Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evidence of the flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 331 of 899 (819494)
09-11-2017 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Faith
09-11-2017 5:11 PM


Re: Flood deposition
Faith writes:
Not ignorance, dear Percy, rejection because they are nothing like the geological column.
No, it's pretty much ignorance, and ineptitude, too. In your entire history here this has got to be one of your most preposterous, misguided and goofy ideas. The top of the newly forming geological column is right under your nose in every low lying area you go in the world, including on the high seas, yet you can't see it. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny.
Lakebeds and seafloor are obviously not how the geological column formed,...
How would you know how the geological column formed? This isn't a discussion you've eever bothered to see through to the end. You just throw this cockamamie idea out there, it gets plastered, then you pick up your marbles and go home until the next time when you just throw the same cockamamie idea there yet again, as if it hadn't already been shown false. In fact, you've had the chutzpah to claim previous discussions that you abandoned as evidence of having "already shown that."
Lakebeds and seafloor and some land regions are obviously how the geological column formed, and we know this because we see in the layers of today's lakebeds and seafloor precisely the same layers we see in the geological column. We see shallow seas with deep layers of the hard remains of marine sea life that, except that they have not yet been buried to be compressed and cemented into rock, are just like limestone strata. We see sandy shoreline areas that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like sandstone strata. Further offshore we see mud and clay layers that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like shale and slate layers.
...not to mention that to BE part of the geological column strata would have to deposit on the existing column...
They *do* deposit on the existing column. Where else would they deposit? Where else *could* they deposit. Imagine a region a mile or so off a coastline somewhere. Mud and marine remains gradually deposit on the seafloor, which is, by definition, the top of the geological column. Where else but on top of that geological column can the mud and marine remains come to be deposited? There is no where else for them to go, so there atop the geological column they will be deposited.
...and look exactly like the other strata, which are all the same in their physical characteristics except for the different sediments and different amounts.
It depends. As long as the coastal environment remains unchanged then the same types of sediments will continue to be deposited, but if the land rises or falls, or the ocean levels rise of fall, or erosion or deposition on the coastline causes the area to becomes further or closer to the shore, then the environment will change, and the types of deposits will change with it.
The strata are flat as a pancake, none of them has anything like the shape of lake bottom or seafloor.
First, as has been pointed out to you many times, some strata are fairly flat, some are not. The more closely they're examined the more clear the fallacy of flatness. Certainly they are not level, since that's physically impossible given that the thicknesses of almost all strata vary.
Further, it depends upon the size of the lake or sea. Obviously many lakes and seas are huge. Lake Superior is 350 miles long and 160 miles tall. The Atlantic Ocean is 4,000 miles wide, the Pacific 12,000 miles. Quite obviously there are huge regions of fairly flat topography beneath water level, and a great deal of it above, too. Visit Kansas some time.
The flat and extremely extensive form of the strata all say "Flood."
As I said, vast regions of the world are flat and extremely extensive.
The Flood would have deposited any layering you like of whatever sediments were suspended in the water, there's no problem there.
Said Mother Goose. There is no such thing as a magic flood that does just whatever you need it to do. We already know floods don't do what you claim for the great flood, and there's no reason to expect the great flood to be any different than normal floods (except in scale) or to have magical powers. Besides, the world is already 3/4 covered by a global flood (the world's oceans) and none of the effects you claim are observed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 5:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 7:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 7:07 PM Percy has replied

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


(2)
Message 335 of 899 (819503)
09-11-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
09-11-2017 7:07 PM


Re: Flood deposition
Faith writes:
Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'm saying.
Everyone's eyes are open, and what everyone can plainly see is that you haven't any idea what you're talking about.
But I get it. Character assassination is the game here, and misrepresentation, and silly straw man gambits.
Oh well, I knew from the beginning this was a rigged game, guess I can't complain.
Have you at last no decency, no integrity, no honesty? If anyone assassinated your character it was you. People are judged by the content of their character, and your character is clear to all. You have damned yourself by your own reprehensible behavior here over long and wasted years. You have accused, you have insulted, you have ignored, you have set yourself up as judge and jury, and you have made a mockery of Christian principles. Shame on you.
My post was full of evidence and argument, yours had none, just like so many times before. Time for you to start doing the work you should have begun long ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 7:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 10:50 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 342 of 899 (819511)
09-12-2017 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Faith
09-11-2017 10:50 PM


