Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for and against Flood theories
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 112 (176018)
01-11-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Loudmouth
01-11-2005 9:25 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Loudmouth,
Yes, but the Flood model proposes that pretty much ALL the layers comprising Mt Everest were deposited during the Flood and then the mountain was uplifted during the receding stages. The fact that there are marine fossils IN the mountain is taken only as stronger evidence for such a scenario.
I don't know a thing about geology, but I just trying to clarify what I understand the Creationists' Flood models to hypothesize.
--TL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:25 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:40 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 81 by edge, posted 01-11-2005 11:42 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 112 (176024)
01-11-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:29 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
quote:
Yes, but the Flood model proposes that pretty much ALL the layers comprising Mt Everest were deposited during the Flood and then the mountain was uplifted during the receding stages. The fact that there are marine fossils IN the mountain is taken only as stronger evidence for such a scenario.
The Flood model predicts that this happened suddenly, which is not evidenced in geology. However, geology has no problem with the uplift of the seafloor. This can occur over millions of years. Mt. Everest, specifically, is the result of India crashing into Asia (in a geologic timescale, mind you). Pretend that your foot is India and Asia is a rug. Now, keeping your foot parallel to the ground, push on the rug. You will notice that ridges form. This is what happened with Mt. Everest, and the Himalayas, over millions of years. In fact, Mt. Everest is still moving, IIRC, at about 2 cm/year upwards.
The problem for the Flood theory timescale is that enourmous amounts of energy would be released if this happened in a matter of months. The energy released would not build a mountain but reduce it to molten lava because of the heat produced through friction. You can explain this away as miraculous heat exchange, but then we are no longer trying to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:29 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:50 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 112 (176025)
01-11-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Loudmouth
01-11-2005 9:40 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Loudmouth,
Well, I can't hope to explain the consequences of CPT (Catastrophic Plate Techtonics) or propose some other theory for the uplift of Mt. Everest. However, this is different than saying that the fossils in the mountains are not evidence of the Flood. Rather, you are saying that IF the fossils are a result of the Flood, then the required and fairly sudden formation of the mountain presents an unsolved problem.
--TheLiteralist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:40 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by roxrkool, posted 01-11-2005 10:33 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 80 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 10:51 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 82 by edge, posted 01-11-2005 11:47 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 79 of 112 (176035)
01-11-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:50 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Literalist, are you aware that limestone is currently being deposited and it requires specific temperatures, depth, biota, and time?
What creationists need to do is explain how exactly flood waters can deposit and form limestone, shale, sandstone, siltstone, dolomite, diatomite, evaporites, volcanic layers, lithified sand dunes, conglomerates, mega-conglomerates, tuffs, etc., and all these rocks are intercalated throughout the entire rock record.
Not only that, creationists also have to explain how these flood-deposited rocks can have animal tracks, nests, paleosols (ancient soil horizons), roots, paleokarsts, eolian deposition (cross-bedding in dunes), red beds (required oxygen), and a whole host of other things.
Today, we can see all of these sediments being deposited and the environments in which they occur (except for maybe dolomite) - NONE of which involve flood waters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:50 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 112 (176047)
01-11-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:50 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
quote:
Well, I can't hope to explain the consequences of CPT (Catastrophic Plate Techtonics) or propose some other theory for the uplift of Mt. Everest. However, this is different than saying that the fossils in the mountains are not evidence of the Flood. Rather, you are saying that IF the fossils are a result of the Flood, then the required and fairly sudden formation of the mountain presents an unsolved problem.
Well, given the consequences of CPT, fossils on mountaintops can not be used as evidence until the heat is taken care of. The problem is that for the entire earth to be covered by the amount of water found on earth it has to be relatively flat. So the only reason to have flat land is to account for the water. No evidence is ever given for the land being flat, it is just assumed ad hoc.
So now that CPT has the water problem "solved", it has to explain where the mountains came from. For no other reason besides verses in Genesis and the fact that the earth is not flat, the sudden uplift of mountains is hypothesized, again in an ad hoc nature. The only reason for accepting CPT is for compliance to a literal reading of Genesis. None of the evidence points to this occuring, nor is CPT able to deal with the consequences of this mountain building without inserting miracles.
I could also claim that if aliens suddenly shaped the earth with gravity rays that mountains would have seashells on them. That would put me on the same evidenciary level as CPT. Cool, huh. So, without a reliable theory on how CPT formed mountains, sea shells can't be used as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:50 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

