The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread

So, you think that layers were laid down with "time gaps" but don't represent any type of "time period." What can that possibly mean? I have tried to point this out to you before that in your scenario the "time periods" are there... they just represent minutes or possibly hours rather than millions of years. But they undoubtedly represent "time periods."HBD

Not surprising, and I don't have time to dig through those GC threads to find that line of discussion - not that it would matter much anyway.But anyway, now it seems as if you DO accept that the geological layers DO represent a specific "time period" but just a very, very short period of time compared to standard geological timing. So what you should do is propose an experiment or a model that demonstrates your premise that geological layers several feet thick can be deposited in hours or days and how the expected layering from coarse to fine could be violated and for example, be laid down fine - coarse - fine - coarse - etc (in one event, that is). We are asking for something that could support that idea not just speculating that it MIGHT have happened... we just don't know.HBD

What if you did not have the Biblical account... would you still think the evidence supports a global flood? Would you come to the same conclusion independent of the Bible?I assume you will say "yes" although I really don't think that to be the case. The sole reason you hold to the idea of a global flood is that it is a "Biblical" position. There is a big difference though. It's one thing to speculate about past events based on physical conditions that we can observe and test today. It's a completely different thing to speculate about past events based on physical processes that essentially violate the known laws of physics or misrepresent those physical processes we can observe today.HBD

How could fish have survived such sediment saturated water?Try this experiment at home. Get a 29 gal aquarium and a goldfish (they are very hardy). Dump in enough silt to cover the bottom of the tank about 1 inch deep. Create enough turbulence to keep the silt suspended (this would be a fraction the the turbulence required to keep sand and gravel suspended) and see how long the fish survives. I doubt it would last 24 hours in those conditions - although goldfish can gulp air from the surface so it may last a couple days.Now, I doubt you will be able to conduct this experiment, so how about just speculate as to how it would turn out. How long will a goldfish survive in such conditions? Where would they hide during the flood so that they could find food and fresh, breathable water?HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification on how much silt to add

Right. It is hard for people who don't actively engage in scientific research to understand that issues like the age of the earth are conclusions drawn for looking at data and evidence from multiple sources. They think that scientists begin with a premise and then interpret the data to fit. That process just simply could not work as a scientific endeavor - it would eventually fall completely apart.Of course, we all know of cases where that DID happen - where researchers jumped to conclusions and tried to make the data fit their expectations. But in the end, when other researchers began to scrutinize the data, the original conclusions completely fell apart. Just to clarify my personal position... I wouldn't say the Bible was necessarily "incorrect". There is meaning and purpose behind the story that I consider to be "correct" and true. It's just that the events depicted in the story were written from the perspective of an ancient people, and we try to shoehorn our modern understanding of the world onto it. Does that make sense or do I need to explain more of what I mean?HBD

Here is your argument (at least one of them)... Now, jar has given you a specific example with which you can apply your argument and explain how these salt deposits can be layered with clay deposits by settling out or by successive deposits by waves. He is asking you to describe in more detail how this process could have occurred. Our observations suggest that these deposits take long periods of time to accumulate.How is this mischaracterizing your arguments? How is this debunkery? How is this strawman nonsense?We obviously don't have an "eye to how it could have happened." This is where you who are enlightened need to explain it better. Just saying "by settling out or by successive deposition by waves" is not good enough. When we learn about the physical processes involved in these types of deposits, there is a great amount of detail given... a detailed description of the process. It makes sense. If you say it happened a different way, then you need to describe why the standard way of thinking is wrong and how your idea works better - in detail.Another good idea would be to propose an experiment we could do (even if only a thought experiment) that would lend credibility to the idea of waves depositing salts in successive layers interspersed with clays. Is the real reason there is no point in you participating that you really don't have a good argument? Just "What ifs?"HBD

But that's how science works, Faith. We argue over details because that is what strengthens an argument. Believe it or not, science relies heavily on indirect evidence and inferences and it is those minute details that make the difference between a strong inference and a weak inference. This even more so true in modern science where all the easy, direct observations have been done.As an example, I am studying plant pathology. So, I inoculate a plant with a potential pathogen and then observe disease symptoms on the plant some time later. I then conclude that said organism is a plant pathogen. Now realize that conclusion IS an inference. I did not actually witness the organism CAUSE disease nor did I actually observe the disease - I only observed the symptoms. So, what details, if you knew them, would make this inference stronger? What details, if left out, would make this inference weak?You propose an inference about a particular formation and we ask for the details because those details, if left out, make your inference very weak. In addition, the assumptions we make regarding those details are contradictory to the inference you propose. For example, we assume that larger, denser particles will settle out before smaller particles. Is that not a valid assumption? What forces would be at play that would make that an invalid assumption? That's not a change in subject... that is an opportunity to apply your "model." How does your model explain those formations? Keep in mind that even in this case the sorting of particles by density and size still applies unless you can provide a reason why that assumption does not hold in a particular case.How about you choose an example of your own to apply your model to. I really liked the Coconino Sandstone myself. Apply your model to the formation of the Coconino Sandstone; provide details as to how receding flood waters deposited that formation, show some calculations as to the rates of deposition that would be required to lay down that layer in a matter of days or weeks (whatever the time frame you think is plausible). Yeah, I can understand how you feel. But you can't just make an assertion and expect everyone to accept it - especially in a science thread. Before you make an assertion such as "there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood." be prepared to defend that assertion... with plausible details.HBD

What I have found is that discussing the particulars is rather pointless since it is the basic premises of science that are being rejected. It seems more necessary and beneficial to discuss basic principals rather than specific evidence. For example, how we make inferences, how we use indirect evidence, how we test and verify theories, how and when we use assumptions, etc.We all know the tired old adages "It's just a theory" or "It's still a fish." So, IMO, the more important point to be made is HOW and WHY we come to the conclusions we do, otherwise it can seem (to them) that our conclusions are a priori assumptions rather than conclusions based on the evidence.There also seems to be great ignorance of basic scientific principals such as how gravity sorts particles, 2nd law of thermodynamics and so on. The kind of things you learn about in introductory science courses. Those are the things that need to be hammered away at.HBD

There is no picture that can begin to do the GC justice or give even a hint at the sheer scale of the place. My visit to the GC was before I really started thinking about this whole young earth vs. old earth debate and pretty much assumed the earth was young, just as the Bible supposedly presents it. But I remember trying to imagine how those features could have possibly formed in a single flood event. It was just... indescribable...There are those who have visited the GC and still hold that it was formed by the flood, but I can't imagine how they reconcile it. As I said, no words or picture can substitute for standing at the rim and looking out over that canyon. "Breath-taking" is all I got!HBD

Here's an easy assignment for you. Look up "underground rivers" and get a good sense of how they form and the shape their caverns take. There is plenty of underground rivers that have been thoroughly mapped.Then look up "buried canyons" - there is not as much information about buried canyons as there is on underground rivers, but you should be able to find a couple.Then put the two images side by side and make a comparison.After you come to a conclusions as to whether the two images could represent the same process, then get back to us and tells us what you found out.HBD