Re: Flood deposition
Faith writes:
Zowie, lots more of the same smear campaign, lies galore too.
You are only reinforcing what everyone already knows about you: you are dishonest and lack all integrity, your position is so empty you can muster no evidence for it, and you lie about that, too.
In any other context I'd sue you.
And now you're threatening people. Good show!
I'm not worried about my character but you should be worried about yours.
I do worry about my character, all the time. As I said before, it's one of the ironies of human nature that the most despicable among us are also the most content with who they are.
And my answers to your "evidence" are really quite sufficient.
It would seem that if you're typing you're lying. You've given no answers. Your response to my Message 331 was, "Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'm saying."
I've given plenty of evidence and argument even on this very thread, but that doesn't count of course because Evo Decrees it's wrong.
No, Faith, this is another lie. I don't know what is wrong with you that you think, "If I type it it must be true." You've given no evidence that supports the Flood, and you haven't responded to the rebuttals to your ideas, again, most recently in Message 331.
The situation now in this thread is that you're in full evasion mode, carried out by behaving as badly as possible to draw attention away from the actual topic. If you had answers then you'd be providing answers, but you don't, so you instead delay, distract, and ultimately disappear while blaming everyone else.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 10:50 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 343 of 899 (819512)
09-12-2017 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
09-12-2017 2:46 AM


Re: Flood deposition
Faith writes:
I know it proves the Flood.
If you did actually know anything then you'd know there is no evidence supporting the Biblical Flood, but you instead exert a great deal of effort keeping yourself ignorant.
I've made the case multiple times, better on other threads but even this one says it in bare bones fashion.
Every time you've attempted to make your case the glaring errors have been pointed out to you, and your response has always been to insult, to ignore, to obfuscate, and ultimately to run away.
It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?
Not by you, apparently. You're not even honest enough to discuss evidence of the flood in a thread titled Evidence of the flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 2:46 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 403 of 899 (819594)
09-13-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Stile
09-12-2017 10:00 AM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
Stile writes:
Percy's context (in this statement, not as a person in general) revolves around the "honest interpretation of reality."
Usually when I say Faith is lying and dishonest it involves her attempts to falsely justify her behavior. For example, Faith is often lying and dishonest about her claims that she has already proved her point somewhere earlier in the thread or in some other thread where she abandoned discussion. She is also often lying and dishonest in characterizing other thread participants, picking fights with them by accusing them of being insulting or condescending or too technical or just plain too infuriating. She is also often lying and dishonest when she is trying to avoid discussion, such as earlier in this thread when she said "I"m not interested in this thread..." (Message 266), despite having already posted a number of messages discussing the flood.
It's different when I characterize Faith's views on geology and evolution and science in general. In that context I generally say she is mistaken and willfully ignorant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 10:00 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Phat, posted 09-13-2017 8:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 406 of 899 (819597)
09-13-2017 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Stile
09-12-2017 11:22 AM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
Stile writes:
Words like "objective" or "honest" or "true" simply do not have the same meaning to us as they do to Faith.
In the way I use the word "honest", it has exactly the same meaning to me, to Faith, to everyone. When Faith says, "I already showed that," and she obviously hasn't, then she is not being honest. "I already showed that" and its variations ("I already explained that," etc.) seems to be Faith's favorite way of carrying out discussion lately.
An honest statement is that Faith has no evidence for almost all her claims, that almost everything she has claimed has been immediately rebutted, and that she almost always abandons discussion before any issues are resolved.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 11:22 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 408 of 899 (819599)
09-13-2017 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


