|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Account for the fossils in the strata of the mountains? The strata were laid down by the Flood. Tne mountains were pushed up afterward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
LOL
Then the critters were living there before the mountains were pushed up. Have you ever read what you post Faith?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh lots of critters were living everywhere before the Flood came and buried them all in the strata, before the mountains were pushed up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you don't even read what you write.
Got it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm coming to realize that that sort of response is an abusive personal attack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Truth and reality seem to bother you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Do you have anything to say that isn't a made-up personal slam? Obviously not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So, when are we going to see any actual sign of this alleged physical impossibility?
You’ve tried making up a fantasy about the surface turning to rock. You’ve tried denying the existence of surface features in the strata. Given these obvious failures it seems you are just desperately fishing around for something you’ve never found. While claiming that you’ve already provided the answer. Not impressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, when are we going to see any actual sign of this alleged physical impossibility? Not until you spend the timethinking it through as I suggested.
You’ve tried making up a fantasy about the surface turning to rock. What fantasy? It's clearly what has to have happened and it's impossible.. Even if it did happen anything living there would die because of it.
You’ve tried denying the existence of surface features in the strata. I don't remember discussing that in this thread, but yes I certainly deny them. valleys, rivers, trees? I've seen the surface of lots of the stratified sedimentary rocks. Occasionally little holes where some little creature managed to live in the wet sediment for a while before dying, occasionally raindrop impressions, occasionally footprint impressions of some creature running from the next wave that was probably drowned in it, or the next wave, no sign of any landscape.
qGiven these obvious failures A very odd idea of failures
...it seems you are just desperately fishing around for something you’ve never found. Funny, I'm neither deperate nor flailing. It's very clear that you could not possibly get from the landscape of a "time period" to the huge flat rock that goes by its name.
While claiming that you’ve already provided the answer. Not impressive. Oh well. it's hard to please an old earther/evolutionist. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I have, and there’s nothing. You obviously haven’t found anything either.
quote: The fantasy about the surface turning to rock. Which is certainly not part of the mainstream view. And no, it is not clearly what has to have happened at all. It’s just proof that you didn’t think it through.
quote: And yet you’ve been shown riverbeds, pointed out a buried rock, seen references to buried valleys and certainly you know about fossil trees. So yes, your denial is a falsehood and you know it.
quote: If you’re reduced to obvious untruths it can hardly be called a success, can it ?
quote: But there isn’t a huge flat rock that goes by it’s name. There are collections of strata that are dated to that period, all of them attributable to environments that can be identified from the rock and its features.
quote: It’s hard for you because you can’t be bothered to even come up with a decent answer. When you repeat an idiotic straw man should I be pleased ? Maybe I should. It shows that you haven’t got anything, it proves that you haven’t honestly thought about it it shows that you can’t even be bothered to come up with a good lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
But your geological examples are tectonically altered and that's what needs to be explained about them. Indeed, and that's what cannot be explained in the flood model. I know you have some idea that mountains somehow magically sprang up in the last couple of thousand years, but even if we pretended this was not ludicrous, the point is that the complex geology here shows multiple mountain-building events, not one, with sedimentation in between them. That pattern can explain the distributions of rocks and fossils; a flood followed by magic mountain building does not.
But your geological examples are tectonically altered and that's what needs to be explained about them. However, the Cretaceous is not a marine layer, it's a terrestrial layer and often has dinosaurian type fossils IIRC, reptilian anyway. It's not marine however. As others have pointed out, this is very wrong. Cretaceous deposits in this country are primarily marine; though we do have terrestrial deposits as well. Much of the country appears to have been flooded over the course of the Cretaceaus in connection with rising sea levels. We don't have a good dinosaur fossil record here, since for much of the dinosaur era what's now the Czech Republic was not a depositional environment - it was mountains, and the deposits we do have are from after the place was flooded, so they contain ammonites and sponges, not dinosaurs. Some of those mountains still stuck out of the sea however, and were not devoid of dinosaurs, since the first dinosaur bones were found in this country very recently, and dubbed Burianosaurus after Zdenk Burian - probably the most famous Czech who ever lived from the perspective of people who are interested in dinosaurs. Unsurprisingly, the sediment in which it was found is an area of sandstone and mudstone in which you can see the paths of old rivers. The dinosaur bones were not found in the rivers, but in the shallow marine sediment next to it, looking very much like a bone would if it have been washed into sea. After this Cretaceous marine sediment had been laid down, on top of prexisting mountains, there was more tectonic activity connected with the northern movement of Africa, necessary to explain wonderful structures like this:
Those are made of Cretaceous sandstone. I know you dismiss all this interpretation, but the point here is just that the complex patterns are comprehensible in terms of millions of years of sedimentation and tectonic activity - not in magic flood terms. Your strange comment about the Cretaceous reinforces an impression that, while you have indeed spent a lot of time thinking about this, what you're thinking about bears very little resemblance to the actual evidence before us. I think this is why we're all struggling to understand your strange ideas about everything dying so the landscape can be turned to bare rock. Lithification is happening deep underground. You don't need to clear all the animals and plants and other sediment off the top for lithification to happen - quite the opposite. The sediment needs to be buried underneath for there to be sufficient pressure. Why you think this would inconvenience things from going on as normal on the surface is beyond me.
