to cover the Earth with 6 feet of soil, the living conditions would have been untenable, and if there was not, and any pre-flood soil was catastrophically sluiced away with your instant orogenesis, there was no soil available.So these survivors apparently grew their first crops at the bottom of the ocean, which is where all the soil would be. Or do we rely on another miracle here to hold the soil in place whilst the water rushes like crazy into the ocean basins while the mountains magically jump up out of the ground? Where were the humans and fauna living at this time that they were safe from this?Me: "How did modern flora and fauna survive this global flood? On Noah's ark? Again, you need to make your position clear with regard to the Genesis flood story."TC: "You've got the jist of it."Oh you are so slaughtered you have no idea. Please, do yourself a favor and stick with your snowballs, because, trust me, you do not want to get on the ark with me.TC: "I've read them, and you haven't, I'm not going to play your silly little pre-teen games."The only teenager between the two of us, is you, so please, do yourself a favor: if you want to discuss, then have the curtesy to answer the questions. Your smart mouth does nothing but amplify how poorly prepared you are. If you cannot answer the challenges, then do not throw them out in the first place, especially not to me, because I take no prisonsers.Budikka

"Well you didn't make clear that you were referring to the same post in which you wrote this, something you could have completely cleared up if you had only typed the above quote instead of vaguely refering me off to something else."
--Hm.. I thought it was most obvious, but I guess that's what happens when you don't read the post first. Go back to post #31 and the last third of it is as I said a 'a brief description of flood mechanics'."But since you do not, let's drop this and move on. As I believe I demonstrated in my reponse to post #31, you still had a lot to make clear - something I am guessing will not be changed by your present contribution, as judged from skimming the first couple of paragraphs."
--Yes, lets drop it, though it should be noted, for further latter recollection, that a reference toward 'water vapor' does not imply the "water canopy theory" (as the source for flood water or the rest of that ridiculous beneficial effects of pre-flood times)."In other words, you disagree with mainstream science. Duhh! BTW, I think you mean that you interpret it *differently*, not differentially."
--Differently, differentially, same thing, the latter is just preferred by me. And no, your statement is just plain false, how do you think mainstream consensus's evolve? Because along with the coming of new data, large or small, you then go back and interpret the previous data differently, sometimes the difference brings the previous theory crashing down. Hypotheses on solor cosmogenesis would be a perfect example of this."That's exactly what I did when I replied to it piece by piece, as you would have realised if you had properly understood the responses. Of course I know that "turbidities produce turbidite deposits." - what else would they produce? Pink bunny rabbits?"
--Then what kind of question is: 'If you are going to fly in the face of it and claim you know more than you need to amplify your case regarding turbidite deposits. Where is your evidence that this is what they are?'"If you had actually read my responses, you would have seen that I discuss specifically these. But let's get down to brass tacks. Your interpretation of turbidite deposits, which flies in the face of mainstream science (since mainstream science does not intrepret these as providing evidence for a global flood, whereas you do)"
--Please buddika, where the hell did I indicate that they did? What I am saying is that the Haymond Formation and your quote as a potential falsification of the flood, is pathetic."is entirely irrelevant to this discussion now, because we have much bigger fish to fry, and if you cannot deal with these fish, then your turbidity is totally becalmed."
--What 'fish' would that be?"Nonsense. You specifically asked me for examples refuting the global flood myth. I gave you six links. You didn't say I could not list URLs. And once again, since no matter how many times I repeat this, it appears not to be getting through to you, I listed those links to specifically highlight my contention that mainstream science does not support a global flood. I did not list those links for you to respond to."
--Then by listing your links you've accomplished absolutely nothing. I think it is obvious that parroting links is a pathetic tactic here and if you really think that you've falsified the Flood, I really can't help you."No! It is evidence of sedimentation "
--The flood predicts sedimentation, and therefore a potential falsification can be made: No sedimentation = no flood. There is sedimentation, therefore, it does not falsify the flood and is evidence for it, though not a conclusive compilation which would render the flood as actually happened."What is clear - from the facts of geology - is that there never was a one-time catastrophic global flood that covered everything and wiped out virtually every living organism, as the Bible story in Genesis contends."
--Well with your lack in geologic understanding I find that hard to believe coming form you, your effort at trying to support that claim is also very poor."If you have solid evidence to the contrary, then you should write a paper and get it published. You would become famous, not to mention becoming the darling of the creationists."
--No, what your asking for is a text-book. Because the only 'evidence' for a global flood which would be evidence which indicates that it has indeed happened, requires a consensus. This has already been covered in the beginning of the thread, others have commented on it, though you ignore it and ignorantly proclaim that that's poor logic without supporting that claim as well."No! The problem is that 200 years of geology and mainstream science does not think the evidence adds up to make the global flood a conclusive theory. "
--That's basically what I've said, without your included interpretation of whatever middle-school 'earth science' book you've read."Nor does it even add up to make a global flood a possibility. "
--Woopdi doo, I know this and I don't think you should be critisizing an immature field of science, research is to be done."This link (which again was one of the half-dozen so-called irrelevant links that you keep harping about) demonstrates more than adequately that you could not possibly beg orogensis to help you out in the 4-5,000 years since the flood:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
(read topic #7, "Producing the geological record", specifically the section on "Where did all the heat go?")"
--We've already gone over this, the heat problem is being dealt with, nonetheless catastrophic orogenesis is implied in the theory, so if your going to argue something, argue the heat problem(covered until further notice), not whether I can get enough water."Since the oceans clearly didn't boil away, there clearly could not have been the massive geologic reshaping you are so desperately begging for in the short time since the mythical flood receded. Once again if you had actually read the links I provided instead of blindly disimissing them, you would not now be making thoughtlessly arrogant statements like 'Ever heard of orogenesis?'" I gave you those links to save you such embarrassment."
--I'm still not embarrassed, I doubt that that could ever be the result of any discussion between myself and you. I have read the link a minimum of 4 times in the last year."No one is claiming ice is not buoyant in water, but ice floating in water does not raise water levels when it melts. Ice is less dense than water, not more dense. This is a simple fact that anyone who pretends to be re-writing science ought to know! It is an embarrassment to your case that you apparently do not know this."
--Well excuse me! I'm still not embarrassed. I found something interesting, read the last quote by Baumgardner in this article:http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...rose/heattransfer.htm"So you really actually believe in the Noah story? Is this what we need to address next - getting all those pairs of organisms onto the ark and having 8 people take care of them for a year?"
--Find someone else, I'm not into baraminology, or the definition of 'kind' or any of the genomic stuff."So where does all your rambling about meteors come from? What function do they serve in this myth? And what *did* melt the ice caps?!"
--I explained what melted the ice caps earlier, though I now recall that that isn't my fundamental source of water. My 'ramblings about meteors' came from the fact that we find many meteoric impact sites which span the Phanerozoic, which are flood sediments. The function they may serve is that if we have all that dust in the high atmosphere, we don't get a global pressure cooker, water is a greenhouse gas."How come geologists cannot find any evidence of this? How come the Bible doesn't mention massive eruptions and earthquakes? How come the pyramids didn't fall down during all this? As I have explained, this could not have happened. "
--Geologists find evidence of this all over the sea floor. The only think stopping them is their currently slow continental drift and isotopic dating. The pyramids werent built, but if you want to argue Archaeology, take it to another thread."In theory? So those 8 people on the ark, at least five of whom were so closely related that they shared significant genetic material, set up the Egyptian civilisation, built the pyramids, and then moved south to set up African civilisations, and east to set up the Chinese civilisation, and native American civilsation? And not a single one of these civilisations tells a story of surviving a global flood that wiped out the whole world? All of them have different stories of our origins and worship different gods? And in just 4-5,000 years, they turned brownish and yellowish and reddish, and developed differing physiognomies? How did this happen? More magic?"
--No magic, its very simple actually. Yes, practically all of them have flood legends and big boats which saved their culture for whatever reason it evolved to. Their turning 'brownish and yellowish and reddish' is basic population genetics, with as many bottle-necks and isolation in human populations post-flood it is not difficult to grasp. But again that's biology, not geology and flood mechanics."I am using today's values to demonstrate what a massive amount of ice you would need for your myth to work - and I specifically referenced a time when today's values were insignificant compared with the amount of ice that was in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age, and reminding you that **when that melted** it did not cause a global flood. Your ice cap scenario does not work!
--Good thing that's not all I have, eh?"The thickness of ice in Antarctica is up to 3 miles. It snows no more than 3"/year there. But let's say the ice is only 1.5 miles thick. It would take an annual snowfall of over 20 inches to create this thickness of ice in 5,000 years. To create a 3 mile thickness at 3"/year would take over 60,000 years. If you are claiming snowfall was greater than this, then you need to show where science supports you."
--Take a gander at the estimated precipitation rates in the article I provided you."And you need to answer my earlier question that you have now ducked twice, as to how deep the flood waters actually became.
--Again, I must ask you to elaborate, what do you mean? If I'm standing in the middle of the ocean depth could be miles, If I'm on top the Mariana's trench, deeper so. What do you mean?"You would do yourself a greater service if you would actually provide evidence for you case. Laughing at the facts isn't going to win anything for you, and makes you look like a jackass. I am sure, if you had evidence, you would provide it, so all I can conclude from your behavior is that you have no evidence and are forced to laugh to keep yourself from crying.
--Why is it I feel the same about you? I'll bet that many spectators may feel similarly about your unfathomably vitriolic posts. You cause me agitation."What discussion? I am hitting you with hard numbers and you are laughing like a moron. You wanted this debate. Now dig in and deal with it. If your myth cannot actually cope with the facts, at least have the maturity to admit it."
--I admit where an admittance is due..."You whined like a newborn baby that I gave you "URLs instead of argument"."
--That's because only a baby does that. The tactic you displayed was laughable."Now I am giving you argument and you are whining even louder about that! The more you respond with arrogant blather, the more of a loser you become. I will not let you Borger your way out of this any more than I let Borger Borger his way out of dealing with his failures."
--You know what? (well actually I realized this quite a while ago) I found out why people are annoyed by your behavior so much. You can't even keep in a conversation without having to punch in your ignorant rhetoric and side-remarks."I don't believe I specifically denied that they were such deposits. The point is that such deposits are made from material drafted in by a current from, for example, a river emptying into an ocean and depositing its solid material. There is no problem explaining this in mainstream science.
--You indicated that you did deny it. And I never said that I argue against a mainstream explanation. I'm arguing that it does nothing to support your claim that the haymond formation falsifies the floods occurrence."What *you* need to explain is how could this kind of thing happen so sedately yet so rapidly in a global flood in a raging ocean with effectively no rivers sending deposits out, and apparently with meteors, volcanoes and earthquakes blasting off all around.
--This is where you misunderstand the dynamics of turbidity currents. All those meteors, volcanoes and earthquakes may very well have been what caused so many turbidity currents. See an example here"I notice that you very wisely avoided dealing with the specific layering issue I laid out for you (once again from the URLs that you repeatedly try to pretend are so useless)."
--Hog-wash."It makes not a jot of difference arguing one case of turbidite deposits (where you haven't even made any sort of case whatsoever demonstrating that these somehow support a global flood). The fact is that you are supposed to be arguing for a global flood - not a local flood. Now cut the blather and answer the question. Once again, if you have a case, make it, because I am tiring of asking you to make this non-existent case for this mythical flood of yours.
--What the heck is your problem? I never said that this proves the floods feasibility, all they are is turbidite deposits, I am saying that your assertions that they are falsifications of the flood are false."Are you denying that this flood consisted of thick mud soup? If so, then where did the **massive thickness** of extant sedimentary rock came from? If the flood was mud soup, then how could these cute little turbidite deposits form, and how could organisms survive in such a mess?"
--Because there is no mess! Again, you don't know the dynamics and destructive processes of turbidity currents, each turbidity is a mere ~5cm thick! not only that, the underlying layers have a lack in erosion, any geologist would think your deluding yourself to think that such turbidities would wipe out populations of crustaceans[?]."Talking of ocean life, corals die very rapidly when subject to pollution or to too warm temperatures. How could any corals survive a flood of mud soup and temperatures warm enough to melt ice caps?"
--They likely didn't."I am sure you could, but we are talking not about you, but about little organisms which live out a tedious life. They are not motivated to burrow frenetically like you apparently are, they do only what is necessary."