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


Message 81 of 112 (176058)
01-11-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:29 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Yes, but the Flood model proposes that pretty much ALL the layers comprising Mt Everest were deposited during the Flood and then the mountain was uplifted during the receding stages. The fact that there are marine fossils IN the mountain is taken only as stronger evidence for such a scenario
THen you need to explain why these fossil communities developed in life position (as YECs love to point out) while sediment was being deposited at tens of feet per day...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:29 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 12:07 AM edge has not replied
 Message 88 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 4:25 AM edge has replied

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


Message 82 of 112 (176059)
01-11-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:50 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Well, I can't hope to explain the consequences of CPT (Catastrophic Plate Techtonics) or propose some other theory for the uplift of Mt. Everest.
Well, one consequence of catastophic plate tectonics would be boiling oceans and the complete sterilization of the earth, ark and all. And really there is no need for CPT since we have a perfectly good explanation for Mt. Everest that we can actually observe and measure. Why search out bizarre and unnecessary mechanisms?
However, this is different than saying that the fossils in the mountains are not evidence of the Flood.
Actually, they are evidence against a flood because they shouldn't be there, particularly under conditions of CPT as understood by YECs.
Rather, you are saying that IF the fossils are a result of the Flood, then the required and fairly sudden formation of the mountain presents an unsolved problem.
But we can avoid the problem entirely by using plate tectonics. Why go looking for more problems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:50 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 112 (176063)
01-12-2005 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by edge
01-11-2005 11:42 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Hi edge,
The fossils are in life position? What do you mean by that?
Just curious.
--TheLiteralist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 01-11-2005 11:42 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:35 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 84 of 112 (176085)
01-12-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheLiteralist
01-12-2005 12:07 AM


Life position and kind of shells
Life position means that in some cases they are in the position they were as they lived. Both individually and as colonies (I believe)
In addition there is an important prediction that has to come from any flood model. What would be the nature of the shells? That is what species would they be?
Let me suggest that they would be a mix of many kinds. Some no longer existing (for some unknown reason) and some of modern varieties.
However, what is actually found in the mountains?
Take a guess?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 12:07 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 2:37 AM NosyNed has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 112 (176086)
01-12-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by NosyNed
01-12-2005 2:35 AM


Re: Life position and kind of shells
Do you mean mid-action fossils? Some giving birth, some fighting, some eating?
Do you mean GIANT oysters?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:35 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:47 AM TheLiteralist has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 86 of 112 (176090)
01-12-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by TheLiteralist
01-12-2005 2:37 AM


Re: Life position and kind of shells
Mostly the life position means articulated. If the shells have been dead for anytime the ligaments holding them together go and the become disarticulated. I am, however, not an expert.
"giant oysters"?? Explain please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 2:37 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 4:14 AM NosyNed has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 112 (176102)
01-12-2005 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by NosyNed
01-12-2005 2:47 AM


Re: Life position and kind of shells
Ah...the OYSTERS are in life position! I was thinking of something else. Now I understand edge's question better.
Giant Oyster Pics1
Well as I look at the first one, I'm thinking it resembles a clam...the second picture? I can't tell. The captions say oysters, though; therefore, they must be oysters (just kidding).
Giant Oysters in the Andes
More Giant Oysters in the Andes


