Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK (4 members, 23 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2708 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 301 of 320 (635132)
09-27-2011 4:15 AM


Where art though JBR?
We have reached the point where this thread is about to be closed.

JustbeReal Made a good A4 page of claims that he believed soundly supported a global flood.

he narrowed this down to his two 'favourites'.

I have been meaning to weigh in but have found that there is already quite a number of replies contesting his claims.

But JBR seems to be mysteriously silent.

Maybe we could start a new thread beginning with JBR's original list of support for the global flood.

His list seems to cover all of the major supprting arguements for his hypothesis. It would be a handy reference to go back to when the issue comes up again.

It would only work if JBR felt that he could actually support his claims. It will only be a worthwhile debate if he means to stand by his statements.

It looks like Robert Byers could weigh in as well. He could use a bit of work on his Geology though. I can recommend Dr A's Introduction to Geology thread. here it is Message 1

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


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


Message 302 of 320 (635139)
09-27-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Robert Byers
09-27-2011 3:53 AM


Robert Byers writes:

Everyone.
I recently reread my notes.
A great book by geologists called the "mountains of Saint Francis" ....

They also say "millions of years ago....". Why would you want to mention it when arguing for a "flood that happened 4000 years ago"?
Robert Byers writes:

....mentioned how turbidity currents explained graded bedforms.

No, turbidity currents explain turbidity currents and the resulting sediments. We’ve even seen them with our own eyes in reservoirs in the Alps recently. No global flood involved. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/...of_reservoir_sedimentation.pdf
Robert Byers writes:

They discovered that the whole sediment load was thrown together in water and then it settled into grades of sediment.

Grades of sediment? Sorry, do you mean coarse grained sediment grading into finer grained sediments at the top? That’s the normal working of gravity. No global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:

…they called it a revolution but really just a correction of slow geology presumptions.

Are you telling porkies, Robert? Turbidites have always been seen as turbidites. No slow “movement” involved. Do you have any reference where anyone has ever said that turbidites are the result of "slow geology presumptions"? I bet you don't. You just like telling porkies.
Robert Byers writes:

Its come up here HOW can there be segregated strata.

There’s literally millions of ways. A turbidity current is one of them.
Robert Byers writes:

… well just as this case shows sediment can sort itself in special events….

You don’t need special events. It happens every day, in normal circumstances. Even in lakes and reservoirs. No special events involved.
Robert Byers writes:

… 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.

Above the k-t line, too! Numerous times. Right in front of our own very eyes. No global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:

The potential evidence for a global flood is the great strata columns and general covering of earth by sedimentary rock.

And all those areas not covered by sedimentary rock? How do you explain those?
Robert Byers writes:

What more could a creationist ask for?

Evidence for a global flood. You’ve got absolutely none.
Robert Byers writes:

The only thing to add is that the sediment was turned into rock by the great weight of other mechanisms during the flood.

Which flood? The one you wish for in your head? Sorry, your wishful thinking doesn’t constitute evidence.
Robert Byers writes:

The flood evidence is the very data used to, incorrectly, make all these stories of the history of earth.

Physical evidence is used for these “stories”. Not wishful thinking.
Robert Byers writes:

There is no reason not to see and imagine that layered rock strata are from the same event.

Lots of reasons. Unconformities, for one.
Robert Byers writes:

There is every reason to think so from creationist presumptions of a witness.

Which witness? The one’s who have seen those turbidity currents in the Alps, where no global flood was involved?
Robert Byers writes:

… its more then potential . its actual and very persuasive to creationists and audiences that can be reached.

Yes, I know. People in my local mental institution thrive on wishfull thinking. They even talk to Elvis, every day.
Robert Byers writes:

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.

Any evidence for this “same great event”?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence or two: "Do you have any reference where anyone has ever said that turbidites are the result of "slow geology presumptions"? I bet you don't. You just like telling porkies."


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(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 yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 304 of 320 (635164)
09-27-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Robert Byers
09-27-2011 3:53 AM


A great book by geologists called the "mountains of Saint Francis" mentioned how turbidity currents explained graded bedforms ... well just as this case shows ...

Uh ... only if you believe that these geologists were right in assigning turbidites to turbidity currents rather than to a magic flood.

Why are you citing these geologists when your own point of view is that they're completely wrong about everything?

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.

Whereas by your own hypothesis non-"special events" caused the geologically identical strata above the KT line.

When will you get round to answering this?

