|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
By the way, thanks folks, if they move this, I won't follow. Have fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
simple writes: By the way, thanks folks, if they move this, I won't follow. Have fun. That's fine. Since you opened the thread and do not want it moved, I will not move it. But if you post to the Main Topic Forums again I will suspend you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
I suggest that simple be allowed to continue participating in this thread. Maybe, after his admission that the flood is responsible for the deposition of all strata which contain fossils, we can finally contrast his collection of fantasies and speculations against the reality of what is found in the geological column.
I think that he should not be given a ready excuse to run away from the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Agreed.
Simple, you may continue participating in this thread, but all other participation must be outside the Main Topic Forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Simple, is it your position that all strata in the geological column which contain fossils are the product of Noah's flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
But if you post to the Main Topic Forums again I will suspend you.
Post when-ever? for how long suspended?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Simple, is it your position that all strata in the geological column which contain fossils are the product of Noah's flood? Well. Talking directly to me now, are we? Well well well. Ok, I'll just wait a tiny bit, though, in hopes of getting an answer to a question Joe posed about the burrowing creatures in a formation he brought up. What is the name of the mammal, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5926 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
Simple,
Based on your response to my message 119, your answers are along the lines of "Creative-ism", not "Creation-ism".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Simple writes: Post when-ever? for how long suspended? EvC Forum strives for productive discussion. Suspensions generally last for as long as I'm persuaded they're helpful to that goal. I've been assuming you've been following the other thread where your suspension has been discussed, but if not, let me repeat here that in my view you're very weak in the areas of scientific background and analytical thinking. This is illustrated most often by your inability to distinguish between or draw any correspondences between hypothesis and evidence. During the time I engaged you I sensed no improvement and no willingness to improve, nor even any awareness of any deficiency. You have a quick mind and may be brilliant in your specialty, but even a Nobel prize winning physicist would find himself looking very foolish if he visited a needlepoint discussion board and pretended to know what he was talking about. That you don't know that you don't know, even when informed repeatedly and provided evidence, is itself a problem. If you should find your posting privileges have been suspended, they may be restored by sending email to Admin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Well, seems it's no use waiting for for anyone to inform me of what some of you profesionals have claimed to be a creature burrowing around. I'll have to assume that you were only trying to lead me to believe that. As far as someone who asked me about the layers, my thoughts would be this. I see no reason at the moment that any layer anywhere could not be explained by a young earth, and a great flood. The short answer is I don't know. I think your answer should be the same. ---Unless you can prove any layer was not a part of these events, I'll assume they are.---- After all I'm interested somewhat in the best definition I've heard yet of "geology" http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates One question I would ask, is when defining a layer, is there any other criteria besides the fossils in it (and of course, 'dating')? In other words is the rock itself in say, Burgess, the same exactly as all other cambrian rock, if that's what you call it?
Remember, I am not trying to attack people caught in the ages theories, but the principle itself. Reviewing posts, I can see where I could improve in that area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The short answer is I don't know. I think your answer should be the same. ---Unless you can prove any layer was not a part of these events, I'll assume they are.----
I've mentioned El Capitan somewhere on one of these threads you've been on, simple. It's a mountain a couple of hundred miles from here. It has about 1600 vertical feet of limestone, formed almost completely of the skeletons of calcareous sponges, largely in the positions in which the grew. How long does it take, do you think, to grow a layer of sponges a half-kilometer thick, if each one grows a couple of centimeters tall, and takes a year or two to do so? And why are there no sponges alive today of the many species whose parts make up this mountain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4288 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
of course it did but does it show any evidence for an effect on the earth to cause water to appear from nowhere(or that god caused it).back to geological layers and proof seeing that you ignored the question on being in a hurricane i will go with you being in a location safely away from any storms from the oceans.hurricane andrew struck south florida in aug 1992 it dropped fom 2.02 to 3.5 inches of rain(information and stats on hurricane andrew can be found at Page Not Found).the effects on the geology by this storm can still be seen today(14yrs 5mths later)your storm to raise the sea level 29036ft(tallest mnt + 18 cubits)it would have to average of roughly 728ft per 24 hour period or a rain fall equal to andrew every 3 to 5 seconds.this would have caused major erosion on at least all mts which we would be able to find in the layers at any point in history from yesterday to millions of years ago.that is 119145 time more than andrew see it is simple look at the numbers try a little math now if your going to post "well god waved his magic wand and made all that water appear... flooded the earth...then waved it again and made all the evidence disapear"make sure you try to explain why an omnipotent being needs to hide evidence of the massacre of 99.9% of all life on alive at that time
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: This is the problem I was trying to get you to discuss earlier. You have formed a theory: The earth is young. I got you to discuss what the positive evidence would be for a global flood and a young earth (quickly buried fossils) but you have yet to discuss the possible falsifying evidence. I could say just the opposite, unless you can prove that every layer is from the flood I will assume it is evidence for an old earth. This doesn't work either. You have to describe a mechanism that will describe the formation of sedimentary layers for all examples. For an old earth, ripple marks in sandstone are thought to be attributed to wind blown sand, and this is true in every case. Sediment made of fine particles (shales) are thought to have been deposited slowly over time, and this is true in every case. So, if we have windblown ripples in sandstone below a shale layer, we would expect a desert environment that may have led to a still water aquatic environment. What would falsify these mechanisms is great onrushes of water, say from a hurricane storm surge, that would create layers of sand with ripples that appear to be made from wind below a thick layer of very fine sediments. If we see deposition of layers thought to take hundreds of years in a matter of days, then the theory is shot. My theory can be falsified by collected data. You need to give us an example of how your theory, young earth and global flood, can be falsified by collected data. Without this, it is an ad hoc rationalization, a position that no scientist wants to put themselves into. For example, After watching "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" I could state that there are Everlasting Gobstoppers. To prove me wrong, you have to find every gobstopper in the world and prove that they are not everlasting. This is an unfair position and pushing the burden of proof away from the least tenable theory according to the experience of most candy eaters. Please give us an example of how the young earth/global flood theory can be falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
You mean they aren't everlasting?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
How long does it take, do you think, to grow a layer of sponges a half-kilometer thick I very much suspect that today's growth rates by which you are likely basing your perceived old world growth rates, are much different. I think it's safe to say that the limestone and calcareous sponges grew much faster. When conditions sre right, strange things happen. I am told even here, now, red tide can multiply certain growths incredibly. As well as pollution, apparently in places, has provided conditions for fast growth of organisms. So how could one prove that no conceivable conditions could arise in a world you know almost nothing about, to speed growth?So how long do I think it takes to grow? Well, if we knew for sure that the layer was not at least partially deposited by current, piling up while still alive, gathering together, I suppose my guess, as you already made your guess, would be made. And why are there no sponges alive today of the many species whose parts make up this mountain? why are there no ginko trees? Why are there no coelacanth left? And some other things? There are! At one time they just thought there were not! But, if say, we don't find some in say, another 75 years, let's assume they are gone. And if they are gone, could conditions have existed where they were very happy, and ridiculously prosperous, because of flood conditions, yet, afterwards things changed so much, they did disappear? (these guys have limited potential now!) Access denied
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024