Re: The forced logic of evolution imposed on the fossils
Faith writes:
I don't have the patience to read through the last day's posts...
You don't have the patience to read the recent messages? Aw, that's such a shame. Here, let me help you out by providing a short summary of the high points.
In Message 346 NoNukes wrote:
NoNukes in Message 346 writes:
...does not excuse the lying about her posting history, the insults, the expressions of hatred, and then leaving in a huff.
Regardless of the truth, there is no way that Faith's posts are anywhere near an argument, let alone proof for her position. Telling people they would believe what she believes is they would "think harder", or if they weren't Marxists is pretty insulting.
In Message 352 PaulK wrote in reply to Stile:
PaulK in Message 352 in reply to Stile writes:
That hardly fits her behaviour. It doesn't explain why she maintains that "honest seeing" would confirm that her arguments are correct when anyone who does look honestly at the evidence and her arguments can see that she's ignoring massive amounts of evidence that she can't reasonably explain - and bad as her arguments for the Flood are, her arguments against mainstream geology are often even worse.
...
Admitting that the geological evidence is against the Flood would mean admitting that she doesn't have her boasted "discernment" (and we know for a fact that she doesn't so she's only fooling herself there) and that would be a big blow to her false pride. So she can't do it. I guess that Christian humility is just beyond her.
In Message 357 and Message 358 Taq wrote:
Taq in Messages 357 and 358 writes:
What evidence? All you have presented thus far are bare assertions.
...
Faith writes:
It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?
The question is, can you honestly see?
In igneous rocks found above dinosaur fossils we find that the 40K/40Ar ratio is no more than 27.47 and the 238U/207Pb ratio in zircons is no more than 15.22. How does your model explain this? How does your flood sort rocks and fossils so that we always get this relationship between the isotope ratios in rocks and the fossils we find below them?
Until you answer this question, you can't claim that you are looking at things honestly. You have to explain the correlation we see between ratios of isotopes in rocks and the species of fossils we see associated with them.
In Message 362 Stile wrote:
Stile in Message 362 writes:
Honest discussion should hold "mutual understanding" as a high priority (perhaps the highest?)
Faith's discussions don't seem to move in this direction. Faith seems to hold "unquestioningly agreeing with Faith" to be one of her high priorities.
In Message 364 PaulK wrote:
PaulK in Message 364 writes:
Instead she insists that the [fossil] order is somehow not real - despite two hundred years of research confirming it. She can give no reason why it should be considered an "illusion" other than her other "evidence" for the Flood, which would be a weak argument even if she had solid evidence - the fact that she does not makes that argument worse than useless.
So really all we have is Faith making obvious excuses - which an honest assessment would see as hopelessly implausible - to reject a very strong piece of evidence against her views.
In Message 367 Stile wrote:
Stile in Message 367 writes:
Faith's ideas are not reasonable, or logical nor do they align with what we know of reality in any way.
You're welcome!
I'll reply to the rest of your message in another post.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

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


(4)
Message 423 of 899 (819617)
09-13-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


