Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 226 of 1257 (788317)
07-29-2016 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by mike the wiz
07-29-2016 6:25 AM


What we actually see from experimental testing with flumes, is that uniform principles do not apply to flowing currents which provably show that facies can be created quickly, and they break both the principle of superposition and continuity.
Not really. Just because a stratum (or lamination) is inclined does not mean that it is older than the inclined stratum beneath it. I'd rather like to know how you deposit a grain of sand, for instance, with out previously deposited grains to support it.
By the way, you are breaking Faith's rule that there are is no such thing as inclined deposition by invoking cross-bedding.
And yes, some beds of sediment are created quickly ... millions of years ago. We have known this since the early days of geology.
ETA:
The Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems but are evidence of catastrophic transportation.
So, how do you preserve delicate tracks in water-saturated, current-deposited, water-saturated conditions?
And where are the dinosaur ecosystems during the Cambrian? And how do their tracks get transported to the Mesozoic and coincidentally end up in the same aged rocks as the skeletal fossils? And nests with eggs?
You appear to have a truly magical fludde.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2016 6:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 4:15 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 227 of 1257 (788318)
07-29-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by mike the wiz
07-29-2016 7:03 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Your post makes sense to a degree, but not when we consider the actual fossils that exist, a lot of them in the middle of fighting, giving birth,
So, animals don't die giving birth, or choking on a large meal?
... or their necks thrown back in the suffocation position.
Heh, heh, I don't suppose you'd consider that neck muscles will contract upon death and dessication of the carcass ...
When we consider the fossilization of soft-tissued fossils such as jellyfish or whatever..
And what?
... and what about the diving-Ichthyosaur that had it's head buried in one million years worth of rock.
Please document.
While your explanation is plausible, it isn't based on real science, only assumptions of uniformity.
Well, then prove uniformity in its modern sense to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2016 7:03 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Tangle, posted 07-29-2016 12:43 PM edge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 228 of 1257 (788327)
07-29-2016 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by edge
07-29-2016 11:28 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Edge writes:
Please document.
It's pure bullshit. Quelle surprise.
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/analysis.php?artiID=20
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 11:28 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 1:00 PM Tangle has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 229 of 1257 (788329)
07-29-2016 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Tangle
07-29-2016 12:43 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
It's pure bullshit. Quelle surprise.
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/analysis.php?artiID=20
Just today I was explaining the thick, soupy mud that occurs at the bottom of standing bodies of some bodies of water. It was easy for an 7-year old to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Tangle, posted 07-29-2016 12:43 PM Tangle has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 230 of 1257 (788331)
07-29-2016 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by mike the wiz
07-29-2016 6:25 AM


But if the global flood story is true, we should see highly organized sediments and fossil sequences that are structured into discrete, systematic units
I'm not sure who said this but it is a prime example of an untested conditional probably based on an strawman version of the flood.
I said it and I am glad that you agree with me that it is a ridiculous expectation for the flood since I was making the point that it seems as if Faith's ideas about what we should expect to observe were a global flood true are backwards. Essentially, her contention is that if a global flood were true we should expect the geological record to look exactly like it does which is highly ordered and sorted - both fossils and sediments. Yet... she seems to be at a loss as to HOW the flood could produce the order in the geological record.
What we actually see from experimental testing with flumes, is that uniform principles do not apply to flowing currents which provably show that facies can be created quickly, and they break both the principle of superposition and continuity.
IOW, when strata, under experimental conditions, are formed quickly, it can be shown that they are created by direction of the current and are laid down vertically and laterally, SIMULTANEOUSLY.
You do realize that if you consider results of experiments or processes that can be conducted and observed today and apply them to past events, you are essentially operating under the assumption of uniformitarianism? We assume that processes we observe today are the same processes that operated in the past and that those processes are sufficient to explain Earth's geology. Uniformitarianism doesn't assume there was not a global flood, but assumes that if there was, we would be able to predict the consequences and examine the effects. Catastrophism, on the other hand, assumes that major cataclysmic events occurred in the past that relied on processes that are for the most part not operating today. Flood geology generally relies on the catastrophism principle, suggesting that, for example, there was some mysterious process that sorted fossils and sediments in the manner which it did. No one is able to adequately explain that mysterious process.
The Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems but are evidence of catastrophic transportation.
A good example of an unexplained, mysterious mechanism/process - "catastrophic transportation."
Here is a paper that explores the implications of such "catastrophic transportation" of the Coconino Sandstone.
Sediment Transport and the Coconino Sandstone: A Reality Check on Flood Geology
quote:
These calculations indicate a slab of sand 25 m high,
1,600 km wide, and 1,000 km long would have to be
continuously sliding southward across the boundary
at one meter per second to form the Coconino Sandstone
in twelve days. This corresponds to a sediment
transport rate of 4.8 x 104 kilograms (48 metric tons)
per second per meter!
HOW could that happen? What is the mechanism to transport that quantity of material, Mike? Are there any experimental results indicate that it's even possible? Or do we rely on the idea that we just can't understand the mechanisms of such a catastrophic event?
HBD

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2016 6:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 1257 (788333)
07-29-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dr Adequate
07-29-2016 12:34 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Dr A writes:
Faith writes:
Soil on top of soil?
Yes.
Nonsense. "Soil on top of soil" is not any kind of reasonable description of what we see in the strata, which represent different time periods and are characterized by different discrete sediments, which is misrepresented by the term "soil"
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
No landscape?
Obviously a landscape
Not at all obviously a landscape. Nothing Vimesey said implies a landscape. He's got "soil" up against "soil" on top of each other that then got lithified.
vimesey writes:
There was no loose layer of soil in between - they were layers of soil on top of each other. They then got lithified into layers of rock on top of each other.
Where's the landscape?
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
Were they lithified? Clearly the strata that represent separate time periods had to have lithified long before the next layer did, or possibly even got deposited — because of the many millions of years between the time periods you know.
There is no time between two consecutive time periods.
Oh screaming nonsense, semantic foolery: There is certainly plenty of time between two different strata dated to within two different time periods, many millions of years in most cases or there is no point to the assigned dates at all. In a very specific case you COULD claim that one rock belongs to the very last part of a time period while the one above it belongs to the very earliest part of the next, but then you've multiplied the years between the rocks above and below those two. And in that case you've got two entirely different eras according to Old Earthism with two supposedly widely separated evolutionary contents, which kind of blows the idea that evolution takes a long long time.
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
After the soil/rock of the previous time period has been laid down, how long are we talking about before the soil of the next layer starts accumulating?
0.0 seconds.
Well, Walther's Law could accomplish that but the problem is that the previous and later depositions would also follow that pattern, which implies a very very short time period from one to the next, certainly not the OE-assigned multiple millions of years, even if you allow for depositions miles deep. So if you want to claim that, what you have is the model of a continually rising sea, in which case why not recognize you just gave evidence for the Flood?
DrA writes:
Well, a lot of the time tree roots rot, you know. Most things do, which is why most things aren't fossilized. But in conditions in which tree stumps are preserved, the tree roots are often found attached to them.
If you've ever looked at any of those illustrations of the imaginary landscapes in each "time period" you'd know that there are often LOTS AND LOTS of trees presumably putting down roots. And given that we're talking about FOSSILS in ROCKS, the thing you ought to find surprising is that there aren't LOTS AND LOTS of deep tree roots FOSSILIZED in the rocks that supposedly represent such a time period, even quite a few that penetrate through the rock into the lower rock, since of course that rock was there when the upper sediments were in place with the trees growing thereon.
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
Nothing anyone has said gives a reasonable explanation of this that I can see.
We have said clearly, distinctly, and repeatedly that the scenario you have just sketched out didn't happen, couldn't happen, wouldn't happen, and is directly contradicted by all the evidence. We are not obliged to produce a "reasonable explanation" for imaginary things in your head.
