Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
429 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 423 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,011 Year: 6,123/6,534 Month: 316/650 Week: 86/278 Day: 8/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 757 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 304 (292269)
03-05-2006 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ReverendDG
03-04-2006 11:46 PM


Re: Hell on Earth?
Sure, we can talk about all that, AFTER somebody finally acknowledges that the way the layers are made is totally incompatible with the idea of millions of years of deposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ReverendDG, posted 03-04-2006 11:46 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by zephyr, posted 03-05-2006 12:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 34 by roxrkool, posted 03-05-2006 1:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 35 by ReverendDG, posted 03-05-2006 2:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 03-05-2006 5:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 38 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-05-2006 5:18 AM Faith has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 3863 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 32 of 304 (292273)
03-05-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-05-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Hell on Earth?
Faith,

A casual Google search by this quite uneducated layman produced numerous refutations of your statement.

For example, my first hit discusses marine sedimentation, igneous intrusions, and a few other phenomena that stand in striking contrast to the generalization you are attempting to make. Strange that you can so flippantly dismiss the lifelong work of professionals when a casual observer with no formal training can easily summon hard facts that contradict your assertions.

Incidentally, the site to which I referred you is maintained by a Christian. Not central to my point, but still noteworthy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:22 AM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 33 of 304 (292275)
03-05-2006 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
03-04-2006 11:28 PM


Re: hopeless
Hardly uncalled for.

If you have previously dealt with the data, then it should not be a problem to tell us what mechanism allows a global flood to deposit the following sedimentary rock types:

limestone
oolitic limestone
dolomite
sandstone
siltstone
gypsum/halite/evaporite
banded iron formations
mudstone
marl
shale
claystone
ash
lahar
mudflow
lava flow
conglomerate
agglomerate
fanglomerate
chert
diatomite
arkose
greywacke

And let's not forget that marine rocks (e.g., sandstone, siltstone, etc.) can be calcareous or non-calcareous, dolomitic, and they can be in contact with each other or within inches of each other. The rocks interfinger and grade into other rocks over large and small horizontal distances. Limestones and shales can also be sandy or silty, displaying wispy discontinuous seams of reworked bentonite, or silt, or glauconite, or fossil hash, or have 3 foot thick beds of sand or calcarenite.

They can show bedding, either laminar or wavy or cross-bedded or scoured, or be massive showing no bedding at all - at least until you look at it with a handlens. Fossils may or may not be partially or fully replaced by sulfide, burrows as well, only the sulfide is much finer grained. Oh, lets also not forget there are minute fossils too small to see, forams, and fecal pellets present in the rocks. Some are in perfect shape, others crushed or flattened due to compaction.

Concretions can also be present and these occur in the SAME horizon for hundreds of square miles.

Mapping the lithologies and fossils across the surface and subsurface shows stream/river systems, valleys, beaches, shallow seas, volcanic terrains.

The fossil ammonites and inoceramids located at the bottom of a strat column are one type and do not appear again anywhwere else. Three hundred feet up from the bottom are different ammonites and inoceramids, at the top are still other fossil types, the only differences are morphological. Babies, juveniles, and adults all occurring together - and dying together. Somewhat difficult for hydraulic sorting, I would think. How does water sort upon the morphology of small or large ridges?

And how would a flood keep the EXACT same order of fossil occurrence in an swath from Central Canada to Texas and Utah to Nebrask, but not in Nevada or Missouri?

I'm particularly interested in how water deposited the various volcanic rocks, too, especially the continental flood basalts such as the Deccan Traps.

This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-05-2006 01:28 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 11:28 PM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 34 of 304 (292276)
03-05-2006 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-05-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Hell on Earth?
LOL Are you serious?

No one is going to acknowledge such a stupidly ridiculous thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:22 AM Faith has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 3423 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 35 of 304 (292278)
03-05-2006 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-05-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Hell on Earth?
Maybe we can talk about layers, if you go read about how floods work, and no it is not incompatible with the geological time frame. we wouldn't use it if it was

what it is is imcompatible with how floods work, please show any evidence that floods lay down rock and sediment in the same fashion that geologist have found, floods do not work that way

this isn't even getting into the impossibility of how that much water would effect the world heat wise, energy wise and other factors involved with such a world change

This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-05-2006 02:56 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:22 AM Faith has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 4508 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 304 (292292)
03-05-2006 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
03-04-2006 10:57 PM


Re: Hell on Earth?
Faith,

I could certainly ask why *I* bother, since I've made a ton of terrific points about these things since I've been at EvC and get totally ignored.

You have not made a single valid point, let alone a terrific one. All your points are ad hoc. You have previously claimed that the evidence is "staggeringly" in favour of the flood, yet presented nothing but unsubstantiated hand-waving. Hardly staggering.

Now, please address the OP.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 03-05-2006 05:03 AM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 10:57 PM Faith has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 4508 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 304 (292293)
03-05-2006 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-05-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Hell on Earth?
Faith,

In addition to rox's post 33, add rythmites.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:22 AM Faith has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2243 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 38 of 304 (292295)
03-05-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
03-05-2006 12:22 AM


Re: Hell on Earth?
Sure, we can talk about all that, AFTER somebody finally acknowledges that the way the layers are made is totally incompatible with the idea of millions of years of deposition.

