Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:21 AM
38 online now:
Dredge (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
127NextFF
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 1896 (713417)
12-13-2013 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pollux
12-13-2013 3:42 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Three questions Faith.

Wouldn't it be nice of you first to acknowledge the reason why a Bible believer would reject an Old Earth defense?

1. How does a layer of sediment turn to rock?

Weight or pressure should turn them to rock. The lower levels in a stack of sediments that were all laid down in succession over a relatively short period of time, weeks, months, years or something like that, should lithify fairly rapidly from the weight above, particularly where the stack is quite deep, say in the Grand Canyon where the stack is a mile deep (it was originally at least a mile deeper but the upper strata washed away before it all hardened into rock), would lithify from the weight of the stack above. So the pressure turns them to rock. I'd suppose they were pretty solidly lithified in hundreds of years.

2. How long does it take?

Under the circumstances I've described I'm quite sure it doesn't take anywhere near as long as it would on the theory of long long ages. In fact it's hard to see how aerially exposed sediments would ever lithify into true rock. It would take a great weight pressing on them to accomplish that, and according to OE theory that doesn''t happen for many millions of years.

3. Why does a huge cataract of water in cracked rock produce such marked meanders in the GC?

I suppose you are referring to my theory of the cataract that carved the canyon? The original inrushing wouldn't create the meanders, it would simply scour the walls of the canyon until all the abrasive material and water had drained down to river size. Then the river would do its own carving on a smaller scale. Meanders are created by rivers.

Hint : Wonderly's book may help you with 1 and 2.

Hint: I doubt it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 3:42 AM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:13 AM Faith has responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 11-13-2011


(2)
Message 62 of 1896 (713420)
12-13-2013 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
12-13-2013 4:01 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Have you heard of cementation? I suggest you check Wikipedia for "Cementation (Geology)". But I guess you had better check the Christian status of the author before reading it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 4:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 4:18 AM Pollux has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 1896 (713422)
12-13-2013 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Pollux
12-13-2013 4:13 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
What is with the snarky insinuations if I may ask. I've answered your questions, I've given a clear and reasonable explanation for why the book you recommended isn't of interest to me, I've been straightforward and polite about it.

Why are you asking about cementation, which is the last stage in rock formation, and especially why asking in that snide tone? I really don't get it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:13 AM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:37 AM Faith has responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 64 of 1896 (713426)
12-13-2013 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
12-13-2013 4:18 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I apologise if I came across as snarky. The Wikipedia article explains how your rock-forming process is not the way it actually happens. It mentions millions of years so that will not be acceptable to you. Wonderly goes into more detail in how the chemical processes actually bind the grains of sediment to form rock. You or I imagining a process does not replace the careful study of generations of geologists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 4:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:29 AM Pollux has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 1896 (713432)
12-13-2013 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Pollux
12-13-2013 4:37 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I apologise if I came across as snarky. The Wikipedia article explains how your rock-forming process is not the way it actually happens. It mentions millions of years so that will not be acceptable to you. Wonderly goes into more detail in how the chemical processes actually bind the grains of sediment to form rock. You or I imagining a process does not replace the careful study of generations of geologists.

Thank you for your apology.

The problem is that you cannot "study" millions of years of rock formation, and your insistence that I accept that rock formation takes millions of years merely means I am not allowed to come up with alternative explanations. Or at least nobody will give them any credence if I do. There is nothing wrong with the scenario I described but because it isn't the accepted scenario you don't even bother to think about it.

The chemical binding of the grains takes how long? Why should it take millions of years? A hundred or much less ought to do it quite nicely.

I know you think this is all about the "careful study of generations of geologists" so there isn't any way at all I could suggest they are wrong and get taken seriously, is there? Geologists are human, they are going to go with the current theory because everybody else is. Before Hutton they all believed in a young earth, after Hutton's stuff was finally accepted they all believed in an old earth. And all Hutton did was look at a formation and give his best subjective guess about its age. His reasoning can be answered too, but by now the whole field has gone on assuming an Old Earth and adding millions upon millions of years until the idea that it's really not anywhere near that old can't get a hearing. Even though it's all just one huge subjective belief system. Yes, even your dating methods aren't hard and fast objective measures. I know you think it's all true science but a lot of it is just solidified guesswork that's become habit.

Yes, I dare to think I can explain the formation of the strata and the Grand Canyon a lot more reasonably in Floodist terms than it is customarily explained in Old Earth terms.

But as I said earlier I'm still trying to exit this thread. I stick around to answer questions like yours only to get ignored and dismissed anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 4:37 AM Pollux has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2013 7:02 AM Faith has responded
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:22 AM Faith has responded
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 12-13-2013 8:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 66 of 1896 (713443)
12-13-2013 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:29 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:

The problem is that you cannot "study" millions of years of rock formation..

We sure can. We can study how rocks form. For example; ever heard of the Bowen reaction series? http://jersey.uoregon.edu/...rick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry32.html

Geologists started doing those experiments in the early 1900's.

Ever heard of rheology? Ever heard of crystallography? Every heard of chemistry? Ever heard of physics?

