|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The Greenland ice sheet is a lot older than you say your Flood is.
quote: Along with every other dating method used by archaeology and geology.
quote: Don’t be ridiculous. Aside from the sheer volume, the time required for lithification, the fossils, the evidence of arid conditions, the heavy erosion of some strata - and more all point to long periods of time as the explanation rather than a single Flood.
quote: You don’t see it, you just fantasise it. But ignorant day-dreams are no substitute for real science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Do you have actual figures ? Of course not.
quote: The usual estimates account for pressure which is required. Evidence that a relatively small pressure increase can speed lithification by several orders of magnitude ?
quote: And long periods of time explain even the numbers better. Your “best evidence” is evidence against you. Try thinking about that.
quote: You do invent some crazy fantasies. How does that work ?
quote: in your crazy fantasies. You have never come up with any evidence or even an explanation that makes sense.
quote: You’ve had years to do it. And you still have nothing but fantasies and denial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I think the question is which Flood stories you are talking about. The Biblical version is an amalgam of two variants of an older story, going back at least to the Sumerians.
The compiler of the Biblical story may have had quite different motives from the original creator of the story. One question to ask yourself is why were two differing versions merged together, not by creating a fully harmonised synthesis of the two but by keeping two versions of some of the events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: This “problem” is your fantasy. Consider, for example the Temple Butte Limestone
Within the eastern Grand Canyon, it consists of thin, discontinuous lenses, and relatively inconspicuous lenses that fill paleovalleys cut into the underlying Muav Limestone
Later there is more on these paleovalleys
The Temple Butte strata filling these paleovalleys consist of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, dolomite, and conglomerate - that vary in color from purple, reddish-purple, to light gray. Typically, the paleovalley-fill consists of a distinct pale, reddish purple dolomite or sandy dolomite. These paleovalleys range in depth from as much as 100 feet (30 m), to as shallow as 40 feet (12 m)
Jumping back to text dealing with the remaining area
Within the western and central parts of the Grand Canyon, the Temple Butte Limestone consists of a westward thickening layer of interbedded dolomite, sandy dolomite, sandstone, mudstone, and limestone that vary in color from purple, reddish-purple, dark gray, to light-gray.
So, certainly not flat, certainly not consisting of a single type of sediment. And that is far from the first example you have been offered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
And don’t forget the Deccan Traps - formed at the end of the Cretaceous
This snippet is certainly of interest:
The Deccan Traps are famous for the beds of fossils that have been found between layers of lava. Particularly well known species include the frog Oxyglossus pusillus (Owen) of the Eocene of India and the toothed frog Indobatrachus, an early lineage of modern frogs, which is now placed in the Australian family Myobatrachidae. The Infratrappean and Intertrappean Beds also contain fossil freshwater molluscs.
The Intertrappean Beds also contain dinosaur and pterosaur fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Igneous rocks were mentioned earlier and the Siberian and Deccan Traps are massive examples.
quote: As usual you make things up in order to dismiss the evidence.
quote: Of course you do. Your claim to have geological evidence for the Flood is being destroyed yet again. And you don’t want to see that. You just want to pretend it never happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Really ? I thought that the whole thing was over in a year. So, not at all like slow changes in sea level. And the rapid dumping of huge amounts of sediment that you propose doesn’t fit either. So, no. The standard sequences produced by transgression and regression cannot reasonably be expected from your Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I didn’t make it up. It’s pretty obvious that it’s part of your ideas. You want massive volumes of sediment deposited in a single year.
quote: Making up nonsense is your main argument, so go ahead and do it again. We both know that there is nothing to organise the sediments in the way that you need.
quote: And there is your problem. You start by assuming the Flood and try to force everything to fit. But you weren’t there. The only way to know if the Flood occurred at all is through the evidence. And the evidence says that it didn’t. That is why you have to make up nonsense. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: According to your sectarian dogma. But your dogma is not the Bible, at best it is an interpretation of the Bible. But then you refuse to argue the theology - which is odd because it is hard to imagine how you could understand it less than the science or have worse arguments. But I guess that must be the case - why else would you avoid the real issues ?
quote: And the author - even if it was Peter - might well have believed the Flood story and used it as a parallel to the sudden and unexpected end that was due to arrive soon. Except that it never did, and the scoffers were vindicated. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Of course there is no reason to suppose that Percy is unaware of the proposed magnitude of the Flood. He just does not accept the idea that this would somehow produce the observed order in the fossil record. And he is being entirely sensible in doing so. No matter the magnitude of the Flood it isn’t likely to change the laws of physics. Still less to change them in such a way as to produce the sorting we see. Still less to also explain all the other evidence against your idea. “It was a really incredibly humongous Flood, therefore it could do literally anything” is not even a remotely sensible position. It’s just another daft excuse you made up.