According to you, a magical process is responsible for sedimentation below the KT line, whereas normal processes are responsible for sedimentation above the KT line --- and they look identical. Why should we ascribe what is below the KT line to impossible magical processes when you yourself admit that the same results (above the KT line) were produced by real non-magical processes?

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?

What else? Well, you could ask for something that looks like it was produced by a global flood, rather than something which by your own admission looks exactly like it was produced by non-magical processes.

There is no reason not to see and imagine that layered rock strata are from the same event.

Except that you yourself believe that they were not produced by the same event. According to you these "layered rock strata" were produced by the magic flood if they're below the KT line and by normal processes if they're above it.

Could I please get an answer to this?

Do you really not see the problem?

It's as though you were to say to me: "I concede that after 1972, everyone who died of botulism was infected by botulistic bacteria. But before 1972, everyone who died exhibiting the exact same symptoms was struck down by a miracle from God, so you should accept all deaths from botulism before 1972 as evidence for a miracle".

Well, why shouldn't I regard them as normal cases of botulism? When you admit the existence of botulistic bacteria, and when you admit that they produce the symptoms of botulism, why should I regard the existence of such symptoms before 1972 as evidence of God doing magic?


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

Taq
Member
Posts: 8095
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 305 of 320 (635188)
09-27-2011 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Robert Byers
09-27-2011 3:53 AM


A great book by geologists called the "mountains of Saint Francis" mentioned how turbidity currents explained graded bedforms.

What were the size of the particles in the graded bedforms? Were they large or fine? Did these graded bedforms also contain alternating layers of diatoms and clay? Did these process sort organic debris by minute differences in 14C concentrations?

Until you answer these questions you have no case.

The potential evidence for a global flood is the great strata columns and general covering of earth by sedimentary rock.

Catastrophic events create large deposits of coarse grained sediments, not fine grained sediments. Therefore, fine grained sediments are evidence against a catastophic event and are instead evidence of long term sedimentation. This is further supported by annual deposition of seasonal diatoms and the sorting of terrestrial organic debris by 14C content.

There is no reason not to see and imagine that layered rock strata are from the same event.

Yes there is. I list several reasons above, and you refuse to deal with them.


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

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2655 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 306 of 320 (635227)
09-28-2011 5:29 AM


I'm not sure if this thread is continuing.
So i will continue conservatively.

Everyone seemed to say the same thing.

The case here of turbidity sediments is a great case for re interpretation of data.
they thought first one thing and then a revolution took place. A correction so very important.
They no longer thought slow layering accounted for segregated layers in these rock columns.
instead a confused sediment group was thrown aggressively into deep water and instantly sorted itself into many layered or segregated sediments.
this is a example and perhaps sometimes the actual mechanism for much of what is found in the rock strata .
A single chaotic flood event throws sediment into deep water and mechanism separates it and deceives that it was from slow annual events.
The example alone here is how imagination and better research/thinking figures out there is no need to see strata of rock as demanding each layer from a different age.
Segregated flows can do the same thing and then, like the turbidites turn all to stone.

The example of the turbidite by the way i see as a post flood event.
below and above the k-t line the same processes worked in special episodes.
The turbidite example is a modern process but just rare or never happens now. The special case of massive water moving about is today unknown.

The discovery of turbidity events is actually an embarrassment to geology. They had no reason to guess how these sediment layers were created. Once a few thought harder it was figured out although they had to change earth events.
The author did get excited that old ideas can be overthrown.
Right!


Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Pressie, posted 09-28-2011 9:36 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 307 of 320 (635244)
09-28-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Robert Byers
09-28-2011 5:29 AM


Robert Byers writes:

I'm not sure if this thread is continuing. So i will continue conservatively. Everyone seemed to say the same thing.
The case here of turbidity sediments is a great case for re interpretation of data.
they thought first one thing and then a revolution took place. A correction so very important.

Turbidites were first described in 1962, by a guy called Arnold H. Bouma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbidite Your reference from 2008 is a bit late. Bouma actually described the Bouma Cycle very well, too:
Wiki writes:

Turbidites were first properly described by Arnold H. Bouma (1962), who studied deepwater sediments and recognized particular fining up intervals within deep water, fine grained shales, which were anomalous because they started at pebble conglomerates and terminated in shales.
This was anomalous because within the deep ocean it had historically been assumed that there was no mechanism by which tractional flow could carry and deposit coarse-grained sediments into the abyssal depths.
Bouma cycles begin with an erosional contact of a coarse lower bed of pebble to granule conglomerate in a sandy matrix, and grade up through coarse then medium plane parallel sandstone; through cross-bedded sandstone; rippled cross-bedded sand/silty sand, and finally laminar siltstone and shale. This vertical succession of sedimentary structures, bedding, and changing lithology is representative of strong to waning flow regime currents and their corresponding sedimentation.

