Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,949 Year: 18,985/19,786 Month: 1,405/1,705 Week: 211/446 Day: 9/98 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3766
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 241 of 320 (633151)
09-12-2011 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Granny Magda
09-12-2011 8:05 AM


Re: Polystrate fossils
1) As well preserved at the top as at the bottom? That doesn't sound like a flood to me. If there are trees fossilised in situ both at the top and the bottom of the formation, they cannot have deposited in a single event. At least, not unless antediluvian trees grew in mid air. What you describe is only consistent with gradual deposition of layer upon layer. No individual layer would have taken millions of years to form, but nor could it have been formed as quickly as you suggest. Such a formation could not possibly have been caused by a single huge flood.

Dr Adequate, in message 237 writes:

1) As well preserved at the top as at the bottom? That doesn't sound like a flood to me. If there are trees fossilised in situ both at the top and the bottom of the formation, they cannot have deposited in a single event.

I think he means at the top and the bottom of the tree. Which is in fact not usually true --- the roots are well-preserved and the leaves are not.

My "bolding".

I agree with the "bolded" sentence. I almost missed the distinction between that and Granny's interpretation.

I think DA is interpreting the phrase "as well preserved at the top as at the bottom" a little to literally (aka nitpicking). I think the trunk tops and even branches may be well preserved, but expecting leave preservation is going a bit far.

Now the strata containing the root systems and the strata containing the higher parts of the trees are certainly two different things, and I don't think Just Being Real is trying to say otherwise. The higher parts of the trees may or may not have been buried in a single event. Burial may have taken minutes, or it may have taken hundreds of years. Looking at the details, including the nature of the rock, would probably tell you which was the case.

Now different tree horizons at completely different stratagraphic levels are another thing. You are not going to get root system paleosoils covered by some sort of "flood event", then stratigraphicly higher up root system paleosoils covered by some sort of "flood event", all from the same "flood event". [sarcasm] Except in the case of "THE GREAT FLOOD", which is capable of doing any type of geologic deposits, regardless of how complex.[/sarcasm]

Please, no replies to the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] part.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2011 8:05 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2011 9:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 242 of 320 (633235)
09-13-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2011 7:45 PM


Re: Polystrate fossils
Hi Moose,

Hopefully JBR will clarify for us. If he did mean that the tops of the trees where well preserved then that would be odd. Mostly because a) they're not; and b) we wouldn't expect them to be well preserved had they been exposed to a global deluge, we'd expect them to be stripped bare.

Now different tree horizons at completely different stratagraphic levels are another thing. You are not going to get root system paleosoils covered by some sort of "flood event", then stratigraphicly higher up root system paleosoils covered by some sort of "flood event", all from the same "flood event".

I agree and further, it is very easy to point to examples of this; multiple layers of paleosoil, with plant fossils standing vertically in them, with roots attached, lying layer upon layer. I would be very interested to hear how JBR would square this with a global flood.

Please, no replies to the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] part.

Spoilsport!

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2011 7:45 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2658 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 243 of 320 (633405)
09-13-2011 10:38 PM


All one need imagine is segregated flows within a tremendous chaos of moving water. This probably from the moving continents going on during stages in the flood year.

I want to find different layered strata.
First this layer and then another from hundreds of miles away and then some volcanic layer and so on.

One can imagine whole provinces being lifted up and moved intack some distance and placed over a layer.
Such power could hold in place, here and there, standing trees .

The strata of these things looks just like what it looks.
A great power moving and placing segregated earthforms on top of each other.
Why not?

why invoke unlikely endless events doing unlikely things.
Especially when we have a witness.


Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Taq, posted 09-13-2011 11:16 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2011 11:36 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 251 by Coragyps, posted 09-14-2011 9:36 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 244 of 320 (633410)
09-13-2011 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Robert Byers
09-13-2011 10:38 PM


why invoke unlikely endless events doing unlikely things

I can think of one unlikely event producing unlikely things. Chaotic waters like you propose do not make laminated sediments of fine clay and diatoms. Only annual processes in temperate climates do this as diatoms bloom in the warm seasons and clay dominates in the cold seasons. In Lake Suigetsu, we find hundreds of thousands of these annual layers, one on top of another, uninterrupted by a global flood. The flood is falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2011 10:38 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:28 AM Taq has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


(2)
Message 245 of 320 (633413)
09-13-2011 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Robert Byers
09-13-2011 10:38 PM


why invoke unlikely endless events doing unlikely things.

