Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 5:57 AM
137 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 135 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
35Next
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 421 of 518 (812111)
06-14-2017 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
06-14-2017 9:50 PM


Re: Crabs
Except that the sediments were deposited over a few months.

No they weren't! Present evidence for this or admit you just made this up.

Edited by kjsimons, : dbcodes fix

Edited by kjsimons, : dbcodes not working correctly

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Need to use "/", not "\".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 9:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:05 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 422 of 518 (812113)
06-14-2017 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by kjsimons
06-14-2017 9:54 PM


water deposition
The evidence is in the tight contacts between the layers, their flatness and straightness before tectonic deformation, the accumulation in some places of the whole sequence from Cambrian to Holocene without tectonic disturbance, the absence of any erosion on a scale that would imply conditions for a time period at that level in the geological column, the fact that the sediments cover enormous areas of geography layer after layer which would kill anything that had lived there, in other words the evidence shows deposition one layer after another, which implies deposition by an enormous amount of water over a short period of time.

Your evidence, interpreting the fossils as things that lived in a particular time period, is absolute crazy nonsense.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by kjsimons, posted 06-14-2017 9:54 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2017 10:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 427 by edge, posted 06-14-2017 10:44 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 446 by Taq, posted 06-15-2017 10:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 423 of 518 (812114)
06-14-2017 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:05 PM


Re: water deposition
Your evidence, interpreting the fossils as things that lived in a particular time period, is absolute crazy nonsense.

That evidence, from both radiometric and stratigraphic methods of dating, is not nonsense.

It is real-world evidence that shows millions of years, and your wishes and dis-belief can't make that evidence go away.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:17 PM Coyote has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4460
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 424 of 518 (812115)
06-14-2017 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
06-14-2017 9:50 PM


Re: Crabs
Except that the sediments were deposited over a few months.

In the real world, there is no source for such amounts of sediment. So, in the Faith scenario, the sediment has to come from the ocean basins, is that correct?

Do you realize the complications of such a scheme?

Do you agree then that there were ocean basins prior to the flood? Some YECs say no. I'd like to get the straight story and then go from there.

If such basins existed, did they contain a huge amount of sediments along with the seawater?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 9:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:34 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 425 of 518 (812116)
06-14-2017 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Coyote
06-14-2017 10:15 PM


Re: water deposition
I listed real observable evidence, why do you ignore it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2017 10:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2017 10:44 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 443 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 426 of 518 (812117)
06-14-2017 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by edge
06-14-2017 10:16 PM


Re: Crabs
Except that the sediments were deposited over a few months.

In the real world, there is no source for such amounts of sediment.

Funny that it's actually there then so there must have been a source for it. And if as I have suggested, a lot of it came from the land, washed off by the rain and rising water into the ocean water, plus sediments stirred up in the oceans themselves, seems to me there should be plenty. The land was apparently pretty flat too, since the sediments were deposited flat across enormous areas of geography. No mountains etc.,

Where are YOU going to get enough for what we actually see anyway? Did it fall out of the sky?

So, in the Faith scenario, the sediment has to come from the ocean basins, is that correct?

See above.

Do you realize the complications of such a scheme?

When the main truths are known the complications will eventually be explained.

Do you agree then that there were ocean basins prior to the flood?

I don't know. I'm not talking about ocean basins, why are you? My very vague understanding of the pre-Flood ocean as suggested by some professional creationists is that it was far more shallow than today's oceans, that the "fountains of the deep" erupted from beneath the ocean floor, and when the Flood receded it was into a deepened basin because of the collapse of the ocean floor. I'm not arguing for this, just saying it's one of the creationist views and it does account for the facts.

Some YECs say no. I'd like to get the straight story and then go from there.

That sort of question is not essential to my argument and I don't know why you are focused on it.

If such basins existed, did they contain a huge amount of sediments along with the seawater

Well, how do you account for the sediments that form layers according to Walther's Law? Sand, Mud, Carbonates and Coccoliths? The latter certainly originate in the oceans, and sand is formed in the oceans too, though it originally came from the land, running down streams and rivers into the sea, then abraded into sand grains, I forget how, islands? or something, before being deposited as beach sand.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by edge, posted 06-14-2017 10:16 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by edge, posted 06-14-2017 11:22 PM Faith has responded
 Message 430 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2017 11:36 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4460
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 427 of 518 (812120)
06-14-2017 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:05 PM


Re: water deposition
The evidence is in the tight contacts between the layers, ...

