Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 12:29 AM
22 online now:
edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 31 of 163 (558408)
05-01-2010 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Vacate
05-01-2010 3:37 AM


Re: It is said: There is plenty of strata on Mars...
Hi Vacate,

I remember reading about the discovery of what appear to be sedimentary layers on Mars, and I had seen the image you linked to before:

But I also have a vague recollection that one the Mars rovers lucked out into wandering by an outcrop that showed evidence of sedimentary layers. Does that sound familiar at all, or am I maybe misremembering?

No, I think I'm right. I just poked around on the net a bit and this Wikipedia article appears to allude to this in passing: Gusev (Martian crater). Couldn't find the rover image of the layers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 3:37 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 7:11 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:21 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 51 by Kitsune, posted 05-01-2010 3:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2763 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 32 of 163 (558412)
05-01-2010 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-01-2010 6:22 AM


Re: It is said: There is plenty of strata on Mars...
But I also have a vague recollection that one the Mars rovers lucked out into wandering by an outcrop that showed evidence of sedimentary layers

I am not sure of any news articles regarding the layers. I mostly troll the images and this is the first one that came to mind taken by a rover:

ABE: The photo is the Opportunity Rover in Victoria crater.

Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 6:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31603
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 163 (558417)
05-01-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by DrJones*
05-01-2010 12:46 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Yes Mars is just a bald sphere, it certainly doesn't have a mountain thrice the height of Everest. Olympus Mons is right here on Earth. And it doesn't have canyon systems either, afterall the Valles Marineris is greater than anything on Mars.

As I said:

...pretty much a bald sphere except for the scars where pieces of flying space debris have collided with it, sometimes releasing magma from the interior in volcanoes and jostling the crust a bit too, but without anything to compare with the tectonic breakup on Earth.

Mars has some features, yes, but the overall look is of a uniform bald planet. It has what you say, a high mountain and a deep valley, apparently formed by the impact of the flying meteors which released the volcanoes. There's quite a bit less of all that than on planet Earth, however. Also, the sides of the valley are uniform, not stratified as in the Grand Canyon. The "skirt" of eroded material from the sides is all uniform, not in stratified layers as in the Grand Canyon.

And the stratifications that can be seen in some pictures are all of the same kind of stuff, not the separated sediments we see on Earth -- it took the Flood to separate them out like that on Earth.

No, local floods couldn't do that on the scale we see it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by DrJones*, posted 05-01-2010 12:46 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 11:08 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31603
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 163 (558418)
05-01-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-01-2010 6:22 AM


Re: It is said: There is plenty of strata on Mars...
That picture is not of strata, certainly not of strata such as we see on earth. It looks like what happens when you pour hot fudge or pudding, or thick mud, just ripplings at the edges. Lava flow perhaps. If you cut through it vertically you will see no strata. There is nothing on Mars like our strata of completely different kinds of sediments.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 6:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31603
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 163 (558420)
05-01-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Vacate
05-01-2010 2:56 AM


Re: Flood evidence
Volcanism on other planets was apparently caused by meteor hits that broke through the crust, according to something I read. Perhaps some on Earth had the same cause. All I said was that all these forces including the movement of the continents were part of the same cataclysmic event on Earth. No "magic" anything. What look like strata on other planets is nothing like Earth strata with the completely different sediments all neatly horizontally laid down. The worldwide extent of them ought to convince a person that local floods didn't do that.

The idea that they were laid down gradually over time is also ridiculous because it implies that nothing happened except the quiet laying down of the layers for billions of years and then all of a sudden after all that time they suddenly were cut into by gigantic canyons, carvings of the hoodoos and other features that expose the strata's height and depth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 2:56 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 10:41 AM Faith has responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2763 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


(1)
Message 36 of 163 (558444)
05-01-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:29 AM


Flood evidence on Mars?
Volcanism on other planets was apparently caused by meteor hits that broke through the crust, according to something I read. Perhaps some on Earth had the same cause

Good, then you are no longer claiming that only a period of "upheaval" after a worldwide flood can cause volcanoes.

