Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 10:32 AM
32 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Stile, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,008 Year: 15,044/19,786 Month: 1,767/3,058 Week: 141/404 Day: 28/113 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 1255 (857069)
07-05-2019 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
07-05-2019 8:43 AM


Nope.
Did the Flood really happen?

There is no geological evidence of a single world wide flood occurring around the world at any one specific time. This was determined centuries ago by people looking for such evidence, including Leonardo da Vinci.

The evidence of the spacial/temporal matrix that ties all fossils to locations and times showing evolutionary paths of descent over time is also evidence against such a flood -- it is not disrupted by a single world wide event. The white cliffs of Dover are an example of this matrix showing evolution over time, rather than a jumble of flood debris.

The evidence of the age of the earth (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) shows by simple annual counting systems to determine age that the earth is older than any YEC model, without any disruption by a single world wide event.

The genetic evidence shows a lack of systematic bottleneck events across all species at any one time in the past. See No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 1 by Admin, posted 07-05-2019 8:43 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 07-05-2019 9:21 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 6 of 1255 (857072)
07-05-2019 9:33 AM


By Faith from
A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs, Message 704: Re: Flood stuff
Oh I misread it, thanks. WORN OUT A RIVERBED.

OK, the answer to that is the river wore out the riverbed over the last 4300 years. And it's absurd to think I was saying the rushing water had anything at all to do with the current riverbed.

Except that the geological age of the Grand Canyon from beginning until formed is more than 4300 years.

quote:
Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems : http://www.wired.com/...y/dissection/2008/03/dissection_0307

quote:
It turns out that the time stamps were there all along. They were just hidden away inside the hundreds of caves inside the Grand Canyon's walls. Strange formations known as mammilary coatings -- named for their vague resemblance to breasts -- line some of the cave walls. Mammilary coatings form on the walls of caves that are submerged just below the water table. As the Colorado River sliced deeper down into the Colorado Plateau, the water table gradually dropped. Mammilary coatings marked the river's fall. And as mammilary coatings form, they also happen to trap a lot of uranium. By measuring their age, scientists can measure how long ago they were near the water table.

Three geologists from the University of New Mexico have explored caves along the Grand Canyon, ranging from the very bottom to the rim. In this week's issue of Science, they report that the highest caves have mammilary coatings dating back about 17 million years, and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years. And all the caves between the top and bottom have the intermediate ages you'd expect. By measuring the distance from the rim to the caves, the geologists were then able to estimate how fast the Colorado River carved the canyon. The downstream end of the canyon formed first, and only later did the upstream end catch up. These new measurements show that even as the river sank down into the earth, the earth itself rose, lifted by hot rock welling up through the crust


Here is creationist Kent Hovind and his (bad) argument(b) for how the Grand Canyon was made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze5A2pua1E4

The dating information above says two things that invalidate the creationist concept that the canyon was formed by flood waters in a few days or weeks as the water drained away, slicing into and through the ridge:

  1. The canyon formed from west to east, while the creationist model would form from east to west (eroding the top of the barrier to the drainage flow first), and
  2. The canyon took at least 16 million years to form according to radiometric dating (17x10^6 - 8x10^5).

The evidence that the canyon formed from west to east is independent of the validity of Uranium-Lead dating, it just depends on the measured levels of Uranium and Lead without any age calculation:

  • soluble Uranium is captured in the formation of the speleotherm\mammilaries,
  • Lead is not soluble in water and so would not be deposited in the speleotherm\mammilaries
  • Uranium turns into lead, not vice-versa
  • The speleotherm\mammilaries form after the caves have been formed as they are deposits on the cave walls
  • Higher ratios of Lead/Uranium therefore are due to greater age of the speleotherm\mammilaries, and thus so are the locations where they are found.

