Summations Only

It's only fair to agree with your ideas?? Where am I? The Evolution Fairytale Forum?

She could totally own the site. She'd become the guru since she knows some science vocabulary. I signed up but never posted anything. After reading through a few threads I realized I'd get booted with my first post so I didn't bother. But it is an interesting place to observe the processes by which people avoid reality; blind assertions, invalid conclusions drawn from shallow observations, avoidance of contradictory evidence, ignoring or trivializing well established science.

To form raindrop impressions and then preserve them in solid rock requires the following sequence:
1) Initially, a few large raindrops fall on a relatively smooth sand surface. When the large raindrops hit the sand they make mini craters.
2) Rainfall intensity has to be relatively light so that a relatively firm wet surface is produced, but not washed away by additional rain.
3) After the wet surface has dried to form a crust, it has to be buried by additional windblown, dry sand. The dry crust with its raindrop impressions is now safely covered.
4) Over many millions of years, the dry crust with its raindrop impressions is subsequently buried by thousands of feet of other sediments. The combination of the weight and dissolved minerals in ground water transform the sand into sandstone rock. For example, the Coconino Sandstone.
5) After still more millions of years, erosion removes the overlying layers and the preserved raindrop impressions are once again exposed.
Creationism = Willful Ignorance More tracks hereEdited by shalamabobbi, : Link didn't work without copy and paste.

The issue that creationists have with science stems from not allowing supernatural causes into the explanations. In your model - as much of it as you've explained - it is apparent that tectonic activity is the cause of your flood and its receding again. This is not simply faster plate tectonics but your own private view of tectonic activity. Your continents don't collide. They merely separate from one another after having been united in one great land mass.That this creates problems with heat dissipation or is contradicted by the Hawaiian Islands and Emperor Seamounts chain or fails to explain the raising back up of the continents after they've been churned away to nothing by the flood waters doesn't bother the creationists because they always fall back on "God did that part" when a natural explanation lets them down. So the debate is pointless except for the existence of evidence that contradicts the "God did it" explanation. The only way forward at that point is more "God did it ad hockery." God created the false evidence to try our faith.So the fun of the debate is where a creationist claims that the evidence doesn't contradict their theory. Because that's easy to show to everyone but to the creationist who is either ignorant of the evidence or has refused to contemplate the significance of the evidence and has shelved it for the time being. Then they say it's not fair to present this type of evidence. Only evidences that don't provide constraints on the model are allowed.To be fair to the creationists maybe the rain drops recorded in the Coconino(ad hockery according to Faith - see message 1339) aren't raindrop impressions at all but rather the result of Noah poking about with a stick to ascertain the depth of the flood waters. That this sort of nonsense is doing more damage to the flock than supporting the Christian cause is recognized by even the Christian community as they choose to distance themselves from YECs. They do an excellent job of illustrating the superficial explanations of YECs and their shortcomings.

Uncertainty - a safe haven for creationists.Improper use of apostrophes becomes a means of falsification of evidence.Physical evidence cannot be interpreted and provides no constraints upon imagined models? And yet you look at the evidence and see it supporting your imagined flood?? The difference between geologists and you is in how close you look at the evidence and in how much evidence is considered. A book is not a mouth. Reading a book does not equate with knowing. Yes, those biblical scholars are just way out on a limb aren't they? How sinful of them to study and to be curious. I hope they rot in hell, don't you? Did you not see how easily the old earth Christians debunked your idea that the flood could deposit the geologic column? There is proof of slow plate movement throughout history. There is isochron dating. The sorting in the geologic column cannot be accounted for by a flood.
These are things a rational person chooses to ignore? You dismiss them with a glib, shallow consideration and yet you are the rational poster?? Just miraculous tectonic movements that then were the cause of your flood. And then miraculous behavior of the flood waters that bear(hey, I got it right that time) no resemblance to reality. Self contradiction much? He said he would bring the flood of waters. That would make them miraculous by definition. Then why do you deny it? Because God hates intelligence. "Blessed are the grossly ignorant, for they shall not experience cognitive dissonance." Quite right. As a refutation of anything other than an eolian deposit. Post something substantial, with more persuasive force than "It has to be so, because I believe it's so." That's the test of a good post, one that can't be answered and must be ignored, the dissenting posts that present contradictory evidence, or "haven't you bothered to read any of the posts about that either?"Oh yes, you've admitted as much several times.And then there's the "I'm on the verge of a mental breakdown! I have to take a break."
After which you return in 24 hours and everything is fine. The raised points are conveniently ignored, any one of which disproves your flood.RAZD(#1301) mentioned one such evidence which all by itself disproves the flood. The Bristlecone pine with dead wood lying beside it which would have floated away in a flood. That disproves the possibility of even a local flood for that area. That is a rational observation. "I know it isn't true" is not an observation but one may observe it is not rational.Edited by shalamabobbi, : not branches.