All I said was that all these forces including the movement of the continents were part of the same cataclysmic event on Earth. No "magic" anything.

You say that but provide no evidence to support your assertion. I see no reason to think that your story is anything but a story. Tell me what evidence you have that it was one flood and not two, for example.

What is magical about your idea is that you give no reason why it is even worth considering. You are giving a "just so" story that isn't even logically consistent. If fossils are only created in a worldwide flood, is the worldwide flood water special? What is the difference between this special non-magical fossil creating water and normal water?

What look like strata on other planets is nothing like Earth strata with the completely different sediments all neatly horizontally laid down.

This makes no sense. Mars sediments look nothing like Earth sediments, but the photo that I provided certainly looks like "sediments all neatly horizontally laid down" martian sediments. It would be a tad absurd for you to require Mars to have the same looking sediments when the planet is not composed of the same materials. I admit the photo doesn't look like Earths rocks/sediments but I did provide a photo that shows anything but a "uniform sphere" (mountains and valleys aside). I don't need to provide a photo that looks identical to Earths materials, I simply provided an photo that shows many layers of sedimentary rock in a crater that eroded by wind over an unknown period of time. Now since something similar on Earth is evidence for a flood, my contention is your logic dictates a worldwide flood also occurred on Mars.

then all of a sudden after all that time they suddenly were cut into by gigantic canyons, carvings of the hoodoos and other features that expose the strata's height and depth.

Care to point to this "all of a sudden theory"? I mean from scientists and not creationists. A specific example of a gigantic canyon would be great. While your at it can you provide some links to scientists who say things cannot change (wind, water, temperature, etc) because a passing glance at the news reveals that nature changes quite often for the unexpected. So while a creationist may be at a loss to explain why a river suddenly changes direction, a person who looks for evidence can find plenty of examples how it does happen for various reasons even within our short lifespans.

from message 35 writes:

And the stratifications that can be seen in some pictures are all of the same kind of stuff, not the separated sediments we see on Earth -- it took the Flood to separate them out like that on Earth.

No, it took Earth materials to look like Earth materials. Flood or no flood Mars could never have the same separated sediments as Earth because Mars doesn't even have those types of rock/sediments (or at least in the same amounts or locations)

from message 34 writes:

It looks like what happens when you pour hot fudge or pudding, or thick mud, just ripplings at the edges. Lava flow perhaps.

Wrong. Read the caption under the picture. Those are Yardangs formed from wind in sedimentary layers. The layers are inside a crater. An impact formed a crater, the crater filled with sediments. Those sediments are now eroded rock and that picture is huge, those layers are deep.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 11:24 AM Vacate has responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 37 of 163 (558446)
05-01-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:16 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Hi Faith.

...it took the Flood to separate them out like that on Earth.

How? I thought I'd ask since you just maxed out my "Faith's Baseless Assertions" index for today.

No, local floods couldn't do that on the scale we see it.

Not surprisingly, this is your only statement in this whole thread with which I can agree. Alas, of course we agree for different reasons, but here again I'd be obliged if you could offer supporting evidence for what you're no doubt implying.

Thanks, and have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 11:25 AM Apothecus has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31603
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 163 (558448)
05-01-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Vacate
05-01-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Flood evidence on Mars?
Volcanism on other planets was apparently caused by meteor hits that broke through the crust, according to something I read. Perhaps some on Earth had the same cause

Good, then you are no longer claiming that only a period of "upheaval" after a worldwide flood can cause volcanoes.

I did not say anything of the sort about the cause of volcanoes. What I said in Message 22 was:

After the Flood or as part of that whole period of upheaval, the continents broke apart, magma from the Earth's interior pushed up the volcanoes, tectonic forces raised the mountains.

I said it was all part of the same event, I certainly did not say the upheaval was the only cause of volcanoes. Do learn to read more carefully. It's hard enough debating these things without being misread.

All I said was that all these forces including the movement of the continents were part of the same cataclysmic event on Earth. No "magic" anything.

You say that but provide no evidence to support your assertion.

