Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,415 Year: 3,672/9,624 Month: 543/974 Week: 156/276 Day: 30/23 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 998 of 2370 (859960)
08-04-2019 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 977 by Faith
08-04-2019 3:56 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:
Of course it's been "rebutted." So what else is new? Would you like to repeat the rebuttal so I can point out how utterly untenable it is?
I had another post further on that also addressed your "sediments in the wrong location" claim, and you responded to that one. I'll get to it eventually.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 977 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 3:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1010 of 2370 (860007)
08-05-2019 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 980 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:21 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:
The horizontal strata are what you drew at the top.
Right, here they are:
G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G
F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F
E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E
D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D
C ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B
A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A
The mountain comes up beneath them and breaks the block of strata in two.
Right, but the mountain is on the extreme western side of the island. Here's the original diagram. Snowdon is all the way in the west on the left:
So after that first diagram that shows the original horizontal strata we need a second diagram showing what happens to them as the granite mountain begins to uplift into the overlying strata. So here's a placeholder:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            |
|                                                                                            |
|                                                                                            |
|                                                                                            |
|                  DIAGRAM OF GRANITE MOUNTAIN JUST BEGINNING TO UPLIFT AND                  |
|                  SHOWING THE HORIZONTAL STRATA MOVING ASIDE SOMEWHERE                      |
|                                                                                            |
|                                                                                            |
|                                                                                            |
|                                                                                            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then that would be followed by this as modified by your instructions:
/|_              _|\
                             / / |__        __| \ \
                            / / / / |__  __| \ \ \ \
                           / / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
                          / / / / / / /  \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                         / / / / / / /    \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                        / / / / / / /      \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                       / / / / / / /        \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                      / / / / / / /          \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                     / / / / / / /            \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                    / / / / / / /              \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                   / / / / / / /                \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                  / / / / / / /  G R A N I T E   \ \ \ \ \ \ \
		 / / / / / / /                    \ \ \ \ \ \ \
		/ / / / / / /                      \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G -------------- / / / / / /                        \ \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------- > G
F ----------------/ / / / /                          \ \ \ \ \------------------------------> F
E -----------------/ / / /                            \ \ \ \-------------------------------> E
D ------------------/ / /                              \ \ \--------------------------------> D
C -------------------/ /                                \ \--------- CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B --------------------/                                  \----------------------------------> B
A --------------------                                    ----------------------------------> A
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1011 of 2370 (860008)
08-05-2019 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 982 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:32 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:
The sea floor is not on top of the geological column.
This is incorrect. All sea floor is the top of a local geological column, and they can all be mapped onto the geological time scale.
The geo column is a stack of sediments.
The sea floor is a stack of sediments, therefore by your own criteria it is a geologic column.
If you put sediments somewhere else you are not building on the geo column.
Since the geologic column is worldwide, there is no place to deposit sediments that is not atop a local column.
Again, the deposits that are on top of the geo column are minuscule and therefore are not building on it.
Marine deposits are not minuscule, but even if they were, how would that not be building on the column minutely?
What else can I possibly say?
You could say something true, like that the geologic time scale is world wide and that sea floor is accumulating sedimentary deposits atop local columns.
I've said it a million times already.
Yes, you've made the same incorrect statements many times, with no accompanying facts or explanation, just your say so.
Your argument makes no sense.
You quoted nothing. What part of my argument are you referring to?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1012 of 2370 (860009)
08-05-2019 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 985 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:52 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:
All those who believe in the Old Earth and the ToE will not agree with me because they HAVE to insist the geological column is not what it obviously is or their theory falls apart.
Again, we do not "believe in the Old Earth and the ToA" because we have to, but because that is what the facts and understanding yielded by the scientific method indicate. Unlike you, we don't believe our religious salvation depends upon believing right.
I think we're all still curious at how you can carry two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time, that of all the marine deposits left by the Flood, those on continents are part of the geologic column while those on sea floor are not.