We can also discuss the validity of Uranium-Lead dating with reference to:
Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

Enjoy

(a) - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speleothem?s=ts

speleothem

any of the crystalline deposits that form in a solution cave after the creation of the cave itself. These deposits are generally composed of calcium carbonate dissolved from the surrounding limestone by groundwater. Carbon dioxide carried in the water is released as the water encounters the cave air; this reduces the water's capacity to hold calcite in solution and causes the calcite to be deposited. These deposits may accumulate to form stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone, helictites, cave pearls, and many other formations. Deposits formed along ceiling cracks may produce drip curtains or draperies that may then reach the floor to become walls. Speleothems may grow in pools to form the nodular encrustations of cave coral or the natural dams that continually elevate themselves through accretion of calcite. The pure white of the calcium carbonate is often tinted with hues of red, yellow, and gray and may even be translucent. The growth rate of speleothems is highly variable due to seasonal variations in the rate of flow, carbon dioxide content, and other factors. Caves owe most of their beauty and much of their interest to these secondary growths.

(b) - Note that I have shown in previous threads why Hovind's explanation is bogus and doesn't work by his own argument that water does not flow uphill -- where the Grand Canyon crosses the ridge is not the lowest point of the ridge, but up on a slope between two lower points, so if he was correct then the canyon would be in a different location.


For debunking creationist fantasies, including Hovind's, about the Grand Canyon see If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?, specifically Message 3

17 million years minimum starting date less 0.8 million years is 16.2 million years to form.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 07-05-2019 9:43 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 9 of 1255 (857081)
07-05-2019 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
07-05-2019 9:21 AM


Re: Nope.
There is no geological evidence of a single world wide flood occurring around the world at any one specific time. This was determined centuries ago by people looking for such evidence, including Leonardo da Vinci.

Could you please sketch out the arguments "centuries ago" that "determined" there was no worldwide Flood.

Message 7: My scenario is different from Hovind's. ...

And it fails for the same reason. See If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?, specifically Message 3

...But I would like to see the arguments supposedly used against the Flood idea you say established that there was no Flood a long time ago. I'm sure I've already addressed them at one time or another but I need to see them described.

First, what Leonardo found:

quote:
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

Leonardo knew well the rocks and fossils (mostly Cenozoic mollusks) found in his native north Italy. No doubt he had ample opportunity to observe them during his service as an engineer and artist at the court of Lodovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, from 1482 to 1499: Vasari wrote that "Leonardo was frequently occupied in the preparation of plans to remove mountains or to pierce them with tunnels from plain to plain." He made many observations on mountains and rivers, and he grasped the principle that rocks can be formed by deposition of sediments by water, while at the same time the rivers erode rocks and carry their sediments to the sea, in a continuous grand cycle. He wrote: "The stratified stones of the mountains are all layers of clay, deposited one above the other by the various floods of the rivers. . . In every concavity at the summit of the mountains we shall always find the divisions of strata in the rocks." Leonardo appear to have grasped the law of superposition, which would later be articulated fully by the Danish scientist Nicolaus Steno in 1669: in any sequence of sedimentary rocks, the oldest rocks are those at the base. He also appears to have noticed that distinct layers of rocks and fossils could be traced over long distances, and that these layers were formed at different times: ". . . the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere, having been made at various times." Nearly three hundred years later, the rediscovery and elaboration of these principles would make possible modern stratigraphy and geological mapping.

... There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.


Pretty similar to modern geological arguments against the mythic flood happening.

quote:
Geologists History

James Hutton is often viewed as the first modern geologist.[1] In 1785 he presented a paper entitled Theory of the Earth to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In his paper, he explained his theory that the Earth must be much older than had previously been supposed to allow enough time for mountains to be eroded and for sediments to form new rocks at the bottom of the sea, which in turn were raised up to become dry land. Hutton published a two-volume version of his ideas in 1795 (Vol. 1, Vol. 2). ...