Faith,
Please explain to me the Flood explanantion for the white cliffs of Dover. This is a 100 meter thick layer of chalk (am not going into the stratigraphy, in reality the deposit represents over 250 m total). Chalk is made up of microscopic calcareous skeletons of a single celled algae called coccolithophores. These still exist today, still bloom and make depositions in the world's oceans. Because they are photosynthetic and their skeletons are opaque to light a massive bloom can only sustain itself for a short time before they all die off (coccolith blooms can be devastating to 'normal' plankton production). Here is a photo:


Click to enlarge

The blooms make the water too turbid for photosynthesis. Anyway, these massive blooms are sporadic. Deposition (sedimentation) of coccoliths is less than 1 mm per year, simply cannot be any more. So the 100 meter Dover cliffs represent AT LEAST 100,000 years of deposition by any scenario you can imagine.

The only YEC argument I can see is that all of the world's coccoliths during the flood died in one place (ignoring other chalk formations worldwide). Does anyone have a ballpark figure for the volume of chalk in Dover? My calculation for a world-wide maximum (if the entire ocean surface, here the Earth with 22 km diamter added for the water, were to suffer a coccolith bloom) is 510 km^3 per year if coccoliths could deposit at 1 mm/yr (this is twice the deposition rate that has ever been recorded). That is alot, but I suspect far less than needed IF all of the coccoliths were somehow compelled to die in one spot.

This is only one type of sedimentary rock, Faith. YEC's 200 years ago couldn't explain it and became OEC's. Your take?

This message has been edited by Admin, 03-05-2006 08:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:22 AM Faith has not replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 304 (292333)
03-05-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
03-04-2006 11:28 PM


Re: hopeless
quote:
I HAVE dealt with the evidence many many times on this forum, and for a person to come along who is brand new here and make judgments like yours is completely uncalled for.

I don't think it is. I don't even need to read any further than this one thread to know where you stand. I may be new, but your arguments are old.
But if my judgment is uncalled for, then tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you do not put theology before science. You've already said above that "the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict." So again, what's the point in even subscribing to 'scientific creationism' when you ultimately don't care what the science part has to say? Science is a double-edged sword, but you wield it like it only cuts one way. For this reason, there is no debating with you. Now tell me I'm wrong.
Or better yet, prove to me I'm wrong. Tell me what 'scientific creationism' has to say about the multi-layered, rooted lycopod forests in Joggins, Nova Scotia. Or tell me what it has to say about angular unconformities in the rock record. Or tell me about your perspective concerning the distribution of trace fossils as they occur throughout the geologic column. If you've answered these concerns elsewhere, please tell me where; if not, please address them here. And if you have nothing to say to these issues, then please do not shrug them off as I have seen you do in other threads by pretending that the details don't matter. Instead, do yourself a favour and research them so that you can come back here and shut me up. ;)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 11:28 PM Faith has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 718 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 304 (292347)
03-05-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
03-04-2006 5:40 PM


Re: No approach has even the least likelihood of success
You bet the Bible is right whenever there is a conflict. But that doesn't mean there aren't also scientific observations that accord with it. There are plenty.

My two cents worth: any amounts of evidence FOR something are not enough to claim any validity.

There is lots of evidence available to your common senses for the earth to be flat and the center of the universe around which all else revolves.

What it comes down to is what evidence you need to deny to maintain a {phylosophical\theoretical\belief} position -- and that the position that needs to deny the least amount of contra-indicating evidence is the most likely solution. This is the essence of unbiased scientific analysis.

On the otherhand any position that preconcludes that a {phylosophical\theoretical\belief} position is correct before the evidence is even considered (as Faith does here in the opening line) is the essence of biased unscientific dogma.

The denial of contra-indicating evidence is the better indicator of relative validity than any amount of positive evidence can ever overcome.

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:40 PM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 41 of 304 (292374)
03-05-2006 12:27 PM


These are the sorts of relationships I'm referring to: interfingering, gradations, and abrupt lithologic changes both vertically and horizontally.

Although there is no scale, the entire basin (Araripe Basin) is ~200 km wide and located in eastern Brazil.

1. Coarse sands and grits of the Exu Formation.

2. Laminated silty mudstones of the Simoes Member.

3. Santana Formation. Mainly mudstones with thin limestones and bands of concretions with fish.

4. Fine sands, silts and silty mudstones attributable to the Batateiras Formation, and tongues within the Crato, Ipubi and Santana Formations.

5. Evaporites of the Ipubi Formation.

6. Organic-rich mudstones and laminated carbonates of the Crato Formation.

7. Red and green mudstones of the Missao Velha Formation.

8. Medium to coarse sandstone bodies of fluvial units within the Missao Velha Formation.

9. Conglomerates, grits and coarse sandstones of the Cariri Formation.

10.Igneous basement. In places this may be overlain unconformably by the Exu Formation, but there may be some intrusive contacts.

11.Metamorphic basement. Usually high grade Proterozoic gneisses. Some pelitic rocks in south of basin.

