|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, as I said, they couldn't have grown there, they had to be transported, and that means the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yeah, and you have no idea how but you can't be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Derogatory comment with no analysis or argumentation noted.
The fludde musta dunnit because Faith is infallible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But if the general logic is correct, the "how" can wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What "derogatory" comment are you talking about? Is "transported" a problem? What's the problem? Looks like a simple logical statement to me: didn't grow there, had to be transported. Speaking of course of fossil corals. "Faith" didn't invent the logic you know, logic is logic.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You don’t offer any link to jar’s explanation and your only objection is the assertion that jar’s explanation would leave all the strata with irregular surfaces. An assertion that is almost certainly false even before we consider that small scale irregularities would not be shown - and that the diagram shows clear evidence that some strata do have irregular surfaces - and did when the strata above them was deposited. Here is the diagram again. It is quite obvious to those who look
quote: This is just silly. GC would be Grand Canyon, but I suppose you mean the Great Unconformity. But unconformities are not laid down (any more than canyons are). As for your list. The geological periods are represented, in order. Your description of the stacking is horribly confused. I think you are saying that there is a general tilt, rising to the West (left). The relations between the various strata can be seen from the diagram. However it is not at all clear what your point is, or how you see the reversal taking place.. How do we deal with the fact that some events did not affect the upper strata? How do we deal with the erosion ? Or the rock filling the eroded depressions ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No, the "how" can't wait. Logic alonedoesn't establish any connection to reality. If something is physically impossible all the logic in the world cannot save the hypothesis.
Your logic is "The fludde must have happened therefore it produced everything we see." Well, that's logic;if the premise is true the conclusion is true. But also physically impossible according to everything we know about the world. I mean everything . You're literally telling us to abandon everything we've learned in physics and chemistry and geology and paleontology and... Logic with no "how" isn't going to cut the mustard. You should be trying to establish the truth of your premise. Your fanatically held belief is impressive but unconvincing. If you continue to insist that your logic represents reality without any attempt to establish the truth of your premise you're wasting your and everyone's time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Can't have grown there" is derogatory with no analysis or discussion. No, you haven't addressed that issue any differently before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
IIRC, they have no attached roots that they normally use to attach to the sea floor, they were literally uprooted and transported, with disattached roots. That's the evidence they were transported and didn't grow in the places where their fossilized remains are found.
And you are misusing the word "derogatory." Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, as I said, they couldn't have grown there, they had to be transported, and that means the Flood. Yeah, and here's how they were transported ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVjr4mii3cE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, poor old crazy obtuse me misses your point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The explanation that Faith calls untenable is at Message 476.
Copied here for them what have trouble following links.
I believe an important point that is not being stressed enough is that "laying down" is a process that requires time. Each layer might be originally laid down straight and flat BUT that is only the very top layer. The top layer then gets eroded making it no longer flat.
Later a second layer is deposited on the no longer flat surface and built up over time until the very highest part of layer two is once again flat and straight. It too then gets eroded and becomes no longer straight and flat. The process continues to repeat. At sometime the whole existing section gets tilted or deformed so the whole existing section is no longer flat and erosion continues. The next layer once again fills the low spots and builds up until once again it is flat and straight at the upper surface. BUT... Each period of slowly building up a surface and slowly eroding and weathering away of a surface requires TIME and a sequential series of events. Unless Faith or someone else who thinks there was some Biblical flood can explain the flood model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that can perform all that is needed to create what actually exists withing a one year period of time, the idea of any Biblical Flood as a reality can simply be dismissed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that your use of the term layer may have confused Faith. It is possible to have continuous deposition while the type of sediment changes, as in the sequences produced by transgression or regression. Faith would consider each type of sediment a layer in itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Baby steps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can say it again: there's tons and tons of evidence in the STRATA, Percy, THAT's what the Flood did, it made those layers upon layers of sediments with dead things in them, which in themselves are evidence of what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things on the earth, which it did, even wiping out whole Kinds such as the trilobites and making extinct some ancient forms of even the Kinds we still have today. And whatever of the land surface existed before the Flood was wiped out and/or covered up by the deposited sediments. I'd be happy to find MORE evidence of course but at the moment this seems to be IT. And it's a LOT. You haven't cited any evidence. All you've done is told farfetched stories. The strata give every appearance of being slowly deposited over long time periods in a variety of depositional environments. The order of the strata is contrary to a flood cause. The distribution of fossils is antithetical to a flood cause. The strata give no such evidence as you claim, of being slowly deposited over long time periods, they should be mixed up and irregular in that case the way our own earth surface is today, and they are not, their neatness and straightness do NOT suggest millions of years of deposition, you are just parroting the status quo explanation that in fact is utterly untenable in relation to the actual reality. There really is NO order to the strata themselves either, they are a stack of sediments that hardened into rocks, and if there is an order to it only something like Walther's Law could provide the order, an order based on the mechanisms of deposition by water. As for the supposed order of the fossils, it's got enough seeming order to give superficial support to the ToE, but since the whole shebang is false that has to be an illusion. And certainly the evolutionary explanation is an illusion. There is no way you are going to get a mammal from a reptile, and I've spelled out the steps that show it to be impossible many times in the past. The trilobites show normal microevolution over those supposed hundreds of millions of years assigned to the rocks they are found in, but microevolution even on that interestingly extravagant scale doesn't need more than a few hundred years; all the characteristic parts of a trilobite are present in all the examples, there are no new parts to justify the claim of macroevolution, and certainly not on the scale of reptile to mammal which in the fossil record itself covers many fewer years for its impossible transformations than the trilobites do. The trilobitese are all cousins and third cousins and great grandnephews of the same species, they are not different species despite the forced concepts that would say they are. No, your claim that there is anything clear at all about the standard interpretation is The idea of a "variety of prepositional environments" is what is really the farfetched idea, a completely strained and forced idea that is imposed on rocks that indicate no such thing, it's all an imaginative construction out of sediments and fossils that are far better explained by the simple mechanisms provided by the Flood, which I HAVE spelled out many times so stop saying I haven't given evidence. You really have to strain to get a "depositional environment" out of a rock of a particular sediment with a few fossiils known to be of marine origin or whatever. Yes I know I'm criticizing scientists who know a lot more than I do, but this much is something those scientists don't know that they should be thinking about.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024