Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Suspended Member (Idle past 1552 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001

Message 871 of 877 (835532)
06-24-2018 10:27 AM

Concerning edge's advice: I've never said anything about Yellowstone and have no interest in that discussion.
Concerning wind blown "dunes" I believe it was the creationist Snelling who proved that the angle of repose of the sandstones in GC show water deposition and not aeolian deposition.
I think it's way past time that PaulK be smacked down for his way of dealing with me, calling everything I say a lie. I say what I think to be true.
Percy should also be smacked down for his attitude to me. He endlessly comments on my debate behavior as if he had a right to do that in his non-Admin mode. If he wants to complain about that he should put on his Admin persona for the purpose. Otherwise as a participant he is guilty of probably more violations of his rule against personal comments than anyone else on this forum.
There has been a general deterioration in the level of civility at EvC over the last few years and Percy has been setting a very bad example. If you want to deal with my violations of rules you have to do it officially and not as a mad sniper.
That's my Summation.

Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

Message 872 of 877 (835533)
06-24-2018 10:37 AM

This thread started as an attempt to smear geologists and palaeontologists.
Faith asserted (likely correctly) that many popular articles on prehistoric times did not explain the evidence that lead to those conclusions. She asserted that this was done to hide the fact that the evidence was weak, without bothering with any analysis or attempts to gather more direct evidence, and blamed the scientists rather than the authors of the articles, who would be mostly journalists.
The argument is obviously weak, relying on a very questionable inference. Faith did not even present any analysis of the articles showing that a proper discussion of the evidence was in line with the intent of the article. Nor was there any attempt to justify blaming scientists or to support the idea that the evidence was weak.
Indeed, Faith refused to discuss the evidence and seemed intent on minimising it. A number of lines of evidence were suggested but Faith wanted to mention one of these - large evaporate deposits - and that only as salt in the rocks a dismissive and inaccurate summary - without even the explanation that would surely be required. (Perhaps Faith was only trying to support her assertion that only a small amount of additional text was needed rather than insisting that the evidence should be misleadingly presented to make it easy to dismiss, but either way it was still less than honest).
The thread then metamorphosed into a Flood argument thread. Faith’s behaviour did not improve.

Posts: 34125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2

Message 873 of 877 (835535)
06-24-2018 10:41 AM

The Biblical Flood never happened!
The only support offered in this thread for the possibility of a Biblical Flood has been misrepresentation, dishonesty, denial of reality and utter failure to address any of the evidence that has be presented.
The idea that there was ever a Biblical Flood deserves nothing more than ridicule and laughter; and of course, pity for the willfully ignorant that support such nonsense..

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by Phat, posted 06-24-2018 10:49 AM jar has not replied

Posts: 18427
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0

Message 874 of 877 (835536)
06-24-2018 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 873 by jar
06-24-2018 10:41 AM

Summation Of Attitudes
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
jar writes:
The idea that there was ever a Biblical Flood deserves nothing more than ridicule and laughter; and of course, pity for the willfully ignorant that support such nonsense..
Is this keeping discussion civil?
I rest my case and I am out. See you all on the next thread...though before I promote any I would prefer that we state our respective positions and methodologies before the arguments even get started.

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 873 by jar, posted 06-24-2018 10:41 AM jar has not replied

Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8

Message 875 of 877 (835548)
06-24-2018 4:58 PM

My Summation
For this topic Faith invented a problem that doesn't exist: that scientists are hiding their lack of supporting evidence and rationale from the public by not publishing it in the popular press. Never mind that such articles are written by journalists at a level appropriate to the audience.
It is so fitting that in her summary to her own thread in Message 871 that Faith didn't manage to touch on the topic, but she did manage to touch on a couple other issues that don't belong in a summary, but now that she's said them they do deserve a response. First about PaulK she says:
Faith in Message 871 writes:
I think it's way past time that PaulK be smacked down for his way of dealing with me, calling everything I say a lie. I say what I think to be true.
Members do not get "smacked down" by moderators here, and this thread was unmoderated except for a single comment by Adminnemooseus to stress content and stay on topic. If Faith had any moderation issues then she should have raised them in Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.
I'm not going to go through PaulK's messages one by one to see how often he characterized what Faith said as lies.
In my moderator role I would prefer forms of the term "lie" be used sparingly and appropriately, preferring instead use of terms like mistaken, false, untrue, erroneous, etc. But the brazenness and frequency with which Faith just makes things up and then insists endlessly that they are true while being unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale or even the physically possible often leaves one at a loss for how to characterize them as anything but lies. I long ago decided I would never call anything a lie here, but the blatantness of some more recent false pronouncements by Faith has left me no choice to occasionally use the word. It doesn't matter that Faith thinks them true because she's made not effort to verify their veracity. Besides, the odds of making something up that just by pure happenstance turns out to be true is vanishingly small.
About me Faith says:
Faith in Message 871 writes:
Percy should also be smacked down for his attitude to me.
Again, members don't get smacked down by moderators, but it's interesting that Faith now believes that low opinions of her contributions should be punishable violations. She wants to place herself in a special category above reproach.
He endlessly comments on my debate behavior as if he had a right to do that in his non-Admin mode.
I responded each time Faith went off-topic to complain about other participants and to point out how her behavior was far worse.
If he wants to complain about that he should put on his Admin persona for the purpose.
I don't think Faith has thought this through. She really doesn't want me as moderator because my first action would be to require her to support her claims with evidence and/or rationale. Because she ignores most moderation I would make use of the temporary suspension feature.
Otherwise as a participant he is guilty of probably more violations of his rule against personal comments than anyone else on this forum.
Faith doesn't like people who speak truth to her lies.
If you want to deal with my violations of rules...
Faith is apparently aware that she frequently and flagrantly violates the Forum Guidelines. have to do it officially and not as a mad sniper.
Anyone can comment on any part of any message, including those parts that violate the Forum Guidelines. Faith is apparently operating under the misimpression that she makes up the rules here.
No Percy summary would be complete without a list of issues Faith has failed to address. Some she ignored, others she typed words in response that made no sense:
  1. In stratigraphic columns, why does radiometric age increase with increasing depth?
  2. Why does radiometric age also change laterally across a strata?
  3. Why are radiometric isotopes older than 80 million years completely missing, something that could only happen if they'd had at least 4 billions years to decay?
  4. What causes magnetic sea floor striping, and why is it consistent with radiometric ages?
  5. In stratigraphic columns, why do fossils appear increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
  6. In stratigraphic columns, with increasing depth why are there first no mammals, then no dinosaurs, then no reptiles, then no amphibians, then no fish, then no multicellular life?
  7. Why do you think the Grand Staircase region's geology to be representative of all geology worldwide?
  8. If the Paleozoic layers were already present when the Supergroup layers tilted, why do the faults associated with the Supergroup extend down into the Vishnu Schist but not up into the Paleozoic layers?
  9. If the Supergroup layers actually tilted, where did all the missing cubic miles of rock go?
  10. If the Grand Canyon had been cut suddenly then the canyon walls would be vertical. How do you explain the sloping walls of the Grand Canyon?
  11. Why is the rate of slope retreat at the Grand Canyon consistent with an age of millions of years?
  12. What is your evidence that all tectonic activity worldwide occurred after deposition of sediments?
  13. Given the randomness of floods, why has no fossil ever been found in the wrong strata evolutionarily?
  14. How did the flood leave behind cross bedded sand dunes with animal tracks in the Coconino?
  15. How did the flood transport and deposit sediments that include burrows, termite nests, worm holes, etc.?
  16. What is the definition of kind?
  17. How can you argue about kind without a definition?
  18. Why, if you believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, do you think there are exceptions to God's claim to have "destroyed all living creatures" in Genesis 8:21?
  19. How did the ocean keep all the sedimentary types separate?
  20. Since floods only sort continuously by size/density of sediment and do not create sharp contacts, what is it about strata that says "flood" to you?
  21. How did the deposition of sediments by a series of waves leave no evidence of that process behind?
  22. If the flood rains washed all the land sediment into the sea, how was life left behind on the denuded landscape to leave tracks when waves deposited new sediments?
  23. Why do you think Bertault's views relevant since his experiments deposited sediments at an angle of 45° and required a flume?