Nevertheless all I'm saying is that the layers would originally have been laid down straight and flat by the Flood and their being so deformed is the result of the tectonic activity that occurred afterward. I like to focus on the areas where they are most straight and flat to make my arguments but they are deformed in one way or another in most places. An explanation which requires you to ignore most evidence is probably not a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But your geological examples are tectonically altered and that's what needs to be explained about them. Indeed, and that's what cannot be explained in the flood model. I know you have some idea that mountains somehow magically sprang up in the last couple of thousand years, but even if we pretended this was not ludicrous, the point is that the complex geology here shows multiple mountain-building events, not one, with sedimentation in between them. That pattern can explain the distributions of rocks and fossils; a flood followed by magic mountain building does not. Multiple mountain-building events, multiple transgressions and regressions, multiple ice ages, really really slow continental drift etc etc etc. I'm sure there is evidence all these things are based on and I'm also sure the evidence is misinterpreted to fit the Old Earth scenario. Sedimentation is a weird idea, somehow it's expected to come along for no good reason, just one particular sediment, and somehow create huge flat sedimentary rocks from time to time. THAT sort of thing is what makes standard Geology whimsical and unrealistic. "Explain the distribution of rocks and fossils?" What distribution? The rocks are stacked in a column everywhere they are found in their original horizontal condition, they often extend for thousands of square miles and where they don't it's usually because they've been tectonically disrupted. There's nothing "magic" about mountains taking only a few thousand years to be tectonically pushed up, you're just used to hinking in terms of millions and billions of years and that distors everything. More later God willing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Sedimentation is a weird idea, somehow it's expected to come along for no good reason, just one particular sediment, and somehow create huge flat sedimentary rocks from time to time. Sedimentation is not a mysterious, hypothetical process. It's happening today. We know where sediment comes from. Let's take for example the Cretaceous deposits in which Burianosaurus was found. Like I said, these are near shore marine deposits, and they're not spread over a very wide area at all. This is the are in question marked on a map of the Czech Republic:
Where does the sediment at the bottom of the sea near the coast come from? From rivers, which wash down stuff eroded from highlands in the adjacent land. This is the same thing that happens today. and seems pretty obvious. And our obvious common sense is confirmed by the work of geologists analysing the chemical composition of the rocks. The below is from Caracciolo et al (2011):Sandstone petrology and mudstone geochemistry of the Peruc—Korycany Formation (Bohemian Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic), International Geology Review, 53:9, 1003-1031.
quote: That's just saying, in very technical terms, that the sandstone is made up of minerals washed down from the adjacent, higher areas. These units that they're talking about are visible on the below slightly complicated map. The Cretaceous Basin where the mudstone is found is mostly white on this map. You can see the Moldanubian and Tepla-Barrandian Units marked on the map to the south of this. The 'Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex' is represented by the red bits scattered throughout this area.
Water erodes rocks and washes bits into the sea, where they settle to the bottom. What is at all mysterious about this process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It's the "fast" part that's physically impossible. It might as well be instantaneous. It's been explained to you before the enormous amounts of energy that would have been required to move whole mountain ranges "fast". Where did that energy come from? And where did that energy go after the mountains had moved? Fast then slow, gradual, not sudden, not instantaneous. And what magic started that process and then stopped it? And why did it never happen again?"If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...." -- Rudyard Kipling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Sedimentation is a weird idea, somehow it's expected to come along for no good reason, just one particular sediment, and somehow create huge flat sedimentary rocks from time to time. ... Don't you ever dust? If you never dusted what would happen? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024