Ah yes, perhaps you have indeed said such things clearly and repeatedly, but I am under no obligation to take anything you happen to make up in your head as a reasonable explanation for what I'm trying to describe.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2016 12:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 1257 (788335)
07-29-2016 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Boof
07-29-2016 12:42 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Hello Boof
The idea that there aren't landscapes, hills, mountains, rivers found within sedimentary sequences is simply incorrect. Just do a google image search on 'seismic section' and you can see all sorts of preserved features.
The supposed seismic imagery of deeply buried "landscapes" has come up here many times and my answer is those are not actual landscapes that were ever on the surface of the earth, but simply features like "canyons" carved by running water, probably after being deposited and buried, that got filled in by the next layer of sediment. That's really the only kind of thing that is seen on that sort of imaging, not enough to hang an entire landscape on of the sort we see on the surface of the earth today.
The key is that these transgressions normally take tens of thousands of years for the sea level to change from its minimum to its maximum (eg in the diagram above kya on the x axis = tens of thousands of years before present). As the sea level rises the shoreline moves gradually further ‘inwards’ depositing coarse beach sands overlain by silts then shales etc.
You are basically describing Walther's Law though giving it thousands of unnecessary years. Such a scenario implies that all living things in its path, land creatures anyway, would eventually have died, and at its peak everything on the land that was covered by it would be well and truly dead after those thousands of years of rising and then presumably falling at a similar rate. But the strata that this process laid down supposedly represent all the living things fossilized within them. Which of course they can't be if they're dead and buried in the sediment.
I suppose you are describing the supposed six "cratonic sequences" or "epeiric seas" that periodically inundated North America as well as other places around the globe? Some of those look like they took a lot more than mere thousands of years, judging from a chart showing their duration, since they may span the greatest part of a whole time period dated to cover many millions of years. Where they affect land creatures, at their peak what's left living? But actually these seas apparently killed off all kinds of sea life that is now extinct, such as in the Western Interior Seaway. Buried and fossilized too. Supposedly they WOULD have lived there, but then they died in huge numbers. Which I guess can be rationalized except that it seems like an awful lot of them to get fossilized instead of scavenged.
So the reason that you don’t normally see tree roots still ‘in place’ in the lithified rocks is because the tree ecosystems retreat inwards as the sea level gradually rises. You don’t often see trees living beyond the waterline in a coastal beach environment do you?
OK I'll accept that explanation. It fits of course with what I'm saying about how such a transgression of the sea would kill everything in its path. And then perhaps we also have the question of there being areas that didn't get covered by the water, where we may also see lots of fossilized land creatures, and then I'd wonder why we don't see the deep tree roots THERE. Of course if the seas covered the entire globe, well, THAT of course explains it very nicely.
Interesting where we do (as you pointed out, quite rarely) see tree roots and sometimes tree stumps preserved 'in-situ' in the geological record it’s normally in locations where the vegetation has been rapidly inundated by mud or ash flows, ie more of a catastrophic scenario (ie Biblical flood perhaps).
OK I'll take your word for that.
So the geological evidence supports relatively slow marine incursions and basin development and not wholesale catastrophic indundation.
Catastrophic or not, however, such a scenario would be just as deadly, as I argue above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Boof, posted 07-29-2016 12:42 AM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 5:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 236 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 9:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 239 by Boof, posted 07-30-2016 8:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 233 of 1257 (788345)
07-29-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
07-29-2016 2:29 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The supposed seismic imagery of deeply buried "landscapes" has come up here many times and my answer is those are not actual landscapes that were ever on the surface of the earth, but simply features like "canyons" carved by running water, probably after being deposited and buried, that got filled in by the next layer of sediment. That's really the only kind of thing that is seen on that sort of imaging, not enough to hang an entire landscape on of the sort we see on the surface of the earth today.
So, canyons are not real landscapes?
So if this canyon was filled in and covered by the next layer of sediment, it was never a canyon?
