Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9031 total)
51 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,911 Year: 2,557/14,102 Month: 222/703 Week: 43/158 Day: 3/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 116 of 206 (781617)
04-05-2016 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2016 10:33 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Of course it would. Are you nuts? An organism can die of non-magic-flood causes at any age.

Gpsh it's amazing how many billions of creatures of all ages did so all at once and got themselves buried in a particular kind of sediment. An epidemic among the nautiloids perhaps that offed a few billion of them all at one time? And just happened to bury them in a wet sediment that covered thousands of square miles of land and offered the perfect conditions for fossilizing all billions of them? Which scenario was of course repeated for all kinds of creatures found in the geologic record. Interesting collection of merely accidental normal causes of the deaths of billions of creatures in the same layer of sediment. Seems to me you need to rethink which model is the magic one,

Suddenly buried organisms would be intact you say? What an odd idea. These were apparently carried along in the rising ocean water before being deposited. Some tossing about going on there no doubt, as well as probably getting munched on by various sea creatures that continued to be alive at the moment.

No ready linky. Give the explanation in your own words please.

Abe: Tides NORMALLY don't rise that high, but we're talking about a one-time worldwide catastrophic rising of all the water in the oceans.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2016 10:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 12:58 AM Faith has responded
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2016 11:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 206 (781622)
04-06-2016 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by PaulK
04-06-2016 12:58 AM


Austin's Redwall nautiloids
What isn't true? The billions or what? THIS SITE Says "millions in the canyon alone," but the bed extends well beyond the canyon, into all the surrounding states as I recall, and I remember billions being Austin's estimate. As usual I'll have to go find the book.

No, its being obviously a mass kill event was not likely the reason for his choosing the nautiloids to study, but the fact that they are found in the walls of the canyon where they are visible to the naked eye and countable from simple observation, not all being buried out of sight.

"Most fossils" are found buried willy-nilly in their sedimentary beds, as they would have been by the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 12:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 6:17 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 206 (781623)
04-06-2016 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by jar
04-05-2016 9:27 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
And yes, the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism MUST, I repeat MUST account for all of the evidence seen.

Which is a ridiculously draconian requirement of an amateur creationist in a message board discussion, or any creationist at all for that matter, considering that the model hasn't yet been fully developed. The only point of such a requirement is to shut up the creationists.

There are as many different versions of how the Flood occurred, mostly on small or secondary points of course, as there are creationists. All I can do is present my own version, and I don't expect to do more than muster the best evidence that a Flood explains the facts better than the OE explanation, which I believe is not at all hard to do. I believe I've done it many times over at EvC and that other creationists with different views have done it as well. You don't have to account for ALL the facts to do that much.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 04-05-2016 9:27 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 04-06-2016 8:44 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 206 (781625)
04-06-2016 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by edge
04-05-2016 10:27 PM


Flood model
OF course I don't know how the fossils were sorted and it's ridiciulous to expect that of a Floodist.

Well, some of us do know and time is the most explanatory suspect.
For you to reject it based on your admitted ignorance is a bit arrogant.

My admitted ignorance has never extended to any of the facts that would disqualify me from having an opinion about the particular things I have opinions about. But of course just being a creationist makes me arrogant since that role pits me against standard geology.

Insisting on the time explanation just makes you an Old Earther, it says nothing to explain how the fossils would have been sorted in the Flood. Since sediments would have been sorted according to Walther's Law, and the dead things would have been carried within those sediments, which we know by the fact that there are particular fossils contained in particular rocks, it appears they were also sorted, but what the principle of their sorting might be isn't knowable at this point. But of course to require it of creationists lets you win the debate, doesn't it?

The model doesn't have to account for how the creatures were sorted since one wouldn't expect a Flood to have a sorting method.

But that arrangement of fossils is data.

Your model needs to explain it.

We can't just ignore data because it doesn't fit a cherished model.

Actually it's just OE interpretation, not raw data. I plan to go listen again to a creationist video presentation I saw recently where at some point the presenter discusses evidence against faunal succession. I'll let you know what I find out.

Percy agrees I've provided a model, and in fact I've provided a model many many times in the past.

