Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:46 PM
352 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,303 Year: 23,909/21,208 Month: 1,874/2,468 Week: 383/822 Day: 43/66 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
59NextFF
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 421 of 884 (819614)
09-13-2017 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by PaulK
09-13-2017 9:45 AM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
The problem here is that all you guys do is repeat the establishment point of view, but as a YEC I'm operating from a different paradigm: there are no millions of years, the observed facts are the forms of the trilobites and the coelacanths which are not hard to find, and they demonstrate change on the order of microevolution within the species genome.

You seem to be confusing the argument from varves with the geological column.

Paradigm clash turns out to mean basically that nobody can ever argue from a different paradigm because the established paradigm is treated as sacrosanct and there is no tolerance for the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2017 9:45 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 7:26 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 491 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2017 10:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 422 of 884 (819616)
09-13-2017 1:30 PM


evidence
Evidence is facts that support a particular interpretation or conclusion. Strata and fossils are facts that exist, and they support the interpretation of the Flood, a lot better than they support the interpretation of the Geological Time Scale, which is what they are currently used for. Yes, evidence CAN be interpreted in different ways to support different conclusions. I think the Geological Column with its strata and fossils supports the Flood far better than the current interpretation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by jar, posted 09-13-2017 4:26 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 438 by Phat, posted 09-13-2017 5:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 455 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15915
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(4)
Message 423 of 884 (819617)
09-13-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


Re: The forced logic of evolution imposed on the fossils
Faith writes:

...I keep being asked about the fossil order. I can't answer it directly, but indirectly I believe there is no way the time periods conception of the geological column holds up. I know Stile made a heroic effort to justify it...

Stile was not trying to explain "the time periods conception of the geological column." His goals were much more modest. He was just trying to help you understand how layers accumulate while life lives in and on them. You can still pick that discussion up again, there's nothing stopping you, and you'd learn a lot: Message 1312 in the The TRVE history of the Flood... thread.

...but as I recall he didn't account for the flatness over huge distances...

This has been shown bogus as often as you have mentioned it. It is dishonest of you to keep introducing this argument as if you were unaware of the many problems that have been raised with it.

The problem that you think you've identified is that the great extent and flatness of strata could not have occurred through slow deposition over long time periods, but that it is the only way it could have occurred. As already explained in Message 331, lakebeds and seafloor and some land regions are obviously how the geological column formed, and we know this because we see in the layers of today's lakebeds and seafloor precisely the same layers we see in the geological column. We see shallow seas with deep layers of the hard remains of marine sea life that, except that they have not yet been buried to be compressed and cemented into rock, are just like limestone strata. We see sandy shoreline areas that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like sandstone strata. Further offshore we see mud and clay layers that, except that they have not yet been buried into rock, are just like shale and slate layers.

And we know that layers are today being deposited upon the top of the geological column because there is literally nothing else that is possible. When sediment sinks onto a lakebed or seafloor it is adding to the geological column.

Another of your fallacies is that strata are invariably flat and of great extent. Some are of great extent, some are of very limited extent, and some are somewhere in between. Your favorite example of the Grand Canyon region has strata of relatively great extent, but that's because transgressing/regressing seas moved slowly (in geological time) back and forth across the landscape. A depositional environment of deep ocean will also be very large in extent, but have a relatively short lifetime because of subduction. The depositional environment of a small pond will be very small in extent. The depositional environment of a river will also be very small in extent, though possibly very long. We have examples of all of these.

Also, the boundaries between strata are not flat. From a distance they might look flat, but the closer you examine them the less flat they look. Strata will follow the contours of the landscape upon which the sediments were deposited. And certainly strata are not level. That would be physically impossible since strata vary widely in thickness.

...OR the fact that to get the layers we actually see would require that nothing be living there when they formed.

Taking the example of seafloor, what makes you think sediments accumulating at the rate of several centimeters per century would require nothing be living there? Obviously life exists on and above the sea floor. Obviously sediments are being continuously and slowly deposited on the sea floor. A slow and delicate settling of fine sediments is obviously not a problem for life.

The same is true on land if it is a net depositional environment, i.e., one where sediments are deposited faster than they are carried away. For example, life in a forest wouldn't even notice the deposition of a few inches of soil per century.

It's hard to make rational sense of your trilobite/coelacanth objections. Enumerating them they seem to be:

  • You can find trilobites and coelacanths across time periods spanning hundreds of millions of years.

