Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 9:00 AM
45 online now:
JoeT, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8283
84
8586
...
127NextFF
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1074 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 1246 of 1896 (716247)
01-13-2014 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1182 by Faith
01-11-2014 9:08 PM


Re: Angle of repose wet vs dry not necessarily absolute
I want to know why you think that if it was deposited under water the angle of repose would have remained the same after it dried out. Dry sand has a different angle of repose, even "wet" sand does according to those tables, and it's the same as for dry sand.

I see RAZD has already answered this question thoroughly, but in case you found his post too technical, I will summarize it for you. Basically once the crossbedded strata are buried, the weight on top of them will keep them from moving and so they will retain their AoG even if they dry out.

And now that you're talking about footprints again, would you like to resolve the issue I pointed out long ago? The fact that various layers with footprints appear are interspersed with marine deposits is inconsistent with your model. Where did the trackmakers from the the strata above the marine strata come from?

And I take it you are still not able to mount a counterargument against my point about the brooding dinosaur. You seem interested in the idea that the Coconino sandstone may be partially aqueously deposited, but you are ignoring the unambiguous evidence of aeolian deposition represented by the brooding dinosaur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1182 by Faith, posted 01-11-2014 9:08 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1254 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:38 AM Atheos canadensis has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1247 of 1896 (716251)
01-14-2014 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Faith
01-12-2014 7:52 PM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
So much to respond to. And, of course as you have yourself admitted, you would only ignore the pearls that I cast before you, the swine (it's your metaphor, you do realize).
Second, I don't have the time or the motivation to become an expert in all the sciences, which is necessary in order to debate effectively on the hundreds of issues that can be raised here. The idea that I or anybody debating on an internet forum should have that degree of knowledge is ridiculous. Without that kind of knowledge of course I'd "lose" on those issues, but then it wouldn't be a fair debate, would it?

That kind of attitude just boggles the mind of normal thinking people.

If you have no idea what you are talking about, isn't that the time to just simply shut up? If you have nothing to contribute, then why insist on sharing your uninformed random ... sorry, but it's very hard to call them "thoughts". Do you remember Larry Hagman's anti-smoking PSA in which he said that his mama had always taught him that if he can't same something nice about something then don't say anything, whereupon he stopped talking about tobacco? If you don't know anything about the subject matter under discussion, then you don't have anything to say about it. Duh?

But if you want to discuss something, then it is your responsibility to come into that discussion knowing as much as you can learn about it. To instead insist upon remaining stubbornly ignorant of the subject matter is not only unconsconable but also just plain stupid. I remember all too well from two years ago when you started screaming hysterically against the very thought of needing to learn something about geology, let alone the very suggestion that you should talk to a geologist about the details of the geological evidence.

In short, when you want to discuss something, you really do need to know something about it, so insisting on remaining ignorant of it is very counter-productive and, again, just plain stupid.

And you don't even need "become an expert in all the sciences". What a silly idea! You only need to learn the basics -- and hopefully a bit more -- about the particular subject matter that you are attempting to discuss. Though, certainly, nothing in science lies in isolation (unlike in theology, nicht wahr?), so being able to work with how sediment deposits does necessarily require some knowledge of physics. Sorry, but in reality (you know, that other realm you keep trying to deny) everything is interrelated, unlike how everything exists in isolation in your theology-fueled universe.

If you want to discuss depositation, then you need to understand how depositation happens. That involves a certain amount of physics (sorry, but reality is reality, after all; nothing I can do about that). If there is something about depositation that you don't know, then you need to learn about it. It is completely useless and counterproductive to simply ignore it or insist that it just does not exist. Sorry, but reality trumps delusion and self-deception every time.

In short, when something is brought up about depositation that you don't understand or agree with, then what should your response be? To immediately declare it wrong without even knowing anything about it? No! Instead you should ask about the physical evidence. When they talk about the details in the layers of rock, you need to ask about those details, not insist that they only observe the rocks from an extreme distance (you did insist on that).

The question of lithification has also been raised and that is a question that you have indicated that you want to discuss. Shouldn't you want to know something about the processes that are needed for lithification?

Nobody would ever expect you to be an expert on the subjects being discussed. But at the very least we expect you to know something about what you are saying.

Is that really too much to expect of you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Faith, posted 01-12-2014 7:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1253 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:35 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Heathen
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 1248 of 1896 (716252)
01-14-2014 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1242 by Percy
01-13-2014 3:35 PM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
You mean "one million cubic miles," not "one cubic million miles", though I suppose it's the same thing.

Strictly speaking it's not. (although not necessarily an indication of Faith's intentions.)

For "One million cubic miles" imagine one million individual 1 mile cubes all lined up. measuring 1 million miles long, 1 mile high and 1 mile wide.

For "One cubic million miles" imaging a giant cube measuring 1 million miles x 1 million miles x 1 million miles

maybe easier to imagine on a smaller scale.