He also says that your model failed its tests.

The usual bare assertion by a hostile witness. OE/evolutionist "tests" of creationist views are hardly to be trusted.

It should be rejected.

You don't even know what "it" is, and Percy didn't say, but of course it should be rejected because it contradicts OE geology. Interesting how so much of this debate seems to consist of the opinion that creationism simply shouldn't exist and should be disallowed from the getgo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 10:27 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 6:54 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:12 AM Faith has responded
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2016 11:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 123 of 206 (781626)
04-06-2016 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
04-06-2016 6:17 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
To this I would point out that there is evidence that Austin's estimates might be too large, and that the number of fossils certainly need not bet he number caught in a single mass kill event.

They are all in the same bed which had to have been washed up onto the land since nautiloids don't happen to live on the land, and then covered over quite rapidly by the next sedimentary layer up. Single mass kill certainly looks like the best interpretation of the evidence.

And, of course, the most you can prove from the nautiloids alone would be a localised event, even if it was a very large one.

I dunno. There they are sandwiched in their own sedimentary layer between other sedimentary layers equally horizontal and flat. Looks like whatever put them there also put the other layers there.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 6:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:01 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 206 (781630)
04-06-2016 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
04-05-2016 10:22 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
But your whole notion of "older rocks" is just the OE theory.

Theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence including relative dating techniques and known geological processes, further backed up by various dating methods.

All artifacts of your theory, though, artifacts that themselves can't be tested because you can't test the past. The thing is OE theory is circular and self-validating.

If the rocks aren't older then which lifeforms are found in them has nothing to do with the age of the rocks.

But dating shows this not to be the case.

See above. The most unreliable element in the whole shebang is the dating methods.

And this notion that the fossils would all be jumbled up is again just interpretation for which you have no specific evidence, it's just your own head trip.

Not necessarily 'jumbled up', but in the same age rocks. We should find large mammals with large dinosaur fossils but we do not.

You have no idea what you "should find" in the Flood at all, all the more so because you are hostile to the idea of the Flood and wouldn't even try to give anything about it a reasonable hearing.

If it weren't for Walther's Law there wouldn't be any way to explain the fact that the sediments got sorted as they did, but the fact that they did suggests that the fossils did also. by what principle isn't known. Perhaps it could be known. Just as it is understood why the sediments sort out as they do when the sea rises, perhaps it could be known why the fossils got sorted as they did too. The usual temtative explanations have to do with size and weight and original location (land or sea for starters). Perhaps someone could do an experiment to discover the principle. But at the moment it isn't known.

Since Walther's Law sorts sediments it apparently also sorted the dead creatures that were deposited with them. According to what principle I have no idea but obviously sorting occurred.

Then we are correct in saying that you do not understand Walther's Law.

So you know the mechanical principle of sorting of the fossils by Walther's Law? Then you should describe it.

It explains why strata are time-transgressive but still have lateral continuity.

Such cryptic nonexplanations get ignored by me. If you want me to think about them you have to say more. But of course you have a method in not saying more. You couldn't care less about communication or debate, you just want to win by intimidation, rank-pulling and sophistry.

You do not "see" this at all, you interpret this into the facts that are subject to other more reasonable interpretations.

So then, you reject Walther's Law.

You should have said so in the first place.

The usual deceitful sophistry from you. This is why I eventually stop talking to you at all. You do not debate in good faith. Everything you say is designed NOT to communicate, only to lay a trap. So I'll ignore most of the rest of your post too, which is the same sort of noncommunication.

A slab of rock of one kind of sediment that spans a whole continent and even the entire world was simply not built up over millions of years, ...

Why not? And please provide and example of a formation that is global.

I already answered your "Why not" mantra. I will answer your formation question next:

...as if the surface of the earth were EVER composed of one sediment.

True, and one of the reasons is that there was always an emergent land mass to provide sediments of various nature.

Let me try to be more exact. I'm not claiming that a particular sediment covered the world for a particular time period -- a particular sediment nevertheless can cover even a whole continent or more -- but that the time period is found all over the world as a layer or layers in the geologic column, always characterized by hugely extensive sedimentary deposits considered to be continuous with those of that same time period elsewhere.

