Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-01-2017 2:10 AM
404 online now:
CRR, DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 400 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminAsgara
Post Volume:
Total: 805,931 Year: 10,537/21,208 Month: 19/3,605 Week: 167/873 Day: 19/148 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12598
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 121 of 206 (781624)
04-06-2016 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:06 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
quote:

What isn't true? The billions or what? THIS SITE Says "millions in the canyon alone," but the bed extends well beyond the canyon, into all the surrounding states as I recall, and I remember billions being Austin's estimate. As usual I'll have to go find the book.

To this I would point out that there is evidence that Austin's estimates might be too large, and that the number of fossils certainly need not bet he number caught in a single mass kill event. And, of course, the most you can prove from the nautiloids alone would be a localised event, even if it was a very large one.

quote:

Most fossils" are found buried willy-nilly in their sedimentary beds, as they would have been by the Flood.

Or, more accurately, just as they would be if there were no Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:49 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 122 of 206 (781625)
04-06-2016 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by edge
04-05-2016 10:27 PM


Flood model
OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist.

Well, some of us do know and time is the most explanatory suspect.
For you to reject it based on your admitted ignorance is a bit arrogant.

My admitted ignorance has never extended to any of the facts that would disqualify me from having an opinion about the particular things I have opinions about. But of course just being a creationist makes me arrogant since that role pits me against standard geology.

Insisting on the time explanation just makes you an Old Earther, it says nothing to explain how the fossils would have been sorted in the Flood. Since sediments would have been sorted according to Walther's Law, and the dead things would have been carried within those sediments, which we know by the fact that there are particular fossils contained in particular rocks, it appears they were also sorted, but what the principle of their sorting might be isn't knowable at this point. But of course to require it of creationists lets you win the debate, doesn't it?

The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

But that arrangement of fossils is data.

Your model needs to explain it.

We can't just ignore data because it doesn't fit a cherished model.

Actually it's just OE interpretation, not raw data. I plan to go listen again to a creationist video presentation I saw recently where at some point the presenter discusses evidence against faunal succession. I'll let you know what I find out.

Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.

He also says that your model failed its tests.

The usual bare assertion by a hostile witness. OE/evolutionist "tests" of creationist views are hardly to be trusted.

It should be rejected.

You don't even know what "it" is, and Percy didn't say, but of course it should be rejected because it contradicts OE geology. Interesting how so much of this debate seems to consist of the opinion that creationism simply shouldn't exist and should be disallowed from the getgo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 10:27 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 6:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:12 AM Faith has responded
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2016 11:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 123 of 206 (781626)
04-06-2016 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
04-06-2016 6:17 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
To this I would point out that there is evidence that Austin's estimates might be too large, and that the number of fossils certainly need not bet he number caught in a single mass kill event.

They are all in the same bed which had to have been washed up onto the land since nautiloids don't happen to live on the land, and then covered over quite rapidly by the next sedimentary layer up. Single mass kill certainly looks like the best interpretation of the evidence.

And, of course, the most you can prove from the nautiloids alone would be a localised event, even if it was a very large one.

I dunno. There they are sandwiched in their own sedimentary layer between other sedimentary layers equally horizontal and flat. Looks like whatever put them there also put the other layers there.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 6:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:01 AM Faith has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 124 of 206 (781627)
04-06-2016 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:43 AM


Re: Flood model
Faith writes:

My admitted ignorance has never extended to any of the facts that would disqualify me from having an opinion about the particular things I have opinions about. But of course just being a creationist makes me arrogant since that role pits me against standard geology.

Actually, you don't have any clue what's going on in the natural science called geology. You keep on ignoring reality. Again. From http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=article...

One of the best ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific community is to challenge a widely held scientific understanding with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geologists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that the question of the earth's age has been answered: roughly 4.6 billion years.

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a young-earth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.

