|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Faith,
There were layers atop the Claron. The compaction provided by those layers was necessary for the sedimentary material of the Claron to lithify. Independent of whether the Claron is pre- or post-flood, the order of events had to have been:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
There were layers atop the Claron. The compaction provided by those layers was necessary for the sedimentary material of the Claron to lithify. Independent of whether the Claron is pre- or post-flood, the order of events had to have been:
Yah, well, things usually are a bit more complicated when you really get into them: Deposition of the Claron in a lacustrine environment.Further deposition above the Claron to a depth sufficient to lithify the sedimentary material. I'd be guessing at the thickness of these layers, maybe at least a half mile. Unless the material that was eroded away has been discovered somewhere, we don't know anything about the layers above the Claron, other than that they must have existed. Uplift turned the region into one of net erosion. All the layers above the Claron eroded away. USGS URL Resolution Error Page Basically, there could be a lot of rock above the Claron. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is blatant in-your-face evidence for the Flood in the Geologic Column and its bazillions of fossils. That is STUPENDOUS evidence for the Flood, which can only be klutzily explained away by OE fairytales about nonexistent time periods.
Poison the well much? I see that we have your opinion regarding evolution, but do you have any actual evidence for your own scenario. This is exactly what I suggested earlier when I said that YECs don't look for supporting evidence, they can only tilt at windmills. Your post itself is supporting evidence of that. Well, what evidence would there be? The layered different sediments point to water deposition, the fossil contents point to dead things killed in the Flood, that can tell us about the kinds of flora and fauna that lived before the Flood but that's about it. You turn it all into fairy tales about life evolving in differing climates, and insist you have evidence we don't have, but it's all the same evidence, you just turn it into fairy tales. Identifying a time period with a slab of sandstone or limestone OUGHT to be recognized as so clearly ludicrous that you'd abandon the idea, but no, you insist you have evidence for your fairy tales that live only in the limestone and the sandstone.
Fossils are NOT being made at any rate comparable, and today's sedimentary rate which you brag about knowing is NOT the rate of the Flood deposition. So we don't need to find evidence, we have tons of it. It's just been co-opted by anti-Flood people.
Sure, if you assume they were deposited in 4ky years. However, can you imagine what it would have been like if all of those bazillions of organisms were actually alive just before the fludde? Would have been one teeming planet for sure. But we suppose there were no uninhabitable places then so land creatures would have had more room, and perhaps the land mass was larger too.
The creation scientists are also exploring questions about mechanism, but if there was no rain until the forty days and nights of rain and you don't know what the "fountains of the deep" are, you tell us how you would go about investigating these things. It's not that they aren't doing it you know.
Of course I don't know what 'fountains of the deep are'. No one has ever seen one or even described one, AKAIK. Just another example of YEC science not doing its job. But they've given a lot of thought to this.
No, you'd be doing what we're doing.
Well, I admit that you don't have much choice. However, I seriously doubt I'd do anything the YEC way. But if there is no choice then you'd have to do it the way we do it if you were a YEC. We could always use a better method of course, but it would have to serve YEC.
Abd of course you don't believe in God so your opinion is worthless.
Why should I? The point is that any opinion you have about how YEC should be conducted, or at least Bible based creationism, which is an effort based completely on belief in God and the Bible as God's word, is worthless. But if you want to know why you should believe, start with concern about where you are going to spend eternity. We're all spending it as conscious souls somewhere, contrary to the propaganda you've believed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK by me if there were strata above the Claron.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What wasn't clear to me is that you are apparently talking about the composition of the Claron layer itself as "lacustrine." At least I hope this clears it up. I just kept reading lakes and rivers on the surface which of course occurred after the Flood. So you want to know how lake type sediments got deposited BY the Flood? And my answer to that is Why not? The Flood would have deposited whatever was available to be deposited. OK? You aren't identifying what you mean by lake type sediments, is there any reason the Flood couldn't have deposited them?
I'm not getting your point here. How would a global flood deposit lake sediments and stream deposits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
By picking them up and moving them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Well, what evidence would there be? The layered different sediments point to water deposition, the fossil contents point to dead things killed in the Flood, that can tell us about the kinds of flora and fauna that lived before the Flood but that's about it.
So, you are admitting to a lack of evidence? Or are you saying that all sediments are flood sediments?
You turn it all into fairy tales ...
Yes, stories backed up by evidence.
... about life evolving in differing climates, and insist you have evidence we don't have, but it's all the same evidence, you just turn it into fairy tales.
Yes, we have evidence. I have provided some to you.
... Identifying a time period with a slab of sandstone or limestone OUGHT to be recognized as so clearly ludicrous that you'd abandon the idea, but no, you insist you have evidence for your fairy tales that live only in the limestone and the sandstone.
And what have you got?
Would have been one teeming planet for sure. But we suppose there were no uninhabitable places then so land creatures would have had more room, and perhaps the land mass was larger too.
Well, if anything it was probably smaller. Okay, so the entire planet was habitable. There should be some evidence for that somewhere.
But they've given a lot of thought to this.
