Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (9005 total)
35 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,107 Year: 12,855/23,288 Month: 580/1,527 Week: 19/240 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1573 of 2365 (869696)
01-04-2020 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1570 by Faith
01-03-2020 11:44 PM


Re: layers don’t represent time periods
The point is that you can't have a time period that is completely occupied by a rock.

Faith, can I clarify your understanding of what the science says about the formation of layers of rock ?

Science doesn't say that the rock turns up on day 1 as rock. There's loads of different ways it forms of course, but a lot of the stuff with fossils in it isn't rock when stuff is living on it or in it. It often starts off as accretions of soil, sand, dust, mud etc - all of the stuff we see on the surface of the world today.

The surface slowly gets buried over time, usually with dead stuff in it, by more mud, soil, dust etc., and over millions of years, that surface can get buried further, and get subjected to increased heat and pressure and lithified, turning it into the rock we're talking about. Sometimes, the dead critters are preserved in that process.

Then over a few more million years, that rock can get exposed again through tectonic activity, erosion, excavation and other means. Voila - rocks with fossils.

The point is that when the critters got stuck in it, it wasn't rock - it was growing piles/layers of soil, mud, dust, whatever.

You agree that that is what the science says, yes ? (In really broad terms - I'm not a geologist, so apologies to our members who are for any errors in this).


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1570 by Faith, posted 01-03-2020 11:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 1580 of 2365 (869722)
01-05-2020 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1579 by Faith
01-04-2020 9:40 PM


Re: Layers build slowly over time ... lots of time
What on earth do you think you are trying to prove by this? My point has been that the sediment/rock will DISPLACE LIVING THINGS in this "time period" whether landscape or marinescape, and obviously that is exactly what would happen. They'd get buried and possibly fossilize; but they'd no longer be living and passing on their genes.

They’d be living and passing on their genes on top of (or near to) the ongoing surface of the earth.

A good way to think about this, is to think about Roman villas and other remains in Britain. (If you want to watch a programme about this, see if you can access something called Time Team, which is a series of fun documentaries about archaeological digs in Britain - nothing too heavy, but enjoyable and interesting).

The villas and other remains were obviously enough built and inhabited by humans in Britain a couple of thousand years ago. Today, they are most commonly found buried beneath a couple of metres or so of soil/mud/sand etc. We have an accreting later of soil/mud/sand burying human stuff that was on the surface a couple of thousand years ago.

The obvious thing to point out is that in the intervening couple of thousand years, humans (and other plant and animal life) have continued to live on and occupy the surface of the land in question. The accreting new surface doesn’t prevent life continuing. (Indeed, one of the most common areas Time Team dig up is a farmer’s field, the very opposite of something which prevents life continuing). People and critters continue to live above the previous layers of soil/mud/sand etc on which they previously lived.

In millions of years, it is possible, as the layers in question get buried deeper and become lithified, that a lot of this stuff gets fossilised in the process - and then in a few million years more, it gets exposed for people to discover. But whilst all this is going on, the earth has a whole series of new surfaces being created (as is the case with the surface of Britain since Roman times, burying the buildings and other stuff, over time) upon which life continues.

Life doesn’t lie down and wait to be covered by the accretions soil/mud/sand etc - it walks on top of it. This stuff doesn’t drop down in billions of tons worth of quantities in seconds flat (mud slides and volcanic eruptions etc aside) - it accretes really slowly, over time. Does that help with following what the science says ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1579 by Faith, posted 01-04-2020 9:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1581 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 1:57 AM vimesey has responded
 Message 1583 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 2:03 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1582 of 2365 (869724)
01-05-2020 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1581 by Faith
01-05-2020 1:57 AM


Re: Layers build slowly over time ... lots of time
What the science says is that it becomes a rock, after it gets buried underneath a whole series of new layers of surface, and more and more weight and heat and pressure gets placed upon it, until eventually it gets turned into rock (ie lithified). It only becomes rock long after it gets buried beneath a series of new surfaces. Science doesn’t say it starts off as rock. Does that help ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1581 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 1:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1584 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 2:06 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1585 of 2365 (869727)
01-05-2020 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1583 by Faith
01-05-2020 2:03 AM


Re: Layers build slowly over time ... lots of time
The rocks in the geological column are a sequence of former surfaces which became rock (lithified) a long time after they got buried beneath a whole sequence of new surfaces. They weren’t rock when they were surfaces, or recently buried - that process took millions of years. This is part of what you will need to process, in order to understand what the geological column represents - it’s a way of describing and classifying processes which are slow, gradual and take an enormous amount of time.

The geological column is not a stack of rocks which appeared fully formed out of the sky. It’s a description of the sequence in which the surface layers in a particular area accreted on top of each other, got buried over millions of years, and then got lithified through pressure and heat, over further millions of years.

Rocks don’t bury the geological column - new surfaces do, which become rocks millions of years later.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1583 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 2:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1587 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 2:36 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1589 of 2365 (869738)
01-05-2020 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1587 by Faith
01-05-2020 2:36 AM


Re: Layers build slowly over time ... lots of time
In addition to jar’s extremely useful reminder as to the position in reality, you need to remember as well that the pressure which results in the lithification is immense, and massively compresses the volume of the material which eventually forms the rock. This serves to even out a lot of the lumps and bumps you’re referring to.

And you need to remember too that sedimentary rock is formed from the surfaces of relatively flat landscapes - plains, beaches, water beds etc - hilly and mountainous terrain is generally formed of rock already, at the time it’s at the surface.

Geology is a fascinatingly complex picture, and I envy those lucky enough to make its study their job. But the principles underlying much of it are fairly straightforward for non-professionals like me to grasp, in outline at least.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1587 by Faith, posted 01-05-2020 2:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1614 of 2365 (876986)
06-01-2020 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1612 by dad
06-01-2020 3:34 AM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
There is no science in so called sciences that deal in origins. The name is falsely applied.

Assertion.
No evidence.
Fail.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1612 by dad, posted 06-01-2020 3:34 AM dad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1617 by dad, posted 06-19-2020 1:38 AM vimesey has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1171
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1622 of 2365 (877599)
06-19-2020 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1617 by dad
06-19-2020 1:38 AM


Re: Just as the fact that there is no "Bible™" ...
Do you assert that the stories of science about origins are true?

Nah - I point out the Wiki page, which explains how the scientific method works:

Scientific method - Wikipedia

Then I invite anyone who disagrees with the science to present evidence for their particular flavour of woo (Christianity (or the relevant tiny sect of it), Hinduism, pink fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc).

Without evidence, you are, as a matter of definition, unable to attack the current conclusions of the scientific method.

In the absence of evidence which contradicts the current conclusions of the scientific method, those conclusions will continue to operate as valid. Accusing science of failing to address an unevidenced assertion doesn’t cut the mustard.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1617 by dad, posted 06-19-2020 1:38 AM dad has not yet 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