The only thing that came close to frying my brain was trying to prop up the YEC position. That's an effective rebuttal on a par with "It's just a theory." Of course you do. Confirmation bias is such a comfort isn't it?

quote:

---

The results of erosion found between the sedimentary strata at various levels in many local sedimentary columns in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia are so well known and thoroughly described in the literature of geologic research that it seems almost unnecessary to cite examples. But since large numbers of creationists seem to be unaware of them, we want to give several examples.

---

quote:

---

1. Carbonate Hardground Surfaces

​

In many of the carbonate (limestone or dolostone) rock layers of the world we find "hardground surfaces." In such cases the layers of rock have visible characteristics on their upper surfaces which show that each such surface was exposed to at least some scouring, dissolution, or other alteration after it was lithified and before the succeeding layer of limestone was added above it.

---

quote:

---

It is very evident that all of these processes of change in the upper surface of the layer required several years of time. And one must not forget that an extended period of time was required for cementation of the carbonate grains into the form of a hard layer before these processes of erosion, encrusting, and boring could begin.

---

ref: Ch1

quote:

---

Then there is the fact that quartz sandstones are nearly always cemented by pore water rich in silica (rather than calcium carbonate), resulting in the formation of silicon dioxide cement crystals, whereas limestones are practically always cemented with crystals of calcium carbonate or dolomite. This is no problem so long as the cementation is occurring in a near-surface location, with water passing over or near the sediment mass. But how can one logically postulate some sort of unimaginably elaborate "plumbing system" which would have supplied each of the deeply-buried layers, over all those thousands of square miles, with the types and amounts of pore water needed for rapidly cementing them into distinct types of rock?

---

ref: Ch3

An analogy to help you understand the nature of the problem. Imagine that these different layers required a different pH in order for cementation to occur. One layer requires a basic pore water the next an acidic. If you now understand how that would be a problem you also understand how it is a problem for the pore water for one layer to be rich in silica while the next layer needs the pore water to be rich calcium carbonate.

quote:

---

In summary, we here have two great categories of one-celled, marine microfossils, both about the same size and abundance, and both have shells of the same composition (silicon dioxide). They both live in the same ecological zone (pelagic), except that a very considerable proportion of the diatoms live on the sea bottom in areas where the water is not too deep to badly restrict the sunlight which they require for photosynthesis. The fact that some diatoms are bottom dwellers, whereas radiolarians are all pelagic, would lead us to expect, according to the "Flood geology" hypothesis, that the diatoms would be found in all systems of sedimentary rock but that the radiolarians would be restricted to the upper systems. Exactly the opposite is true. Radiolarian shells are abundant in the rock systems all the way down into the Cambrian, but the diatom shells have never been found below the Jurassic.

​

Why then are radiolarians found all the way down into the Cambrian, but diatoms not? There is no logical conclusion but to recognize that at least practically all species of diatoms just did not exist at the time that the pre-Jurassic rock systems were being formed. If all the rock systems (Cambrian through Tertiary) had been formed by the Biblical Flood, as Morris and other young-earth creationists believe, then all of the rock systems would contain both radiolarians and diatoms. This is true because both were exceedingly abundant at the time of the Flood, and neither group had any characteristic, such as a distinctly different density, shape, or size, which would restrict it to the upper layers of rock being formed.

---

ref: Ch7

quote:

---

Henry Morris, realizing that geologists have described some kinds of salt deposits as having been formed by natural evaporation, has included a few pages of discussion on the great, non-cyclic deposits of halite (sodium chloride) in his Scientific Creationism (Morris, 1974, pp. 105-07). He cites certain evidences which indicate that at least some of these halite deposits were likely formed deep in the ocean floors from the release of salt "from great depths along faults during tectonic movements" (p. 106). Morris's main source of information for this is the Soviet scientist V. I. Sozansky, who made a careful study of halite deposits which lie in the deep ocean floor of the western Atlantic. Morris uses Sozansky's work in an attempt to nullify the evidences for the formation of evaporite deposits by natural evaporation.

