Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
150 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 148 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 869,795 Year: 1,543/23,288 Month: 1,543/1,851 Week: 183/484 Day: 1/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3957
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 226 of 518 (810819)
06-01-2017 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
06-01-2017 8:58 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
No problem if you want to designate by some kind of name a system of rocks that occurs at a certain position in the Geological column, that seems very useful. It's the Time Scale idea that's nonexistent, the rocks are quite real and interestingly always found in the same position in the column.

OK, this came up before and I tried to work with it then. Now I've made the mistake of trying again.

Think of there being two time scales: a relative one and an absolute one. Computer-wise, I'm an old DOS'er who worked extensively with directories under MS-DOS long before Windows 95. I have worked so much with relative directory addresses versus absolutely directory address that it's like riding a bicycle; I can do it without having to think about it. But that analogy doesn't quite fit.

First, we have the relative time scale courtesy of the Law of Superposition. Basically it says that the lower layers were laid down before the higher layers. And it appears that you do agree with that idea. And the end of what you wrote appears to say that you agree with the actual organization of the Column, that when it says that certain rocks are at a certain point in relative time, you accept that.

What you don't accept are the absolute dates assigned to points within the Column.

Basically, those absolute dates are established through the radiometric dating of tie points (the term used by a book I have, but which I haven't found elsewhere). Basically, you cannot date sedimentary rock radiometrically. All you can date radiometrically is igneous rock, because when molten rock solidifies, it effectively "resets" its isotope clock. After that, all sedimentary rock is is recycled igneous and other kinds of rock. Yes, we "evilutionists" do actually think through these problems, as I vividly remember thinking through this "sedimentary rock" problem. So I read up on it and learned about the "tie points."

You went through this evolution before (sorry, I just slipped into US Navy terminology -- you can take the Chief out of the Navy, ... -- , wherein an "evolution" is some kind of organized group activity in which the group performs a task or receives training, so we can truly say that without evolution(s), the US Navy could not possibly function). We have igneous intrusions. We have igneous layers that deposited between sedimentary layers and others, lava flows, which deposited on the surface. And we know how to tell one from the other. Now, we cannot date a sedimentary layer radiometrically, but we can date an igneous intrusion or a surface lava flow. It is that radiodating that provides us with our tie points. If you have an igneous intrusion, then you know that those sedimentary layers were already there before the date of that intrusion, so you know that they are older. If you have a lava flow on a surface, then you know that the layers beneath it are older and that the layers above it are younger. From all the tie-point dates collected around the world, we are able to bracket in the ages of each layer of sedimentary rock. We know that this particular relative age of rock is bracketed in absolute time between this long ago and this long ago. Then to interpolate within that bracket of ages, we can look to how long the processes that formed those rocks would take.

But of course, you reject all that absolute dating. No problem; I would hope that somebody had learned something from that.

But the problem of the order of the fossils that edge presents does not depend on absolute dates. Rather, it depends entirely on relative dates, for which you have displayed agreement.

Or are you going to yet again start to try to redefine the known universe? Like the time you proved that "macroevolution" is nothing more than "microevolution" allowed to continue for long enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 8:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:45 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3957
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 227 of 518 (810821)
06-01-2017 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:05 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
For whatever reason the Flood sorted things that way.

I don't think that you appreciate the sheer magnitude of what you are proposing as a "no problem."

Did you ever watch the movie, "Twister"? The late Bill Paxton ("We're all screwed!") and Helen Hunt as competing tornado chasers in Oklahoma with a personal past, etc, etc, etc. While watching a twister in front of them: "Cow." "Another cow." "No, I think that was the same cow." They had a classification system for tornadoes, whether fictional or otherwise doesn't matter. I'm sure I've gotten the nomenclature wrong, since I last saw that movie maybe two decades ago. The scale, like the Richter Scale for earthquakes, ran from Factor 1 to Factor 5, with Factor 5 being called, "The Finger of God," complete and utter destruction of everything in its path.

