Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
38 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,555 Year: 18,591/19,786 Month: 1,011/1,705 Week: 263/518 Day: 27/60 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 217 of 372 (421649)
09-13-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by bluegenes
09-13-2007 1:34 PM


And the record of all this is .... in what book?
I don't suffer from sea-sickness, but I wouldn't have wanted to be on the Ark with all that going on underneath me.

Or after it landed if the continents were still combined then (gets animals from ark to australia, new zealand, hawaii, etc). Hyper-tectonics anyone?

Heh. Of course all those earthquakes, shifting landmass, hyperevolution of species were recorded too ... :rolleyes:

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2007 1:34 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by dwise1, posted 09-13-2007 3:31 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 220 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2007 6:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 219 of 372 (421653)
09-13-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by dwise1
09-13-2007 3:31 PM


and the fun keeps coming ...
The neat part about the gravity control hypothesis, is that each species as it travels to it's new habitat can be protected by a gravity well so that there is no cross-over of species that shouldn't be there.

(Of course there should also be evidence of these well tracks across the bottom of the oceans, but that just needs a different interpretation of what the bottom sediment covers ...)

All's 'well' that ends 'well'?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by dwise1, posted 09-13-2007 3:31 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 222 of 372 (421677)
09-13-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by The Matt
09-13-2007 6:13 PM


The fluxed gravity flood theory
Doesn't this kind of negate the need for 40 days and nights of rain? And you'd think the noticeably hummocky water would draw comment too...

But that's the real beauty of the theory: the storm makes the "hummocky water" appear normal (and how "hummocky" it would be depends on location and visibility - a couple miles tops. See below). They aren't necessarily linked after all:

http://www.genesis.net.au/%7Ebible/kjv/genesis/

quote:
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

7:4 ... and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


{abe}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

quote:
An ocean (from Ωκεανός, Okeanos (Oceanus) in Greek) is a major body of saline water, and a principal component of the hydrosphere. Approximately 71% of the Earth's surface (an area of some 361 million square kilometers) is covered by ocean, a continuous body of water that is customarily divided into several principal oceans and smaller seas. More than half of this area is over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep.

The area of the World Ocean is 361 million square kilometers (139 million sq mi),[4] its volume is approximately 1,300 million cubic kilometers (310 million cu mi)[5], and its average depth is 3,790 meters (12,430 ft).[4] Nearly half of the world's marine waters are over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep.[2] The vast expanses of deep ocean (anything below 200m) cover about 64% of the Earth's surface.[6] This does not include seas not connected to the World Ocean, such as the Caspian Sea.


So 71% of the surface is on average 12,430 ft, so spreading that out to 100% of the surface would mean the average depth would be 8,825 ft (1.67 miles). That would take out most of the "hummocky" effect. Peaks like the Himalayas (Everest etc) would be averaged out into one huge slow rising mound hard to distinguish from the curvature of the earth.

Fujiyama and Kilimanjaro might be seen as hills of water, but this would mean the ark was near them.
{/abe}

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : {abe} section

Edited by RAZD, : mtns


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by The Matt, posted 09-13-2007 6:13 PM The Matt has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by EighteenDelta, posted 09-14-2007 2:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 279 of 372 (510931)
06-04-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:44 PM


The Impossible Dream?
Hi Lysimachus,

Message 274

That could pose a problem, I suppose. I've read arguments from creationists against this. Some have proposed that there was supernatural involved.

Which, I predict, is where you will necessarily end up, if you insist on a world wide flood and honestly consider the evidence of long time no flood in so many areas of the world. For instance you can posit that god made the water flow over the land as it is, and end up with a much easier flood, but of course this is using the god-did-it excuse at the start.

The only question posed is, "were these mountains always there?" So regardless of whether a flood was in the picture or not matters little. Remember, the argument is that too much water would have been needed to cover these mountain peaks. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that the mountains were that high prior to the flood. And for good measure, mountains and islands are even being born today.

Correct, and no, the mountains were not always there, and also there used to be mountains that no longer exist, and there are mountains that are very worn down now compared to the (relatively) newcomers. These mountains form and erode on geological time, and when we compare the rate of geological time to grow a mountain like Mt Everest we find that the current growth of (growing) mountains is very similar to the rates of growth measured today - at Everest and other locations around the world.

Message 274

... or as a result of the seismic upheavel caused by the flood?

Curiously, water doesn't push mountains into existence. Water is less dense than rock. Now, you can of course, say that there was a supernatural cause for the seismic upheaval, in which case we've already gotten to the god-did-it excuse.

If you form the hard surface of the earth into a perfect oblate spheroid, then there is sufficient water to cover it, however you don't have the time nor a mechanism to form the mountains from that perfect oblate spheroid with known geological processes. Speeding up the processes creates more problems than it solves, as the friction would be sufficient to melt the rocks that you are trying to pile up, and your foundation collapses. In the end it requires supernatural means to accomplish in the time span YEC's insist on, so again you are already at the god-did-it excuse.