So, maybe it's just a "canyon" and not a canyon, is that correct?
Maybe you could tell us what a "canyon" is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-29-2016 2:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-29-2016 5:28 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 1257 (788347)
07-29-2016 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by edge
07-29-2016 5:08 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
So, canyons are not real landscapes?
Not what I said.
So if this canyon was filled in and covered by the next layer of sediment, it was never a canyon?
No.
So, maybe it's just a "canyon" and not a canyon, is that correct?
No.
Maybe you could tell us what a "canyon" is.
No.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 5:08 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 5:58 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 235 of 1257 (788348)
07-29-2016 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
07-29-2016 5:28 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
So, canyons are not real landscapes?
Not what I said.
So if this canyon was filled in and covered by the next layer of sediment, it was never a canyon?
No.
So, maybe it's just a "canyon" and not a canyon, is that correct?
No.
Maybe you could tell us what a "canyon" is.
No.
Perhaps, then you could explain what you mean by buried canyons not being part of an ancient landscape. Your previous paragraph on the subject was not clear.
I'm having a hard time seeing any alternative interpretation to the buried landscape interpretation of the data. What do you see or not see that convinces you of your position?
For instance, here is some data from the San Joaquin Valley:
It clearly shows not only multiple soil horizons, but a couple of stream channels cut in the soils. Note also that gravels occur at the base of the channel fill, as we would expect.
How is this not indicative of previous topography?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-29-2016 5:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 10:20 AM edge has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(3)
Message 236 of 1257 (788350)
07-29-2016 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
07-29-2016 2:29 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The idea that there aren't landscapes, hills, mountains, rivers found within sedimentary sequences is simply incorrect. Just do a google image search on 'seismic section' and you can see all sorts of preserved features.
Faith says:
The supposed seismic imagery of deeply buried "landscapes" has come up here many times and my answer is those are not actual landscapes that were ever on the surface of the earth, but simply features like "canyons" carved by running water, probably after being deposited and buried, that got filled in by the next layer of sediment. That's really the only kind of thing that is seen on that sort of imaging, not enough to hang an entire landscape on of the sort we see on the surface of the earth today.
I thought you would not be able to come up with new bizarrely strange ideas that would top your past bizarrely strange ideas but you have proven me wrong.
I don't remember seeing this "no past landscapes twist" before but you must have a definition of landscape that I have never heard before. For the life of me I can't figure out what it is though. I don't know whether I should be hopeful for enlightenment or not.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-29-2016 2:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 8:38 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 1257 (788355)
07-30-2016 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by jar
07-26-2016 3:18 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
What's so odd about the idea that the Flood should have left shorelines?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 07-26-2016 3:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 07-30-2016 8:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 241 by edge, posted 07-30-2016 9:51 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 238 of 1257 (788356)
07-30-2016 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Tanypteryx
07-29-2016 9:00 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
I don't remember seeing this "no past landscapes twist" before but you must have a definition of landscape that I have never heard before. For the life of me I can't figure out what it is though. I don't know whether I should be hopeful for enlightenment or not.
No landscapes BETWEEN STRATA is the idea, or even "within" strata since that's implied too. The only landscapes on the surface would have been before the Flood, which would have been obliterated by the Flood waters, starting with the heavy rain and continuing with the rising sea water laying down its sediments; and the landscapes that have formed after the Flood. Looking at the strata all that you see is tight lines between them, but wherever there is an exposed surface you get hills and valleys, trees and other living things -- which is how I'm using the term "landscape."
What we are arguing is whether there was ever a surface landscape in, say, the "Devonian period," or the "Permian," or the "Jurassic" etc, which would supposedly have left SOME clues instead of those flat straight contacts between their strata and the next.