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the contacts are sharp or that they are tight as in hard to separate?

In either case, what would you expect would be the difference from the mainstream interpretation? Why would the contacts not be 'sharp'? In other words, we have a nice flat surface of deposition for black shale and the environment changes to silt deposition. Why would that change not appear sudden resulting in a quick change to silt?

... their flatness and straightness before tectonic deformation, ...

So, how would this be different in the mainstream explanation and why?

... the accumulation in some places of the whole sequence from Cambrian to Holocene without tectonic disturbance, ...

What do you mean 'in some places'? Or do you think that the stratigraphic package of rocks is the same everywhere in the world?

... the absence of any erosion on a scale that would imply conditions for a time period at that level in the geological column, ...

So, the flood eroded the land sending sediments to the ocean basins(?), which then coughed it all back up on to the land?

I only ask because you say there was no erosion and (I think) you have said that there was no rain before the flood. The question is, where did sediments come from if there was no erosion?

... the fact that the sediments cover enormous areas of geography layer after layer which would kill anything that had lived there, ...

Please explain.

Why does having layer after layer mean that the layers would have killed everything? Why does it mean that everything happened quickly? Most people would say that the layers represent different time periods. How would that be different from what you see?

... in other words the evidence shows deposition one layer after another, ...

Okay, but why do you use the term 'after'? Aren't you implying a time factor?

... which implies deposition by an enormous amount of water over a short period of time.

But why is it a short period of time? Why not an enormous amount of water over a long period of time?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 428 of 518 (812121)
06-14-2017 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:17 PM


Re: water deposition
I listed real observable evidence, why do you ignore it?

You "interpreted" real observable evidence in a way that is not supported by the evidence.

The content of the layers disproves a short-term event, as does the dating evidence. It is not appropriate to ignore that type of real-world evidence in favor of a priori beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4460
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 429 of 518 (812124)
06-14-2017 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:34 PM


Re: Crabs
Funny that it's actually there then so there must have been a source for it.

That's kind of my point. You have to conjure up sources such as erosion from the land masses to the ocean basins, which may or may not have existed and may or may not have already had sediments in them, then you have to return those sediments to the land masses in nice flat, straight, huge sheets.

And if as I have suggested, a lot of it came from the land, washed off by the rain and rising water into the ocean water, plus sediments stirred in the oceans themselves, seems to me there should be plenty.

But where did the sediment in the ocean come from? You said there was no erosion prior to the flood.

And how much sediment was eroded from the land masses? There must have been miles of it, agreed? If so how did that much weathering occur in 2000 years from the creation of the planet? Certainly, basement rock does not erode that fast unless it is very deeply weathered.

The land was apparently pretty flat too, since the sediments were deposited flat across enormous areas of geography.

So you had these deeply eroded continental masses that were essentially flat after torrential rains removed miles of weathered rock. We see that all the time, right?

No mountains etc.,

You know what creates mountains, don't you? Erosion.

Where are YOU going to get enough for what we actually see anyway? Did it fall out of the sky?

That's easy. I had mountains forming continuously along with erosion depositing sediments on and adjacent to the continents.

Just like what we see today.

See above.

Okay so sediment rose out of the oceans to spread across the continents. And it removed all of the sediment from the oceans? And deposited them evenly across the continents? In nice even layers with well-defined contacts? Along with limestone beds? In less than a year?

Sure, Faith...

When the main truths are known the complications will eventually be explained.

So you can just ignore them, yes?

In the meantime, we have an explanation.

I don't know.

I see that.

I'm not talking about ocean basins, why are you?

Well, it's kind of critical isn't it? I mean, if your sediments are coming from there and being transported back onto the continents, against the gradient, there must be something unusual about these oceans.