OK, Faith. Your Flood is a Factor 11-plus (because a setting of 11 is always higher than 10 -- movie: This is Spinal Tap). It was so powerful that it completely resculpted the surface of the earth. Yet at the same time it picked up entire ecosystems, entire communities, over and over again, many times over, and deposited them all completely intact, one above the other, so as to make it look like evolution had happened.

Let's go back to Twister. You have a Factor 11 tornado tearing through the landscape. Destructive forces far beyond anybody's comprehension. So that Factor 11 tornado picks up entire towns from all over the place and then sets them down undisturbed in their entirety some else. Over and over again. And never ever puts anything in any town the slightest bit out of place.

That is what you are claiming for your Flood, Faith. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:39 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 228 of 518 (810822)
06-01-2017 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by dwise1
06-01-2017 10:27 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Where are you getting the idea I think the Flood kept things intact? I don't accept edge's claim that there are intact ecosystems within rocks for starters, I think it's all hyperbole. He's making a scenario out of a bunch of dead things, conjuring up relationships from random positions within the rock.

I do claim that corals and crinoids were preserved intact because I don't think the Flood was as turbulent as has often been claimed. It had to have been pretty turbulent in the beginning but after that there's no reason to think it was.

But the post you are answering was about the general fossil order, not all the specifics you got into.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 10:27 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 11:05 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 229 of 518 (810823)
06-01-2017 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by dwise1
06-01-2017 10:06 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
You seem to have written your post to describe positions you recognize I don't accept, so there's not much for me to respond to.

dw writes:

But the problem of the order of the fossils that edge presents does not depend on absolute dates. Rather, it depends entirely on relative dates, for which you have displayed agreement.

OK but I don't recall saying much about the dates. I did say that millions of years is ridiculous for a microevolution that we can see happening in real living time today. Did I say more than that about dating in that post?

dw writes:

Or are you going to yet again start to try to redefine the known universe? Like the time you proved that "macroevolution" is nothing more than "microevolution" allowed to continue for long enough.

I don't recall saying that. My usual argument is of course the opposite, that you can't get to macroevolution from microevolution, that there is a natural barrier to evolution beyond the Kind, which is the fact that evolution inevitably eats up the very genetic diversity it depends on.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 10:06 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 236 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 11:24 PM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 230 of 518 (810824)
06-01-2017 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
06-01-2017 9:53 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
"In life position" is also problematic. What can that mean? And "often" suggests something other than reliably in life position. I have no problem with the elements of an ecosystem being found together in the rock, just the suggestion that they somehow appear just as they did in life.

I say often to mean exactly what it says. Many times we see fossils in life position, not 'always' or not 'unreliably'.

I'd grant the logic of the idea except that the idea that anything occurred in situ within the geological column is too absurd.

But of course, you won't say why.

I've got to suppose that "in life position" is a bit of an exaggeration for starters.

Okay, so tree fossils with roots in coal seams are not in life position.

As for sedimentation rates the Flood carried a LOT of stuff, what can I say, and it deposited it by various means as it progressed. Which would deposit the most, rising sea level deposition a la Walther's Law, deposition by tides and waves, or deposition by precipitation from standing water?

Not the point. The point is that you've got sedimentation occurring at an unbelievable rate and yet in the middle of it all trees are growing with roots in coal seams.

I don't know. There are lots of things that the Flood must have done that I am not in a position to know.

As long as evolution is not the explanation, eh?

Maybe some creationist ministries do but I'm not up on all their arguments.

They don't.

My position is basically that the Flood makes sense of the facts at the most general level, the layered sediments, the superabundance of dead things contained in them, the Flood no doubt providing exceptionally good conditions for fossilization compared to any slower and drier event, as well as observations I've made about the strata themselves in various former posts, the absence of the kind of erosion between layers that would indicate time on the surface for instance.

Everything you have stated is exactly as we would expect in the mainstream view. Except for the lack of erosion. We know that erosion has occurred between some of the layers.

