Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 136 of 1304 (731394)
05-09-2014 9:38 AM


In other words you can't even bring yourself to imagine what a worldwide Flood might do. Such as cover whole continents with very long waves during its rise or fall. Ah well, only to be expected.
A worldwide flood would break the continuity of mtDNA, with replacement from Noah's female kin's mtDNA.
We do not see this.
We see continuity of mtDNA across the 4,350 time period assigned to the flood. Its so easy to get that I even have an example from my own archaeological research. (I posted this upthread, but you ignored it.)
And don't quibble about the dating--that's a settled issue.

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
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

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


Message 137 of 1304 (731395)
05-09-2014 10:19 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
However, just curious, would you say that the amount of talus tends to be rather similar from mountain to mountain, you know, Rockies to Alps to Himalayas?
Since talus is a very specific type of deposit, your question is kind of obtuse. But no, I would not expect them to be similar regardless of the type of deposit.
Are there some mountians you can point to where the talus is really enormous, almost having eroded the whole mountain away? I'm just curious, it could be, though pictures do tend to show rather similar amounts it seems to me. And in that case it suggests they've all been eroding for about the same period of time.
Based on the ages of rocks deformed in any given mountain range, no, they are of very different ages even if composed identically.
Of course different kinds of mountains would probably erode at different rates.
As usual, some geological processes are relatively fast, while others are slow.
Still, there don't seem to be huge differences from mountain range to mountain range. Of course the question then arises just how long would you suppose erosion had been going on and forming the talus here or there?
Disregarding misuse of the term 'talus', no, mountain ranges look to be of various ages.
Volcanic ranges tend to erode more rapidly if they are not continually being rebuilt. Collisional ranges such as the Appalachians and the Himalayas can take a few hundred millions of years.
As I think I've already said here, there would have been a long period during which the water was transgressing and another long period where it was regressing, five months regression, the transgression is a little harder to calculate.
Only to a YEC, is 5 months a long time in geological terms.
There would have been high and low tides, as well as huge tsunami type waves that could account for depositions that span great distances, even across continents, during transgression and regression, when the land was exposed.
Why?
How do you extract this from the Bible?
Sorry, but the evidence shows that your waves had a period that allowed coal swamps to form, and trees to grow, and dinosaurs to flourish. Your fludde isn't holding water...
Evidence of such tsunamis? Enormous lengths of sediment deposition seems to require something like that.
According to whom?
Any documentation? Or is this just something you are making up?
Where did this sediment come from in the middle of a global fludde?

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


Message 138 of 1304 (731396)
05-09-2014 10:23 AM


NN says everybody has thought about my arguments and they don't work. That's what everybody always says and then you show you don't have a clue as NN did on the thread about genetic diversity, not a clue. Or RAZD either. At least stop thinking you get it when you don't.

