Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,582 Year: 2,839/9,624 Month: 684/1,588 Week: 90/229 Day: 1/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 877 (834021)
05-29-2018 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
05-29-2018 10:44 AM


Re: Your second list
Faith writes:
Why don't you just put a banner up at the top of EvC saying
CREATIONISTS NOT WELCOME HERE.
That would be a lot more honest than "Understanding through discussion."
Maybe discussion is another thing you decide not to understand.
In a discussion you would post: "Here is the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that allowed the Biblical flood to create the aeolian sand dunes seen in the following picture."

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 05-29-2018 4:30 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 92 of 877 (834024)
05-29-2018 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
05-29-2018 6:43 AM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
Thanks to RAZD and PaulK for explaining how the definition of evolution I posted in Message 80 is not acceptable. I'm certainly glad I asked.
May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2018 6:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 12:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2018 12:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2018 8:46 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 93 of 877 (834026)
05-29-2018 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-29-2018 11:41 AM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
It isn’t claiming to offer a definition. It is offering a description which is probably over-simplified, but possibly tailored to its intended audience.
The site is clearly a journalistic enterprise rather than a strictly scientific one, too. Which makes it a rather odd choice if your target is the scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 11:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 94 of 877 (834027)
05-29-2018 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-29-2018 11:41 AM


Re: A Digression to define the Theory of Evolution
Faith writes:
Thanks to RAZD and PaulK for explaining how the definition of evolution I posted in Message 80 is not acceptable. I'm certainly glad I asked.
It's perfectly acceptable as a simple explanation of Darwin's theory and suits its audience and the question asked. The question wasn't to fully define the theory of evolution, it asked for an explanation of what Darwin's theory was. So it's not going to include genetic drift - 'cos Darwin knew nothing of genes - and you're not going to see a fairly standard dictionary definition like this for the same reason.
quote:
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
If you want a more robust and thoroughgoing scientific definition of the modern theory you go to an authorative accademic source. But then you'd complain that it's too technical.
May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution?
See above. But then, if you had actually tried to understand what people have been saying to you for the last 17 years, you'd already know this.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 11:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 877 (834033)
05-29-2018 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
05-28-2018 9:47 PM


Re: Your lists
This is related to the question about why you think world geology generally is the same as the Grand Staircase region. Evidence of any fault that didn't extend to the surface anywhere in the world would be evidence that there was tectonic activity while the Flood was depositing sediments, contradicting your claim. The New Madrid Fault System begins in Missouri and extends southwest. It is buried beneath sedimentary layers:
Those sedimentary rocks are Paleozoic strata same as those above the Supergroup, which are divided from the lower rocks by the Great Unconformity. My guess is that it's to be explained the same way: horizontal movement at the contact at the same time as the faulting occurred.
Interestingly the Paleozoic layers also curve up and over the lower rift just as they do over the Supergroup forming the Kaibab Uplift, showing that they were already there when the faulting occurred, exactly as the same phenomenon in the GC does.
Oddly, other cross sections show the strata curving down in a hammock shape instead of up. I wonder which is correct. However, either curve shows the strata were already there and likely still rather damp and malleable because all this was occurring just as the Flood was starting to recede.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 9:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 6:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 96 of 877 (834034)
05-29-2018 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
05-29-2018 11:17 AM


Re: Your second list
Perhaps she thinks that your proposed checklist of criteria is biased and not the only way to explain something.

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
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 05-29-2018 11:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 05-29-2018 4:59 PM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 877 (834036)
05-29-2018 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
05-28-2018 9:47 PM


Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
I don't think it had to have been cut vertically. The receding Flood volume would have been greater at first, cutting a wider area, then narrower as it cut deeper into the area and its level dropped.
Not possible. The sloping sides happen naturally through their erosion in a gradually deepening canyon, not through downcutting by rapidly flowing water.
I would direct you to those curved meanders at the east end of the canyon
Note that the overall depth is much shallower here and the upper part of the walls exposed because obviously the level of the water has dropped, and you can see the gradation from the wider upper walls down through the progressively lower narrower walls, which would have been formed in the way I derscribe for the canyon: the first volume of water to begin to trace the meander was as wide as the uppermost walls, and as the water receded and its level dropped the width of the walls it cut narrowed.
In fact I'd suggest that this obvious progression from a greater volume of water down to a smaller volume which would have formed the gradation of wider upper to narrower lower walls, is a good model for how the canyon itself was formed along the lines I suggested: great folume cutting wider upper walls, cutting narrower walls as the water level lowers as the Flood is receding.
There's another aspect of the sloping canyon sides that is important to note, and that's that the sides of the canyon vary in slope. Some of the exposed canyon face is vertical, some sloped, and the governing factor is the hardness of the strata. The softer the strata the more likely it is to form slopes. Check out this diagram and you'll see that the harder strata (the limestones and sandstones) form cliffs, while the softer strata (the shales and mudstones) form slopes. This pattern is caused by erosion over long time periods:
Yeah but that part is obvious and well known. Erosion would form those shapes after the basic width of the canyon was cut.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 9:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 161 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 8:06 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 877 (834037)
05-29-2018 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Phat
05-29-2018 4:30 PM