My very vague understanding of the pre-Flood ocean as suggested by some professional creationists is that it was far more shallow than today's oceans, that the "fountains of the deep" erupted from beneath the ocean floor, and when the Flood receded it was into a deepened basin because of the collapse of the ocean floor. I'm not arguing for this, just saying it's one of the creationist views and it does account for the facts.

Yes, there are reasons for not advocating this mechanism.

However, you should work in this problem.

Well, how do you account for the sediments that form layers according to Walther's Law? Sand, Mud, Carbonates and Coccoliths?

Another easy question: transgressing seas. We've been over this a number of times.

The latter certainly originate in the oceans, and sand is formed in the oceans too, though it originally came from the land, running down streams and rivers into the sea, then abraded into sand grains, I forget how, islands? or something, before being deposited as beach sand.

Which raises another whole question. How do you have beach sands if you don't have a land mass? I thought this flood was at least global if not even greater.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 12:10 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 430 of 518 (812126)
06-14-2017 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:34 PM


Sediment source
Faith writes:

Edge writes:

Faith writes:

Except that the sediments were deposited over a few months.

In the real world, there is no source for such amounts of sediment.

Funny that it's actually there then so there must have been a source for it. And if as I have suggested, a lot of it came from the land, washed off by the rain and rising water into the ocean water,...

Well, in the real world, there is a source for such amounts of sediments. It's the risings and wearing downs of mountains. What there isn't a source of, is a all at the same time vast volumes of unlithified sediments.

You are saying is that there was a vast supply of unlithified sediments, and the "flood" reworked this into a vast thicknesses of unlithified, then later lithified sediments. Which raises the question, where did the pre-flood vast supply of unlithified sediments come from? To me, this seems to be some sort of "creation with false apparent age".

Faith writes:

...plus sediments stirred up in the oceans themselves, seems to me there should be plenty.

Even if such sediments existed, how do you "stir up" sediments underneath thousands of feet of water? And even if such "stirrings" happened, why did the sediments end up on the continents instead of just settling back to the ocean basin floor?

Faith writes:

The land was apparently pretty flat too, since the sediments were deposited flat across enormous areas of geography. No mountains etc.,

But the "geologic column" does contain vast alluvial fans of material abutted up to the remains of the mountains the sediment eroded off of.

Faith writes:

Where are YOU going to get enough for what we actually see anyway? Did it fall out of the sky?

I seemed to have already covered this above. It's the (repeated) risings and wearing downs of mountains.

Faith writes:

Edge writes:

Do you agree then that there were ocean basins prior to the flood?

I don't know. I'm not talking about ocean basins, why are you? My very vague understanding of the pre-Flood ocean as suggested by some professional creationists is that it was far more shallow than today's oceans, that the "fountains of the deep" erupted from beneath the ocean floor, and when the Flood receded it was into a deepened basin because of the collapse of the ocean floor. I'm not arguing for this, just saying it's one of the creationist views and it does account for the facts.

In professional geologist circles, this is known as "arm waving". Making stuff up for no rational reason. Piling up miracles that make no worldly sense.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 1:10 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4460
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 431 of 518 (812127)
06-14-2017 11:48 PM


So, the Faith scenario is to erode the continents to a flat terrain in 40 days, evenly all over the earth to a flat plain.

I'm wondering what material was being eroded. We presently see very hard rocks of basement complexes such as granite and a host of hard metamorphic rocks below the ostensible flood sediments. Is that the original source of sediment, or did God create the earth with miles of easily erodable soil at the surface?

If the former, how did the bedrock weather so deeply to get all of the sediment necessary for the Phanerozoic rock series? What kind of rapid weathering occurred, especially if there was no rain prior to the flood?

Okay, so this sediment was transported to the sea in raging torrents that swept the surface of the land down to a flat surface. In 40 days. Leaving no trace of canyons or stream courses.

Then then the ocean regurgitated these sediments along with other original ocean sediments back up onto the land, somehow going against the slope of the earth's surface to deposit nice layers of sand, silt, mud and limestone. Where did the limestone form? How did it get sorted out into nice layers, sometimes with intact reef environments growing in them? After all the fountains of the deep, in their rather unknown powers have stirred the sediments. Maybe they also forced the sediment charged water back up onto the continents?

