Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,618 Year: 4,875/9,624 Month: 223/427 Week: 33/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 286 of 320 (634441)
09-21-2011 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Taq
09-21-2011 11:20 AM


Hi Taq,
Then you need to point to specific formations that these pulses created and show how they produced alternating layers of fine grained sediments and diatoms as well as sorting organic debris by tiny differences in 14C. Until you do so, you have no argument.
You may want to refer Robert Beyers to 14C Calibration and Correlations and the correlations between:
{The bulk of this message now hidden as being off-topic. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by RAZD, : spling
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide much, do off-topic banner, add note.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 09-21-2011 11:20 AM Taq has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4452 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 287 of 320 (634478)
09-22-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Coyote
09-20-2011 11:33 AM


Re: Evidence?
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.
so millions of years is rejected.
The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together.
Just segregated flows within a bigger event.
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage.
This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood.
it all works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Coyote, posted 09-20-2011 11:33 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 3:59 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 291 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2011 9:36 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4452 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 288 of 320 (634479)
09-22-2011 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Taq
09-21-2011 11:20 AM


Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.
Results in real life.
Then interpretations of how this fits in a biblical framework.
The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment.
The sediment must be admitted by all to be there.
Then it simply means to say the sediment was squeezed by the very great weight that previously laid it and into stone.
Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Taq, posted 09-21-2011 11:20 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Pressie, posted 09-22-2011 4:46 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 09-22-2011 11:24 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2011 4:25 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 289 of 320 (634483)
09-22-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Evidence?
Robert Byers writes:
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.
so millions of years is rejected.
Then you can’t use the k-t boundary. It doesn’t exist for you.
Robert Byers writes:
The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment.
And the areas with no accumulations of sediment? How do they tie in with a global flood?
Robert Byers writes:
Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together.
Lot’s of reasons. Unconformities, for one.
Robert Byers writes:
Just segregated flows within a bigger event.
Any evidence for this bigger event?
Robert Byers writes:
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage.
There’s lots of lines with different fauna/flora assemblages above and below those lines.
Robert Byers writes:
This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood.
Any evidence of this?
Robert Byers writes:
it all works.
Not in real life. Just in your dreams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 290 of 320 (634487)
09-22-2011 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:56 AM


Robert Byers writes:
Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.
Results in real life.
In the field we find lots of areas with no sedimentary accumulation. How does a global flood account for this?
Robert Byers writes:
Then interpretations of how this fits in a biblical framework.
Pseudo-science.
Robert Byers writes:
The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment.
Some evidence for great moving wind is also great accumulations of sediment. How does this fit into the global flood?
Robert Byers writes:
The sediment must be admitted by all to be there.
And where there’s no sediment? How does it fit into a global flood?
Robert Byers writes:
Then it simply means to say the sediment was squeezed by the very great weight that previously laid it and into stone.
Lots of processes drive lithification. Great weights don’t necessarily do it alone: on the ocean floors we find very expansive areas of unlithified sediments on top of those basalts.
Robert Byers writes:
Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt.
So far we’ve only found natural accumulations of sediment. What would the characteristics of unnatural accumulations of dirt be? Do you have an example of an unnatural one?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word "from" to "for" in my first sentence.
Edited by Pressie, : Sorry, second sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 291 of 320 (634511)
09-22-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Evidence?
I'm saying the k-t boundary is the flood boundary.
so millions of years is rejected.
The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there but no reason to see them as otherwise then laid all together.
Do you have any evidence to reject all of scientific dating beyond the fact that it doesn't fit with your belief? Because that is what you have to do if you wish to continue statements of this kind.
First, you need to account for the fact that these layers you claim are "laid all together" date to different, often vastly different, times.
Second, if you are rejecting scientific dating, how do you account for things like the change in radioactive decay rates that this would entail? There's no free lunch! If you reject certain parts of science there are consequences. Scientific knowledge is a cohesive whole, and if you change something in one area you are very likely to have something else change where you don't expect it--and you are going to have to explain that as well. For example, if you are going to change the decay rates to accommodate a young earth, what happens to the heat? To force the amount of decay we can document into a span of 10,000 or so years would mean cooking the earth, which obviously didn't happen. Even the RATE boys had to punt on this one.
Just segregated flows within a bigger event.
There are different layers, but the dating shows they were not all within a short time frame. That alone busts the flood story.
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora fossil assemblage.
This because it was laid in a later event under like processes but not the great flood.
Above the line is indeed a different fauna/flora, but that is not proof of your mythical flood. Rather that fits better with our current scientific explanations than it does with a global flood.
it all works.
The explanations arrived at through science are what work. Ancient tribal myths fail to explain the world as we see it, and the events that took place.
You and others who try to explain the world and these events are forced to crazier and crazier "what ifs" in order to try and make your myths fit reality.
So, since this thread is about evidence--how about producing some? In the post I am replying to the evidence seems to be as follows:
The evidence is that there are accumulations of sediment. Yes layers are there...
If that is the best you can do for evidence--a statement that applies to both scientific explanations as well as your explanation--you have nothing.
Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:51 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 292 of 320 (634521)
09-22-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:56 AM