Message 274

It is my theory that these mountains were pushed up after the flood, since the earth was still suffering seismic after-shocks.

No, it is your ad hoc conjecture that this occurred. A theory has to be based on evidence and have a testable conclusion. The amount of seismic activity needed to form the known mountains in the time period of a few thousand years would be sufficient to cause the mountains to crumble and fall as fast as they formed.

Did the rest of the water partly vaporize and also settle into the earth as we know it?

Interestingly, the earth is not saturated with water, and there is a lot of void area inside the rocks and soil to take up a lot of water before flooding would occur. Fascinatingly, water doesn't "partly vaporize" there is no middle ground between liquid and gas phases (or the solid phase). Vapor doesn't "settle into the earth" it rises into the air. Which -- seeing as any time the air gets sufficient concentration it condenses and falls as rain, eventually running back into the oceans, AND as the total amount of moisture in the air right now is insufficient to cause the ocean to rise 1 foot -- doesn't solve the problem.

Message 274

In addition to this, let us not fail to recognize the fact that sea fossils have been found on the peaks of very high mountains.

Indeed. Fossils of organisms that, amazingly, make up layer after layer after layer of undisturbed mature marine ecosystem growth, including organism in every layer that are 5 to 50 years old. See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for more on this:

quote:
There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.
These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera.
...
Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

Can you explain how this is evidence of a brief flood?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : no


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 276 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:44 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 335 of 372 (511202)
06-07-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Peg
06-06-2009 12:30 AM


old newspaper articles and modern information
hey peg, bluescat48, lyx2no2, etc,

Could you give me the reference to the above?

here is a link to the article
Lake Rudolph Skull Fragments

This is an old newspaper article about the finding of a skull now known as Homo rudolfensis, and you can compare the pictures of the skull in the article to the one here:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html

quote:
ER 1470 was originally thought to have been a representative of the species Homo habilis, apparently vindicating Louis Leakey's long-held belief that large-brained members of the genus Homo existed in eastern African millions of years ago. The specimens cranial capacity of 775cc, is well in excess of earlier australopith brain size. The fossil was shown to Louis only several days before his death. But Richard Leakey, leader of the expedition which uncovered the skull, refused to firmly place ER 1470 into a species, listing it only as "Homo sp." or "genus Homo, but species indeterminate."

In the years that followed, as more examples of Homo habilis emerged, its assignment to the species H. habilis became a subject of debate. When compared with other Homo habilis specimens, such as KNM ER 1813 several morphological features differ from the classic habilis pattern. For example, in ER 1470, there is only a slight supraorbital torus without a depression behind it.

Many researchers now place ER 1470 within the species Homo rudolfensis along with several other early human fossils that had previously been assigned to H. habilis.


This is "F" in the picture below:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

quote:

Click to enlarge

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
  • (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  • (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
  • (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
  • (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
  • (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
  • (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
  • (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
  • (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
  • (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
  • (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
  • (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
  • (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
  • (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
  • (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Message 303

well the sediments are not consistent in the case of the Omo valley and Lake Rudolph. Even though the fragments Richard Leakey found were dated to 2.5 million years old, the skull was the same shape as modern man. He said that other bone fragments that were found such as the leg specimens were indistinguishable from the same bones of modern men.

but they were still dated to be 2.5 million years old.

As you can see from the above picture, the skull is clearly placed at an intermediate level of development along the trend of evolution from (B), Australopithecus africanus to (N), Homo sapiens, or (M) Homo sapiens, CroMagnon, at 30kyr old.

Further you can compare it to this 160,000 year old Homo sapiens skull and see that even then the brain capacity was significantly greater than is exibited by Homo rudolfensis:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml

quote:
HsapiensAdultFE_med.jpg`
The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.

The skulls, dug up near a village called Herto, fill a major gap in the human fossil record, an era at the dawn of modern humans when the facial features and brain cases we recognize today as human first appeared.


These Homo sapiens skulls fit between (I) and (M) in the picture above (J, K and L being neanders), close to (M).

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : s

Edited by RAZD, : time for bed

Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 308 by Peg, posted 06-06-2009 12:30 AM Peg has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 342 of 372 (511287)
06-08-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Coyote
06-08-2009 9:40 PM


games
Curiously I can reduce it to three words with

|G _ _ | _ _ _ | _ _ | ... the usual YEC end gambit,

god did it

or to two words with:

| _ _ _ | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | ... for the rest of us.

try reality

Let's play hangman eh?

Enjoy.

Off-topic blather hidden - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Coyote, posted 06-08-2009 9:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 360 of 372 (511769)
06-11-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


hypothesis and validated theory: geological colum and the law of superposition
Hi Peg, still having that denial problem eh?

I was not calling into question geology as a whole....even though the geologic column IS a hypothetical structure.

Actually it is a validated theoretical structure.

In science you move from evidence to hypothesis that explains the evidence to tests of the hypothesis with new evidence or experiments to validation of the tests or to invalidation of the hypothesis from the results of those tests.

