Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for and against Flood theories
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 31 of 112 (168884)
12-16-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by roxrkool
12-16-2004 1:40 AM


Re: Some more flood questions
Thanks for the great example.
One thing you never see in YEC literature is what exactly the rocks mean. To YECs, a shale is a shale, limestone is a limestone, and sandstone is sandstone. But to the rest of the geologic world, these rocks represent dynamic and ever-changing environments, and the relationship between the rocks is just as important as the rocks themselves.
I totally agree. No creatioinist that I have ever heard of really stops to think about what a 1000 ft fossiliferous limestone really means. One of my favorite arguments against flood mythology is the sheer quantity of geologic features created by biomass. 3 billion years worth of life just does not fit into a 2000 year old edenic earth It would be like me trying to fit all my wife's clothes into one suitcase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by roxrkool, posted 12-16-2004 1:40 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 112 (169824)
12-19-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jazzns
12-14-2004 6:52 PM


Re: Some more flood questions
Jazzns,
Here we have a situation where through the geologic column we have places with fine grained sediment both above and below more coarse sediment. In class we learned that this is diagnostic of a location where the depositional environment changed from deep ocean to land back to deep ocean as ocean levels went up and down over long periods of geologic time.
YECers would say, I think, that such sorting might represent temporary regressions of the flood waters during the initial 40 days and/or a set of layers being laid down in the initial flood stages and then being somehow affected in the recessional stages of the Flood.
I agree that my "sediments in a jar" experiment is rather simplistic compared to the complex variables that would be operating in a world-wide flood. That little experiment was intended merely to illustrate that a flood WILL make sediment layers and was a response to one or two people saying a world-wide flood would leave only ONE layer.
{Added by edit}
I feel obligated to repeat that I am not a geologist - I don't even have a descent layman's knowledge. I do have an idea of how hydrologic sorting works and that's pretty much it, I think.
That's why I'm staying rather general.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-19-2004 12:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jazzns, posted 12-14-2004 6:52 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jazzns, posted 12-19-2004 4:56 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 42 by edge, posted 12-19-2004 8:02 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 112 (169830)
12-19-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jazzns
12-16-2004 10:55 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
Jazzns,
You write:
Overall I think that it is this issue with regressive-transgressive sequences that I think really puts the nail in the coffin of the hydraulic sorting argument. Creationists just dont often understand that yes the geologic column is sorted but not by anything that any way resembles the consistency we would see from a single sorting process. Among other things it is sorted by changes in local depositional environment and by change in fossil morphology (NOT size or density) with depth.
I really think you are visualizing a tranquil flood event, wherein the water gently rises, kills everything and gently recedes.
There is no reason to believe the Flood was anything short of the most violent event to ever happen to this planet. Rather small local floods have very devastating effects.
Also, the Flood would have had at least FOUR different main phases:
1) the initiation events (supernatural)
2) the rising waters (very violent)
3) the time when the waters are neither rising nor receding (no calmer than an ocean floor, but likely much underwater cataclysms due to the earth adjusting to first two events)
4) the receding waters (very violent)
The 2nd and 4th stages would likely have had sub-stages. I think there would be definite patterns in the sorting in any given locale (possibly helping to identify the various flood stages), but I don't believe there would be a world-wide consistency from bottom to top like you are thinking there should be (as though the Flood consisted entirely of one sorting event).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 10:55 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 1:18 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 41 by Jazzns, posted 12-19-2004 5:04 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 112 (169831)
12-19-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheLiteralist
12-19-2004 1:09 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
Also, the Flood would have had at least FOUR different main phases:
1) the initiation events (supernatural)
2) the rising waters (very violent)
3) the time when the waters are neither rising nor receding (no calmer than an ocean floor, but likely much underwater cataclysms due to the earth adjusting to first two events)
4) the receding waters (very violent)
But you never returned to our discussion of just that subject or really thought through what evidence each of those events would have left.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:09 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:34 AM jar has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 112 (169834)
12-19-2004 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
12-19-2004 1:18 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
Well, I was just about to wrap it up here, but we could go for a few minutes.
How do you propose to do this? You're better at the step by step thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 1:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 1:39 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 112 (169835)
12-19-2004 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TheLiteralist
12-19-2004 1:34 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
It would take a while so let's put it off until another day if you want. But I beleive if you will step through the stages you have outlined you will find they do not correspond to any of the evidence out there.
One quick question though, have you ever personally been down into a major canyon like the GC or seen some of the other structures like the Petrified Forest, El Capitan and such?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:34 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:55 AM jar has not replied
 Message 38 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:57 AM jar has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 112 (169839)
12-19-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
12-19-2004 1:39 AM


Grand Excursions
No, but I would enjoy such excursions.
Personal finances are quite limiting, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 1:39 AM jar has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 112 (169840)
12-19-2004 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
12-19-2004 1:39 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
And, yes, I would rather go at it another day. I don't think I was ignoring the issue so much as I was focussing on other ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 1:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 10:17 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 112 (169874)
12-19-2004 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by TheLiteralist
12-19-2004 1:57 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
Fine. One of the problems here and at other boards is the sheer volume of posts that require answers that seem to grow as you type.
I think it's a very important part of understanding why most of us discount the likelyhood or even possibility of a recent world-wide flood. To keep it focused, why don't you spin those factors off into a new PNT. If you want to keep it from growing too much, we can even arrange to set it up in Great Debates although for this I'd say it would be more a Great Discussion. That way it could be limited and kept focused to make it easier for you to respond without dozens of folk pulling you in every direction.
Just let me know what you'd like to do.
Thank you sir.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:57 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-20-2004 11:12 AM jar has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 40 of 112 (169908)
12-19-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by TheLiteralist
12-19-2004 12:01 AM