Robert Byers writes:

They no longer thought slow layering accounted for segregated layers in these rock columns.

Lots of segregated layers are a result of very slow layering. You can even see it happening today all over the world!
Robert Byers writes:

….instead a confused sediment group…

Robert Byers is always confused. Sediments would really look weird if they are confused.
Robert Byers writes:

…. was thrown aggressively into deep water and instantly sorted itself into many layered or segregated sediments.

Not even deep water. We see it in reservoirs and lakes, too. I even gave you a reference earlier.
Robert Byers writes:

…this is a example and perhaps sometimes the actual mechanism for much of what is found in the rock strata .

Telling porkies again, are you?
Robert Byers writes:

A single chaotic flood event throws sediment into deep water and mechanism separates it and deceives that it was from slow annual events.

Oh, we see it often. It also is not a single event. A single event deposits one layer, grading from coarse grained to fine grained at the top. Lots of these on top of each other indicate lots of events. Definitely not one global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:

The example alone here is how imagination and better research/thinking figures out there is no need to see strata of rock as demanding each layer from a different age.

Who has ever done that? Setting up a straw man again, are we?
Robert Byers writes:

Segregated flows can do the same thing and then, like the turbidites turn all to stone. The example of the turbidite by the way i see as a post flood event.

And all those other events way before the K-T line? Just ignoring them?
Robert Byers writes:

…below and above the k-t line the same processes worked in special episodes.

All natural. No global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:

The turbidite example is a modern process but just rare or never happens now.

Stop telling porkies Robert.
Robert Byers writes:

The special case of massive water moving about is today unknown.

Oh, the Gulf Stream is not unknown at all. So also the Benguela Current. So are lots of currents. No global flood involved.
Robert Byers writes:

The discovery of turbidity events is actually an embarrassment to geology.

It didn’t seem like an embarrassment when it was first published in 1962. It explained a lot!
Robert Byers writes:

They had no reason to guess how these sediment layers were created. Once a few thought harder it was figured out although they had to change earth events.

No, a few people “thinking harder” won’t change “earth events”. Events on earth would keep going on, regardless of what some people think (scientists) or what some people don’t think (creationists).
Robert Byers writes:

The author did get excited that old ideas can be overthrown. Right!

Maybe you think so because you don’t know what you are talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Robert Byers, posted 09-28-2011 5:29 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


(2)
Message 308 of 320 (635253)
09-28-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Robert Byers
09-14-2011 1:28 AM


Hi Robert,

Robert Byers writes:

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

I believe the Bible account of creation and I also believe the Noah flood took place.

But it takes trillions upon trillions, upon trillions upon trillions of tons of decayed life forms to produce the trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil, and trillions of tons of coal, and trillions of cubit feet of natural gas in the Earth.

These items are buried under miles of rock, does your little chaotic flow structure produce enough material to cover those life forms to the depth they are buried?

I would assume the bigger problem would be where did all those life forms come from that was buried in the short span of 2,000 years?

In the Bay of Fundy the water rises and falls over 55 feet 2 times in a 24 hour period and does very little damage and leaves little evidence that it rose and fell that much.

It never ceases to amaze me at all the hoops people try to jump through just to be able to present their beliefs. That goes for those on both sides of the argument.

If the text is correct and I believe it is, all the land mass was in one place when the flood took place and was not divided until the days in which Peleg lived.

Yes it took outside intervention for the flood to take place as presented in the Bible.

Yes it took outside intervention for the Earth to be divided as presented in the Bible.

But anyone who believes Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning created God the Heavens and the Earth" should have no problem believing the two events spoken of above took place.

But if you (or anyone else out there) have any information or idea how our natural resources got buried under up to 5 miles of rock and their source please share.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2011 1:28 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 309 of 320 (635321)
09-28-2011 4:02 PM


Time for Summations
The limit has been reached. This thread is now closed to debate.
Participants will be given 48 hours to post one summary of their
final position concerning the topic of the debate.

Please do not respond to previous posts and do not respond to summations.