​

What Sozansky has said about the halite deposits observed in his study appears to be correct, but Morris has erroneously assumed that a description of how halite salt deposits which lie deep in the ocean were formed also applies to the cyclic deposits of anhydrite* (calcium sulfate), gypsum, calcium carbonate, and some halite layers, which are found far inland on the continents. (These continental deposits are found extending across broad areas which were once covered by shallow inland seas, in Canada, the United States, Australia, and other parts of the world.) Actually, there is little resemblance between these and the deep-ocean halite deposits.

​

Because Sozansky's studies of salt formations were restricted almost entirely to halite deposits found in ocean floors, he himself has tended to deny the reality of extensive evaporite deposition in ancient times. (Due to his unfamiliarity with such deposits, and his ill-informed statements about them, his works have not been well received among sedimentologists of the U. S., Canada, and Australia, where abundant cyclic, evaporative deposits of anhydrite, gypsum, calcium carbonate, and halite are found. Apparently the very restricted "climate" in which Soviet scientists are required to work has not allowed him to learn the actual nature of the continental, cyclic deposits of evaporites and the fundamental differences between them and the thick, ocean-floor halite deposits which he has studied.) Thus, it is very unfortunate that Morris has supposed that he can safely use the writings of Sozansky to support his notion that extensive evaporite deposits of various salts do not exist.

---

ref: Ch8

quote:

---

One of the world's best-known, ancient evaporite formations which contains a large, laterally extensive, vertical sequence of laminated evaporites is the Castile Formation of west Texas and southeast New Mexico. This formation lies deeply buried throughout most of a 90- by 160-mile basin which contains a great number of oil wells, and includes in its thickness approximately 200,000 evaporite "couplet" laminations across most of the basin. (See Figure 6, and see "basin" in glossary.) These thin "couplets" (actually triplets) regularly contain a layer of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), a layer of anhydrite (CaSO4), and an organic layer, in each. (R. Y. Anderson, et al., 1972.) The layers are usually called either "microlayers" or "laminae" (singular "lamina"). The mean thickness per couplet was found to be 1.1 to 2.0 mm, depending on the depth from which the core being studied was taken, in the well.

---

ref: Ch8

See message 1525 for a refutation of your lack of acceptance for evaporative formation. Evaporation really is the only game in town.You are aware that salt dissolves in water? It would not be moved about by your flood like sand and mud. So the salt dissolves and stays in solution and would be in solution to this day.
Buy some salt from the grocery store. Add it to water in a pitcher and stir until you can't dissolve anymore into solution. Now the water is saturated. The only way to remove the salt is to evaporate the water. Beyond the point of saturation additional salt would not dissolve and that salt could be moved about by your flood but the oceans today would still be saturated with salt if that were the case. All aquatic life would be non-existent and the soil would be sterile.

Salt is not as hard so it can easily deform.

quote:

---

Stage 3 (60—95% time elapsed) - Diapir sagging: When the diapirs nearly emerge, synkinematic sedimentary layers are progressively deposited (dark gray, red, and white sand in that order). Diapirs start to subside because regional extension continuously widens the diapirs. Salt could not be imported rapidly enough from the depleted source layer to supply salt to the widening diapirs. Thus, these diapirs began to sag.

---

Again you are forgetting that the flood of water would have dissolved any salt into the water and it would still be dissolved in the water today. Your model has again been proven false. Here you go.
You failed to explain how it is that this salt exists at all with your model since a flood cannot deposit salt in the first place. The salt would have dissolved.
That you cannot comprehend this simple fact I attribute to your fallen nature.

Not quite correct. Oh good. Then you accept quantum mechanics and the standard model with the strong and weak nuclear forces and the behavior of radioactive elements? That is all "valid" science that has nothing to do with the past although it is useful for dating things.Matter is matter and doesn't change with time, right? The probability for an unstable isotope to decay is governed by the law of quantum mechanics which doesn't change with time. There is a threshold that has to be overcome for decay to occur. It would never happen except for the phenomenon of tunneling that happens at the quantum level. So the probability of decay of an isotope remains constant. No variation with time. Then decay rates do not vary with time. Then you must accept radioisotope dating. You must accept the missing isotopes with short half lives that should be around if the earth were young as evidence for an old earth.Unless of course your fallen mind isn't up to the task.Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.