Re: The forced logic of evolution imposed on the fossils
Faith writes:
...I keep being asked about the fossil order. I can't answer it directly, but indirectly I believe there is no way the time periods conception of the geological column holds up. I know Stile made a heroic effort to justify it...
Stile was not trying to explain "the time periods conception of the geological column." His goals were much more modest. He was just trying to help you understand how layers accumulate while life lives in and on them. You can still pick that discussion up again, there's nothing stopping you, and you'd learn a lot: Message 1312 in the The TRVE history of the Flood... thread.
...but as I recall he didn't account for the flatness over huge distances...
This has been shown bogus as often as you have mentioned it. It is dishonest of you to keep introducing this argument as if you were unaware of the many problems that have been raised with it.
The problem that you think you've identified is that the great extent and flatness of strata could not have occurred through slow deposition over long time periods, but that it is the only way it could have occurred. As already explained in Message 331, lakebeds and seafloor and some land regions are obviously how the geological column formed, and we know this because we see in the layers of today's lakebeds and seafloor precisely the same layers we see in the geological column. We see shallow seas with deep layers of the hard remains of marine sea life that, except that they have not yet been buried to be compressed and cemented into rock, are just like limestone strata. We see sandy shoreline areas that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like sandstone strata. Further offshore we see mud and clay layers that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like shale and slate layers.
And we know that layers are today being deposited upon the top of the geological column because there is literally nothing else that is possible. When sediment sinks onto a lakebed or seafloor it is adding to the geological column.
Another of your fallacies is that strata are invariably flat and of great extent. Some are of great extent, some are of very limited extent, and some are somewhere in between. Your favorite example of the Grand Canyon region has strata of relatively great extent, but that's because transgressing/regressing seas moved slowly (in geological time) back and forth across the landscape. A depositional environment of deep ocean will also be very large in extent, but have a relatively short lifetime because of subduction. The depositional environment of a small pond will be very small in extent. The depositional environment of a river will also be very small in extent, though possibly very long. We have examples of all of these.
Also, the boundaries between strata are not flat. From a distance they might look flat, but the closer you examine them the less flat they look. Strata will follow the contours of the landscape upon which the sediments were deposited. And certainly strata are not level. That would be physically impossible since strata vary widely in thickness.
...OR the fact that to get the layers we actually see would require that nothing be living there when they formed.
Taking the example of seafloor, what makes you think sediments accumulating at the rate of several centimeters per century would require nothing be living there? Obviously life exists on and above the sea floor. Obviously sediments are being continuously and slowly deposited on the sea floor. A slow and delicate settling of fine sediments is obviously not a problem for life.
The same is true on land if it is a net depositional environment, i.e., one where sediments are deposited faster than they are carried away. For example, life in a forest wouldn't even notice the deposition of a few inches of soil per century.
It's hard to make rational sense of your trilobite/coelacanth objections. Enumerating them they seem to be:
  • You can find trilobites and coelacanths across time periods spanning hundreds of millions of years.
    Trilobites are found in the fossil record from 521 million years ago until 252 million years ago, 269 million years. Trilobites are a class, not a species. Classes contain orders, orders contain families, families contain genera, and genera contain species. There's a long, long distance of classification between class and species.
    Coelacanths are found in the fossil record beginning around 390 million years ago, and disappear from the fossil record around 66 million years ago, but a species of Coelacanth was discovered to still exist back in the 1930's. Coelacanths are an order, not a species. Orders contain families, families contain genera, and genera contain species. There's a long, long distance of classification between order and species. None of the species of coelacanth alive today are the same as any fossil species.
  • They remain the same species across all those time periods.
    No, they don't. These two images of trilobite are definitely different species:
    And these two images of an ancient coelacanth (Rebellatrix) and a modern coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) are clearly different species:
That's an indirect objection to the fossil order in that there's no way the strata could have formed on the standard interpretation which destroys the whole idea of the time periods and therefore the whole idea of how the fossils occurred.
Given that your conclusions are based upon not a single correct premise, they are clearly and obviously false. Strata are forming today in a manner identical to that of the past, by sediments gradually depositing on sea and lake bottoms, and in land regions of net deposition.
While at the same time the ToE makes the huge leap of asserting that mammal evolved from reptile although they are only I think one "time period" apart?
This would be incorrect. Mammals (Synapsids) and reptiles (Sauropsids) evolved from a common ancestor (Amniotes) around 300-320 MYA.
Also when you try to track out the steps that would have to be involved in the formation of the mammalian ear from the reptilian the complex changes that would have to occur in that time period defy all reason.
Wikipedia has a helpful article titled Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. Referring to that article, which "complex changes...defy all reason"?
In millions of years any evolving creature would have long since been extinct,...
The fossil record of change over hundreds of millions of years shows that evolution has been very successful at producing adaptation to changing environments.
Each kind of trilobite would reach an end to its ability to keep on changing LONG before even one "time period" had passed.
Despite being asked many times, you've never been able to identify any barrier to change. There's nothing to prevent mutation and selection continuing on indefinitely.
...there's no reason we have to assume any particular time frame.
We don't have to assume time frames because we have a variety of effective dating techniques.
You don't have the necessary transitionals to prove mammal evolved from reptile, it's a huge leap based only on belief in the ToE.
Again, I don't believe mammals evolved from reptiles. I think they evolved from a common ancestor. However, there are a *large* number of transitional fossils.
From these observations I conclude...
From what observations? All you have is a series of incorrect and erroneous statements. You almost haven't managed to say a single thing that is true.
...that assigning hundreds of millions of years to the geological column/fossil record is wrong.
Your conclusions are as wrong as your "observations."
And of course rapid deposition of the strata makes far more sense, which is what would have happened in the Flood.
So far you haven't provided any evidence of the Flood. All you've done is make misstatements about evolution and geology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 424 of 899 (819618)
09-13-2017 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
09-12-2017 6:34 PM


Faith writes:
Yes you have varves and tree rings, but that just means there's evidence on both sides.
Actually, you haven't mentioned any evidence of the Flood yet. All you've done is misinterpreted and misunderstood the evidence of standard geology and evolution.
ABE: And all those facts do is push back the timing of the Flood by a very very small amount...
But enough to break the Bible timetable.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 428 of 899 (819624)
09-13-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
09-12-2017 7:06 PM


