Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, jar (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 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")
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12810
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 224 (820673)
09-25-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
09-25-2017 8:06 AM


Creation Science Vs Science
In defense of Faith, she is quite serious about her beliefs and does not see them as magic.
I have one question for both of you though. Can we agree that Creation Science starts with a conclusion whereas Science as taught traditionally starts with a Premise? Is this one of the basic differences?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 8:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2017 11:24 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2017 12:13 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:48 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 32 of 224 (820674)
09-25-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-25-2017 12:51 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
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?

So, how do you keep all of that sediment suspended in the water as it's carried all the way across the continent?

The kind of turbulence necessary to do that would not facilitate nice, even, tabular, sorted deposits of the kind that we see. Basically, you are talking about a mudflow. Have you ever seen a mudflow deposit? How many thick limestone layers are there?

This is all silly nonsense. There is no reason for this quantity of sediments to suddenly be ripped off the ocean floor and cast onto the continents. There is a reason that sediments accumulate where they do ... it's because they have reached a low energy environment and the eroded sediments can settle out in the ocean basins. So, why would they move back up-gradient to travel across the continent?

In fact, the kind of turbulence that you would need would also leave behind some kind of diagnostic evidence. What is that evidence? Why did it suddenly stop to settle out in neat fashion? How far would boulders and gravel be carried across the continent in what is essentialy an uphill direction?

You're jacking the data into an impossible scenario.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-25-2017 9:20 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 2:25 PM edge has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12810
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 224 (820676)
09-25-2017 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
09-25-2017 8:54 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
There is no reason for this quantity of sediments to suddenly be ripped off the ocean floor and cast onto the continents. There is a reason that sediments accumulate where they do ... it's because they have reached a low energy environment and the eroded sediments can settle out in the ocean basins. So, why would they move back up-gradient to travel across the continent?
I'll play Devils Advocate. The YEC position(starting with a conclusion) is that the great flood happened(1) and that when the fountains of the deep opened, they deposited the sediments onto the continents.
Like this:
Animation of Great Flood
Personally, I don't believe it but won't dismiss it except to agree that IF this happened, God deliberately hid the evidence from skeptics...only believers in Biblical Literalism would ever consider the flood as truth.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 8:54 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 34 of 224 (820682)
09-25-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
09-25-2017 3:22 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Except I don't think I've left any unanswered in one way orf another.

But you have! You have consistently ignored the dating issue, dismissing it with statements akin to "I can't show why, but its wrong."

You have presented no real arguments against the several very detailed threads RAZD has posted, going to a lot of work, other than "I don't believe it."

The dating issue alone disproves most of what you believe, so shouldn't you address it in some substantive manner?


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 25 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 3:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 09-25-2017 2:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 224 (820684)
09-25-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by edge
09-24-2017 10:10 PM


edge writes:

The question asked here seems to be, 'would Walthers' Law be applicable to a flood deposit'? In a superficial and simplified way, I suppose so, but it leaves a lot of questions in the minds of people who observe nature.

I'm just going to describe my own view of Walther's Law, please correct as necessary.

I don't see how Walther's Law could apply to a flood deposit, not even in a "superficial and simplified way." Walther's Law states that vertical successions of strata result from lateral changes in environment, such as a coastline that is moving inland or outland. Floods don't cause lateral changes in environment. The water level change is temporary, so any flood deposits are not part of Walther's law.

A flood that, for example as a result of a severe storm, erodes away a large chunk of coastline is not an example of Walther's Law. It is an example of severe weather causing extremely fast erosion, and it should be easily recognizable in the geological record because of the types of sediments and because of the absence of the kind of strata resulting from Walther's Law.

Faith doesn't really understand Walther's Law, and since she denies the long time periods Walther's Law requires she can't really invoke it. It's effects occur not over days or years but over centuries and millennia. Faith thinks that Walther's Law is what happens when her Flood moves across a landscape and magically deposits miles of layers of different strata.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 09-24-2017 10:10 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 09-25-2017 2:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15393
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 36 of 224 (820687)
09-25-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Thugpreacha
09-25-2017 8:51 AM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
Creationism is essentially an apologetic enterprise, so yes it is intended to support a conclusion decided in advance (even if less important aspects are left open).

Science is primarily empirical and generally starts with observation, rather than premises, let alone conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-25-2017 8:51 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 37 of 224 (820688)
09-25-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-24-2017 10:39 PM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

It's depressing that you don't understand my argument at all, but then everything at EvC is depressing so no big deal.

Well, what a surprise, you've abandoned the Evidence of the flood thread and ignored a plethora of rebuttals so that you can come over to this thread and repeat the same arguments as if they hadn't already been rebutted.

The rain came first, forty days and nights of it,...

This is Biblical. There is no scientific evidence for it.

...and did the severe erosion of the land, which I would suppose even you would acknowledge as a very likely consequence of such an event.