--You must have never been scuba diving. And you have put yourself in the position to show me that they would die. Not give me some straw man of a picture and argument from incredulity."What turbidity mechanism deposits 157 layers per day, and what organism would live in such circumstances, when less frantic ecological niches are to be found?"
--The little data we have says that these 157 or however many layers were not deposited in one go. Each turbidity deposit was deposited seperately, and were no where near catastrophic. Are you trying to tell me that the organisms went on strike or something?"Your blind blather about turbidity has been deleted since I defined turbidity quite clearly. If you are beset by one of your "differential interpretations" from mainstream science, then please do enlighten us by defining turbidity currents and turbidite deposits yourself, right here."
--Your definition was incorrect. You stated that "Turbidity currents deposit or redeposit material washed from the land. . They are characteristically graded from coarsest material to finest (bottom to top)" This is partially correct and also wrong, and is misleading. Turbidity currents do not deposit coarse to fine materials vertically to any significance, they are deposited in a horizontal granulometric correlation due to the turbidities movement. Fine grains settle further away than more coarse ones. Turbidity currents also are not confined to depositing or redepositing material washed from land as this article explains, being another dominant mechanism for turbidity current formation."Talking of answering questions, do you really think I am going to let you get away with this blather? Please define how the "Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary" (or that vicinity) is the demarcation for the flood. What is it which draws the line here? What shows that the deposits above this line are global flood related while those below are not?"
--I provided the paleosol as an evidence. The Phanerozoic sediments contain, in regards to fauna, what is expected by the flood, the below, does not. What is included in the Phanerozoic is not what is going to be found pre-flood. Hence, the boundary."Yet you adhere to the Genesis account which demands 40 days and 40 nights of rain? Or is that particular section of the account mere mythology whilst the rest is hard fact?"
--Your not reading, and probably didn't even read the article you cited. I said 'I don't have rain coming down anywhere near that fast.. '. I didn't say that I don't have rain! Your interpretive skills in literacy are greatly lacking."So pre-flood soil was not disturbed by a massive global flood caused by massive eruptions and earthquakes and supplemented by meteor impacts? What is this - another miracle required by the creationists? Don't I correctly recall you claiming that you are separating your science from your theology? Exactly how is this soil supposed to remain undisturbed when there is a global calamity in progress?"
--You know, if you really are as 'experienced' as you claim, you really must have never listened to anything. Your bath-tub model is a bunch of crap and your still trying to shake it around in your futile effort to get bang your head against it all over again. The answer is very much the same as mainstream would give you to this ridiculous question. As the land became inundated and covered by the first sediments, and then more, followed by more, The only thing that would then disturb the pre-flood soils is if you dig down there! This obviously may have happened through erosive effects in some places, the paleosol I gave as an example, is not globally correlated.."Yet you have a clear demarcation line? Doesn't radiocarbon dating help you since this took place less than 5,000 years ago? If there were massive eruptions at that time, why can these not be found and dated? If you have no dating method, then where does your date estimate come from?"
--I gave my reasoning for the pre-flood/flood boundary above. And radiocarbon dating wouldn't work because fluctuations in atmospheric quantities in Nitrogen, Carbon-12 or whatever they were are required to be constant for a date to be accurate. I don't deal much with the atmophilic applications of C-14, I mostly have dealt with the geochemical modeling with regards to other stratophilic and lithophilic isotopes such as U, Th, K, etc. Some reasoning for the geochemistry involved is summerized in the last half of this post here."And if the flood made the post pre-Cambrian deposits, what, pray tell, made the pre-Cambrian deposits?"
--The earths formation, I explain this in the opening comments of my post #3 here"This is another way of saying, "we made it up"! Just like the Noah story."
--Are you scientifically incompetent? This is exactly how scientific inquiry forms hypotheses on things like this, they use what best fits the data!"Please thrill me with your erudition in explaining what the word "speciation" has to do with not a single mammal being found in layers that were buried earlier than the dinosaurs."
--I know you would really have loved to smash my head up against a wall in my saying that "evolution doesn't happen", but I don't bark up that tree. Changes in allelomorphic frequencies over time cause phylogenetic decendance to effect morphology. Morphology is the only thing we can observe in the lifeless remnants of the fossil record."And in which Cambrian deposits do we find whales? In fact, in which Cambrian deposits do we find any modern-looking flora or fauna? how come not one single fish can be found in the Cambrian? Is this due to speciation? Go on, you can tell me."
--Fish were not deposited until Ordovician. Much of the Cambrian flora have become extinct, though these resemble recent crustaceans:http://www.toyen.uio.no/...alleri/montre/english/162_496.htm
http://www.toyen.uio.no/...galleri/montre/english/a30976.htm--Speciation has nothing to do with why fish weren't deposited in Cambrian sediments."Yes you did - the moment you took up creationist flood mythology. Once again, you need to explain **why** this circumstance exists. Once again, in a global flood, every organism would become mixed, and deposited indiscriminately, randomly, not ordered in evolutionary groupings and ecological niches. If you are claiming the flood somehow magically kept organisms separated, then you need to explain in detail what this mechanism was."
--Do you have some sort of mental handicap? If you do, please tell me. Please tell me why the hell you would even think that the earth would work like a bathtub, and that you think that flood dynamics work anything like taking all the sediments of the current earth and suspending them in water so that they might be sorted hydraulically!? Hydraulics have nothing to do with this! When an event took place, global or isolated, different flora would die from it and be buried by incoming sediments majoratively by the means of surges (please don't ask me what caused them, you made this mistake in discussing turbidities..) Again, if it is really this hard to understand, your bath tub is for bathing in, not for simulating global inundation... let alone the processes occurring during inundation and abation."And which hydrodynamic mechanism was it that consistently deposited the older-dating deposits before the younger-dating ones at the same time setting the radiometric clocks to give dates differing massively from 5,000 years?"
--Hydrodynamic sorting has nothing to do with it! This is why I asked you what you know about geochemistry."The depositional scenario was a massive, catastrophic, global flood. Not a series of modest little local floods, not turbidite deposits, not gentle sifting of material over extended time periods, but a massive flood that was the same the world over, that covered everything with a thick soup of material, that lasted a year and that disappeared as rapdily as it came. According to you."
--According to me? This is bull, please, tell me where I even slightly indicated anything about some homologous thick mud soup of material swashing and sloshing around the earth. And don't come at me with some crap about 'it happened the second you accepted Noahs flood was true'. This is the most pathetic attemptedly maintained straw-man I have heard in a long time. This is alone shows you are worse than Hovind! Throw your freakin bath tub model out the window. The thing is, on a micro scale and in isolated areas, that's exactly what did happen, turbidity currents, meteor impacts, local floods, etc. What happens in America doesn't happen in Asia, do I really have to go over my elementary explanation with you all over again?"Did physics somehow change so that the coarsest material was held suspended in the water for odd periods of time while finer materials deposited first?"
--No, again you don't have any degree of understanding of the dynamics, ignorantly provoked I must assume. Just as happens today, if you have a turbidity current, for instance, which flows down the continental slope and toward the sea floor. You have extremely fine silt materials and being deposited, but you also have a deposit directly under the turbidite deposit preventing them from mixing and allowing the previously deposited sediments to create a mixture with the new sediments and granulometrically sort the two. It doesn't happen that way! Please, order yourself a text on geology, there are plenty of them at Amazon.com."Please do give some clear, unequivocal examples to demonstrate this comparison."
--I've given plenty above. What is also indicative of your insanity is even taking Hovind seriously. What were your expectations for your '300 creationist lies'? That even the moderately educated in scientific inquiry would read it and get something new out of it? The only thing your article has done is given those in the group of the scientifically inept anti-creationists something to spout about the same way Hovinds ilk does. I'm not saying your time is valuable, but you still wasted a lot of it on that empty 'project'."I have a list of 300 lies and absurdities of Hovind that you failed to refute, remember? So please, let's not get into that. And am I reading you right: "Hovind is a loon...even considering that his ideas would have been accepted by me."?"
--If there is anything your right on, this is it. Hovind is a loon, not to be taken seriously, even though you were for some odd reason did take him seriously enough to waist your time on that article of yours. My good thoughts as it pertains to scientific standards and merit, have gradually degraded towards zero."Excuse me? A high point in a massive, catastrophic, global flood? How could it get any worse that the entire planet being flooded? Are you saying that whole ecological systems somehow managed to stay afloat for weeks on end only to be all killed at exactly the same time by a big rock from the sky that somehow managed to take out entire phyla of organisms whilst leaving others untouched for another few weeks until another magic rock hit them?"
--Basically, except for the 'magic' part."A decrease in temperature? This during a time when the entire Earth was being superheated by massive eruptions, earthquakes, and meteor impacts? This during the time when the entire icecaps, north and south were rapidly melting from the heat?"
--My personal analyses regarding the heat production issue have not met conclusions yet so its difficult to be precise, though the article I supplied you regarding precipitation rates includes temperatures of the ocean ridges, the major source of heat diffusivity out of the mantle.
--A lack of solar heating, however, is highly effective in reducing temperatures from where they would have been preceding."No, it sure doesn't. So I guess by your logic, if a massive global flood happens in America, then it doesn't happen in Africa? If I got that wrong, then please do explain how the physics of flooding and deposition are different, continent by continent, during a global flood, and discourse freely upon the causal mechanisms."
--No! What that does mean is that if an event of deposition or meteoric impact, or something of that likeness were to happen in America, it doesn't happen in Africa! Thereby contradicting your bath-tub version of flood mechanics."Radiometry 101 for slow learners:
Radiocarbon is in every living thing. The level is renewed as long as things live, but the levels stop renewing and begin a permanent decay when those things die. The half-life is somewhere around 5,000 years. After some 50,000 years, it is useless for dating organic material.Got that?"
--Yea, but its false (again). the half-life is ~5730 ya, and due to current advancement (unbeknownst to you) accurate dating is able to be found up till 100,000 ya. See my reference regarding geochemistry."Now, if everything died in a one-year flood just 5,000 years ago, then the radiocarbon stopped being renewed in everything early in that one year - an instant in geologic time. Therefore virtually every fossil should show the same radiocarbon date, and it should be about 5,000 years. Clearly this flies in the face of what science actually does find, since we have widely-spread radiocarbon dates, and older fossils (as determined by relative position in the record) consistently fall well outside that date range."
--Not if there were higher quantities of C-14 at a previous time."What 600 million years? We're talking about your young Earth global flood just 5,000 years ago, and the meteor impacts related to that - according to you. Or are you telling me the Bible was all wrong in dating the Earth to some 6,000 years ago, but exactly correct in dating the flood to 5,000 years ago? Which hat are you wearing? Do you even know?"
--600 Mya of Geologic time, in my scenario radioisotopic dating is not 'aga' but appearance of 'age'."And please, let's not get started on meteor impacts, because they will kill you."
--Oh will they? Well its a good thing I want them to kill, destroy, and annihilate stuff huh? But please, begin spouting."You seem to be referring to him rather a lot. I was just checking who is doing your work for you."
--Very interesting, and who is doing your work? You have not chosen to delve beneath the surface of absolutely anything presented here. And parroting others material [via internet links] doesn't make it look like your doing your own work either..."In the same breath he says he doesn't have the answer, he claims he is making me look like a fool? You seem to be the one with no answers, so who is the more foolish-looking?"
--I'm sure an abundant many would agree with me. You constantly attempt to bash on my credibility but it seems to be backfiring quite a bit, due to your lack in scientific understanding and/or unwillingness to look under the surface of anything."Quite obviously not. But why should you when you are evidently learning so little in school?"
--True! I do learn little in school, must be because I enjoy reading the college graduate material and they don't supply or expect that sort of initiative out of anyone in high school do they?"The K/T iridium layer dates to some 65 million years ago, so you are a little out with your flood dates, that's the problem."
--Is that it?"Where did the andisols come from? Or are you claiming there was still massive volcanic activity after the floods, thereby rendering existence even more precarious? And since andisols deny plants phosphorus so adamantly, just what kind of flora are we talking about? I don't see Noah being able to grow grapes so readily in fresh volcanic soil...."
--I don't need an atomic bomb or even that to explode in a volcano after the flood. Andisols are easy to produce. And since much sediments would not have been consolidated and lithified at the top of the geologic column, there is no phosphorus problem, haven't you ever heard of the phosphorus cycle? Also andisols in particular do wonders for flora:

quote:

---

This weathers rapidly to a mix of amorphous weathering products such as imogolite and base-rich clays such as smectite. These soils thus are highly fertile, rich in organic matter, and have unusually low bulk density. These properties, along with imogollite and smectite, are commonly altered during burial, when distinctive minerals such as celadonite and clinoptilolite form.

