Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 533 (725949)
05-04-2014 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
05-03-2014 7:53 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Hey, everybody, let's have a contest to guess what obstacle will next prevent Faith from using the angle-of-repose kit. I'm going to guess smudged eyeglasses.
While the complaint about not having a protractor is pretty silly, Faith has already said she does not have space to set up the kit. She made the reasons for that sound personal, so I'm not inclined to question her any further on that.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-03-2014 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 12:32 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 77 of 533 (725956)
05-05-2014 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NoNukes
05-04-2014 7:33 PM


protractor
Just so you know, I did find some protractors in a cache of art stuff I inherited from my cartoonist uncle.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2014 7:33 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 10:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 533 (725979)
05-05-2014 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
05-05-2014 12:32 AM


Re: protractor
Just so you know, I did find some protractors in a cache of art stuff I inherited from my cartoonist uncle. Now if someone wants to come and help me fold laundry so I can clear a space on the folding table... might also have to find a source of light for the area though...
Or you could just read a textbook on the subject. You might even find something online, so you won't need to suffer the inconvenience of going to the library.
On the other hand, you could continue to reinvent the wheel by getting a grant from the DI, maybe get a new table and a light...
When you're done with that, we will send you an airplane kit so that you can prove heavier than air flight. Or not.
You may think I'm terribly insensitive and rude, but the purpose here is to show you where extreme skepticism leads ... you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 12:32 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by petrophysics1, posted 05-05-2014 2:13 PM edge has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 533 (725986)
05-05-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
05-03-2014 7:53 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Why do you feel the need to claim such incredible things happened naturally?
As I can recall, a few posters used to express this sentiment in their signatures. It is indeed a strange mindset. All of the power of almighty to draw on, and yet many Flood proponents are loathe to invoke it, instead inventing snow comets and the like.
Mindspawn, for example, refused to answer the question of whether God even caused the flood. He insisted that the flood happened naturally and that despite God having pre-announced what would happened, and the reason for it happening, spawny claimed that scripture did not answer that question.
Quite bizarre in my opinion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-03-2014 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 2:34 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 533 (725987)
05-05-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by edge
05-05-2014 10:00 AM


Re: protractor
I can't believe someone gave a person who doesn't know what an apparent dip is a protractor, much less know how to determine the true strike and dip from a couple of apparent ones..
I can hear it now...."It's flat, just look at it, anybody can see it."
God forbid we actually measure stuff rather than just look at it from any random angle someone taking a photo used.
Apparent dip images:
https://www.google.com/search?q=apparent+dip&tbm=isch&tbo...
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 10:00 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 81 of 533 (725988)
05-05-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NoNukes
05-05-2014 12:32 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
The source is scripture. Scripture doesn't treat the Flood as miraculous, and its effects, such as the strata and the fossils, are completely natural events. God is behind everything natural that happens anyway, it's only those things that are shown in scripture to clearly contradict the laws of nature that are to be regarded as miraculous. God of course caused the animals to come to Noah and scripture says clearly that God closed the ark behind them. Otherwise the rain and the Flood itself and its physical consequences are treated as natural events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2014 12:32 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 3:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 82 of 533 (725989)
05-05-2014 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-05-2014 2:34 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Faith writes:
Scripture doesn't treat the Flood as miraculous,... the rain and the Flood itself and its physical consequences are treated as natural events.
Scripture begs to differ. This is from the King James:
Scripture writes:
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
...
Genesis 7:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
You follow neither science nor Bible - even with religion you just make it up.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 2:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 83 of 533 (725991)
05-05-2014 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
05-05-2014 3:04 PM


The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Your scripture quotes miss the point I made. What I said was that God is behind ALL natural events. It is in Isaiah 44 I think that He says that nothing at all happens without Him. He is behind the weather patterns and everything else. That doesn't make them miraculous. He brings about the rise and fall of nations too but you can always find what they call "proximate causes" for these events as well, ordinary everyday explanations. The difference here is not God's will or activity in any event, which is ALWAYS the case, the difference is whether the event is a violation of natural processes, and except for the gathering of the animals and the closing of the ark there is nothing in the scriptural description of the Flood to suggest that it was miraculous.
ABE: IN ANY CASE the effects of such an event should be evident, and they are: strata, fossils.
ABE: Oh and I really like this model of the effect of sea transgressions and regressions too because it is the first explanation I've seen of how the sedimentary layers could have formed by the rising and falling of sea water, which is of course the method of the Flood. It needs to be worked out of course, but to say it puts the nail in the coffin of the Flood theory totally misses the point.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : add a couple words in last paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 3:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-05-2014 4:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 85 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 5:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 84 of 533 (725992)
05-05-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-05-2014 3:52 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
So you're saying it just coincidentally rained at the exact time your god got pissed off? Because it either happened naturally, according to physical laws, or by a violation of natural processes. I don't see any coherent middle ground there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 85 of 533 (725993)
05-05-2014 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-05-2014 3:52 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
ABE: IN ANY CASE the effects of such an event should be evident, and they are: strata, fossils.
Never mind that your entire argument has been flayed and hung out to dry.
Okay, so what is your drop-dead best stratgraphic evidence the Fludde? And please, be a little more specific than 'fossils' or some such evasion.
ABE: Oh and I really like this model of the effect of sea transgressions and regressions too because it is the first explanation I've seen of how the sedimentary layers could have formed by the rising and falling of sea water, which is of course the method of the Flood. It needs to be worked out of course, but to say it puts the nail in the coffin of the Flood theory totally misses the point.
Wow...
So how many floods have you got? And why are they all at different times? And where do you get siliciclastic sediments from during the flood? How do you get limestone formed in a flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:15 PM edge has replied
 Message 92 by roxrkool, posted 05-05-2014 6:09 PM edge has replied