So, Faith, if you are so sure that your belief in the magic fluddy is right, please provide the 'operational science' where you show that your magic fluddie occurred. You know, accurate working models and all...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12598
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 125 of 206 (781628)
04-06-2016 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:49 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
quote:

They are all in the same bed which had to have been washed up onto the land since nautiloids don't happen to live on the land, and then covered over quite rapidly by the next sedimentary layer up.

I'm pretty sure that Austin regards the bed as being deposited under water, so there would be no need for anything to be washed up on land.

quote:

Single mass kill certainly looks like the best interpretation of the evidence.

What evidence ? You certainly haven't produced any evidence of a mass kill extending outside the canyon, and I don't believe that the evidence even requires a mass kill within the canyon.

quote:

I dunno. There they are sandwiched in their own sedimentary layer between other sedimentary layers equally horizontal and flat. Looks like whatever put them there also put the other layers there.

Even if that bed extended as far as you think, it still only covers a relatively small part of the Earths surface. Therefore it obviously cannot prove a world-wide even on its own. And your comment simply fails to address that obvious fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:39 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:40 AM PaulK has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 126 of 206 (781629)
04-06-2016 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:43 AM


Re: Flood model
This one was funny:

Faith writes:

But of course just being a creationist makes me arrogant since that role pits me against standard geology.

What the heck is 'standard geology'? Those geologists studying some rocks in Siberia? Those studying some rocks near Cherdyn in the Urals? Those studying some rocks near Mount Wilson Village in the Blue Mountains? Those geologists studying some rocks on Marion Island? Those geologists studying some rocks around Farmington, New Mexico? Those geologists studying some rocks around El Alamein?

And they all independently came to the conclusion that the rocks they studied were very, very old?

You don't make any sense, Faith.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:37 AM Pressie has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 127 of 206 (781630)
04-06-2016 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
04-05-2016 10:22 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory.

Theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence including relative dating techniques and known geological processes, further backed up by various dating methods.

All artifacts of your theory, though, artifacts that themselves can't be tested because you can't test the past. The thing is OE theory is circular and self-validating.

If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

But dating shows this not to be the case.

See above. The most unreliable element in the whole shebang is the dating methods.

And this notion that the fossils would all be jumbled up is again just interpretation for which you have no specific evidence, it's just your own head trip.

Not necessarily 'jumbled up', but in the same age rocks. We should find large mammals with large dinosaur fossils but we do not.

You have no idea what you "should find" in the Flood at all, all the more so because you are hostile to the idea of the Flood and wouldn't even try to give anything about it a reasonable hearing.

If it weren't for Walther's Law there wouldn't be any way to explain the fact that the sediments got sorted as they did, but the fact that they did suggests that the fossils did also. by what principle isn't known. Perhaps it could be known. Just as it is understood why the sediments sort out as they do when the sea rises, perhaps it could be known why the fossils got sorted as they did too. The usual temtative explanations have to do with size and weight and original location (land or sea for starters). Perhaps someone could do an experiment to discover the principle. But at the moment it isn't known.

Since Walther's Law sorts sediments it apparently also sorted the dead creatures that were deposited with them. According to what principle I have no idea but obviously sorting occurred.

Then we are correct in saying that you do not understand Walther's Law.

So you know the mechanical principle of sorting of the fossils by Walther's Law? Then you should describe it.

It explains why strata are time-transgressive but still have lateral continuity.

Such cryptic nonexplanations get ignored by me. If you want me to think about them you have to say more. But of course you have a method in not saying more. You couldn't care less about communication or debate, you just want to win by intimidation, rank-pulling and sophistry.

You do not "see" this at all, you interpret this into the facts that are subject to other more reasonable interpretations.

So then, you reject Walther's Law.

You should have said so in the first place.

The usual deceitful sophistry from you. This is why I eventually stop talking to you at all. You do not debate in good faith. Everything you say is designed NOT to communicate, only to lay a trap. So I'll ignore most of the rest of your post too, which is the same sort of noncommunication.

A slab of rock of one kind of sediment that spans a whole continent and even the entire world was simply not built up over millions of years, ...

Why not? And please provide and example of a formation that is global.

