quote: The Greenland ice sheet didn't exist before the Flood, was probably the result of the ice age that followed the Flood.
The Greenland ice sheet is a lot older than you say your Flood is.
quote: It is true that the timing of tree rings and ice cores has to be wrong if the Flood is true so I put those in the column on your side for now.
Along with every other dating method used by archaeology and geology.
quote: 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.
Donâ€™t be ridiculous. Aside from the sheer volume, the time required for lithification, the fossils, the evidence of arid conditions, the heavy erosion of some strata - and more all point to long periods of time as the explanation rather than a single Flood.
quote: You either see it or you don't.
You donâ€™t see it, you just fantasise it. But ignorant day-dreams are no substitute for real science.
quote: Besides which there is still the problem of the perfect straightness and flatness of the sedimentary layers as well as their simple one-sediment composition in so many cases, that defies the whole idea of such regular deposition over millions of years to be the burial grounds of different collections of fossils.
Within the eastern Grand Canyon, it consists of thin, discontinuous lenses, and relatively inconspicuous lenses that fill paleovalleys cut into the underlying Muav Limestone
Later there is more on these paleovalleys
The Temple Butte strata filling these paleovalleys consist of interbedded mudstone, sandstone, dolomite, and conglomerate â€“ that vary in color from purple, reddish-purple, to light gray. Typically, the paleovalley-fill consists of a distinct pale, reddish purple dolomite or sandy dolomite. These paleovalleys range in depth from as much as 100 feet (30 m), to as shallow as 40 feet (12 m)
Jumping back to text dealing with the remaining area
Within the western and central parts of the Grand Canyon, the Temple Butte Limestone consists of a westward thickening layer of interbedded dolomite, sandy dolomite, sandstone, mudstone, and limestone that vary in color from purple, reddish-purple, dark gray, to light-gray.
So, certainly not flat, certainly not consisting of a single type of sediment. And that is far from the first example you have been offered.
Re: Siberian Traps volcanics at the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary
And donâ€™t forget the Deccan Traps - formed at the end of the Cretaceous
This snippet is certainly of interest:
The Deccan Traps are famous for the beds of fossils that have been found between layers of lava. Particularly well known species include the frog Oxyglossus pusillus (Owen) of the Eocene of India and the toothed frog Indobatrachus, an early lineage of modern frogs, which is now placed in the Australian family Myobatrachidae. The Infratrappean and Intertrappean Beds also contain fossil freshwater molluscs.
The Intertrappean Beds also contain dinosaur and pterosaur fossils.
Re: Siberian Traps volcanics at the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary
quote: New topics keep getting brought up although I really don't want to be in this discussion any more. I know, however, that if I don't address them at all I'll be accused of running away when I've been shown to be wrong.
Igneous rocks were mentioned earlier and the Siberian and Deccan Traps are massive examples.
quote: But all this has been discussed in the past. Mostly it seems I concluded the traps were either all igneous layers rather than part of the geologic column, or where interspersed were sills and not layers put down in order.
As usual you make things up in order to dismiss the evidence.
quote: I'm sure you'll object to this but I keep saying I don't want to be on this thread and I need to get off it.
Of course you do. Your claim to have geological evidence for the Flood is being destroyed yet again. And you donâ€™t want to see that. You just want to pretend it never happened.
I didnâ€™t make it up. Itâ€™s pretty obvious that itâ€™s part of your ideas. You want massive volumes of sediment deposited in a single year.
quote: I can make up "rapid organized depositionâ€
Making up nonsense is your main argument, so go ahead and do it again. We both know that there is nothing to organise the sediments in the way that you need.
quote: You weren't there and neither was I but the results are there and the Flood did it.
And there is your problem. You start by assuming the Flood and try to force everything to fit. But you werenâ€™t there. The only way to know if the Flood occurred at all is through the evidence. And the evidence says that it didnâ€™t. That is why you have to make up nonsense.
Re: Scoffers denying the *Second Coming* shall come in the last days
quote: Science does not judge the Bible, the Bible judges science and all of us and everything else.