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


Message 139 of 1304 (731397)
05-09-2014 10:42 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Well, judging by the amount of eroded material from mountain to mountain, or how about for the formations of the Southwest, the walls of the GC, the "monuments" and the hoodoos and so on, it doesn't look like millions of years for sure. Not a whole lot of talus there. About 4000 years worth perhaps.
There would have been high and low tides, as well as huge tsunami type waves that could account for depositions that span great distances, even across continents, during transgression and regression, when the land was exposed.
Why?
Because some depositions cover that much territory. I can find the charts if you insist. I didn't make them up. They come from some geological source.
How do you extract this from the Bible?
The Bible describes the rising of the water and then the receding of the water. The period of the falling is about five months, it's harder to tell how long for the rising but about the same I think.
Sorry, but the evidence shows that your waves had a period that allowed coal swamps to form, and trees to grow, and dinosaurs to flourish. Your fludde isn't holding water...
Unless your coal swamps are merely the decaying of the plant matter deposited by the Flood, which would have been under pressure from sediments above, or possibly covered over by Flood sediments, and the trees had already grown and were now part of the decaying plant matter, and the dinosaurs are all dead by the time you get to them too, just fossils, not at all flourishing. They'd all flourished before the FLood, the plants, the trees, the dinosaurs. Then they were all buried by the Flood.
Evidence of such tsunamis? Enormous lengths of sediment deposition seems to require something like that.
According to whom?
Any documentation? Or is this just something you are making up?
There are maps showing the extent of the different "ages" in the sedimentary rocks stretching for great distances across North America that the poster herebedragons posted some time back. I found them again fairly recently and then lost them again. But they are out there to be found. I just looked through my bookmarks and didn't find it. But it's there.
Where did this sediment come from in the middle of a global fludde?
Hasn't this been sufficiently answered? Why should there be any dearth of sources of sediment in a worldwide Flood that would have just about liquefied everything? All it takes is a few days of heavy rain to cause the collapse of whole hillsides, the Flood started with forty days and forty nights of rain. So, sediments off the land mass, and obviously also from the oceans. And that nice model of how rising sea level deposits them in a particular order would surely apply to the rising water of the Flood.
ABE: Here's the reference to the N America rocks:
EvC Forum: Why the Flood Never Happened
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 1304 (731398)
05-09-2014 10:48 AM


NN says everybody has thought about my arguments and they don't work. That's what everybody always says and then you show you don't have a clue as NN did on the thread about genetic diversity, not a clue. Or RAZD either. At least stop thinking you get it when you don't.
That's just what you say when you've been proven utterly wrong.
**hey guys, know what? The sky is green.
-Um, no. Look at this picture, its blue
**YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING
Your ideas are not that hard to follow, they're just incredibly misguided and painfully wrong.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 1304 (731399)
05-09-2014 10:55 AM


NN says everybody has thought about my arguments and they don't work. hat's what everybody always says and then you show you don't have a clue as NN did on the thread about genetic diversity, not a clue. Or RAZD either. At least stop thinking you get it when you don't.
Hilarious.
Right now, even you cannot make your goofy ideas work and have decided to ask me and others to do it.
Nobody can make the logic defying things you say actually work.