Stop changing the subject. I was correcting your misreading. At least get what I'm saying and then raise other questions.

I see no reason to think that your story is anything but a story. Tell me what evidence you have that it was one flood and not two, for example.

What is magical about your idea is that you give no reason why it is even worth considering. You are giving a "just so" story that isn't even logically consistent. If fossils are only created in a worldwide flood, is the worldwide flood water special? What is the difference between this special non-magical fossil creating water and normal water?

I did not say fossils could ONLY be created in a worldwide flood, I was clear that there could be other causes but that the Flood is the best explanation for what we actually see of the worldwide extent of the fossils in the stratifications. The actual strata are WORLDWIDE and PACKED WITH FOSSILS, and the conditions for such phenomena would have been met in such a worldwide event -- the rapidity of burial, the compression -- AND it all occurred in SEPARATED SEDIMENTS that then solidified into limestones and sandstones and shales -- the laying down of separate sediments wouldn't happen on any long-term scenario but could be explained by a large quantity of water. All that is good evidence for a worldwide Flood. There is nothing magical about it except in your illogical mind.

What look like strata on other planets is nothing like Earth strata with the completely different sediments all neatly horizontally laid down.

This makes no sense. Mars sediments look nothing like Earth sediments, but the photo that I provided certainly looks like "sediments all neatly horizontally laid down" martian sediments.

NO, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE SEDIMENTS such as we see in the Grand Canyon -- different limestones, sandstones, shales and so on -- they are all the same Martian stuff in some kind of layering but not at all like we see on Earth. All over the Earth you can see places where the strata have been exposed, the Grand Canyon area the place where you can see the most in one place, and to a depth of a mile at least, two if you figure it all in together with the strata of the Grand Staircase to the north of the GC. You see layer upon layer of DIFFERENT sediments stacked up neatly horizontally. And you can see this all over the Earth though not to such a depth in most cases. Where would those separate sediments come from if each layer represents millions of years? Why a few million years of a certain kind of limestone which suddenly changes to a few million years of a certain kind of clay? Ridiculous idea. But a Flood that could sort sediments to a depth of two miles would be a worldwide Flood.

It would be a tad absurd for you to require Mars to have the same looking sediments when the planet is not composed of the same materials. I admit the photo doesn't look like Earths rocks/sediments but I did provide a photo that shows anything but a "uniform sphere" (mountains and valleys aside).

Thank you for admitting that Mars does not have strata like those on earth.

I said Mars is "pretty much" bald and it is. There are some scars on the surface. The Valle Marineris just looks like a big scar on an otherwise smooth sphere. Up close it looks like a deep gouge, no layering, just fallen eroded material all in one "skirt." There are craters elsewhere where meteors hit -- some filled with lava where the impact broke through to the magma beneath the crust.

Here's what I said in Message 22

Mars for sure had no planet-wide Flood and therefore no strata. It's pretty much a bald sphere except for the scars where pieces of flying space debris have collided with it, sometimes releasing magma from the interior in volcanoes and jostling the crust a bit too, but without anything to compare with the tectonic breakup on Earth.

I don't need to provide a photo that looks identical to Earths materials, I simply provided an photo that shows many layers of sedimentary rock in a crater that eroded by wind over an unknown period of time.

Yes, and you are right that there are some kind of strata there, but none of it looks even remotely like our miles deep separated rock strata.

Now since something similar on Earth is evidence for a flood, my contention is your logic dictates a worldwide flood also occurred on Mars.

There is nothing about the look of Mars that suggests a worldwide Flood.

then all of a sudden after all that time they suddenly were cut into by gigantic canyons, carvings of the hoodoos and other features that expose the strata's height and depth.

Care to point to this "all of a sudden theory"? I mean from scientists and not creationists. A specific example of a gigantic canyon would be great

Think, just think. Take a look at the Grand Canyon. Take a look at the formations in the Southwest US. In fact take a look anywhere on earth you can see some of the strata exposed. But especially the Grand Canyon.

