Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 5:03 PM
352 online now:
Aussie, Faith, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tom Larkin (10 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,617 Year: 29,223/21,208 Month: 1,289/1,847 Week: 212/452 Day: 86/126 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
57585960Next
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13392
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 826 of 894 (820242)
09-18-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
09-18-2017 6:18 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
quote:

Just because you can explain the boulder in some other way doesn't make your explanation the correct one. How does your explanation account for the boulder's being a quarter mile from its source?

The debris flow proposed by your source is one explanation. And the fact that it doesn't have to move through solid material, leaving no trace, makes it rather less problematic than your ideas.

quote:

Erosion to the same level is explained by the movement of the GU. It's not going to differentiate between the heights, it's going to abrade them to the same level because it can't do anything else. abe: sort of like how an extremely heavy object would lop of protrusions of different heights to the same level just because it's so heavy.

You aren't thinking it through. How does upward movement even occur if the faulted rock is deeply buried ? How does the abraded material get removed when it is deep underground, surrounded by solid rock ? Obviously the conventional explanation is better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 6:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 827 of 894 (820258)
09-18-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by Faith
09-16-2017 8:10 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
Faith writes:

Funny how you've tolerated Dr. A's nothing- but- snarky one liners over the years.

Well, what do you know, another one line message, and a lie at that. I've suspended Dr A many times over the years, probably mostly when he was responding to you. And many other times I was probably participating in the debate, not moderating, and so could do nothing.

Dr A did post one message to this thread, not a one-liner, so let's examine it:

Dr A in Message 68 writes:

But as usual since it is claimed over and over and over that there is no evidence for the biblical worldwide Flood 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.

Strata

Fossils

We don't ignore strata and fossils, remember? We rubbed them vigorously in your face, remember? Until you admitted your complete inability to explain the fossil record, remember?

And if you don't remember, have a look here.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19182

This is why I hardly bother posting any more, we've crushed you in every argument and the reason you don't seem to realize this seems to go beyond mere stupidity and into actual amnesia.

Dr A was responding to what has become your perpetual misrepresentation, that you've successfully argued that the strata and fossils are evidence for the flood. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but you can't ignore facts: a) this has been rebutted many, many times; and b) you haven't responded to the rebuttals.

Briefly, the Flood can't explain the stratification, the order of the strata, the boundaries between the strata, the tracks and burrows in the strata, the increasing radiometric age with increasing depth, and the increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth. Virtually nothing about strata or fossils is evidence for the Biblical Flood, and you have no answers to any of these rebuttals.

Your every attempt at supporting your claim that fossils and strata are evidence of the flood has been full of errors and blunders. This thread has been no different.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 8:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 828 of 894 (820262)
09-18-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by Faith
09-16-2017 10:07 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
Faith writes:

So much for the Rule against personal attack.

What personal attack? I was responding to GDR congratulating myself on my successful prediction that you would turn on him after he defended you.

You didn't quote anything from my message, so I suppose it's possible you're instead referring to my criticism of the way you deny saying things you just said. This wasn't a "personal attack" but an accurate description of something you do, and that you had just done. You told GDR you never used the Bible to support your position, and I quoted you doing exactly that in this very thread.

If you don't want to expose yourself to personal criticism then a) quit directing personal criticisms at other participants; and b) quit making obviously inflated claims about yourself, for instance that you know you're right, because it forces people to rebut the claim by listing the many things you've been wrong about.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 10:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 829 of 894 (820264)
09-18-2017 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:56 AM


Re: Temple Butte layering in channel
Faith writes:

That's a good point. So the channel was filled by the Flood deposit of the Temple Butte limestone. But something had to cut the channel after the strata were laid down, and that is often done by the acidic water that dissolves limestone.

Changing from one story unsupported by evidence to another story also unsupported by evidence does not advance your cause. As Edge pointed out in Message 810 (to which you haven't responded), "acidic water that dissolves limestone" would have left evidence of that kind of "chemical attack" behind. Where is this evidence?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 830 of 894 (820272)
09-18-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Faith
09-17-2017 1:47 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Well, since you haven't responded to any of the rebuttals to your message, I guess I'll just add one more.

Faith writes:

What's physically impossible is the absurd idea that the GU is the root of a former mountain range that grew up and then eroded down to flatness before the strata started building above it.

Really? Physically impossible? Can you tell us what physical laws are violated by tectonic uplift and erosion?