Since the Flood is the best explanation for what is seen,...

Except for all of the evidence against it.

... and the Time Scale is a ludicrous explanation, ...

According to Faith.

... requiring time periods to be defined by rocks among other nonsensical weirdnesses (for instance the allotment of millions of years for a microevolution that can be observed to occur in normal time is a weirdness), I go with the Flood and don't expect to answer all the ways the Flood did some unaccountable things.

Other than the fact that this ignores the evidence, sure.

You would prove something by a lack of evidence?

Did I say 'prove' anything?

No, you did.

Anyway what is this evidence that is lacking?

Exactly as I said. There is a definite, global, invariable order to the fossil record. This cannot be expected as a result of a catastrophic, one-year flood. If you think otherwise, it would be good to get some contradictory evidence. Just saying that it's nonsensical or weird or absurd isn't going to cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 9:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:35 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 231 of 518 (810825)
06-01-2017 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
OK but I don't recall saying much about the dates. I did say that millions of years is ridiculous for a microevolution that we can see happening in real living time today.

Exactlly.

You SAY that it's ridiculous.

Over and over and over again.

But you never say why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 06-01-2017 10:57 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:58 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 494 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 518 (810827)
06-01-2017 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by edge
06-01-2017 10:53 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

faith writes:

OK but I don't recall saying much about the dates. I did say that millions of years is ridiculous for a microevolution that we can see happening in real living time today.


Exactlly.

You SAY that it's ridiculous.

Over and over and over again.

But you never say why.


Faith has said why. Those dates contradict the bible, so they must be wrong. Somehow.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:53 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 233 of 518 (810828)
06-01-2017 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by edge
06-01-2017 10:53 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

OK but I don't recall saying much about the dates. I did say that millions of years is ridiculous for a microevolution that we can see happening in real living time today.

Exactlly.
You SAY that it's ridiculous.
Over and over and over again.
But you never say why.

The fact that microevolution occurs in observable time isn't saying why millions of years is ridiculous?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:53 PM edge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3957
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 234 of 518 (810829)
06-01-2017 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:39 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Where are you getting the idea I think the Flood kept things intact?

Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar!!!! From you!!!!

First you repeatedly describe entire ecosystems being picked up intact in their entirties. And placed entirely intact elsewhere.

And now you are denying it?

[** absolutely true expletives deleted, especially pointing out your lying **]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:11 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 235 of 518 (810830)
06-01-2017 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by dwise1
06-01-2017 11:05 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Good grief, don't have a conniption. I said it in specific instances but you seemed to say I said it about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 11:05 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3957
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 236 of 518 (810831)
06-01-2017 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Faith, you have just exposed yourself as a lying C..t. Fuck you. Fuck your stupid lying god. Truth matters. You both shit on truth. Your stupid lying god is less than worthless.

Do you see how simple that is? You utter complete and bullshit lies and you discredit your precious god.

And I accept your bullshit lies of answers. Because you really do not have any fucking clue what you are rambling about.

{I'm hiding this distasteful outburst - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and comment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:46 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 237 of 518 (810832)
06-01-2017 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by edge
06-01-2017 10:47 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

I'd grant the logic of the idea except that the idea that anything occurred in situ within the geological column is too absurd.

But of course, you won't say why.

I'd have thought I'd said it enough by now. Strata don't fit the idea of time periods, too flat and horizontal and composed of specific sediments, just as the Flood would have made them. They were never the surface of the earth except between tides perhaps.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

I've got to suppose that "in life position" is a bit of an exaggeration for starters.

Okay, so tree fossils with roots in coal seams are not in life position.

Not full root systems, broken off. No, not in life position, transported and sprung upright by the weight of the root ball.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

As for sedimentation rates the Flood carried a LOT of stuff, what can I say, and it deposited it by various means as it progressed. Which would deposit the most, rising sea level deposition a la Walther's Law, deposition by tides and waves, or deposition by precipitation from standing water?