---

Soils of the past - An introduction to Paleopedology: Second Edition, 2001."Clearly andisols do not get the job done. If there was enough generated after the flood to cover the Earth with 6 feet of soil, the living conditions would have been untenable, and if there was not, and any pre-flood soil was catastrophically sluiced away with your instant orogenesis, there was no soil available."
--You have no idea what your talking about here. Please get yourself a book on pedogenesis. The one quoted above may suit you well. But maybe its a little technical, try reading 'my first soil - Teletubbies special for infants early education'."Oh you are so slaughtered you have no idea. Please, do yourself a favor and stick with your snowballs, because, trust me, you do not want to get on the ark with me."
--OMG! I'm so frightened. On a more serious note, no, this thread wasn't created with the intent to discuss the ark, unless you'd like to talk about where it went? That's got a little bit more to do with geology "The only teenager between the two of us, is you, so please, do yourself a favor: if you want to discuss, then have the curtesy to answer the questions. Your smart mouth does nothing but amplify how poorly prepared you are. If you cannot answer the challenges, then do not throw them out in the first place, especially not to me, because I take no prisonsers."
--I thought you were the one which had to answer the challenges in this thread? *Shrug* well I guess you missed that part too. Unfortunately you have to carry it out this 'debate' with such vitriol, this is less like a scientific exchange of ideas, and more like a silly game of attack the creationist.------------------

