Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 12:39 AM
22 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Tanypteryx (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,153 Year: 15,189/19,786 Month: 1,912/3,058 Week: 286/404 Day: 4/96 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 136 of 1255 (857536)
07-09-2019 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
07-08-2019 11:07 PM


Re: Oceanic crust
Trying to average out plate movement over a few thousand years in a gradually slowing scenario still leaves an enormous amount of seismic and volcanic activity in the last 2000 years when people were writing about experiencing these things. Faith, PEOPLE WOULD HAVE NOTICED!

There are core records of significant eruptions in the last 2000 years, and writings about the atmospheric and weather effects, but these eruptions are piffling compared to what you need to fit in - e.g. flood basalts of 1000s of c km per year, year after year. Remember the significant eruption of one volcano, Toba, is readily identified in lake cores, and dated 74,000 years ago.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church's Geoscience Research Institute was set up to find evidence of YEC. They reported at a major church meeting in 2010 that after 50 years of study, they could not explain the evidence in the Earth as YEC without invoking miracles, i.e. more than just bringing and taking away water.

That is what you have left : Creation and the Flood occurred in the last 6000 or so years, but the miraculous way it happened just managed to make it look like long ages were involved.

I guess that means Loki is in control.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 11:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 137 of 1255 (857537)
07-09-2019 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
07-08-2019 11:07 PM


Re: Oceanic crust
Faith writes:

There would have been a lot of volcanic activity around the Atlantic when continental drift first started...

Yet, no evidence of volcanic deposts along the west coast of Southern Africa. I think that your model doesn't work, Faith. Making up stuff does not trump* reality.

*See what I did here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 11:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20041
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 138 of 1255 (857538)
07-09-2019 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
07-08-2019 6:24 PM


three strikes ... you're out
The Flood explains sedimentary layers better.

A single flood can explain a single layer. It cannot explain two or more layers, because multiple deposition just do not occur. You get one layer with sediment sorted from biggest particles to smallest particles. You do NOT get multiple layers with big dense particles on top of fine particles -- what is seen in the geological record -- from the deposition of flood sediment.

See The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) Message 19: An Introduction to Sediment Deposition Rates

quote:
One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is the sedimentation rates of different particles, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others:

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.

Stoke's Law: V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 ...


... by assuming that g(d1-d2)/(18n) is relatively constant. High suspension velocity means the water needs to be very turbulent to pick up sand and gravel -- usually not a problem for a flood -- and it also means that any smaller particles are also picked up and mixed in the turbulent flow. Then, as the turbulence subsides, the large heavy dense particles are deposited followed by smaller and smaller particles, sorting them by size: large at the bottom small at the top. We see this pattern of deposition at river mouths with increasingly smaller particles being deposited further and further from the mouth of the river. Multiple layers of large particles over fine particles is just not possible with a single flood event.

Ergo a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.

It also cannot explain how sediments are deposited with radioactive elements sorted by their parent/daughter ratios, with sediments with the lowest parent/daughter ratios at the bottom and those with the highest parent/daughter ratios at the top. The ratios don't change the particle size, shape or density of the material.

quote:
Absolute Time
Radiometric Dating: the source of the dates on the Geologic Time Scale

Radiometric Dating

Actually a simple technique.
Only two measurements are needed:
1. The parent:daughter ratio measured with a mass spectrometer.
2. The decay constant measured by a scintillometer.

Basis of the Technique

As the parent element decays, its amount decreases while the amount of the daughter element increases. This gives us a ratio of parent:daughter elements.
The decay rate is geometric rather than linear. Unaffected by heat or pressure.

Parent and daughter particles would be separated in the turbulent mud, but once the sediments are deposited the daughter particles would occur next to the parent particles (in zircons and similar crystals). Dating measurements show the "geometric rather than linear" pattern consistent with geological age with the parent:daughter decreasing with increasing depth of sediments, layer by layer.

So -- irrespective of radiometric age calculations -- a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.

The same issue for fossils found in the sediments, not sorted by size/density, but sorted by traits and their development, and sorted so that there is a temporal/spatial matrix showing evolutionary development over time with related fossils nearby in time and geographical location.