Floods do not cause "severe erosion of the land" unless there is a concentrated flow of water. Look at all the flooding from the recent hurricanes. Erosion is minor and scattered. One example of potential erosion is the Guajataca Dam in Puerto Rico. If it does burst then there will likely be severe erosion downstream from the dam, but right now there is no erosion, despite the many inches of water that fell.

Then we have the sediments washing into the ocean water, killing all the marine life we now find fossilized;...

The strata we find reflect a succession of significantly different sedimentation environments (including land, coastline and marine), different fossils, and different radiometric dates. The strata definitely do not contain significant amounts of flood runoff from land and show no evidence of a global Flood.

...and then the sediments both from the land and whatever was also in the ocean water, the calcareous ooze etc, started getting deposited onto the land at some point as the water rose or after it fully covered the land or both.

Most strata are composed of fine sediments that takes centuries and millennia to fall out of suspension to depths of miles, including the calcareous ooze.

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.

You can't apply Walther's Law if you deny long time frames. Long time frames are inherent in it's definition.

I think there is evidence that volcanic activity began about the same time as the tectonic movements divided the continents, concurrent with the Flood's starting to recede.

And this evidence of when volcanic activity began is what? The radiometric evidence we have of volcanic activity says that it has been ongoing since our planet's beginning.

So all those events including the erosion of mountains, are post-Flood in my scenario.

Uh-huh. You know, every spring in snow country the significant water flows don't occur up the mountains where there are just a lot of small streamlets. The significant water flows occur down in the valleys where all the runoff from mountains gathers into streams and then rivers that overflow their banks and cause floods. Your one-time Flood would cause very, very, very little mountain erosion and a great deal of erosion at lower elevations. It would be such a great amount of erosion that we couldn't fail to see it today as the results of the runoff of a great Flood. Yet this evidence for your "scenario" is completely missing.

Well, forty days and nights of WORLDWIDE pounding rain ought to be enough time to erode most of the land mass, wouldn't you think?

You're not thinking this through. Flowing water causes erosion, standing water does not. Rain has been falling on my lawn for years, certainly more than 40 days and 40 nights worth since I've lived here, and the lawn hasn't eroded a single inch.

Your "erosion" scenario requires flowing water, but water could not be flowing on all land. Most of the water would be standing, like it stands today in lakes and seas, and causing very, very little erosion when measured in days. Erosion occurs mostly at the borders of rivers, likes and seas, and it doesn't take days, it takes centuries and millennia.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 10:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 1:56 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 38 of 224 (820692)
09-25-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
09-24-2017 10:56 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:

You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood,...

The Fall and Flood are Biblical and have no scientific standing, especially in a science thread.

...which had to have rearranged things tremendously.

There is no evidence of any sudden and tremendous rearrangement of the Earth's geology.

Nobody knows what the original Created Earth looked like beyond a few conjectures based on hints in the Bible,...

You're back to the Bible again. There is no scientific evidence for an "original Created Earth." The evidence we have today is that slow and steady geologic processes have been ongoing for billions of years and are responsible for the appearance of the planet now with all it's strata and fossils and evidence of age.

...but something far more orderly than its tumble-down appearance now would be a good guess.

Fiction is more like it. The Earth does not have a tumble-down appearance, and there is no evidence of a formerly more orderly appearance.

It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect.

Since science does not see the Earth as "disorderly," this is not part of the evidence for great age. The evidence is the great age of the strata which reflect slow and steady deposition over eons, the changing lifeforms they contain, and radiometric dating.

There shouldn't have been any uninhabitable places at the Creation such as we see now in deserts and high mountains and frozen wastelands.

You are again referencing the Bible. There is no evidence of a "Creation" such as related in the Bible, and the evidence says that "deserts and high mountains and frozen wastelands" have existed for at least billions of years.

All that has to have been the result of the Fall and the Flood.

This is again Biblical, and there is no scientific evidence for either the Fall or the Flood.

Somehow it supported an unimaginably lush vegetation on just about every square inch of soil.

There is no evidence that the Earth was ever lush everywhere. A multiplicity of environments have always existed, both marine and on land.

But everything has been disrupted since the Fall which brought death into the Creation that had not existed before, caused "thorns and thistles" to thrive where only fertile soil had existed before, all followed by the Flood that further compromised whatever was formerly congenial to life in ways that reduced the former longevity enormously, made all things subject to deformities, diseases and death and so on.

What we see now on the planet and in living things can only be a severely ruined version of what God originally created.
...
My guess is that there is no appearance of age OR created complexity, it's all the effect of the destruction since the Fall and the Flood.

This is again Biblical and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

If you're trying to portray your position as having a scientific basis, you're failing miserably. Moose was asking about what an intelligent design of the planet would look like, and your answer contained no science at all, just Bible-based stories, and a lot more that is just speculation.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 10:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 39 of 224 (820693)
09-25-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Thugpreacha
09-25-2017 8:51 AM


Re: Creation Science Vs Science
In defense of Faith, she is quite serious about her beliefs and does not see them as magic. ...