What was this transport like? Streams, mudflows, street paving machines? How did the layers get to be so regular and extensive? And yet all of this sediment was removed cleanly from the modern ocean basins to be perched upon the continents. Are there no relict deposits of unregurgitated sediment in the oceans?

I'm having a hard time visualizing the process.

And I haven't even tried to fit in the fossil evidence yet.

Faith states all of this as a simple matter of fact and yet the questions multiply like rabbits with every new post and revelation. And yet, she asks why I am concerned with the ocean basins ...


Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 12:54 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 432 of 518 (812130)
06-15-2017 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by edge
06-14-2017 11:22 PM


where the sediments came from
But where did the sediment in the ocean come from? You said there was no erosion prior to the flood.

I don't remember saying any such thing, all I ever said was that I figure the land was pretty much denuded of its land mass during the heavy rain and early stages of the rising water. Why is this a problem? If you take a handful of dirt, say out of a garden where there may be a mixture of sand and clay and silt and soil and other things, and stir it into a jar of water won't it separate into sediments, and isn't that a rough model for what I'm describing?

And how much sediment was eroded from the land masses?

A lot. Just judging by the fact that many of the strata stretch great distances it's pretty clear that the land was pretty flat overall, some evidence I would think that it had been largely denuded of its former mass.

There must have been miles of it, agreed? If so how did that much weathering occur in 2000 years from the creation of the planet? Certainly, basement rock does not erode that fast unless it is very deeply weathered.

Why would you think weathering before the Flood would contribute much? I've figured that the Flood itself, certainly the forty days of rain, would have been sufficient to saturate the land and mix it into the rising sea water. I don't know about basement rock: Either it was already there and remained there or it existed in some other form before the Flood. Granite is the result of volcanism and that didn't occur until the Flood, and schist also has igneous qualities, so it also wouldn't have been there yet. So what would you suggest?

The land was apparently pretty flat too, since the sediments were deposited flat across enormous areas of geography.

So you had these deeply eroded continental masses that were essentially flat after torrential rains removed miles of weathered rock. We see that all the time, right?

The Flood was unique.

No mountains etc.,

You know what creates mountains, don't you? Erosion.

Really? I thought it was tectonic pressure that pushed them up, or volcanoes.

Where are YOU going to get enough for what we actually see anyway? Did it fall out of the sky?

That's easy. I had mountains forming continuously along with erosion depositing sediments on and adjacent to the continents.
Just like what we see today.

Don't you have the same problem of accounting for the source of the sediments to build the mountains in the first place? You still have to have the sediments to build the mountains before the sediments can be eroded off the mountains.

See above.

Okay so sediment rose out of the oceans to spread across the continents. And it removed all of the sediment from the oceans? And deposited them evenly across the continents? In nice even layers with well-defined contacts? Along with limestone beds? In less than a year?

Sure, Faith...

Eh? "...sediment rose out of the oceans...???" The sea level is what rose, carrying all kinds of sediments in it, ocean sediments along with what was eroded from the land. Yes so much of it that it deposited the layers to the extent and depth we see. You just have to think of the Flood as a lot bigger than you usually like to think. And besides, how is it any easier to account for say a humongous depth of limestone or sandstone on your model anyway? Surely these would have had to be deposited as one event because with time gaps between deposition how would you get such homogenous deposition anyway? Think of the South American tepui, clearly gigantic blocks of sandstone that had to be part of an original deposition, the rest of which washed away. I'm not sure what the comparable limestone deposit might be, but how about the cliffs of Dover for a massive chunk of ocean-originated sediment? I know it's hard to imagine the Flood as being that huge, but your scenario requires even more inexplicable physical events than the Flood does to account for these phenomena.

I'm not talking about ocean basins, why are you?

Well, it's kind of critical isn't it? I mean, if your sediments are coming from there and being transported back onto the continents, against the gradient, there must be something unusual about these oceans.

Er, the oceans ROSE UP OVER the land, over the gradient, whatever was left of it after the scouring by the rains, and if rising sea level deposits layers anyway, what's the problem? The oceans covered the land to some great depth, carrying a load of various kinds of sediments. If some deposited during the rising and some deposited by tidal action as the water got higher and then deposited by precipitation after all the land was covered....