At the very end of the Flood, where was the dividing line between sand on the beach (on the continent and therefore part of the geologic column) and sand in the water (off the continent and therefore not part of the geologic column). What about sand that was high and dry at low tide but submerged at high tide?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1013 of 2370 (860010)
08-05-2019 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 987 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:11 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:
I assume you all know the geological facts as I've described them.
You have occasionally said something that wasn't false.
If you don't then I'll try to dig up some pictures and diagrams for you.
Please do, and accompanied by explanations for how they support any of your views.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1014 of 2370 (860011)
08-05-2019 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 989 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:48 PM


Re: evidence? Objective Empirical Physical Geological Evidence
Faith writes:
I'm sorry, but the evidence does NOT show that a given layer of the Geological Column was ever constructed by small deposits of sediment one at a time.
But that's precisely what the evidence shows, because we can see it happening in real time today. Oceans and seas and lakes are accumulating "small deposits of sediment one at a time."
It would be impossible for this not to happen. Where do you think the muddy/sandy runoff from land goes? It is carried by flowing water to the lowest point, almost always a body of water. And as the mud and sand lies suspended in the water, where do you think it goes next? Did you ever consider that it falls out of suspension and to the sea floor, depending upon the grain size/shape/density and the water energy level? The heavier/denser sand falls out of suspension in the active water near the shoreline, and the finer grained mud and clay material falls out of suspension further from shore.
All eventually creating a deposit of one sediment...
"One sediment?" What is "one sediment?" You mean one layer of strata?
...thousands of square miles in extent and maybe hundreds of feet deep?
A mere thousands of square miles? There are 139 million square miles of ocean, and the vast majority of its sea floor is receiving sediments as we speak.
Don't try to put that one over on me.
No, don't you be fooled by explanations tying facts into broad fabrics of understanding, Faith. You keep that wall up and don't let any information in. Remember, you define what's real, not reality.
--Faith
Edited by Percy, : Grammar error, "heavier" appeared in an unintended place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 989 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1015 of 2370 (860014)
08-05-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 992 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:03 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Oh right, lakes and basins are all filling up with the same sediment at the same rate...
At the same rate? Why-ever would you say that? The sedimentation rate for a lake will be highly dependent upon local conditions, such as the number, size, sediment loads and other suspended material of rivers flowing into it, and the type of debris swept into it by wind and rain.
...and will eventually all blend together into a single remarkably (I didn't say perfectly) homogeneous layer of the geological column without there being any evidence remaining of their shorelines, rim lines and so on.
Lakes eventually fill with sediments and die. We would expect sediments to be distinctly different from the surrounding strata, and this turns out to be the case. For example, Fossil Butte stands prominently above the landscape because it was once a lake that filled with sediments. These sediments were harder then the surrounding limestone and so were eroded more slowly, gradually standing out more and more prominently as the surrounding landscape eroded away more quickly, as shown here:
Yep, a perfect candidate for continuation of the geological column. Not.
Well, yes, precisely. Fossil Butte stands at the top of the local geologic column.
Yes of course sediment is continuing to be deposited on the sea floor. Which is not on the geological column.
You continue to declare this without explaining how it could be so. Why do you reject that the geological column grows wherever deposition occurs? Why do you believe deposition can only build geologic columns on land?
I refer to the sea level line IN THAT DIAGRAM , which shows the broken off strata above it arranged from left to right instead of as they would have been laid down from bottom to top,...
No one sees broken off strata in this diagram except you. Please tell us where they are? And explain where the pieces that broke off are?
...and the rest of those same strata arranged beneath the sea level line as we see them on that diagram. That is where they ended up and exist today and that is why I refer to that sea level line.
The strata are continuous through the sea level line. Nothing happens to the strata at sea level. If you see some significance to current sea level, please explain what it is.
In the Flood, just as in the Grand Canyon, the water would have continued some depth above the horizontal strata as you drew them, and were probably receding as the mountain was rising,...
This is just a story you've made up. There's virtually no evidence for it, and all the evidence is against.
...making it very much the same kind of situation as I've argued was the case in the Grand Canyon.
You're in essence retelling the same fairy tale using different characters.
Sea level ENDED UP where it is and has stayed there ever since.