Sir Charles Lyell first published his famous book, Principles of Geology,[6] in 1830. This book, which influenced the thought of Charles Darwin, successfully promoted the doctrine of uniformitarianism. This theory states that slow geological processes have occurred throughout the Earth's history and are still occurring today. ...


But no universal flood.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 5 by Faith, posted 07-05-2019 9:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 07-05-2019 11:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 1255 (857084)
07-05-2019 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Sarah Bellum
07-05-2019 10:03 AM


Then there is the matter of Index Fossils
Index fossils were first discovered by William Smith

quote:
William Smith, (born March 23, 1769, Churchill, Oxfordshire, Eng. -- died Aug. 28, 1839, Northampton, Northamptonshire), English engineer and geologist who is best known for his development of the science of stratigraphy. Smith's great geologic map of England and Wales (1815) set the style for modern geologic maps, and many of the colourful names he applied to the strata are still in use today.

During preliminary surveys for a proposed Somersetshire Coal Canal in 1793, Smith discovered that the strata outcropping in the northern part of the region dip regularly eastward, like so many “slices of bread and butter.” On a long trip in 1794 to examine canals and collieries, he had an opportunity to extend his observations. His suspicion that the strata of Somerset could be traced far northward across England was brilliantly confirmed as the familiar beds were encountered again and again during this journey. Excavation of the new canal began in 1795, and Smith, studying the fresh cuts, found that each stratum contained “fossils peculiar to itself.”


quote:
William Smith's work with faunal sequence

As Cuvier's theory of faunal succession was being considered, William Smith, a civil engineer from the south of England, was also coming to realize that certain fossils can be found consistently associated with certain strata. In the course of evaluating various natural rock outcroppings, quarries, canals, and mines during the early 1790s, Smith increasingly utilized the fossil content as well as the lithologic character of various rock strata to identify the successional position of different rocks, and he made use of this information to effect a correlation among various localities he had studied. The consistency of the relationships that Smith observed eventually led him to conclude that there is indeed faunal succession and that there appears to be a consistent progression of forms from more primitive to more advanced. As a result of this observation, Smith was able to begin what was to amount to a monumental effort at synthesizing all that was then known of the rock successions outcropping throughout parts of Great Britain. This effort culminated in the publication of his “Geologic Map of England, Wales and Part of Scotland” (1815), a rigorous treatment of diverse geologic information resulting from a thorough understanding of geologic principles, including those of original horizontality, superposition (lithologic, or rock, succession), and faunal succession. With this, it now became possible to assume within a reasonable degree of certainty that correlation could be made between and among widely separated areas. It also became apparent that many sites that had previously been classified according to the then-traditional views of Arduino, Füchsel, and Lehmann did not conform to the new successional concepts of Smith.

Early attempts at mapping and correlation

The seminal work of Smith at clarifying various relationships in the interpretation of rock successions and their correlations elsewhere resulted in an intensive look at what the rock record and, in particular, what the fossil record had to say about past events in the long history of the Earth. A testimony to Smith's efforts in producing one of the first large-scale geologic maps of a region is its essential accuracy in portraying what is now known to be the geologic succession for the particular area of Britain covered.

The application of the ideas of Lyell, Smith, Hutton, and others led to the recognition of lithologic and paleontologic successions of similar character from widely scattered areas. It also gave rise to the realization that many of these similar sequences could be correlated.

The French biologist Jean-Baptiste de Monet, chevalier de Lamarck, in particular, was able to demonstrate the similarity of fauna from a number of Cuvier's and Alexandre Brongniart's collections of fossils from the Paris Basin with fossil fauna from the sub-Apennines of Italy and the London Basin. While based mainly on the collections of Cuvier and Brongniart, Lamarck's observations provided much more insight into the real significance of using fossils strictly for correlation purposes. Lamarck disagreed with Cuvier's interpretation of the meaning of faunal extinction and regeneration in stratigraphic successions. Not convinced that catastrophes caused massive and widespread disruption of the biota, Lamarck preferred to think of organisms and their distribution in time and space as responding to the distribution of favourable habitats. If confronted with the need to adapt to abrupt changes in local habitat -- Cuvier's catastrophes -- faunas must be able to change in order to survive. If not, they became extinct. Lamarck's approach, much like that of Hutton, stressed the continuity of processes and the continuum of the stratigraphic record. Moreover, his view that organisms respond to the conditions of their environment had important implications for the uniformitarian approach to interpreting Earth history.