Geologists invoke the processes of sedimentation which we can observe today. These are not "unlikely", because they happen.

Creationist invoke a process that no-one has ever seen, which is known not to have happened, and which is, moreover, impossible. That is unlikely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2011 10:38 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2658 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 246 of 320 (633428)
09-14-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Taq
09-13-2011 11:16 PM


In each case it works.

If it happened all at once then all one needs to see is segregated flows etc.
You have to admit its segregation that is shown.
Then you say annual events.
Yet clay need not be annual if there is mechanism to segregate it.

Its unlikely these lakes , even, were from annual events.
It was just a event or few that created all the segregated layers.

Just because annual events can make these layers is not evidence this is what happened in these deposits.
nor is it prrof that thats all that can happen.

All one finds is layers laid by a layering process.
A chaotic flow structure could do this too.

In the great mega floods of recent Iceland they only lately discovered that PULSES of water could make layers of sediment in a quick single event.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Taq, posted 09-13-2011 11:16 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Taq, posted 09-14-2011 11:08 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 308 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2011 10:23 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2658 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 247 of 320 (633432)
09-14-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Dr Adequate
09-13-2011 11:36 PM


The geologist is to discover the truth.
Just figuring things out by present processes only works if non present processes are indeed impossible.

Other processes can and would exist in special conditions.

Only if its impossible for special conditions to produce these results can there be confidence in the conclusions from ordinary observed processes.

Since its all about layers then its all about layers being laid.
Increase the layering mechanism and one has a way to account for instant many layered sediment structures.
A line of reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2011 11:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by saab93f, posted 09-14-2011 2:32 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2011 3:13 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 250 by Pressie, posted 09-14-2011 7:50 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 248 of 320 (633437)
09-14-2011 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Robert Byers
09-14-2011 1:34 AM


I´m sorry Robert but I could not understand anything you said.

Geologists are specialists - they know how to interpret the data. Paleontologist know their business just as well as archeologists do theirs.

Not a single scientist has ever suggested that Nascar-continents and the flud would´ve taken place at all and moreso that they´d happened simultaneously. That is the problem of the cretin - they have a fixed view on what and how has happened and there is no limits to the leght they are willing to distort the data and facts to adhere to that.

Creationism (the flood geology os catastrophic geology included) is based on ignorance and lying to people. There is and never has been a single piece of evidence that would justify that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:34 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 249 of 320 (633443)
09-14-2011 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Robert Byers
09-14-2011 1:34 AM


The geologist is to discover the truth.
Just figuring things out by present processes only works if non present processes are indeed impossible.

Other processes can and would exist in special conditions.

Only if its impossible for special conditions to produce these results can there be confidence in the conclusions from ordinary observed processes.

Since its all about layers then its all about layers being laid.
Increase the layering mechanism and one has a way to account for instant many layered sediment structures.
A line of reasoning.

You claimed that the processes invoked by geologists are "unlikely". Am I to understand that you now admit that they are the "present processes" that actually occur?

If so, I shall carry on and analyze the new errors that you have introduced in this post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:34 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(5)
Message 250 of 320 (633464)
09-14-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Robert Byers
09-14-2011 1:34 AM


I know, I know, it's useless responding to him, but I'll give it a go.
Robert Byers writes:

The geologist is to discover the truth.

I guess that’s why mining companies employ me provide a model of their deposits. They do go and check if my models reflect reality. it costs them a lot of money. If it doesn’t meet reality, I loose my job.
Robert Byers writes:

Just figuring things out by present processes……

Evidence (the rocks themselves) indicate that the same processes we observe today also occurred in the past. It’s amazing what studying evidence can do!
Robert Byers writes:

… only works if non present processes are indeed impossible.

You mean things like gravity ceased to exist in the past for a while? Magic?
Robert Byers writes:

Other processes can and would exist in special conditions.

Gravity doesn’t cease to exist, even under very special conditions. Are you referring to magic?
Robert Byers writes:

Only if its impossible for special conditions to produce these results can there be confidence in the conclusions from ordinary observed processes.

Magic can produce anything. It isn’t science. Don’t even pretend that it is science.
Robert Byers writes:

Since its all about layers then its all about layers being laid.

Huh? I don’t really understand, but not all geology is about layers. In fact, a lot of geology is about batoliths and dykes and sills and metamorphyses and pypes, etc.
Robert Byers writes:

Increase the layering mechanism…..

