|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Better than slow sedimentation rates explains it. So how do slow sedimentation rates explain and how do fast sedimentation rates explain it? I'll judge for myself the one I feel is the better explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Folks,
I know this feels really weird because I, too, am debating in this thread, but we're only supposed to be examining evidence and arguments *for* the flood, not examining and defending modern geology. It is difficult to leave aside comparisons to the views of modern geology, but that's what we're supposed to be doing, and it makes sense because if we allow modern geology to be a distraction Faith will never have an opportunity to describe the creationist flood-scenario interpretation of the evidence. If someone proposes a thread to discuss creationist criticisms of modern geological views I will approve it as quickly as I can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Faith writes: Better than slow sedimentation rates explains it. And what is that explanation? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As I have already pointed the presence of marine fossils in mountains is better explained by conventional geology - because your explanation is essentially the same except that it greatly compresses the timescale (thus your version has significant addiitonal problems over the conventional view). And you have not shown that deserts are any different.
And you have yet to substantiate your other claims as I pointed out in Message 49. So far your only response has been to dismiss that message as dealing with points you weren't interested in. Yet you keep bringing them up again and again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
You are STILL ignoring my crystal clear question and seem to be unable to understand this thread is for you to provide evidence for the flood.
Fossils are as irrelevant as sedimentation rates if you cannot explain how flood waters precipitate limestone and dolomite, which as I already pointed out account for a significant portion of the global stratigraphy. You stated:
A reason the Flood is a better explanation for the fossil record is that huge quantities of wet sediments were involved, staggering quantities, that captured these dead things pretty obviously at one time and not piece by piece over millions of years, and then were subjected to tectonic forces that compressed them and reared the mountains. Yes, staggaring quanities of water deposited sediment are present in the global stratigraphy, and much of it is comprised of carbonate. How long are you going to ignore this request? If you cannot provide an explanation, then the flood is NOT the best explanation. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-06-2006 11:10 AM This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 12:15 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
If someone does start that thread, Percy, can you hold off until Faith finishes with this one? Otherwise I fear she will abandon this one in favor of one where she is not required to provide evidence in order substantiate her claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4570 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Absolutely ridiculous.
The question was not "how well", the question was "how". Are you aware of a mechanism - a physical process guided by the laws of physics - by which the aforementioned formation could be produced by the phenomenon you claim? If not, then you have no explanation. *edit - this should be a reply to Faith's post 135* see Message 135 This message has been edited by zephyr, 03-06-2006 12:18 PM This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-06-2006 11:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Faith
Let us take some of the evidence you have presented to account for this. From your post http://EvC Forum: Define "Kind" -->EvC Forum: Define "Kind"we have this The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood. In the town of Field British Columbia is a formation known as the Burgess Shale. It is located at an elevation of 3000 feet 500 miles inland from the ocean.In a world wide flood how do the fossils arrive at their present destination intact?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Faith,
I just noticed that Roxrkool quoted this from you as an explanation for how sediments were layed down:
Faith writes: A reason the Flood is a better explanation for the fossil record is that huge quantities of wet sediments were involved, staggering quantities, that captured these dead things pretty obviously at one time and not piece by piece over millions of years, and then were subjected to tectonic forces that compressed them and reared the mountains. But this explanation is too general to cover limestone sediments, so let me ask a leading question. If we were to take a shallow sea such as some parts of the Mediterranean and select a particular square mile on which we focused a strong neutron-ray type device that instantly killed all sea life in that square mile, and if we were to assume that all that sea life sank immediately to the sea floor, to what depth do you think the sea floor would be covered in dead creatures? Now, what is the flood-scenario explanation for limestone deposits like the White Cliffs of Dover where the layers are two or three hundred meters thick? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Precipitated along with the clay sediment out of the currents in the flood waters possibly. The land was tectonically affected after the flood too, areas raised and lowered by the pressure.
But again I'm not interested in these questions. Just acknowledge that the existence of the enormous abundance of fossils found worldwide IS good evidence for a worldwide Flood, just on the face of it. The mechanics of the thing are secondary. Also please acknowledge that slow deposition is an absurd explanation for what is actually observed in the strata of the geo column, the discrete layers of particular sediments, just the one kind and no other for millions of years, and then another completely different kind for millions of years, and the apparent random distribution of the fossils within the layers, with no sign of evolution of one type to another over the millions of years supposedly represented from the bottom to the top of the layer. I understand this is not supposed to be the topic of this thread, but it WAS part of my post that Mark24 supposedly started this thread to answer. The appearance of the layering suggests water deposition over a relatively short period of time, whether we can specific all the mechanics involved or not, and suggests this far more reasonably than the idea of the laying down of teeny increments of this one and one only sediment for millions of years, with fossils just coming along and dying at their level of the sediment with large gaps of time in between.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5770 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
Faith - how does the global flood explain features of the earth like the Grand Canyon? You'd think that a body of water would provide more or less equal wear and erosion over an area, and not concentrate on a certain area more than the surrounding area to bore out rock and produce a canyon. Just a thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: Also please acknowledge that slow deposition is an absurd explanation... ... I understand this is not supposed to be the topic of this thread, but it WAS part of my post that Mark24 supposedly started this thread to answer. But comparing the two scenarios has proven many times to be an overwhelming distraction from understanding just what it is the flood scenario proposes. I will approve as rapidly as I can any thread proposal to examine the views of modern geology, but I'll have to rule discussion of it here as off-topic. Hoping you understand, thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Faith
But again I'm not interested in these questions. Just acknowledge that the existence of the enormous abundance of fossils found worldwide IS good evidence for a worldwide Flood, just on the face of it. The mechanics of the thing are secondary It is not good evidence of a flood if it cannot also explain the discprepencies though Faith. The mechanics of the thing are necessary to show how the evidence appears as it does and fossils this far inland at this height are not the only difficulty that occurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
And still you are ignoring a very important question that FALSIFIES your assertion that the flood is a better explanation for global stratigraphy.
Carbonate sediments form either chemically or biochemically within a basin and under extremely limited conditions. They require clear, warm, shallow (for photosynthesis), non-turbulent, and tropical to subtropical seas because the ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE organisms cannot surive outside this zone and the resulting ooze cannot tolerate abrasion by clastics. Turbulence causes muds to be churned up clogging the digestive tracts of the organisms. Non-biogenic limestone does not form anywhere else except in freshwater surficial settings, and those require carbonate supersaturation - which means NO dilution and NO clastic (e.g., sand) input. Carbonates today are only forming within 30 degrees latitude of the Equator. You are not interested in this question because you cannot support it. Simple as that. Old Earth models also adequately explain the fossils, so that in and of itself is NOT good evidence for a flood. You stated the flood was better at explaining everything. Not just the fossils:
Faith writes: Thank you purpledawn. These are two different explanations for the same phenomena but all Mark24 does and the others here do, is completely ignore the very reasonable and in fact more elegant theory of the flood which accounts for it all MUCH better than his theory. Time to support your assertion or concede it. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 01:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Even considering just the superficial issue of the number of fossils in my estimation an old Earth is a better explanation (and one which does still better when further evidence is taken into account). Why then should I acknowledge your assertion as true ?
quote: As I pointed out back in Message 49 this assertion is badly in need of support. There is no reason why I should acknowledge it as true until you rectify that situation.
quote: The claim of "random" distribution is one that needs to be supported. On the face of it the usefulness of index fossils alone falsifies it. The claim that evolution is not seen within strata is one that also needs support - and to the best of my knowledge it is false.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024