TC: "I thought it was most obvious, but I guess that's what happens when you don't read the post first."Well that's the difference between creationists who deal in faith and maybe's and people who follow the scientific method which deals in exactitudes....FYI, the last third of message #31 is not an independent statement of yours, but your response to me, in which you offer such revealing details of your "flood mechanics" as this:
"How deep was the flood? Well that depends on where your (sic) standing doesn't it? I explained the rest earlier."If you consider that to be a detailed position statement, then I am truly sorry for you. Once again, no science from the science guy and no discussion from the discussion guy.TC: "though it should be noted...that a reference toward (sic) 'water vapor' does not imply the "water canopy theory""Of course, all of this confusion could have been avoided completely if you had taken my advice and given a detailed position statement from the very beginning. However, pressing on....TC: "Differently, differentially, same thing,"No! And if you think differently, then you need to stay in school a bit longer. Science is not a loose collection of rambling (unless it is "creation science") beliefs. Science is exact - or as exact as it can be. The fact that you do not appear to be able to wrap your mind around this is a sad commentary upon your position.TC: "...the latter is just preferred by me."Just like your own idiosyncratic interpretation of real scientists' hard work is preferred by you. I get it.TC: "Because along with the coming of new data, large or small, you then go back and interpret the previous data differently, sometimes the difference brings the previous theory crashing down."Maybe - when you have made a case and have hard, empirical, replicable evidence to back it up. I am still waiting for yours. Just so stories and smart mouth don't cut it in scientific circles.TC: "Then what kind of question is: 'If you are going to fly in the face of it and claim you know more than you need to amplify your case regarding turbidite deposits. Where is your evidence that this is what they are?'"Precisely that. You have thought it smart to attack me for accepting the status quo, but when I ask you to support your belief (that they were turbidite deposits) what do you do? Swallow the URL whole and spit it right back at me. Yet this is the same URL that you are attacking, pretending it isn't what it appears to be.Now you can have it one way or you can have it the other. Either the URL was solid evidence, or it was not. You cannot claim that this little bit was solid because you liked it, but the rest of it was meaningless trash because you didn't.And if you cannot support your claims, then please, do not pretend to be some sort of geology god by spitting out geology buzzwords like you thoroughly grasp what they all mean. I am not impressed.TC: "Please buddika, where the hell did I indicate that they did? What I am saying is that the Haymond Formation and your quote as a potential falsification of the flood, is pathetic."Well that's not what the geologist who wrote it thinks. What are your qualifications to call him a liar? Have you discussed this with him? Did he back down and agree that your interpretation makes more sense than his? Do you really think you know more about interpeting these than a practicing field geologist? How long do you truly expect to survive in the real world with *that* kind of arrogance? Now please, if you cannot make your case with this turbidity, then let's move on to something you think you can make your case with. If you have anything.TC: "Then by listing your links you've accomplished absolutely nothing."I have accomplished nothing, because you are intractably incapable of grasping the purpose of the URLs. I am not going to repeat the reason in every message I write in the desperate hope that you might be able to absorb it sooner or later.TC: "...therefore, it does not falsify the flood and is evidence for it, though not a conclusive compilation which would render the flood as actually happened."We all know that - I am still awaiting your evidence *for* the flood. I have been awaiting that since you opened this thread. I have yet to see it. All I have seen so far is you dancing around flapping your arms and pretending you have disproven a lack of a flood(!).And you are not even right when you claim without qualification that sedimentation is evidence for the flood. Within the deposits that *you* claim are flood deposits are sedimentary deposits caused by rivers. Now were these submarine rivers, do you suppose? How do you account for repeated evidence of freshwater environments within the strata you claim are flood deposits, with accompanying terrestrial life, which died, was fossilised, was exposed, was weathered, and was reburied, in the midst of deposts that you claim were laid down when the entire planet was completely covered with brine?TC: "Well with your lack in geologic understanding I find that hard to believe coming form you, your effort at trying to support that claim is also very poor."I have made no strenuous effort to suport the claim other than providing your with half a dozen URLs, which, when read in detail and taken together, demonstrate conclusively that there could not have been a global flood. And they were written by real scienctists, not high school kids masquerading as a geologist and calling the real scientists liars and idiots.The position of the scientific manstream is that there is no evidence for a global flood. Since I first posted in this thread I have been almost literally begging you for *any evidence at all* that there was a global flood, and you have been *completely empty handed*.Before you even think of criticising me, put *your* cards on the table and let's see how many of them are tattered old jokers, because I have yet to see a single thing from you which calls the status quo into question.Do you expect to establish your case by standing there like a spoiled brat in a schoolyard, stomping your feet and blinking your eyes, and chanting depserately "But there was a flood! There was! There was! I know there was!"?TC: "No, what your (sic) asking for is a text-book."What I am asking for from you for the billionth time is **A SINGLE SHRED OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR BLIND BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A GLOBAL FLOOD JUST 5,000 OR SO YEARS AGO**. Is there any way at all that I can make this any more crystal clear even to you?TC: "Because the only 'evidence' for a global flood which would be evidence which indicates that it has indeed happened, requires a consensus."Well first **YOU HAVE TO RPESENT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THERE CAN BE A CONSENSUS UPON IT** Can I make it any more clear at all? You have to *present the evidence*. There has to *be* evidence. Positive evidence. For a global flood. Just 5,000 years ago. There has to *be* evidence. There has to be evidence before you can present it and gain a consensus. Is this reaching you at all?TC" "This has already been covered in the beginning of the thread"Not that I have seen. All I have seen is you flat refusing to offer any evidence and demanding, instead, that I refute your **lack of evidence**. If you have evidence - **postive evidence that supports your claim for a Genesis flood**, then please do refer me to the message number where you have presented this excellent evidence.This is what I said: "Nor does it even add up to make a global flood a possibility."This is what geo-superwizard responded: "Woopdi doo, I know this"Then **YOU LOSE**. I say there is no evidence for a global flood, you agree. What more is there to be said?! Duhh! QED.Oh, but now he wriggles. I have never seen a creationist yet who was not an expert wriggler: "..and I don't think you should be critisizing an immature field of science, research is to be done."Reasearch has been done for 200 years or so, and the jury is in - **there was no flood**. And I will criticise pseudo-scientific garbage and nonsense wherever I see it.TC: "We've already gone over this, the heat problem is being dealt with"Not in this thread it isn't. All I am getting from you is "hey, it's in hand, hey, don't criticise, hey, be fair, hey, I'm working on that."Meanwhile 200 years of geology has made the case that there was no flood, and you have essentially admitted that just now. Now who is it who looks silly at this point?TC: "I'm still not embarrassed, I doubt that that could ever be the result of any discussion between myself and you. I have read the link a minimum of 4 times in the last year."And in all of this blubber and blather, where is your response to my question about heat? Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere. Once again I challenge you on a serious topic and you are flapping around like a fish without a flood.TC: "Well excuse me! I'm still not embarrassed. I found something interesting, read the last quote by Baumgardner in this article:
http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...rose/heattransfer.htm"You should be embarrassed because that reference has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that ice over the North Pole would contribute little or nothing to sea level rising even if it all melted tomorrow. Am I to take it you have no argument against this and accept it now?And your Baumgardner quote is, as usual for a creationist, out of context. Without knowing the rest of that article, I can't see what it has to do with your case. The sad thing is that even if it fully supported your case, it appears that Baumgardner himself is a creationist! Do you know who he is and what his qualifications are, or are you going to simply blindly believe in him as you do in your flood myth?If he is a creationist, and is not a hydrologist or a geologist and has not published and had his claims peer-reviewed, then his comments are no more relevant than are your just-so stories. He certainly makes no case at all for a global, year-long Genesis flood that I can see.TC: "Find someone else, I'm not into baraminology, or the definition of 'kind' or any of the genomic stuff."That's not what I asked. What I asked was:
"So you really actually believe in the Noah story? Is this what we need to address next - getting all those pairs of organisms onto the ark and having 8 people take care of them for a year?"Answer the question. Do you accept the Noah story? Did 8 people care for every single "kind" and then use them to repopulate the planet? You cannot claim there was a global flood without having some story to deal with the consequences of such a flood and how it was survived by the lucky few. If you do, then what you have is not science but faith.TC: "I explained what melted the ice caps earlier..."I must have missed that. Please refer me to the message where you explained all this. Because if it has to do with meteors, I am still waiting on you answering a host of questions about those.TC: "...The function they may serve is that if we have all that dust in the high atmosphere, we don't get a global pressure cooker, water is a greenhouse gas."No, instead, we get an extended winter and massively prolonged darkness caused by the choking dust. I don't recall reading about that in the Bible.... And I am still waiting for your evidence of massive meteor impacts 5,000 years ago. The Bible seems strangely quiet about those, too. Are you listening, Fred Williams?TC: "Geologists find evidence of this all over the sea floor."Can you quote me mainstream science references that demonstrate massive disturbances that could have caused or contributed to global flooding (for which there is no evidence) just 5,000 years ago?TC: "The only think stopping them is their currently slow continental drift and isotopic dating."Don't get me started on continental drift. That will destroy what tattered shreds still remain of your case. Especially if you have swallowed one too many of Hovind's lies on the subject.TC: "The pyramids werent built, but if you want to argue Archaeology, take it to another thread."So now you are flying in the face of Egyptology? Are you claiming all of the pyramids were built in the last 4-5,000 years? And no, it stays in this thread, since you are the one who needs to explain your flood myth **and all of its implications**.If the great pyramids were all built after the flood, who built them? The eight people from the ark, desperately scraping out a miserable existence on a destroyed planet with choking volcanic dust everywhere? (Budikka stifles a belly-laugh). If they were built before the flood, how come they show no flood damage?TC: "No magic, its very simple actually. Yes, practically all of them have flood legends and big boats which saved their culture for whatever reason it evolved to."But they do not have the **same** flood legend. It is only 4-5,000 years ago. How could such a major event, that was eye-witnessed by eight people who subsequently **wrote it down** and passed it on to their children, change so dramatically?How come these people, who descended from only eight people just 4-5,000 years ago do not have the **same** creation myths?TC: "Their turning 'brownish and yellowish and reddish' is basic population genetics"In only 4-5,000 years? And why? Why did they change? What was the impetus? How did they change so rapidly? Why do Africans, rather than Middle Easterners have the most genetic diversity, if the entire planet's population was founded by only eight Hebrews in the Ararat region, just 4-5,000 years ago?TC: "But again that's biology, not geology and flood mechanics."The topic is the flood. You began it. You need to deal with all its implications, because it is all tied together. You cannot make a **scientific** case for a flood based on one turbidity (or whatever), whilst ignoring all the other arguments that destroy your case. On the other hand, maybe **you** can - you are a blindly believing creationist, after all. Just like Alice, maybe you can believe in several impossible things, all before breakfast.Me: "I am using today's values to demonstrate what a massive amount of ice you would need for your myth to work - and I specifically referenced a time when today's values were insignificant compared with the amount of ice that was in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age, and reminding you that **when that melted** it did not cause a global flood. Your ice cap scenario does not work!"
TC's response: "Good thing that's not all I have, eh?"This is the response from the hypocrite who has repeatedly, and without foundation, taken me to task for what he pretends are poor arguments. Here I have set out a proposition, which alone destroys his ice cap argument and he doesn't even have a response! And he is supposed to be destroying me and establishing a rock solid case for a global flood? I don't think so. I assume this is TC's not-so-subtle way of acknowledging that I have defeated his ice cap myth.Either that or I expect him to make a serious argument for it that isn't another just-so story.TC: "Take a gander at the estimated precipitation rates in the article I provided you."What article? Here the hypocrite who repeatedly pretends the URLs I gave him are worthless, does not even offer a URL or **anything**, but refers vaguely to some article somewhere that may or may not exist!If it is online, then give me the URL. If it is elsewhere in your blather, then give me the message number. If you do not have a reference, then deal with the facts I presented demonstrating that your flood could not have "receded into the south pole".Actually, after all that, precipitation rates are irrelevant, because even if they were massive enough to create the Antarctic ice mass in 5,000 years, they *still* do not account for the flood water that must have been present to cover the entire planet to any significant depth. Once again, there is not enough water in the ice caps to flood the Earth.And if your "reference" is nothing more than wild, unsupported creationist blather, don't even bother to give it.TC: "Again, I must ask you to elaborate, what do you mean? If I'm standing in the middle of the ocean depth could be miles, If I'm on top the Mariana's trench, deeper so. What do you mean?"Clearly this guy is completely out of his depth regardless of how deep the floods were. Okay, let me spell this out in kindergarten terms.Did the floods cover Everest which is some 29,000 feet above sea level? Did they cover only the Outer Banks of North Carolina which is maybe six feet above sea level? In other words, HOW FAR ABOVE PRESENT SEA LEVEL DID THE FLOODS RISE AND WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS YOUR ANSWER**?Is *that* clear enough for you?TC: "Why is it I feel the same about you? I'll bet that many spectators may feel similarly about your unfathomably vitriolic posts. You cause me agitation."I sincerely hope so, because there is nothing worse, nor more hilarious than an arrogant creationist dripping worthless blather all over the Internet and repeatedly shying away from dealing with the very agument that he literally opened this thread and begged me for.TC: "You know what? (well actually I realized this quite a while ago) I found out why people are annoyed by your behavior so much. You can't even keep in a conversation without having to punch in your ignorant rhetoric and side-remarks."You know what? If you had offered even one decent response instead of arrogant and insulting blather, wriggling and side-stepping, you could have avoided all of this. You whined that I offered URLs instead of argument, and now I am offering you the very argument you sought and all you can do is smart mouth, throw in useless geology buzzwords, and whine even more. Cut out the whining and smart-mouthing, deal with the issues and see if my attitude doesn't improve.And don't imagine for a minute that I give a damn what people think about me!Although I am forced to note that once again we have this unsupported claim of all these people who are annoyed with me. If they are creationists, then I am thrilled they are so annoyed. I intend to keep them annoyed, believe me, because one thing I will not let them do is get away with their lies unchallenged.TC: "This is where you misunderstand the dynamics of turbidity currents. All those meteors, volcanoes and earthquakes may very well have been what caused so many turbidity currents. See an example here"The hypocrite who has whined endlessly about the URLs offers yet another vacuous, desperately hopeful argument filled not with hard science, but with ifs, ands, buts, and maybes, and refers me to what is apparently his own authority! Great argument! let me, in turn, refer you to this:
"Budikka says you're wrong".There - by your reckoning, that ought to settle it.I am still awaiting your evidence that these mythical eruptions and meteors ever existed 5,000 years ago. Until you provide that, there is no point in pursuing this particular topic, and your turbidity is calmed.BTW, just how was it that those burrowing critters maintained their sedate, ordered, burrowing lifestyle amidst these eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, and gallons and gallons of thrashing, turbid, brine thick with mud, meteorite debris, and volcanic ash?TC: "Because there is no mess!"Great argument!! There was no muddy ocean, because you say so. Well, you know, that convinces me. Wow. I never knew you had such hard science to call upon to back you up. Gee Whiz!Have you ever seen a river in flood? Is it sedate? Is it crystal clear? Or is it a wild, rapidly moving, thrashing, mud-filled snake of water that drowns and kills? Is the ocean more sedate than this? Would a world-wide flood amidst massive eruptions and earthquakes and landslides and subsidence be even more sedate than this? No! If you disagree, support your argument with something more than a desperate plea for me to take your word for it.In short, quit lying about the conditions and dispense with your fairytale, or supply evidence that supports your case of a gentle Carribbean-style lagoon wonderland with softly sifting fine-grained deposits gently caressing those cute litte sedately burrowing organisms.TC: "Again, you don't know the dynamics and destructive processes of turbidity currents, each turbidity is a mere ~5cm thick!"And neither do you, since *you* are claiming that burrowing creatures could have survived and burrowed within those 5cm layers, and not be killed by the "destructive processes" nor have their delicate burrows destroyed! You are deleting your own case here.Me: "Talking of ocean life, corals die very rapidly when subject to pollution or to too warm temperatures. How could any corals survive a flood of mud soup and temperatures warm enough to melt ice caps?"
TC: "They likely didn't."This is your hard science? This from the hypocrite who claims my arguments are poor? TC thinks they *likely* didn't? Oh how that complete destroys 200 years of hard science. TC's deadly "likely didn't" conjecture. Damn! I am so deflated. How can I possibly argue against such solid evidence?Sorry, but "likely didn't" likely doesn't given that the evidence is in that even the modest global warming we are now experiencing is killing off coral in a big way.
BBC - 404: Not Found
BBC - 404: Not Found TC's complete lack of grasp: "The little data we have says that these 157 or however many layers were not deposited in one go."But they were deposited **on average** every single day for 95 days at *an average rate* of 157/day, if they were deposited during a one-time global flood. Or can't you grasp that?TC: "Each turbidity deposit was deposited seperately"Duhh!TC: "..and were no where near catastrophic."Not according to mainstream science, they were not, but mainstream science allows more than 95 days per 157 deposits. It is you, with your calamitous one-time global flood, with meteors raining down and eruptions and earthquakes and mudslides who desperately needs the catastrophy. Duhh! Which hat are you wearing again? Do you know?TC: "Your definition was incorrect. You stated that "Turbidity currents deposit or redeposit material washed from the land."The source of the material is the least important thing, but just out of wild curiosity, where does this material come from? You think that a significant portion of deposits on the ocean floor were *not* originally washed off from the land?TC: "This is partially correct and also wrong,"Say what?!!TC: "Turbidity currents do not deposit coarse to fine materials vertically to any significance"That's your interpetation. My source material said it differently., Do you have a reference? Here are some from me:
Where turbidite deposits come from:
http://gsa.confex.com/...2CD/finalprogram/abstract_33900.htm