Well, how do you account for the sediments that form layers according to Walther's Law? Sand, Mud, Carbonates and Coccoliths?

Another easy question: transgressing seas. We've been over this a number of times.

The problem is that the principle applies as well or better to the Flood as the explanation for all the strata that actually exist.

The latter certainly originate in the oceans, and sand is formed in the oceans too, though it originally came from the land, running down streams and rivers into the sea, then abraded into sand grains, I forget how, islands? or something, before being deposited as beach sand.

Which raises another whole question. How do you have beach sands if you don't have a land mass? I thought this flood was at least global if not even greater.

What? The beach sands we see today were deposited since the Flood I would assume. The huge amounts of sand that formed the sandstone strata were apparently just hugely more of same.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed a quote box (I think, kind of hard to tell with nested quotes).

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by edge, posted 06-14-2017 11:22 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Pressie, posted 06-15-2017 4:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 433 of 518 (812134)
06-15-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by edge
06-14-2017 11:48 PM


To a flat plain? I don't know HOW flat it was, I just know from the fact that the strata lie flat across great distances that there wasn't much elevated land left. Some perhaps, you'd have to go to the bottom of the strata to find out, but that is where the basement granite and schist formed so I'm not sure what the result would be.

In the previous post you said something about rocks being weathered down to sediment but I don't know how much rock was part of the pre-Flood earth. I suppose it had to have been grounded on rock of course, but given the impression of an enormously fertile green world without uninhabitable spaces there may not have been much rock.

YOu ask how the layers got to be so regular and extensive? Good grief, you should ask that of the standard theory, where it makes far less sense than on the theory of the Flood. Water DOES layer sediments for pete's sake. Explaining the extent in terms of slow normal natural processes is the hard thing to do. How anything lived in a world periodically flooded with huge depths of sediment? It's impossible. Only the Flood can account for the facts.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by edge, posted 06-14-2017 11:48 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 434 of 518 (812136)
06-15-2017 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Minnemooseus
06-14-2017 11:36 PM


Re: Sediment source
Even if such sediments existed, how do you "stir up" sediments underneath thousands of feet of water? And even if such "stirrings" happened, why did the sediments end up on the continents instead of just settling back to the ocean basin floor?

Because along with the torrential rain that lasted forty days the fountains of the deep also contributed to the rising of the water as well as stirring it up.

ABE: And according to the current understanding by creationists the oceans were much shallower than they are today.

I don't understand the point about the amount of sediment. If it was there in your scenario then it was there in mine. To have a mountain to erode means you had the sediments to build it. My scenario has all (or most) of the land mass, hills, the works, saturated by water and reduced to mud then separated by the water into sediments. I really do not get how there is any more of a problem accounting for the amount of it on my scenario than on yours.

I'm not talking about miracles. Whatever the "fountains of the deep" are or were they are or were a natural phenomenon, not a miracle.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-14-2017 11:36 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2017 12:58 AM Faith has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3308
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(4)
Message 435 of 518 (812140)
06-15-2017 2:58 AM


This is a general observation and question.

First and foremost, why do creationists insist on "scientific" explanations for all the supernatural miracles they have to invoke? A miracle is a miracle, after all, outside of the normal operation of the natural world. At this point, we have a very good understanding of how the natural world works. We have a very good understanding of the normal operation of the natural world.

So some miracles happen outside of that normal operation of the natural world. And creationists, including Faith, want to try to claim that those miracles are somehow completely natural. For example, she demands that sedimentation in an extremely short period of time is able to perform an unbelievable degree of sorting which is completely outside of actual physics. From Captain America: Civil War (available on NetFlix) Spiderman to Captain America about his shield: "That thing doesn't obey the laws of physics at all!" Faith, your Fluddye sorting does not obey the laws of physics at all!

Faith, everything you have ever argued for has required miracles that suspend all the laws of physics. You have repeatedly and falsely claimed that every one of your claims was in accordance with natural laws. That is an blatant and obvious lie!

Please come clean!


Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 3:53 AM dwise1 has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2728
29
3031
...
35Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019