Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 72 (9010 total)
44 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 41 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,669 Year: 13,417/23,288 Month: 347/795 Week: 48/95 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 509 of 899 (819728)
09-14-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by riVeRraT
09-13-2017 9:35 PM


Re: Atheistic science?
I started this thread not to prove that the flood happened, only to prove that there is evidence of a flood. We just choose to ignore it. If you are a real scientist you cannot ignore all the evidence.

Do you accept the possibility that there is such a thing as weak evidence?

Or perhaps inconclusive evidence?

Or maybe even bad evidence, misunderstood evidence?

And exactly WHO is ignoring ALL of the evidence?

We don't have all the evidence.

Which is a whole lot different from saying that we have no evidence.

I started this thread to make a point that nothing is ever proven, and that everything takes faith. To believe the sun will rise tomorrow takes faith. Atheists like to live their lives by objective evidence are wrong.

But we are not talking about our lives, are we?

I thought we were talking about science.

The world is full of subjective things, and we all live by something subjective(love/hate). So to dismiss something merely on the fact that it is subjective is hypocritical. It is an objective fact subjectivity exists.

Please list the people on this forum who live completely objectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by riVeRraT, posted 09-13-2017 9:35 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 510 of 899 (819729)
09-14-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
09-13-2017 9:08 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
There is no way to "rebut" the huge flat sedimentary rocks.

Not sure what to rebut.

You just admitted that the Green River Formation is part of the geological column and yet it is far from continental in scale and is certainly not just a flat slab of rock.

Please explain what you mean by 'geological column', 'strata' and 'huge, flat formations'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 9:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 511 of 899 (819730)
09-14-2017 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by Faith
09-13-2017 8:07 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
A lot of fat fish (as well as all kinds of other water dwellers)...

Where do you get the idea that they were fat?

Making stuff up again, Faith?

quote:
... should be caught on camera since I gather there are quite a few fossils of same in the Green River formation, and of course they should be seen in various stages of burial by these minuscule layers, right?

Why is that?

You do realize that they are only exposed by splitting the bedding planes, don't you?

I mean, why would this layering have stopped anyway?

Maybe it didn't.

What are you talking about here. Sedimentation stops for a number of reasons. Are you asking why there are different layers or why the lake dried up?

Your quesrtions are no making sense in the real world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 8:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 512 of 899 (819735)
09-14-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Faith
09-13-2017 7:03 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
These fish all by themselves prove that the varve pairs are not annual because the fish would have rotted away or been eaten within days, weeks or months of being "buried" by this minuscule amount of sediment.

So, what do you think happens when a carcass just 'rots away'? Is there nothing left over?

And what if there are no scavengers in this lake? What if the fish sank into a toxic part of the lake?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 7:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:37 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 532 of 899 (819767)
09-14-2017 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:41 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Nothing, they're just sediments being deposited here and there, not part of anything.

Heh, heh ...

Nothing.

Like six miles of sediments in the Mississippi Delta or 3 miles of coral in the Bahamas Banks.

Nothing at all ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 533 of 899 (819768)
09-14-2017 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Coyote
09-14-2017 4:14 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Current deposits go right on top of older ones. Eventually they either merge to form a single layer or, if different, form identifiable strata.
That's just the way things work.

Faith's definition of the geological column is kind of idiosyncratic. She only includes thick, widespread and flat formations. Other than that, the science of stratigraphy is dead.

This even though the processes that we know created the 'geological column' continue. We still see basins forming, continents colliding, rapid erosion, volcanism and earthquakes. The earth is still 'alive'.

There is no way to penetrate the wall of denial that she possesses. It's just too easy to dismiss anything factual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2017 4:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:51 PM edge has responded
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:56 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 535 of 899 (819770)
09-14-2017 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Faith
09-14-2017 4:01 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
You really think that gradually accumulating dust or ash could become anything like the strata of the Geologic Column?

Why not? We find them throughout the geological column.

The Geologic Column was formed by the Flood, the current deposits are not continuous with the deposits of that one-time event.

Only according to Faith.

What else would they be part of?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:49 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 545 of 899 (819780)
09-14-2017 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Faith
09-14-2017 4:26 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Prove it. Show me a KNOWN example of a RECENTLY deposited LAYER like those in the Geo Column.

You do not even know what the geological column is. You have perpetually confused your idea of a stratigraphic column with the geological time scale.

It is no wonder that your conclusions are ludicrous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:00 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 549 of 899 (819784)
09-14-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Faith
09-14-2017 4:56 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
NO BASINS FORMED IN THE FLOOD, SO THERE ARE NO BASINS IN THE GEO CFOLUMN.

Well, that's kind of an odd statement since we have shown you the Michigan basin with has the same rocks as your geological column being deposited there.

CONTINENTS COLLIDED AFTER THE FLOOD, AS EVIDENCED BY THE UNDISTURBED STACK OF STRATA EXHIBITED IN THE GRAND CANYON AT LEAST BUT ELSEWHERE TOO, AS ALL THE DISTURBANCE CLEARLY HAPPENED AFTER THE WHOLE STACK WAS IN PLACE.

First of all, the Grand Canyon is not like every other place in the world.

THERE IS NO EROSION BETWEEN THE LAYERS OF THE GEO COLUMN THAT COULD RIGHTLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO SURFACE EROSION.

Nonsense, for instance, we see stream channels throughout the geological column, including at the Grand Canyon.

VOLCANISM BEGAN WITH THE FLOOD AND SO DID EARTHQUAKES

Not really. But considering that you don't say where the flood began, nor where it ended in the record, I can't say much about your statement. The fact that we have volcanic rocks deep in the section and even in the basement rocks, suggests that you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:07 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 552 of 899 (819787)
09-14-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:00 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
THE GEO TIME SCALE IS BASED ON THE GEO COLUMN.

So, you admit that they are not the same thing, yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:11 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 554 of 899 (819789)
09-14-2017 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:07 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
THE MICHIGAN BASIN BECAME A BASIN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE.

Not really.

If that were the case, we wouldn't see the pattern of thickening of the formations that does occur, and there wouldn't be evidence for ti being a closed basin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:12 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 556 of 899 (819791)
09-14-2017 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:06 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
IN THE ROCKS OF THE GEO COLUMN.

But in your column, there actually are no rocks.

You are conflating the time scale with stratigraphic columns that are different everywhere in the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:13 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 560 of 899 (819795)
09-14-2017 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:03 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Being on top is not being continuous with.

But it is being in sequence with.

In your scenario, the Coconino is not continuous with the Hermit, and yet you say that they are part of a continuous flood deposit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:15 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 562 of 899 (819797)
09-14-2017 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:12 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
THE STRATA ALL SAG INTO THE BASIN AS A UNIT.

That does not explain the features that I just mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:15 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 370 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 565 of 899 (819800)
09-14-2017 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:13 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
WHATY A WACKO STATEMENT. THEY ARE ALL ROCKS THAT MAKE UP THE STRATA. EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

But the geological column is different at virtually every location in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:17 PM edge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020