I already answered your "Why not" mantra. I will answer your formation question next:

...as if the surface of the earth were EVER composed of one sediment.

True, and one of the reasons is that there was always an emergent land mass to provide sediments of various nature.

Let me try to be more exact. I'm not claiming that a particular sediment covered the world for a particular time period -- a particular sediment nevertheless can cover even a whole continent or more -- but that the time period is found all over the world as a layer or layers in the geologic column, always characterized by hugely extensive sedimentary deposits considered to be continuous with those of that same time period elsewhere.

Golly gee just look at the surface of the earth NOW and realize that those strata simply do NOT represent the surface of this planet in any time period whatever let alone for millions of years.

Why not?

I've already explained this (See Message 115 among others). I'm sorry you have to keep resorting to your silly little questions designed only to deflect the truth and distract from the fact that you refuse to face the reasonableness of my point.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 10:22 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 128 of 206 (781631)
04-06-2016 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Pressie
04-06-2016 7:12 AM


WhenRe: Flood model
When geologists study rocks they study them within the theory they carry around with them everywhere.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:12 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:46 AM Faith has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 129 of 206 (781632)
04-06-2016 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
04-06-2016 7:01 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
PaulK writes:

I'm pretty sure that Austin regards the bed as being deposited under water, so there would be no need for anything to be washed up on land

Indeed Steve Austin did write that the bed was deposited under water.

Steve Austin wrote:

Steve Austin writes:

I believe the [nautiloid] bed was formed by an underwater mud flow… The water was full of mud, what we call a slurry, and so was much denser than the surrounding water. The slurry rushed down the steep slopes of the underwater mountains, gathering speed like an avalanche. And it careered across the ocean floor as fast as a semi on the freeway….As the avalanche swept past it trapped the nautiloids and carried them along.

According to Steve Austin, those Nautiloids were deposited on the ocean floor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:01 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 130 of 206 (781633)
04-06-2016 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
04-06-2016 7:01 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
I'm pretty sure that Austin regards the bed as being deposited under water, so there would be no need for anything to be washed up on land.

Austin describes the bed as having been created by a flow of sediment-laden water, even a "mud" flow as I recall, not standing water.

abe: interesting that Pressie was answering the same point at the same time.

Of course it was on the "ocean floor," it was during the Flood. Everything was being moved in sediment-laden currents or bands or levels of water that were carried over the land -- and that ended up deposited ON THE LAND.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:01 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:49 AM Faith has responded
 Message 135 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 8:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 131 of 206 (781634)
04-06-2016 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:37 AM


This one is funny:

Faith writes:

When geologists study rocks they study them within the theory they carry around with them everywhere.

When geologists study rocks they actually do study them within the theory that basalts are igneous rocks. Geologists do carry that theory about basalts as being igneous around everywhere in the world. That's a geologists' worldview; basalts are igneous rocks!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:51 AM Pressie has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12598
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 132 of 206 (781635)
04-06-2016 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:40 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
quote:

Of course it was on the "ocean floor," it was during the Flood. Everything was being moved in sediment-laden currents or bands or levels of water that were carried over the land -- and that ended up deposited ON THE LAND.

That's your opinion. But if even Steve Austin disagrees, why should we believe it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:53 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 133 of 206 (781636)
04-06-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Pressie
04-06-2016 7:46 AM


Basalts ARE igneous rocks, nobody disputes that, it's fact, not theory. I'm talking about the OE theory that geologists carry around with them everywhere. It colors everything they study, which is only to be expected.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 8:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 4:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24503
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 134 of 206 (781637)
04-06-2016 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by PaulK
04-06-2016 7:49 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
...why should we believe it ?

Cuz it IS on the land?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:49 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 8:03 AM Faith has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 135 of 206 (781638)
04-06-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:40 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
Of course it was on the "ocean floor," it was during the Flood. Everything was being moved in sediment-laden currents or bands or levels of water that were carried over the land -- and that ended up deposited ON THE LAND.
Nope. Austin claims that it was deposited under water in a magic flood.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017