Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 16 of 224 (820644)
09-25-2017 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-24-2017 10:39 PM


Re: an altrnative time frame
quote:
The Flood would have been basically the ocean rising over the land, the rising of which is the cause of the sedimentary deposits according to Walther's Law, although in a different time frame.
To stick to the topic, perhaps you can explain how the Flood would frequently mimic the sequences produced by much slower transgression and regression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 10:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 17 of 224 (820645)
09-25-2017 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
09-24-2017 11:23 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
The scenario I present hangs together and accounts for what we see.
Why is it that only certain religious believers see things the way you do?
Doesn't that seem to explain your entire approach to things, as you've admitted many times here.
Whereas people of other faiths and no faith at all see an entirely different picture.
Face it, you ignore evidence, make up seemingly plausible scenarios, refuse to entertain any evidence to the contrary, and proclaim victory.
Reminds me of how the pigeon plays chess...
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
-- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

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 14 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 11:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:07 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 224 (820646)
09-25-2017 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
09-25-2017 12:19 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Problem is that you have less and less sediment available for erosion on to the continents because the continents are both eroded and inundated by the sea. Your source of sediments simply disappears.
The sediments are now suspended in the water, pretty densely too I would suppose, so what's the problem?
What does "erosion ON to the continents" mean? OFF the continents is what I would expect, not ON.
And now you have to move sediment from the sea onto the continents. How does that happen?
The water is rising over the continents and it's full of the sediments, what IS the problem?
How do the sediments get layered on the land according to Walther's Law? Why wouldn't that Law be in operation with the rising of the sea water in the Flood, especially since it would be thick with the sediments from the land at least?
Why would sediments move up onto the land?
Cuz they are suspended in the water that is rising over that land, what IS the problem here?
And how would they do that while making nice neat layers that you refer to?
The water carries them over the land and deposits them in those neat layers, such as we see occuring with rising sea water according to Walther's Law, but perhaps also by precipitation when the water has risen to its height. There is all this heavily sediment-laden water over the land, rising over the land, standing over the land, both, and the sediments get deposited from that water. How are we having such difficulty communicating about something so simple?
Why could you not have multiple tectonic movements such as what we see in the geological record?
What I see in the geological record is one major tectonic upheaval, which seems to correspond to the timing of the end of the Flood as I suggest, and accounts for things like the upending of the entire Stratigraphic Column of Britain, which had to occur all at one time, and accounts for the massive erosion in the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area. Beyond that, as the continents keep moving apart there are many other tectonic and volcanic events brought about by that movement, especially with the subduction at the western side of the Americas which brings about volcanism and earthquakes and so on, due to that continued movement. It would of course have been that movement that raised the mountains everywhere, that are still rising in tiny increments just as the continents are still moving in tiny increments.
About the Appalachians, if my timing is right yours is wrong, that's all, nothing mysterious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 12:19 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 1:16 AM Faith has replied
 Message 32 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 8:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 224 (820647)
09-25-2017 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
09-25-2017 12:36 AM


Re: an alternative time frame
The scenario I present hangs together and accounts for what we see.
Why is it that only certain religious believers see things the way you do?
Doesn't that seem to explain your entire approach to things, as you've admitted many times here.
First, if you understood much of my arguments you'd have to notice that I have my own independent way of thinking about all these things that isn't shared to any great extent by other creationists, who DON'T all "see things the way [I] do". But of course we all take our cue from the Biblical record and try to understand where it agrees and disagrees with the current scientific theories. The only issue is whether the facts hang together, not where the theory originated.
Whereas people of other faiths and no faith at all see an entirely different picture.
Again, what matters is whether the facts fit together or not. Why should we all agree? I pursue certain lines of thought that have caught my attention, I assume others do the same and sometimes we end up going in different directions. I do hold firmly to the Biblical revelation, though, so what I pursue follows from what I understand about that. But if the facts hang together they hang together despite your prejudice.
Face it, you ignore evidence, make up seemingly plausible scenarios, refuse to entertain any evidence to the contrary, and proclaim victory.
I'm sorry you fail to grasp the logic of my arguments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2017 12:36 AM Coyote has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 224 (820648)
09-25-2017 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-25-2017 12:51 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
quote:
What I see in the geological record is one major tectonic upheaval, which seems to correspond to the timing of the end of the Flood as I suggest, and accounts for things like the upending of the entire Stratigraphic Column of Britain, which had to occur all at one time, and accounts for the massive erosion in the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area.
But Faith that isn't what you really see. It's what you decided to see - as you have made quite obvious by dismissing all the contrary evidence.
