|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq,
Then you need to point to specific formations that these pulses created and show how they produced alternating layers of fine grained sediments and diatoms as well as sorting organic debris by tiny differences in 14C. Until you do so, you have no argument. You may want to refer Robert Beyers to 14C Calibration and Correlations and the correlations between:
(1) Tree Rings and 14C: There are three long continuous (unbroken from today) dendrochronologies (and a lot of short ones) and one (of many) "floating" ones (where they are not directly connected to today), and they are:
quote: The last one is cross-linked with the other three, and correlates climate and 14C contents. It is not logically possible for the tree rings to have the same age and different 14C contents, because trees normally get their 14C from the atmosphere. The 14C measurements and tree ring age were made to develop a calibration curve to improve the accuracy of 14C dating:
quote: The solar cycle varies on a 28 year period, and this accounts for the small jagged teeth in the calibration curve: this is another correlation between the tree ring data and 14C, in addition to the correlation between all the sources of tree rings and the 14C content in the various rings. and (2) Lake Suigetsu Varves and 14C
quote: But that's not all, there is also this correlation between the layers and 14C AND the rate of deposition:
quote: I would like to see Robert Beyers (or any other creationist) explain how a flood can
You will notice that the title of this thread is "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood". The title is not "Imaginations on the Global Flood". You need to supply evidence to support your ideas. One should also note that these chronologies are continuous to the present times, and they show processes that we see today in uninterrupted progression into the past, which would NOT be the case if there were a world wide flood in those times. Does one throw out the Young Earth concept in order to keep a WWF concept? This data is not compatible with both these concepts. Enjoy. {The bulk of this message now hidden as being off-topic. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by RAZD, : spling Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide much, do off-topic banner, add note.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.
so millions of years is rejected. The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together. Just segregated flows within a bigger event. Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage. This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood. it all works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.
Results in real life. Then interpretations of how this fits in a biblical framework. The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment.The sediment must be admitted by all to be there. Then it simply means to say the sediment was squeezed by the very great weight that previously laid it and into stone. Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Robert Byers writes: Then you can’t use the k-t boundary. It doesn’t exist for you. I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.so millions of years is rejected. Robert Byers writes: And the areas with no accumulations of sediment? How do they tie in with a global flood? The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Robert Byers writes: Lot’s of reasons. Unconformities, for one.
Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together. Robert Byers writes: Any evidence for this bigger event? Just segregated flows within a bigger event. Robert Byers writes: There’s lots of lines with different fauna/flora assemblages above and below those lines. Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage. Robert Byers writes: Any evidence of this?
This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood. Robert Byers writes: Not in real life. Just in your dreams.
it all works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Robert Byers writes: In the field we find lots of areas with no sedimentary accumulation. How does a global flood account for this? Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.Results in real life. Robert Byers writes: Pseudo-science. Then interpretations of how this fits in a biblical framework. Robert Byers writes: Some evidence for great moving wind is also great accumulations of sediment. How does this fit into the global flood? The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment. Robert Byers writes: And where there’s no sediment? How does it fit into a global flood? The sediment must be admitted by all to be there. Robert Byers writes: Lots of processes drive lithification. Great weights don’t necessarily do it alone: on the ocean floors we find very expansive areas of unlithified sediments on top of those basalts. Then it simply means to say the sediment was squeezed by the very great weight that previously laid it and into stone. Robert Byers writes: So far we’ve only found natural accumulations of sediment. What would the characteristics of unnatural accumulations of dirt be? Do you have an example of an unnatural one? Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt. Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word "from" to "for" in my first sentence. Edited by Pressie, : Sorry, second sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary. so millions of years is rejected. The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together. Do you have any evidence to reject all of scientific dating beyond the fact that it doesn't fit with your belief? Because that is what you have to do if you wish to continue statements of this kind. First, you need to account for the fact that these layers you claim are "laid all together" date to different, often vastly different, times. Second, if you are rejecting scientific dating, how do you account for things like the change in radioactive decay rates that this would entail? There's no free lunch! If you reject certain parts of science there are consequences. Scientific knowledge is a cohesive whole, and if you change something in one area you are very likely to have something else change where you don't expect it--and you are going to have to explain that as well. For example, if you are going to change the decay rates to accommodate a young earth, what happens to the heat? To force the amount of decay we can document into a span of 10,000 or so years would mean cooking the earth, which obviously didn't happen. Even the RATE boys had to punt on this one.
Just segregated flows within a bigger event. There are different layers, but the dating shows they were not all within a short time frame. That alone busts the flood story.