This one mentions interleaved deposits of siltstone, shale, and sandstone - I would be curious to know how a wildly thrashing ocean managed this:
Discussion and Conclusion
The above URL also has this quote: "...Through extensive work on similar deposits Bouma has identified some characteristics common to turbidite deposits. First most of the flysch deposits in turbidites include sole marks (includes flutes tool marks and pro and bounce marks), load structures (ball and pillow, load casts, and flame structures), graded bedding..."Note the key phrase, "graded bedding". QED.TC: "Turbidity currents also are not confined to depositing or redepositing material washed from land as this article explains, being another dominant mechanism for turbidity current formation."I didn't say they were confined to it. Now if you're done with your pissing contest, can we get on to relevant material?TC: "I provided the paleosol as an evidence. The Phanerozoic sediments contain, in regards to fauna, what is expected by the flood, the below, does not."So nothing above your Precambrian-Cambrian demarcation, right up to the tertiary, can be determined as having been lain down under non-aquatic conditions? It was all laid down under water? Lies! And nothing below that line can be found to have been deposited under aquatic conditions? Lies!Again, where is your evidence for this being the boundary? Are there extensive radiometric measurements showing this boundary is only 5,000 or so years old? That would be one step in the right direction. But of course, you cannot take that step, can you? Do you want to tell our audience why?TC: "Your not reading, and probably didn't even read the article you cited. I said 'I don't have rain coming down anywhere near that fast."So there was *not* 40 days and 40 nights of rain? The Bible lies about this, but tells the exact truth about the creation and the rest of the flood? You need to get your story straight, because so far, it is opposite to what Noah claimed! He mentioned no earthquakes and no meteors, which you demand, but he did claim heavy rain, which you appear to deny. What "kind" of creationist are you? Henry Morris and John Whitcomb would disagree with you - not to mention your idol Kent Hovind.TC: "I didn't say that I don't have rain! Your interpretive skills in literacy are greatly lacking."Funny, isn't it, how all of this misunderstanding could have been quite simply and very effectively taken care of if you had taken my advice right at the very start of this whole thing and **SET OUT YOUR POSITION CLEARLY IN THE FIRST PLACE**. But until TC explains himself, we really don't know what his position is, which makes it very easy for him to wriggle out of anything he wants, doesn't it?TC: "Your bath-tub model is a bunch of crap"Excuse me, that's **YOUR** bathtub model - I never mentioned a bathtub.I am talking about **THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU DEMAND**: earthquakes, landslides, meteor impacts, eruptions.**I AM STILL AWAITING YOUR EXPLANATION** as to how this could happen and not muddy up the ocean. If you have no explanation, then where do you get off criticising my scenario which is based **SOLELY AND ENTIRELY ON THE CONDITIONS ***YOU*** DEMAND**.Do you want to get off your adolescent high-horse and answer the questions, or do you want to blather insults, and then scratch that empty head and wonder where I get my attitude towards you?TC: "As the land became inundated and covered by the first sediments"Where did these sediments come from? Sedimentation perhaps? And what precipitated the sedimentation? Could it be the mud and sediment suspended in the mud ocean that you have just denied existed?TC: "The only thing that would then disturb the pre-flood soils is if you dig down there!"And the billions of gallons of water (not to mention your precious turbidity currents) sluicing off the land after the flood (with all the orogenesis **you** demand) left the soft, wet, virgin sediment completey undisturbed I suppose? Which story are you going with here. It seems that I get a new one every message from you and it usually contradicts the last one you posted.TC: "This obviously may have happened"Obviously may have happened? That's a new one, but entirely correct terminology for a creationist....TC: "the paleosol I gave as an example, is not globally correlated."So your entire flood demarcation is based on one, isolated, uncorrelated, paleosol, for which you do not have a recent date? These facts are so hard to deal with. Oow! You're hurting me with this rock-solid science!TC: "And radiocarbon dating wouldn't work because fluctuations in atmospheric quantities in Nitrogen, Carbon-12 or whatever they were are required to be constant for a date to be accurate."Shows what you know about C-14 dating. This article might help you, but given your position, I seriously doubt it:
Radiometric DatingTC: "I don't deal much with the atmophilic applications of C-14,"Atmophilic? That's a brand new one on me. Could you possibly mean "atmospheric"?Atmopheric C-14 has nothing to do with it since the comparison is between isotope and daughter in the organic material being dated. What was in the atmosphere is irrelevant as far as I know, unless you are contending that the half-life of the C-14 has been changed over the years by atmospheric influence.Me: "And if the flood made the post pre-Cambrian deposits, what, pray tell, made the pre-Cambrian deposits?"TC: "The earths formation, I explain this in the opening comments of my post #3 here"So the very formation of the Earth was responsible for the fossils that are found in Precambrian deposits? They were not made by organisms living, and dying, and being fossilised?TC: "...we just use a date which can fit the data""I said this is the same thing as making up a story, and his response is: "Are you scientifically incompetent? This is exactly how scientific inquiry forms hypotheses on things like this, they use what best fits the data!'Yes, but they do not use a date plucked out of mythology - they use a measured date, or an inferred date, or a radiometric date, or a relative date. You are admitting that you cannot radiometrically (i.e scientifically) verify your arguments and that instead, you plucked a vague and disputable date out of a myth. That is not science, and please do not try to pretend that it is. Your credibility is already at benthic levels with this flood story.TC: "Changes in allelomorphic frequencies over time cause phylogenetic decendance to effect morphology. Morphology is the only thing we can observe in the lifeless remnants of the fossil record."Yet real scientists can distinguish even so finely grained a thing as a species from fossils, so once again I ask you why it is that the fossil record contains no modern mammals mixed in with the dinosaurs and no humans in the Cambrian deposits, and no modern birds with the pterosaurs. Not a single one. Why is this?How did the random flood keep them so well separated? It kept them so well separated that it looks exactly like evolution took place, just like Darwin envisaged. Curious, isn't it? Are you going to answer the question or take the creationist way out - weedling away from it with more meaningless blather and jargon?TC: "Fish were not deposited until Ordovician."Why is this? How did the random, calamitous flood keep them floating around until then? And how come no modern fish are found in those deposits with the older fish?TC: "Please tell me why the hell you would even think that the earth would work like a bathtub"I don't think it would - although you seem to be pathologically obsessed with the idea. I just want you to explain how it is that organisms are not **EVEN REMOTELY** sorted by hydrodynamicity and weight. How is it that they defy the laws of physics, given that every living thing was sloshed around randomly and thoroughly mixed by a massive global flood? If you believe they would not be thoroughly mixed, then it is incumbent upon you to explain yourself. Or were the dinosaurs all lving on a different continent from the mammals?You seem obsessed by the idea that I am wrong, but I have yet to see a single argument to support your case. We see exmaples of flood-related fossils in the fossil record, and in every case that I am aware of they are thoroughly jumbled together.You appear to be claiming that somehow, in the magical flood, this would not happen. You are the one flying in the face of the evidence. You need to support your case. Please do so or admit that you cannot. And chanting "No it isn't! No it isn't! No it isn't!" like a schoolkid is not a scientific argument. I only mention this because it appears that you do not know this.TC: "..and that you think that flood dynamics work anything like taking all the sediments of the current earth and suspending them in water so that they might be sorted hydraulically!? Hydraulics have nothing to do with this!"Hydrodynamics has nothing to do with flooding? Henry Morris seems to disagree with you, but who the hell is he anyway? He's merely another creationist who started this whole flood business....TC: "When an event took place, global or isolated, different flora would die from it and be buried by incoming sediments majoratively by the means of surges (please don't ask me what caused them, you made this mistake in discussing turbidities..)"I wouldn't dream of asking you something for which I know you have no intelligent answer, but what you are demanding is that all marine reptiles lived in different environments from marine mammals which apparently fill the same ecological niche. Where is your evidence (or even logic) for this?Where is your logic for contending, as you appear to be here, that humans had a completely different ecological niche from early fish (no humans were caught on the sea shore or on a river bank, fishing?). No dinosaurs and none of the earliest mammals ever came near the hominids?No human was caught off-guard on some cambrian shore, and got buried with the Cambrian fauna? Where is your support for your contention that modern birds existed in a completely different ecological niche from the ptersosaurs and pteranodons?Please answer the question, or admit that you cannot comprehend the enormity of what I am asking you, because that is what this is increasingly looking like.Me: "And which hydrodynamic mechanism was it that consistently deposited the older-dating deposits before the younger-dating ones at the same time setting the radiometric clocks to give dates differing massively from 5,000 years?"
TC: "Hydrodynamic sorting has nothing to do with it! This is why I asked you what you know about geochemistry."Hydrodynamics has nothing to do with this. Please, answer the question (if you do nto understand it, ask for clarification): why is it that the deeper we go into the fossil record, the older the radiometric dates become? How *did* the flood arrange this?TC: "According to me? This is bull, please, tell me where I even slightly indicated anything about some homologous thick mud soup of material swashing and sloshing around the earth."What is your definition, then, of a global flood accompanied by massive earthquakes, meteor impacts, eruptions, and landslides? Do you imagine such an Earth would be like scenes from "The Blue Lagoon"?Again, **if you disagree** with my depiction, then it is incumbent upon you to explain what your scenario is and why it would be that way rather than how I describe. These laughable expressions of dumb incredulity when I depict (in slightly more descriptive language) the scenario you have repeatedly painted, are a joke and do your case no good service whatsoever.Please, get your act together. You are the one who wanted a **discussion** and here you are whining, instead of discussing and constructively correcting where you think I am in error.Once again, all of this could have been avoided if you had taken my advice and laid out your scenario in a detailed description the first time I asked you instead of forcing me to drag it from you in tiny scraps of detail with every message that I post.TC: "And don't come at me with some crap about 'it happened the second you accepted Noahs flood was true'.'Do you or do you not take the position that there was a catastophic global flood? QED. Where did the *initial* impetus in this direction come from - geology, from which you have presented no evidence, or the Bible, which happens to have a global flood story in the first few chapters? QED.TC: "The thing is, on a micro scale and in isolated areas, that's exactly what did happen, turbidity currents, meteor impacts, local floods, etc."On a small scale? Aren't we talking about a global flood? If meteor impacts, eruptions, landslides, and earthquakes happened on a local scale all over the world, isn't that a global scale? Are you saying nothing got mixed up? There was no mud? No soil got disturbed by the floodwaters? Oh! I get it. This was a **gentle**, catastrophic, calamitous global flood which destroyed every living thing.Or did the ice caps melt with a few puffs of meteor dust, and a whiff of volcano effluent?Once again, all of this confusion could have been avoided **IF YOU HAD EXPLAINED YOUR SCENARIO AT THE START**. Yet here we are, and instead of **TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY** to correct me and explain yourself, you whine and quibble some more and expect me to magically divine your position from the ether.And this is from the hypocrite who wanted a **discussion**. Instead of discussing, he whines and complains and offers not a shred of light. Then he wonders blindly why I have an attitude towards creationists, after three years of this same clueless blather, mindless insults, and vague, menaingless, unscientific, unsupported nonsense.TC: "What happens in America doesn't happen in Asia, do I really have to go over my elementary explanation with you all over again?"Only to explain how the flood managed to keep everything separated out by continent, ecosystem, species, etc, when it covered the entire globe for a year.TC: "No, again you don't have any degree of understanding of the dynamics"Neither do you, apparently, since I am still waiting after all these posts for you to quit whining about what I am saying, and say something yourself to refute what I have said. Until and unless you do, the laws of physics apply. Coarse settles before fine. Prove me wrong - in any scenario relevent to global flooding and deep water.So TC believes that every single sedimentary rcok everywhere from the Cambrian to the Tertiary was a turbidite deposit! Do, please explain how it was that the turbidite deposits managed to separate out the dinosaurs from the elephants and mammoths of the same weight, size and general hydrodynamic qualities and settle them gently in their own 5cm layer. Really! I want to know....TC: "What is also indicative of your insanity is even taking Hovind seriously."I don't take him seriously. Too many others, such as yourself, do. that is why I did the work that both you and he have failed to refute.TC: "I'm not saying your time is valuable, but you still wasted a lot of it on that empty 'project'."Like I give a fat damn about what *you* think. I seem to recall *you* made a determined, but ultimately futile effort to refute a significant portion of it, but lacked the stamina to stay the course.TC: "My good thoughts as it pertains to scientific standards and merit, have gradually degraded towards zero."Yet you still support Hovind's position - recent creation, recent flood. Who really is taking him seriously, I wonder?Me: "Are you saying that whole ecological systems somehow managed to stay afloat for weeks on end only to be all killed at exactly the same time by a big rock from the sky that somehow managed to take out entire phyla of organisms whilst leaving others untouched for another few weeks until another magic rock hit them?"
TC: "Basically, except for the 'magic' part."Then please do explain the mechanics of this. How did this happen? Oh, and where is your evidence that a massive flood can do such things?TC: "My personal analyses regarding the heat production issue have not met conclusions yet so its difficult to be precise"This from the guy who demands hard science from his opponents! LoL! I guess you have to use meaningless buzzwords to be taken seriously.TC: "No! What that does mean is that if an event of deposition or meteoric impact, or something of that likeness were to happen in America, it doesn't happen in Africa! Thereby contradicting your bath-tub version of flood mechanics."Once again, that's **your** bathtub. I never mentioned it until you started. And once again, instead of just-so stories, I need some science from you about how this works.Let me get this straight: you need massive meteor impacts to melt the massive ice caps, but "just a little bit" so that the impact isn't felt anywhere outside the local area, and they don't even stir up enough dust to muddy up the oceans. Wow! What a fairytale world you live in.And you have yet to even point to one meteor impact crater that could do the job and is of the right age. And you have yet to explain how these impacts go completely unmentioned anywhere in ancient literature.TC: "Yea, but its false (again). the half-life is ~5730 ya"Like I give a damn that you looked it up. 5,730, 5,000 - it is irrelevant to the point I was making. You want a pissing contest or a discussion? Say the word.TC: "Not if there were higher quantities of C-14 at a previous time."They don't measure the C-14 content in the atmosphere, but what was trapped in the organism when it died. Unless you are contending that the half-life changes depending on the atmospheric concentrations, then what was in the atmosphere is irrelevant. It only matters how much isotope and daughter are measured in the organic material.TC: "And parroting others material [via internet links] doesn't make it look like your doing your own work either..."That doesn't appear to stop you parroting URLs and blathering. At least I don't live under the delusion that I am some sort of geology god. But you know - if you want to lose my attitude and have a discussion, then you need to deal with the issues, not with me. And clearly you are unable to do this if you are increasingly reduced to attacking me rather than my arguments, as are most creationists I end up dealing with. Actually what you are doing is not insulting me but the hard working *real* scientists whose work I quote.TC's appeal to authority: "I'm sure an abundant many would agree with me."Like I care.TC: "You constantly attempt to bash on my credibility but it seems to be backfiring quite a bit, due to your lack in scientific understanding and/or unwillingness to look under the surface of anything."When you actually answer the arguments (for that matter, when you demonstrate an ability to understand the arguments without my having to explain them every which way from sundown), then you can blather, until then please **ANSWER THE ARGUMENTS** and cut the mouth or admit you cannot do either.Another argument TC fails to answer:Me: "The K/T iridium layer dates to some 65 million years ago, so you are a little out with your flood dates, that's the problem."
TC's brilliant, hard science response: "Is that it?"This from the guy who demands intelligent responses and hard science from others. Once again he is found with his pants down and no toilet paper.TC: "Andisols are easy to produce. And since much sediments would not have been consolidated and lithified at the top of the geologic column, there is no phosphorus problem, haven't you ever heard of the phosphorus cycle? Also andisols in particular do wonders for flora:"You need six feet of andisols and you need a significant portion of that in functional condition immediately you get off the ark - otherwise, what do the flood survivors live on, and where does Noah grow his grapes?And doesn't the term "phosphorus *cycle*" imply the passage of time?What mechanism is it which removes the phosphorus so quickly that it does not adversely affect plants, and where is the mention, in your textbook - aka The Holy Bible - that dicusses the rampant volcanic activity that you are relying on post-flood to lay down six feet of earth?From TC's quote: "...rich in organic matter..."Organic matter from what? The dead survivors from the ark spread thinly all over the world? Since I *know* you are going to miss this, remember that this six feet of (apparently not very handy) andisol is laying *on top* of the flood deposits and there is no organic material to churn it up since there are only two worms from the ark to work the "soil"....TC: "You have no idea what your talking about here. Please get yourself a book on pedogenesis"The hypocrite who demands that *I* do the explaining rather than quote references, here completely avoids the case I asked him to make and points to a reference!No! I am unaware of any textbook that makes a case for andisols magically supporting survivors from an ark after a global flood. *YOU* are the one claiming this. You make your argument right here and now as to how the andisols were formed without anyone noticing all the volcanic activity. **YOU** make the argument right here and now or admit this is another just so story.TC: "The one quoted above may suit you well. But maybe its a little technical, try reading 'my first soil - Teletubbies special for infants early education'."And he wonder why I have an attitude. What a pity he is so very strong on worthless smart-mouthing and so very pathetic in supporting his own case in his own thread.TC: "On a more serious note, no, this thread wasn't created with the intent to discuss the ark, unless you'd like to talk about where it went? That's got a little bit more to do with geology."It's all to do with the flood. You invited me to make arguments against it, Are you saying if I had made one of my arguments about the ridiculous ark story, you would have been unable to answer it? It's all part of your scenario, because if you are arguing for a global flood, you must be arguing some means of surviving that flood for certain lucky species - otherwise we could nto be here today.So how did life surive the flood?TC: "I thought you were the one which had to answer the challenges in this thread?"When you have made a case for your mythical flood, then you will have some challenges for me to answer, but until then you have nothing for me to answer. Besides, you were the one begging me to set up challenges for you to answer. Are you admitting that you are falling behind now?TC: "this is less like a scientific exchange of ideas, and more like a silly game of attack the creationist."Indeed it is, but you seem to be doing the attacking, while I am making arguments that you are carefully avoiding. How predictable.Budikka