Re: Craziness of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:
There are other things wrong with the strata/fossil record as interpreted through the OE/ToE perspective.
In a thread about Evidence of the flood, why do you only talk about things you've got wrong about geology and evolution? Where's your Flood evidence?
There's the fact that the geological column is FINISHED,...
You know, I can't think of a more flagrantly wrong thing that you could say. By definition the geologic column cannot be finished. Anywhere sediments are still depositing the geologic column is still growing.
Lakebeds have bumpy sloped and rounded rounded bottoms,...
You shouldn't care about the topography of lake bottoms, it's irrelevant to the point. Lakes are just local low points where sediments collect. But anyway, in reality lake bottoms come in a variety of shapes, sizes and topography. Here's an image of the bottom of Lake Michigan:
Looks pretty flat. Do this Google Search of submerged plane wrecks, you'll see most of the lake and sea bottoms are flat.
...there is no such surface in the geological column,...
Lake bottoms are well represented in the geological record, for example, at Bryce Canyon, read about it here at Wikipedia. Here's a short excerpt:
quote:
Climate change and cycles caused the lakes in the system to expand and shrink through time. As they did so, they left beds of differing thickness and composition stacked atop one another;
  • various sand and cobble deposits near shore,
  • calcium-poor muds further from shore,
  • calcium-rich mud in deeper water, and
  • pure limey oozes were deposited in the deepest waters.
The limey oozes and mud were later lithified into the limestone and interbedded siltstone of the up-to-300 foot (90 m)-thick White Member of the Claron.
...and lakebeds today are really small compared to the breadth of the strata.
That's irrelevant, but which lakes and which strata? Some lakes are huge (Lake Superior), some lakes are small, some strata are great in extent, some are not.
And the strata are not building on the geological column itself, which is the only way they could continue to be part of it, in the oceans.
Well, now you're just confused. Anywhere sediments are being deposited is adding to the geologic column at that location. It doesn't matter whether it is on land, lakebed, riverbed or seabed, wherever sediments are being deposited the geologic column is growing.
The geo column is on the land, not in the oceans.
I can't believe your again stating something so flagrantly wrong. Most strata are marine and formed beneath oceans. Most of the sediments being deposited today are beneath oceans, which makes sense since oceans cover 3/4 of the world. The geologic column is not just on land.
There is the consistency of the strata that supports the Flood scenario, the fact that the geo column does exist as a stack of flat slabs of sedimentary rock.
That strata are mostly flat and mostly level is precisely what we would expect, because that's exactly how sediments are being deposited today. Most strata are marine, and most sediments being deposited today are marine upon mostly flat lake and seabeds. Further, fossils become more different from modern forms with greater depth, and radiometric age becomes greater with greater depth. Marine layers are interspersed with land layers. Large, heavy fossils appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than small, light fossils. Course sediments appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than fine sediments. Animal tracks and burrows appear within the strata. Discontinuities appear in the strata, indicating that some have been eroded away. The Flood could accomplish none of this.
There are no signs of any of it ever having been on the surface of the earth,...
The strata contain fossils of the life that lived in and on that strata when it was at the Earth's surface, before it was deeply buried and turned to rock.
And yet they go on and on and on pretending it makes sense to interpret all this in terms of millions of years.
The present is the key to the past. The slow deposition of sediments that we see today has persisted for millions and billions of years, occasionally preserving life that once existed.
It makes no sense but they refuse to acknowledge this.
There's nothing to acknowledge. You haven't been able to make it through a single sentence in this post without getting something wrong, sometimes spectacularly wrong.
But this doesn't answer the evidence against the strata as depositions millions of years apart.
You haven't offered any evidence "against the strata as depositions millions of years apart," as you put it. You can't successfully make a point if you can't get anything right. Get something right, then try to make a point.
The consistency of the strata is against the idea of periodic shallow floods too. The surface would have changed between floods, but it hasn't changed. The contacts are tight and flat.
You're arguing against a scenario no one is promoting. No one thinks the geologic record is the result of "periodic shallow floods". Your counterargument makes no sense anyway.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 7:06 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 433 of 899 (819630)
09-13-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
09-12-2017 8:51 PM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:
First it would be nice if anyone would recognize evidence I've already given before bringing on some other issue. There can be evidence on both sides. although I really think the OE/ToE evidence is a bunch of sophistry, self-delusion and garbage.
If you present some positive evidence for the flood then I promise I'll give you recognition for it, but so far all you've achieved is voluminous error.
There would have been a lot of wave action with rising and falling sea water, long long tides, and then when the water was deep and quiet enough precipitation of particles would occur as well.
It takes a very, very long time for fine sediments to fall out of suspension to great depths, thousands of years. You can prove it to yourself by stirring some soil in a glass of water. After a few minutes all the heavy sediment will have dropped out of suspension, but the water will remain cloudy because the fine sediments are still in suspension. Mark the top of the sediment layer on the side of the glass. In a few more days the water will have become clear because the fine particles will have finally dropped out of suspension. Look at the mark on the side of the glass. How much higher are the sediments now above the mark? The answer is that you won't even be able to tell that it is higher. Fine sediments take up so little space that the difference between them being suspended in water and them falling out of suspension to lie on the bottom is almost nothing.
Now, if it takes a few days for fine particles to fall out suspension to lie on the bottom and increase the thickness of sediments by almost nothing, how long do you think it took to create the White Cliffs of Dover that are 1500 feet thick in places?
Let me do the calculation for you. We'll err way on the side of fast deposition (in other words, we'll err in your favor) and say that 0.1" of sediment is deposited per day. Dividing 1500 feet by 0.1"/day gives us...about 500 years.
But trust me, fine sediment doesn't precipitate out at the rate of 0.1"/day, not even close to it. It's more like a few inches/year, or maybe around 0.01"/day. Which yields 5000 years. But your Flood was less than a year.
What makes the "time period" explanation any better for such a water-borne scenario anyway?
Hopefully you can see now how poorly what you call your "water-borne scenario" works as an explanation. And sedimentation rates are just one of the many reasons why what you call the "time period explanation" explains the facts and your Flood scenario does not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 8:51 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 435 of 899 (819635)
09-13-2017 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
09-12-2017 9:05 PM