Once it was recognized that many of the rocks of the Paris Basin, London Basin, and parts of the Apennines apparently belonged to the same sequence by virtue of the similarity of their fossil content, Arduino's term Tertiary (proposed as part of his fourfold division of rock succession in the Tuscan Hills of Italy) began to be applied to all of these diverse locations. Further work by Lyell and Gérard-Paul Deshayes resulted in the term Tertiary being accepted as one of the fundamental divisions of geologic time.


Correlations of rock layers with index fossils showing different ages.

A list of some index fossils:

quote:
Index fossils (also known as guide fossils or indicator fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods (or faunal stages). Index fossils must have a short vertical range, wide geographic distribution and rapid evolutionary trends. Another term, Zone fossil is used when the fossil have all the characters stated above except wide geographical distribution, they are limited to a zone and can't be used for correlations of stratas. [1]

Other index fossils include foraminifera, diatoms and coccoliths (White Cliffs of Dover):

quote:
White Cliffs of Dover, Geology

About 70 million years ago Great Britain and much of Europe were submerged under a great sea. The sea bottom was covered with white mud formed from fragments of coccoliths, the skeletons of tiny algae that floated in the surface waters and sank to the bottom during the Cretaceous period and, together with the remains of bottom-living creatures, formed muddy sediments. It is thought that the sediments were deposited very slowly, probably half a millimetre a year, equivalent to about 180 coccoliths piled one on top of another. Up to 500 metres of sediments were deposited in some areas.[6] The weight of overlying sediments caused the deposits to become consolidated into chalk.[7]

The cliffs' chalk face shows horizontal bands of dark-coloured flint which is composed of the remains of sea sponges and siliceous planktonic micro-organisms that hardened into the microscopic quartz crystals. Quartz silica filled cavities left by dead marine creatures which are found as flint fossils, especially the internal moulds of Micraster echinoids. Several different ocean floor species such as brachiopods, bivalves, crinoids, and sponges can be found in the chalk deposits, as can sharks' teeth.[10]


The banding clearly shows deposition over time, one band at a time, demonstrating relative age/s. Not disturbed by flood turbulence. In addition the fossils show deposition over time (including the life-time of brachiopods, bivalves, crinoids, and sponges) where they lived out normal marine lifetimes, lifetimes much longer than the purported duration of the mythic flood.

The problem for floodites is that they should not be organized into time dependant layers, but jumbled, and they should not include fully grown sessil organisms. Why do they always test out to be one specific age for each different index fossil?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : changed ’ to '
changed — to --


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 8 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 10:03 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 11:20 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 12 of 1255 (857085)
07-05-2019 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
07-05-2019 11:03 AM


Re: Nope.
Thank you.

I thought there was more than that. I've already thought through all that.

But I don't want to be on this thread, I didn't even want to be in the Flood argument at all. I don't know if I'll come back to it later but right now I don't want to be here.

But thanks again.

What you do when you have been shown to be wrong.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 10 by Faith, posted 07-05-2019 11:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-05-2019 11:19 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 30 of 1255 (857163)
07-06-2019 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
07-06-2019 9:24 AM


Re: If there was a Biblical Flood, no one noticed.
Yes, in order to argue for the [ONE] biblical Flood the secular-science timing of all those locations is disputed. And on good grounds too: it's all conjecture that can't be tested except by reference to similar conjectures.

Disputed by opinion, not by facts, is nothing more than a (re)statement of opinion/s.