--Buddika, you have a serious problem.. These posts are becoming tediously lengthy. Please pick your pick of your ramblings above and quote yourself to reduce the load. Whatever you feel are the most relevant points. Please, absolutely any quote of yours from the above, I will sustain my opinion that they are utterly ridiculous and indicative of your own inexperience with working with unbiased scientific inquiry. And don't just give me some lame post about, 'TC's just shown that he can't handle it' or something like that. My terminology is correct (eg. atmophilic, but of course you wouldn't know anything about the geochemistry of it all!)and my objections can be supported (and quite easily with the majority). The initial post explained that there shouldn't be more than 3 specific topics being discussed. I found your tid bits on turbidity currents, for instance, in this post very amusing. We found one topic to go one early in the thread but you have increased that number by multiple magnitudes. If you fully object to this proposal, I would, in advance, ask for an administrators input on this.
--Maybe the fact that you don't care about what anyone has to say or suggest to you here is your problem?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-07-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-07-2002]

I take your last post as an admission that you cannot handle the debate. You started this, not me. If you cannot handle it, that's not my fault. You were the one wanting a discussion. I kept it short originally by posting a few URL's to show you how hopeless your position was. First you whined about that, then you whined that I would not offer discussion. Now you are whining that I offer too much discussion?I should have guessed this would happen since you showed a lamentable lack of stamina in the Bohar thread. The ironic thing is that I have repeatedly told you how the very problems you complain about could have been avoided:1. State your position in some detail. This alone would have cut down on the huge amount of material that has bounced back and forth for clarification. You have consistently refused to do this and I have had to drag every detail out of you to even determine what it is I am supposed to be making a case against.Once again: I CANNOT MAKE ARGUMENTS **AGAINST** A POSITION WHEN I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT POSITION IS OR HOW YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE POSITION.2. Quit it with the jargon. I am not impressed by your technical terms, and most laymen would not even understand them. If you must use your flashy geology buzzwords to boost your confidence, then have the curtesy to define what you mean by them, so there are no misunderstandings. In a non-technical forum like this, they are best avoided altogether.3. If you want the material limited, then, once again, state your best arguments for a flood - you can state as few as you wish. As yet I have seen not a single one. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude that since science can find no evidence whatsoever of Noah's flood and you cannot even state a single hard argument for it, you lose.You are free to do all the editing you want, but the bottom line is, if you cannot respond competently to my last post, I can do no other but to conclude that you cannot support your case, and so you lose.Budikka

"I take your last post as an admission that you cannot handle the debate."
--ROFL! Well at least you now cannot say that creationists don't make successful predictions "You started this, not me. If you cannot handle it, that's not my fault. You were the one wanting a discussion. I kept it short originally by posting a few URL's to show you how hopeless your position was. First you whined about that, then you whined that I would not offer discussion. Now you are whining that I offer too much discussion?"
--Of course Buddika would know nothing about how to distinguish quantity from quality. You give me many topics, sure, but they are all ridiculous, and you don't even have any idea what your talking about more than half of the time."1. State your position in some detail. This alone would have cut down on the huge amount of material that has bounced back and forth for clarification. You have consistently refused to do this and I have had to drag every detail out of you to even determine what it is I am supposed to be making a case against."
--You know what the jist of it is, and I have given you summarizations of various mechanisms for flood geomechanics. If you want my position on something, be more specific. Don't tell me to 'state my position'. I'm not writing you a textbook."2. Quit it with the jargon. I am not impressed by your technical terms, and most laymen would not even understand them. If you must use your flashy geology buzzwords to boost your confidence, then have the curtesy to define what you mean by them, so there are no misunderstandings. In a non-technical forum like this, they are best avoided altogether."
--I'm sorry if you don't understand the terminology. Do you know what a laymen is? Its a non-scientist, so I have no idea what your trying to say there.
--Why should I define them? Its simple geologic terminology, maybe you should read an 'earth science' textbook before you engage in such a debate. You have obviously indicated you don't know much on the subject of geology, indicative by your lame appeals to parroting links in hopes that they will have the refutation. You don't even understand what is included in half of the links you parrot it seems."3. If you want the material limited, then, once again, state your best arguments for a flood - you can state as few as you wish. As yet I have seen not a single one. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude that since science can find no evidence whatsoever of Noah's flood and you cannot even state a single hard argument for it, you lose."
--Oh please. I lose? Do I really have to tell you again that I'm not going to play this game? I covered your flawed logic back in post #7:

quote:

---

I think it is much more effective, and I don't think I can agree that it is an 'odd way of going about things', that he attempt to 'prove' or at least indicate a negative. Evidence against a theory is much more effective at altering its merit than providing evidence for a theory. Of course I realize that there have been a few questions which have yet to be answered regarding flood geology and others which simply point against it, however I do not hold sufficient general understanding to then conclude that it is incorrect.
--Even if I had posted 3 geologic examples for the flood, this does not say that the flood happened in any way. This is analogous to you trying to indicate the ToE as completely true on the sol basis of finding that phylogenetic construction indicates that a two species are related.

---

--Or is there some terminology in here I need to define for the laymen in here?"You are free to do all the editing you want, but the bottom line is, if you cannot respond competently to my last post, I can do no other but to conclude that you cannot support your case, and so you lose."
--I'll respond to some of your content in the last post in my next post, just to show you how sloppy your scribbles are.------------------

TC: "Of course Buddika would know nothing about how to distinguish quantity from quality."Well until I see either from you, how can I demonstrate? Once again all I am getting from you is ad hominem instead of argument. Clearly your case has failed.TC: "You give me many topics, sure, but they are all ridiculous, and you don't even have any idea what your talking about more than half of the time."Once again I get whining instead of argument.Please, do supply me with a list of the ridiculous things I have said. I will re-explain them to you, because it is obvious to me that when I make a case that you do not understannd, you dismiss it as ridiculous instead of admitting ignorance.If they are ridiculous, it ought to be easy for you to *demonstrate* that (and I mean show it, not blather mindlessly like you are here). Until and unless you do, you lose.If I do not know what I am talking about, then it ought to be easy for you to demonstrate this. But here we are. You have a great opportunity to demonstrate both of your above claims, but instead of slamming me, you are whining that I am asking too much of you.Clearly this undermines your bravado, because if you could demonstrate these things, you surely would have. The fact that you have not indicates that you cannot.And how hypocritical of you to be resorting to the very tactics you have accused me of (claiming you are wrong but not showing it), when we are in exactly the reverse of that position, with you repeatedly chanting how clueless and ridiculous I supposedly am, yet somehow, oddly, unable to actually make a case to support your wild claims.TC: "You know what the jist of it is..."The jist of it? Here you are admitting that you have supplied inadequate information! I have a vague idea of your position now, after having to drag it out of you. But you are still lacking in many areas. I am not going to be put in the position of having to continue begging you for information that you ought to have the confidence and honesty to state up front. The fact that you do not appear to be able to take a solid position indicates how appallingly weak your case is.TC: "...and I have given you summarizations of various mechanisms for flood geomechanics."Not really. All you have offered are vague hints at geologic turmoil, for which you offer no evidence, and global warming, for which you offer no evidence. And you have not addressed the mechanics. I am still awaiting your addressing the heat problem with the melting ice caps, and addressing the issue of how coral survived this heat given that they do not do well in heat or pollution.The current issue of Discover magazine (December 2003) has an article which states that 60% of the Great Barrier Reef is suffering some bleaching with the modest global warming we currently have, and this is without being buried under a minimum of 200 feet of mud soup and subject to massive thermal stress from eruptions and meteor impacts.Also you have offered no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that there were eruptions and meteor impacts just 5,000-some years ago, nor have you offered any evidence to support your wild claim that the 65 million year old iridium deposit at the K/T boundary is only 5,000-some years old.Are these arguments ridiculous? Please do demonstrate how.TC: "If you want my position on something, be more specific. Don't tell me to 'state my position'. I'm not writing you a textbook."You started this debate by asking me to argue against your position, without having the curtesy to state your position. One again, How can I argue against something when I have no idea what it is? Please do elucidate. If you are taking a position that flies in the face of modern scientific understanding - which is that there was *no* global flood - and then insist someone debate this position with you, then you need to make your position clear.Once again, I am not able to take an opposing position to someone if that someone has no position or no clear position. I do not know how to make this any more clear to you, so if you cannot grasp it, then you need to go back to school, drop these farcical geology classes that are teaching you nothing, and take some English comprehension classes.For example, it ought to have been quite simple for you to deny support of the vapor canopy, which is a foundational creationist argument, from the outset, but I had to drag this from you. The time and effort we wasted on this is your fault, not mine.I haven't even begun to address the disarray in the creationist camp. If there were a global flood, then there ought not to be disagreement as to the fundamental mechanics of it, yet here you are taking a position that is different from Kent Hovind, whose position is different from Henry Morris (neither of whom mention turbidite deposits to my knowledge).Just how many positions do creationists have on this whacky belief system of theirs? The fact that they have so many is precisely *why* you need to state your position, so that I know I am debating you, and not Kent Hovind or Henry Morris. Do you get it now? Once again, all of this could have been avoided if you had taken my advice from the very beginning and made a clear position statement as brief as you wished, but at least in sufficient detail to prevent the misunderstadings that you have generated by not so stating your beliefs in this matter.And what is the point of begging you to answer questions, when all I get is smart mouth from you instead of answers? Case in point: the depth of the flooding. I am *still* waiting for you to indicate how deep this flood became (and for the congenitally clueless, depth of flooding means height above sea level to which the flood rose. This ought to be obvious to anyone who has a modicum of gray matter, but apparently I need to restate this in every message since you are either not getting it, or deliberately avoiding answering it).Once again, how deep was the flood? (and while you are at it, how high were the world's highest mountains then?). In absence of some intelligent answer from you, all I can do is assume from your previous arguments that the flood rose no higher than 200 feet above sea level which was not enough to flood the entire globe, let alone cover the highest mountains.Clearly if all you have is ice caps and *no* vapor canopy, the flood cannot have risen higher than 200 feet above sea level as I have demonstrated (and you have failed to refute). If *that* argument is ridiculous, then please do show me how.And while we are on the topic of who knows what he is talking about, was it me or was it you who made the case that ice caps that are not over land masses do not contribute to a rise in sea levels when they melt? And was it me or was it you who could not grasp this?The number of questions I have been forced to ask, to drag your position out to you would be an indication to anyone of decent intelligence that they need to supply more detail without me having to interrogate them each message. You are the one claiming to have this God-like certainty that 200 years of science is completely clueless, yet you cannot offer any but the vaguest of information to support your case, and when you do offer information it is surrounded by a cloud of excuses of the variety "highly likely" or "it would seem" or "obviously may be". These qualifiers indicate how weak your case is.TC: "I'm sorry if you don't understand the terminology. Do you know what a laymen is? Its a non-scientist, so I have no idea what your trying to say there."Why am I not surprised by this. Let me simplify this so that even you cas grasp it:1. Are you a professional scientist?
Let me answer: No! So quit pretending that you are.2. Am I a professional scientist?
No! Nor have I ever pretended to be.3. Are those who read this likely to be professional scientists?
No!Conclusion: we are all lay people. Just because you have learned a few handy-dandy geology buzzwords does not mean that you understand them, or that you know what you are talking about even if you did understand them. Nor does throwing in a sprinkling of such words enhance your case. Your case still has to be made whether it is made with fancy words or with argument intelligible to the average lay person.4. What is the point of conducting a discussion on a high scientific level when no-one involved in the discussion is a scientist and many who read it will not understand the terminology?TC: "Why should I define them? Its simple geologic terminology, maybe you should read an 'earth science' textbook before you engage in such a debate."The fact is that you have misused words so badly and so often (recent case in point "differently" vs. "differentially") that when you use these words, I have no idea if A). you are using the word you intended to use, and B). you yourself understand properly what the word means. All of this could be avoided if you would quit using the jargon, or have the decency to define what it is you think you mean when you use such a word.I am sorry that you are so arrogant you cannot appreciate this argument, but again, that is your problem, not mine. You insisted that I discuss this, not the other way around. You chickened out of the discussion in the Bohar thread, remember? I am here. The very least you could do is cut out the crap. But you're a believer, a creationisit. Why would you have any consideration for others in a thread to which you yourself have invited them?TC: "You have obviously indicated you don't know much on the subject of geology, indicative by your lame appeals to parroting links in hopes that they will have the refutation. You don't even understand what is included in half of the links you parrot it seems."What a fine argument from the hypocrite who himself has repeatedly resorted to "parroting" creationist links to support his supposed science! You are hilarious! And of course, a liar, since the bottom line is that I have made quite clear why I listed the links, something you have repeatedly ignored, and lately I have been avoiding links and making hard argument. So do you respond to the argument now you cannot whine about links? NO! YOU WHINE ABOUT THE ARGUMENT. The word for this is hypocrisy. if I listed argujment with no links, you would accuse me of making up unsupported stories.The truth is that you are a little kid in the school yard who is crying because he cannot have all the rules go his way. Why don't you just take your ball and go home?Unlike you, I do not have the arrogance and stupidity to pretend I am some sort of professional scientist. I have repeatedly made clear that I am not a scientist but a lay person and my discussions are at this level. Deal with it.I am quite easily following what you are saying, but it does not follow that what you are saying makes sense. Please do not confuse your addiction to geolgy buzzwords with making a cogent argument.You are too often misusing or misunderstanding words (and these are not always geology words) so badly that you are not helping your case by insisting on tossing off as many geology buzzwords as you can recall. *You* are the one who insisted I come and debate with you. I did not ask you to debate. It is incument upon you to explain yourself, so that *everyone can readily know* that you know what you are talking about.I have deleted your meaningless quote from your early messages because I have dealt with it on more than one occasion. ***ONCE AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST TIME, I CANNOT TAKE A POSITION AGAINST A POSITION WHICH ITSELF IS NOT ESTABLISHED***I do not know how to make this any more clear to someone of your mentality, but let me try and simplify it down to the lowest common denominator:My position:
There was no global flood. Science cannot find any evidence for it.Your position:
There was a global flood, but I cannot offer you any support for it. Instead, YOU NEED TO ARGUE AGAINST MY LACK OF EVIDENCE.And you have the nerve to suggest that I am ridiculous?TC: "Even if I had posted 3 geologic examples for the flood, this does not say that the flood happened in any way."Then what is there to discuss? Duhh!All you have done here is support my case, in A). agreeing that there either is no evidence (if there were, you would have posted it) or the evidence is so pathetic it would not stand up to scrutiny, and B). admitting that you cannot offer even three examples that would stand up to even amateur scrutiny. QED.TC: "I'll respond to some of your content in the last post in my next post, just to show you how sloppy your scribbles are"I have heard this blathering bravado for you so often and seen such pathetic results that I am thoroughly unimpressed. If you cannot make your case in your next post, this debate is over, because I have better things to do with my time than babysit.Budikka