What do you see? A stack of horizontally laid down different sediments to a depth of a mile. But no canyon was cut through them until the stack was finished all the way to the top. How come for billions of years those layers just quietly accumulated with no canyon being cut into them until they were all there?

Think.

You don't need a scientist or anyone to prove this point. Just think.

While your at it can you provide some links to scientists who say things cannot change (wind, water, temperature, etc) because a passing glance at the news reveals that nature changes quite often for the unexpected. So while a creationist may be at a loss to explain why a river suddenly changes direction, a person who looks for evidence can find plenty of examples how it does happen for various reasons even within our short lifespans.

I don't say things can't change. I'm saying the strata OBVIOUSLY didn't change, just look at them. There they are all stacked up from a depth of one mile, undisturbed until the canyon was cut AFTER they were all there. Question is why did the world wait a few billion years before cutting the canyon through them all?

from message 35 writes:
And the stratifications that can be seen in some pictures are all of the same kind of stuff, not the separated sediments we see on Earth -- it took the Flood to separate them out like that on Earth.

No, it took Earth materials to look like Earth materials.

Flood or no flood Mars could never have the same separated sediments as Earth because Mars doesn't even have those types of rock/sediments (or at least in the same amounts or locations)

And you know exactly what the surface of Mars is made of and that it couldn't be broken up into separated sediments just as Earth was?

There is absolutely no logical reason why a period of a few million years would only accumulate clay which became shale, and then in the next period of millions of years only sand which became sandstone, and the next a kind of limestone and the next a different kind of limestone. Not to mention that you'd need the compression of a huge stack above to turn them to rock and fossilize the dead things contained in them or it would all erode away. None of it makes sense on the Old Earth idea. But it does make sense on the idea that it was all sorted out into layers by water -- to a depth of AT LEAST a mile remember. That depth means the water was worldwide.

from message 34 writes:
It looks like what happens when you pour hot fudge or pudding, or thick mud, just ripplings at the edges. Lava flow perhaps.

Wrong. Read the caption under the picture. Those are Yardangs formed from wind in sedimentary layers. The layers are inside a crater. An impact formed a crater, the crater filled with sediments. Those sediments are now eroded rock and that picture is huge, those layers are deep.

You are looking at the wrong picture. I was talking about the one Percy posted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 10:41 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 12:51 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31603
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 39 of 163 (558449)
05-01-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Apothecus
05-01-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
There's plenty of evidence in my description in Message 22if you just think about it. What we actually see is best explained by what I described than by the usual geological explanations. And if that's not good enough read the description just above this post.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 11:08 AM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 7:37 PM Faith has responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 585 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 40 of 163 (558450)
05-01-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
04-30-2010 5:29 PM


Re: Re fossils
subbie writes:

Fossils on mountains are only evidence of a Noachian flood if you assume that the mountains have always been that high. Given that there are massive amounts of independent evidence showing that this is not the case, the only reason to make this assumption would be to save the flood myth. This, of course, would amount to circular reasoning.

You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.

You are correct on the facts subbie, but I think you are wrong on what YECs believe about the mountains. YEC do believe that there was one super continent with very little mountains on it until the flood. YEC would say that the waters breaking forth from the deep along with massive plate tectonic movements and volcanic eruptions formed the mountains during the catastrophic event. We can debate whether that is true or possible all we want, I'm just clarifying what a creationist geologist like Andrew Snelling would say happened.

That along with other events immediately following the flood such as an ice age.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 04-30-2010 5:29 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 163 (558451)
05-01-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
05-01-2010 12:27 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Everything points to a worldwide Flood on Earth for a rational person who just looks at the evidence.

You are preaching.

This is the science forum. I wish you would stick to empirical evidence instead of trying to pass off ancient tribal myths as being supported by modern science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 12:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2352 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 42 of 163 (558452)
05-01-2010 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
05-01-2010 12:27 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
There were no high mountains before the Flood. The land was relatively flat, with just some low hills. The Flood then covered it all, dissolved and broke it all up and separated out the various sediments which it redeposited in the strata -- ALL the strata -- no strata could have been formed apart from the Flood. They are worldwide, they are composed of separate sediments, they are all packed full of fossilized life forms. All the living things died at the same time just as God said they would, and were fossilized because the conditions were perfect for fossilization and otherwise such conditions hardly ever occur. They are there as a witness to the Flood for those who have the eyes to see. There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood, the only kind of event capable of doing all that.