And oh, Faith, please stop repeating the old creationist canard of '...and your insistence that I accept that rock formation takes millions of years...'

It's not true at all. Your untruths are certainly not doing your religion a favour. You might be impressed, but sane people aren't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:53 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(3)
Message 67 of 1896 (713445)
12-13-2013 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:29 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:

The chemical binding of the grains takes how long? Why should it take millions of years? A hundred or much less ought to do it quite nicely.

Get your paper published on super-fast cementation, change the entirety of geological theory and collect your Nobel Prize.

While we're waiting:

Cementation involves ions carried in groundwater chemically precipitating to form new crystalline material within sediment pores; this is how "sediment" becomes "rock". The new pore-filling minerals form "bridges" between original sediment grains, thereby binding them together. So sand becomes "sandstone", and gravel becomes "conglomerate". Cementation occurs as part of the diagenesis or lithification of sediments.

Cementation occurs primarily below the water table regardless of sedimentary grain sizes present. Large volumes of pore water must pass through sediment pores for new mineral cements to crystallise and so millions of years are generally required to complete the cementation process.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:48 AM Tangle has responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1075 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 68 of 1896 (713447)
12-13-2013 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
12-13-2013 2:11 AM


Re: Muddy Water
Really, I'd just like to exit this thread but I feel I have to stay and deal with some things as they come up.

Really. If your continued presence here is to "deal with things", then perhaps you should deal with the things I have brought up. Instead you have consistently and shamelessly tried to avoid addressing a point you clearly know is very damning for your theory. You have again made your evasion painfully obvious by addressing new points presented in the last few comments but stubbornly refusing respond to me. This makes it incredibly obvious that you are refusing to engage with my points because you know they are a problem for you and you have no counter points.

Your desire to run away from the evidence displays a profound lack of intellectual integrity. This is evinced by the fact that you initially tried to address my points and then, when it became obvious even to you that you couldn't handwave them away, you suddenly lacked the time/interest, then it was because physical impossibilities are easily-ignored "minutiae" and then it was that I was too new to be worthy of a response. If you want to tuck your tail and run away then do so, but I think even you realize that it is indeed running away. You sit on your high horse telling us all how we're blind while you refuse to look at a very obvious and major problem with your fantasy (if you really are running away I think I will dispense with the courtesy of calling it a theory).

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : point


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 2:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 1896 (713448)
12-13-2013 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tangle
12-13-2013 7:22 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Cementation occurs primarily below the water table regardless of sedimentary grain sizes present. Large volumes of pore water must pass through sediment pores for new mineral cements to crystallise and so millions of years are generally required to complete the cementation process.

I find that absolutely laughable. BUT given the idea that the strata were laid down in the Flood water they certainly would have had plenty of pore water continuously, even dripping down through the stack and from runoff between the layers and so on and so forth, until the entire stack dried out, and while that hasn't had millions of years to develop, 4300 really ought to be sufficient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:22 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:56 AM Faith has responded
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 12-13-2013 9:08 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 12-13-2013 10:07 AM Faith has responded
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2013 3:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 1896 (713449)
12-13-2013 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Pressie
12-13-2013 7:02 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The problem is that you cannot "study" millions of years of rock formation..

We sure can. We can study how rocks form. For example; ever heard of the Bowen reaction series? http://jersey.uoregon.edu/...rick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry32.html

Nothing about that sequence, which is very interesting by the way, suggests any need for millions of years of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2013 7:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 71 of 1896 (713450)
12-13-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
12-13-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:

4300 really ought to be sufficient.

Ought to be according to your personal beliefs, but sadly isn't, apparently.

Can't wait to see you provide evidence of super-fast cementation, it should be really easy because you can show it happening, after all you reckon 100 years is enough, so you'll be able to show the process starting in just a few years.

But, you'd expect geologists to have done that already wouldn't you?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:00 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 1896 (713451)
12-13-2013 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tangle
12-13-2013 7:56 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Surely you noticed that they didn't even give an estimate of how much time any of it involves, any measurements they actually made, they just gave their wild millions of years total.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 7:56 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2013 8:14 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 79 by petrophysics1, posted 12-13-2013 11:17 AM Faith has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6675
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(3)
Message 73 of 1896 (713452)
12-13-2013 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:00 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:

how much time any of it involves, any measurements they actually made, they just gave their wild millions of years total.

Until it was pointed out to you yesterday that it was the process of cementation that forms sedementary rocks, you didn't know about it. Now you think that 100 years is more than adequate and 4,300 years a breeze.

I admire your ability to just make stuff up on the hoof, but really, if it took so little time we would see it happening wouldn't we? How come all geologists have missed this obvious fact?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 74 of 1896 (713454)
12-13-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:29 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The chemical binding of the grains takes how long? Why should it take millions of years? A hundred or much less ought to do it quite nicely.

And we are back to. Godidit.

Not sure why you continue to come up with foolish hypotheses(no you do not have any theories), when all your arguments come down godidit. It would save you a lot of time.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 75 of 1896 (713459)
12-13-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
12-13-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
When the pores are small enough to allow cementation, the water flows through them very very very slowly, even under tremendous pressure. It's called friction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
127NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019