Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2017 6:33 PM
350 online now:
Coragyps, JonF, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 819,118 Year: 23,724/21,208 Month: 1,689/2,468 Week: 198/822 Day: 73/69 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
3536
...
58NextFF
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5038
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 496 of 858 (819712)
09-14-2017 4:42 AM


This is the full summary of the thread...

Faith writes:

Just for the record I don't follow much of what is known as Creation Science, though I've gotten some leads from them, but mostly I think it all through on my own.

Though to be accurate I would replace 'think it all through' with 'make it all up'


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.


  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 497 of 858 (819713)
09-14-2017 7:01 AM


Where there is evidence and where there is only poor evidence
There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood at any time when humans existed.

There is no evidence that there has ever been a world-wide flood during any time when humans existed except several contradictory and mutually exclusive stories from unreliable anonymous testimony.

There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is old.

There is no evidence that the Earth is young except calculations based solely on unreliable anonymous testimony.


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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 498 of 858 (819714)
09-14-2017 7:04 AM


I should have let Adminnemooseus know my plans for this thread. As I said back in Message 28, "Somehow this Coffee House thread is beginning to look like a flood discussion topic. If actual meaningful discussion breaks out I'll move the thread." Well, yesterday some meaningful discussion began. I posted 19 messages, a number of which were lengthy and detailed, and other participants also posted a number of substantive posts. Interrupting discussion now would be very disappointing. I was going to move this thread to the Geology and the Great Flood forum this morning, and will do so now. I'm taking the thread out of summation mode.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 499 of 858 (819715)
09-14-2017 7:05 AM


Thread Moved from Coffee House Forum
Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15909
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 500 of 858 (819716)
09-14-2017 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Faith
09-13-2017 7:03 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes:

But I just spent a bit of time reading up on the Green River Formation and I have to admit I had the wrong idea of what it is. I see now that it is part of the strata I am talking about and not something apart from the Flood after all. Mea culpa, I am sorry for the mistake.

So PaulK's original question remains: Why do you think that varves deposited long ago, such as those in the Green River formation, are part of the geologic column, but varves deposited more recently are not?

More generally, if sediments deposited today are not part of the geologic column, what are they part of?

These fish all by themselves prove that the varve pairs are not annual because the fish would have rotted away or been eaten within days, weeks or months of being "buried" by this minuscule amount of sediment.

As Coragyps described, an anoxic environment can preserve fish for a great deal of time. The Wikipedia article on the Green River Formation says:

quote:
The lagerstätten formed in anoxic conditions in the fine carbonate muds that formed in the lakebeds. Lack of oxygen slowed bacterial decomposition and kept scavengers away, so leaves of palms, ferns and sycamores, some showing the insect damage they had sustained during their growth, were covered with fine-grained sediment and preserved. Insects were preserved whole, even delicate wing membranes and spider spinnerets.

Vertebrates were preserved too, including the scutes of Borealosuchus, the crocodile that was an early clue to the mild Eocene climate of Western North America. Fish are common.


It would take at least ten years to cover them to a depth sufficient to provide the environment for fossilization, which of course is way too late.

As images of shipwrecks in the Black Sea show, anoxic conditions can preserve things for a very long time.

I also found an article claiming to prove that the varves are indeed annual. Well, the fish fossils prove they aren't.

The fish fossils were preserved by anoxic conditions, so not only do they not prove varves aren't annual, even if we didn't understand the origin of fossils in the Green River Formation, there's already too much evidence that varves are annual, especially the fact that we see varves forming today before our very eyes.

Could you provide a link to this article? It would be interesting to read.

The article proves it by, guess what, radiometric dating. The fish therefore prove that RADIOMETRIC DATING IS FALSE.

Again, I'd like an opportunity to read this article. And again, the presence of fossils, even if their origin were not understood, cannot change the fact that varves are annual. They record the changing seasons over the course of a year.

GREEN RIVER VARVES JUST MOVED FROM THE OE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT COLUMN TO THE YEC SUPPORT COLUMN.

What the Green River Formation shows is that varves formed millions of years ago in the same way varves form today - annually.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 7:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:41 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15909
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 501 of 858 (819717)
09-14-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
09-13-2017 8:11 PM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:

Sorry, perhaps I just skip your insulting messages too often.

You behave badly on purpose so that when called to your attention you can claim insult and use it as an excuse for ignoring the message. You have an inventory of excuses you use for ignoring information.

I think you should deal with the issues as they arise without acrimony or accusation, begin developing an understanding of natural processes, and follow the evidence where it leads.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 8:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 7:46 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 502 of 858 (819718)
09-14-2017 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by Percy
09-14-2017 7:43 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Cut the personal comments Percy. Didn't you write the rule against that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Percy, posted 09-14-2017 7:43 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by JonF, posted 09-14-2017 8:02 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 506 by Percy, posted 09-14-2017 8:32 AM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15909
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 503 of 858 (819719)
09-14-2017 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Faith
09-13-2017 8:55 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:

The question is Which others? A gaggle of biased anticreationists? Ha ha de ha.