Re: More evidence against the OE/ToE in the strata
Faith writes:
I've only touched on the evidence, against the ToE and for the Flood.
What you've mostly done is displayed a profound ignorance of how natural processes work. You refuse to consider any miracles to achieve your Flood and instead invent fictions about how the world really works. This approach is doomed to failure.
I've spent most of my time {abe: at EvC} arguing on the basis of cross sections, particularly of the Grand Canyon, which show that the strata are remarkably uniform, straight, flat, with no erosion between the layers beyond the little that could easily be accounted for by water runoff after the strata were all in place.
You need to be accurate in your facts. There has been much more than a little erosion of strata in the Grand Canyon region, about a couple miles worth - just look at the difference in layers between the Grand Canyon area and Bryce Canyon:
And given that sediments deposit at the lowest available level, usually beneath seas, and given the extent of the seas and of the coastlines that create the varying depositional environments, straight, flat strata are pretty much what we would expect. What your Flood scenario does not explain is that fossils become more different from modern forms with greater depth, and radiometric age becomes greater with greater depth. Marine layers are interspersed with land layers. Large, heavy fossils appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than small, light fossils. Course sediments appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than fine sediments. Animal tracks and burrows appear within the strata. Discontinuities appear in the strata, indicating that some have been eroded away.
The cross sections all show that the strata WERE all in place before any real disturbance occurred to the stack, such as, say, the cutting of a humongous canyon three miles deep perhaps?
You need to be accurate in your facts. The deepest part of the Grand Canyon is around 1.15 miles. But otherwise you are correct. The strata were obviously all in place before the Colorado eroded the Grand Canyon.
Also they show that the strata curve in blocks over obstacles, which shouldn't happen if there are millions of years difference in age between them.
Not sure what you're talking about here. Usually you're talking about how straight and flat the strata are, but here you're talking about them curving "in blocks over obstacles." Do you have an image or at least a better description of what you're referring to?
And if you're talking about adjacent layers, except in the case of an unconformity there should not be "millions of years difference in age between them". If you're not talking about adjacent layers then you'll have to clarify.
Everything I pointed out was clearly not taken into account by the makers of the OE and ToE explanation,...
You've barely said a single thing that's been correct or true - why would you expect anyone to take it "into account" for anything?
But then it was rationalized away by the most pathetically absurd scenarios.
The pathetic absurdity really only begins when you try to describe what is wrong with modern views of geology.
Oh that really IS erosion that occurred on the surface during millions of years.
Sarcasm isn't really much of an argument, anyone can do that. "Oh, it really WAS a global Flood that created all the geology we see today." Sarcasm isn't evidence either.
Can't have been of course but they'll say anything.
Insulters can't be complainers.
Or so what's the big deal, why couldn't there have been hundreds of millions of years of relative calm before the massive disturbance of the cutting of the Grand Canyon.
This isn't an argument that anyone is making, and it doesn't conform with the known evidence. The Grand Canyon took millions of years to form and was not part of some "massive disturbance." One way we know this is because of slope retreat, which explains the great width of the canyon. Another way we know this is that the uplift the region experienced had to occur slowly so that the river had time to cut through the strata, instead of being turned back.
I also showed cross sections where the fault lines cut through the entire stack. Why would that be the case if they were laid down millions of years apart?
Why do you think faulting is required to occur on some timetable? And anyway, there is faulting that doesn't go all the way to top, just look at the blocks of the Great Unconformity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 9:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 436 of 899 (819636)
09-13-2017 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
09-13-2017 12:36 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:
What on earth do the Green River varves have to do with the Flood?
Boy have you ever lost the plot. If often seems that you fail to understand something you understood a short time before. I don't know if this means you're forgetting or just changing your mind without telling anyone or never really understood it in the first place, but it makes discussion with you really difficult.
Obviously your varves were not formed according to the timing you have in mind and you have no way of proving they were.
Why would you make such an obviously incorrect statement? Of course the age and timing of the Green River varves can be determined. The varves are deposited in pairs annually and there are millions of them. Obviously this puts a floor on the age of the Earth at millions of years. The age of the formation itself is around 50 million years, dated using stratigraphic methods, radiometric dating, paleomagnetism, and indicator fossils. This puts a floor on the age of the Earth at 50+ million years.
But I've given plenty of reason to chalk up a bunch of points on my side, stuff that undermines all the claims of great age.
If you do say so yourself. You've barely been able to get through a single sentence without committing a howler. You're not making the slightest effort to pay attention to facts. You're just making it all up as you go along.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 437 of 899 (819639)
09-13-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Faith
09-13-2017 12:42 AM