I hope this suffices for the enlightenment you seek.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2016 9:00 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by edge, posted 07-30-2016 10:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 245 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2016 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 239 of 1257 (788357)
07-30-2016 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
07-29-2016 2:29 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Hi Faith
The supposed seismic imagery of deeply buried "landscapes" has come up here many times and my answer is those are not actual landscapes that were ever on the surface of the earth, but simply features like "canyons" carved by running water, probably after being deposited and buried, that got filled in by the next layer of sediment. That's really the only kind of thing that is seen on that sort of imaging, not enough to hang an entire landscape on of the sort we see on the surface of the earth today.
I’m not sure I’m following you Faith — if we see running water eroding lithified sediments to create a canyon, surely that is happening at the earth’s surface and is part of the landscape? Or are you assuming that this is occurring completely underwater while above the water the landscape is flat and no erosion at all is occurring? What would your justification for that be? In general under water tends to be places of deposition and above water tends to be locations for erosion but you want to swap that around? That might require some adjustments to the laws of physics.
The other thing to note is that researching of the drilling data in some of these seismic sections shows they drilled through coal seams, evaporates, fluvial sequences even air-fall tuffs all showing strong evidence of subaerial environmental conditions. In other words they were forming ancient landscapes.
You are basically describing Walther's Law though giving it thousands of unnecessary years.
I’m not giving it anything. The chronology of the graph I presented was based on evidential measurements including geochronology, biostratigraphy and isotope analysis. Plus direct observations show us that 200m thick reefs (the limestones that often occur in transgressive sequences) don’t grow that thick overnight.
Such a scenario implies that all living things in its path, land creatures anyway, would eventually have died, and at its peak everything on the land that was covered by it would be well and truly dead after those thousands of years of rising and then presumably falling at a similar rate.
Well, yes. Not many animals live for thousands of years.
But the strata that this process laid down supposedly represent all the living things fossilized within them. Which of course they can't be if they're dead and buried in the sediment.
Not sure what you are getting at in these two sentences. Obviously not all living things get fossilised, only those unfortunate few who die in the right conditions. But if they do get dead and buried in the sediment — well eventually they might become fossilised. I’m not sure how strata ‘represents’ fossils though
I suppose you are describing the supposed six "cratonic sequences" or "epeiric seas" that periodically inundated North America as well as other places around the globe?
No, why would you think that? The chart I present referred only to the last 350,000 years.
Some of those look like they took a lot more than mere thousands of years, judging from a chart showing their duration, since they may span the greatest part of a whole time period dated to cover many millions of years.
Sounds interesting, why don’t you show me the chart?
Where they affect land creatures, at their peak what's left living? But actually these seas apparently killed off all kinds of sea life that is now extinct, such as in the Western Interior Seaway. Buried and fossilized too. Supposedly they WOULD have lived there, but then they died in huge numbers. Which I guess can be rationalized except that it seems like an awful lot of them to get fossilized instead of scavenged.
Faith, we don’t claim that any of these these transgressive events ever covered ALL of the continents, even at their peaks. That is a Biblical concept. Land creatures kept living on the bits of Earth that weren’t under water.
OK I'll accept that explanation. It fits of course with what I'm saying about how such a transgression of the sea would kill everything in its path.
Apart from things than could move faster that 100m/year I guess? Not really sure what your point is.
Catastrophic or not, however, such a scenario would be just as deadly, as I argue above.
Yeah, well over periods of tens of thousands of years lots of things die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-29-2016 2:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 240 of 1257 (788358)
07-30-2016 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-30-2016 8:31 AM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Faith writes:
What's so odd about the idea that the Flood should have left shorelines?
The flood, if it had actually happened, would leave a very distinctive shoreline pattern all over the world.
There would be one incursion and one recession event with a nearly unordered jumble of materials between the two. The two boundaries would be very close together made from unlithified materials and the only ordering seen would be more massive particles on the bottom graded uniformally to the finest particles on the top. All things that had been living would be jumbled together with no fossils at all.
The Biblical Floods never happened which is a universal fact known by all scientists who have investigated for the last several hundred years and that continues to be supported by all evidence from every field of scientific inquiry and every technological development.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 8:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024