Not the point. The point is that you've got sedimentation occurring at an unbelievable rate and yet in the middle of it all trees are growing with roots in coal seams.

But they didn't grow during the Flood as I say above, they were transported.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

I don't know. There are lots of things that the Flood must have done that I am not in a position to know.

As long as evolution is not the explanation, eh?

Evolutionists aren't in a position to know either.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

My position is basically that the Flood makes sense of the facts at the most general level, the layered sediments, the superabundance of dead things contained in them, the Flood no doubt providing exceptionally good conditions for fossilization compared to any slower and drier event, as well as observations I've made about the strata themselves in various former posts, the absence of the kind of erosion between layers that would indicate time on the surface for instance.

Everything you have stated is exactly as we would expect in the mainstream view. Except for the lack of erosion. We know that erosion has occurred between some of the layers.

There is no erosion between layers that is anything like erosion that normally occurs on the surface of the Earth.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Since the Flood is the best explanation for what is seen,...

Except for all of the evidence against it.

A lot of which I've answered.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

... and the Time Scale is a ludicrous explanation, ...

According to Faith.

Who has pointed out the weirdness of expecting a living scenario to have unfolded on top of and between sedimentary rocks, a whole series of living scenarios called Time Periods climbing the geological column from rock to rock.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

... requiring time periods to be defined by rocks among other nonsensical weirdnesses (for instance the allotment of millions of years for a microevolution that can be observed to occur in normal time is a weirdness), I go with the Flood and don't expect to answer all the ways the Flood did some unaccountable things.

Other than the fact that this ignores the evidence, sure.

My point is that I'm weighing the evidence and finding the preponderance on the side of the Flood.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

You would prove something by a lack of evidence?

Did I say 'prove' anything?
No, you did.

Sigh. Surely it is implied.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Anyway what is this evidence that is lacking?

Exactly as I said. There is a definite, global, invariable order to the fossil record. This cannot be expected as a result of a catastrophic, one-year flood. If you think otherwise, it would be good to get some contradictory evidence. Just saying that it's nonsensical or weird or absurd isn't going to cut it.

I don't try to account for the order by the Flood other than to point out that he lower strata are marine and the upper terrestrial. I argue that the Flood makes sense on other grounds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by edge, posted 06-01-2017 10:47 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 238 of 518 (810833)
06-01-2017 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by dwise1
06-01-2017 11:24 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
And here I thought we were having a perfectly pleasant exchange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by dwise1, posted 06-01-2017 11:24 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by dwise1, posted 06-02-2017 10:28 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15843
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 239 of 518 (810835)
06-02-2017 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
06-01-2017 10:05 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
quote:

Why are you raising these ancient questions that have been answered many times?

Because the "answers" are grossly inadequate. That should be obvious.

quote:

For whatever reason the Flood sorted things that way.

There is no sensible reason for thinking that it would. Especially when you get to the idea of the Flood repeatedly picking up large areas of sea floor and gently stacking them on top of each other.

quote:

The lower strata are mostly all marine, there's a start, and the upper get into the land animals which makes some kind of sense.

Most strata are marine. If the proportion is significantly different for older rocks I would appreciate a reference. So far as I am aware it is not the case.

quote:

the Flood explains the facts so much better than the Time Scale does there's no point in worrying about the things that aren't yet understo

I guess that if you make a habit of rejecting contrary evidence it might seem that way. But in reality that's just a joke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 10:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 1:02 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34503
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 240 of 518 (810836)
06-02-2017 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
06-02-2017 12:02 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table Scale, that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario, that time periods can't be marked by rocks, that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances. Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block. Supposedly hundreds of millions of years of undisturbed strata as are seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon a mile deep. The Time Scale can't possibly explain all that. But in less than a year the Flood could have laid the strata, and while the layers were still malleable the tectonic pressures could have bent them as a unit. Couldn't happen if there were millions of years between layers.

And lots more than that.

The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2017 12:02 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2017 1:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 243 by edge, posted 06-02-2017 2:35 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020