Potential evidence is exactly what is found in the field.
Results in real life.
So where in the field do we see catastrophic processes producing alternating layers of fine grained clay and diatoms where insect and leaf debris have been sorted by minute differences in 14C (insects/leaves with higher 14C on top). Either show us this evidence or admit that there is none.
quote:
The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment.
What about sediments that are deposited by wind such as the Coconino sandstones? What about massive salt deposits in the middle of your supposed flood? What about sediments that are made up of massive amounts of life, such as the chalk cliffs at Dover where there is several hundred feet of cocolithophores? Catastrophic flooding does not produce these features.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 11:52 AM Taq has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 293 of 320 (634527)
09-22-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Taq
09-22-2011 11:24 AM


more than just layers, layers with different fossil species
Hi again Taq
... such as the chalk cliffs at Dover where there is several hundred feet of cocolithophores? Catastrophic flooding does not produce these features.
with the cocolithophores showing evolution of species with transitions from species at the bottom to different species at the top?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Taq, posted 09-22-2011 11:24 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Pressie, posted 09-23-2011 4:56 AM RAZD has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 294 of 320 (634607)
09-23-2011 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Robert Byers
09-22-2011 1:56 AM


The evidence for great moving water is great accumulations of sediment.
But according to your own hypothesis, the great accumulations of sediment after the KT boundary were not laid down by the flood. And if such accumulations can be produced by normal processes, then they are not particularly evidence for a magic flood.
Its potential evidence of a great flood moving about where one finds great unnatural accumulations of dirt.
"Unnatural" accumulations of dirt which look exactly like natural accumulations of dirt --- again, according to your hypothesis, which says that the "dirt" after the KT boundary is natural.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 295 of 320 (634608)
09-23-2011 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by RAZD
09-22-2011 11:52 AM


Re: more than just layers, layers with different fossil species
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment...
pnas writes:
This coincides well with the 10.8 Ma age for the split of these lineages based on analysis of coccolith morphology in the fossil record and supports the accuracy of our molecular-clock calibration.
It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc.
Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered.
Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentence
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2011 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 12:03 PM Pressie has replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2992 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


(1)
Message 296 of 320 (634891)
09-24-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Robert Byers
09-17-2011 3:22 AM


"The evidence of the rocks is only evidence they were created by processes. then its interpretation of what these processes were.
If massive water was working then there is no reason to see anything of the past as from slow minor processes of a quiet world today.
in fact this is a common theme in ice age mega flood studies.
They always , not creationists, are overthrowing old slow interpretations of geomorphology in regards to glacial covered areas. "
Robert you should give up and just say "god did it" then quit posting on this board and use the time saved to read your holy book, do good works and marvel at god's Universe.
You will feel better, we'll feel better and the world will be a better place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 3:22 AM Robert Byers has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 297 of 320 (634995)
09-25-2011 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Pressie
09-23-2011 4:56 AM


Re: more than just layers, layers with different fossil species
Hi Pressie,
Yes, Coccoliths show speciation in the fossil record. This is a good example Just a moment...
It shows evolution, extinction of some species, etc.
Sorry, this is off-topic and I should not have answered.
No, it is not off-topic -- it is evidence that these deposits did not occur during a flood.
Floods don't arrange things in neat sorted piles.
Additionally, fossil layers of marine growth show long term growth, longer than is possible given the purported duration of the flood.
Brachipods have growth rings typically showing ages of 20 to 30 years in a layer, and are attached to the sea floor with stalks. They are fossilized [i]in situ[/u] by silt build up that leaves their ecology undisturbed, and builds up another similar layer as the previous growth is gradually buried. The ages of continuous marine growth can be hundreds of years long - and thus could not be due to a flood.
When we go around the world and look at all the fossil beds that creationists like Robert Byers claim to be evidence of floods, we see similar fossils of long term mature marine growth that is completely inconsistent with a flood model.
See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Pressie, posted 09-23-2011 4:56 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Pressie, posted 09-26-2011 6:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 298 of 320 (635000)
09-25-2011 1:29 PM


Warning!! 300 Mark Approaching
This is a heads up that the 300 post limit is approaching.
AdminPD

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 299 of 320 (635051)
09-26-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by RAZD
09-25-2011 12:03 PM


Re: more than just layers, layers with different fossil species
Hi Zen Deist
Yes, I agree with you that it is on topic.
I'm just trying to get these creationists to focus on one line of evidence before they start racing towards another Gish Gallop. It's amazing how they keep on making statements, but keep disappearing when their statements are shown to be wrong. They just gallop towards the next incorrect statement!
We're still on Jbr's "polystrate" fossils in coal seams. He hasn't acknowledged that he is wrong about "uniformatists" saying that those "strata" are "millions of years apart". He keeps on ignoring it. Before we can move on, he has at least got to provide even one example of where any "uniformatist" geologist has ever said this! We shouldn't let them off the hook!
Edited by Pressie, : Altered the whole message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 12:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4452 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 300 of 320 (635131)
09-27-2011 3:53 AM


Everyone.
I recently reread my notes.
A great book by geologists called the "mountains of Saint Francis" mentioned how turbidity currents explained graded bedforms.
They discovered that the whole sediment load was thrown together in water and then it settled into grades of sediment.
they called it a revolution but really just a correction of slow geology presumptions.
Its come up here HOW can there be segregated strata.
well just as this case shows sediment can sort itself in special events so likewise these special events easily and very likely created segregated flows that laid in a short period all strata below the k-t line.
The potential evidence for a global flood is the great strata columns and general covering of earth by sedimentary rock.
What more could a creationist ask for?
The only thing to add is that the sediment was turned into rock by the great weight of other mechanisms during the flood.
The flood evidence is the very data used to, incorrectly, make all these stories of the history of earth.
There is no reason not to see and imagine that layered rock strata are from the same event.
There is every reason to think so from creationist presumptions of a witness.
its more then potential . its actual and very persuasive to creationists and audiences that can be reached.
Includes in it any life caught up in the flows and so likewise turned to stone.
Fossils.
Fossils all from the same great event killing them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2011 6:07 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 303 by Percy, posted 09-27-2011 7:33 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 304 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2011 1:27 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 305 by Taq, posted 09-27-2011 3:48 PM 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