If you want to dispute "the secular-science timing" of the measurements of age, then you need to do so at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and the information in Message 2 through Message 4 where the minimum age of the earth is determined through annual ring growth in Bristlecone Pines, Irish Oaks, German Oaks and German Pines, each one confirming the previous set of data and then extending it. The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years based on these tree rings that grew undisturbed by any flood.

Remember your response (from 03-14-2014), Message 278:

No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now.

and later (from 10-09-2018), Message 844:

No, there's no point in speculating. I've usually put the many-ringed trees in the column against the Flood. There's a pro column and an anti column.

It's been over 5 years since you first acknowledged your inability to dispute the facts of annual tree ring age. Since that time the evidence continues to mount against a Noachin Flood:

quote:
(The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Message 3)

the "Schulman's" tree(3) (my name for the tree because Edmund Schulman took the core samples and he was a pioneer in dendrochronology in the area), with an minimum germination date of 3051 BCE

(3) - Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Oldest Trees, last modified 18 December 2013,[2013, December 27]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees


That's 5069 years ago and no evidence of a flood.

In Message 853 you said:

I figure I would have to personally examine the tree rings very closely to arrive at a meaningful theory.

Listen, I know the Flood happened, I accept the date of 4500 years ago, so just because I can't explain a given phenomenon says nothing about what really happened.

Your problem is not just to explain the annual tree ring counting system and any errors you perceive in it, but to explain the correlations of the different sets of data and with recorded history. See The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1), Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events:

quote:
So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 98% consilience between history and European oak chronology. ...

That's 4618 years ago and no evidence of a flood.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 18 by Faith, posted 07-06-2019 9:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 07-07-2019 10:42 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 35 of 1255 (857171)
07-06-2019 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-06-2019 9:50 AM


Re: By Faith from
... Sedimentary layers of course are far more easily explained as the product of the Flood than they are the natural occurrence over hundreds of millions of years. You either see it or you don't.

Correction

Sedimentary layers of course are far more easily explained as the natural occurrence over hundreds of millions of years than they are the product of the Flood. You either see it or you don't.

This is because the temporal-spatial matrix of all known fossils supports the long term deposition of sediments and fossils, and not the jumbled mess of flood debris. Even just the relative ages of the sediments and fossils from fully developed ecologies adds up to a minimum period well in excess of a single year of flooding. See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?. In addition each layer correlates with radiometric dates consistent with extreme age (even just using the current present amounts of radioactive material and ignoring for now the validity of calculated dates) and not the jumbled mess of flood debris.

... . You either see it or you don't.

Indeed.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 24 by Faith, posted 07-06-2019 9:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 07-06-2019 11:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 69 of 1255 (857257)
07-07-2019 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
07-06-2019 11:08 AM


sedimentary layers, Walther's Law,
Yeah I know, but a whole stack miles deep of such neat flat straight layers of different kinds of specific sediments ...

Sorted into different layers of sediment according to Walther's Law, with different coarseness of the sediments and with different fossils in the layers.

Sorted in a way that flood waters do not sort. We've been through this before Faith. Again and again you cherry pick what you think is evidence of a flood and ignore the evidence that contradicts it.

When you have fine grain sediment covered by coarse grain sediments you have an example of long time deposition with a regression (sea level drop), and a pattern that does not happen from sediment falling out of suspension in a mud laden flood. In such cases the larger, heavier grains settle first and the finest grains (silts and clays) settle last, because the rate of settling is related to the size of the particles.

Particle Size Analysis Lab

quote:
The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

Stoke's Law: V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.


One place you see sediments sorted by size is at the mouths of rivers, where coarse grain sediments settle first, near the mouth, and fine grain sediments settle last, far from the mouth of the river.

Note how that fits with Walther's law.

... just doesn't fit with the vagaries of everyday llfe, which llfe we llve on a pretty jumbled-up dirt surface, which is what I'd expect of all periods in the history of the earth myself.