Golly gee just look at the surface of the earth NOW and realize that those strata simply do NOT represent the surface of this planet in any time period whatever let alone for millions of years.

Why not?

I've already explained this (See Message 115 among others). I'm sorry you have to keep resorting to your silly little questions designed only to deflect the truth and distract from the fact that you refuse to face the reasonableness of my point.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 04-05-2016 10:22 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 206 (781631)
04-06-2016 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Pressie
04-06-2016 7:12 AM


WhenRe: Flood model
When geologists study rocks they study them within the theory they carry around with them everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:12 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:46 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 206 (781633)
04-06-2016 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
04-06-2016 7:01 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
I'm pretty sure that Austin regards the bed as being deposited under water, so there would be no need for anything to be washed up on land.

Austin describes the bed as having been created by a flow of sediment-laden water, even a "mud" flow as I recall, not standing water.

abe: interesting that Pressie was answering the same point at the same time.

Of course it was on the "ocean floor," it was during the Flood. Everything was being moved in sediment-laden currents or bands or levels of water that were carried over the land -- and that ended up deposited ON THE LAND.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:01 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:49 AM Faith has responded
 Message 135 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 8:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 206 (781636)
04-06-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Pressie
04-06-2016 7:46 AM


Basalts ARE igneous rocks, nobody disputes that, it's fact, not theory. I'm talking about the OE theory that geologists carry around with them everywhere. It colors everything they study, which is only to be expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 7:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 8:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2016 4:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 206 (781637)
04-06-2016 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by PaulK
04-06-2016 7:49 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
...why should we believe it ?

Cuz it IS on the land?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:49 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 8:03 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 206 (781640)
04-06-2016 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by PaulK
04-06-2016 8:03 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
Yes it is land NOW but it's ALWAYS been land fer cryin out loud, it's just that it was covered with water during the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 8:03 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 8:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 141 of 206 (781646)
04-06-2016 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
04-06-2016 8:44 AM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
What we must see is an environment pretty much as it is today but then an abrupt, sudden and total depopulation world-wide of all living critters. Above the event line we should see a gradual but slow return of life; there needs to be a wedge of no-life that is widest 180 degrees away from the grounding site of the ark and gradually narrowing as it gets closer to that site.

We know what the remains and aftermath of floods look like and no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory world-wide flood model, method, process, procedure or mechanism to explain what is seen in reality, and nowhere has the event horizon described in the paragraph above been seen..

You have a false idea of the Flood. It's no wonder if there is no evidence for YOUR idea of the Flood since it couldn't have happened. Your expectations of what would constitute evidence are ridiculous. In the first place your thinking it could be compared to local floods puts your whole thinking process out of scale. There couldn't possibly be any comparison with a worldwide Flood.

The actual evidence has been given. Worldwide strata indicating worldwide water deposition according to Walther's Law, worldwide fossils indicating worldwide death by water. If it's not good enough for you that's not surprising since you have unreasonable expectations and the usual assumptions of those hostile to the idea of the ONE Biblical Flood..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 04-06-2016 8:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 8:57 AM Faith has responded
 Message 145 by jar, posted 04-06-2016 9:23 AM Faith has responded
 Message 160 by edge, posted 04-06-2016 3:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 206 (781648)
04-06-2016 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Pressie
04-06-2016 8:57 AM


Strata in South Africa
I looked up all the continents to see if they have strata before making my statement and South Africa is shown to have strata:

Google Image South Africa

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2016 8:57 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2016 11:36 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 146 of 206 (781656)
04-06-2016 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by jar
04-06-2016 9:23 AM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
My evidence is for the one Biblical Flood. I do not recognize two, nor indeed just about anything you have to say about floods. That makes discussion with you about my model impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 04-06-2016 9:23 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 04-06-2016 9:51 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 206 (781657)
04-06-2016 9:34 AM


Application of Walther's Law to the GC strata by RAZD
RAZD showed how Walther's Law applies to the Grand Canyon sequence HERE, beginning his discussion in the previous message (39).

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021