    Trilobites are found in the fossil record from 521 million years ago until 252 million years ago, 269 million years. Trilobites are a class, not a species. Classes contain orders, orders contain families, families contain genera, and genera contain species. There's a long, long distance of classification between class and species.

    Coelacanths are found in the fossil record beginning around 390 million years ago, and disappear from the fossil record around 66 million years ago, but a species of Coelacanth was discovered to still exist back in the 1930's. Coelacanths are an order, not a species. Orders contain families, families contain genera, and genera contain species. There's a long, long distance of classification between order and species. None of the species of coelacanth alive today are the same as any fossil species.

  • They remain the same species across all those time periods.

    No, they don't. These two images of trilobite are definitely different species:

    And these two images of an ancient coelacanth (Rebellatrix) and a modern coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) are clearly different species:

That's an indirect objection to the fossil order in that there's no way the strata could have formed on the standard interpretation which destroys the whole idea of the time periods and therefore the whole idea of how the fossils occurred.

Given that your conclusions are based upon not a single correct premise, they are clearly and obviously false. Strata are forming today in a manner identical to that of the past, by sediments gradually depositing on sea and lake bottoms, and in land regions of net deposition.

While at the same time the ToE makes the huge leap of asserting that mammal evolved from reptile although they are only I think one "time period" apart?

This would be incorrect. Mammals (Synapsids) and reptiles (Sauropsids) evolved from a common ancestor (Amniotes) around 300-320 MYA.

Also when you try to track out the steps that would have to be involved in the formation of the mammalian ear from the reptilian the complex changes that would have to occur in that time period defy all reason.

Wikipedia has a helpful article titled Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. Referring to that article, which "complex changes...defy all reason"?

In millions of years any evolving creature would have long since been extinct,...

The fossil record of change over hundreds of millions of years shows that evolution has been very successful at producing adaptation to changing environments.

Each kind of trilobite would reach an end to its ability to keep on changing LONG before even one "time period" had passed.

Despite being asked many times, you've never been able to identify any barrier to change. There's nothing to prevent mutation and selection continuing on indefinitely.

...there's no reason we have to assume any particular time frame.

We don't have to assume time frames because we have a variety of effective dating techniques.

You don't have the necessary transitionals to prove mammal evolved from reptile, it's a huge leap based only on belief in the ToE.

Again, I don't believe mammals evolved from reptiles. I think they evolved from a common ancestor. However, there are a *large* number of transitional fossils.

From these observations I conclude...

From what observations? All you have is a series of incorrect and erroneous statements. You almost haven't managed to say a single thing that is true.

...that assigning hundreds of millions of years to the geological column/fossil record is wrong.

Your conclusions are as wrong as your "observations."

And of course rapid deposition of the strata makes far more sense, which is what would have happened in the Flood.

So far you haven't provided any evidence of the Flood. All you've done is make misstatements about evolution and geology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15915
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 424 of 884 (819618)
09-13-2017 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
09-12-2017 6:34 PM


Faith writes:

Yes you have varves and tree rings, but that just means there's evidence on both sides.

Actually, you haven't mentioned any evidence of the Flood yet. All you've done is misinterpreted and misunderstood the evidence of standard geology and evolution.

ABE: And all those facts do is push back the timing of the Flood by a very very small amount...

But enough to break the Bible timetable.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 6:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 425 of 884 (819619)
09-13-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Faith
09-13-2017 7:32 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
RAZD, I HAVE NEVER EVER said the varves formed DURING THE FLOOD. I say only that the STRATA that make up the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN, on which the GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE is based, were formed in the Flood, by waves and tides and precipitation.

And the dance of denial advances, now in caps to accent the downbeat,

I did not SAY what I SAID before ...

LOL

It doesn't matter what you said or did not say, there was no flood and there is no evidence of a magic flying carpet flood ... that's just you saying god-did-it while pretending to use natural processes ... except you don't use natural processes ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 7:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18968
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 426 of 884 (819620)
09-13-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
09-13-2017 7:38 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
As I said, put varves on your side. I do not have an answer and don't normally attempt one except to suppose they had to have occurred far more frequently than you allow.

But all you are doing is changing the subject and distracting from my good arguments against the OE/ToE. If you can't answer those then chalk them up to my side.

Actually the thread is about Evidence of the flood and not the ToE -- so that would be you trying to change the subject to escape the hammering you are getting on the flood.

There you are in the Indianopolis 500 race riding a bicycle and you can't keep up with the cars so you start screaming that it is supposed to be a bicycle race ...

