Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 109 of 320 (574497)
08-16-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Genetic data
Buzsaw writes:
Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology?
Buz, we already are well aware of what you think is true. The science threads are for discussing the evidence for what you think is true. Unless you're ready to present the evidence for what you think is true there is no need to keep reminding us of what you think is true.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 153 of 320 (631478)
09-01-2011 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Just being real
08-31-2011 9:02 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Hi JBR,
Would I be correct in guessing that your source material is The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future by John Morrris? Some of the text is available through Google Books, and some of your points parallel Morris's pretty closely. For example, from the book about the Coconino layer:
John Morris writes:
Now we know from observation that water generally moves much more rapidly on the surface than it does at depth. In order for water at a 100-foot depth to move at three to five feet per second, it must be moving at a much greater velocity on the surface.
Actually, at a depth of 100 feet in the open ocean, sustained water velocities of three feet per second have never been observed. Clearly, it would take a storm of unprecedented magnitude. Such a catastrophe is far beyond that which most uniformitarians dare to consider.
And from your message:
Just being real writes:
Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude to create the Coconino sandstone layers.
From the book about polystrate fossils:
Morris writes:
Multiple polystrate fossils are found protruding up through several limestone layers each.
And from your message:
Just being real writes:
Seventh, consider the existence of polystrate fossils in coal beds for example, which are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers)
If any point in Morris's book is grist for the mill in this thread then this could be a very long discussion, so perhaps we could narrow the focus. What do you feel is the most significant evidence for a global flood four or five thousand years ago?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 9:02 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Just being real, posted 09-01-2011 8:57 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 180 of 320 (631808)
09-03-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Just being real
09-03-2011 10:57 AM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real writes:
Very well then, I am quite fond of the polystrate fossils in coal beds...
So coal beds are flood deposits?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 10:57 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 1:06 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 320 (631830)
09-03-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Just being real
09-03-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Reply to Panda's comment
Just being real writes:
Yes, as I believe most of the strata layers are.
What is it about coal beds that suggests they are flood deposits from a global flood?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Just being real, posted 09-03-2011 1:06 PM Just being real has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 238 of 320 (633053)
09-12-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
09-11-2011 10:54 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Just being real writes:
Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians.
I think you're confusing uniformitarianism with gradualism, plus uniformitarianism is not a modifier modern geologists normally apply to themselves, for good historical reasons.
I like Wikipedia's wording, and they say that, "...the uniformitarianism assumption is that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."
So I guess that means that your non-uniformitarian YEC geologists believe that different natural laws and processes operated at times in the past, during the flood, for example. Any evidence of this?
The reason modern geologists do not normally apply the term uniformitarian to themselves is because historically it included the concept of gradualism, and modern geologists no longer accept strict gradualism. Since an extremely common confusion is to assume that a uniformitarian is a strict gradualist, geologists don't often use the term anymore.
I think what you really mean when you call modern geologists uniformitarians is that they are strict gradualists, which they are not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 09-11-2011 10:54 PM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Pressie, posted 09-12-2011 9:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 320 (633478)
09-14-2011 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Coragyps
09-14-2011 9:36 AM


Coragyps writes:
Clarify for me, if you would, how moving water is going to pick up a slab of soil, with trees, and move it "hundreds of miles."
Even if we give Robert the benefit of the doubt and tell him, "Floods moving entire landscapes intact hundreds of miles, okay, sure," he still needs to provide evidence that that's what actually happened. When figuring out what happened in the past Geologists always use evidence to choose between many possibilities.
But Robert doesn't care about evidence. In his mind if he can describe it and it explains the Biblical account, then not only is evidence unnecessary, the evidence that something else happened can be ignored.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Coragyps, posted 09-14-2011 9:36 AM Coragyps has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 269 of 320 (633933)
09-17-2011 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Robert Byers
09-17-2011 4:48 AM


Robert Byers writes:
It just takes imagination to figure out all these details.
I think most of us are convinced that many of the "details" you're imagining are not possible, but let's leave that aside for now. This thread isn't about what you can imagine but what you can muster evidence for. "Evidence" is the second word of the thread's title. It's the primary noun in the title. Do you have any evidence supporting what you're imagining?
The creationist flood scenario has water pushing around large pieces of land, entire continents in some cases. In the recent Japan earthquake no land moved more than some 10's of feet, not miles, yet consider the amount of devastation from the tsunami. The Japan earthquake was minuscule compare to Noah's flood, yet it left evidence everywhere, including on the sea floor off Japan's coast where massive submarine landslides occurred and large debris field were deposited when the water from the tsunami's retreated. Thousands of years from now there will still be copious evidence of the 2011 Japan earthquake/tsunami.
It helps to note that nowhere did this disaster leave fine grained alternating layers of clay and sand. It left behind chaos and destruction, not delicate and finely grained deposits. So if your imagination is telling you that massive floods can actually deposit varve layers then you need evidence that it is indeed possible.
Don't get distracted by the varve example. The real message is that you have to begin bringing evidence into the discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 4:48 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 2:37 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 283 of 320 (634251)
09-20-2011 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Robert Byers
09-20-2011 2:37 AM


Hi Robert,
You're still getting distracted by details. The question isn't, "Can Robert Byers imagine this?" Obviously the answer is yes, Robert Byers can imagine this.
The key question is, "Can Robert Byers produce any evidence for what he imagines?" The answer here is just as obvious: No, Robert Byers cannot produce any evidence for what he imagines.
If in your imagination "the great chaos" of 4500 years ago "would include throwing great slabs of land about intact" and produce "great eddies of quiet water where layering of even fine sediment could be done," then you need to produce evidence of these things.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 2:37 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 303 of 320 (635145)
09-27-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Robert Byers
09-27-2011 3:53 AM


Hi Robert,
This is from Walter Alvarez's book The Mountains of Saint Francis: Discovering the Geologic Events That Shaped Our Earth:
Alvarez writes:
This and other observations in the field led Migliorini to the idea that the sediment of each graded bed had been brought down into the deep ocean as a could of dirty, "turbid" water. He inferred that the sand of the Macigno and Marnoso-arenacea had flowed down the gently sloping sea floor into deep water as dense mixtures of sediment and water, with each bed representing one flow. When the flow reached the flat sea bottom and flowed down, the sand settled out, coarsest and heaviest grains first, to form form a graded bed. Between the times of sediment flows, fine clay would settle out, grain by grain, to make the clay intervals that separate the sand beds. Migliorini got it exactly right, just from looking very closely at rocks in the Apennines, and thinking carefully about them.
Do you see where he describes each graded bed as the product of one flow? Do you understand that you have misinterpreted Alvarez?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2011 3:53 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 311 of 320 (635424)
09-29-2011 6:49 AM


Summation
This thread provided a showcase for the strong correlation between ignorance of all things geological and misinterpretation of geological evidence. The less you know the crazier the explanations that make sense to you.
This thread also highlighted the inability or unwillingness of creationists to address evidence that was brought to their attention, for instance the fine sedimentary layers of varves or the miles of limestone that both require quiet water and the passage of much time. Or how a flood could deposit the layers of the Grand Canyon and crush them into stone under a great weight, then erode the canyon itself.
But evidence for the flood? Nowhere to be seen.
I can see a successor thread being useful.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2011 10:16 AM Percy has seen this message but 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