--Again, your argumentation is pathetic, you haven't even directly answered and/or countered any of my claims. If you want 'my position', your going to have to give me specifics. You have only given me one, and that is asking what the depths of the oceans are. I have already supplied you with the data and the mathematical operations which you can use to find the variables in regards to sea depth:--For the third or so time go here: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...rose/heattransfer.htm
--Just plug in the known variables into the equation, assuming a 2.5km ocean seems reasonable given that we have one year of increased velocity, there would have taken some time for it to slow, thusly further widening the basin. When you have found the depth of the ocean floor w, it is simple to find how much of that water will then flood the continents. Latterly, gravity restores bathymetry given by the principle of isostacy, the ocean floor subsides, the consequences are accordingly obvious. Maybe if you read my content on this you wouldn't be asking me continuously.--What is this with your continuous jibber jabber on the corals? I don't care if they live or die, I don't need them to live, I simply gave room in my assertion for the possibility that some did live, unlike humans, when chunks of coral get ripped off, they can grow in other places just fine depending on the environmental conditions.--The reason that I don't have evidence of a global flood occurring 4,500-5,0000 years ago, is because radioisotopic dating is not useful, it is appearance of age, not age itself. And there is no other dating method. We can, however, give a minimum age for its occurrence such as dendrochronology (no don't give me that bristle-cone pine hog-wash).--I made it pretty clear that I don't take up the argument of the vapor canopy theory way back in posts #15 and further elaborated in #31."If there were a global flood, then there ought not to be disagreement as to the fundamental mechanics of it"
--This is pure nonsense, if you knew anything about solar cosmogenesis outside of the high school textbook you would know that. Most YECist scientists know that Hovinds 'Comet theory' and Walt Brown's 'Hydroplate theory' and the like are ridiculous."and when you do offer information it is surrounded by a cloud of excuses of the variety "highly likely" or "it would seem" or "obviously may be". These qualifiers indicate how weak your case is."
--If you believe this, you do not know how science works.--According to CPT, the himalayan mountain range, let alone Mt. Everest, did not exist."Conclusion: we are all lay people. Just because you have learned a few handy-dandy geology buzzwords does not mean that you understand them, or that you know what you are talking about even if you did understand them."
--This is pathetic. #1, yes we do have scientists who post in this forum, actually, we have many. I haven't just learned a few handy-dandy geology buzzwords', I have read quite a multitude of textbooks on principles of geology. Of course this doesn't make me comparable to one with a Masters or Ph.D in the subject, though it puts me far above your stature and you have made this well known in your text.
--The topics we are bringing up are simply too difficult to explainable in terms to where the average person can sufficiently understand the mechanics. Using those 'big geologic words' is preferable to explain things. Once again, if you don't understand the terminology, I am sorry. But if you'd like me to explain something to you so that you might understand, go ahead and ask without being arrogant."The fact is that you have misused words so badly and so often (recent case in point "differently" vs. "differentially") that when you use these words, I have no idea if A). you are using the word you intended to use, and B). you yourself understand properly what the word means. All of this could be avoided if you would quit using the jargon, or have the decency to define what it is you think you mean when you use such a word."
--Wrong, my usage of 'differentially' and 'differently' was not incorrect. Go get a dictionary, differentially simply means Of, relating to, or showing a difference.¹ Constituting or making a difference; distinctive.² dictonary.com - This website is for sale! - dictonary Resources and Information.
--Also, when I said 'atmophilic' I meant what I said, it wasn't 'atmospheric'. I used it for a reason.. You were also wrong in your thoughts on why C-14 dates shouldn't vary with 'atmospheric' properties, it is because you compare parent/daughter ratios that it does matter. Contrary to what you stated."You are too often misusing or misunderstanding words (and these are not always geology words) so badly that you are not helping your case by insisting on tossing off as many geology buzzwords as you can recall"
--Please list for me even one word which I have misused."If you cannot make your case in your next post, this debate is over, because I have better things to do with my time than babysit."
--Awesome, I will enjoy a moderators evaluation of this 'debate'.-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-08-2002]

TC: "Again, your argumentation is pathetic, you haven't even directly answered and/or countered any of my claims.""Argumentation? This from he who accuses me of jargon? Wouldn't "arguments" do just as well? You probably say 'utilize' instead of 'use', don't you? Go on, you can tell me.Isn't it ever-so easy to simply parrot back my comments and pretend they're your own? Answering your claims? What claims? I have been asking you to make your case since I started this, and you still haven't as far as I can see.And what a hypocritical argument coming from someone who claimed in his last message that he would show how ridiculous my claims were, and yet here we are with yet another message doesn't even address them! Nor have you given a single example to support your repeated claims that my arguments are ridiculous, despite the fact that I specifically challenged you to do so recently.TC: "If you want 'my position', your (sic) going to have to give me specifics."What's the point? Most every specific I have asked you for, especially lately, has been completely ignored, insulted or smart-mouthed (case in point: Me: "How deep was the flood". You: "It depends where you're standing." And you are griping that I am not making a case against that kind of trash?).TC: "For the third or so time go here: http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/...rose/heattransfer.htm"What a fine comment from the hypocrite who has repeatedly griped that all I am doing is parroting URLs instead of making my own argument!I have seen this blather before. But do allow me to tediously spell it out for you once more. I am still awaiting you referring me to the section where this deals specifically with eruptions and meteor impacts, with rapid mountain-building, and relates to time periods only 5,000 years ago, and to where this activity has been noted in the geologic record by mainstream science at those historic times.I asked you a specific question about dating the K/T boundary which you have completely ignored. I can only assume you cannot answer the question.TC still bumbling through it: "Just plug in the known variables into the equation, assuming a 2.5km ocean seems reasonable given that we have one year of increased velocity..."2.5 km before the flood or during the flood? Is this measured from the present sea floor or some hypothetical sea flood that you invented? Velocity of what from where? The mid-ocean ridges? Where is your evidence that these change speed? What does this have to do with meteor impacts and eruptions and ice-cap melting?TC: "Maybe if you read my content on this you wouldn't be asking me continuously."Maybe if you actually addressed my questions instead of going off at a tangent I wouldn't need to ask you repeatedly for the same information I have been requesting through several messages.Maybe if you had some mainstream scientific backing instead of drawing all your support from the ICR and other creationists, you wouldn't be lost in this idle fantasy.I note this exchange in that article:
"Q1: Is the sea floor similar to what would be expected had the Flood actually occurred?
A1: We can only presume.""We can only presume"! Another blathering excuse for science. We can only presume. Well that really nails it, doesn't it?!I see a lot of irrelevant trivia about oceanic plates at that URL, but not a single thing about flooding or surface topology. Not a single thing about dealing with the heat from massive, short-term mountain building, surface volcanic eruptions, and meteor impacts. Once again you have failed to address the topic.I see not a single thing addressing the repeated challenges I have made to you regarding the water required to flood the planet (like, where it came from and where it went - given that I have demonstrated that the ice caps are inadequate and you have failed to refute this). Nor have you addressed the issue of where the evidence is of these mythical meteorites you are so dependent upon.TC: "What is this with your continuous jibber jabber on the corals?"Obviously it is over your head. But let me explain it to you in high school terms: The corals are alive today. Everything died in the flood. Where did the corals that are alive today come from?See? It's simple when you **think** isn't it? And here you are blathering mindlessly: "I don't care if they live or die, I don't need them to live,"Yes you do! If they died in the flood, they could not be here today. Since they are here today, they cannot have died in the flood. (You don't have the slightest idea how massive the Great Barrier Reef is, do you, nor how long it takes coral to build to such abundance?)Since flood conditions would have killed the corals, and to corals are here today, there cannot have been a flood. Now do you get it? Or do I need to keep on explaining these simple common sense things over and over and over to you?BTW, do please feel free to go ahead and deny my coral argument with insult and unsupported assertion, since this is your de facto MO.TC: "The reason that I don't have evidence of a global flood occurring 4,500-5,0000 years ago, is because radioisotopic dating is not useful"Not for your case it isn't. It works very well for mainstream science, which denies and defeats your case, until and unless you can show that mainstream science is completely clueless when it comes to radiometry.Once again you have avoided addressing my question as to why don't all the fossils in the strata - which you erroneously claim are flood deposits - date to the same age, just 5,000 or so years ago? Please explain what causes the logically ascending ages that real scientists measure in these fossils, and then explain why the fossils are not all preserved in essentially the same condition in terms of mineralisation.And then explain how the random catastrophic flood arranged all the fossils so neatly in layers and ecological groupings, mixing not a single modern organism in with the ancient ones, as I have detailed in endless previous requests.Of course, you could, as usual, dismiss this as ridiculous, throw in an insult, add a geology buzzword, and pretend you have addressed the question.TC: "According to CPT, the himalayan mountain range, let alone Mt. Everest, did not exist."
[this utterly inadequate response is brought to you by the guy who started out that same message charging me with not responding to his claims!]Where is your case for your pretence that that these ranges were created in the last 5,000 years, since this again flies in the face of scientific knowledge? Or are you operating under the common creationist delusion that simply asserting something often enough makes it so? Please don't bother to actually try answering this. A simple arrogant assertion coupled with an insult will be more than sufficient by your standards.TC: "This is pathetic. #1, yes we do have scientists who post in this forum, actually, we have many."Are they posting in this thread? No! Are they interested in this thread? I doubt it. Is this thread intended for professional scientists? No!Please try to pay attention to what I am saying. These arguments are for lay people, not for professional scientists. If you want to debate a professional scientist, then invite a professional scientist to debate you and see how you fare. instead, you invited me. Deal with me. Do you get it now?TC: "I haven't just learned a few handy-dandy geology buzzwords', I have read quite a multitude of textbooks on principles of geology."Pity you learned so little, because here you are trying to trash mainstream geology. Or was there, in all that reading (of non-creationist material) that you claim to have done, a global flood detailed? No? I didn't think so. QED.TC: "...though it puts me far above your stature and you have made this well known in your text."Obviously turning the other cheek is a completely alien concept to you. How Jesus would have loved you! What a classic example of a "humble creationist Christian" you are. Please do give me supported examples demonstrating your claim. Although since you have failed comprehensively to respond to these challenges to support your wild, adolescent claims in the past, I cannot imagine why I am even asking you yet again to support your endless arrogant blather.TC: "The topics we are bringing up are simply too difficult to explainable (sic) in terms to where the average person can sufficiently understand the mechanics."Given that you have supported and explained very little, I don't see why this would be a problem. Most of your case seems to be bland assertion with little or no argument or support. And I am sorry for you that you are so constricted by this terminology of which you are so enamored that you cannot even make one simple plain English argument for your case.TC: "Using those 'big geologic words' is preferable to explain things."Oh I don't doubt that. What a boost it must give to your ego to fool yourself into thinking you have lost all your readers and impressed them so with your apparent grasp of your topic. How unfortunate that when you have literally lost all your readers, there is no one left to even care what you say.TC: "Once again, if you don't understand the terminology, I am sorry. But if you'd like me to explain something to you so that you might understand, go ahead and ask without being arrogant."I haven't had any problem so far, but you invited me to this debate, not the other way around, yet not once have you had the decency or common curtesy to meet one of my requests without me having to argue it out with you. The reason I did not want to waste time on you in the first place is because I forsaw all of this after my experiences in the Bohar thread.TC: "Wrong, my usage of 'differentially' and 'differently' was not incorrect."Go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. You are a creationist. You are an expert at that. When I speficially challenged you on this, you simply blew it off.TC: "Also, when I said 'atmophilic' I meant what I said, it wasn't 'atmospheric'. I used it for a reason."What a pity you didn't have the curtesy to explain this at the time. How hypocritical that you have endlessly accused me of using jargon, yet supplied not a single example, and here are you using geology jargon at every opportunity.TC: "You were also wrong in your thoughts on why C-14 dates shouldn't vary with 'atmospheric' properties, it is because you compare parent/daughter ratios that it does matter. Contrary to what you stated."Of course! I'll just take your word for it then, shall I? Sorry - I forgot that **you**, the humble Christian, are the expert on everything, and therefore you do not even need to make a case for anything, I should just take your word and blindly believe, just as you do, because this is *your* debate and *your* rules and you'll get all upset if I disagree with you, and why *should* you accomodate someone whom you have begged to come here and debate you?TC: "Please list for me even one word which I have misused."I did already. But just to humor you, here is another example from your last message, something I already quoted above:TC: "If you want 'my position', your (sic) going to have to give me specifics."Note that you used 'your', meaning 'that which is yours', rather the the correct, 'you're' meaning 'you are'.Or how about this one, from later in the same message, again quoted above: "The topics we are bringing up are simply too difficult to explainable (sic)..."I am sure you meant 'explain' rather than 'explainable', but it was the misuse of a word. Now you can turn around and accuse me of misspelling all you want, but I am not the one trying to convince people that I know what I am talking about when I pile on the geology jargon. *You* are.Do I really need, once again, to tediously repeat my case that if you cannot consistently use and spell common English correctly, how can I possibly be expected to believe that you spell and use geology terms correctly? QED.Since you have failed to make the case you promised in message 40 ("I'll respond to some of your content in the last post in my next post, just to show you how sloppy your scribbles are."), or even meet one of the challenges I made in my last post, this so-called "discussion" is over, because there is nothing more tiresome than dealing with a pretentious Borger wannabe, except for dealing with the Borger himself.Budikka

