Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A
joz
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 352 (9615)
05-14-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by TrueCreation
05-13-2002 11:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Interesting indeed! So if most magmatic activity were propelled by the effects of the flood. Where would Noah's ark be hiding? Under a lot of alternating layers of lava and ash, what the heck are they on the look-out for? They should be looking for structural patterns of Carbon or something like that if anything. There may still be structural patterns or nails or if water were present, possibly even chunk of wood inclusions in stratigraphic lava flows. Just speculation of course.
And 2 of every created kind (7 each of the clean kinds) barbecued....
Think TC think.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by TrueCreation, posted 05-13-2002 11:13 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by TrueCreation, posted 05-14-2002 12:55 AM joz has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 352 (9617)
05-14-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by joz
05-14-2002 12:01 AM


"And 2 of every created kind (7 each of the clean kinds) barbecued....
Think TC think....."
--Yes think outside the box
, It wouldn't necessarily be Barbecued if they were cooled lava flows, the presence of water rigorously hastens this process.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by joz, posted 05-14-2002 12:01 AM joz has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 352 (9618)
05-14-2002 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by edge
05-14-2002 12:00 AM


"Or it could be that they don't want you to know. It could be that they are taking advantage of the layman's ignorance of geology."
--Thats a pretty bold 'could be'.
"Otherwise why would they ask why marine fossils are found on the tops of all mountains. Do you think they want you to say that it happens because the rocks have been uplifted at convergent plate boundaries? No, they want you to think that there were floods that covered the mountains."
--I think your getting Hovind or walt brown mixed up with other Creationist scientists...
"Of course not. They do not affect the boundaries, the boundaries affect them."
--Exactly.
"Hunh? "Self-conceptual?" Even if they are independent of the boundaries they are still part of plate tectonics. In fact they provide good evidence of plate tectonics. "
--Yes, they provide good evidence of plate tectonics by indicating directional plate motion, however they are not directly linked by the cause of their action.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by edge, posted 05-14-2002 12:00 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by edge, posted 05-14-2002 1:19 AM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 290 of 352 (9620)
05-14-2002 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by TrueCreation
05-14-2002 1:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Or it could be that they don't want you to know. It could be that they are taking advantage of the layman's ignorance of geology."
--Thats a pretty bold 'could be'.
I was looking at it from your viewpoint. From mine, there is no question. You are being deceived. Almost certainly intentionally.
quote:
"Otherwise why would they ask why marine fossils are found on the tops of all mountains. Do you think they want you to say that it happens because the rocks have been uplifted at convergent plate boundaries? No, they want you to think that there were floods that covered the mountains."
--I think your getting Hovind or walt brown mixed up with other Creationist scientists...
Yeah, well that's a distinct possibility. But it sounds like you get them confused also.
But then, what is your answer to this question?
quote:
"Hunh? "Self-conceptual?" Even if they are independent of the boundaries they are still part of plate tectonics. In fact they provide good evidence of plate tectonics. "
--Yes, they provide good evidence of plate tectonics by indicating directional plate motion, however they are not directly linked by the cause of their action.
Hey, that's clear to me! What is their action and what is the cause?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by TrueCreation, posted 05-14-2002 1:01 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 4:41 AM edge has not replied
 Message 294 by TrueCreation, posted 05-15-2002 5:08 PM edge has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 291 of 352 (9665)
05-15-2002 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by edge
05-14-2002 1:19 AM


The flood 'evidences' I posted (again) were from THE GENESIS FLOOD: CONTINENTS IN COLLISION by Dennis Gordon Lindsay 1992. I realize I am a layman in geology and many of these evidences are obsolete (10 years old), embarrassing, and/or need some serious reconstructing.
Moose, you truly know some meteors! Percy, your trees. But is your logic ‘bringing it home’
Can I say, you all sound about 50-70% convincing in your counter-arguments, most of which need to be re-iterated somewhat before I’m truly convinced.
Plate upheavals and their mechanisms are difficult for me to comprehend and concede to at present.
Many of you are getting real technical geologically, without explaining in layman’s terms.
Would you recommend a cite for global-flood evidences for geological idiots like myself (creationist or otherwise)?
Could you summarize some of your current global-flood evidences? TC, and/or others? (Fear not ToE believers; some ‘mutant-life believers’ do actually believe in ‘evidences’ of the flood, without compromising their hypotheses)
Could you summarize some of your no-flood evidences, Percy, Edge, Joz, Moose, Karl, and/or others, at some point in this discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by edge, posted 05-14-2002 1:19 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 12:07 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 299 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-15-2002 9:10 PM Philip has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 292 of 352 (9679)
05-15-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Philip
05-15-2002 4:41 AM


