Summations Only

Thread copied here from the How does a flood ... thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

A couple participants have already alluded to keeping discussion on topic and to the role of evidence in a scientific discussion, and I'd like to emphasize these points. From the Forum Guidelines:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

Message 1 outlines the thread's topic, requesting descriptions of how the flood produced the evidence seen in the geologic record.

4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Describe the evidence that convinced you of your position.

Hi Starlite,

You won't be permitted to carry on in this way for much longer.

Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : Change subtitle.

Faith writes: The Flood rose steadily, continuing to deposit its sediments with their corpses. How many times? Once, a steady rising over about five months. One rising up, one retreat down.

This is directly related to the question Jar raised in Message 1:

Jar in Message 1 writes: The first question is "How did the flood sort things so that there is a layer where there are no chordates while layers above do have chordates?"

Please, no replies to this message.

Jar's opening post implies that there will be a series of questions. This is the first question from Message 1:

Jar in Message 1 writes: The first question is "How did the flood sort things so that there is a layer where there are no chordates while layers above do have chordates?"

I think Faith has already provided an answer to this question in her Message 127:

Faith in Message 127 writes: 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.

Faith is saying that her model doesn't explain the ordering of fossils in the geologic record. The question has been answered, continuing to press Faith for answers she doesn't have is unproductive, so Jar should present the next question.

Also, someone should help Faith understand Walther's Law. She thinks of it as explaining what a flood does as it advances and retreats across a landscape. She doesn't understand that it's actually about depositional environments moving laterally with marine transgressions and regressions, with whatever is in the water becoming gradually deposited on the bottom according to size, density and water energy. For Faith Walther's Law has become a name of convenience explaining whatever needs to be explained, and so it should be discussed until an understanding emerges.

Please, no replies to this message.

jar writes: You have already said your flood model cannot explain either the question asked the the OP...

It's probably time to move on to the "next question," if you have one in mind.

Faith writes: I suspect you are a club of one in your belief about two floods in the Bible. You've never mentioned anyone else who shares that understanding.

Jar can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he thinks the Bible describes two separate floods. I think he meant that the Bible contains two separate accounts of the flood that are mutually inconsistent.

Also, reducing the Flood to ONE LAYER of the strata is beyond absurd.

Again, Jar can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he's interpreting the flood scenario as depositing a single layer. I think he's saying the layers of a global flood should be distinctly different from those above deposited later by the gradual sedimentary processes that are ongoing today.

Let me also clarify Jar's point involving "180 degrees." By "180 degrees" Jar means 180 degrees of longitude around the globe, in other words, the opposite side of the globe from the ark's final resting spot. He's saying that geologic layers from the 4500 years or so since the flood should contain evidence of life radiating out from that spot to gradually repopulate the globe.

Please, no replies to this message, except for Jar if I've mistaken his meaning.

There's been a great deal of brevity at the expense of clarity recently. Where it appeared a message was misunderstood I offer my interpretation or ask for clarification:

Faith in Message 115 writes: Why should there be time periods at all, let alone time periods marked by a particular kind of sediment with a particular kind of fossil contents? That alone makes no sense. You are NOT going to get anything like that out of the era WE live in. Look at the current surface of the earth. It is NOT going to flatten down to a slab of some particular kind of sediment that spans the world EVER.

Faith is repeating her belief that some sedimentary layers span the entire world, and argues that since it is obvious that the world of today could never erode down to a single sedimentary layer of one type that this never happened in the past, either. Dr Adequate tries to explain that Faith's take on geology is wrong, and Faith responds in a way that makes clear she understands what geology actually says, but is unable to accept it:

Faith in Message 163 writes: Yes there are some time periods that are marked by more than one layer, and some of the layers are mixtures but not many, and the overall fact remains that the geologic column is characterized by discreet separate sediments, each time period marked by its own sediment or sediments, and that is what makes no sense.

Faith can confirm, but I think Faith says this makes no sense because she rejects the possibility of sedimentary layers forming as a result of anything but a flood. She rejects the possibility of contemporary sedimentary layers forming in fresh water and marine environments, such as off coastlines, in shallow seas, and in the deep ocean.