According to your sectarian dogma. But your dogma is not the Bible, at best it is an interpretation of the Bible.
But then you refuse to argue the theology - which is odd because it is hard to imagine how you could understand it less than the science or have worse arguments. But I guess that must be the case - why else would you avoid the real issues ?
quote: Pretty clearly talking about one Flood there, as is also the case wherever else in the Bible the Flood is referenced.
And the author - even if it was Peter - might well have believed the Flood story and used it as a parallel to the sudden and unexpected end that was due to arrive soon. Except that it never did, and the scoffers were vindicated.
quote: But YOU are "ignorant" of the fact that THIS Flood was not in the slightest comparable to "floods" of the sort that occur now, that the very least its magniture was millions of such floods combined, 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.
Of course there is no reason to suppose that Percy is unaware of the proposed magnitude of the Flood. He just does not accept the idea that this would somehow produce the observed order in the fossil record. And he is being entirely sensible in doing so. No matter the magnitude of the Flood it isnâ€™t likely to change the laws of physics. Still less to change them in such a way as to produce the sorting we see. Still less to also explain all the other evidence against your idea.
â€œIt was a really incredibly humongous Flood, therefore it could do literally anythingâ€ is not even a remotely sensible position. Itâ€™s just another daft excuse you made up.
quote: But this is of course all speculative, because there is no way for us to witness what actually happened in the past. You can't and I can't, and your speculations are based on a false correlation and have no more authority than mine in which I try to envision how this worldwide drowning of the entire earth could have sorted things as we see it did.
The idea that all ideas about the past are equal is ridiculous. Some ideas are plainly nonsense.
quote: You say it couldn't but you can't possibly know and your assertions are not at all compelling. Truly I see the establishment explanation as so nonsensical I can't consider it a real threat to the Flood point of view.
That is because you willfully misunderstand the evidence. Let us not forget some of the nonsense you have made up, such as the idea that depositional environments are uninhabitable wastelands (a truly laughable invention of yours)
quote: Summary: I'm certainly not ignorant of it, I reject it.
Let us say that the fact that you reject it as being ridiculous is evidence to the contrary. The fact that you embrace a genuinely ridiculous idea hardly helps your case.
So let us note that I was right. My helpful advice did not get through. You repeat the same errors and no doubt you will refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. Even though the responsibility is all yours.
quote: Assume what you like. Your contribution is nothing to brag about.
It is still better than yours. And that is your problem. But you wonâ€™t fix it.
quote: Aw you feel insulted. Aw
Your arrogance is pretty insulting. You call people blind just because they donâ€™t agree with your ridiculous opinions. You canâ€™t accept that they are just being rational.
quote: But it's OK if I feel insulted, blasted, hayted, demeaned and psychologically murdered. Why? Because I'm *wrong* and thlnk you are wrong
It isnâ€™t OK, but itâ€™s your problem. You donâ€™t get anything worse than you dish out. You post ridiculous nonsense and expect it to be accepted as fact. Just on your say-so. So of course people disagree and ask you for evidence point out problems with your views and even mention that what you are saying really is nonsense. If you find that insulting that is really your problem.
quote: No I don't expect my speculations to be "accepted as fact,"
Really ? You donâ€™t expect us to believe that - for instance - geological formations are usually composed of only one sort of sediment ? If you are trying to use speculation as evidence you are making a very bad mistake.
quote: I would like them to be considered as interesting ways of looking at a problem.
The idea that the Flood somehow sorted the fossil record is not â€œan interesting way of looking at a problemâ€. To be interesting you would at least need to show that it is a reasonable possibility. And you donâ€™t even try. Saying that the Flood is so humongously big it could do literally anything isnâ€™t even sensible.
quote: And I'd rather not be raked over the coals for it
Youâ€™ll call people blind for not seeing â€œabsurditiesâ€ that are largely your invention, but you object to being called out when you propose genuine absurdities ? Spare us the hypocritical pretence of being the victim here.
quote: They did not overturn it on any scientific grounds. It was James Hutton's wild speculations that started that ball rolling but it was only wild human speculation and did not deserve scientific standing.