Add to this the fact that deposits of marine environments show mature growth of the marine ecology gradually being covered by silts and the continuous growth of marine animals, corals, seaweeds and the like: brachiopods growing on top of older brachiopod shells and attached by their stalk/stem, fragile fan coral preserved whole, etc. etc. (see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for more).

So once again, a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.

+ also see Message 98.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : +


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 104 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 6:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31178
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 139 of 1255 (857540)
07-09-2019 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
07-08-2019 9:09 PM


Re: The Flood MUST show a hole in EVERY target or it never happened.
The fact remains that the Biblical Flood stories make positive claims and if those claims are shown to be false (and they have been for centuries) then the stories are shown to be myth and not fact.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 9:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Pressie, posted 07-09-2019 7:57 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 140 of 1255 (857542)
07-09-2019 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by jar
07-09-2019 7:46 AM


Re: The Flood MUST show a hole in EVERY target or it never happened.
Yip, the global flood stories have been debuked lots of times. In America, somehow, those ideas still get lots of traction. Sad.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 07-09-2019 7:46 AM jar has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 141 of 1255 (857545)
07-09-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
07-08-2019 9:08 PM


Faith writes:

You misrepresent what I said because apparently you misunderstood it.

Really? You didn't say that rocks form through drying and that the Grand Canyon Supergroup tilted while buried beneath a mile of layers that were unaffected? Let's check your honesty.

From Message 487:

Somewhere back in those discussions about all that it was proved by some official link or other that drying does indeed form rock in some cases, I wonder how to find that information.

From Message 447:

And as you have been informed in return many times, rocks DO harden by drying, especially under compaction, which would have been the case with all the lower strata in the Geo Column as the upper strata would have been piling up for a sufficient period for that.

Of course sediments on the surface do not turn to rock when they dry, and buried sediments cannot harden by drying because drying is an evaporative process, and water cannot evaporate from buried sediments. At an undetailed level, rocks form by compaction from the weight of overbearing material that forces out any water and eliminates pores resulting in cementation. Drying through evaporation has nothing to do with it.

From Message 303:

...with the aid of wet or drying sand that seems to have had a sticky quality to it, at least while it was drying and hardening which I've suggested it did while lying over the quartz vein,...

From Message 342:

Drying is a huge part of lithification, and others with some expertise have agreed on former threads, but I've never said it's the ONLY way rocks harden.

Drying has nothing to do with lithification. Look it up.

Faith, you live in a region where you should have no trouble visiting extensive regions of sunbaked sediments just lying on the surface. It is bone dry and none of it has turned to rock. The only rock you'll find is rock that was already there.

Your claim that you never said the Grand Canyon Supergroup tilted while buried beneath at least a mile of layers and without affecting those overlying layers shouldn't need documentation, though it can easily be provided if you're still denying it. You've argued for this idea at great length many, many times over years. I'm sure it's indelibly etched on everyone's memory.

But let's say you no longer believe that the Supergroup tilted while buried. If that's truly the case, then how do you believe it happened now?

To summarize, you were neither misrepresented nor misunderstood. You said precisely what I said you said, and they are all examples of how the specifics of your views do not align with any other YECs. They certainly share your general view that the Earth is young and that a global flood is responsible for world geology, but they do not share any of your views of how it happened. In other words, your lack of understanding of how common physical processes work is not only clear to us, but even to other YECs.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 9:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 142 of 1255 (857546)
07-09-2019 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
07-08-2019 11:07 PM


Re: Oceanic crust
Faith writes:

The average as I recall was closer to 11 feet per day, and it was 4300 years instead of 6000 years. And it makes a difference to thlnk in terms of gradual decrease in speed from twenty feet per day down the present speed.

There is zero evidence for this idea. You're just making things up.

Here is a diagram of the age of oceanic crust taken from Age, spreading rates, and spreading asymmetry of the world's ocean crust. You need only look at the top diagram showing age (bottom diagram is essentially error bars). The Atlantic is roughly in the middle of the diagram.

The age of the Atlantic sea floor ranges from 0 years at the mid-oceanic ridge to around 140 million years at the North American and North African coastlines. The evidence of these ages comes from deep sea cores and magnetic sea-floor striping. They show that sea floor spreading rates have ranged between 1 and 5 cm/year for millions of years.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 11:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 143 of 1255 (857551)
07-09-2019 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
07-08-2019 6:10 PM


Sometimes somebody does come along and overturn the established wisdom.