One of those tests consists of a simple comparison of existing undisturbed sedimentary layers: if layer A is above layer B in one location, then whenever you can find both layer A and layer B in other locations, A will be above B. Another test is that where layer A is above layer B and layer B is above layer C, then whenever you can find layers A and C - with or without B (it may not extend as far as the other layers) - layer A will be above layer C.

This sequential layering is what forms the "geological column" even though there may be no one place where all the layers exist. An example of this kind of layering is shown here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/correlation.html

quote:

Click to enlarge

These sections are typical of the ones geologists prepare when studying the relationships of layers of rocks (beds) throughout a region. Each column represents the sequence of beds at a specific locality. The same beds, which in places may thicken or thin (some may pinch out entirely) according to the local environment of deposition, are bracketed within the lines connecting the three columns.

For convenience, geologists commonly group adjoining beds that possess similar or related features (including fossils) into a single, more conspicuous unit called a formation. The component beds of each formation are described, the formation is named, and the information is published for the use of all geologists. Formation names comprise two or more words, the first part usually taken from a geographic feature near which the rocks are prominently displayed. The last word indicates the principal rock type, or if of mixed rock types, the word formation is used: The Morrison Formation--the Wingate Sandstone--the Todilto Limestone--the Mancos Shale.


This has been massively tested and massively validated, as geologists have been doing this comparison for centuries, it is so massively tested that it is known as the Law of Superposition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition

quote:
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:
Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

The principle was first proposed in the 11th century by the Persian geologist, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), and the law was later formulated more clearly in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.[1]
...
Steno stated another, more general principle in this way:

“ If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface. ”
In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape.

Steno was able to show by this reasoning that fossils and crystals must have solidified before the host rock that contains them was formed. If a "tongue stone" had grown within a rock, it would have been distorted by the surrounding rock, in much the same way that a tree root is distorted by growing into a crack in the earth. Instead, the "tongue stone" must have been buried in soft sediments which hardened later. Veins (mineral-filled cracks) and many crystals, on the other hand, must have formed after the surrounding rock was a solid, because they often did show irregularities of form caused by having to conform to the surrounding solid rock.

Finally, in the case of strata, layers on top of a set of strata conform to the shape of lower layers. . . and therefore, in a set of strata, the youngest layers must be those of the top layer, and the oldest must lie on the bottom. This is because the youngest layer was deposited after the oldest layers, which determines their place in the layers. Since the oldest was deposited first it is on the bottom and vice versa.


And the top of each layer determines the shape of the bottom of the next layer above. This provides another way to test the concept: if layer A deforms layer B then it would be the first formed first to harden layer.

A third way that this concept has been tested is with radiometric dating: if the law of superposition is correct then the radiometric dating should show a progression of ages from oldest at the bottom to youngest at the top.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html (4)

quote:
However, there is an easier way to check if a method is reliable. We can see if it gives consistent answers against some other method.

For example, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating was tested against the Cenozoic-Era North American Land Mammal ordering. By ordering, I mean that rock layers were given numbers, with bigger numbers at greater depth. Each fossil was given the number of the rock layer it was found in. (Geologists call this stratigraphic order.) Here are the results:


Stratigraphic K-Ar Date # Samples
Position Name of Age (millions) Dated
======== ============ ======== ==========
1 Irvingtonian 1.36 1
2 Blancan 1.5 - 3.5 7
3 Hemphillian 4.1 -10.0 8
4 Claredonian 8.9 -11.7 16
5 Barstovian 12.3-15.6 9
6 Hemingfordian 17.1 1
7 Arikareean 21.3-25.6 4
8 Orellian --- 0
9 Chadronian 31.6-37.5 9
10 Duchesnean 37.5 3
11 Uintan 42.7-45.0 2
12 Bridgerian 45.4-49.0 2
13 Wasatchian 49.2 1
14 Puercan 64.8 1

The standard geological idea is that "deeper is older". (It's called the Principle of Superposition, and was invented two centuries before Darwin.) In this table, Superposition and K-Ar dating are mutually consistent.

Layer by layer the stratigraphic measures older by radiometric dating, entirely consistent with the long term deposition of sedimentary layers (and not some jumbled debris of some fantasy flood scenario). None of the K-Ar Dates overlap into the wrong sedimentary layers.

This same kind of layering, with oldest layer first, also occurs in limestone and calcite deposits, in stalactites and similar formations. These formation also trap radioactive isotopes that then decay, with the most decayed layers being the oldest first layers of the deposits.

Thus the law of superposition is validated in many ways, in many locations, for many many years.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2009 8:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 362 by Peg, posted 06-11-2009 9:14 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 371 of 372 (511799)
06-11-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Peg
06-11-2009 9:14 PM


what does "geological colum" mean to geologists?
content mooved to appease the moose

See Message 24

Edited by RAZD, : mooving

Edited by RAZD, : linked


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 362 by Peg, posted 06-11-2009 9:14 PM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019