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


Message 86 of 533 (725994)
05-05-2014 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Capt Stormfield
05-05-2014 4:03 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
If you didn't know God's communications with Noah, which we only know through the scripture, you would have no reason to think the rain was anything but natural. It is only because scripture takes us behind the scenes of events that we understand His role and His reasons for what He does. This is true of all the natural events that are going on all the time in your neighborhood and mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-05-2014 4:03 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 5:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 87 of 533 (725995)
05-05-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by edge
05-05-2014 4:10 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
So how many floods have you got? And why are they all at different times? And where do you get siliciclastic sediments from during the flood? How do you get limestone formed in a flood?
The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model; the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.
Siliclastic sediments would have been scoured off the land mass and redeposited; limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself. How's that for a start?
What's neat about this model of sea transgression/regression is not where the sediments come from but that the sea DOES deposit them in layers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 6:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 91 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2014 9:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 88 of 533 (725998)
05-05-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-05-2014 3:52 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:
Your scripture quotes miss the point I made...the difference is whether the event is a violation of natural processes...
No, you're just very confused about natural processes. The Flood is a violation of the physical laws of nature in a myriad of ways for which there's no need to list, they having all been described to you before many times.
You're also confused about what constitutes a miracle. Whenever God makes something happen that would not otherwise have happened, that's a miracle.
This is from the definition of miracle in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary. Baker's uses the same definition of miracle you do but seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about what can happen naturally and what can't:
Baker's writes:
Although English speakers regularly use "miracle" to refer to a broad range of wondrous events, the biblical concept is limited to those not explainable solely by natural processes but which require the direct causal agency of a supernatural being, usually God...
...
The next major miracle, the flood, thus affirms both God's judgment on extreme wickedness...
Your ignorance seems to span both science *and* religion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 89 of 533 (725999)
05-05-2014 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-05-2014 4:10 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:
This is true of all the natural events that are going on all the time in your neighborhood and mine.
But you know nothing about what can happen naturally and what can't. You just make it up as you go along. If it were important to your position you'd be arguing that when Jesus walked on water it was just "natural processes" at work.
I think what most mystifies many of us is your ability to maintain a high regard for your own opinions despite the many times you've made your ignorance glaringly obvious.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 533 (726001)
05-05-2014 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-05-2014 4:15 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:
The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model;...
As has been pointed out many times, even if you disagree with the conclusions of radiometric dating you must still acknowledge that the Flood sorted the layers by isotopic concentration. This can only be explained in one of two ways: a) A miracle; b) Slow deposition in different environments over hundreds of millions of years.
Faith writes:
...the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.
It can be your religious truth, but it can't become an accepted scientific theory until there is evidence. And there *is* no evidence, except to the incredibly ignorant who despite having their error described to them a multitude of times over the course of more than a decade look at fine grained deposits requiring quiet waters and see a violent flood.
Siliclastic sediments would have been scoured off the land mass and redeposited;...
Where is your evidence that anything like this ever happened?
And since most land is eroded and contributes sediments instead of receiving them, how could there possibly have been any significant accumulation of sediments on land before the flood, especially since there was only a couple thousand years for these sediments to accumulate?
And if you're going to argue that miles of sediments accumulated on land during the antediluvian period then that would mean those poor antediluvian farmers had to deal with 5-10 feet of sediment being deposited on their land every year. They'd build a house and in 10 years it would be deeply buried.
...limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself.
What is your evidence that limestone was scoured off the sea floor, and why would limestone come from the sea floor while siliclastic sediments were scoured off the land, which makes no sense since both contain only marine fossils? Why the difference? If you're going to make stuff up you should at least try to be consistent. Of course that would require actually knowing something about the topic you're discussing.
What's neat about this model of sea transgression/regression is not where the sediments come from but that the sea DOES deposit them in layers.
Knowing the origin of sediments is a key element in our understanding. That we see the same kinds of sediments forming around the world today that we see in ancient portions of the geologic column is how we know that the same processes that create sedimentary layers today were also at work in the past.
And what's the opposite of "neat" is the idea that a violent Flood that lacked any coastlines somehow laid down millions of cubic miles of sediment of types that only form along and near coastlines and in warm quiet seas.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:17 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2014 9:09 PM Percy has seen this message but 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