Origin of the Flood Layers

I don't recall you making that point

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

Funny I hardly ever mention the Bible in discussing the Flood

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.

I'm speculating about the physical conditions that would pertain in the Flood just as everybody else does.

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

Faith writes: The deposition of some of the layers all the way across the North American continent suggests such long waves to me, It would be nice to know where these layers end, what that edge looks like.

What layers, what composition, what model or method explains such deposition?

Evidence Faith.

How can any flood produce any stone?

Faith writes: Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon also showed the direction of the flow of water that carried them along with the sediment that became the Redwall Limestone. It moved from southeast to northwest and covers about four states. Suggests waves moving onto the land from different directions.

Bullshit Faith. How would that suggest such waves and what is the model, method and mechanism to create such waves?

Of course Steve Austin's account is also bullshit. Like you, he does not provide a model, method and mechanism to explain what is seen and as a matter of fact a slurry caused by water sloshing around washing in sea critters would NOT produce what is actually seen at the site.

He is just lying for Christ.

As usual he also fails to explain why no bunnies or mousies or lions or tigers or bears or ohmys got washed in.

Faith writes: Don't know why you have a problem with the water's being saturated with sediments, turbidity being expected by everyone who discusses the Flood, but an enormous quantity of sediments must have been washed off the land mass into the water in the early stage, along with all the dead things that also ended up buried in the layers.

And so yet again you provide the evidence that the flood never happened. If the sediments were washed off the land then they will not be deposited on the land. If there were lots of dead things then why are there no modern dead things, things that lived in the last 6000 years or so? The material is sand stone. Exactly how did it get formed into stone in only 6000 years? What is the model, method and mechanism that covered that layer and also eroded the covering layers in only 6000 years.

Sorry but Steve Austin's nonsense convinces no one except those who want to believe his bullshit.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Don't know why you have a problem with the water's being saturated with sediments, turbidity being expected by everyone who discusses the Flood, but an enormous quantity of sediments must have been washed off the land mass into the water in the early stage

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?

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : clarification on how much silt to add

Are you going to come to my blog for the discussion?

Of course not.

Anyway, why are you so concerned about this thread if the admins are leaving it alone?

This thread exists simply because you cannot stand the idea of people talking about YEC beliefs without getting a chance to have your say. When you claim that people are forcing you to participate against your will, and then you start a bogus thread to do so, I think that's an observation worth a comment or two.

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 find it interesting that for several hundred years people have gone out and studied the geology of the planet and reached the inescapable conclusion that it is old and that events that have shaped the surface of the planet have been occurring for billions of years. Some of the ones who started out studying it were creationists and they came to realize that the bible was incorrect and that the sedimentary layers were not caused by a worldwide flood.

Evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines all confirms that the evidence is true and Faith's view of the bible is not. It is amazing to me that after 2 centuries of research and irrefutable evidence there are still so many people who refuse to accept it. They are almost always people like Faith who has never done a single minute of research in the field. No one who has actually gone out and studied the rocks can cling to the fable.

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.

... they came to realize that the bible was incorrect and that the sedimentary layers were not caused by a worldwide flood.

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

Obviously can't get anybody off their entrenched biases to think about this stuff in a reasonable way. Same old nonsense thrown at me that I've answered many times before. Same old accusations, same old silliness. Not up to slogging through it all right now, maybe later.

Faith writes: Obviously can't get anybody off their entrenched biases to think about this stuff in a reasonable way. Same old nonsense thrown at me that I've answered many times before. Same old accusations, same old silliness. Not up to slogging through it all right now, maybe later.

Once again you show that you have no evidence, no model, no mechanism, no method to explain what is seen today.

That's fine Faith since Young Earth, the Biblical Floods and Creationism are all DeadOnArrival and have been for at least two hundred years.

We understand why you cannot support any of your assertions but you can take comfort that no one else has ever been able to do so either.

Argument by Bullying seems to be a very common method among my opponents.

Obviously can't get anybody off their entrenched biases to think about this stuff in a reasonable way.

Essentially, you're asking us to be reasonable and THINK about what amounts to you claiming the 42 angels can dance on a pinhead. Not 43 or 41, 42 exactly... you just have to be able to think about it, and be reasonable.

If we were just more creative and understanding then we could all realize that it has to be 42 angels that can dance on a pinhead.

I mean, why should we be anything but disillusioned by your posts?

We all know that the Flood never happened. Why should we entertain what you can imagine as details to your fantasy?

We'd be just as well off discussing in detail whether or not Batman could defeat Darth Vader. I mean, sure, Batman has incredible technology, but could it really stand up to the Force?

What do you think? Can you even THINK about it? Or or you not creative enough?

The only thing we're ever going to be willing to do is explain to you the scientific knowledge that shows that this stuff you make up about the Flood is impossible.

Same old nonsense thrown at me that I've answered many times before. Same old accusations, same old silliness. Not up to slogging through it all right now, maybe later.

The really sad and unfortunate part is that you are being forced to submit posts here.

Sigh. Assertion and accusation without evidence as usual. Sigh. Nothing I've ever said is remotely akin to arguing about angels on pins. Sign.

Faith writes: Argument by Bullying seems to be a very common method among my opponents.

Bullying?

Do you have any evidence of anyone bullying you?

Or do you think asking for evidence, models, methods and mechanisms to explain the reality we see today is bullying?

Nothing I've ever said is remotely akin to arguing about angels on pins.

Well that was just a cliche, but here is you doing what I'm talking about:

quote:

---

So since the KT boundary asteroid ribbon occurs high in the geologic column I'd suppose that the rain had long since stopped and the full depth of the flood had been reached some time ago as well, so I'd postulate that the KT boundary powder had plenty of opportunity to float for a very long time on relatively placid water before the water receded enough for it to be deposited on the surface of whatever the last sediment to be deposited was.

---

"Even if Batman hit Darth Vader with an EMP grenade, Vader could sustain himself with the Force long enough for his auxiliary battery to kick in."

You're just making up stuff to fantasize about the particulars of a situation given a set of preconceived assumptions.

That's why you can't get any respect from a scientifically aligned debate site. You'd get a lot better reception from your fellow YECs, or maybe even a fantasy or sci-fi debate board. Or you could try creative writing or something. For some reason, you prefer us... I think you're like me in not liking a circlejerk. You want disagreement. Which makes it hilarious when you bitch about bullying.

The weird part is that you're willing to defy the laws of physics left and right, but for some reason you think that you have to make your fantasy somewhat believable, so you still make it operate within some of the laws of physics. Like how you realize that the KT boundary couldn't have formed like that post-deposition, so you invent a way for it to happen during deposition that involves it floating on the surface when the waters were calm. Little do you realize that your invention actually violates the laws of physics and is impossible.

Why not just go full miracle on it and get really creative? Why limit it to some quasi-natural processes at all?

Good grief, of COURSE I'm "making stuff up," that's ALL anyone can do with the one-time event of the long-past Flood. It's all I do and it's all the Flood debunkers do too. "Oh this that or the other physical fact "proves" there couldn't have been such a Flood." Same way I work, only I'm looking for ways it COULD work and they aren't and just about all the scenarios the debunkers have in mind are totally inadequate to what the reality must have been, all superficial straw man stuff. But as far as method goes, for both sides it's a matter of imagining the physical situation as plausibly as possible.