After the Flood or as part of that whole period of upheaval, the continents broke apart, magma from the Earth's interior pushed up the volcanoes, tectonic forces raised the mountains. The mountains too were all made up of the strata laid down by the Flood and packed with the dead things that all the strata are packed with. So we find marine creatures in the high mountains.


Your scenario would have killed off anything that survived your Biblical flood. Raising mountains in that short of time would have created large tsunamis and the amount of volcanic activity would make the Iceland volcano spewing ash & dust the past few weeks, look like a brush fire, by comparison.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 12:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2462 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 43 of 163 (558454)
05-01-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
04-30-2010 9:50 PM


Re: Fossils?
Thanks for that Coragyps. Fortunately I'm aware enough of these methods to have used them in debating creationists. I was interested in Coyote's claim that all you have to do is find the soil though -- without dating fossils, without dating rocks. I would have thought these things were pretty essential. If you've got a paleosol older than 40,000 years with no volcanic deposits near the stratum and no fossils (though this doesn't seem likely to me), then what?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 04-30-2010 9:50 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2763 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 44 of 163 (558456)
05-01-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
05-01-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Flood evidence on Mars?
I said it was all part of the same event, I certainly did not say the upheaval was the only cause of volcanoes.

You did say

quote:
There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood, the only kind of event capable of doing all that.

I assumed that "all that" also included the period of upheaval mentioned directly after; that broke apart continents, pushed up volcanoes, etc. So if the flood wasn't needed to cause volcanoes can I also assume its not needed to break up continents?

Do learn to read more carefully. It's hard enough debating these things without being misread.

Fair enough, I was a bit quick on thinking I understood something that, to me, sounds pretty far out there. I will try and get a lot more clarification from you before I begin to think I understand you in these matters.

Stop changing the subject. I was correcting your misreading. At least get what I'm saying and then raise other questions.

I raised the question, the question still stands. I feel little need to raise more questions when the most obvious seems to be the unique properties of the water at that time. You said it right here in message 22:

quote:
There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood

So either support your assertion with evidence or I am left with "magical water". No subject change required. (*** you do talk of this further down the post, fair is fair ***)

I did not say fossils could ONLY be created in a worldwide flood

Good. I hope your clear enough that I can think I understand.

conditions for such phenomena would have been met in such a worldwide event

For the most part, correct. But all it takes is one example and it falls apart. There are plenty of counter examples that creationists fail to address. Cliffs of Dover to start.

There is nothing magical about it except in your illogical mind.

Hey now, don't forget you wrote this:

quote:
There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood

You left me scratching my head. I think I have it figured out now though that the strata, fossils, volcanoes, and possibly more items can form from something other than a worldwide flood. I think this is progress!

Why a few million years of a certain kind of limestone which suddenly changes to a few million years of a certain kind of clay?

Because once the land isn't covered by ocean its pretty unlikely that it will continue to accumulate the corpses of marine organisms. I don't care how long it was underwater, once its not its done creating limestone layers. Rivers change direction and land rises and falls. You can find examples in your newspaper.

Thank you for admitting that Mars does not have strata like those on earth.

No problem, I have eyes. I would neither make the claim nor suggest it. I believe I have explained myself enough on this matter, if you want further explanation or a quote just ask.

There is nothing about the look of Mars that suggests a worldwide Flood.

The only item that isn't present on Mars that you have mentioned is continental breakup. Mars even does it better in some cases.(volcanoes and canyons) So the only thing that differs is that on Earth the layers are composed of different materials. I don't care how many times you flood Mars it will not have the same materials as Earth. Neither will Saturn. So obviously its going to look different, so how do we tell if the flood occurred? By looking at your other criteria - volcanoes, canyons, sedimentary layers, continental breakup. If I am missing any that you have mentioned please let me know.