In reality it wasnâ€™t settled until Agassiz - the last creationist of any scientific stature - killed it off. And yes, Agassiz was doing science.
quote: Also their interpretations of the Flood were just as silly as they are now. No sense of the magnitude of the thing for starters.
In other words they were more sensible and didnâ€™t go in for the daft idea of attributing pretty much all the geological record to the Flood.
quote: And they accepted what seems to me to be the utter abbsurdity that time periods of millions of years of earth's history are memorialized in slabs of rock or identifiable sedimentary content bearing a peculiarly distinct set of dead things in each time period, fossilized in a remarkably consistent way over hundreds of millions of years despite the fact that fossilization needs very specific conditions which are not all that easy to come by.
Of course the reality is not at all absurd. Even if we accept the characterisation of the strata as â€œslabs of rockâ€ where else would buried remains end up ? In material that had become rock long ago ? In material that hadnâ€™t been deposited yet ? Obviously they will be buried by material being deposited at the time they were buried. Saying anything else would be truly absurd.
Fossils are found in areas where the conditions are more likely to occur. We have few fossils of chimpanzees since they live in areas where acid soil destroys remains, but many of marine creatures. And rarity is relative. It only means that the proportion of individuals that end up as fossils is low. That doesnâ€™t mean that it cannot occur many times given large populations and long periods of time.
Iâ€™d comment on the â€œconsistencyâ€ but - as is often the case - it is completely unclear what you mean. If it is just the order then it should be consistent. There is nothing absurd about that. If it is anything else you havenâ€™t said what it is.
quote: This is a truly abbsurd science, sorry
Because we should totally believe that a really humongous Flood can do anything and therefore it did everything.
Again, if you react so badly to criticism why bring it upon yourself by posting obvious nonsense ?
Theyâ€™re not going to just disappear. Some of them are going to get buried somehow.
quote: Excuse me if I get a little gruesome here, but I've been reading and watching a lot of stuff about ****** cases in which bodies are often disposed of in mountains and forests, and even if the victims are buried it's never deep enough to keep animals from digging them up and destroying them. If they are just on the surface they are destroyed by insects and microorganisms as well as animals. If they are found at all they are often found strewn all over the landscape and it doesn't take much time before there is nothing but bare bones, certainly not fossilized or in any condition to ever be fossilzed.
That is a weird objection. A typical vertebrate fossil is disarticulated â€œbare bonesâ€. Often just a few. Complete or near complete skeletons are much rarer. Arguing that fossils should be the way that they really are doesnâ€™t really work for you.
quote: Burial is not a natural thing that happens to dead things. You need special circumstances, and even if buried they aren't going to get fossilized without being saturated in mineral bearing water and compression helps too. These are all conditions provided by the Flood and very rare otherwise. The remarkably uniform conditions in which we find the fossils and their stratified gravebeds is really impossible to explain on the basis of time periods of millions of years.
I have no idea what makes you think that conditions are â€œremarkably uniformâ€. Buried by sandstorms or landslides or volcanic eruptions, or being swept along by a river buried where it is building up sediment or being covered in sediment at the bottom of an anoxic lake all seem fairly different to me.
quote: Nothing gets buried in rock. What are you talking about?
Your idea that it is absurd that we would see distinct things from different time periods in the fossil record. Obviously there is nothing absurd about finding creatures living at the time the material was deposited as fossils. Nor is there anything absurd about life changing over time.
quote: Yeah but as I said just getting buried at all is far from something to be expected.
It is not to be expected to happen to any particular individual. But that is a long way from expecting it not to happen at all. In fact we should expect it to happen to some, itâ€™s statistically inevitable.
quote: Oh for sure, but isn't it odd then that they occurred so regularly and consistently in such uniform conditions that stacked one on top of another with such neat contact lines in so many cases and such very specific sorted out corpses, all stacked one on top of another miles deep
Itâ€™s not that regular, the conditions are hardly uniform, the contact lines have nothing to do with fossilisation, the â€œspecific sorted out corpsesâ€ are a problem for your view as is the â€œstackingâ€.