ROFLOL

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 7:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 427 of 884 (819622)
09-13-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by NoNukes
09-12-2017 4:40 PM


NoNukes writes:

If you actually believe that Jesus was not only elevating Doubting Thomas, but denigrating the others for their faith, you are welcome to hold that belief.


I didn't say any such thing. I said it isn't at all clear that Jesus had a preference for faith over evidence. You haven't said a single thing to back up that position.

Look at the story:

quote:
John 20:19-20 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

He showed the evidence to the disciples.
quote:
John 20:24-25 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

It was the eyewitness testimony of the other disciples that Thomas didn't believe.
quote:
John 20:26-27 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Jesus showed Thomas the same evidence that he had already shown the other disciples.

quote:
John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

But there were none who had believed without seeing the evidence.

Show us where Jesus expressed any preference for faith over evidence. I don't see any such indication in the story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 4:40 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15915
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 428 of 884 (819624)
09-13-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
09-12-2017 7:06 PM


Re: Craziness of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:

There are other things wrong with the strata/fossil record as interpreted through the OE/ToE perspective.

In a thread about Evidence of the flood, why do you only talk about things you've got wrong about geology and evolution? Where's your Flood evidence?

There's the fact that the geological column is FINISHED,...

You know, I can't think of a more flagrantly wrong thing that you could say. By definition the geologic column cannot be finished. Anywhere sediments are still depositing the geologic column is still growing.

Lakebeds have bumpy sloped and rounded rounded bottoms,...

You shouldn't care about the topography of lake bottoms, it's irrelevant to the point. Lakes are just local low points where sediments collect. But anyway, in reality lake bottoms come in a variety of shapes, sizes and topography. Here's an image of the bottom of Lake Michigan:

Looks pretty flat. Do this Google Search of submerged plane wrecks, you'll see most of the lake and sea bottoms are flat.

...there is no such surface in the geological column,...

Lake bottoms are well represented in the geological record, for example, at Bryce Canyon, read about it here at Wikipedia. Here's a short excerpt:

quote:
Climate change and cycles caused the lakes in the system to expand and shrink through time. As they did so, they left beds of differing thickness and composition stacked atop one another;

  • various sand and cobble deposits near shore,
  • calcium-poor muds further from shore,
  • calcium-rich mud in deeper water, and
  • pure limey oozes were deposited in the deepest waters.

The limey oozes and mud were later lithified into the limestone and interbedded siltstone of the up-to-300 foot (90 m)-thick White Member of the Claron.


...and lakebeds today are really small compared to the breadth of the strata.

That's irrelevant, but which lakes and which strata? Some lakes are huge (Lake Superior), some lakes are small, some strata are great in extent, some are not.

And the strata are not building on the geological column itself, which is the only way they could continue to be part of it, in the oceans.

Well, now you're just confused. Anywhere sediments are being deposited is adding to the geologic column at that location. It doesn't matter whether it is on land, lakebed, riverbed or seabed, wherever sediments are being deposited the geologic column is growing.

The geo column is on the land, not in the oceans.

I can't believe your again stating something so flagrantly wrong. Most strata are marine and formed beneath oceans. Most of the sediments being deposited today are beneath oceans, which makes sense since oceans cover 3/4 of the world. The geologic column is not just on land.

There is the consistency of the strata that supports the Flood scenario, the fact that the geo column does exist as a stack of flat slabs of sedimentary rock.

That strata are mostly flat and mostly level is precisely what we would expect, because that's exactly how sediments are being deposited today. Most strata are marine, and most sediments being deposited today are marine upon mostly flat lake and seabeds. Further, fossils become more different from modern forms with greater depth, and radiometric age becomes greater with greater depth. Marine layers are interspersed with land layers. Large, heavy fossils appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than small, light fossils. Course sediments appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than fine sediments. Animal tracks and burrows appear within the strata. Discontinuities appear in the strata, indicating that some have been eroded away. The Flood could accomplish none of this.

There are no signs of any of it ever having been on the surface of the earth,...

The strata contain fossils of the life that lived in and on that strata when it was at the Earth's surface, before it was deeply buried and turned to rock.

And yet they go on and on and on pretending it makes sense to interpret all this in terms of millions of years.

The present is the key to the past. The slow deposition of sediments that we see today has persisted for millions and billions of years, occasionally preserving life that once existed.

It makes no sense but they refuse to acknowledge this.

There's nothing to acknowledge. You haven't been able to make it through a single sentence in this post without getting something wrong, sometimes spectacularly wrong.

But this doesn't answer the evidence against the strata as depositions millions of years apart.