Again, thread will be closing in 48 hours.

AdminPD


Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2655 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 310 of 320 (635412)
09-29-2011 5:52 AM


Summery

There is potential evidence for the flood by the very thing found in the field.
Massive sedimentary rock stratas over most of the dry land today.
This hints alone at water deposition being massive in the past.
This is what should be expected if the great flood was true.

Segregated strata is only segregated flows as it would be.then the same force of water would squeeze everything into stone.

The bible says there was a flood and so Christianity , the great faith, says so and on earth is great accumulation of sediment moved/deposited by water including the creatures caught up in at the time.

This is at least potential evidence and plain damn good evidence.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18872
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


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 acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31485
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 312 of 320 (635450)
09-29-2011 9:57 AM


Summary
In this thread several potential and essential pieces of evidence of the Biblical flood were presented, things that IF the Biblical Flood actually happened must be found.

Unfortunately not one of the potential and essential pieces of evidence exists and thus the Biblical flood is refuted as completely as a claim that a score was made even when the game was not played.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 313 of 320 (635451)
09-29-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Percy
09-29-2011 6:49 AM


Proposed follow-up
Hi Percy

I can see a successor thread being useful.

How about a focused successor thread?

We could reopen Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? with the caveat that the discussion is limited to what the fossils show and whether this is consistent with a generic flood (rather than the special case Noachin flood).

Anything that does not address

  1. what the fossils actually show, OR
  2. what is consistent with known actual floods

Would be off topic.

Anything that can cover both

  1. what the fossils actually show, AND
  2. what is consistent with known actual floods

Can then be taken as fossil evidence of a flood, an initial step to then determining if it is evidence for a global flood.

If you want a new topic like this I can rewrite the OP to be this specific.

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 311 by Percy, posted 09-29-2011 6:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2011 5:16 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 314 of 320 (635458)
09-29-2011 10:43 AM


Summary
As usual, no convincing evidence was offered in support of the global flood idea, and as usual evidence was presented which refutes the flood idea--only to be ignored.

What is so amusing is the nature of some of the "evidence" offered in support of the flood:

--Massive sedimentary deposits, for example, that clearly can be dated to different time periods and that exhibit internal structures formed over large time spans, showing it could not have occurred during a single flood.

--The assurance by two different creationists that the flood occurred 1) at the time of the Cambrian explosion (>500 million years ago) and 2) at the K-T boundary (just over 60 million years ago), while biblical scholars place it about 4,350 years ago.

Creationists also must ignore evidence from archaeologists, who deal with the period around 4,350 years ago all the time. Instead of a disruption which would have resulted from such a flood we find continuity of human cultures, genomes, fauna and flora, etc.

This thread has shown that the idea of a global flood is a belief contradicted by the facts.


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

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


(1)
Message 315 of 320 (635468)
09-29-2011 12:08 PM


Summation
The things that creationists claim as evidence for a global flood are things that we can see today being produced not by a global flood, and indeed almost invariably not a by a local flood either.

As such they are simply not evidence for a global flood any more than something that looks exactly like the hoof-print of a horse is evidence for a magic rainbow-colored unicorn.

One reason that creationists make this mistake is that (as illustrated by JBR) they are blissfully ignorant of what geologists actually claim. To continue the analogy, someone who thought that orthodox zoologists claimed that horses have six legs terminating in claws and talons and weigh two hundred tons would not recognize the hoofprint of a horse as being, in fact, the hoofprint of a horse.

But they are also ignorant of what a flood would actually produce. The game (which we see in other areas of creationism) seems to be to find something which would confute strawman geologists, and then ascribe it to a global flood by default. Now even if varves (for example) required a magical explanation (which they don't) then it would be more plausible on the face of it to ascribe them to Magic Varve Pixies than to the cataclysmic events described in the book of Genesis; and if creationists have ever so much as attempted to supply a diluvian mechanism for such sedimentary forms, they have not done so on this thread.

A further peculiarity is evident in the assertions of Robert Byers, who is prepared to assign rocks above the KT boundary to normal processes and yet to claim that rocks below the KT boundary are evidence of a global flood. Which is as though having actually admitted that some footprints are made by horses, he then went on to assert that identical footprints are evidence of unicorns. It has so far proved impossible to find out exactly what mistake he's making here: whether he believes that rocks above the KT boundary are different in some way, or whether he is simply a very poor reasoner, or both; and as this thread is about to close we may never know.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019