Your tremendous bias is coloring your judgment. You are debating with a number of very intelligent and well informed people who are not anti-creationist but pro-science and pro-rationality. Nothing would delight them more than new opportunities for exploring and understanding the world in which we live, and if evidence pointed in new directions then they would follow it eagerly.

But you don't have evidence pointing in new directions. All you've got is stuff you've made up that follows the Biblical story and follows some rules that you've made up for yourself, such as not allowing any miracles so that it seems more scientific. Unfortunately you usually ignore the laws of nature, which is no different than miracles, so your approach is counterproductive.

OK I'll make an effort to review your posts but the rebuttals do tend to be the same old same old so what's the point? I state my case, you state yours. That's the best that ever happens here.

That does seem to be the best that you can manage, but it can be so much better. What does happen is that you state your case, we rebut it, then you state your case again all over from scratch. That's not the way it's supposed to work. In response to the rebuttal you should develop your own counter-rebuttal. Simply repeating your original argument again is not rebuttal - it's a broken record.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 8:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3960
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 504 of 858 (819720)
09-14-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by Faith
09-14-2017 7:46 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Galatians 6:7
This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 7:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18959
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 505 of 858 (819721)
09-14-2017 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Faith
09-13-2017 7:03 PM


dancing around the evidence again, it's a Rondo ...
... But I just spent a bit of time reading up on the Green River Formation and I have to admit I had the wrong idea of what it is. I see now that it is part of the strata I am talking about and not something apart from the Flood after all. Mea culpa, I am sorry for the mistake.

And the circle dance continues ...

So now back to Message 381 (reply to faith Message 377):

quote:
I'm aware that the strata were at least in some cases laid down in shallow layers, including those all of one sediment. What's the problem? 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.

That does not create alternating layers of fine and coarse material -- any water motion with enough energy to carry coarse material would pick up all the fine material before depositing the coarse material, and if it doesn't have the energy to pick up the fine material then it can't carry the coarse material.

You have been told this before.

And when you pretend that this fantasy magic wave action produces 6,000,000 layers in a couple hundred days it just becomes a real hoot, because that is not "quiet enough precipitation of particles" ... 15,000 layers a day for 400 days? ROFLOL.


Remember Stoke's Law?

quote:
Message 19, The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1):

Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity(1)

quote:
Every material has its own suspension and settling velocity. The suspension velocity is the speed of water above which the water will pick up the material and hold it in suspension. The settling velocity is the speed below which the material will be dropped out of suspension and will settle out of the water.

The relative sizes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay particles are shown below:

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.


quote:
The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

Stoke's Law: V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.



15,000 layers per day is 6 seconds per layer, 3 seconds coarsest particles fraction, grading to 3 seconds finest particles fraction ... repeat.

'Splain it faith.

Enjoy

ps regarding the fat fish fossil see

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD241.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html


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 451 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 7:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15909
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 506 of 858 (819722)
09-14-2017 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by Faith
09-14-2017 7:46 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:

Cut the personal comments Percy. Didn't you write the rule against that?

Refraining from making personal comments doesn't mean ignoring when other people get personal, and getting personal is a large part of your approach. You just called my comments insulting when all they did was describe your behavior. If you feel insulted when your behavior is described for you then maybe you should consider changing your behavior. Keep your focus on the topic, and stop seeking excuses for ignoring posts and information.

Here's a compendium of your rude and insulting behavior from just this thread alone:

Faith while lying or being personal, rude and insulting writes:

jar should worry about himself; he's the one off the track. In the ditch even.

I just have to point out all the in-your-face evidence y'all ignore with as much wacko exertion as it takes to make a mountain out of the molehill of the cute scared birdy in the taxi.

...despite EvCers' insistence on the utterly ridiculous delusional time period argument.

I'm flattered that you come out from under your rock occasionally just to insult me, but you can go back now.

....your lame mind-reading is false, insulting and stupid.

I'm not interested in this thread, and all I am doing is responding to other posts.

But I get it. Character assassination is the game here, and misrepresentation, and silly straw man gambits.

Oh well, I knew from the beginning this was a rigged game...

Zowie, lots more of the same smear campaign, lies galore too.

In any other context I'd sue you.

It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?

I don't have the patience to read through the last day's posts...

I really think the OE/ToE evidence is a bunch of sophistry, self-delusion and garbage.

Perhaps it says I'm one of the honest few here,...

Arguing with you is like throwing one's mind down a rathole.

First, I've presented my case and nobody is addressing it. [I posted 19 responses to Faith yesterday]

Oooooo hivvens to bitsy, a YEC's thoughts can only be validated by a gaggle of evolutionists? Ha de ha ha ha.

Sorry, perhaps I just skip your insulting messages too often.

The question is Which others? A gaggle of biased anticreationists? Ha ha de ha.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 7:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:32 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15909
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 507 of 858 (819724)
09-14-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
09-13-2017 9:26 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:

I simply wanted to restate my points...

But that's all you ever do is restate your points. Your points contain a great many problems that are described in the rebuttals, which you ignore. You simply restate your original points. You have to stop doing that.

...none of the rebuttals have ever dealt with them...

Of course the rebuttals have dealt with your points. You just choose to ignore them.