quote: The idea that all ideas about the past are equal is ridiculous. Some ideas are plainly nonsense.
quote: That is because you willfully misunderstand the evidence. Let us not forget some of the nonsense you have made up, such as the idea that depositional environments are uninhabitable wastelands (a truly laughable invention of yours)
quote: Let us say that the fact that you reject it as being ridiculous is evidence to the contrary. The fact that you embrace a genuinely ridiculous idea hardly helps your case. So let us note that I was right. My helpful advice did not get through. You repeat the same errors and no doubt you will refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. Even though the responsibility is all yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is still better than yours. And that is your problem. But you won’t fix it.
quote: Your arrogance is pretty insulting. You call people blind just because they don’t agree with your ridiculous opinions. You can’t accept that they are just being rational.
quote: It isn’t OK, but it’s your problem. You don’t get anything worse than you dish out. You post ridiculous nonsense and expect it to be accepted as fact. Just on your say-so. So of course people disagree and ask you for evidence point out problems with your views and even mention that what you are saying really is nonsense. If you find that insulting that is really your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Really ? You don’t expect us to believe that - for instance - geological formations are usually composed of only one sort of sediment ? If you are trying to use speculation as evidence you are making a very bad mistake.
quote: The idea that the Flood somehow sorted the fossil record is not “an interesting way of looking at a problem”. To be interesting you would at least need to show that it is a reasonable possibility. And you don’t even try. Saying that the Flood is so humongously big it could do literally anything isn’t even sensible.
quote: You’ll call people blind for not seeing “absurdities” that are largely your invention, but you object to being called out when you propose genuine absurdities ? Spare us the hypocritical pretence of being the victim here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In reality it wasn’t settled until Agassiz - the last creationist of any scientific stature - killed it off. And yes, Agassiz was doing science.
quote: In other words they were more sensible and didn’t go in for the daft idea of attributing pretty much all the geological record to the Flood.
quote: Of course the reality is not at all absurd. Even if we accept the characterisation of the strata as “slabs of rock” where else would buried remains end up ? In material that had become rock long ago ? In material that hadn’t been deposited yet ? Obviously they will be buried by material being deposited at the time they were buried. Saying anything else would be truly absurd. Fossils are found in areas where the conditions are more likely to occur. We have few fossils of chimpanzees since they live in areas where acid soil destroys remains, but many of marine creatures. And rarity is relative. It only means that the proportion of individuals that end up as fossils is low. That doesn’t mean that it cannot occur many times given large populations and long periods of time. I’d comment on the “consistency” but - as is often the case - it is completely unclear what you mean. If it is just the order then it should be consistent. There is nothing absurd about that. If it is anything else you haven’t said what it is.
quote: Because we should totally believe that a really humongous Flood can do anything and therefore it did everything. Again, if you react so badly to criticism why bring it upon yourself by posting obvious nonsense ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you bothered to understand it instead if desperately trying to dismiss it maybe you would see that it isn’t absurd.
quote: As actually happens. There are places where deposition dominates over erosion today. It’s hardly absurd to suggest that was true in the past.
quote: To the extent that they had it. But if you evenly sprinkle loose material over a surface, and then compress it, it would tend to be pretty flat.
quote: Suggesting that unusual events never happen would be the true absurdity.
quote: When you say “identifiable” you mean that environmental changes affect the material deposited. And you think that is absurd ?I’ve already dealt with the flat surface. quote: And here is another case of you embarrassing yourself by being careless of the facts. My example - the Temple Butte Limestone - is one of the strata at the Grand Canyon. Edited by Admin, : Fix next to last quoted portion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: They’re not going to just disappear. Some of them are going to get buried somehow.
quote: That is a weird objection. A typical vertebrate fossil is disarticulated “bare bones”. Often just a few. Complete or near complete skeletons are much rarer. Arguing that fossils should be the way that they really are doesn’t really work for you.
quote: I have no idea what makes you think that conditions are “remarkably uniform”. Buried by sandstorms or landslides or volcanic eruptions, or being swept along by a river buried where it is building up sediment or being covered in sediment at the bottom of an anoxic lake all seem fairly different to me.
quote: Your idea that it is absurd that we would see distinct things from different time periods in the fossil record. Obviously there is nothing absurd about finding creatures living at the time the material was deposited as fossils. Nor is there anything absurd about life changing over time.
quote: It is not to be expected to happen to any particular individual. But that is a long way from expecting it not to happen at all. In fact we should expect it to happen to some, it’s statistically inevitable.
quote: It’s not that regular, the conditions are hardly uniform, the contact lines have nothing to do with fossilisation, the “specific sorted out corpses” are a problem for your view as is the “stacking”.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024