.
.
.
.
And so we have an idea of just how small this basin is compared to the planet, see image below. How does a global flood of catastrophic proportions leave such relatively minute depositional features?

SOURCE of images.


sidelined
Member (Idle past 5221 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 42 of 304 (292381)
03-05-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
03-04-2006 7:25 PM


Faith

Antarctica was not always at the pole, but moved there when the continents split apart from the original "Pangaea," which Floodists believe occurred as a result of the tectonic forces released in the Flood, and occurred a lot more rapidly than science allows.

How fast it occurs is not a function of what science allows but of what nature allows. Tectonic forces are not capable of moving a continent the size of Antarctica to its present position in the short period necessary to support your time frame.You must also recall that plate tectonics move all nations and this movement {at the rate you are implying} would be observable by anyone.

I don't get why you ask "if there were no ice after the flood where did all the ice today come from?" All the ice on the planet started after the Flood, again a result of the great upheavals the planet went through at that time, including possibly the tilting of the axis of the planet, or simply the removal of what is often considered to have been a great "canopy" of moisture that surrounded the planet, keeping warmth in -- which canopy provided all the rain for the Flood.

The problem is that the antartic is a desert and recieves little in the way of precipitation.From wikipedia

sheet that is, on average, 2.5 kilometres thick. Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres. This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Warmer temperatures are expected to lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans [1]. During a recent decade, East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres per year while West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres per year (Davis et al., Science 2005) DOI:10.1126/science.1110662 .

1.8 centimeters per year{3/4 of an inch} on a continent that is 2700 meters thick equates to a minimum of 150000 years if the ice stays put. However,the ice in the antarctic flows to the sea in ice streams so this process has obviously been going on for longer than that. Reference
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/winter99/science.html

The "canopy" as you call it poses severe problems, The column of air between you and the edge of space provides the air pressure that we maesure at sea level to be 16 pounds per square inch,or for a person with a head covering 80 square inches {8 x 10} there is a pressure on the persons head of 1280 pounds.
Now we place into the atmosphere a mass of water sufficient to produce the flood and we now have a huge increase in the pressure upon the creatures on the surface. There would need have been no flood since life on the surface for the most part would not exist.
This does not take into consideration the enormaous heat necessaryy to produce thermal updrafts sufficient to bouy this volume of water aloft.

And this is only a small fraction of the difficulties this line of thinking incurs.Pleaase do not try to bring in the tilting of earths axis since this would give the grim reaper more pleasure than he could handle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 7:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:48 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 54 by DBlevins, posted 03-05-2006 5:03 PM sidelined has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 757 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 304 (292382)
03-05-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by sidelined
03-05-2006 12:46 PM


Whatever you all say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 03-05-2006 12:46 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-05-2006 1:18 PM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 44 of 304 (292390)
03-05-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
03-05-2006 12:48 PM


such a very elegant debate technique.

you are demonstrating very clearly that your only purpose here is one (at best) of hopeful conversion and (at worst) of some twisted prideful showing-off of however superior you find yourself to be. you have no interest in debate. you have no interest in knowledge or understanding. you only have an interest in telling us how smart you are and how much you know and how amazingly foolish all of us wh understand that 33 feet of water doubles the pressure of the ENTIRE atmosphere or that "recently" uplifted mountains hold fossils, particularly of marine life, but that volcanic ones do not thus demonstrating that it's a function of being uplifted and not of a global flood.

you have a petty and disruptive way of discussing information and whenever you don't like something someone else says, you simply call them deceived or liars or idiots.

# Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

i'm calling you on this in hopes that you will amend your ways. i don't care if you change your mind, but your method of participation is completely detrimental.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 12:48 PM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17178
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 45 of 304 (292406)
03-05-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
03-04-2006 5:27 PM


Since Faith complains about the points not being addressed I'll take this on.
quote:

But my main concern about the layers is not so much that I understand how the Flood could have created them (although I've read the hydraulic theory and think it reasonable), but that they are NOT compatible with the idea of slow deposition over millennia. And I think OBVIOUSLY not, I think LAUGHABLY not.

So fat this is just an opinion. And one that is completely at odds with informed expert opinion. Abd see the point raised about the White CLiffs of Dover earlier in the thread.

quote:

Particular sediments laid down in succession with particular fossil life entombed within them, supposely all laid down increment by increment over enormous swaths of time -- even underwater (at least they have the sense to realize that it WOULD take water to produce such a phenomenon) -- the thing is absurd.


Well it's not true that all strata are laid down underwater. There are subaerial formations known to exist.

But so far all we have is an opinion. WHY is it absurd ? It makes sense to me. The Flood idea doesn't - geologists know the sorts of rock that form quickly - and there's plenty that don't, that are found in supposed "Flood" strata.

The real damning fact is that "Flood" geologists can't even identify which rocks were supposed to be produced by the Flood just on their geological properties. Isn't it odd that the Flood would fail to produce distinctive rock types that can be identified as such ? It's just like the creationist idea of "kinds". A creationist invention without any real scientific basis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-04-2006 5:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 2:44 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022