And just to inject some accuracy into what you say (always necessary), it isn't the Great Unconformity that "is the root of a former mountain range." The Great Unconformity is a boundary. It is the Zoraster Granite that is thought to be part of a former mountain range ancestral to the Mazatzal Mountains in Arizona.

Or that strata would lay themselves down in a mounded form a mile deep.

No one has ever said this. Sedimentary deposits follow the contours of the landscape, tending to fill in the lower regions faster, but the strata of the Grand Canyon are thought to have been deposited mostly flat and horizontal before tectonic forces uplifted the region.

Or that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon.

Rivers cut canyons the world over. Why are you being so ridiculous in claiming it's physically impossible?

Or that a whole scenario of a "time period" could have existed where there now is only a vast flat slab of sedimentary rock, let alone dozens of them.

Only dozens of them? There are far more than dozens of regions around the world where sediments are being deposited on vast fairly flat and horizontal surfaces.

Or that mammals evolved from reptiles.

We're been over this before, you're repeating the same mistake you made earlier. Mammals did not evolve from reptiles. Mammals (Synapsids) and reptiles (Sauropsids) evolved from a common ancestor (Amniotes) around 300-320 MYA.

Or that mutations are the source of healthy alleles.

You're wandering even further off topic now. PaulK's response was sufficient rebuttal, but it bears repeating. If a single nucleotide change could change a healthy allele to an unhealthy allele, then the reverse is equally possible.

You managed to compose an entire paragraph of six sentences where not a single one contained correct information.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 1:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 831 of 894 (820274)
09-18-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
09-17-2017 2:11 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Faith writes:

Yeah I do foolishly rely on people to be able to grasp obvious points. My mistake.

Your "obvious points" contained obvious errors, which you're ignoring. If you don't want to be called out on your errors and mistakes then stop making them. And if you want to have a leg to stand on when complaining about poor treatment then don't insult entire threads of participants.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 2:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26797
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 832 of 894 (820279)
09-18-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by PaulK
09-18-2017 9:27 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. SO DOES THE TILT. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH. THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.

INTERESTING YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER A CREATIONIST EXPLANATION, THE DEBRIS FLOW, TO EXPLAIN THE MOVEMENT OF THE QUARTZITE BOULDER. INTERESTING THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2017 9:27 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2017 1:51 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 837 by Percy, posted 09-18-2017 4:52 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 839 by edge, posted 09-18-2017 9:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26797
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 833 of 894 (820280)
09-18-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 825 by edge
09-18-2017 8:43 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
This is absolutely bizarre. Here you are talking about the source of a boulder, and you were talking about the monadnocks; but at the same time you're saying everything was planed off to a flat surface. Monadnocks are, by definition, not flat.

HOW YOU GET THIS OUT OF ANYTHING I SAID IS BEYOND ME. THE BOULDER POINT WAS AN ASIDE, NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE MONADNOCK. THE MONADNOCK WAS HARD ENOUGH TO RESIST BEING PLANED OFF SO IT GOT PUSHED UP INTO THE STRATA ABOVE. I'D HAVE TO SEE A MORE COMPLETE DIAGRAM TO KNOW IF IT BROKE OFF OR WHERE IT BROKE OFF.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 825 by edge, posted 09-18-2017 8:43 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by edge, posted 09-18-2017 9:37 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13392
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 834 of 894 (820281)
09-18-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
quote:

THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH. THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.

If you had thought it through you could answer my question.

How does part of the tilted strata move up when it is deeply buried ? Remember that it leaves absolutely no trace in the strata above it .

And really an implausible assumption isn't really much good when you are claiming to have a solid case.

So the conventional view is still way ahead of you when it comes to the evidence.

And since you added by edit so will I. Given that this creationist is much better informed than you and offers a possible explanation that makes sense I am not about to dismiss his view out of hand. It is certainly a lot better than your ideas.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 835 of 894 (820283)
09-18-2017 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 706 by Faith
09-16-2017 10:39 AM


Liquified limestone ... does not exist.
The Muav channels were clearly formed after the strata were all in place by liquefied limestone running between the layers.

ROFLOL.

Liquified limestone ... does not exist.

Dissolved limestone redeposits as calcite not limestone, it loses the characteristics of limestone when dissolved.

Melted limestone is metamorphic and the heat turns the limestone to marble, which is not necessarily liquid, but again losing the characteristics of limestone when heated.

Liquified limestone ... does not exist.

Once again you are caught making stuff up.

If the riverbed section is filled with limestone, that occurred after the bed had dried up and then filled with the limestone sediment deposits.

Faith fantasy flying carpet flood explanations are just her metaphor for 'god-did-it.'