Not that I'm holding my breath. In this environment they will NEVER get a fair hearing.

You cannot get a hearing, fair or otherwise, if you refuse to address the rebuttals.

BUT I WILL NOW TAKE A BREAK FROM THIS MESS AND DEAL WITH THE POSTS YOU REFER ME TO LATER.

Oh, of course, you're leaving. Gee, never saw that one coming. Can we assume that when you return you'll be leaving all the rebuttals in the lurch (you've replied to only about 1/3 of the messages posted to you) and that you'll be repeating your original points from scratch again?

And thank you for ceasing toning down your abusive personal attacks.

If you keep your focus on the topic and stop your lies and manipulations and accusations then there will no longer be any reason to call attention to some of the worst behavior ever observed here.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 9:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:45 PM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 508 of 858 (819727)
09-14-2017 9:34 AM


again, what is the evidence.
Back when the thread was in summation mode in Message 497 I posted:

quote:
There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood at any time when humans existed.

There is no evidence that there has ever been a world-wide flood during any time when humans existed except several contradictory and mutually exclusive stories from unreliable anonymous testimony.

There is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is old.

There is no evidence that the Earth is young except calculations based solely on unreliable anonymous testimony.


While that is still a reasonable summary of the thread I think it worthwhile to expand somewhat on what constitutes good evidence.

A fossil itself is not good evidence for the fact that biological critters evolved over time. What is evidence of the fact of evolution are the patterns found in the fossil collections; that certain forms are always found in a particular order from oldest to youngest samples and that the items change in a consistent way over the lineage.

No single fossil or even bunch of fossils are good evidence of evolution but rather the accumulation of data points show a pattern that is not just good but overwhelming evidence of the fact that living things evolved over time.

So far the ONLY explanation for that evidence is the Theory of Evolution and it in fact does explain what is seen in reality.

In addition, as newer technologies have been developed every single technology has confirmed what was seen in the evidence.

A perfect example is the recent discovery of how DNA is organized which provided conclusive support for what had been suggested and went on to show the model, method, process, procedure and mechanism of duplication and modification that resulted in changes to the biological organism.

In geology it is again the sum of the data points rather than any single data point that shows conclusively that the Earth is old.

In the case of the Green River Varves there is a known and observed model, method, process, procedure and mechanism that creates similar layers and that is seasonal changes in plant growth, rainfall and no alternative model, method, mechanism, process or procedure as been presented or observed that would do the same thing.

The example of the Oklo Reactor and uranium halos and tree rings and ice cores and mountain creation and mountain weathering all also provide support for the fact that the Earth is old and the processes that happened in the past are the same processes that happen now.

In the case of the world-wide flood it is even simpler. If a claim is made that the whole world was flooded at one time and for one year, if ANY site or item is found that did not suffer from the flood then that is overwhelming evidence that there was no flood at that location. One such location is sufficient to conclude the flood was not world-wide. As more and more and more data points accumulate that show overwhelmingly that many locations did not get flooded it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that if there was a flood it was local in duration and extent.

And again, that is what we see today. Parts of Texas get flooded. Most of Texas is not flooded. Parts of Florida get flooded but other parts do not get flooded.

What happens today is what happened in the past. What happened in the past is what is happening today.

Societies, cultures, technologies, art, all of the mythos of an area or mileau continue. We do NOT see any abrupt discontinuation of any areas culture that points to the same period of time and shows the existing culture being replaced by one radiating out from the Middle East.

If the Biblical flood actually happened then what we must see is a disruption of every society on Earth happening at the same time and then remaining in that state until Middle Eastern immigrants arrive.

There is no evidence of that.


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

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3964
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 509 of 858 (819728)
09-14-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by riVeRraT
09-13-2017 9:35 PM


Re: Atheistic science?
I started this thread not to prove that the flood happened, only to prove that there is evidence of a flood. We just choose to ignore it. If you are a real scientist you cannot ignore all the evidence.

Do you accept the possibility that there is such a thing as weak evidence?

Or perhaps inconclusive evidence?

Or maybe even bad evidence, misunderstood evidence?

And exactly WHO is ignoring ALL of the evidence?

We don't have all the evidence.

Which is a whole lot different from saying that we have no evidence.

I started this thread to make a point that nothing is ever proven, and that everything takes faith. To believe the sun will rise tomorrow takes faith. Atheists like to live their lives by objective evidence are wrong.

But we are not talking about our lives, are we?

I thought we were talking about science.

The world is full of subjective things, and we all live by something subjective(love/hate). So to dismiss something merely on the fact that it is subjective is hypocritical. It is an objective fact subjectivity exists.

Please list the people on this forum who live completely objectively.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by riVeRraT, posted 09-13-2017 9:35 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3964
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 510 of 858 (819729)
09-14-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
09-13-2017 9:08 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
There is no way to "rebut" the huge flat sedimentary rocks.

Not sure what to rebut.

You just admitted that the Green River Formation is part of the geological column and yet it is far from continental in scale and is certainly not just a flat slab of rock.

Please explain what you mean by 'geological column', 'strata' and 'huge, flat formations'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 9:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3233
34
3536
...
58NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017