Re: Your second list
Phat writes:
Perhaps she thinks that your proposed checklist of criteria is biased and not the only way to explain something.
What she thinks is irrelevant.
The fact is that she cannot provide a single possible model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain the reality that is the geology, paleontology, radiometric data, isotopic data, cultural data and other things that exist in the real world.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 05-29-2018 4:30 PM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 99 of 877 (834038)
05-29-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
05-29-2018 4:56 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Please explain how the Flood could produce a meander.
Until you can do that your claim is just nonsense and the sensible explanation is that offered by conventional geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 4:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 877 (834039)
05-29-2018 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
05-29-2018 5:00 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Please explain how the Flood could produce a meander.
Until you can do that your claim is just nonsense and the sensible explanation is that offered by conventional geology.
Oh I've explained that many many times. The cutting of the canyon began at the point the Flood started to recede, and so did the cutting of the Grand Staircase. The uppermost strata broke up over the canyon area and washed away, which I've often explained as due to the strain caused by the Kaibab uplift which was pushed up at the same time due to the tectonic pressure beneath that area which tilted the Supergroup and moved the quartzite boulder and so on and so forth, and a lot of the broken upper strata washed into the cracks the uplift oened up that became the canyon, a lot breaking off the cliffs that became the Grand Staircase. The Kaibab plateau was the point where the breaking up stopped and it was scoured off to the level plateau by the receding of the water full of tons of debris.
It is the Kaibab Plateau that the meanders are cut into, far east of the Grand Canyon proper, and meanders begin with sheets of water running across flat areas and then forming curves that cut into the surface. So this was a lot of water and it cut a pretty wide meander at first. Looks like the water level must have fairly rapidly dropped because of the shape of the walls, apparently reaching a longer lasting level where you see the vertical narrower walls, before it eventually dropped to its current little river.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 109 by JonF, posted 05-29-2018 8:53 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 101 of 877 (834040)
05-29-2018 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
05-29-2018 5:12 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
quote:
Oh I've explained that many many times
Zero is not many.
quote:
It is the Kaibab Plateau that the meanders are cut into, far east of the Grand Canyon proper, and meanders begin with sheets of water running across flat areas and then forming curves that cut into the surface.
How could that possibly happen ? With enough force to cut rock ?
No, still no sign of any actual explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:19 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:32 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 877 (834041)
05-29-2018 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
05-29-2018 5:15 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
It wasn't rock, we're talking receding Flood here, it was just-deposited sediments, compacted but still wet and malleable. The Kaibab appears to have been compacted enough to hold its shape as everything above it was breaking up, so that it became a flat plain the water washed across, becoming the meanders at the east end of the cnayon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by Tangle, posted 05-29-2018 6:36 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 103 of 877 (834044)
05-29-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
05-29-2018 5:19 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
quote:
It wasn't rock, we're talking receding Flood here, it was just-deposited sediments, compacted but still wet and malleable.
By my understanding that would be a problem for your model. The walls wouldn’t be solid enough to stand as they are.
However, you still haven’t explained why receding Flood water would cut a tight curve. Until you can do that you have no explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:42 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 5:46 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 877 (834045)
05-29-2018 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
05-29-2018 5:15 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Oh I've explained that many many times
Zero is not many.
I was in the process of getting it formulated quite far back but by Message 783 I was quoting Steve Austin about how the meanders prove that there was originally a lot more water running a lot faster ("greater water flow rate"), and by Message 932 and Message 933 I had the basic idea figured out that I describe here. I'm sure there's more after those.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:15 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 877 (834046)
05-29-2018 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
05-29-2018 5:29 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
why receding flood water would cut a tight curve
???????
It had receded to the point that it was running in streams and rivers across the flat Kaibab Plateau. Rivers cut meanders in flat surfaces. This was still a lot of water so it formed a very wide meander at first.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2018 5:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2018 12:02 AM 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