Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 405 of 519 (811975)
06-13-2017 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by JonF
06-13-2017 8:41 PM


Re: Crabs
So you say, and that's all you guys have, your own unprovable opinion. It is known that water sorts things and makes layers of sediments And as long as the Time Scale is the utterly irrational interpretation of the strata that it is, and as long as there is other evidence of the Flood, which I've given, it's reasonable to assume it sorted things exactly as we see them in the strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by JonF, posted 06-13-2017 8:41 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by edge, posted 06-13-2017 9:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 408 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2017 9:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 411 by JonF, posted 06-13-2017 9:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 417 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:12 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 407 of 519 (811979)
06-13-2017 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by edge
06-13-2017 9:01 PM


Re: Crabs
The evidence I have given via cross sections and maps (see Message 355 for instance, and Message 359) shows that the strata were laid down continuously and then tectonically deformed after they were all in place, and there is no sign whatever of anything between the layers to suggest any time periods ever existed. Plus the fact that nothing could live where a thick layer of sediments is all there was for a landscape.
It's been proved. You'll deny it and deny it but it's been proved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by edge, posted 06-13-2017 9:01 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2017 9:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 415 by PaulK, posted 06-14-2017 12:11 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 416 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2017 10:48 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 410 of 519 (811986)
06-13-2017 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Coragyps
06-13-2017 9:17 PM


Re: Crabs
Oh good grief. I'm talking OF COURSE about a layer of sediment in a stack of sediments, where there is no evidence whatever that anything ever lived. The strata stretch across huge distances, FLAT, now ROCK. If anything ever did live there the next sediment would have buried them alive, they would have had nowhere to go. They are rocks, nothing ever lived there.
Always always always you guys make up irrelevant stuff to answer a point. I know you believe in the Time Scale, and giving it up isn't going to happen even if it has been proved false, but still the efforts to save it are absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2017 9:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by edge, posted 06-13-2017 9:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 413 of 519 (811992)
06-13-2017 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by edge
06-13-2017 9:34 PM


Re: Crabs
You're right, things DID live there at one time, way underneath the first layer anyway, and the sediment depositions killed them. We see their tracks scurrying across the latest deposition in a futile attempt to escape.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by edge, posted 06-13-2017 9:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by edge, posted 06-13-2017 9:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 419 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2017 9:21 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 418 of 519 (812100)
06-14-2017 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Taq
06-14-2017 11:12 AM


Re: Crabs
Faith writes:
It is known that water sorts things and makes layers of sediments
It is known that the isotope content of igneous rocks is not enough to cause water to sort them by tiny tiny differences, and yet that is what we see. Therefore, those layers were not created by a single event that sorted those layers by tiny differences in Argon content.
I have no clue what you are saying here.
It remains true that water sorts things and makes layers of sediments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Taq, posted 06-14-2017 11:12 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:31 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 420 of 519 (812109)
06-14-2017 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Coragyps
06-14-2017 9:21 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2017 9:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by kjsimons, posted 06-14-2017 9:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 424 by edge, posted 06-14-2017 10:16 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 422 of 519 (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 replied

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

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


Message 425 of 519 (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 replied

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

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


Message 426 of 519 (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 replied

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

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


Message 432 of 519 (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 replied

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

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


Message 433 of 519 (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 replied

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


Message 434 of 519 (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 replied

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

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


Message 436 of 519 (812143)
06-15-2017 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by dwise1
06-15-2017 2:58 AM


just the usual
Sorry I do not see the Flood as involving miracles beyond the few stated in the text -- the bringing of the animals and the closing of the door to the ark. Nothing else is treated as a miracle, it is all described in terms of physical events with causes and effects, so I have no option other than to treat them as such physical events.
Water covering the earth would be a physical event, right? You all are going to deny it no matter how creationists try to defend it. If we try to show physical evidence for it you all call it a miracle anyway; so if we called it a miracle you'd just dismiss us completely.
But again, even if it was a miracle there would be physical evidence for it and really that's all I've been arguing anyway. The strata and the fossils are THE indisputable evidence, along with showing the absolute absurdity of the contrary interpretation. The case has been made and all I've seen from the opposition is denials and changing the subject.
The idea that you or anyone else knows whether the rapid deposition of the Flood is possible is really ridiculous. You can't see into the past either and your guesses are no better than mine. I did find a site a while back, a science site, not a creationist site, that said they'd recalculated the timing of continental drift and found out it could have been much faster than is currently thought. I don't know if I could find it again, I ran across it while looking for something else. So there's an example of how scientific dogma can change, and since this dogma is about the prehistoric past which can't be proved but only speculated about, we can put your speculations on the list of Wild Guesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 2:58 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 4:21 AM Faith has replied
 Message 440 by Pressie, posted 06-15-2017 6:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 444 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:37 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 439 of 519 (812150)
06-15-2017 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by dwise1
06-15-2017 4:21 AM


Re: just the usual
Strata and Fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 4:21 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2017 6:42 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 450 of 519 (812328)
06-16-2017 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Minnemooseus
06-16-2017 12:58 AM


Re: Sediment source
You seem to be invoking very fast "catastrophic weathering" of the rocks, to produce your sediment supply. Aka, a miracle.
How is the expected result of worldwide rain for forty days and nights a miracle? A few days of heavy local rain can produce catastrophic mudflows, therefore worldwide rain for over a month should be expected to produce some pretty "catastrophic weathering" in pretty short order. But why "rocks?" I'm supposing mostly fertile soils and packed sediments supporting lush vegetation in the pre-Flood world, all fairly easily subject to erosion by such a downpour of rain.
"
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2017 12:58 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by edge, posted 06-16-2017 1:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 456 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 5:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024