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage. This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood. Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora, but that is not proof of your mythical flood. Rather that fits better with our current scientific explanations than it does with a global flood.
it all works. The explanations arrived at through science are what work. Ancient tribal myths fail to explain the world as we see it, and the events that took place. You and others who try to explain the world and these events are forced to crazier and crazier "what ifs" in order to try and make your myths fit reality. So, since this thread is about evidence--how about producing some? In the post I am replying to the evidence seems to be as follows:The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there... If that is the best you can do for evidence--a statement that applies to both scientific explanations as well as your explanation--you have nothing. Edited by Coyote, : SpeelingReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field. Results in real life. So where in the field do we see catastrophic processes producing alternating layers of fine grained clay and diatoms where insect and leaf debris have been sorted by minute differences in 14C (insects/leaves with higher 14C on top). Either show us this evidence or admit that there is none.
quote: What about sediments that are deposited by wind such as the Coconino sandstones? What about massive salt deposits in the middle of your supposed flood? What about sediments that are made up of massive amounts of life, such as the chalk cliffs at Dover where there is several hundred feet of cocolithophores? Catastrophic flooding does not produce these features.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Taq
... such as the chalk cliffs at Dover where there is several hundred feet of cocolithophores? Catastrophic flooding does not produce these features. with the cocolithophores showing evolution of species with transitions from species at the bottom to different species at the top? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment. But according to your own hypothesis, the great accumulations of sediment after the KT boundary were not laid down by the flood. And if such accumulations can be produced by normal processes, then they are not particularly evidence for a magic flood.
Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt. "Unnatural" accumulations of dirt which look exactly like natural accumulations of dirt --- again, according to your hypothesis, which says that the "dirt" after the KT boundary is natural. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment...
pnas writes: It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc. This coincides well with the 10.8 Ma age for the split of these lineages based on analysis of coccolith morphology in the fossil record and supports the accuracy of our molecular-clock calibration. Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered. Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentence Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2938 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined:
|
"The evidence of the rocks is only evidence they were created by processes. then its interpretation of what these processes were.
If massive water was working then there is no reason to see anything of the past as from slow minor processes of a quiet world today.in fact this is a common theme in ice age mega flood studies. They always , not creationists, are overthrowing old slow interpretations of geomorphology in regards to glacial covered areas. " Robert you should give up and just say "god did it" then quit posting on this board and use the time saved to read your holy book, do good works and marvel at god's Universe. You will feel better, we'll feel better and the world will be a better place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Pressie,
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment... It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc. Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered. No, it is not off-topic -- it is evidence that these deposits did not occur during a flood. Floods don't arrange things in neat sorted piles. Additionally, fossil layers of marine growth show long term growth, longer than is possible given the purported duration of the flood. Brachipods have growth rings typically showing ages of 20 to 30 years in a layer, and are attached to the sea floor with stalks. They are fossilized [i]in situ[/u] by silt build up that leaves their ecology undisturbed, and builds up another similar layer as the previous growth is gradually buried. The ages of continuous marine growth can be hundreds of years long - and thus could not be due to a flood. When we go around the world and look at all the fossil beds that creationists like Robert Byers claim to be evidence of floods, we see similar fossils of long term mature marine growth that is completely inconsistent with a flood model. See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
This is a heads up that the 300 post limit is approaching. AdminPD |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hi Zen Deist
Yes, I agree with you that it is on topic. I'm just trying to get these creationists to focus on one line of evidence before they start racing towards another Gish Gallop. It's amazing how they keep on making statements, but keep disappearing when their statements are shown to be wrong. They just gallop towards the next incorrect statement! We're still on Jbr's "polystrate" fossils in coal seams. He hasn't acknowledged that he is wrong about "uniformatists" saying that those "strata" are "millions of years apart". He keeps on ignoring it. Before we can move on, he has at least got to provide even one example of where any "uniformatist" geologist has ever said this! We shouldn't let them off the hook! Edited by Pressie, : Altered the whole message
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Everyone.
I recently reread my notes. A great book by geologists called the "mountains of Saint Francis" mentioned how turbidity currents explained graded bedforms. They discovered that the whole sediment load was thrown together in water and then it settled into grades of sediment. they called it a revolution but really just a correction of slow geology presumptions. Its come up here HOW can there be segregated strata.well just as this case shows sediment can sort itself in special events so likewise these special events easily and very likely created segregated flows that laid in a short period all strata below the k-t line. The potential evidence for a global flood is the great strata columns and general covering of earth by sedimentary rock.What more could a creationist ask for? The only thing to add is that the sediment was turned into rock by the great weight of other mechanisms during the flood. The flood evidence is the very data used to, incorrectly, make all these stories of the history of earth. There is no reason not to see and imagine that layered rock strata are from the same event.There is every reason to think so from creationist presumptions of a witness. its more then potential . its actual and very persuasive to creationists and audiences that can be reached.Includes in it any life caught up in the flows and so likewise turned to stone. Fossils. Fossils all from the same great event killing them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024