Here are some simple no-flood evidences:
(1) No creationist has told us what specific rocks were deposited by the flood. They make sweeping and vague statements so as to not be caught by:
Paleosols-ancient soil horizons found throughout the geologic record. Specifically, soils that form when exposed to the elements means that they could not have been part of a global flood sequence.
Fossil Sorting: Fossils are found in a regular order. Floods are chaotic.
Continental glaciations throughout the geologic record- Evidence that glaciers have covered different parts of the earth many times in the past does not fit with a global flood.
In short, creationists have not presented any evidence for a global flood other than to assert it happened. They won't be specific because the specifics challenge their assertions.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 4:41 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 05-15-2002 3:31 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 295 by TrueCreation, posted 05-15-2002 5:22 PM Joe Meert has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 293 of 352 (9687)
05-15-2002 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Joe Meert
05-15-2002 12:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
In short, creationists have not presented any evidence for a global flood other than to assert it happened. They won't be specific because the specifics challenge their assertions.
This is the very point that gave me pause in answering TB's question. What exactly is the flood? It seems like a moving target to me. Every time we make a point, someone comes up with an argument such as:
It was really multiple regional floods that culminated in the real flood.
The flood was so sudden that it left no evidence. (thankyou wmscott)
The rocks you are talking about are post-flood.
There we actually two floods.
The rocks in question are pre-flood.
The continents were being down-dropped and uplifted in different areas.(this explains it all)
The flood was before the ice ages.
The end of the ice ages caused the flood.
The fossils were hydrodynamically sorted.
The fossils were sorted by some unspecified process that only acted on certain biomes at any given time.
Ultimately, one can explain away any piece of actual evidence with some unsupportable, unobserved, hypothetical process; which in all likelyhood, conflicts with some other hypothetical process. Such is creationist "evidence."
[This message has been edited by edge, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 12:07 PM Joe Meert has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 352 (9689)
05-15-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by edge
05-14-2002 1:19 AM


"I was looking at it from your viewpoint. From mine, there is no question. You are being deceived. Almost certainly intentionally. "
--I think I know considerably enough conventional geology to be quite sure I am not being deceived. Also, this is also a bold assertion, support? Where is the deceit?
"Yeah, well that's a distinct possibility. But it sounds like you get them confused also.
"
--I have my doubts!
"But then, what is your answer to this question?
Hey, that's clear to me! What is their action and what is the cause?"
--To get a larger visual on hotspots, they are a locus of volcanism which remain stationary relative lithospheric plate motion. This feature can form a long chain of volcanoes as stated before with the example of the hawaiian islands, that become progressively older as one moves farther away from the current site of active volcanism. Because they appear to be mostly stationary relative tectonic motion, they are believed to be expressions of the mantle plumes of hot rock originating somewhere in the more viscous lower mantle, probably near the core-mantle boundary in most cases. Was this your question?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by edge, posted 05-14-2002 1:19 AM edge has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 352 (9691)
05-15-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Joe Meert
05-15-2002 12:07 PM


