Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 256 of 1896 (713807)
12-16-2013 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
12-16-2013 5:36 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
A fair amount of it should be in the erosion itself.
What?
The rest is under the strata somewhere. Look under the deepest parts of the strata column, look in the areas that are never defined in the diagrams, under the strata. Look on the other side of the Supergroup. What's there? That's a BIG area we're talking about.
And have you looked down the side of the sofa?
We're looking for an awful lot of rock, Faith. Hiding comes very high on the list of things that zillions of cubic meters of rock does very badly, just below unicycling and above stand-up comedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 7:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 257 of 1896 (713809)
12-16-2013 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
But this theme keeps coming up, from you and PaulK, the idea that I somehow WANT things to be the way I've been describing them. I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed
Faith writes:
But I'd have the job then of learning all about them [...] That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me [...] Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. [...] That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 6:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 258 of 1896 (713810)
12-16-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2013 6:30 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The point was, my dear Dr. A, that I don't ARRIVE at a deduction by wanting it to be that way, I look at the evidence and discover what's actually there, and what's actually there supports my view very nicely as in fact I DO want it to do.
I do, on the other hand, suspect that Old Earthers systematically seek explanations that fit their theory and ignore those that don't.
OR, being fair to all of us, it's just a matter of conflicting paradigms.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 6:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 7:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 259 of 1896 (713816)
12-16-2013 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
12-16-2013 5:30 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
Thanks Faith, I understand your reluctance.
But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. ...
This is a false statement -- in science things are interpreted according to what the evidence says. When you don't restrain your conclusions to predetermined results, when you follow where the evidence leads, then you come to conclusions based on an approximation of reality.
You can see this process in the history of science understanding of such things as gravity, where Aristotle argued that things fell at different speeds according to their weight. Galileo at the tower of Pisa (supposedly) proved this to be wrong.
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment - Wikipedia
Newton formalized his law of gravity as the force between two objects being positively related to the mass of each and inversely related to the distance between them:
F = GmM/d^2
And we now know that this is not completely correct, for instance it doesn't explain the orbit of Mercury properly.
So we now have General Relativity ... and I won't bother you with the equations ... which takes care of Mercury but seems to have some other anomalies ... but we are getting closer.
The age of the earth has a similar history. NOBODY started from a position that the earth must be old.
One thing to consider: you can't have evidence that shows great age in a young earth unless the evidence is illusory, lying -- evidence that is part of creation. You can have evidence of young parts of the earth in an old universe\earth ... volcanic lava flows, tephra, etc will date to the time of eruption.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 7:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 1896 (713821)
12-16-2013 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by RAZD
12-16-2013 7:00 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
I know you believe that but you're wrong. You are interpreting according to the OE theory. If you weren't you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place before
the GC uplift occurred
the GC was formed
all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed
the Hurricane fault occurred
the magma dike in the GS area occurred
all the formations of the southwest were sculpted
such as the hoodoos
the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened,
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form
showing that the OE theory doesn't account for these formations, but rapid deposition and a young earth are the best interpretation
Cheers
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2013 7:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2013 8:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 8:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 261 of 1896 (713823)
12-16-2013 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
12-16-2013 6:35 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The point was, my dear Dr. A, that I don't ARRIVE at a deduction by wanting it to be that way, I look at the evidence and discover what's actually there ...
Unless you're too busy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 6:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 262 of 1896 (713824)
12-16-2013 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
12-16-2013 7:21 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
the GC uplift occurred
the GC was formed
all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed
the Hurricane fault occurred
the magma dike in the GS area occurred
all the formations of the southwest were sculpted
such as the hoodoos
yes, and
  • the uplift is still occurring
  • the erosion of the canyon is still occurring
  • THREE magma dikes occurred AND were eroded away
  • formations all over the southwest are sculpted predominantly by wind and by freeze-thaw cycles ... such as the hoodoos ...
  • speleothems formed underwater in caves well up the sides of the canyon, caves that developed after the canyon was cut ...
the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened,
False. They are all disturbed in different ways. They don't need to be "catastrophically disturbed" just to suit you. Just because you claim crows should be green and that any crows that aren't green would prove evolution erroneous doesn't mean that black crows prove anything other than that your belief of what should have happened is false.
All you prove is that you don't understand geology, know squat about it, and are unwilling to learn.
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form
False. The "knife edge" surfaces you are so fond of all show evidence of being a surface, either underwater or in air. Many have evidence of life on those surfaces, and that is enough to prove that they were a surface.
showing that the OE theory doesn't account for these formations, but rapid deposition and a young earth are the best interpretation
Double False. Even IF your clouded rose glass observations were true it would not mean that rapid deposition and a young earth would explain them. The fact remains that no such formations have been observed happening TODAY from rapid deposition. NOT ONE.
