Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 226 of 877 (834229)
06-01-2018 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
06-01-2018 6:02 AM


The dating of speleothems
Article by Emil Silvestru at Creation website:Caves and Age
Evolutionists claim speleothems formed over hundreds of thousands of years. But in my own evolutionary days, I had never considered an important consequence of such an age: the tiny water droplet, which built that stalagmite, had to keep arriving at precisely the same spot on the floor of the cave for 100,000 years!
Well, I knewand all karstologists knowthat the surface of limestone terrains above caves changes dramatically in short periods of time. And any change at the surface also changes the location of the water droplets inside the cave. However, the stalagmites do not indicate any changes. So the conclusion is simple: they cannot be that old. And that fact indicates the old-age belief is fallacious.
It appears we have a conflict between common sense and radiometric dating here.
The Vancouver Island speleothems have yielded radiometric ages of between 12 and 18 thousand years.3,4 That creates a problem and causes confusion. According to various geological evidences, the island was covered by ice, so the speleothems should not have grown at this time. But rather than question the radio-isotopic dates (and hence the methodology involved), some scientists have proposed that the 2-km(6,500-ft) thick ice cover melted and grew back in a few thousand years, even though there is no evidence for this melting and they cannot explain how it could have happened! Of course, a simpler explanation is that the radiometric dating is incorrect and that the speleothems grew only after the ice had melted.
Not a problem for the Hopi Lake spillover theory
There's more at the web page

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 06-01-2018 6:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 2:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 285 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2018 5:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 227 of 877 (834230)
06-01-2018 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Tangle
06-01-2018 2:26 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
Well, as long as you prefer to vilify me and refuse to explain I'm all the more convinced of my view of this. The thing is it is SO absurd that I suppose you just can't bring yourself to face it. There is no way a sedimentary rock could possibly represent a time period. It's all the doing of an overheated imagination that was never thought through from this angle. Lithostratigraphy versus Chronostratigraphy can't resolve this problem.
The strata were simply laid down one after another killing everything that lived on the land. There were never time periods, there was the pre-Flood earth and the post-Flood earth and that's it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Tangle, posted 06-01-2018 2:26 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 3:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 278 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 2:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 228 of 877 (834231)
06-01-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Modulous
06-01-2018 2:37 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
I'm not interested in the spillover idea, wasn't that clear? I understand it's popular with some creationists but I like my own scenario better.
I also have no clue about the braided river theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 2:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 2:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 274 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 2:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 229 of 877 (834232)
06-01-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:47 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
I'm not interested in the spillover idea, wasn't that clear? I understand it's popular with some creationists but I like my own scenario better.
I wasn't asserting or demanding you find the idea interesting. I was asking you to explain why lots of water over a long period of time couldn't carve the canyon but less water of a shorter period of time could - with reference to how you know these things in a style you would find acceptable if it were published in a magazine. That is, you criticize the pontifical nature of certain articles, so show me using your 'own scenario' how the ideas of geologists are wrong and your scenario is superior.
I've really only been able to infer from your comments in response that it's 'obvious' - but that's a worse presentation than the National Geographic article you linked to as far as your criticism goes:
quote:
But my objection is that the public is being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 3:08 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 230 of 877 (834233)
06-01-2018 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
quote:
The thing is it is SO absurd that I suppose you just can't bring yourself to face it
The stuff you make up is certainly absurd. But that is hardly our problem.
quote:
There is no way a sedimentary rock could possibly represent a time period.
The sediment was deposited during a particular interval of time, and thus represents - at least in part - the conditions in that place at that time. And that is pretty much all there is to it. No absurdity there.
Now your crazy ideas about the land suddenly turning to rock and everything dying are certainly absurd. But they’re your ideas, nothing to do with us.
quote:
The strata were simply laid down one after another killing everything that lived on the land. There were never time periods, there was the pre-Flood earth and the post-Flood earth and that's it.
And yet you have no reasonable explanation for the evidence. That’s why mainstream geology rejects your views in favour of ideas which do work to explain the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 3:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 877 (834234)
06-01-2018 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Modulous
06-01-2018 2:56 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
I wasn't asserting or demanding you find the idea interesting. I was asking you to explain why lots of water over a long period of time couldn't carve the canyon but less water of a shorter period of time could -
My point was that I don't know anything about the Hopi Lake theory and haven't thought about it. It would take a lot of water rushing in all at once to carve the canyon, so if the lake theory doesn't provide enough then it doesn't provide enough. As for lots of water over a long period of time as I already said I don't see how water running in a narrow track would carve the great width of the canyon. Other rivers running in narrow tracks elsewhere just keep running in the track, they don't widen the area they are running in. So does a braided river explain the width? I don't know where they get that.
with reference to how you know these things in a style you would find acceptable if it were published in a magazine. That is, you criticize the pontifical nature of certain articles, so show me using your 'own scenario' how the ideas of geologists are wrong and your scenario is superior.
