|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've had the experience many times of trying to get a clean slice of something and getting chunks and crumbles instead but coming up with the exact context is eluding me. I'm sure you've had the same sort of experience. But I keep thinking of things that aren't quite the illustration I need, such as pulling chunks of paint or plaster off with the masking tape, or pulling up chunks of the cake when trying to spread a frosting that is too stiff. I nevertheless keep picturing chunks and crumbles being abraded off some surface or other I just can't find the right image for it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I'm sure modern mainstream geology is also engaged in the job of piecing together a whole out of some parts, but since they are dedicated to the Old Earth paradigm and I'm working from the Flood model neither side is going to be seeing the evidence for the other.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So, where are the 'crumbles' at the GU?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: A theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. It needs to explain all of the facts and be contradicted by no relevant facts. That is what we have,
But you don't, coyote. The interpretation of strata as representing time periods is absurd, so it doesn't "explain all of the facts." There cannot have been any kind of landscape where there is now a layer of sedimentary rock, all there could have been is the wet sediment that eventually lithified. and you're just wrong about different interpretations being used to support the same facts: the OE interpretations are ludicrous, but the Flood interpretations truly do explain the geological column. You haven't introduced any evidence nor made any arguments. You've only engaged in name calling and made bald declarations. This basically says to Coyote, "Your view is absurd, it's insufficiently explanatory, it couldn't have been, you're just wrong, your OE interpretations are ludicrous, and I'm right." You haven't actually said anything of substance. Addressing this bit of nonsense:
There cannot have been any kind of landscape where there is now a layer of sedimentary rock, all there could have been is the wet sediment that eventually lithified. Tell us, while not ignoring what's been told you previously about life on landscapes experiencing slow sedimentation, what prevents a living landscape from being gradually buried and eventually lithified? Didn't your flood produce a living landscape (life running around leaving tracks and digging burrows) before being buried and lithified? If your phrasing implied a belief that only wet sediment can be lithified, this is false since lithification is not a drying process and only requires pressure to force out most water that might have been present (water will not commonly become 100% absent - for example, granite can contain up to maybe a half percent water by weight, depending upon porosity, as much as a half teaspoon in a one pound granite rock - if you've got granite countertops they'll absorb water unless they're sealed). --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: No I can't make up just anything, it has to fit with the general description of the Flood and its timeline, and I'm doing my best to find a way to fit it with the physical world as well, even in the teeth of hostile remarks by geologists. There are no volcanoes or earthquakes in the general description of the Flood and its Timeline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
There cannot have been any kind of landscape where there is now a layer of sedimentary rock, all there could have been is the wet sediment that eventually lithified. And yet we show you photographs of wetlands, where sediments are being laid down, that are covered with both plant and animal life. Quit. Lying.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...wonder why Faith does not show... Dishonesty. Simple, brainwashed dishonesty. As has been pointed out so many times, the honestly thoughtful religious community moved beyond this subject centuries ago. Coming from an SDA background, I understand that the essential prerequisite to this kind of ignorance is lying to yourself about yourself.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...such things as weird ideas about fossils being put there by God instead of being naturally occurring phenomena. Why is this weird in a Biblical context? The entire flood story is premised on the supernatural intervention of a God. Why on earth would you need to explain it in terms of naturally occurring phenomena? Did your god only have one miracle on the shelf? He got to start it rolling but then ran out of jurisdiction? Or does your still small voice recognize that you need to kick sand over the absurdity of your basic premise?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
There are no volcanoes or earthquakes in the general description of the Flood and its Timeline.
Well, first of all, Faith suggested that maybe fountains of the deep might be volcanoes, but she also says that the volcanism only occurred after the flood and after all of the sediments had been deposited. So I guess we can throw out that idea. And sure, the general treatment of the flood in the Bible does not give details. However, if all of the volcanism we see in the geological record occurred within just a 4ky time-frame that might merit a sentence or two in the Bible, yes?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Either model could result in the same or similar clastic sediment geometry.
Thank you. Hey, finally someone defending your model - you've won a convert, congratulations!
For reference, our favorite illustration of how Walther's Law works:
Thank you for digging out this illustration.
