|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The physical evidence points to exactly that happening. And why do you think it is impossible? Seems to me that with enough time it could happen.
quote: I don't think anyone has said that.
quote: The evidence says that it did - helped by uplift of the plateau, and additional erosion of the exposed walls. Even you have been known to admit that the meandering sections were carved by the river, and if those were then there's no sensible objection to the river carving the rest of it, too.
quote: And now you are just being daft.
quote: The evidence says that they did, and if you want to make a claim of physical impossibility it would be nice to have some argument.
quote: Unlikely events are generally not physical impossibilities. And I'd say that it is statistically certain that it has happened, many times. (To make a simple point, any change a mutation might make could be reversed by another - therefore, for every possible mutation that might make a "healthy" allele into an "unhealthy" one there is a mutation that could convert the "unhealthy" allele back to a "healthy" one) There must be possible mutations that would produce "healthy" alleles - whatever that means - and the idea that some physical law would selectively prevent those from occurring is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The boulder of course works perfectly well as evidence of normal erosion of the monadnocks. Given that you have no evidence of any upward movement at all - no movement in the lower strata, no faults where the monadnocks moved up it would seem to be the obviously better explanation
Likewise consider the fault in the tilted strata at the Great Unconformity. While one section is -or was - higher than the other they are eroded to the same level. How could that possible happen underground while leaving no other evidence at all? Try thinking things through for once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The debris flow proposed by your source is one explanation. And the fact that it doesn't have to move through solid material, leaving no trace, makes it rather less problematic than your ideas.
quote: You aren't thinking it through. How does upward movement even occur if the faulted rock is deeply buried ? How does the abraded material get removed when it is deep underground, surrounded by solid rock ? Obviously the conventional explanation is better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If you had thought it through you could answer my question. How does part of the tilted strata move up when it is deeply buried ? Remember that it leaves absolutely no trace in the strata above it . And really an implausible assumption isn't really much good when you are claiming to have a solid case. So the conventional view is still way ahead of you when it comes to the evidence. And since you added by edit so will I. Given that this creationist is much better informed than you and offers a possible explanation that makes sense I am not about to dismiss his view out of hand. It is certainly a lot better than your ideas. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: To the extent there is one - and it is considerably less snarky than your reply it is probably due to your attempts to shoehorn everything into the scenario you made up without really caring about the evidence. Now if you want some nasty snark, here is an example:
quote: It's not your rejection of geology that is galling at all. It's your arrogance and pride and intellectual dishonesty. And you really ought to know that by now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Which is an utter irrelevance. God is not taking part in the discussions.
quote: She doesn't seem to care about that. Remember that she assumed that she couldn't be wrong about a map she couldn't read properly. Despite the fact that any rational person would have realised that she almost certainly was wrong.
quote: In other words she feels that her fantasies are on a level with God's Word. That's a pretty damning accusation of hubris right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You expressed a lot of certainty in spite of very strong reasons to doubt your conclusion. You certainly accused me of being unable to read a map when I corrected you Message 93. And I don't think I would have read the map as you did without a lot more checks - I made at least two after the fact that falsified your idea. And if I remember correctly you admitted to being able to see some of the line outlining the present-day continent. Message 108 Edited by PaulK, : Added supporting links to posts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In the name of understanding how others think, please explain this
quote: If you present a half-baked idea on a debate site - especially if yo do so,without making it clear that it is preliminary and speculative - then surely it will come in for heavy criticism. But to call that a "slap in the face" seems extreme, to say the least.
quote: I very much doubt that you have had anything that is any worse than you dish out. Even before we take the question of justification into account.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024