  24. Since 3/4 of the globe is currently covered by water, how is a truly global flood that covers the remaining quarter much different?
  25. Why did no fishermen survive the flood?
  26. How was the original salinity of the ocean restored after the Flood?
  27. If the fountains of the deep were undersea volcanos, where is the evidence that many undersea volcanos erupted 4500 years ago?
  28. How does a four inch deep sheet of water dropping in level at the rate of 1.5 inches/minute have any meaningful erosive poser?
  29. How is it that at the Grand Canyon the strata above the Kaibab were hard enough for tectonic activity to fracture into blocks that were swept away by the receding waters, but not so hard that they couldn't be easily eroded by flowing water?
  30. How could the flow fast enough to cut channels into the soft rock, but not so fast that it couldn't form meanders?
  31. How could the canyon rock be soft enough that the water could easily cause boulders of it to fall into the canyon, but somehow these boulders later became the kind of hard rock that only diagenesis can create?
  32. 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?
  33. What evidence dates the Kaibab Uplift as coincident with the end of the Flood 4500 years ago?
  34. What evidence indicates that there were two miles of sedimentary layers atop the Kaibab 4500 years ago?
  35. What evidence indicates that the Colorado River followed the path of cracks created by tectonic forces?
  36. Why does the Colorado River have a number of meanders if it followed the path of tectonic cracks?
  37. What evidence indicates that some of the chunks of upper strata washed into the canyon only 4500 years ago, since they should still be there?
  38. Since some Supergroup exposures lie outside the Kaibab uplift, we know the Supergroup didn't cause it. For example, Nanoweap and Unkar group strata are exposed well to the west of the Kaibab Uplift, see Figure 5.1 on page 77 of GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE GRAND CANYON - one of the authors is Dr. Karl Karlstrom from Mod's video. How do you respond?
  39. Here's a link to a page that has an animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup that should help you visualize geology's views: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. Just click anywhere on the diagram, or click on the little "Play" button beneath the diagram. It's a very short video, maybe only 10 seconds. Any comments?
  40. You argued that the great extent of the water was a factor contributing to it's erosive power, but it is not. It's the rate of dropping water level that matters. Physics. It doesn't matter whether the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute in a kiddie pool or an Olympic pool or a planet sized ocean. How do you respond?
  41. You changed the units of the rate to make it a larger value, but transforming the rate into different units doesn't change anything. It's a minuscule rate, and your thin sheet of water of a few inches deep is only going to flow for 3 or 4 minutes before there's nothing left of the sheet, because the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute. 3 or 4 minutes of a slow flow isn't going to erode anything, not even wet and malleable rock. How do you respond?
  42. About water draining from a bathtub, at the drain it drains from the bottom. The further you get from the drain the more the water just generally flows toward the drain. And about its value as an analogy to water draining off the continents, it isn't an appropriate model for your scenario, where water would drain toward all seas, not toward one single drain. How do you respond?
  43. The ocean floor has not dropped. Surveys of the ocean floor after WWII in order to aid submarine navigation revealed a great deal of information about mid-oceanic ridges and sea floor striping and so on, but not an ounce of evidence for dropping sea floors. How do you respond?
  44. There is no evidence of any obstacles on the Kaibab Plateau, the ones you have somehow impeding the flow of water while enhancing its force. How do you respond?
  45. How do unconsolidated sediments and wet and malleable rock fracture?
  46. How is it that strata broke up into small enough pieces to be carried away by four inches of water that flowed for only a few minutes?
  47. How are floods and lakes from before you think the world existed evidence for a global flood only 4500 years ago.
  48. The many unconformities between strata, such as those seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon, are visible and indicate strata were not deposited continuously. The deposition was continually interrupted by terrestrial erosion. Details about the unconformities are available online, such as at the USGS website, of which you have has not availed herself. How do your respond?
  49. What does "erosion as a unit" mean?
  50. What does "in place" mean?
  51. Your definition of "deformation as a unit" is contradictory. In your view the Supergroup/Paleozoic layers in the Grand Canyon region were once a unit of horizontal layers. You think that at one time all those layers existed as a stratigraphic column of horizontal layers. Here are all the major subunits from top to bottom:
    • Kaibab
    • Toroweap
    • Coconino
    • Hermit
    • Supai
    • Redwall
    • Temple Butte
    • Muav
    • Bright Angel
    • Tapeats
    • Sixtymile
    • Chuar
    • Kwagunt
    • Galeros
    • Nankoweap
    • Unkar
    • Cardenas
    • Dox
    • Shinumo
    • Diabase
    • Hakatai
    • Bass
    You say that units deform as a block, but then you break your own rule by claiming the layers from the Sixtymile down tilted by themselves independently of the rest of the unit from the Tapeats up. How do you reconcile this?
  52. Any strata with erosional cuts at the top contact with the overlying strata is undeniable evidence of an unconformity. Before the erosion there must have been overlying strata in order to create enough pressure to turn the strata to rock. These overlying layers must have been eroded away in order to expose the strata to erosion. Why do you think there were no overlying strata?
  53. The East African Rift is not part of some one time tectonic event 4500 years ago. It is a parting of the African plate into two new plates called the Somali and Nubian plates that began around 20 Ma and continues to this day. Why do you think there is no active tectonism at the East African Rift?