Note that I'm considering clastic sediment. Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required. This has never made any sense to me. Limestone is one of the layers illustrated for Walther's Law and it is presented as exactly the same kind of layer -- same size and shape --as the sand and clay and so on. If it has to be created in place why would it look the same as the others? And why in any case can't the ingredients of limestone be transported like the ingredients of sandstone or mudstone or siltstone or any other stone anyway? The illustration is intended to be diagrammatic and not to proportion. Generally in real life the sand deposition area is a narrow region along the coastline. The silt/mud/clay deposition area is a much broader region offshore but paralleling the coast (similar sediments are also deposited in coastal swamps and lagoons, but leave those aside for now). The calcareous deposits that form limestone occur further from shore in warm shallow seas of possibly great extent, conducive to tiny shelled creatures living in the waters and to shelled creatures like coral and mollusk living on the sea floor. Calcium carbonate, the primary component of the shells of these creatures and of limestone, is soluble, but while Moose implies that limestone forms only by precipitation, the fact is that the contribution of precipitation is variable. Some limestone is full of the fossil shells of these creatures that rained down on the sea floor when they died, with precipitation serving as more of a cement. Some is very fine grained without fossils and probably involved a very great degree of precipitation. And a lot is probably somewhere between the extremes. I wasn't able to find much detailed information about limestone deposition rates, but chalk is a type of limestone and the White Cliffs of Dover are chalk. Wikipedia says the deposition rate for the White Cliffs of Dover was about a half millimeter per year (that's 20 inches per thousand years, a very rapid rate), so with a total thickness of 500 meters it would have taken about a million years to deposit the formation. I don't know why Moose said the limestone deposition rate would be very slow compared to other sediment types. My own feeling is that it is probably highly variable depending upon local conditions. You might be interested in this paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Deposition Rates because it mentions that deposition rates of marine limestone are the same as those measured for calcareous ooze:
quote: ABE: Another thought: Since the Flood was killing things by the bazillions, not only on land but in the oceans, the creatures that contribute to the formation of limestone under normal circumstances would in the Flood be dying by the bazillions and deposited the same as usual only now by the bazillions over the land where they would become the limestone layers. Why was the flood killing ocean life? Because of declining salinity because of all the added fresh water? Because of increasing salinity because of all the salt from land sediments washed into the sea (runoff from land is the source of ocean salinity)? Whichever one was the cause, what evidence do you have for how the ocean's original salinity was restored after the flood? And if the ocean became toxic to ocean life during the flood then since presumably Noah didn't take sea life aboard the ark, what evidence do you have for how ocean life was restored after the flood? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
edge writes: However, if all of the volcanism we see in the geological record occurred within just a 4ky time-frame that might merit a sentence or two in the Bible, yes? Faith's position is far more absurd than even that. Remember that no matter which of the Biblical flood myths you want to use the whole thing only lasted less than two years. Now if all the volcanoes, the continents splitting, mountain building, reef moving, landscape scouring, Cliffs of Dover moving and general mayhem Faith tries to squeeze into that two year period actually happened it would really lay down a pretty easily recognized marker. And that's what the early geologists thought they would find. But it didn't happen. Fortunately they were basically honest people and so Young Earth, the Biblical Floods simply got put into the fantasy pile where they belonged from the beginning.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: You did not HAVE any "data" before radiometric dating, all you had was a lot of typical conjectures and ruminations and fantasies about what coulda shoulda woulda musta happened. You're making stuff up again. Just paging through Dalrymple's book, before radiometric dating there were these estimates of the age of the Earth:
This is the short version of the list - a lot of scientists gathered data and worked on the problem. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: Dating is all you have though,... Bluster is all you have though. If you really put your mind to it I think you could come up with a few other lines of geological evidence that have received mention over the years. Amnesia much?
...and it will eventually be shown to be full of error. Yes, oh seer, soothsayer and purveyor of flim-flam.
Meanwhile the REASONABLE evidence is in favor of the Young Earth. Then why do none of your posts describe your evidence? What happened to your claim to use all the same evidence we do but just interpreting it differently?
The Geological Timescale with its time periods pretending that anything could have lived on a sea of wet sediment,... The geologic timescale says nothing about what lived where. I know you live in a landlocked state, but surely even you know you can wade into the water at any ocean beach and find life living on or in wet sediment.
...or that evolution needs millions of years to produce a simple trilobite variation,... No one but you has ever said that trilobite speciation takes millions of years. No one here believes speciation in general requires millions of years. Even own long-lived species is thought to have evolved not more than a few hundred thousand years ago, so speciation times of millions of years are not something anyone here would think necessary. Where do you think ignorance, misrepresentation and dishonesty will get you? Oh, right, President of the United States.
...is scientifically preposterous and is going to have to go. I think we all agree that trilobite speciation taking millions of years is preposterous and will have to go, but that's something you said, not us. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
The "fountains of the deep" are not MY idea, they are the biblical description of something that occurred at the start of the Flood. I don't know what they were but I know some people think they were volcanoes. Only people who are dishonest about the flat earth beliefs of the Biblical writers.
I doubt anyone here has any doubt what is meant by "fountains of the deep" and "floodgates of heaven". The people who wrote the book viewed the world exactly as it is described in Genesis - as a flat place covered by a dome with water above and below. I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I play with you is the hilarity of watching you pretend you don't understand the plain word of God. Say, is that a cock crowing that I hear? Was that the second or third time? Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024