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

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


Message 142 of 1304 (731400)
05-09-2014 11:10 AM


Re: complexity of geology
Of course, but not in any way that affects the point I'm making.
Backtracking here? You wrote very specifically that there was "NO" tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and current erosion of the GC.
The REGION is one thing, the separate layers is another. I'm talking about the separate layers between the Tapeats and the Claron, which certainly cover the Paleozoic and Tertiary, remain so neatly parallel if the region really did undergo several risings. Clearly the rising of the land created higher and lower areas, yet the individual layers remain parallel to each other.
I'm not sure why this is a problem. Please explain. Is it just personal incredulity on your part?
This is the evidence I've been using that the tectonic activity had to have occurred after the layers were all in place. You are talking about uplifts occurring during periods when the layers were still being laid down, which at least would have distorted the block that was already in place if only as gently as is seen in the diagram, so you have to account for the fact that layers that were deposited after that tectonic activity are parallel with the layers that were already there.
Once again, I'm not seeing a problem here. Uplift is an effect of tectonism and is, in structural geology, a type of deformation. That it was gentle is not material. There are still some faults and clearly some erosion, as I have shown.
Had there already been some distortion of the region, some parts higher, some parts lower, new layers should have been deposited more deeply in the lower areas and more thinly where the block rises, or in fact it would have butted up against any rises. And if this went on a number of times you have to explain this for all those different periods of tectonic activity followed by deposition. But all those layers are depicted as very neatly parallel, and no geological draftsman is going to draw them parallel if they weren't.
Still not seeing a problem. And if you look at the thicknesses of the various units, you will see that they are highly variable in some cases, so while the layers look 'perfectly parallel' on the scale of the entire canyon, there are plenty of discrepancies; and if you go outside of the GC vicinity, you will see that there is even more variability in thickness to the point that some completely disappear.
In any case, the evidence indicates tectonic activity. The fact that the region acted as a block is not important in the context of your model.
You will have to show me this as I don't know which one is the Bright Angel on the diagram. The one at the base of the GC perhaps?
No. It trends northeast from the canyon proper, on the north side.
The two major fault lines I see illustrated on that diagram clearly cut through all the layers after they were all in place ...
I"m not saying they didn't cut through the layers. I'm saying they are older than the modern erosion of the canyon.
... and if the one you are referring to is at the base of the GC that surely cut through all of them as well and probably through the mile of strata that was originally above the canyon as well. Don't see evidence for its occurring after the Great Unconformity, but perhaps this isn't what you are referring to anyway.
Since the rocks are cut by the fault and the rocks are younger than the Great Unconformity, then the fault is also younger than the unconformity. This is fairly simple logic.
All the other evidences of tectonic activity, AND volcanic activity, which I'm saying came after all the strata were laid down.
This has been amply refuted. I'm concerned about your comprehension skills.
People have failed to understand it, though I understand it just fine myself.
Yes, everyone else is wrong.
And why don't you just accept something I say once in a while?
Give me a reason to. If you say something that makes sense and matches reality, it is completely overwhelmed by the outlandish things that you also put in the same post.
I will look for something going forward, but there is only so much time to respond that I might not have the energy or time to document agreement.
I really just didn't want to get into something that has already been argued to death on other threads, which would only pull this one off topic.
Yes, it has been argued to death. But you keep resurrecting the silly one-event fantasy. Frankly, it's insulting.
But as I said, there would have been coastlines, a rather continuously rising coastline and then as the waters receded a rather continuously falling coastline, probably not absolutely continuous but in phases. No lack of coastlines however.
So, you are a proponent of the wet-dry fludde, a global flood that is only global on a local scale.
I think we have disposed of that notion before.
ranklly, considering that I was forced into it I think I did a decent job of visualizing what probably happened.
No one is forcing you to make silly statements about geology.
Perhaps it will provide some new perspectives at least.
Knowing YECs as I do, I seriously doubt that. I have been searching for new YEC ideas for over a decade now and am pretty convinced that they don't really exist.
IN MY FLOOD SCENARIO, if that wasn't clear. Yes, you have many many events, but the Flood scenario collapses it all into one major event with many parts or oscillations or smaller events or phases, or however that should be put.
As we have shown, that doesn't work.
So you are sure they resulted from "long regressive phases?"
Well, they are more than five months, which you earlier described as 'long'.
But actually, how do you grow trees, deposit evaporites, build termite nests and preserve raindrop impressions during a "short regression"?
You have not answered this question after repeated tries. Why is that?
quote:
IN that case, on the Flood model perhaps the besty explanation would be that they resulted from the regressive period of the Flood and whatever phases occurred during that period, including tides and huge tsunami type waves.
Then why are there so many regressions, each one with swamps, dunes, rivers?
Coal deposits were the result of buried plants weren't they? So the most likely Flood scenario would involve whatever movements of water carried huge loads of plants and laid them down.
So, this flood takes trees from one or more areas and gently transplants them, all in one place to form coal beds.
Interesting.
I take it you also believe in the gentle-turbulent flood, also.
Sure, maybe low or high tides, maybe a very long wave like a tsunami. Depends on how far that layer extends I suppose.
You honestly believe that a tsunami will transport pure vegetation (without sand and silt) and deposit it in a coherent, continuous bed? And yet constant radiometric half-lives are impossible for you to believe?
This is worse than I thought...
Why would there be a problem for the Flood with that sort of phenomena? Perhaps it suggests that the land wasn't completely scoured but rooted trees stayed in place? No big deal if so.
So, you want a fludde that will be so gentle as to leave behind thick accumulations of organic deposits and yet also transport them to distant shores and deposit them elsewhere.
A little bit ago, scouring was your big mechanism for creating sediments for the fludde. Now, your saying that isn't the case and the fludde was gentle and as preserving as a gardener.