You haven't offered any evidence "against the strata as depositions millions of years apart," as you put it. You can't successfully make a point if you can't get anything right. Get something right, then try to make a point.

The consistency of the strata is against the idea of periodic shallow floods too. The surface would have changed between floods, but it hasn't changed. The contacts are tight and flat.

You're arguing against a scenario no one is promoting. No one thinks the geologic record is the result of "periodic shallow floods". Your counterargument makes no sense anyway.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 7:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 429 of 884 (819625)
09-13-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Phat
09-13-2017 8:13 AM


Re: Back To The Definition Of Evidence
Phat writes:

To her credit, she is EvC Forums lone representative of Biblical Creationism.


Faith represents neither the Bible nor creationism. She makes it all up as she goes along.

Phat writes:

I am still waiting for everyone to clarify what exactly evidence is.


I'll throw in my answer again, though I wouldn't call it a definition per se. Evidence is evident. Everybody can see it.

We can all see the bullet hole in the dead body. Whether the bullet hole caused the death is another question. Faith insists that the victim was walking around with a bullet hole through his heart when he was killed by lightning, even though there is no sign of a lightning strike and there hasn't been a thunderstorm in months. riVeRraT insists that the bullet hole is evidence of the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Phat, posted 09-13-2017 8:13 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 430 of 884 (819626)
09-13-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Phat
09-13-2017 9:01 AM


Re: Back To The Definition Of Evidence
Phat writes:

Some of the Pastors that I know would likely claim that since the Bible is true, God by definition through Jesus is evident. They would then probably quote Romans.


The "wrath" - e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. - is evident. God is not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Phat, posted 09-13-2017 9:01 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2714
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 431 of 884 (819627)
09-13-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by ringo
09-09-2017 11:55 AM


ringo writes:

It looks to me like He was saying that believing without evidence is also acceptable. There's no clear indication of preference"

Wat? So all this time I thought it was a example of how it was preferable to believe in the absence of evidence according to traditional Christian teachings. Silly me.

Kinda like when Jesus told that roman soldier that his faith has healed his son because he believed without seeing.

Silly me all this time I thought that was the whole damn point. The roman soldier who was a pagan btw was told that it was his faith without seeing NOT well it really doesn't matter if you see me do it or not no big diff.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by ringo, posted 09-09-2017 11:55 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by ringo, posted 09-13-2017 3:47 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 432 of 884 (819628)
09-13-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by 1.61803
09-13-2017 3:40 PM


~1.6 writes:

Silly me all this time I thought that was the whole damn point.


That's what the apologists want you to believe. But is it what the Bible says?

~1.6 writes:

Kinda like when Jesus told that roman soldier that his faith has healed his son because he believed without seeing.


Kinda like when people tell Dr. Phil that he's the only one who can help them.

Of course that has nothing to do with faith being "preferable".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by 1.61803, posted 09-13-2017 3:40 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15915
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 433 of 884 (819630)
09-13-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Faith
09-12-2017 8:51 PM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:

First it would be nice if anyone would recognize evidence I've already given before bringing on some other issue. There can be evidence on both sides. although I really think the OE/ToE evidence is a bunch of sophistry, self-delusion and garbage.

If you present some positive evidence for the flood then I promise I'll give you recognition for it, but so far all you've achieved is voluminous error.

There would have been a lot of wave action with rising and falling sea water, long long tides, and then when the water was deep and quiet enough precipitation of particles would occur as well.

It takes a very, very long time for fine sediments to fall out of suspension to great depths, thousands of years. You can prove it to yourself by stirring some soil in a glass of water. After a few minutes all the heavy sediment will have dropped out of suspension, but the water will remain cloudy because the fine sediments are still in suspension. Mark the top of the sediment layer on the side of the glass. In a few more days the water will have become clear because the fine particles will have finally dropped out of suspension. Look at the mark on the side of the glass. How much higher are the sediments now above the mark? The answer is that you won't even be able to tell that it is higher. Fine sediments take up so little space that the difference between them being suspended in water and them falling out of suspension to lie on the bottom is almost nothing.

Now, if it takes a few days for fine particles to fall out suspension to lie on the bottom and increase the thickness of sediments by almost nothing, how long do you think it took to create the White Cliffs of Dover that are 1500 feet thick in places?

Let me do the calculation for you. We'll err way on the side of fast deposition (in other words, we'll err in your favor) and say that 0.1" of sediment is deposited per day. Dividing 1500 feet by 0.1"/day gives us...about 500 years.