  54. There's no such thing as "tectonic bashing and crashing". Tectonic movements occur very slowly at the rate of inches/year at most. These slow motions can become apparent when tectonic forces build up stress along existing fault lines or create new fault lines, causing sudden slips that result in earthquakes, such as along the San Andreas fault in California or the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey. Volcanos can be another manifestation, though produced in a less direct way. Why do you think there was ever any such thing as "tectonic bashing and crashing"?
  55. What makes you think Pacific Plate subduction beneath the North American Continent, a process ongoing for millions of years, could be linked to erosion caused by receding flood waters?
  56. You said that sedimentation and strata formation continued after the Flood but recently ceased. That of course is not true. We observe sedimentation occurring today, and there is no doubt it will continue on into the future. The products of erosion have to go somewhere, and the mechanisms of transport pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of sediments eventually end up on pond, swamp, lake, lagoon and sea bottoms. How do you support your claim the sedimentation atop strata recently ceased?
  57. How does continuous sedimentation up to "Recent time" provide evidence for when Pangaea broke up? The dating of sea sediments from ocean cores tells us that the bottom layers from the oldest parts of the Atlantic, such as off the Maine coast, are around 175 million years old. The dating is mostly done through magnetic striping.
  58. You were incorrect to say that strata have not been deposited since the breakup of Pangaea, which was actually a lengthy event taking around 100 million years. How do you respond?
  59. Why do you think the strata in the Smith diagram follow the same pattern as "all the rest" of the strata? And what, exactly, is that pattern? Are you referring to tilted strata? Fairly common.
  60. Tilted strata did not all occur at the same time but have occurred across all time periods of geologic history. How do you respond?
  61. The generally horizontal deposition of sediments has nothing to do with "the conventional timing" - it is just something that's been understood since Steno. How do you respond?
  62. The mere existence of angular unconformities is proof that deformation occurred before all strata were deposited. How do you respond?
  63. As has been stated before, the Colorado Plateau has been relatively quiet tectonically for hundreds of millions of years, but not the rest of the world, including the regions immediately adjacent to the Colorado Plateau. Why do you think the entire world was quiet tectonically during the Flood?
  64. You're making the mistake basing all your conclusions on evidence from the Grand Staircase region because that's where strata are most easily visible, and you're ignoring geological evidence from the rest of the world that clearly indicates that a) Taking your evidence from just one geological region is poor science; and b) That is why your conclusions are wrong. How do you justify using the Grand Staircase region as a model for the rest of the world?
  65. The Appalachians did not form at the same time as the breakup of Pangaea. Obviously since the Appalachians exist in both North America and Ireland, they had to exist before the breakup of Pangaea. Why do you think the Appalachians formed during the breakup of Pangaea?
And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:
  1. Constructive discussion.
  2. How to anchor views in facts.
  3. Subordinating everything to the Bible is not science.
  4. Math.
  5. Physics.
  6. Walther's Law.
  7. That the strata of the Grand Canyon formed through Walther's Law, except the Coconino.
  8. The claim that no terrestrial landscape is as straight and flat as strata is false.
  9. Strata are not as flat and straight as Faith thinks, even at the Grand Canyon.
  10. Strata are rarely uniform with regard to sediment type.
  11. Life in the past lived and died and sometimes became entombed just as it does today, above, atop and beneath surfaces of terrestrial, marine or lacustrine sediment, not on flat slabs of rock.
  12. Most strata are marine. While terrestrial landscapes can become strata, they usually don't.
  13. Lithified soil is called a paleosol.
  14. Rocks do not form by drying but by diagenesis.
  15. There are no underground rivers and streams eroding buried strata (karst structures are a different matter).
  16. Buried strata cannot tilt without affecting surrounding strata.
  17. Angular unconformities happen when sediment is deposited atop tilted strata, such as at Welcombe Mouth Beach.
  18. Accelerated continental drift with the attendant accelerated creation of sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges would release enough heat to boil the oceans. This is even without taking into account the heat from friction and subduction.
  19. In the oceans, sea floor sediment depth increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges where the sea floor forms. Sea floor near mid-oceanic ridges is young and has little time to accumulate sediments, while that far from mid-oceanic ridges is much older and has had much time to accumulate sediments.
  20. The sediments comprising strata were always deposited during a particular time period, whether the millions of years of geology or the year of the Flood.
  21. Stratigraphic columns continue to grow today, mostly at low points such as lake and sea bottom.
  22. Fossil abundance varies widely among strata.
  23. Life buried today could eventually become fossils.
  24. Speciation does not take millions of years.
  25. Old evidence is still evidence. Evidence has no expiration date.
  26. Vegetation and trees did not keep buried sediments loose so that the 40 days and nights of rain could wash them into the ocean.
  27. The dog does not have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today. It can be no more genetically diverse than the gray wolf from which it is descended.
  28. A definition of kind that is different for each kind is not a definition.
  29. Deposition is still taking place atop stratigraphic columns around the world.
  30. Strata were deposited over periods of time. That cannot be disputed.
  31. Boulders role onto beaches from the cliffs above.

Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011

Message 876 of 877 (835552)
06-24-2018 9:33 PM

A large part of current volcanism is related to Plate Tectonics. Large historical eruptions have had wide ranging catastrophic effects and have left discernible dust residues.
Flood models visualise a vastly speeded up rate of PT. The associated volcanism even if stretched over an historically impossible time of 1000 years would have such effects as to severely compromise all life on Earth, and would have left a massive deposit for any survivors to contemplate.

Member (Idle past 1513 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Message 877 of 877 (835568)
06-25-2018 9:13 AM

A little knowledge ... and the illusion of knowing
Let me start with my reply to Message 675
Reply to: Message 673 by RAZD:
Re: one fault line stream tributary vs meandering canyon
Why on earth would I think I'm an expert, I merely know the basics of how meanders form from reading descriptions and watching videos and animations. It's not rocket science. I certainly said nothing about them "popping into existence" for pete's sake.
This is the illusion of knowledge, a cursory sample and the feeling you know enough to make valid comments, this illusion is the basis of the Dunning -Kruger effect (where our "president" appears to be the poster child), the basis behind the old saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."*
Water behaves chaotically, and indeed small random events can have ripple effects - a wiggle that becomes a meander, for instance. Hydraulic engineers have studied the behavior of water so that they can make useful approximations, but still can't predict when a wiggle becomes a meander, just what will probably happen after it starts. Every wiggle is a potential meander, if the conditions are right.
There are many aspects of hydraulics, and the history can be read in the canyon walls, and they show that (a) the canyon does not follow a crack (it wiggles and waggles too much), and (b) that it was not formed by overflow from a mythical flood.
This has been discussed in detail on this and other threads (along with multitudes of other evidence that the canyon is not a flood remnant), but faith, with her limited knowledge and overly high confidence in her ability to explain, soldiers on.
Edited by RAZD, : * image from Dunning-Kruger link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... 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)

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024