The evidence of geology tells us that sea level has varied widely over time.
I've made consistent use of the actual facts. This should end the discussion.
Beyond finally conceding the obvious, that sediment is being deposited today upon the sea floor, your message contained not a single fact. It was all fantasy supported by a diagram where you see things that aren't there.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 992 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1016 of 2370 (860015)
08-05-2019 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 995 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:08 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Evidence for that claim is in my description/definition of the geological column which is the only rational definition in this discussion.
Your view of the geologic column makes no sense, and you've not even acknowledged the many questions asked about your bizarre view, let alone answered any, as here. You simply declare yourself correct. You give every indication that only ignorance lies behind your views.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 995 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1018 of 2370 (860017)
08-05-2019 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 996 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:09 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:
Gosh a whole bunch of the usual personal attacks.
There were no personal attacks in my post. You're just inventing excuses for not responding. 250 words gets a two line response.
What I did do in my message was rebutt your unsupported claims. You claimed the right to judge something scientifically untenable, so I pointed out that you are very poorly informed scientifically and can't make such judgments. You claimed there was a paradigm clash when you have no paradigm, just an idea that there was a worldwide flood based upon a religious book. And you claimed to have facts when you avoid facts like the plague.
Oh well. Having a different paradigm always means "not understanding science," of course, cuz science is defined by the establishment paradigm.
Again, you have no paradigm, just a religion and an arrogance that you define reality.
Find some facts, build a case around them. That's what you need to do but never do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1020 of 2370 (860019)
08-05-2019 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 997 by Faith
08-04-2019 6:10 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:
I'm going to draw my own sequence of events as I see them forming the current geological situation as we see it on that UK diagram, and hope to figure out how to scan them in and post them later.
You shouldn't break off now. Even if you have a scanner, your computer isn't working. This looks more like an excuse to just abandon the effort.
Working in partnership is best because it will result in a sequence of diagrams that makes sense to everyone, not just you. For instance, if you draw a diagram where the horizontal strata just disappear then no one will accept it.
If you describe what happens to the horizontal strata when mountain uplift begins I will diagram it, and then we can move on to the next diagram in the sequence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1023 of 2370 (860022)
08-05-2019 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1000 by Faith
08-04-2019 7:02 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Correction: Nobody HERE agrees with me, OR No OE/ToE believer agrees with me.
Really? Find someone, anyone, who agrees with you about the geologic column being restricted to continents.
I don't know why you're making this silly claim that there are creationists out there who believe as you do. You're already on record in at least several threads as conceding that other creationists don't agree with you, that you have to go your own way. Why would it be any different about the geologic column?
In thread A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs Dredge abandoned you at Message 212. In thread Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? you abandoned Dredge at Message 1237. And so it goes. You creationists can't stick together because you all have your own personal interpretations of a religious book of myths.
Find the facts that support your position, then marshal them into coherent arguments. Stop making silly claims, like that that diagram shows broken off strata when it clearly doesn't, or that geologic columns only grow on continents.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1000 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 7:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1025 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 10:26 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1034 of 2370 (860043)
08-05-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1002 by Faith
08-04-2019 7:38 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
If you have a stack of thirty silver dollars and you put a dime on top of it -- or even three or four dimes -- are you continuing the same stack of coins?
You mean like this?
And if you have a stack of thirty silver dollars on the table and you put a stack of three silver dollars on the floor are you continuing the same stack of coins?
Of course not. They are two local stacks, one on the table and one on the floor. If you added another stack of coins somewhere else on the table or floor then that is a third local stack. And a stack of coins would follow Steno's law of superposition assuming we didn't play God. There's no such thing as a global numismatic time scale, so beyond that your analogy breaks down.
But there is a global geologic time scale, and sediments deposited on the sea floor and that remain there, and simultaneously deposited sediments on the sea floor that are later uplifted onto continents, and simultaneously deposited sediments in a basin on an existing continent, are all the same time period of the global geologic timescale, the conceptual global geologic column.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1002 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 7:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 10:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1037 of 2370 (860047)
08-05-2019 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1005 by Faith
08-04-2019 9:41 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Ah well I HAVE explained it. Over and over. Really I have. Sigh.