Dr Adequate responds:

Dr Adequate in Message 164 writes: The reason it makes no sense is that you made it up. Things that you make up usually make no sense.

I don't know why Dr Adequate is saying that Faith made it up. Unless one is being pedantic it looks like a pretty fair summary of how geology interprets the geologic column. PaulK appears to concur in Message 166. If Faith's description is wrong then it isn't clear to me how. Some clarification is needed.

Faith in Message 169 writes: The nitpicking nonsense on this thread is getting out of control. I don't see any reason to continue this travesty unless somebody comes up with something meaningful. But Science at EvC appears to be a very silly manipulative thing - in debates with creationists that is -- so I'm not holding my breath.

Faith isn't replying to a specific post, but I think she's having as much trouble as me understanding Dr Adequate's and PaulK's objections. Again, some clarification please?

jar in Message 170 writes: First, do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?

Faith has spelled out many details of how she thinks the flood happened - there's no need for going over old and very familiar ground. Jar, this is your thread. Faith has already stated she has no answer for your first question. If you have no "next question" then this thread should enter summation mode.

Faith writes: Your tiresome lecture about your own point of view is not what is needed here. "You're wrong because science says so" is ridiculous since that's what I'm answering.

This is a science thread, where a viewpoint's merits are measured according to scientifically gathered and evaluated evidence. Participants in science threads must be willing to have their views subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Faith writes: May I recommend that you and Dr. A carefully read what Percy posted as Admin above. This thread is done.

You should more carefully read my Message 172 yourself. I said to Jar, 'If you have no "next question" then this thread should enter summation mode.' He then provided a "next question":

Jar in Message 180 writes: Faith, do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?

I told Jar earlier that this question would just go over very familiar ground - you've outlined your views many times. I will tell him again.

jar writes: Faith (or some other person who still believes one of the Biblical flood myths actually happened), do you think a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened?

Obviously Faith thinks "a flood like one of the flood tales in the Bible happened." This thread should continue the process you described in Message 1:

jar in Message 1 writes: To attempt to keep it somewhat organized one item will be considered at a time and once a satisfactory model...has been presented we can then move to the next example that needs to be explained.

You first asked, "How did the flood sort things so that there is a layer where there are no chordates while layers above do have chordates?" Faith has responded that she has no answer to that question, so it's time to move on to the next question. When I promoted this thread I assumed you had a progression of questions in mind, maybe I should have asked about them up front. If there's no "next question" then perhaps this thread should be put into summation mode.

Yes, I recall Message 152 now, it's been ignored. Rephrasing a little:

How does a world-wide flood deposit land layers with land life above sea layers with sea life?

I think perhaps AdminPhat did not notice that I'm actively moderating this thread.

In the opening post Jar expressed a wish to explore the flood mechanisms that produced the geologic record, but he revealed only a single first question with the promise of more to come. Threads shouldn't be open ended, and so if this thread is to continue then I'll be making the final decisions about "next questions." I know Jar prefers a slightly different question, but I'm choosing this question anyway:

How does a world-wide flood deposit land layers with land life above sea layers with sea life?

Please end the off-topic complaining and discuss this question.

This sounds like a typical YEC explanation without any foundation in how the world really works, nor any knowledge of the actual evidence out there, as Dr Adequate notes in Message 201.

Your question about sea life in one layer and both sea and land life in a higher layer perhaps needs an example of the situation you're asking about from someplace like the Grand Canyon.

Admin writes: Admin has taken over this topic it seems.

As I said earlier, I probably should have developed a better impression of the rest of the questions you were going to ask before I promoted the topic. If you want to take the lead in asking the questions then I need a better idea of where you are going and how you see the progression of questions bringing issues of mechanism to light.

jar writes: My response fully and completely answered the question you asked.

In the opinion of this moderator, no.

If you want different answers then perhaps try asking better questions.

Since there's no indication of willingness to work with moderation, I'm placing this thread in summation mode.