Claiming something happens that violates known scientific knowledge, contradicts known scientific knowledge with no explanation of how ... is claiming magic does it.

Radioactive isotopes and fossils sorted into a consistent pattern around the world, a pattern explained by old age and known scientific processes, a pattern not explained by the know behavior of water, but claiming that water does do it ... is claiming magic does it.

Because no testable measurable known system does what is claimed.

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 31 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-25-2017 8:51 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 40 of 224 (820694)
09-25-2017 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
09-24-2017 11:03 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
Faith writes:

I believe I have shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth, especially for rapid deposition of the strata, the absence of any actual evidence for the time periods in those strata and in fact the logical impossibility of the whole Old Earth Geological Time Scale.

Well, that's a lie. The only reason you're in this thread is because you had to abandon the Evidence of the flood thread because you couldn't muster any evidence or successful arguments for your positions, or even make sense most of the time. In that thread you ignored messages and rebuttals, and issued a great many content-free one-line and one-sentence responses, often resorting to all caps, and picked fights with other participants as a way of creating excuses to ignore them. And let's not forget the ever present excuse that if anything is too white or too long or too technical then you will ignore it. This thread will be no different.

The hardest argument I've had to make is for the formation of angular unconformities after all the strata were laid down, but I think it holds together. It certainly supports all the rest of my arguments.

In the Evidence of the flood thread you ignored all the rebuttals to your impossible and ridiculous ideas of how angular unconformities form. Your "argument" does not hold together and certainly provides no support for any of your other ideas.

I also believe I've shown evidence for rapid evolution within the Kind that is genetically limited to the Kind.

You haven't even defined "Kind", let alone made a successful argument involving it.

Showing evidence for the Young Earth has been the aim of many of my threads,...

Showing evidence has been your aim? Since when? You haven't presented any evidence. What you think is evidence is writing solely "strata and fossils," as if they provided you any support.

...and posts on both the geological and biological situation over many years, and I believe I've made the case.

Successfully making the case is not something you get decide within your own mind. It's something that is proven over time as more and more people are persuaded to your point of view. So far in 16 years of participation you have convinced no one. So no, you have not made "the case," and if you think you have then you are delusional.

I know there is evidence on the other side too; I just expect it to eventually be accounted for in other ways than it is now.

There not only is evidence on the other side, *all* the evidence is on the other side. All you have is Bible stories.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 11:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 41 of 224 (820695)
09-25-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
09-24-2017 11:23 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
Faith writes:

None of my arguments has been refuted. All kinds of conjectures are brought against them, but no, they are not refuted. Besides, my arguments are all refutations to begin with and show the logical impossibility of the ancient earth, the time periods and the Geological Time Scale.

Well, the lying continues, I see. If none of your arguments have been refuted, how come there's a thread full of rebuttals over at Evidence of the flood that you haven't answered?

The scenario I present hangs together and accounts for what we see.

This is an opinion shared by only a single person, you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 11:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 42 of 224 (820700)
09-25-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
09-25-2017 1:46 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

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.

I see you're back to all caps again. What a surprise.

You do not actually see "one major tectonic upheaval." The geological record contains an incredible number of tectonic events all around the world. And the evidence does not point to your conclusions. When it is explained why that is you run away.

AND I DO NOT "DISMISS" THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, I ANSWER IT.

You answer the contrary evidence? Where? Certainly not over at the Evidence of the flood thread, or any of a host of other threads where you've thrown tantrums and abandoned discussions.

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 is not an issue of paradigm. It is an issue of you trying to shoehorn your Biblical interpretation of the Flood into a scientific context. Your ideas violate both natural physical laws and common sense, and when this is described in detail for you you employ a number of strategies to, as you say, "DUCK IT."

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 43 of 224 (820701)
09-25-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
09-25-2017 3:22 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

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.

How can say this when you've left behind you a trail of abandoned threads full of unanswered questions and unaddressed rebuttals? When you so often admit you have no answers now, or that evidence is an illusion? When most of what you say isn't answers but mere claims to have made answers, as if your every answer hasn't been rebutted multiple times and responded to usually zero times.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 09-25-2017 3:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 44 of 224 (820702)
09-25-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
09-25-2017 6:06 AM


Re: an altrnative time frame
Faith writes:

I disagree, sorry.

Wow, only on page 2 of the thread and you're already in one-liner mode. Way to go "making your case" and answering questions for "the umpteenth time."

Calling the evidence of the fossil record an "illusion" is not an answer or a rebuttal or even an argument that belongs in this thread. Deal with the evidence in a straightforward and forthright fashion by explaining how it supports the mythical Flood being responsible for all the geology we see today.

--Percy


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

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 45 of 224 (820703)
09-25-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
09-24-2017 11:23 PM


Re: an alternative time frame
... Besides, my arguments are all refutations to begin with and show the logical impossibility of the ancient earth, the time periods and the Geological Time Scale. ...

Except, shockingly, all the evidence of an ancient earth in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ...


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 14 by Faith, posted 09-24-2017 11:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019