But trust me, fine sediment doesn't precipitate out at the rate of 0.1"/day, not even close to it. It's more like a few inches/year, or maybe around 0.01"/day. Which yields 5000 years. But your Flood was less than a year.

What makes the "time period" explanation any better for such a water-borne scenario anyway?

Hopefully you can see now how poorly what you call your "water-borne scenario" works as an explanation. And sedimentation rates are just one of the many reasons why what you call the "time period explanation" explains the facts and your Flood scenario does not.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 8:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 434 of 884 (819633)
09-13-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
09-13-2017 1:30 PM


Re: evidence
Think Faith.

You claim a world-wide flood.

If there is evidence of even one spot anywhere on the Earth that was not flooded during the last 6000 years then that one spot alone is sufficient to refute the flood story.

One spot Faith, that is all it takes.

You claim a young Earth.

If there is evidence of even one spot anywhere on the Earth that older than 6000 years then that one spot alone is sufficient to refute the flood story.

One spot Faith, that is all it takes.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 1:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15915
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 435 of 884 (819635)
09-13-2017 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
09-12-2017 9:05 PM


Re: More evidence against the OE/ToE in the strata
Faith writes:

I've only touched on the evidence, against the ToE and for the Flood.

What you've mostly done is displayed a profound ignorance of how natural processes work. You refuse to consider any miracles to achieve your Flood and instead invent fictions about how the world really works. This approach is doomed to failure.

I've spent most of my time {abe: at EvC} arguing on the basis of cross sections, particularly of the Grand Canyon, which show that the strata are remarkably uniform, straight, flat, with no erosion between the layers beyond the little that could easily be accounted for by water runoff after the strata were all in place.

You need to be accurate in your facts. There has been much more than a little erosion of strata in the Grand Canyon region, about a couple miles worth - just look at the difference in layers between the Grand Canyon area and Bryce Canyon:

And given that sediments deposit at the lowest available level, usually beneath seas, and given the extent of the seas and of the coastlines that create the varying depositional environments, straight, flat strata are pretty much what we would expect. What your Flood scenario does not explain is that fossils become more different from modern forms with greater depth, and radiometric age becomes greater with greater depth. Marine layers are interspersed with land layers. Large, heavy fossils appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than small, light fossils. Course sediments appear both higher and lower in the geologic column than fine sediments. Animal tracks and burrows appear within the strata. Discontinuities appear in the strata, indicating that some have been eroded away.

The cross sections all show that the strata WERE all in place before any real disturbance occurred to the stack, such as, say, the cutting of a humongous canyon three miles deep perhaps?

You need to be accurate in your facts. The deepest part of the Grand Canyon is around 1.15 miles. But otherwise you are correct. The strata were obviously all in place before the Colorado eroded the Grand Canyon.

Also they show that the strata curve in blocks over obstacles, which shouldn't happen if there are millions of years difference in age between them.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Usually you're talking about how straight and flat the strata are, but here you're talking about them curving "in blocks over obstacles." Do you have an image or at least a better description of what you're referring to?

And if you're talking about adjacent layers, except in the case of an unconformity there should not be "millions of years difference in age between them". If you're not talking about adjacent layers then you'll have to clarify.

Everything I pointed out was clearly not taken into account by the makers of the OE and ToE explanation,...

You've barely said a single thing that's been correct or true - why would you expect anyone to take it "into account" for anything?

But then it was rationalized away by the most pathetically absurd scenarios.

The pathetic absurdity really only begins when you try to describe what is wrong with modern views of geology.

Oh that really IS erosion that occurred on the surface during millions of years.

Sarcasm isn't really much of an argument, anyone can do that. "Oh, it really WAS a global Flood that created all the geology we see today." Sarcasm isn't evidence either.

Can't have been of course but they'll say anything.

Insulters can't be complainers.

Or so what's the big deal, why couldn't there have been hundreds of millions of years of relative calm before the massive disturbance of the cutting of the Grand Canyon.

This isn't an argument that anyone is making, and it doesn't conform with the known evidence. The Grand Canyon took millions of years to form and was not part of some "massive disturbance." One way we know this is because of slope retreat, which explains the great width of the canyon. Another way we know this is that the uplift the region experienced had to occur slowly so that the river had time to cut through the strata, instead of being turned back.

I also showed cross sections where the fault lines cut through the entire stack. Why would that be the case if they were laid down millions of years apart?

Why do you think faulting is required to occur on some timetable? And anyway, there is faulting that doesn't go all the way to top, just look at the blocks of the Great Unconformity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 9:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
59NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017