Uranium halos can't form in a few years, but it takes thousands of years for the decay of alpha particles to form the halos ... such halos exist and because of this they are de facto evidence of having taken a long time to be there. This is not interpretation, it is fact.
There is a tree in the Sierra Nevadas that is over 5,063 years old. The evidence is annual growth rings, and all you have to do is count them: no interpretation needed.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 7:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 263 of 1896 (713825)
12-16-2013 8:18 PM


Two questions for the Old Earthers
I have two questions:
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC?
Here are the two images Percy posted, to show that the uplift is the mounded area in the Grand Canyon area, the canyon having been cut into the south side of the mound.
You will also notice that the Supergroup, which is the tilted block of strata, two blocks in the second image, under the bottommost layer of the stack of parallel layers that runs for hundreds of miles north-south, right beneath the highest part of the mounded uplift.
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup?
ABE: I didn't get this question worded as I had intended. I meant to ask
2) What was the cause of the TILTING of the Supergroup?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 8:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2013 8:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 9:01 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 264 of 1896 (713826)
12-16-2013 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
12-16-2013 7:21 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
You are interpreting according to the OE theory.
Yes, of course. That's the theory that works.
OE Theory is what lead those scientists to be able to predict where coal can be found deep under the ground.
And they're getting it right. Their findings, however, contradict a young Earth.
If you want to find coal; you don't ask the YEC's, you ask ask the scientists.
I suppose their OE Theory could all just be the butt of a joke, but it is yielding results. And that makes them look right.
If you weren't {interpreting according to the OE theory} you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place before
the GC uplift occurred
the GC was formed
all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed
the Hurricane fault occurred
the magma dike in the GS area occurred
all the formations of the southwest were sculpted
such as the hoodoos
the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened,
I acknowledge that if I were assuming that the OE Theory was wrong, and that the Earth was in fact young, that those strata could not have been laid down individually and undisturbed.
Just loosing the assumption of the OE Theory, and placing no bets on the age, I would conclude that those strata were laid down individually, and were disturbed, over the course of a very long period of time.
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form
That doesn't show that. You mentioned us not really considering your alternative, but you seem to be doing exactly that. I don't think you fully understand the concept of the OE Theory.
You gotta really stretch the time out. The layers are individual, but some of them are just gradually collecting like dust so deep that it would take what seems like forever. And over that time, the plate that the sediment is sitting on is grudging along the surface it is sitting on, but going even even slower. The kinds of disturbances that would happen in that process, would be unimaginable.
And I think you're mistaking what we mean by "surface", the surface of the strata can be covered by water. Way back when it was way over on the other side of the planet, just gradually grudging along, there were all kinds of environments that it went through experiencing. Over long periods of time, remember. And they gradually left behind "individual" layers that represent great changes in the experiences that the surface of the Earth was going through. Changes that would take forever.
[Moose repellent]That's what I meant in Message 44, Moose.[/moose repellent].
So anyways, assuming that the OE theory is wrong and then finding a way to interpret evidence that simply corresponds with that assumption (like saying that the layers couldn't have been laid down individually and undisturbed (which is an assumption of what you're trying to explain)), is not a way to show that the OE theory is wrong.
Assuming that the Earth is young, and then suggesting that the strata as observed could not have been laid down in a way that corresponds to what would be a short amount of time, and then concluding that the Earth could not be old, is not a good argument based on good evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 7:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2013 8:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 265 of 1896 (713827)
12-16-2013 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
12-16-2013 5:30 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
Faith writes:
But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. I feel sort of sorry for Atheos because he started this thread and he really wants to prove to me that his sand grains make the Flood impossible because he thinks they do. But I'd have the job then of learning all about them, plus researching possible other contexts he wouldn't have thought of in order to find out how they don't prove what he says they do. That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me, I have my own way of thinking about all this and don't want to get sidetracked into all those secondary issues like sand and speleothems. Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. Not necessarily all my own notions about how it might have occurred but certainly the timing of it which makes all Old Earth thinking false, AND the more I look at the strata the more I see that OE theory doesn't account for them, but a worldwide Flood certainly would. So he's got sand grains in the strata that supposedly couldn't have been deposited in water. That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted. He isn't going to do it, you aren't going to do it; that leaves me, and right now I don't want the job.
Faith writes:
Message 232 You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness
Faith writes:
Message 237 Obviously you haven't read or thought about any of it.
Nice double standard Faith. You want us to read all your imaginings and think hard about it, but you will not take a chance at understanding a couple of simple flaws in your story.