You haven't *explained* anything. What you've done is asserted and declared. Have you forgotten your "I'm the one defining the reality" declaration. You're really not at all into explaining.
Let me ask this: If the whole world including the sea floor is the geological column how is it that the strata we find on the continents, from Precambrian to Holocene, are not also found on the sea floor? Hm?
They are. Here, again for the third time, is an image of a sea core showing the K-T boundary when the dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 11:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1040 of 2370 (860057)
08-05-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1025 by Faith
08-05-2019 10:26 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Perhaps my view is unique to me then.
Gee, ya think? So why did you falsely claim that only people HERE disagree with you in Message 1000:
Faith in Message 1000 writes:
JonF writes:
Correction: Nobody HERE agrees with me, OR No OE/ToE believer agrees with me.
Moving on:
I *have* said, after all, that I study these things for myself and come to my own conclusions.
You don't know enough geology (or any science) to be forming your own conclusions. What you're doing is creating a false idol of religious myth clothed in misused geological terminology.
In many cases I find out that my conclusions agree with other YECs on a point, but sometimes I don't.
Beyond the idea that there was a Flood, you have extremely little in common with other creationists.
Dredge and I don't agree on much, but then he's not a YEC.
No, he's a YEC for all intents and purposes. He might think the Earth is old, but he follows the Biblical narrative for anything recent like the creation of man and the Flood and all that. This is from Dredge's Message 612:
Dredge in Message 612 of the Any Practical User for Universal Common Ancestor Thread writes:
Of course Adam and Eve were real!
I believe Noah's flood is an historical fact, but I also believe it wasn't global.
Did all humanity descended from Noah's family? I think so.
No modern animals evolved in last 4000 years - all animals were created, beginning billions of years ago.
You and Dredge are peas in a pod, both full of ideas too dumb for anyone else to believe, even each other.
I don't think what I've said is silly...
There you go making statements about yourself again. The quality of your ideas is judged not by you, because you are the easiest person for you to fool, incredibly easy in your case. You've developed no internal checks on your ideas, you've learned almost nothing practical about anything related to your ideas, so you just let 'em fly. This means that the ideas you release into the world are incredibly poorly thought out. You compound your error by almost never considering any criticism.
...and in most cases I would just repeat it, and of course there's no point in that.
Correct, there is no point in repeating fallacies. Find some evidence, then develop some argumentation and explanatory framework to build around them. You will get nowhere just declaring to people that they should ignore the evidence before their very eyes and just listen to your crazy ideas.
Perhaps we should move on. After you've got all your objections said of course.
I'd like to hear what happens to the horizontal strata to the left and right when the mountain uplifts into them so I can move forward with the sequence of diagrams.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1025 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 10:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1041 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 11:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 11:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1045 of 2370 (860064)
08-05-2019 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1028 by Faith
08-05-2019 10:33 AM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
That definition of the Geological Column is, in my opinion, invented for the purpose of getting around the obvious fact that it's over and done with and that supports the Flood.
I thought you just said there's no point to repetition. Until you find some reason for believing this crazy idea that the geologic column is "over and done with" you should stop saying it. The geologic time scale continues to grow at the rate of one second per second, and most local columns around the globe are undergoing change. Most on land are eroding (only the upper elevations of your state, of course, which overall is a region of net deposition), while most beneath the oceans are experiencing deposition.
You have to incorporate all kinds of phenomena that are so utterly different from the Geological Column as we know it and as it is presented all over the internet and on Google image,...
This doesn't even make sense, but if you think you've found some images showing that the geologic column is inconsistent with geological processes then please present them, by all means. Why didn't you present them now? Is copy/pasting and typing [img] that hard?
...that even you all should have to see the ...I'm trying to avoid an insulting word but no good alternative is coming to me. Duplicity, self-deception, etc.
Self-deception is an excellent word. If you think we're deceiving ourselves then begin presenting the evidence that shows it. That's evidence you need, not declarations of your infallibility or repetitions of the same rubbish.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 10:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024