I personally don't see why any of this has to do with a global flood but I don't see why it has to on Earth either.

How come for billions of years those layers just quietly accumulated with no canyon being cut into them until they were all there?

Why not a mile down the road? How is it the grand canyon got eroded but other areas a mile away not at all? Rivers change direction, read a newspaper.

Question is why did the world wait a few billion years before cutting the canyon through them all?

Why did the world wait a few billion to move the town of Concepcion 10 feet west? The answer is that everything changes, some things take a long damn time.

And you know exactly what the surface of Mars is made of and that it couldn't be broken up into separated sediments just as Earth was?

No, but evidence suggests that it all pretty much looks the same from the photos that I have seen. Certainly not the variety that is present on Earth. There could be a larger variety of rock on Mars for all I know, a few rovers and satellite images on Mars is hardly comparable to our current knowledge of Earth.

None of it makes sense on the Old Earth idea.

Things change, and not according to your schedule apparently.

You are looking at the wrong picture. I was talking about the one Percy posted.

Percy was kind enough to re-post the image from my link. My link has the caption that explains what the image shows. No hot fudge, just layers of sedimentary rock eroded by wind.

(I didn't write much of anything on your flood evidence, I have been up since yesterday and tried to keep this post as short as possible. I didn't ignore it for any other reason and hope we can perhaps discuss it next post or on another thread? I hope I have, at least trivially, explained my point of view by simply saying "things change")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 11:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 5:34 PM Vacate has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 45 of 163 (558459)
05-01-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
05-01-2010 12:27 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Hi Faith, it's a matter of simple logic, yes?

There were no high mountains before the Flood.
Everything points to a worldwide Flood on Earth for a rational person who just looks at the evidence.

So we agree that the mountains grew in height, and that the land that became mountains was underwater before the mountain growth occurred.

The fossils on mountains show complete ecosystems that have grown to maturity, with layer after layer of deposition of shells and other remnants as individuals died of old age at different times. Each undisturbed layer of mature ecosystems takes hundreds of years to form with the complexity shown in the evidence, with almost all of the organisms in the fossils being more than a year old. Many of the fossils are of mature organisms that were 30 to 40 years old (as shown by their shells) when buried. Many of the fossils of are organisms that grow in one place, attached to the bottom. Some corals are hundreds of years old, forming layers over layers of coral shell. Corals, sea fans, brachiopods, oysters, mussels and many other forms of sea life grow attached to the bottom.

Layers of such fossils that are many feet thick are common, accumulated from many generations of organisms living one after the other, with the shells of dead organisms becoming part of the bottom ecology for the next generation to grown on.

http://www.krabi-tourism.com/krabi/susanhoi.htm

quote:
The shell graveyard at Ban Laem Pho was once a large freshwater swamp, home to a kind of snail. Over eons dating from the Tertiary Age, about 40 million years ago, these snails lived and died by the million, to the extent that the dead snails formed a layer upon which existed the living.

Multiple layers growing on top of each other as old individuals died and new generations were born, grew to maturity and died, generation after generation.

quote:
These gastropods with Bivalves, spores and pollen are carefully preserved in calcareous clay stone while various sedimentary deposits then separate these layers over the eras. Tests have interpreted such deposit were made in the freshwater laccustrine environment.

And we see that the same kind of fossil shell evidence exists for fresh water species as for salt water species. Did the flood somehow segregate water into fresh and salt areas while these organisms grew?

Perhaps Leonardo da Vinci figured it out:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

quote:
In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

This evidence shows that this growth occurred over periods of hundreds to thousands of years.

If the growth occurred during the flood, can you explain how multiple generations of decades old individuals happened in less than a year?

Can you explain how anything can be more that 1 year old in no more than one layer (or less if there are multiple layers)?

Note that many of the organisms are intolerant of silt in the water, many are fragile.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32135320@N00/160912525/

If the growth did NOT occur during a relatively brief flood, can you explain how any of this is evidence of the flood?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 22 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 12:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Flyer75, posted 05-01-2010 2:18 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019