"(1) No creationist has told us what specific rocks were deposited by the flood. They make sweeping and vague statements so as to not be caught by:"
--I thought I remembered saying some time ago that I currently go with Cambrian --> Tertiary deposits.
"Paleosols-ancient soil horizons found throughout the geologic record. Specifically, soils that form when exposed to the elements means that they could not have been part of a global flood sequence."
--I also stated in that same post:
quote:
...and concerning paleosols, they of course are not going to form under water, so the existence of paleosols in my view currently would show a time when water had not covered an area during the flood...
"Fossil Sorting: Fossils are found in a regular order. Floods are chaotic.
--The fossil record is a bit chaotically ordered in a sense, even though this is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood theory.
"Continental glaciations throughout the geologic record- Evidence that glaciers have covered different parts of the earth many times in the past does not fit with a global flood."
--Foraminifera?
"In short, creationists have not presented any evidence for a global flood other than to assert it happened. They won't be specific because the specifics challenge their assertions."
--I have been specific as the questions ask, your geophysical arguments, however, are highly sophisticated and take much more knowledge than general geology might ask of me.
--Also, I think it would be nice for clarification for us to define what is accepted as 'evidence'. There have been arguments around when I discuss the flood that something is evidence uniformitarian geology but is not to a Flood, though I have never heard any expansion on this. That is, I haven't heard examples to discuss that could be used in support of this assertion.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 12:07 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by edge, posted 05-15-2002 6:27 PM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 296 of 352 (9695)
05-15-2002 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by TrueCreation
05-15-2002 5:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Fossil Sorting: Fossils are found in a regular order. Floods are chaotic.
--The fossil record is a bit chaotically ordered in a sense, even though this is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood theory.
What sense is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by TrueCreation, posted 05-15-2002 5:22 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by TrueCreation, posted 05-15-2002 7:25 PM edge has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 352 (9696)
05-15-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by edge
05-15-2002 6:27 PM


For a very rudimentary illustration on how fossil succession is basically found:
---This is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood Geology, it is evidence by interpretation. Of course any critique is urged.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by edge, posted 05-15-2002 6:27 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 8:10 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 318 by edge, posted 05-16-2002 12:38 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 298 of 352 (9697)
05-15-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by TrueCreation
05-15-2002 7:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For a very rudimentary illustration on how fossil succession is basically found:
---This is expected by both uniformitarian and Flood Geology, it is evidence by interpretation. Of course any critique is urged.

JM: Your diagram makes no sense. By Nich do you mean Niche or is nich supposed to be some 'representative fossil'. Honestly though, I have no clue what your diagram is supposed to be representative of. It certainly has nothing to do with uniformitarian geology. By the way, what is your definition for uniformitarian?
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by TrueCreation, posted 05-15-2002 7:25 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-15-2002 11:48 PM Joe Meert has replied
 Message 319 by TrueCreation, posted 05-16-2002 5:10 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 299 of 352 (9704)
05-15-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Philip
05-15-2002 4:41 AM


quote:
The flood 'evidences' I posted (again) were from THE GENESIS FLOOD: CONTINENTS IN COLLISION by Dennis Gordon Lindsay 1992.
I would like you to check the above cited, to see if there are any references about where the information about the Mt. Ararat pillowed volcanics (as you (I think) mentioned elsewhere). I need this before I can make any further comment on that topic.
quote:
Moose, you truly know some meteors!
Thanks, but you're giving me credit for someone elses efforts. I've posted nothing on meteors or meteorites.
quote:
Plate upheavals and their mechanisms are difficult for me to comprehend and concede to at present. Many of you are getting real technical geologically, without explaining in layman’s terms.
Once you start really getting into the sciences, it is difficult to avoid the jargon. I think I do try, and will continue to try. Anyhow...
For your reference, the sites biology glossary is at:
http:///WebPages/Glossary.html
And the geology glossary is at:
http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.html
These can also be found at "Resources", at the top of the topic index pages.
quote:
Would you recommend a cite for global-flood evidences for geological idiots like myself (creationist or otherwise)? Could you summarize some of your current global-flood evidences?
The creationist evidences are shakey at best. Perhaps your "The Genesis Flood" is as good as any.
In the more conventional geological interpretation, there indeed have been global floods, although they (I believe) never went so far as to cover all land. The evidence is the marine sediments and fossils that can be found in many places. The last of these, however, was a long time ago (in the Cretaceous (sp?) period, I believe).
The mechanism for the flooding is believed to be somewhat along the lines of the "Runaway Subduction" hypothesis that showed up early in this topic - see:
( http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm }
But the rates of it happening were not remotely as high as suggested at that page.
Basicly, the thought is that increased spreading rates at mid-ocean ridges caused a thickening and/or bowing upward of the oceanic crust. Essentially, the ocean waters were displaced onto the continents. Later, as the thickening/bowing process ceased, and the waters returned to the ocean basins. This seems to be the only viable way to produce and dispose of the required volumes of water.
quote:
Could you summarize some of your no-flood evidences, Percy, Edge, Joz, Moose, Karl, and/or others, at some point in this discussion?
There is no such thing as evidence for a non-event. The arguement against the flood is that there is no viable mechanism to cause it, and no evidence that it happened.
One of the former evidences of the flood, is the geologicaly recent, poorly sorted sediments found in Europe and elsewhere. Further study exposed these as being glacial deposits. That was pretty much the end of "flood geology", as a mainstream geological concept.
Philip, as I understand it, you are NOT a YEC/YAC, so I didn't get into that area.
I also recommend that you look at the "Back to the fundimentals" topic at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=14&p=12
In particular, you may wish to look at the discussed creationist paper, which is found at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp
I also like to push my "Uniformitarianism" topic, which is at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=16&p=12
Regards,
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Philip, posted 05-15-2002 4:41 AM Philip has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 352 (9727)
05-15-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Joe Meert
05-15-2002 8:10 PM