In this case the "established wisdom" was the legend of the great Flood.

The people who came along and overturned that established wisdom were the natural philosophers, geologists, paleontologists, chemists, physicists, etc etc etc, who showed that the Flood could not have been anything but a local event, if it even was a particular event and not merely a memory of various floods over the ages. "Speak to the Earth and it shall teach thee."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 6:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:17 PM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:32 PM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 162 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2019 1:25 PM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply
 Message 169 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2019 1:47 PM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32696
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 144 of 1255 (857559)
07-09-2019 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 11:49 AM


They did not overturn it on any scientific grounds. It was James Hutton's wild speculations that started that ball rolling but it was only wild human speculation and did not deserve scientific standing. Also their interpretations of the Flood were just as silly as they are now. No sense of the magnitude of the thing for starters.

And they accepted what seems to me to be the utter abbsurdity that time periods of millions of years of earth's history are memorialized in slabs of rock of identifiable sedimentary content, each bearing a peculiarly distinct set of dead things, fossilized in a remarkably consistent way over hundreds of millions of years despite the fact that fossilization needs very specific conditions which are not all that easy to come by. This is a truly abbsurd science, sorry. Sometimes the scientific romance we've all learned from grade school is just that, a romance.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 11:49 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 12:26 PM Faith has responded
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2019 12:41 PM Faith has responded
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 07-10-2019 12:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 145 of 1255 (857560)
07-09-2019 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:17 PM


But if you agree that fossils did fossilize, as you seem to, and you agree that it takes a long time for a fossil to fossilize, to say nothing of such processes as clay becoming shale and then becoming slate, how can you think the mud and carcasses of the flood could become the geological strata we see now in only a few thousand years?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:40 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32696
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 146 of 1255 (857565)
07-09-2019 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 11:49 AM


The Bible does not contradict itself. If it clearly teaches a worldwide Flood it isn't going to turn around and imply that if we study the earth it will tell us something different.

The many flood stories from many cultures, even with all their distortions, are not going to be memories of a merely local flood which occur all the time all over the earth. They wouldn't bother. So their existence is evidence of Noah's flood, as remembered by his descendants all over the world with the usual distortions we should expect of human storytelling. Only the Bible is presented to us as an accurate accounting of history, and its circumstantial details alone give credibility to that claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 11:49 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 07-09-2019 12:37 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 148 by JonF, posted 07-09-2019 12:38 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 12:40 PM Faith has responded
 Message 201 by Percy, posted 07-10-2019 10:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17145
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 147 of 1255 (857568)
07-09-2019 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:32 PM


Faith writes:

The many flood stories from many cultures, even with all their distortions, are not going to be memories of a merely local flood which occur all the time all over the earth.


Sure they are. A flood that destroys everything you have is going to seem like an earth-shattering event even if people a few miles away never even hear about it.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5343
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 148 of 1255 (857569)
07-09-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:32 PM


Flood legends reflect the facts that people tend to live near water and local floods happen. There's no reason to think all those legends describe one flood.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32696
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 149 of 1255 (857570)
07-09-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 12:26 PM


I thlnk the enormous weight of something like three miles depth of strata would have forced the water out of the lower layers and hardened them quite rapidly. Lithification proper may have taken a lot more time, but even hundreds of years should have been enough. The compression of the strata should also have intensivied and speeded up the fossilization process.

The other theory is what takes so much time, the aabsurd theory. The sediments had to build up slowly in contant exposure to the elements, and keep their straight flat form, and fossils had to form in the same kind of very iffy conditions, an uncertain security of burial without compression, and subject to predators among other things, and again all without the straight flat form of their peculiarly identifiable sedimentary gravebed maintaining its amazingly flat straight surface. PaulK keeps trying to claim this doesn't describe ALL the strata. Fine, but it certainly describes the whole stack in the Grand Canyon and most in many other places.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 12:26 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 12:44 PM Faith has responded
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2019 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 158 by JonF, posted 07-09-2019 1:02 PM Faith has responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 150 of 1255 (857571)
07-09-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:32 PM


People all over the world have seen lightning and volcanoes and floods. That doesn't mean it was the same lightning or volcano or flood each time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:42 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019