"And what a hypocritical argument coming from someone who claimed in his last message that he would show how ridiculous my claims were, and yet here we are with yet another message doesn't even address them! Nor have you given a single example to support your repeated claims that my arguments are ridiculous, despite the fact that I specifically challenged you to do so recently."
--I did this, but the text was lost before I could post and I found that there was enough in this last post of mine to show the fallacy of your arguments no matter how much you hope it didn't, but I will show you:"What's the point? Most every specific I have asked you for, especially lately, has been completely ignored, insulted or smart-mouthed (case in point: Me: "How deep was the flood". You: "It depends where you're standing." And you are griping that I am not making a case against that kind of trash?)."
--I have answered this already.. you have ignored it and I have given it in my last post as well. Also ignored."What a fine comment from the hypocrite who has repeatedly griped that all I am doing is parroting URLs instead of making my own argument!"
--THe hypocrite!? This is bull. This article is MY creation, I have authored it and I have illustrated the most relevant segment from it(something you failed to do when you provided me your links) unlike with your links which you parroted, I have done the work, the article is the work. Do the simple geophysical formulation and you will have your answer.."I have seen this blather before. But do allow me to tediously spell it out for you once more. I am still awaiting you referring me to the section where this deals specifically with eruptions and meteor impacts, with rapid mountain-building, and relates to time periods only 5,000 years ago, and to where this activity has been noted in the geologic record by mainstream science at those historic times."
-I've explained to you why your not going to get a date of 4,500 years, let alone 4.5 Ga or anything. The rapid orogenesis is directly associated with the formulation I have supplied to you. My source is a mainstream textbook, I have already cited the reference. And what does the depth of the water have anything at all to do with meteor impacts? Nothing that I know of.."I asked you a specific question about dating the K/T boundary which you have completely ignored. I can only assume you cannot answer the question."
--Nope, actually I've already addressed isotopic dating. We will look at this in a latter segment of this post."2.5 km before the flood or during the flood?¹ Is this measured from the present sea floor or some hypothetical sea flood that you invented?² Velocity of what from where? The mid-ocean ridges?⁴ Where is your evidence that these change speed?⁵ What does this have to do with meteor impacts and eruptions and ice-cap melting?⁶"
--[1] - During the flood
--[2] - I explained my reasoning for the 2.5 km value, "assuming a 2.5km ocean seems reasonable given that we have one year of increased velocity, there would have taken some time for it to slow, thusly further widening the basin."
--[3] - No from the mantle-core boundary.. yes the MOR.
--[4] - Plate divergence velocities fluctuate indefinitely, other spreading rates on the earth may be 5-10 times the speed of the Atlantic ridges. velocity is very much dependent on viscous mantle convection rates, this is expected in the flood scenario. gravitational lithostatic stresses are also involved in plate divergence velocities."Maybe if you had some mainstream scientific backing instead of drawing all your support from the ICR and other creationists, you wouldn't be lost in this idle fantasy."
--The source IS mainstream..."I note this exchange in that article:
"Q1: Is the sea floor similar to what would be expected had the Flood actually occurred?
A1: We can only presume.""We can only presume"! Another blathering excuse for science. We can only presume. Well that really nails it, doesn't it?!"
--This is a complete misrepresentation. Read the article before you make this type of commentary. You quoted the vary e-mail whose text was included in the article which I condemned.."I see a lot of irrelevant trivia about oceanic plates at that URL, but not a single thing about flooding or surface topology. Not a single thing about dealing with the heat from massive, short-term mountain building, surface volcanic eruptions, and meteor impacts. Once again you have failed to address the topic.I see not a single thing addressing the repeated challenges I have made to you regarding the water required to flood the planet (like, where it came from and where it went - given that I have demonstrated that the ice caps are inadequate and you have failed to refute this). Nor have you addressed the issue of where the evidence is of these mythical meteorites you are so dependent upon."
--Either admit you are illiterate, have absolutely no idea what the article is addressing, or cannot comprehend how it deals with the problem. All that 'irrelevant trivia" is directly tied into the depth of flood waters and ocean basin bathymetry. I provided the equation which you can use to estimate this. The included 'trivia' illustrates exactly where the water came from and went. And to reiterate myself, the ice caps are not my main source for flood water. The effects of isostatic balance is.
--Those 'mythical meteorites' are the ones found to have impacted strata since the Cambrian. You can find a relatively lengthy list of terrestrial impact craters in The New Solar System pg. 396 - 398."The corals are alive today. Everything died in the flood. Where did the corals that are alive today come from?"
--Ah, yes, I see. I had the impression that you were trying to argue that it takes too long to create a coral reef. I would have to say after thinking about this more and referring to some texts, that the corals did not die. Your links on coral bleaching are irrelevant, though the thoughts on heat being a factor in inhibiting growth or killing the coral may be applicable. Of course, however, corals grow in an enormous variety of environments. Some grow at the bottom of the ocean. Others must grow near the surface, and others grow in the arctic and antarctic regions. areas which would have been ideal for corals survival would have been on top of continents and in the arctic and antarctic regions."Not for your case it isn't. It works very well for mainstream science, which denies and defeats your case, until and unless you can show that mainstream science is completely clueless when it comes to radiometry."
--They aren't, you are. And it has nothing to do with radiometry (the measurement of radiation), it has to do with geochemistry."Of course, you could, as usual, dismiss this as ridiculous, throw in an insult, add a geology buzzword, and pretend you have addressed the question."
--If you understood my 'geology buzzwords' you would also know that I have answered all these questions.. Its funny how my answers are never quoted and responded to, why?"Where is your case for your pretence that that these ranges were created in the last 5,000 years, since this again flies in the face of scientific knowledge? Or are you operating under the common creationist delusion that simply asserting something often enough makes it so? Please don't bother to actually try answering this. A simple arrogant assertion coupled with an insult will be more than sufficient by your standards."
--Again, you have no date, only relative dating methods. Nothing is going to give you an "age", it is all appearance of age, not age itself as I have argued. You still have yet to refute this. The flood could have occurred 20,000 years ago and lasted for 100 years.. However, in our usage of the biblical date, as we address the objections, it is quite consistent."Are they posting in this thread? No! Are they interested in this thread? I doubt' it. Is this thread intended for professional scientists? No!"
--No they are not posting in this thread because this is me and you. Interest by scientists is shown by postings in the parallel thread. Also, in looking over the IP addresses in my servers log file for having my signature image displayed, there are more people than you think, reading this text. I can also deduce by the same method that the scientists in this forum are reading the text also. Furthermore, this thread isn't intended for professional scientists, true, however, in discussing what we are discussing, sophisticated material and analysis is required. If you think you can get away with as minimal an understanding as you can and through that, assure yourself that what you believe about it is true from your lack of knowledge, this is ridiculous."Please try to pay attention to what I am saying. These arguments are for lay people, not for professional scientists. If you want to debate a professional scientist, then invite a professional scientist to debate you and see how you fare. instead, you invited me. Deal with me. Do you get it now?"
--Yes I see, you want me to lower myself to your level.. this isn't going to happen. And I can't reverse my intellect and scientific experience either."Pity you learned so little, because here you are trying to trash mainstream geology. Or was there, in all that reading (of non-creationist material) that you claim to have done, a global flood detailed? No? I didn't think so. QED."
--Ignorance is bliss. I have made your arguments fall to the ground, you just cannot see it because you don't understand the fundamentals which are required to see this."Please do give me supported examples demonstrating your claim."
--Some quickly found Buddika bloopers:

quote:

---

Blabbering jargon about turbidity currents does not address this specific issue (nor how the layers are so neatly preserved despite all this "turbidity")."

​

and:

​

Atmophilic? That's a brand new one on me.

​

and:

​

Atmopheric C-14 has nothing to do with it since the comparison is between isotope and daughter in the organic material being dated. What was in the atmosphere is irrelevant as far as I know

​

and:

​

Clearly andisols do not get the job done. If there was enough generated after the flood to cover the Earth with 6 feet of soil, the living conditions would have been untenable, and if there was not, and any pre-flood soil was catastrophically sluiced away with your instant orogenesis, there was no soil available.

​

Much more can be found in any Buddika post #14 and on.

---

"Given that you have supported and explained very little, I don't see why this would be a problem. Most of your case seems to be bland assertion with little or no argument or support. And I am sorry for you that you are so constricted by this terminology of which you are so enamored that you cannot even make one simple plain English argument for your case."
--I'm pretty sure atmophilic and those other words you don't understand are English. Just a little big to fit in your brain, unless of course it is resultant from your own ignorance and closed mind."Oh I don't doubt that. What a boost it must give to your ego to fool yourself into thinking you have lost all your readers and impressed them so with your apparent grasp of your topic. How unfortunate that when you have literally lost all your readers, there is no one left to even care what you say."
--The only reason I would 'lose readers' is because they don't understand it, not because it isn't English. If you don't understand these things, maybe you shouldn't be running around parroting that you know the flood is false..TC: "Wrong, my usage of 'differentially' and 'differently' was not incorrect."Go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. You are a creationist. You are an expert at that. When I specifically challenged you on this, you simply blew it off."
--Well I guess you really supported your claim that I misused the word 'differentially'.. Or did I mis the part which does? You can insert this into my list of 'Buddika Bloopers'."TC: "Also, when I said 'atmophilic' I meant what I said, it wasn't 'atmospheric'. I used it for a reason."What a pity you didn't have the curtesy to explain this at the time. How hypocritical that you have endlessly accused me of using jargon, yet supplied not a single example, and here are you using geology jargon at every opportunity."
--Why should I explain it to you? You have put yourself in the position to be compared, not differentiated. If you want to know the terminology, go read a textbook before you make these ignorant claims, because you definitely have an ignorance of geology. But for your information, an atmophilic element pertains to elements which have a tendency to concentrate in the earths atmosphere, this includes H, C, N, O, etc."I did already. But just to humor you, here is another example from your last message, something I already quoted above:TC: "If you want 'my position', your (sic) going to have to give me specifics."Note that you used 'your', meaning 'that which is yours', rather the the correct, 'you're' meaning 'you are'.Or how about this one, from later in the same message, again quoted above: "The topics we are bringing up are simply too difficult to explainable (sic)..."I am sure you meant 'explain' rather than 'explainable', but it was the misuse of a word. Now you can turn around and accuse me of misspelling all you want, but I am not the one trying to convince people that I know what I am talking about when I pile on the geology jargon. *You* are."
--Oh please, I'm not talking about casual grammar. I'm talking about relevant terminology. You can make all the spelling errors and casual grammatical errors you want, this is completely understandable. Besides, I'm working on a laptop right now, expect typos. I'm talking about that 'geology jargon' and inconsistencies within its terminology and word usage. Such is not in my posts. Also misrepresenting, or illustrating something in a misleading format is not in my posts. It is however, found all over your posts like the plague."Do I really need, once again, to tediously repeat my case that if you cannot consistently use and spell common English correctly, how can I possibly be expected to believe that you spell and use geology terms correctly? QED."
--I don't know, maybe you should read up on some geology and find out, eh?--[edit] - Now, please list those specifics you want 'my postion' on?------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-09-2002]