Heh, heh... That reminds me of the story about the kid who wanted to be paid for an extra hour because he was 'thinking about mowing the lawn' first. Nevertheless, I'd like to see the results of this thinking process.
But if there is no choice then you'd have to do it the way we do it if you were a YEC. We could always use a better method of course, but it would have to serve YEC. But if there is no choice then you'd have to do it the way we do it if you were a YEC. We could always use a better method of course, but it would have to serve YEC.
Well, to me this would be a question of values. I believe that YEC is irrational.
The point is that any opinion you have about how YEC should be conducted, or at least Bible based creationism, which is an effort based completely on belief in God and the Bible as God's word, is worthless.
Now, that's not very nice.
But if you want to know why you should believe, start with concern about where you are going to spend eternity. We're all spending it as conscious souls somewhere, contrary to the propaganda you've believed.
If there is a god, I'm pretty certain that he/she/it is more benevolent and understanding than you. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
By picking them up and moving them.
Umm, Faith? Then they wouldn't be lake sediments anymore... Are you saying that if I were to erode a granite and then deposit the sediment into an ocean, it would still be a granite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Or are you saying that all sediments are flood sediments? All the STRATA of the Geo column are flood sediments.
Well, if anything it was probably smaller. Okay, so the entire planet was habitable. There should be some evidence for that somewhere. Probably in the fossil record itself, although I suppose there are areas of the world where it's hard to get at the fossils and perhaps not enough plant life got fossilized to work as evidence either. Why on earth is it "not very nice" to say that an opinion is worthless which is given by someone who doesn't believe in God about what people do who are motivated by belief in God? At least a debunking opinion which is the only kind you give. It's an objective statement. I mean you just said you believe that YEC is irrational.
But if you want to know why you should believe, start with concern about where you are going to spend eternity. We're all spending it as conscious souls somewhere, contrary to the propaganda you've believed.
If there is a god, I'm pretty certain that he/she/it is more benevolent and understanding than you. First off I'm sure that's true. But what you mean by benevolent and understanding is probably not what God means, so I'd ask ...what evidence would you have for that opinion? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, you haven't said what you are calling lake sediments. If moving them makes them not lake sediments then what's to make them lake sediments at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
All the STRATA of the Geo column are flood sediments.
Including sand dunes, stream beds, evaporites, swamps, etc., etc.
Probably in the fossil record itself, although I suppose there are areas of the world where it's hard to get at the fossils and perhaps not enough plant life got fossilized to work as evidence either.
In fact, most sedimentary rocks do not have fossils at all.
Why on earth is it "not very nice" to say that an opinion is worthless which is given by someone who doesn't believe in God about what people do who are motivated by belief in God?
Ah, so it's worthless to you. Okay, that's fine.
At least a debunking opinion which is the only kind you give. It's an objective statement. I mean you just said you believe that YEC is irrational.
Which is a rational statement...
First off I'm sure that's true. But what you mean by benevolent and understanding is probably not what God means, so I'd ask
I have no evidence for that opinon. It's obvioulsly a purely rhetorical statement.
...what evidence would you have for that opinion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, you haven't said what you are calling lake sediments. If moving them makes them not lake sediments then what's to make them lake sediments at all?
That was handled in a quotation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Including sand dunes, stream beds, evaporites, swamps, etc., etc. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but what you mean by "sand dunes" is an incredibly thick block of sandstone that is crossbedded like dunes and there rather definitively ends its resemblance to anything dunish; what you mean by stream beds is channels buried deep in the strata that look like water once ran in them; what you mean by swamps I don't know but I'd guess something to do with fossils of the kinds of life that usually inhabit swamps; and the evaporates of course you also assume were once on the surface but may never have been. (we've left this topic behind it seems but I've wondered why salt beds seen in cross section usually occur where the strata have been severely deformed, sometimes into hammock-like shapes. This sagging of the strata would have occurred of course after all the strata were in place, or otherwise they'd have been laid down horizontally as is the habit of sediments; but why does this happen so often where there is salt? Do you know?) If you're counting on your rhetorical god's being benevolent and understanding in dealing with your eternal soul shouldn't you consider it important to have evidence for it? Maybe he's like me and wouldn't that be just terrible for you? According to you anyway although I'm not sure why since I'm just a nice little YEC who thinks Geology is strangely blind to the evidence for the Great Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well I missed the quotation. And I can go on missing it I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
But if there is no choice then you'd have to do it the way we do it if you were a YEC. We could always use a better method of course, but it would have to serve YEC. The point is that any opinion you have about how YEC should be conducted, or at least Bible based creationism, which is an effort based completely on belief in God and the Bible as God's word, is worthless. Really? And you have the audacity to say I deserve a punch in the nose for saying that what you are doing is apologetics, not science? If YEC were science, there would be no difference between YEC methods and other scientific methods. If the methods are developed to "serve" YEC, there is inherent bias built into them. I gave you sincere advice about how to present your ideas as scientific but you have completely ignored it and instead continue to stick to these "YEC methods" which involve a-priori conclusions and ignoring evidence. If this is how you want to handle your arguments, fine. Just don't expect anyone to accept it as science and don't threaten to punch people in the nose when they call you on it. You have admitted it with your own words. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024