1Removed underlining because it looked like a link...now I know why there's no dBCode for underlining!
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 01-12-2005 05:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:47 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 10:47 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 112 (176103)
01-12-2005 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by edge
01-11-2005 11:42 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
edge,
THen you need to explain why these fossil communities developed in life position (as YECs love to point out) while sediment was being deposited at tens of feet per day...
Are you referring to the fact that the oysters and clams are usually articulated and closed? And that the fossilized oysters are sometimes found fossilized in thick layers? Are these thick layers actually colonies?
Oysters were fossilized in thick layers?
When oysters die, what usually happens to the shells? Don't they usually open and separate and get broken to bits? So a better question, is how, according to conventional geological concepts, did these numberous closed, articulated fossilized oysters form?
For the oysters' shells to have remained shut, it seems obvious that they must have been buried alive; so some mechanism for rapid burial is required. Of course, we YECers point to the Flood, what do conventional geologists point to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 01-11-2005 11:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by gengar, posted 01-12-2005 12:42 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 94 by edge, posted 01-12-2005 10:23 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 112 (176111)
01-12-2005 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by TheLiteralist
12-14-2004 2:37 AM


Re: Some more flood questions
edge,
Let's try out some of your questions, too. I won't get far probably.
You also need to tell us why there are the footprints of various creatures in strata supposedly deposited by a global flood.
In my mind, I imagine the initial stages of the Flood (it took at least 40 days, perhaps 150 to completely cover the earth) having many events similar to the recent tsunami but perhaps more violent than the recent one. Did you notice how many of the animals vacated the areas? So only mostly sea life and curious humans would be found in the mud there (also the mud is probably not rich in carbonate--limestone in solution, right?--as the Flood waters are thought to have been--there being limestone everywhere today).
Okay...so most animals and humans (assuming the humans could somehow know the danger) escaped the initial tsunamis. But they came again and further inland and again and further inland and again and further inland. At some point in time, the animals might well find themselves running across carbonate-rich mud left from a previous tsunami, which partially lithified, only to be covered up by more sediments from more tsunamis.
And what about the nests of dinosaurs and other creatures such as termites? How did these get to be formed during a global flood catastrophe?
I'm thinking mud-rich tsunamis again. Perhaps these eggs and nests were on the out skirts of the destruction by some of the initial tsunamis so as to get covered by mud but not crushed. Then after covered by that layer of mud another tsunami comes further inland covering that layer of mud, and so forth.
Actually I am curious how conventional geology posits that dinosaur eggs fossilized, given that eggs are popular fare by most critters and they rot quickly if not hatched (and many are found in the process of hatching or with nearly fully formed baby dinos ready to hatch.) Fossilized dino eggs are not exactly rare, but shouldn't they be?
A Dinosaur Egg Collection
Picture does not prove any point, it's just cool
Why are there river deltas formed during the flood? Where did the erosional sediment come from to form these deposits?
I wasn't able to adequately answer this question before...I still can't (not like my answers to the other questions will be adequate either, but at least I'll get to see how they are inadequate).
And what about coral reefs? Why did they survive a flood that covered the mountains?
Do creationists propose this? I'm not sure. Why do you think they must?
THen you need to explain why there are evaporite deposits and dessication cracks occurring in the middle of what you call the flood.
I still haven't looked into evaporites yet.
It would also be good to tell us why there are erosional unconformities and paleosoils found in the middle of a section created by a global flood.
I'll give the unconformities a shot. Tsunamis, landslides, etc. occur during the initial 40 - 150 days. In some cases the, layers are layed down at one angle. The global stress causes plate movement of some sort (CPT or not), which changes the angles of the dryish land. The next tsunami, which due to increased water levels is higher might well remove some of the previous sediments (which are now at a different angle) and redeposit at the new angle.
I don't know about the paleosols.
I would like to hear why there are eolian sand dunes interbedded with the flood rocks.
I haven't studied eolian sand dunes, but it does intrigue me that there are lithified "sand dunes" in the layers. I should probably try to do a little research on this, too.
Tear it up...
--TheLiteralist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-14-2004 2:37 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 01-12-2005 10:52 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 93 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 1:11 PM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 95 by edge, posted 01-12-2005 10:43 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 90 of 112 (176217)
01-12-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by TheLiteralist
01-12-2005 4:14 AM


Kind of shells
I guess this is one example.
The question is why are the kinds of shells ordered the way they are. Where are the modern shelled creatures entombed in the mountains?
When the giant oysters were buried reasonably quickly (as they would have to be I think, you are right). Why are there no modern species buried the same way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-12-2005 4:14 AM TheLiteralist 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