And this, I think is one of the major problems you have here. You "see" things you made up and expect everyone else to "see" them too - even though anyone who really looks will see that you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 12:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 224 (820650)
09-25-2017 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
09-25-2017 1:16 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
What I see in the geological record is one major tectonic upheaval, which seems to correspond to the timing of the end of the Flood as I suggest, and accounts for things like the upending of the entire Stratigraphic Column of Britain, which had to occur all at one time, and accounts for the massive erosion in the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area.
But Faith that isn't what you really see. It's what you decided to see - as you have made quite obvious by dismissing all the contrary evidence.
NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS. I COULDN'T POSSIBLY JUST "DECIDE" TO SEE ANYTHING, I ACTUALLY SEE IT AND I'VE SHOWN THAT IT IS THERE, MANY MANY TIMES. I'VE INDICATED IT ON THE CROSS SECTIONS, CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.
AND I DO NOT "DISMISS" THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, I ANSWER IT.
And this, I think is one of the major problems you have here. You "see" things you made up and expect everyone else to "see" them too - even though anyone who really looks will see that you are wrong.
THEY ARE LOOKING THROUGH THEIR EVO-BIASED GLASSES AND SEEING THEIR OWN PARADIGM. OR IF THEY DO SEE WHAT I'M POINTING OUT THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING AT ODDS WITH "SCIENCE" SO THEY DUCK IT. TYPICAL IN THE CASE OF A PARADIGM CLASH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 1:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:05 AM Faith has replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 8:06 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 09-25-2017 4:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 22 of 224 (820651)
09-25-2017 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
09-25-2017 1:46 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
quote:
NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS.
On many cross sections where it is obviously not visible.
quote:
I COULDN'T POSSIBLY JUST "DECIDE" TO SEE ANYTHING,
Not consciously, but you made up your mind that that's the way it happened and thus you "see" it.
quote:
I ACTUALLY SEE IT AND I'VE SHOWN THAT IT IS THERE, MANY MANY TIMES. I'VE INDICATED IT ON THE CROSS SECTIONS, CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.
You mean cherry-picking bits that fit and ignoring everything that doesn't, as you do with the Grand Canyon cross sections? That certainly can't be called "seeing". and since you are making a general claim you have to deal with all the evidence.
quote:
AND I DO NOT "DISMISS" THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, I ANSWER IT.
Calling thoroughly established facts an "illusion" - without evidence or explanation - as you do with the order of the fossil record certainly deserves to be called a dismissal.
quote:
THEY ARE LOOKING THROUGH THEIR EVO-BIASED GLASSES AND SEEING THEIR OWN PARADIGM. OR IF THEY DO SEE WHAT I'M POINTING OUT THEY ARE AFRAID OF BEING AT ODDS WITH "SCIENCE" SO THEY DUCK IT. TYPICAL IN THE CASE OF A PARADIGM CLASH.
Of course you have to pretend that everyone else is at fault. But the reality is that even you aren't really seeing what you claim. That's an obvious fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:08 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 224 (820653)
09-25-2017 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
09-25-2017 2:05 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
iT'S THE THEORY THAT'S AT FAULT, THE THEORY THAT EVERYBODY NOW ACCEPTS JUST BECAUSE IT'S WHAT EVERYBODY ACCEPTS. THAT'S THE WAY WITH PARADIGMS, THEY GET ESTABLISHED, EVERYBODY BUYS INTO THEM EVEN THOUGH VERY FEW HAVE ACTUALLY CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, THEY BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT BELIEVES IT, AND THOSE WHO DO THINK THROUGH THE EVIDENCE CAN ONLY THINK IT THROUGH ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED ASSUMPTIONS, SIMPLY CANNOT SEE CONTRARY EVIDENCE.
AND YES I HAVE SEEN AND I HAVE SHOWN THE EVIDENCE. WHAT YOU CALL A FACT IS JUST YOUR OWN DELUSIONAL FAULTY SEEING. BUT THERE'S NO POINT IN KEEPING UP THIS STUPID BICKERING.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:24 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 24 of 224 (820654)
09-25-2017 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
09-25-2017 2:08 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
quote:
iT'S THE THEORY THAT'S AT FAULT, THE THEORY THAT EVERYBODY NOW ACCEPTS JUST BECAUSE IT'S WHAT EVERYBODY ACCEPTS. THAT'S THE WAY WITH PARADIGMS, THEY GET ESTABLISHED, EVERYBODY BUYS INTO THEM EVEN THOUGH VERY FEW HAVE ACTUALLY CAREFULLY THOUGHT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE, THEY BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT BELIEVES IT, AND THOSE WHO DO THINK THROUGH THE EVIDENCE CAN ONLY THINK IT THROUGH ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED ASSUMPTIONS, SIMPLY CANNOT SEE CONTRARY EVIDENCE.