What you'd expect is rather irrelevant. The evidence shows otherwise.

Layers of rock with unconformities, showing that the surface was exposed to erosion, are also common, with evidence of tunneling animals and vegetation roots showing that such exposure was long term event similar to the pretty jumbled-up dirt surface we live on today. We see these unconformities in the Grand Canyon, and they have been discussed in those threads.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added first image

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 37 by Faith, posted 07-06-2019 11:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 7:00 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 71 of 1255 (857262)
07-07-2019 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
07-07-2019 7:00 AM


Re: sedimentary layers, Walther's Law,
"Sorted in a way that flood waters do not sort."

Yes but this isn't any old flood, ...

There is no evidence anywhere of any other kind of flood.

... this Flood was more like the rising of the sea over the land, and that's the circumstance in which Walther's Law does apply.

In a transgression (rising sea level) fine layers are deposited over coarse layers, not the other way around, according to Walther's Law.

Sorry, I'm trying to get off this thread I didn't want to be on in the first place.

Because cognitive dissonance makes you uncomfortable in facing evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 70 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 7:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 07-07-2019 10:50 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 76 of 1255 (857267)
07-07-2019 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
07-07-2019 7:29 AM


Re: Basics Physics
RAZD himself once demonstrated how Walther's Law accounts for the sorting of all the layers in the Grand Canyon area.

Message 39

quote:
Take a piece of paper and make 5 colored columns
Cut the paper into strips

   Continental Land          Sands         Siliciclastic Muds  Carbonate SedimentsCoccolith Foram Ooze

Take your list of Grand Canyon rocks from Message 27 and start at the bottom:


and Message 40 on the Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law thread

quote:
This is what I get (using your list) as a simple\simplistic application of the model to the Grand Canyon rocks:


.......................... Kaibab/limestone ..........................
....................... Toroweap/gypsum/shale ........................
......................... Coconino/sandstone .........................
........................... Hermit/shale .............................
........................ Esplanade/sandstone .........................
........................ Wescogame/sandstone .........................
......................... Mankacha/limestone .........................
........................ Watahomigi/limestone ........................
......................... Redwall/limestone ..........................
....................... Temple Butte/limestone .......................
........................... Muav/limestone ...........................
......................... Bright Angel/Shale .........................
......................... Tapeats/Sandstone ..........................
....................Vishnu/Zoroaster/Unconformity ....................

Now you might get a slightly different arrangement depending on how you classify some of the layer rocks (sandy limestone for instance), but you should get the general idea: when the sand is being deposited for the sandstone layers there is also mud, carbonate and ooze being deposited somewhere else at the same time.

This can, of course be tested.


Note that gray layers are dry land layers. This shows transgression followed by regression followed by transgression topped by an unconformity erosion.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 73 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 7:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 77 of 1255 (857268)
07-07-2019 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
07-07-2019 7:55 AM


Re: sedimentary layers, Walther's Law,
As long as you can make up "rapid dumping" I can make up "rapid organized deposition." ...

I believe "rapid dumping" was referring to your model of a world wide flood dumping massive amounts of sediment to create the layers.

What you would see from "rapid organized deposition" would be stratification of material from coarse at the bottom to fine at the top -- organized by Stoke's Law (basic physics). You would not see coarse layers covering fine layers.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 75 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 7:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 92 of 1255 (857292)
07-07-2019 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
07-07-2019 11:14 AM


Re: Losing message because of bracket poroblem
If you put in a bracket, a left-hand bracket anyway, and forget to close with the other bracket, you will lose everything after the left hand bracket. At least down to the end of the paragraph but I've lost whole posts that way. I'll put a bracket here

So don't use (square) bracket for text, use ( and ) or { and } instead.

The (square) bracket makes the software look for db codes (and the < makes the software look for html codes)

I've had the same problem when I forget to properly close a db coded section.