Compare "10 cubic centimetres" with "10 centimetres cubed"
-one gives you a row of 10 little cubes 10x1x1,
-the other gives you a cube 10x10x10

sorry to be a pedant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1242 by Percy, posted 01-13-2014 3:35 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1252 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:30 AM Heathen has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(2)
Message 1249 of 1896 (716253)
01-14-2014 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1192 by Faith
01-12-2014 10:24 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
So now I have to answer every challenge ever made up against the Flood.

Um, yes you do. Or someone from the creationist camp has to do it. And it has to form a cohesive single model rather than a collection of ad hoc answers that contradict each other.

To be successful the model cannot be falsified by any data whatsoever. But unfortunately it is falsified by mountains of evidence. Once falsified it is off the list of possible models.

If you or some other creationist finds some area of geology that you are able to falsify, more power to you. But that does not shoehorn in the great flood of Noah as the default replacement. That has already been falsified. Science would survive and adapt the model to the data as the picture of the reconstruction of the past history of the earth becomes more accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by Faith, posted 01-12-2014 10:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1250 by JonF, posted 01-14-2014 7:12 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded
 Message 1251 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:29 AM shalamabobbi has responded

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


Message 1250 of 1896 (716256)
01-14-2014 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1249 by shalamabobbi
01-14-2014 3:37 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
.

Edited by JonF, : Mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-14-2014 3:37 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 1251 of 1896 (716258)
01-14-2014 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1249 by shalamabobbi
01-14-2014 3:37 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
An EXCELLENT description of the clever ploys you evo/old earthers use to eliminate the truth about the Flood and maintain your delusion. Beautifully put.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-14-2014 3:37 AM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1259 by JonF, posted 01-14-2014 8:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1267 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-14-2014 1:40 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 1252 of 1896 (716259)
01-14-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1248 by Heathen
01-14-2014 2:43 AM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
Yes, I get it, I said it wrong. It should be one million cubic miles.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1248 by Heathen, posted 01-14-2014 2:43 AM Heathen has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 1253 of 1896 (716260)
01-14-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1247 by dwise1
01-14-2014 1:09 AM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
I think you missed the point. I thought I was discussing things I DID know about, but it seems that everybody else wants to pull me off into things they know I don't know so I'll have to spend all my time reading up on them and give up the things I do know about.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1247 by dwise1, posted 01-14-2014 1:09 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1257 by JonF, posted 01-14-2014 8:52 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1258 by JonF, posted 01-14-2014 8:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 1254 of 1896 (716261)
01-14-2014 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1246 by Atheos canadensis
01-13-2014 8:49 PM


Re: Angle of repose wet vs dry not necessarily absolute
And now that you're talking about footprints again, would you like to resolve the issue I pointed out long ago? The fact that various layers with footprints appear are interspersed with marine deposits is inconsistent with your model.

How so?

Where did the trackmakers from the the strata above the marine strata come from?

Don't understand the question.

And I take it you are still not able to mount a counterargument against my point about the brooding dinosaur. You seem interested in the idea that the Coconino sandstone may be partially aqueously deposited, but you are ignoring the unambiguous evidence of aeolian deposition represented by the brooding dinosaur.

I don't see any problem with the brooding dinosaur. It's a fossil, it was buried in the Flood. Aeolian deposition? It's a FOSSIL, it was buried in the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1246 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-13-2014 8:49 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1262 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-14-2014 9:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 1255 of 1896 (716262)
01-14-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1235 by JonF
01-13-2014 1:03 PM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
Is your Biblical interpretation infallible?

On this subject, yes.

Do you think that God doe not want us to study and learn from His creation?

Not if it contradicts His written word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1235 by JonF, posted 01-13-2014 1:03 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1256 by JonF, posted 01-14-2014 8:49 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1264 by Percy, posted 01-14-2014 10:39 AM Faith has responded

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


Message 1256 of 1896 (716263)
01-14-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1255 by Faith
01-14-2014 8:42 AM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
Then why do so many Christians disagree about the timing or the existence of a global flood? ("They aren't TROO Christians" is not an acceptable answer).

Claiming infallibility in anything displays the sin of pride. There is only one infallible Being.

When God's creation falsifies your fallible interpretation, don't question Him. Question yourself. Otherwise you are not worshiping Him, you are worshiping an a book as an idol.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1255 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 1257 of 1896 (716264)
01-14-2014 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1253 by Faith
01-14-2014 8:35 AM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
I think you missed the point. I thought I was discussing things I DID know about, but it seems that everybody else wants to pull me off into things they know I don't know so I'll have to spend all my time reading up on them and give up the things I do know about.

You missed the point. Since so many things you don't know about falsify your fantasy, there's no point in discussing what you think you know; your fantasy is not a viable hypothesis because it's been falsified.