It is well understood how "layering mechanisms" could be increased. Lots of ways. Decreased too. Lots of ways. Are you referring to more water, less water, deeper water, shallower water, faster moving water, slower moving water, more wind, less wind, faster moving wind, slower moving wind, a bigger sea, a smaller sea, a shallower sea, a deeper sea, a faster stream, a slower stream, a shallower stream, a deeper stream, a lagoon, an open sea, turbidite deposits in lakes, turbidite deposits in oceans, delta front deposits, braided river deposits, glacial deposits, etc? Combinations of all of the above? What do you mean exactly? We do know what deposits resulting from each of these processes look like. No magic involved.
Robert Byers writes:

.. and one has a way to account for instant many layered sediment structures.

Instant many layered sediments? Doesn’t make sense. Can you give us an example of this? I mean, we can see sediments currently forming in one instant. You can even do it at home. Fill a bottle with sand and water. Shake. Leave for a few minutes. Voila.
Robert Byers writes:

A line of reasoning.

Sorry, lots of things in your post don’t make any sense at all. Your last sentence, for example, is Greek to me and I don’t speak Greek.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling baaaad!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:34 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 3:22 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 251 of 320 (633476)
09-14-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Robert Byers
09-13-2011 10:38 PM


One can imagine whole provinces being lifted up and moved intack some distance and placed over a layer.
Such power could hold in place, here and there, standing trees .

Newfoundland on top of Manitoba? You might be able to imagine that, but the rest of us here don't have access to whatever it is that you are smoking, Robert. 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."


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2011 10:38 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 09-14-2011 9:51 AM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 263 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 3:24 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18878
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 253 of 320 (633484)
09-14-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Robert Byers
09-14-2011 1:28 AM


If it happened all at once then all one needs to see is segregated flows etc.

Fine clay particles do not settle out of flows. You need still waters for this. Also, you need an entire warm season to produce just one layer of diatoms. Your flood model can not explain this.

Its unlikely these lakes , even, were from annual events.

We observe lakes producing them now. Not only is it likely, it is happening right now.

Just because annual events can make these layers is not evidence this is what happened in these deposits.

Yes, it is evidence. That's the whole point. We observe lakes producing alternating layers of diatoms and fine clay sediments right here and now. We observe hundreds of thousands of these layers in lakes, uninterrupted by any global flood. We observe that chaotic flows do not allow for the settling of fine clay and diatoms. I think the conclusion is very clear.

All one finds is layers laid by a layering process.
A chaotic flow structure could do this too.

No, they can't. Fine clay particles can not settle out of chaotic flowing waters. They flow with the water. That is why you have deltas in rivers that empty into the ocean. As the flowing waters stop they dump the fine clay sediments that were flowing with the water.

Also, you need to account for hundreds of thousands of years worth of diatom growth in a single flood year. That doesn't work either. Even worse, you need to explain the 14C dating of insect and leaf debris found in these layers. They are consistent with annual processes as well, as discussed here by our very own RAZD:

http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm#Lake_Suigetsu_Varves

So there are three falsifications of a global flood here:

1. Fine sediments found in these layers can not be laid down by chaotic flowing waters.

2. Hundreds of thousands of years worth of diatom growth.

3. 14C dating of organic material is consistent with annual deposition.

In the great mega floods of recent Iceland they only lately discovered that PULSES of water could make layers of sediment in a quick single event.

Layers of what type of sediment? If it wasn't alternating layers of fine clay sediments and diatoms that sorted insect and leaf debris by tiny differences in 14C then you haven't addressed the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Pressie, posted 09-14-2011 1:17 PM Taq has responded
 Message 267 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 4:48 AM Taq has responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 254 of 320 (633500)
09-14-2011 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Taq
09-14-2011 11:08 AM


Taq writes:

Also, you need to account for hundreds of thousands of years worth of diatom growth in a single flood year.

[sarcasm]The flood was different. We had thousands of seasons in that year. Remember anything was possible. That's evidence for the flood![/sarcasm]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Taq, posted 09-14-2011 11:08 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Taq, posted 09-14-2011 3:39 PM Pressie has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 255 of 320 (633543)
09-14-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Pressie
09-14-2011 1:17 PM


[sarcasm]The flood was different. We had thousands of seasons in that year. Remember anything was possible. That's evidence for the flood![/sarcasm]

[sarcasm]The flood was so different that it was able to sort all of the freshwater diatoms in one deposit and all of the marine phytoplankton in another. Amazing, isn't it!!![/sarcasm]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Pressie, posted 09-14-2011 1:17 PM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Pressie, posted 09-15-2011 12:27 AM Taq has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019