ALWAYS use preview and then you can recover by looking at your post text against the posting. This should also become apparent if you use peek or edit on the post.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 91 by Faith, posted 07-07-2019 11:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 98 of 1255 (857473)
07-08-2019 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
07-08-2019 3:41 PM


But YOU are "ignorant" of the fact that THIS Flood was not in the slightest comparable to "floods" of the sort that occur now, ...

First, not a fact, it's speculation and fantasy based on mythology.

Second, there is zero evidence that

  • the character of floods changes with the size of the floods, and
  • a single flood happened at one time

... that the very least its magniture was millions of such floods combined, ...

and water is still water, gravity is still gravity, physics is still physics.

A wind storm is a wind storm and a hurricane is a hurricane, and the amount of damage that occurs in a hurricane vs a wind storm is a matter of degree, not in the kind of damage. A hurricane does not sort debris or make alternating layers.

... but because it was also the rising of the oceans over the land it brought phenomena that couldn't have occurred in a local flood. ...

And we have the evidence of what happens from the Black Sea flooding due to rising sea:

quote:
The Black Sea deluge is the most well known of three hypothetical flood scenarios proposed for the Late Quaternary history of the Black Sea. It is one of the two of these flood scenarios proposing a rapid, even catastrophic, rise in sea level of the Black Sea occurred during the Late Quaternary.[1][2]

In 1997, William Ryan, Walter Pitman and their colleagues first published the Black Sea deluge hypothesis. They proposed that a catastrophic inflow of Mediterranean seawater into the Black Sea freshwater lake occurred at 7,200 BP.[3] Before that date, glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes draining into the Aegean Sea. As glaciers retreated, some of the rivers emptying into the Black Sea declined in volume and changed course to drain into the North Sea. The levels of the lakes dropped through evaporation, while changes in worldwide hydrology caused overall sea level to rise. The rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus. The event flooded 155,000 km2 (60,000 sq mi) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. According to the researchers, "40 km3 (10 cu mi) of water poured through each day, two hundred times the flow of Niagara Falls. The Bosporus valley roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days. They argued that the catastrophic inflow of seawater resulted from an abrupt sea-level jump that accompanied the Laurentide Ice Sheet collapse and the following breaching of a bedrock barrier in the Bosporus strait. As proposed, the Early Holocene Black Sea flood scenario describes events that would have profoundly affected prehistoric settlement in eastern Europe and adjacent parts of Asia and possibly was the basis of oral history concerning Noah’s Flood.[3] ...


Again, there is no evidence of any different character for this flood compared to other floods. Just a difference in degree.

... But this is of course all speculative, because there is no way for us to witness what actually happened in the past. ...

We don't need to witness prehistoric volcano eruptions to know what they are like: we compare them to modern day eruptions and see what is similar. The same with floods, and with non-catastrophic events like erosion and deposition of sediment in the ocean bottom.

... You can't and I can't, and your speculations are based on ...

... evidence and comparing evidence in the past to evidence left by modern events and seeing what is similar.

... your speculations are based on a false correlation ...

That you have not demonstrated. Constantly repeating this assertion does not make it any more valid when you have no evidence of error in the determination of the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

...and have no more authority than mine ...

Our model has the authority of explaining all the known evidence with processes we see occurring today and producing the same results as seen in the geological record, coupled with the scientific validity of dating methods that have been validated again and again.

Yours, when you say ...

... in which I try to envision how this worldwide drowning of the entire earth could have sorted things as we see it did. ...

... shows you are just making stuff up that is not supported by evidence OR the bible. Recognizing that your concept is pure speculation does not mean that other models are speculative.

.. You say it couldn't but you can't possibly know and your assertions are not at all compelling. ...

There is no evidence of any mechanism to sort fossils by development of traits, to sort radioactive isotopes by the parent/daughter ratios, or to create multiple layers of alternating sediment densities and type ...

... other than time and the same processes we see today.

... Truly I see the establishment explanation as so nonsensical I can't consider it a real threat to the Flood point of view.