Re: Some more flood questions
YECers would say, I think, that such sorting might represent temporary regressions of the flood waters during the initial 40 days and/or a set of layers being laid down in the initial flood stages and then being somehow affected in the recessional stages of the Flood.
You don't really understand. We see in the column the exactly upsidedown of what you would expect from your sand in a jar situation. These can only from this way BECAUSE the water is calm and finer particles can settle out as sea level changes with a nice period. I am specifically saying that a violent flood would not allow for this to happen.
I feel obligated to repeat that I am not a geologist - I don't even have a descent layman's knowledge. I do have an idea of how hydrologic sorting works and that's pretty much it, I think.
Nor am I a geologist but it dosen't take a major in geology to understand that you need extensive periods of calm with gentle rise and fall of sea level over more than just a year to get fine silt particles to settle out of water such that larger particles will then settle out on top of them during a recession.
... See reply to next post for more ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 12:01 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 41 of 112 (169910)
12-19-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheLiteralist
12-19-2004 1:09 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
I really think you are visualizing a tranquil flood event, wherein the water gently rises, kills everything and gently recedes.
No, I am saying that a violent flood could not give you an upsidedown hydraulic sorting.
Also, I mentioned that no amount of mechanical sorting can give you the type of fossil sorting that we see in the record. To many YECs think of a 'sorted' fossil record and think that it is some kind of simple sorting like from large to small, dense to light, fast to slow. The fossil record is sorted by none of these or even any combination of these. It is sorted by change in morphology and only that.
I also mentioned my favorite argument against the flood which is quantity of geologic features created by biomass. Even IF the world was this edenic paradise where everyhing grew to be huge and the vast majority of the earth was land it cannot account for the sheer mass of oil, coal, limestone, marble, fossils that we have found considering that we haven't even found it all.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-19-2004 05:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 1:09 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-20-2004 2:04 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 42 of 112 (169942)
12-19-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by TheLiteralist
12-19-2004 12:01 AM


Re: Some more flood questions
YECers would say, I think, that such sorting might represent temporary regressions of the flood waters during the initial 40 days and/or a set of layers being laid down in the initial flood stages and then being somehow affected in the recessional stages of the Flood.
Avoiding for the moment that this quickly becomes extra-biblical, you have a major problem with incorporating transgressions and regressions. The main problem is that there are likely hundreds of couplets in the geological record. The second problem is: where do you get the sediments that define the regressive sequences when the entire world is innudated with water?
I agree that my "sediments in a jar" experiment is rather simplistic compared to the complex variables that would be operating in a world-wide flood. That little experiment was intended merely to illustrate that a flood WILL make sediment layers and was a response to one or two people saying a world-wide flood would leave only ONE layer.
I'm sure the poster intended to mean a sequence that shows the flood process. And, yes, I am a geologist.
I feel obligated to repeat that I am not a geologist - I don't even have a descent layman's knowledge. I do have an idea of how hydrologic sorting works and that's pretty much it, I think.
And I feel obligated to tell you that you have a lot common with other YECs; except that some (most?) are not as honest as you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-19-2004 12:01 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-20-2004 10:56 AM edge has replied

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


Message 43 of 112 (169944)
12-19-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by roxrkool
12-16-2004 1:36 AM


Re: Some more flood questions
Hey Edge, I was thinking of the same area though a little lower in the section. Coincidence??? lol
Are you saying that you have examples in low places?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 12-16-2004 1:36 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 112 (170057)
12-20-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by edge
12-19-2004 8:02 PM


Re: Some more flood questions
Edge,
The main problem is that there are likely hundreds of couplets in the geological record.
Please excuse my ignorance, what are couplets? {added by edit: anything like the varve couplets I've been reading about in RAZD's correlations thread?}
The second problem is: where do you get the sediments that define the regressive sequences when the entire world is innudated with water?
What I mean here is that there are from 40 to 150 days of rising flood waters. So the simple answer is that the "regressive sequences" would have occurred prior to the time of total inundation.
I'm sure the poster intended to mean a sequence that shows the flood process.
I think Roxrkool said something like what you mean in THIS MESSAGE, but I am specifically referring to IrishRockHound's response in THIS MESSAGE. I mean no disrespect to IrishRockHound; I just doubt a world-wide flood would leave only ONE sediment layer.
And, yes, I am a geologist.
Well, cool. I asked because you congratulated a "layman" for his/her advanced geology knowledge. Plus, I like to know who the experts are. I try to be a little more thoughtful with my comments to them and give their responses more weight (not to be confused with just blindly accepting whatever they say, of course).
And I feel obligated to tell you that you have a lot common with other YECs; except that some (most?) are not as honest as you.
I realize, of course, you are implying most, if not all, YECs know nothing about geology. I do try to be honest; thanks.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-20-2004 10:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by edge, posted 12-19-2004 8:02 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 12-20-2004 8:48 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 112 (170060)
12-20-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
12-19-2004 10:17 AM


Re: Regressive - Transgressive
That sounds fine. Particularly setting it up as a Great Debate (Discussion). That would also prevent it from spinning out to 300+ posts in less than a week due to other people's little side conversations, nit-picky posts, and random insults.
{added by edit}
I know very little (almost nothing) about geology. What is your background in the subject?
{added by second edit}
Shall I propose a new topic in PNT stating these 4 flood stages and indicating it is to be a Great Discussion limited to mine and your input?
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-20-2004 11:14 AM
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-20-2004 01:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 12-19-2004 10:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-20-2004 2:39 PM TheLiteralist 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