Joe, that's a nice diagram that TC has shown (although I agree I'm at a loss as to what the 'Nich' are!). The dark areas are areas of abundant fossils and light areas are few.
The usual sort of diagrams I've come across in good paleontology texts include 'balloon' diagrams showing the occurrance of fossils in time/strata vertically and in abundance horizontally. TC's diagram is another way of showing this and as TC says it can be interpreted as the statistical result of hydrodynamic sorting and burial or the coming and going of spceies throughout geological time.
The fascinating thing for me was that in reading these research monographs I got to see, almost first hand, how one goes from these raw data distribution diagrams to the IMO fanciful diagrams in university textbooks:
1. You take quantitative geometrical anatomical measures from all of the fossil skeltons.
2. You feed these into a simple computer program which generates cladograms based on 1.
3. You get the raw fossil distribtuion data.
4. You rearrange the order of the species horizontally according to the cladogram.
5. You draw dotted lines on the fossil distribution diagram that correspond with those from the compuet caldogram.
6. In many university textbooks the dotted lines are often merged with the 'balloons' and it becomes a continuous flow.
Note:
(i) That there are almost always no transitional forms, or even occurances of the organism, along the dotted line.
(ii) The fossil record itself did not suggest what was related to what - the length of the dotted lines is near random. It was the cladograms derived from anatomical similarity that did that. On mnay occasions the dotted lines suggested by the cladogrmas have to dot through 100s of millions of years of geological time even though there are no known transitonal forms or examples of that species.
This is why evolutionists can say: 'No real evoltuonist uses the fossil record to distinguish between evolution and special creation'. This famous quote from New Scientist, made by a contemporary evolutionist in the 1990s, goes on to state that the best evidence for evoltuion is rather homology and biogeography. I agree - homology is suggestive of evoltuion but the fossil record does not back it up - either via the fossil order or with transitional forms. We must remeber tha tevoltuion is most deficient in explaining the thousands of family level transitions. Almost every family to family gap is completely empty and there are only a handful of famous, very tired looking, examples of transitions. The general public has no idea this is the case.
IMO the emperor has no clothes.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Joe Meert, posted 05-15-2002 8:10 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 12:38 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 301 of 352 (9736)
05-16-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Tranquility Base
05-15-2002 11:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Joe, that's a nice diagram that TC has shown (although I agree I'm at a loss as to what the 'Nich' are!). The dark areas are areas of abundant fossils and light areas are few.[/QUOTE]
JM: I got that much. Other than that, I am at a loss.
quote:
The usual sort of diagrams I've come across in good paleontology texts include 'balloon' diagrams showing the occurrance of fossils in time/strata vertically and in abundance horizontally. TC's diagram is another way of showing this and as TC says it can be interpreted as the statistical result of hydrodynamic sorting and burial or the coming and going of spceies throughout geological time.
JM: It does?
quote:
This is why evolutionists can say: 'No real evoltuonist uses the fossil record to distinguish between evolution and special creation'. This famous quote from New Scientist, made by a contemporary evolutionist in the 1990s, goes on to state that the best evidence for evoltuion is rather homology and biogeography.
JM: Please supply the full quote in context. I am a little suspicious of quote mining!.
[QUOTE] IMO the emperor has no clothes.
[/b]
JM: You know what they say about opinions? How about some evidence?
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-15-2002 11:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 12:58 AM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 303 by wj, posted 05-16-2002 1:33 AM Joe Meert has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024