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


Message 143 of 1304 (731401)
05-09-2014 11:17 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Well, judging by the amount of eroded material from mountain to mountain, or how about for the formations of the Southwest, the walls of the GC, the "monuments" and the hoodoos and so on, it doesn't look like millions of years for sure. Not a whole lot of talus there. About 4000 years worth perhaps.
According to whom, and based on what?

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


Message 144 of 1304 (731402)
05-09-2014 11:31 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
There are maps showing the extent of the different "ages" in the sedimentary rocks stretching for great distances across North America that the poster herebedragons posted some time back.
Same-aged rocks are not the same as 'same formation'. If these broad deposits are tsunami-related, then you'll have to explain how they are sandstones in one place and evaporites in another and limestones in another place.
And, please, feel free to tell us how tsunamis deposited limestones, particularly coral reefs.
I found them again fairly recently and then lost them again. But they are out there to be found. I just looked through my bookmarks and didn't find it. But it's there.
I'm pretty sure I've seen them. And I'm pretty sure they don't tell you what you seem to think.
Hasn't this been sufficiently answered?
Yes it has, but you don't seem to get the point.
Why should there be any dearth of sources of sediment in a worldwide Flood that would have just about liquefied everything?
"Liquified"? Please explain how Noah survived liquifying.
But the short answer is that when sediment is deposited on the bottom of the ocean (the fludde), how do we get conglomerates forming in rivers?
All it takes is a few days of heavy rain to cause the collapse of whole hillsides, the Flood started with forty days and forty nights of rain.
So after a few days the sediment was deposited and there was no land.
So, sediments off the land mass, ...
What land mass?
... and obviously also from the oceans.
"Obviously"? Please explain.
And that nice model of how rising sea level deposits them in a particular order would surely apply to the rising water of the Flood.
But when the land is gone, there is no land. So, where did the river sediments come from? And the evaporites?

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


Message 145 of 1304 (731403)
05-09-2014 11:35 AM


In other words you can't even bring yourself to imagine what a worldwide Flood might do.
Well, give us some ideas. What you've told us so far doesn't make much sense.
Such as cover whole continents with very long waves during its rise or fall.
What waves are you talking about here?
Are these water waves? As far as I know they only erode, not deposit sediments.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 1304 (731404)
05-09-2014 2:29 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
quote:
I m pretty sure I've seen them. And I'm pretty sure they don't tell you what you seem to think.
If they're the ones in this post: Message 448 then they do indeed only show age - and that at the level of geological periods.
Personally I'd expect to see the following if almost all rocks were deposited by a world-wide flood.
1) Evaporites and lava flows which cooled under air would only be seen at the top or the bottom of the column. Neither could form underwater. Undisturbed surface features, coral reefs and developed paleosols would only be found at the bottom. Likewise angular unconformities.
2) There would be an upward-fining layer, perhaps a several yards thick containing a large majority of fossils, all sorted hydrodnamically. There would be no unconformities of any sort within this layer. This would be the majority of the
3) If the majority of geological features were formed by a flood all mountains should be clearly pre-flood structures, excepting volcanoes.
4) Geological evidence of continental drift would be absent. There's no time for significant drift. Any strata matched between continents would simply continue across the seabed, except where they have been pushed apart by rifts, and that for only a few kilometers at most.
I will note however that there s a huge difference between trying to imagine what a flood would do, and trying to force-fit the assumption of a flood to our understanding of the geological evidence. Only by taking the former approach can we work out what we should expect to see.

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


Message 147 of 1304 (731405)
05-09-2014 3:36 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Good grief. It is truly amazing how you can twist a simple communication. Obviously nobody is ALLOWED to think there might have been a worldwide Flood and you're going to see to it that such ideas never get a hearing. Well, you're very good at it, I suppose you must be happy with your success. There isn't one thing in your post that honestly responds to anything I said. So you won, you must be very happy indeed.