Right. I can't register a complaint like that, can I? Just not acceptable to find fault with how science is presented to the public. I now have to be hit with the same accusation over and over.
I'm working out a theory, they have their theory and shouldn't be presenting it as fact when it's obviously fiction.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 2:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 4:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 877 (834235)
06-01-2018 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by PaulK
06-01-2018 3:04 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
The sediment was deposited during a particular interval of time, and thus represents - at least in part - the conditions in that place at that time. And that is pretty much all there is to it. No absurdity there.
Lots of absurdity. No matter when in the "time period" the sediment was deposited the same problem exists. You can't end up with a flat rock without everything in the time period dying. You can't get a flat rock anyway from such a situation. And each time period's having a rock unto itself is beyond absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 3:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 3:23 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 233 of 877 (834236)
06-01-2018 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
06-01-2018 3:15 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
quote:
Lots of absurdity.
Let’s see
quote:
No matter when in the "time period" the sediment was deposited the same problem exists. You can't end up with a flat rock without everything in the time period dying.
If by time period you mean the geological eras that is absurd. There is no reason why creatures living on the surface have to die when deeply buried material is being lithified no matter whether they are in the same time period or not.
quote:
You can't get a flat rock anyway from such a situation.
There are flat landscapes - even when we aren’t considering marine deposits which make up much of the geological record - and plenty of terrain features buried in the geological record so that doesn’t seem to be a real issue.
quote:
And each time period's having a rock unto itself is beyond absurd.
Again that’s an absurdity you invented. It isn’t our problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 3:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 4:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 234 of 877 (834238)
06-01-2018 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
06-01-2018 3:08 PM


show us how its done
My point was that I don't know anything about the Hopi Lake theory and haven't thought about it.
That particular theory isn't the point I'm raising.
It would take a lot of water rushing in all at once to carve the canyon
How do you know this?
As for lots of water over a long period of time as I already said I don't see how water running in a narrow track would carve the great width of the canyon.
Could it explain the depth? Couldn't normal weathering we see with other cliff edges explain the width?
Other rivers running in narrow tracks elsewhere just keep running in the track, they don't widen the area they are running in.
Well that's certainly not a universal statement.
Gunnison River - Wikipedia
Green River - Wikipedia(Colorado_River_tributary)
Yellowstone River - Wikipedia
Snake River - Wikipedia
Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River - Wikipedia
Rio Grande - Wikipedia
Waimea River - Wikipedia(Hawaii)
Yangtze - Wikipedia
Charyn - Wikipedia
River Avon, Bristol - Wikipedia
Verdon - Wikipedia(river)
Tara - Wikipedia(river)
To provide a short list.
Right. I can't register a complaint like that, can I?
You are perfectly welcome to register the complaint. I'm just asking if you can show me how to do it better.
Just not acceptable to find fault with how science is presented to the public. I now have to be hit with the same accusation over and over.
I'm accusing you of nothing. I'm asking if you can show me what you want to see from science communication using a position you think is correct.
I'm working out a theory, they have their theory and shouldn't be presenting it as fact when it's obviously fiction.
Well the Bible certainly presents things as fact and it seems obvious to me that many of the things it presents as facts are fictions. Maybe what seems obvious to either of us isn't the best guide to use?
Perhaps it'd be instructive to examine a non-contentious issue. Let's say: the Battle of Hastings.
The Nat Geo has an article about it - so that makes it a useful point of comparison. Here is the article:
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/...oct14/william-conquers
quote:
The Norman conquest of England had long-lasting consequences. After crowning himself king in December, William (now William I of England) immediately began to replace almost all English landowners and religious leaders with his own supporters from France. Thousands of displaced English families relocated to Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, and even what is today Turkey.
It doesn't mention how we know these things any more than the article about the Jurassic did.
I'd wager there are lots of articles about lots of subjects that fail to give details about how humanity drew the conclusions they are reporting.
Flood geology has been around longer than Old Earth Geology so 'I'm working out a theory', is no excuse. Surely someone has presented to the public a flood geology that is both engaging and justifies things to a degree you feel sufficient. The level of justifying their conclusions that you think should be included in articles such as the one about the Jurassic. If it hasn't happened yet - your complaint that this is something old earth geologists are particularly guilty of seems to fall flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 3:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 4:47 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 877 (834239)
06-01-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous
06-01-2018 4:24 PM


Re: show us how its done
The time period landscapes ARE fiction, they are made-up stories and that IS obvious.