If that was true it is very odd that you keep making up excuses to dismiss evidence, ignore evidence you don't like and even get upset when people look at evidence you don't want them to see.
To point to just one example nobody can see that your "explanation' of angular unconformities is true. The missing material is never seen, you have no reasonable explanation for the lack of any visible effect on the strata immediately above and as for your idea that differing textures automatically have low friction - well you never offered any reason to believe that (and why has nobody else noticed it when producing bearings is a major industry ?)
quote:
AND YES I HAVE SEEN AND I HAVE SHOWN THE EVIDENCE. WHAT YOU CALL A FACT IS JUST YOUR OWN DELUSIONAL FAULTY SEEING. BUT THERE'S NO POINT IN KEEPING UP THIS STUPID BICKERING.
Yet I am the one making substantive points and you are just making assertions. Typing in all-caps hardly substitutes for that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 3:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 224 (820656)
09-25-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
09-25-2017 2:24 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
I don't dismiss or ignore evidence, I've either answered it or it's the umpteenth time it's been thrown at me, and in that case too I've answered it that many times already. Or it's the usual changing of the subject without dealing with my evidence. You ignore my evidence I ignore yours. Except I don't think I've left any unanswered in one way orf another.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 2:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 3:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2017 10:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 224 (820658)
09-25-2017 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
09-25-2017 3:22 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
quote:
I don't dismiss or ignore evidence,
Really ? Then please produce a sensible reason for considering the order of the fossil record an "illusion". Bear in mind that it has been known for 200 years and YEC organisations have failed to answer it.
quote:
Or it's the usual changing of the subject without dealing with my evidence
I assume that's what you call looking at evidence you want ignored.
quote:
You ignore my evidence I ignore yours
What actual evidence have I ignored ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 3:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 6:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 224 (820665)
09-25-2017 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
09-25-2017 3:41 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
I disagree, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 3:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 7:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-25-2017 12:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 224 (820668)
09-25-2017 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coyote
09-24-2017 11:17 PM


Re: an alternative time frame is fantasy imaginary delusion
As an example, radiocarbon dating--you have to rely on a change in decay constants before and after the flood or the fall. There is no evidence for any such change. Further ...
There is evidence that decay constants have not changed: Uranium halos and the Oklo natural reactors.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2017 11:17 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 29 of 224 (820669)
09-25-2017 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
09-25-2017 6:06 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
In other words, you have no good reason for calling the order of the fossil record an illusion and you don't know of any evidence I'm ignoring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 6:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 224 (820671)
09-25-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
09-25-2017 1:46 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame of delusion and fantasy
AND I DO NOT "DISMISS" THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, I ANSWER IT.
ROFLOL.
Your definition of answering contrary evidence must differ from mine.
Let me point out that you have not answered -- scientifically/rationally/evidentially -- ANY of the contrary evidence showing the earth is very, very, very old in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The best you could muster was that you could not explain it ... that is not an answer to the evidence.
Let me point out that you have not answered -- scientifically/rationally/evidentially -- ANY of the contrary evidence showing that the Grand Canyon formed by relatively slow erosion from west to east in Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems and not by flood drainage. Your "answer" was
Apparently I got caught up in the parts about the young earth in the first message and overlooked that the whole thing was intended to relate to the speleothems so I shouldn't continue to pursue this topic. It's tempting but I won't. I really didn't want to get deeply into it anyway. So carry on.
... ie -- dismissed and ignored ...
Let me point out that you have not answered -- scientifically/rationally/evidentially -- ANY of the contrary evidence showing that it was not caused by a ridge overflow in If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? ... oh that's right you didn't even participate in that one ... you just ignored it ...
Let me point out that you have not answered -- scientifically/rationally/evidentially -- Message 868 or Message 891 on the Evidence of the flood thread ... posts that soundly refute your silly claim of "A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual" ...
Let me point out that you have not answered -- scientifically/rationally/evidentially -- any of the posts that Percy listed in Message 861 of that Evidence of the flood thread ....
Posting one-line quips is not answering the issues raised that soundly refute your delusional positions.
So no, you have not answered contrary evidence,
you have dismissed it,
... as evidenced by your unchanging argument of a delusional magic flying carpet flood doing silly supernatural things sorting of radioactive isotopes and fossils into the same age layers around the world,
... a feat that water alone has never accomplished in recorded history, and that science consistently shows is impossible within the laws of physics and chemistry.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:46 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 09-25-2017 8:51 AM RAZD 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