Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,797 Year: 4,054/9,624 Month: 925/974 Week: 252/286 Day: 13/46 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
Taq
Member
Posts: 10075
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 268 of 445 (596567)
12-15-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by anglagard
12-15-2010 1:41 AM


Re: Plate Tectonics is a joke - "movement" measured in minimeters...
Just for one little example of which there are thousands, let us consider the town of Hollister, California.
Ahh yes. Hollister, CA. Home to the world's slowest moving sidewalk:
USGS URL Resolution Error Page

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by anglagard, posted 12-15-2010 1:41 AM anglagard has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10075
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 373 of 445 (611985)
04-12-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Robert Byers
04-12-2011 2:43 AM


dating methods are not actually geology but about more atomic matters. They need to prove their case first.
It is geology, and it has been proven. You can even measure the cooling of a granite formation using radiometric dating:
Paleosols
If cooling of a geologic formation is not geology, then what is?
i don't mean the boundary level was laid by water.
Then it would be a very poor marker for the global flood, wouldn't it?
Both sides agree the sedimentary rock strata were laid by water. slow or fast.
No, they don't. Such features as paleosols discussed in the link above were not laid down under water. The Coconino sandstones are another good example. These are fossilized sand dunes from a wind blown desert.
We say over one year time with great segregated flow events.
You say a lot of things. We are interested in the evidence that backs up what you say.
This creationist says the k-t line is the difference in the flood year and the later centuries.
Based on what evidence?
The line doesn;t exist. Just the great difference in rock type and flora/fauna within in it.
How do you explain the iridium signal at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the K/T tektites that date to ~65 million years before present found at the K/T boundary? How do you explain the absence of a single modern mammal below the K/T boundary? What evidence supports your explanations?
it is just about interpretation of practical rocks in the field.
Yes, look to see which interpretation is backed by evidence and which is backed by zero evidence. So far, you are pushing an interpretation backed by zero evidence. The interpretation of standard geology is backed by all of the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Robert Byers, posted 04-12-2011 2:43 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:12 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10075
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 378 of 445 (612413)
04-15-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Robert Byers
04-15-2011 2:12 AM


No. Cooling of rocks etc is not geology.
It most certainly is. The characteristics and features of granite depends heavily on the speed at which rocks cool. How an igneous rock forms has everything to do with how it cools, where it cools, etc. Last I checked, the formation of rocks is geology.
Your dating stuff is speculative.
No it isn't. It is empirical and quantitative.
The evidence for creationist ideas here is simply interpretation of practical field results.
The problem is that these interpretations are not scientific and are based on dogmatic religious beliefs.
yes thers a biblical foundation but still the point is that nothing contradicts and indeed suggests greatly the biblical flood story by the rock strata and the k-t line.
What geologic formation, if observed, would falsify a recent global flood? I think you are blowing smoke on this one.
All there is IS stuff in the field.
Then thinking about it.
Let us know when you get to the second part.
the rocks make a creationist case or at least a creationist case fits with what is found.
How so? You keep repeating this claim, but you never actually show how it is the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Robert Byers, posted 04-15-2011 2:12 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by OliverChant, posted 04-17-2011 3:51 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 403 by Robert Byers, posted 04-20-2011 3:50 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10075
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 439 of 445 (615936)
05-18-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Robert Byers
05-04-2011 1:07 AM


Re: Take a Hint
It did turn into a interesting conversation.
i do say the operative word here is CHEMISTRY.
all they did was apply chemial ideas into minor matters of sediment consolidation.
They made a big tent but are wrong to see the real processes of earth sediment as related to special cases of chemistry or bugs making holes in the dirt. I guess they would call that biologicalgeological processes.
Its just bugs and not geology.
Its joining very different subjects together for special investigation.
Robert, you are simply ignoring some very important concepts. Chemistry has everything to do with how rocks form, how they weather, how the cement together, how they age, etc. Some of that chemistry comes from life. For example, the banded iron formations seen prior to the Cambrian was due to the biological production of oxygen. This free oxygen oxidized soluble iron and turned it into insoluble iron oxide (aka rust). Limestone and chalk are made up of the skeletons of living creatures.
Understanding chemistry and biology is vital to studying rocks. It can't be done without this knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:07 AM Robert Byers 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