Re: What it takes ...
Faith writes:
No, one tree can be reinterpreted, varves timing can be reinterpreted
So reinterpret away. Just don't make stuff up. I don't know why you're so focused on a natural approach. For the kind of stuff you keep proposing you may as well be talking about miracles, because the real world just doesn't work that way.
We know the world was different before the Flood.
You don't even know there was a Flood, let alone what the world was like before this Flood you have no evidence for.
The huge humber of fossils is evidence of incredible fertility and vitality.
The vast majority of fossils are dated millions and millions of years before your supposed flood, and they are spread out across millions and millions of years. Their lives were not crammed into a short period between 6000 and 4000 years ago.
There were no harsh conditions, there were probably not even seasons as we know them,...
And the evidence you have for the lack of harsh conditions? Perhaps the ice layers we have from glaciers from 6000 years ago can confirm how wonderful the conditions were? And the continuous varve records we have going back through the period of the supposed Flood say that seasons then were pretty much like seasons now.
...and in that case the timing of tree rings and varves both can't be explained by today's conditions.
You can't use claims you just made up to reach any conclusions. You have to support your conclusions with facts, not fictions.
If the weather was perpetually warm and moist you could have had many tree rings in a year.
You have evidence that "the weather was perpetually warm and moist." You have evidence that "perpetually warm and moist" weather gives rise to many tree rings in a single year?
And even after the Flood the fertility and vitality could have continued for centuries, just as people continued to live long lives, though progressively shorter.
Do you have any evidence for increased fertility and vitality after the Flood, and longer lives of people?
There obviously weren't ANY locations that weren't flooded.
We already have evidence of locations that couldn't possibly have been flooded 4000 years ago.
Three miles of strata at a minimum is an enormous depth. If it flooded that deep in even one place it flooded that deep all over the earth.
There's no evidence of a flood, so this statement carries no weight. You're building castles in the sky.
And besides, that idiotic six transgressions scenario shows that water had to have covered the earth even on that scheme.
Couldn't find the source of this somment about "idiotic six transgressions." What is this?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix title.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 12:42 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 439 of 899 (819641)
09-13-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
09-13-2017 12:44 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:
Chalk up your evidence on your side, but don't ignore mine, which is really a killer for the ToE and the OE if honestly faced.
If honestly faced? Are you kidding? You can't even describe things that could happen in the real world. Your scenarios require things to happen that are physically impossible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 12:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 6:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024