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 706 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 10:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 836 of 894 (820285)
09-18-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 719 by Faith
09-16-2017 11:28 AM


Re: the usual miserable finale
See Wikipedia article on "Karst"

Karst is not a type of rock, nor is it a process, method or mechanism, it is a topography, ... so you haven't answered jar's question

And what is the process, procedure, model, method or mechanism that will liquefy limestone?

Inquiring minds want to know what this novel unknown process etc is.

Karst topography is a landscape formed from the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves.[1] It has also been documented for more weathering-resistant rocks, such as quartzite, given the right conditions.

Nor does this explain filling in of riverbeds with fresh limestone that retains the characteristics of limestone (ie not calcite and not marble).

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 719 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 11:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 837 of 894 (820291)
09-18-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Faith writes:

THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. SO DOES THE TILT. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH.

If you're going to make claims of having "thought all that through" then you have to expect rebuttals questioning the quality and thoroughness of your thinking. You've thought it through at about the level of a 2nd grader. Take a stack of foot-square floor tiles. Explain how you will raise and tilt the bottom four tiles, and where the extra material will go (the material that would be trying to tilt up into the layers above and the material that would be trying to tilt down into the layers below).

THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.

The cubic miles of "abraded material" of your scenario not only aren't visible on "MOST INVESTIGATIONS," they aren't visible in any evidence anywhere. If your scenario had happened it would have left evidence behind.

Your scenario has the added disadvantage that it isn't possible. You'll understand once you see why you can't raise and tilt the bottom four tiles. The Grand Canyon Supergroup was deposited, uplifted and eroded long before the Grand Canyon layers (beginning with the Tapeats) were deposited. We know this because of the nature of the Grand Unconformity, because of radiometric dating, and because of the distinct differences in strata composition and fossil content.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 838 of 894 (820292)
09-18-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by JonF
09-18-2017 8:13 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
JonF writes:

None of that is evidence. It's all hypotheses.

If we take this as the definition of hypothesis:

hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Then Faith doesn't even have a hypothesis. Because she hasn't started with "limited evidence," all she has is stuff she's made up.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by JonF, posted 09-18-2017 8:13 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 839 of 894 (820300)
09-18-2017 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. SO DOES THE TILT. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH. THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.

Well, that's convenient.

Your evidence is invisible.

Faith, when one adjacent block of rocks moves relative another, that is a fault. Fault planes are evidence of that motion and they have certain characteristics that tell us about the forces and the geometry of the movement. What characteristics can you show us? If the Shinumo rocks jut up into the Tapeats (and they actually go further, up into the Bright Angel Shale), why do they not get sheared off along such a fault? Otherwise, they are evidence that any erstwhile fault would be locked up and unable to activate. Please give us a reason to think that this makes sense.

That's just another way of asking for evidence, in a way that you might understand.

INTERESTING YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER A CREATIONIST EXPLANATION, THE DEBRIS FLOW, TO EXPLAIN THE MOVEMENT OF THE QUARTZITE BOULDER. INTERESTING THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

Actually, this doesn't look like a debris flow to me. I think the more likely explanation is a talus slope from one of the Shinumo islands in the Tapeats sea. Given that the Shinumo cliffs and talus slopes are up to hundreds of feet high, having one boulder roll further out on to the beach isn't much of a stretch.

Practically every day I see the same thing on my way to work: a thick sandstone formation with one big boulder sitting right there in the fine sand, about half a billion years later than the Shinumo boulder.

So, basically, I'm not seeing the problem that YECs have with this occurrence.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 840 of 894 (820301)
09-18-2017 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:51 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
HOW YOU GET THIS OUT OF ANYTHING I SAID IS BEYOND ME. THE BOULDER POINT WAS AN ASIDE, NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE MONADNOCK.

Well, maybe it should be.

THE MONADNOCK WAS HARD ENOUGH TO RESIST BEING PLANED OFF SO IT GOT PUSHED UP INTO THE STRATA ABOVE.

Without leaving any evidence of deformation in the overlying rocks.

Sure.

I'D HAVE TO SEE A MORE COMPLETE DIAGRAM TO KNOW IF IT BROKE OFF OR WHERE IT BROKE OFF.

Well, it clearly isn't broken off in some places.

If you were correct, we'd see evidence that would look like stripped gears all along the unconformity on a global basis.

And your scenario of undisturbed upper plate rocks is absurd. The only rocks that have anywhere to really move are the ones at the surface of the earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 9:53 PM edge has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
57585960Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017