Summary: I'm certainly not ignorant of it, I reject it.

That's your prerogative. Wilful ignorance is always an option for those who want to believe fantasy.

that sediments fall out of suspension heaviest/densest first,

I don't see how I'm ignorant of this or what possible application it has to anything I've said.

Quite simply it demonstrates that you cannot lay down layers of sediment of alternating densities and type from a single flood event no matter how you manipulate your imagination.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : -


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 96 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 3:41 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 138 of 1255 (857538)
07-09-2019 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
07-08-2019 6:24 PM


three strikes ... you're out
The Flood explains sedimentary layers better.

A single flood can explain a single layer. It cannot explain two or more layers, because multiple deposition just do not occur. You get one layer with sediment sorted from biggest particles to smallest particles. You do NOT get multiple layers with big dense particles on top of fine particles -- what is seen in the geological record -- from the deposition of flood sediment.

See The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1) Message 19: An Introduction to Sediment Deposition Rates

quote:
One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is the sedimentation rates of different particles, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others:

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.

Stoke's Law: V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 ...


... by assuming that g(d1-d2)/(18n) is relatively constant. High suspension velocity means the water needs to be very turbulent to pick up sand and gravel -- usually not a problem for a flood -- and it also means that any smaller particles are also picked up and mixed in the turbulent flow. Then, as the turbulence subsides, the large heavy dense particles are deposited followed by smaller and smaller particles, sorting them by size: large at the bottom small at the top. We see this pattern of deposition at river mouths with increasingly smaller particles being deposited further and further from the mouth of the river. Multiple layers of large particles over fine particles is just not possible with a single flood event.

Ergo a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.

It also cannot explain how sediments are deposited with radioactive elements sorted by their parent/daughter ratios, with sediments with the lowest parent/daughter ratios at the bottom and those with the highest parent/daughter ratios at the top. The ratios don't change the particle size, shape or density of the material.

quote:
Absolute Time
Radiometric Dating: the source of the dates on the Geologic Time Scale

Radiometric Dating

Actually a simple technique.
Only two measurements are needed:
1. The parent:daughter ratio measured with a mass spectrometer.
2. The decay constant measured by a scintillometer.

Basis of the Technique

As the parent element decays, its amount decreases while the amount of the daughter element increases. This gives us a ratio of parent:daughter elements.
The decay rate is geometric rather than linear. Unaffected by heat or pressure.

Parent and daughter particles would be separated in the turbulent mud, but once the sediments are deposited the daughter particles would occur next to the parent particles (in zircons and similar crystals). Dating measurements show the "geometric rather than linear" pattern consistent with geological age with the parent:daughter decreasing with increasing depth of sediments, layer by layer.

So -- irrespective of radiometric age calculations -- a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.

The same issue for fossils found in the sediments, not sorted by size/density, but sorted by traits and their development, and sorted so that there is a temporal/spatial matrix showing evolutionary development over time with related fossils nearby in time and geographical location.

Add to this the fact that deposits of marine environments show mature growth of the marine ecology gradually being covered by silts and the continuous growth of marine animals, corals, seaweeds and the like: brachiopods growing on top of older brachiopod shells and attached by their stalk/stem, fragile fan coral preserved whole, etc. etc. (see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for more).

So once again, a single Flood does NOT explain the observed sedimentary layers better than geological age and multiple deposition events.

+ also see Message 98.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : +


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 104 by Faith, posted 07-08-2019 6:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20034
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 265 of 1255 (857804)
07-11-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 10:06 AM


Re: Nope.
There is. The B.E.D.S model, inselburgs, (erosional remnants), experiments for progradation showing facies can be laid down both laterally and superposed in hydraulic conditions with flume experiments proving it. ...

I'll need more than this. I suspect creationist pratt.

Google Search results:

quote:
Your search - "B.E.D.S." model -beds - did not match any documents.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019