|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Why don't you just put a banner up at the top of EvC saying CREATIONISTS NOT WELCOME HERE. That would be a lot more honest than "Understanding through discussion." Maybe discussion is another thing you decide not to understand. In a discussion you would post: "Here is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that allowed the Biblical flood to create the aeolian sand dunes seen in the following picture."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanks to RAZD and PaulK for explaining how the definition of evolution I posted in Message 80 is not acceptable. I'm certainly glad I asked.
May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
It isn’t claiming to offer a definition. It is offering a description which is probably over-simplified, but possibly tailored to its intended audience.
The site is clearly a journalistic enterprise rather than a strictly scientific one, too. Which makes it a rather odd choice if your target is the scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: Thanks to RAZD and PaulK for explaining how the definition of evolution I posted in Message 80 is not acceptable. I'm certainly glad I asked. It's perfectly acceptable as a simple explanation of Darwin's theory and suits its audience and the question asked. The question wasn't to fully define the theory of evolution, it asked for an explanation of what Darwin's theory was. So it's not going to include genetic drift - 'cos Darwin knew nothing of genes - and you're not going to see a fairly standard dictionary definition like this for the same reason.
quote: If you want a more robust and thoroughgoing scientific definition of the modern theory you go to an authorative accademic source. But then you'd complain that it's too technical.
May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution? See above. But then, if you had actually tried to understand what people have been saying to you for the last 17 years, you'd already know this.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This is related to the question about why you think world geology generally is the same as the Grand Staircase region. Evidence of any fault that didn't extend to the surface anywhere in the world would be evidence that there was tectonic activity while the Flood was depositing sediments, contradicting your claim. The New Madrid Fault System begins in Missouri and extends southwest. It is buried beneath sedimentary layers: Those sedimentary rocks are Paleozoic strata same as those above the Supergroup, which are divided from the lower rocks by the Great Unconformity. My guess is that it's to be explained the same way: horizontal movement at the contact at the same time as the faulting occurred. Interestingly the Paleozoic layers also curve up and over the lower rift just as they do over the Supergroup forming the Kaibab Uplift, showing that they were already there when the faulting occurred, exactly as the same phenomenon in the GC does. Oddly, other cross sections show the strata curving down in a hammock shape instead of up. I wonder which is correct. However, either curve shows the strata were already there and likely still rather damp and malleable because all this was occurring just as the Flood was starting to recede. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps she thinks that your proposed checklist of criteria is biased and not the only way to explain something.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't think it had to have been cut vertically. The receding Flood volume would have been greater at first, cutting a wider area, then narrower as it cut deeper into the area and its level dropped. Not possible. The sloping sides happen naturally through their erosion in a gradually deepening canyon, not through downcutting by rapidly flowing water. I would direct you to those curved meanders at the east end of the canyon
Note that the overall depth is much shallower here and the upper part of the walls exposed because obviously the level of the water has dropped, and you can see the gradation from the wider upper walls down through the progressively lower narrower walls, which would have been formed in the way I derscribe for the canyon: the first volume of water to begin to trace the meander was as wide as the uppermost walls, and as the water receded and its level dropped the width of the walls it cut narrowed. In fact I'd suggest that this obvious progression from a greater volume of water down to a smaller volume which would have formed the gradation of wider upper to narrower lower walls, is a good model for how the canyon itself was formed along the lines I suggested: great folume cutting wider upper walls, cutting narrower walls as the water level lowers as the Flood is receding.
There's another aspect of the sloping canyon sides that is important to note, and that's that the sides of the canyon vary in slope. Some of the exposed canyon face is vertical, some sloped, and the governing factor is the hardness of the strata. The softer the strata the more likely it is to form slopes. Check out this diagram and you'll see that the harder strata (the limestones and sandstones) form cliffs, while the softer strata (the shales and mudstones) form slopes. This pattern is caused by erosion over long time periods: Yeah but that part is obvious and well known. Erosion would form those shapes after the basic width of the canyon was cut. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Perhaps she thinks that your proposed checklist of criteria is biased and not the only way to explain something. What she thinks is irrelevant. The fact is that she cannot provide a single possible model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain the reality that is the geology, paleontology, radiometric data, isotopic data, cultural data and other things that exist in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Please explain how the Flood could produce a meander.
Until you can do that your claim is just nonsense and the sensible explanation is that offered by conventional geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Please explain how the Flood could produce a meander. Until you can do that your claim is just nonsense and the sensible explanation is that offered by conventional geology. Oh I've explained that many many times. The cutting of the canyon began at the point the Flood started to recede, and so did the cutting of the Grand Staircase. The uppermost strata broke up over the canyon area and washed away, which I've often explained as due to the strain caused by the Kaibab uplift which was pushed up at the same time due to the tectonic pressure beneath that area which tilted the Supergroup and moved the quartzite boulder and so on and so forth, and a lot of the broken upper strata washed into the cracks the uplift oened up that became the canyon, a lot breaking off the cliffs that became the Grand Staircase. The Kaibab plateau was the point where the breaking up stopped and it was scoured off to the level plateau by the receding of the water full of tons of debris. It is the Kaibab Plateau that the meanders are cut into, far east of the Grand Canyon proper, and meanders begin with sheets of water running across flat areas and then forming curves that cut into the surface. So this was a lot of water and it cut a pretty wide meander at first. Looks like the water level must have fairly rapidly dropped because of the shape of the walls, apparently reaching a longer lasting level where you see the vertical narrower walls, before it eventually dropped to its current little river. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Zero is not many.
quote: How could that possibly happen ? With enough force to cut rock ? No, still no sign of any actual explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It wasn't rock, we're talking receding Flood here, it was just-deposited sediments, compacted but still wet and malleable. The Kaibab appears to have been compacted enough to hold its shape as everything above it was breaking up, so that it became a flat plain the water washed across, becoming the meanders at the east end of the cnayon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: By my understanding that would be a problem for your model. The walls wouldn’t be solid enough to stand as they are. However, you still haven’t explained why receding Flood water would cut a tight curve. Until you can do that you have no explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh I've explained that many many times Zero is not many. I was in the process of getting it formulated quite far back but by Message 783 I was quoting Steve Austin about how the meanders prove that there was originally a lot more water running a lot faster ("greater water flow rate"), and by Message 932 and Message 933 I had the basic idea figured out that I describe here. I'm sure there's more after those. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
why receding flood water would cut a tight curve ??????? It had receded to the point that it was running in streams and rivers across the flat Kaibab Plateau. Rivers cut meanders in flat surfaces. This was still a lot of water so it formed a very wide meander at first. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024