Now, if you want to learn about those falsifications and discuss them, that's fine. But claiming to have a viable hypothesis just doesn't fly, whether you understand the subject or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1253 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 1258 of 1896 (716265)
01-14-2014 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1253 by Faith
01-14-2014 8:35 AM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
Another mouse-button-bounce double post. Percy, I think you can't double-click fast enough.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1253 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 1259 of 1896 (716266)
01-14-2014 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1251 by Faith
01-14-2014 8:29 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
His message is absolutely correct. Yours demonstrates the blind and unthinking manner in which you dismiss anything that challenges and/or falsifies your fantasy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1251 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 8:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1261 by Faith, posted 01-14-2014 9:29 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 1260 of 1896 (716267)
01-14-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1238 by shalamabobbi
01-13-2014 2:27 PM


Re: Evidence ain't unimportant
Ah good ol Talk Origins.

Yes, I got the figure from Austin's book, and Percy has confirmed it himself although of course he says things have changed so it no long applies. And besides the river erodes areas outside the canyon. Well, Austin says the same, and emphasizes that it's no longer eroding the canyon but the Colorado plateau above the canyon. His main question was the one that has been posed to me: Where is all the eroded material? That's a LOT of eroded material, certainly a million cubic miles of the stuff but even the scaled-down version Percy came up with. Where did it all go?

But Talkorigins raises the usual silly objections to the idea that the Flood carved the canyon, many I've already answered, so I thought I'd go through them and answer them again:


1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.

Uh huh, wouldn't that depend on the kind of terrain the Flood was acting upon? The GC is cut into an uplift, something no river could have done all by its little self, since it would prefer to go around things that are higher than its little self. You get your wide relatively shallow beds on your flatter landscapes.

anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
streamlined relict islands.

You mean like the Washington scablands? Right:

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

The terrain is decidedly different in the two places. You have basalt in Washington and sedimentary rock in Arizona, you have a relatively flat terrain in Washington but an uplift in the GC area that the Flood had to cut into, and only a huge amount of water might be able to do that, no ordinary river, even a big fastmoving river. I happen to think that the water that cut the canyon also cut the formations in the Grand Staircase to the north and eroded all the higher strata off the surface of the Kaibab plateau, and I don't think the lake water would be enough for that, although if the Colorado plateau is dish-shaped as Austin contends, which is how the lake he has in mind was contained, that could easily explain how the water was also able to cut the canyon whereas a mere river couldn't, since it would be contained on the plateau rather than running off it as one might otherwise expect.

2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.

'
Dumtadumdum, isn't this the famous Argument from Incredulity that creationists get slapped down for? Somebody better let Talkorigins know they're out of line.

Anyway, there is no problem with the "same Flood" both laying down the strata and then at the very end as it is receding cutting the canyon. How silly of them to make such an objection.

3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.

No, but all that occurs on the flat plain above the main part of the canyon, and rivers DO meander on flat plains. The Flood waters would have dissipated after scouring off the plain first and then we'd have the river left over to meander across it. I do doubt all this assertion we've heard here that only very slow rivers make meanders, I rather suspect the river had some power to it and did some deep cutting of the meanders on this flat plain, but I can't prove so oh well.

4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.

I think probably a lot of it DID slump, starting with the first cracks in the uppermost strata. Tons of broken up strata would have caved into the cracks and been washed down to cut the canyon, eventually widening the canyon a great deal. But the stack was over two miles deep when the cutting would have begun, and one would expect that the weight and pressure should have done some solidifying of the sediments so that the walls that were left after the carving stayed put.

5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.

Meaning what? I have a completely different idea of what happened beneath the canyon, but many creationists accept it as already formed before the Flood as reported here. But I still am not getting the point here about the supposed hardness of the rocks.

6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.

How they trust their own weak little imaginations. A lot of water draining into cracks in the upper strata would cut out all kinds of cracks alongside the main one.

7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.

Why not?

8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.

This isn't very clear either. Not sure why the volume of water would have to be a large as the canyon itself in order to be an effective carving instrument. After all, if they think an ordinary river cut it, why not a flooding lake that is ALMOST the volume of the canyon. But my own view is that it was probably the receding flood waters themselves that cut the canyon. I do appreciate Austin's idea about the lake though because he says it would have been contained in the dish-shaped Colorado plateau, which means the flood waters would have been somewhat restrained from washing off the plateau as well, and available to cut the canyon. It's just a matter of more water. The lake water might nevertheless have been enough.

9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?

One must assume the circumstances were unique to the area.

10. There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

There's that seventy million years that would have produced that one million cubic miles of erosion. Funny they don't mention that as reported in Austin's book. If Percy's right that it's been officially reduced to five million years it's still a lot of erosion that nobody has been able to locate at the foot of the canyon.

Anyway, at least a Flood can produce sediments and layer them, but on that Rube Goldbergish scheme of billions of years you have to imagine this event and then that event without any source of sediments, you have to imagine uptilted rock being eroded down flat, you have to imagine that the tectonic upheaval occurred before the first horizontal layers were laid down and then not again until after the very last was laid down hundreds of millions of years later, and so on and so forth. But the Flood model has a very orderly sequence of events that explains it all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1238 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-13-2014 2:27 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1278 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-14-2014 5:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1279 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-14-2014 5:50 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1281 by JonF, posted 01-14-2014 7:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
8283
84
8586
...
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