There are sand formations in some layers of strata, that you are supposedly interested in and looking at, that you say was all deposited by a flood of water, but this sand has all the characteristics of sand on dry land and none of the characteristics of sand deposited under water.
It is that simple.
Therefore, your story of all the layers of strata exposed by the Grand Canyon being deposited at one short, recent time by your flood is WRONG... IT DID NOT HAPPEN
-
Faith writes:
Message 243 If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all.
Faith writes:
Message 254 Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty.
I keep wondering why you are involved in discussions here. I cannot imagine that you have convinced a single person of anything, except that the bible isn't true and the biblical flood never happened, and that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 266 of 1896 (713828)
12-16-2013 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
12-16-2013 8:18 PM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC?
In short: Plate tectonics.
As the surfaces are gathering over the underlying surfaces that are on plates, they are slowing sliding along the surfaces that those plates are sitting on. As things gradually move about and collide and separate and all kinds of stuff, various different anomalies such as that uplift occur.
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup?
A section of a very ancient surface of the Earth that was eroded away and gradually deposited upon while it was slowly carried across the underlying surfaces of the Earth through a process that keeps repeating itself today, as it has for extremely long periods of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 8:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 2:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 267 of 1896 (713829)
12-16-2013 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of the problem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Old Earth doesn't work.
You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of the problem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Flood doesn't work.
I notice that you've done a lot of posting since my last post and have somehow not managed to respond. You claimed that the reason you were not addressing my argument was because you didn't understand it. I explained it very clearly and offered to clarify any uncertainty you had. As I predicted, when your bluff was called you reverted to ignoring the point entirely. Well here is the promised reminder of your intellectual cowardice. Given your propensity for ignoring the points you can't deal with, I'm certain it won't be the last reminder.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 5:47 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 268 of 1896 (713830)
12-16-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
12-16-2013 8:18 PM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC?
Tectonic uplift - Wikipedia
quote:
Orogenic uplift
Orogenic uplift is the result of tectonic-plate collisions and results in mountain ranges or a more modest uplift over a large region. Perhaps the most extreme form of orogenic uplift is a continental-continental crustal collision. In this process, two continents are sutured together and large mountain ranges are produced. The collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates is a good example of the extent to which orogenic uplift can reach. Heavy thrust faulting (of the Indian plate beneath the Eurasian plate) and folding are responsible for the suturing together of the two plates.[1] The collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates not only produced the Himalaya, but is also responsible for crustal thickening up into Siberia.[2] The Pamir Mountains, Tian Shan, Altai, Hindu Kush, and other mountain belts are all examples of mountain ranges formed in response to the collision of the Indian with the Eurasian plate. . Deformation of continental lithosphere can take place in several possible modes, and there are quite a few theories around.
The Ozark Plateau is a broad uplifted area which resulted from the Permian Ouachita Orogeny to the south in the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Another related uplift is the Llano Uplift in Texas, a geographical location named after its uplift features.
The Colorado Plateau which includes the Grand Canyon is also the result of broad tectonic uplift followed by river erosion.
For starters
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup?
Grand Canyon Supergroup - Wikipedia
quote:
The Grand Canyon Supergroup is a Mesoproterozoic to Neoproterozoic sequence of sedimentary strata, mostly exposed in the eastern Grand Canyon of Arizona. This group is composed of the Unkar Group, Nankoweap Formation, Chuar Group and the Sixtymile Formation, which overlie Vishnu Basement Rocks. Several notable landmarks of the Grand Canyon, such as the "Isis Temple and Cheops Pyramid" and the "Apollo Temple," are surface manifestations of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.
The Grand Canyon Supergroup uncomfortably overlie the Vishnu Basement Rocks, but were never subjected to metamorphism. The units of the Supergroup were faulted and then tilted from 10 to 15 degrees.[3]
and then they were eroded down to the level covered by the next round of sedimentation.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 8:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 2:50 AM RAZD has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 269 of 1896 (713831)
12-16-2013 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:23 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all.
Ha! Once again I'm forced to ask if you are a hypocrite or just lack self-awareness. How long now have I been trying to get you to address what I have said? Seems like, according to yourself, you have no business commenting at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 5:41 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 270 of 1896 (713832)
12-16-2013 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 8:27 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
Assuming that the Earth is young, and then suggesting that the strata as observed could not have been laid down in a way that corresponds to what would be a short amount of time, and then concluding that the Earth could not be old, is not a good argument based on good evidence.
But that's the way creation "science" works: all evidence and interpretations must lead to conclusions that the bible is correct. No matter what!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 8:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024