Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1411 of 2370 (869056)
12-22-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1406 by Faith
12-22-2019 11:50 AM


Re: again Faith is asserting the impossible
quote:
Don't ask me. It's the others who are saying they look like surface rivers, not I. But I'm still not at all clear what exactly anyone is describing under which names.
Funny. In Message 1381 you were claiming that the buried rivers were just channels in rock which have NO OTHER RESEMBLANCE to surface rivers. How could you make such a claim if you weren’t aware of the actual examples?
quote:
Different material than the layer above it? Doesn't seem difficult to explain to me. A channel is formed between strata and material from another location flows into it and being confined between the layers has a flat surface in conformity with the layer overhead . Limestone being the liquid filling the channel in many cases IIRC. In fact the liquid limestone is probably what carved the channel anyway, one dissolved limestone dissolving the one below.
I guess you failed chemistry then. Calcium carbonate isn’t very soluble so a calcium carbonate solution isn’t going to be very good at dissolving calcium carbonate.
quote:
I've given the model for the Flood many many times. You've even read it, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I consider you to be nothing but a gadfly uninterested in real discussion
Jar was asking for a model that explained why rivers forming underground would look like surface rivers. Even if you had a viable model of the Flood (and I don’t think you have anything more than a collection of ideas, some of them entirely ad hoc) it doesn’t address the point.
quote:
I've explained how I see the situation you described above. I don't think the FLood is necessary to that anyway. You've got two layers and the same process that forms karsts, the dissolution of limestone, is all it takes to form a channel with limestone flowing through it between layers. It's a channel more or less shaped like a riverbed but that's all it has in common with a river.
By your own admission that doesn’t explain the rivers that are being discussed. So what’s the relevance?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1406 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1412 of 2370 (869057)
12-22-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1404 by Faith
12-22-2019 11:18 AM


Re: silly all one type of rock nonsense.
can't think in terms of buried surface rivers. I can't figure out how to explain them in relation to the Flood.
Nobody can. It can't be done. It takes time to cut river channels, even in soft sediment. It can't happen underwater.
Buried surface rivers look nothing like underground rivers.
There was no global fludde.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 11:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1413 of 2370 (869058)
12-22-2019 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1406 by Faith
12-22-2019 11:50 AM


Re: again Faith is asserting the impossible
It's a channel more or less shaped like a riverbed
It's a channel not at all shaped like a surface river.
Surface rivers have extensive tree-like branching patterns. Channels formed underground have very few or no branches, and they aren't tree-like.
Buried surface rivers are trivial to identify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1406 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1414 of 2370 (869061)
12-22-2019 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1400 by Faith
12-22-2019 7:59 AM


Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
It's in the details Faith.
( ... what k)eeps it from being just a temporary shoreline during the regression of the Flood?
The evidence that it is a mature shoreline, including wave cut shores
Now you give me the mystifying information, meaning descriptions without evidence, so I'm forced to ask, what is a "mature shoreline," and what are "wave cut shores" and why don't they fit the idea of the regressing Flood waters? ...
It's the details Faith.
... what is a "mature shoreline," ...
A mature shoreline would be one that has "grown up" as opposed to a temporary edge of water/s that was just created.
That means that it has a fully grown ecology typical of a long term shoreline: grasses in the land area exposed by the regression, shallow water seaweeds on the bottom below the shoreline, seaweeds that don't grow in deep water (lacking sunlight). Likewise clams, brachiopods, muscles and other shallow water critters.
It takes time for these to appear, years for the plants to grow from seeds, years for the drifting larvae of sessile organisms, like muscles, to grow in the new inter-tidal zone.
The first plants to grow in the land bared by the regression would be grasses, and they would stabilize the sands and other grains exposed to the air. Then larger plants would grow in the stabilized soil, shrubs and eventually trees. It is a well known pattern of succession of plant life. Animal life follows as their habitats mature.
It takes years for this to mature and develop into a fully grown ecology.
... what are "wave cut shores" ...
It's the details Faith.
It's what happens to shorelines over time. When you build a dam and create a lake, you create a temporarily new shoreline, which would be similar to your "temporary regression" shoreline except that the land above the water level would be a mature ecological environment of plants and animals (while yours would be barren of land flora and fauna, like what is exposed just before a tidal wave). It also has flooded land ecological environment that will die off over time).
The wave action along this edge of water will cut into the land and erode it. The eroded land will be transported and deposited into the lake, with the larger, heavier, denser materials being deposited first and thus near shore, while the finer grain materials will be deposited further and further from the shoreline depending on their size, weight, density. This creates a plateau underwater that builds over time (we have discussed this before), while the wave cutting into the land creates small cliffs as material collapses down to the water level (and then transported into the lake.
Over time this creates a pattern of small cliffs, flatter shores leading into the water, and then underwater cliffs formed by the depositions. The longer the water level stays constant the more this develops. Thus seeing this pattern is evidence of a fairly constant water level over many years.
(here you describe the picture which is just a blur to me)...
It's a picture of a fossil shoreline showing the details outlined above. There are several available on the web. There are also pictures of hillsides with several steps of these wave cut shoreline due to fluctuating water levels.
It's the details Faith.
... And I assume the "evidence" is fossils, yes? Nothing "developed" in the Flood of course, though you often seem to think that is claimed, which it is not. There may of course be all kind of evidence that you are not reporting because it isn't of interest to the support of the Old Earth and the ToE. Creationists in the field might discover it of course but I can't go out there to look for myself. Anyway since the life forms are divided between the different environments it suggests more the rising of the Flood than the regression of the Flood.
Blah blah blah ... screech (moving goalposts) ... now it's a transgression instead of a regression ...
A transgression would be even more similar to a dam flooding creating a lake, where the land side of the shoreline was once a mature ecological land development, while the water side of the shoreline would show drowned and buried land plants etc. and little or no aquatic flora or fauna initially.
The growth of aquatic plant life and sessile fauna would still take years to mature,
And again, if it was temporary (ie within a year from start to finish of the purported flood) it would not show the evidence of a mature shoreline with a fully developed wave cut shoreline.
You can't grow rooted land plants during a flood, so either it was there before or it grew after the new water level was established -- several years after to reach maturity. You don't have years.
It's the details Faith.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing to indicate the timing of a tide. I'm talking about a lengthy period of pausing during the regression. OR the rising of the Flood, hard to know at this point. And of coruse the shorelines were temporary, to refer to your title: they no longer exist, right?
You don't have enough time to make a mature landside shore ecology AND a mature aquatic near shore ecology -- you have less than 2 years and you need decades. For each fossil shoreline.
So stop making stuff up out of whole cloth Faith ... you can't explain the details, you never could.
It's the details Faith.
Since of course your terrestrial plants and animals are in fossil form above your shoreline, and the marine life etc is within the shorelines in fossil form, so ALL were overtaken by the Flood. If it was the rising phase of the Flood then it brought the marine life from the oceans onto the land and the terrestrial life moved to avoid the water.
There you go making stuff up again, thinking you have explained the latest details.
I didn't know that grass could run uphill. .... {/snark}
You also have the problem of marshland flora, those inter-tidal areas that flood during high tides and empty during low tides, and the sessile fauna that thrive on brackish water and being covered and uncovered by tidal action. There are marshland flora are not found outside marshlands. It takes years for these to reach full size.
Brachiopods, and muscles and the like take several years to reach mature sizes found, and they start with a larvae stage before attaching to some object (many times an empty shell or rock fragment). Muscles in particula die if they are not exposed to air between high tides, and they need the tide to provide food (they are filter feeders). The presence of their shells shows that it was an inter-tidal zone for many many years,
It's the details Faith.
The details that you are ignorant of, and which you try to invent some magical scenario to explain, but fail to do so, because ... the details don't lie.
You need decades, not days or months or even a year, to explain the mature shore structure and ecologies above and below the waterlevel.
You don't have that much time. (Cue next fantasy to make up a warped time frame).
And don't talk to me about time until you can explain Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 7:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1415 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 3:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1415 of 2370 (869086)
12-23-2019 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1414 by RAZD
12-22-2019 3:09 PM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
My problem with all this is that I really have no idea what you are talking about or why, what it has to do with the Flood or anything related. Thanks for answering my questions but I end up with a big "so what?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1414 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2019 3:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1416 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2019 3:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1424 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2019 10:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1431 by Percy, posted 12-24-2019 11:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1416 of 2370 (869087)
12-23-2019 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1415 by Faith
12-23-2019 3:27 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
I guess you can’t keep track of the conversation.
You asked:
What keeps it from being just a temporary shoreline during the regression of the Flood?
Message 1389
And you were answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1415 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 3:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1417 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 3:59 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1417 of 2370 (869088)
12-23-2019 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1416 by PaulK
12-23-2019 3:32 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
that's why I said thanks for the answer.
But it turns out to be uninformative in the end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1416 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2019 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1418 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2019 4:12 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1418 of 2370 (869089)
12-23-2019 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1417 by Faith
12-23-2019 3:59 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
Funny that you asked the question if it wasn’t important.
But RAZD was pointing out the shorelines of the Cretaceous seas, and his evidence shows that not only were there shorelines(show8ng that there was dry land then), but they persisted for long periods of time.
That’s not exactly possible during a one-year Flood - even if you hold that those shorelines lasted the entire year it would be nowhere near long enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1417 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 3:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1419 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 5:19 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1419 of 2370 (869090)
12-23-2019 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1418 by PaulK
12-23-2019 4:12 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
They would have to have predated the Flood then but I'd need to spend time on it and I'm not interested right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1418 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2019 4:12 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1420 by caffeine, posted 12-23-2019 5:29 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1425 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2019 10:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 1420 of 2370 (869091)
12-23-2019 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1419 by Faith
12-23-2019 5:19 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
They would have to have predated the Flood then but I'd need to spend time on it and I'm not interested right now.
In the event you ever were interested in thinking about this, your explanation would have to clarify how these antediluvian shorelines wound up on top of strata supposedly laid down by the flood; and how some survived the post-flood tectonic cataclysm unscathed, desire lying on top and next to rocks warped and twisted by this event