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 148 of 1304 (731406)
05-09-2014 5:06 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Good grief.
Good grief indeed.
Obviously nobody is ALLOWED to think there might have been a worldwide Flood and you're going to see to it that such ideas never get a hearing.
Oh, you poor thing. Every time those awful Thought Police see you straining to think they rap your knuckles with a ruler.
And they let you spout your ideas for only 13 years, imagine, only 13 years, only 14,500 posts. The dirty so and sos.
Every time you repeat your ideas they always jump in and ask for evidence. The nerve of them, and then to top it off, they actually tell you about science and explain reality to you, like they expect you to learn something. How insulting!

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 149 of 1304 (731407)
05-09-2014 5:18 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith, anyone reading this thread can see you're the one who's confused. That in every thread you have to keep protesting, "I'M NOT CONFUSED," should be telling you something. You're getting the Internet equivalent of stares of disbelief from everyone, and after all these years it would begin to register on anyone normal that the problem is with them and not with everyone else. Your errors have nothing to do with your religious beliefs - you're rejecting simple facts and basic inferences. It's as if there's something seriously wrong with your thinkbox.
You referred to a Message 112 which is my message when you ap;parently meant your 114 where you make the statement about edge saying bedrock can be eroded.
Sorry for the typo in the message link, but I did quote precisely the right text, and that quote said that it was Message 114. Here it is again:
Percy in Message 114 writes:
But Edge was certainly not wrong to say that bedrock can be eroded. Of course it can be eroded. It's rock and exposed rock erodes.
So, again, how can you claim that I am "insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded" when in my Message 114 I said the opposite? How can you get something so wrong, Faith. Please explain this to us.
I do not want to discuss things with you, you get everything wrong and blame it on me. Please go away.
Well, I guess this is much better than what happens when you're off your meds.
Your problem is that you can't even think rationally about even the very simple. For example, it's been pointed out that tsunami deposits leave telltale signs of the direction of retreat of the water. If the sedimentary layers of the geologic column were deposited by a tsunami then the signs would be all over those layers, but they're not. Any rational person would conclude that therefore a tsunami did not deposit those layers, but not you.
Or for another example, it's also been pointed out that a single transgression/regression could not leave the interspersed layers of sandstone, shale and limestone that we find in the geological column. Any rational person would conclude that therefore a tsunami did not deposit those layers, but not you.
Or for yet another example, it's also been pointed out that trees can't grow and swamps form and streams leave paths in sedimentary layers being deposited one after another beneath the waves of a tsunami. Any rational person would conclude that therefore a tsunami did not deposit those layers, but not you.
The problem is that you don't ignore just one simple contrary fact, you ignore scores and scores of them over and over again. You blame all your errors of fact and logic on everyone else, then you abandon discussion, and when you return you make all the same impossible arguments again as if you hadn't already demonstrated that you're unable to address any rebuttals.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

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


Message 150 of 1304 (731408)
05-09-2014 6:33 PM


The debate is called because of Evo fraud
You were supposedly correcting me by saying we don't find eroded bedrock in sedimentary layers, which is ridiculous since I didn't say and could not have said any such thing, because all I said was that bedrock wasn't eroded. And that statement of yours certainly implied you thought I was the one who said bedrock is eroded, so that's why I had to tell you that it was edge who said bedrock is eroded, and then a post later we find you saying how right edge was, missing the whole thing. You are the confused one and you're aggressively confused and blaming it on me.
The other stuff in your post that you are trying to lay on me I have not addressed. That doesn't mean I don't have answers to them, and you can bet I do, but I'm sick of the idiotic way everything gets confused and obfuscated here, in some cases quite willfully, so I've declared edge the winner of the debate and it's all over. You, however, are the biggest loser.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024