Looked at one of your links, no clue there what you are talking about. Any rivers there that widened their track eighteen miles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 4:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 6:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 877 (834240)
06-01-2018 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by PaulK
06-01-2018 3:23 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
If by time period you mean the geological eras that is absurd. There is no reason why creatures living on the surface have to die when deeply buried material is being lithified no matter whether they are in the same time period or not.
Cambrian, Silurian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic etc. are properly "time periods." Not eras, periods.
How do they get buried in that deeply buried material that becomes the rock that preserves their fossil remains? So you're saying it's a previous period? Then how do you explain their having their own new specific sedimentary layer, how does it get so flat when most of the world is pretty hilly and lumpy? Do you suppose all the rocks formed from a very flat landscape? How does such a deeply buried sediment become a flat rock in a stack of flat rocks at all, but without everything dying where it now exists? None of this is remotely possible.
All those time periods do have a rock to themselves. That's how the whole idea of time periods came about at all: no rock, no time period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 3:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 5:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 237 of 877 (834242)
06-01-2018 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by edge
05-31-2018 10:23 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
edge writes:
As I might have said here earlier, it is my opinion that uplift does not create mountains ... erosion does that.
This is kind of brief, so I'm going to see if I can fill in the blanks. For erosion to create mountains the region would need to be elevated by at least a couple thousand feet above sea level, then uneven erosion of the landscape would leave behind mountains.
But it doesn't seem like uneven erosion of a region could create what we normally think of as mountains. It would create what we normally think of as erosive structures, like the buttes in the American southwest, not mountains.
So I guess I don't get it. I think of mountains as strata thrust up and tilted and bent by tectonic forces such as colliding plates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by edge, posted 05-31-2018 10:23 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 238 of 877 (834243)
06-01-2018 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Percy
06-01-2018 5:06 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Here's a mountain that was formed by erosion from a huge flat plain covering a great depth of stacked strata. There are lots of these mountains in the western US.
Such nice straight flat layers, such clearly different kinds of sediments, such an unlikely way for a time period to end up... And what a weird thought that the whole geologic column got stacked up like this with a flat top to it BEFORE the erosion turned it all into mountains and canyons and cliffs and hoodoos and monuments and arches and other interesting shapes...
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 237 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 5:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 9:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 239 of 877 (834244)
06-01-2018 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
05-31-2018 11:39 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Faith writes:
I did watch the video finally, yes. I'd seen many like it before.
If you've already seen many similar videos, why did I have to present a video for you to understand what I meant?
That is not a thin sheet of water, that is a battering ram of water that picks up and carries vehicles and boats and houses. A thin sheet would be a few inches at most.
What you originally said back in Message 111 when I first posted the video was this:
Faith in Message 111 writes:
...a lot of water crossing a flat plateau and forming a stream that becomes a very wide meander...
Later you begin employing the term "thin sheet", but you continued saying a lot of water was flowing. No one would think you meant water a few inches deep.
You skipped a lot in my post. The key issues:
  • You keep changing your mind about whether a thin sheet of water flowing across the plateau is necessary or not. What's the final verdict?
  • How does a low energy stream capable of meanders carve through rock to create something like Marble Canyon, which is as much as a half mile deep in places?
  • If this is low energy water, how did it "exit over the sides of the opening canyon"?
  • You said, "A long crack is becoming a canyon." Why do you suddenly introduce this crack? Why aren't there other cracks on the plateau?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 11:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:42 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 240 of 877 (834245)
06-01-2018 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
06-01-2018 4:56 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
quote:
Cambrian, Silurian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic etc. are properly "time periods." Not eras, periods.
So long as you are clear about what you mean.
quote:
How do they get buried in that deeply buried material that becomes the rock that preserves their fossil remains? So you're saying it's a previous period?
I’m saying that Geological Periods are long enough that material deposited in the earlier stages could be buried and lithified by the end.
quote:
Then how do you explain their having their own new specific sedimentary layer, how does it get so flat when most of the world is pretty hilly and lumpy?
I already answered that.
There are flat landscapes - even when we aren’t considering marine deposits which make up much of the geological record - and plenty of terrain features buried in the geological record so that doesn’t seem to be a real issue.
quote:
All those time periods do have a rock to themselves. That's how the whole idea of time periods came about at all: no rock, no time period.
Completely wrong. Formations can contain more than one type of rock. A location may have more than one formation from a given period. Different locations will often have different formations for a given period. The idea of a rock for a period is just nonsense.
The time periods are derived from the order in the fossil record, not the rocks directly at all. If you bothered to learn from the discussions here you would know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 4:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:38 PM PaulK 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