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1419 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 5:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1421 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 5:47 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1421 of 2370 (869092)
12-23-2019 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1420 by caffeine
12-23-2019 5:29 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
Yes, so somehow the information hasn't been useful for my purposes so far.. As I mentioned earlier, in discussions here I'm confined to whatever someone wants to present and unless I'm up to researching it independingly it may not be of use to me. This one was the usual change of subject after I'd made some point or other, and though sometimes I can get interested in pursuing such a change in this case it's not useful. Rather boring really. Surely you know I'm not going to take comments that deny the Flood seriously, I have to do my own research and I don't feel like it at the moment.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1420 by caffeine, posted 12-23-2019 5:29 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1422 by jar, posted 12-23-2019 6:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1423 by PaulK, posted 12-23-2019 7:40 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1426 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2019 10:35 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1422 of 2370 (869093)
12-23-2019 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1421 by Faith
12-23-2019 5:47 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
Faith writes:
Surely you know I'm not going to take comments that deny the Flood seriously, I have to do my own research and I don't feel like it at the moment.
And that statement is proof positive of your disconnect from reality and total inability to think critically.
It is why you will always be wrong about reality, science, religion and life.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1421 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 5:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1423 of 2370 (869098)
12-23-2019 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1421 by Faith
12-23-2019 5:47 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
quote:
Yes, so somehow the information hasn't been useful for my purposes so far..
Yes, because you’re doing apologetics not science. Evidence that contradicts your Flood geology is not useful and should be discarded.
quote:
As I mentioned earlier, in discussions here I'm confined to whatever someone wants to present and unless I'm up to researching it independingly it may not be of use to me.
Aside from the things you make up, that is. And have made up rather a lot in this discussion. The claim that buried rivers lack the features of real surface rivers was a complete invention, for a start.
quote:
This one was the usual change of subject after I'd made some point or other
No, RAZD was showing that the deposition over large bodies of water was not good evidence for the Flood, just your usual trick of taking an extremely superficial view of the evidence and ignoring everything else (which can NEVER be good evidence).
Message 1384
If you want to say that the discussion of shorelines was a change of subject - you changed it, in your reply Message 1389
quote:
Surely you know I'm not going to take comments that deny the Flood seriously,
Which outright admits your prejudice. Why, then, should we take your silly Flood geology seriously - or any of the other ideas you’ve failed to adequately support?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1421 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 5:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1424 of 2370 (869103)
12-23-2019 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1415 by Faith
12-23-2019 3:27 AM


Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
My problem with all this is that I really have no idea what you are talking about or why, what it has to do with the Flood or anything related. Thanks for answering my questions but I end up with a big "so what?"
Hint:
The evidence presented in Message 1384, Message 1393 and Message 1414 shows that there were ancient inland seas, complete with mature shorelines, extensive enough to form the large areas of flat sediment layers that exist, and that the concept that they were formed by a mythical flood does not match that evidence.
Counter to your claim in Message 1375:
Deposition over large bodies of water as an alternative to the Flood is really funny since it is actually good evidence FOR the Flood. And think of HOW large these bodies of water would have to be, in some cases covering most of a continent. Such a huge amount of water is evidence for the Flood. Seems to me that a lot of establishment Geology is just the piecemeal assembling of all the parts of the Flood, splitting it up into smaller increments over larger spans of time but really amounting in the end to what the Flood would have done in less time.
Your argument from incredulity answered with actual evidence:
  • Deposition over large bodies of water ... check
  • And think of HOW large these bodies of water would have to be ... check
  • in some cases covering most of a continent ... check
  • Such a huge amount of water is evidence for the Flood ... nope -- your conclusion does not follow from the actual evidence that shows partial inundations (transgressions) occurred several times in the past.
  • Seems to me that a lot of establishment Geology is just the piecemeal assembling of all the parts of the Flood, splitting it up into smaller increments over larger spans of time but really amounting in the end to what the Flood would have done in less time ... nope -- the "establishment Geology" follows the actual evidence that shows partial inundations (transgressions) several times in the past, with the occurrences dated by validated methods (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for details). The evidence is what "split(s) it up into smaller increments over larger spans of time.
It's the details Faith.
Note: the earth surface is 3/4 ocean, so "huge amounts of water" on its own is not evidence for a flood ... unless one is happening now.
... Thanks for answering my questions but I end up with a big "so what?"
So the concept of a world wide flood is not necessary to explain the evidence, and in fact a single world wide flood occurring for less than 2 years duration is inadequate for explaining all of the evidence, including the details.
It's the details Faith. It's always the details. That's what separates science from fantasy.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1415 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 3:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1425 of 2370 (869105)
12-23-2019 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1419 by Faith
12-23-2019 5:19 AM


waffle time ...
It's waffle time again ... look out for those moving goalposts ...
They would have to have predated the Flood then but I'd need to spend time on it and I'm not interested right now.
Then why is the evidence not buried under layers of flood sediment, as you have claimed ad nauseam so many times before?
Details Faith, details.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1419 by Faith, posted 12-23-2019 5:19 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