But again this is just my karma, which of course I deserve, ...
But isn't karma the effects that are caused by your own actions? So you, through your own deeds, cause your own karma.
... , and again although I wish I had a solution I don't but maybe I will eventually.
Maybe a good idea would be to stop doing the misdeeds that you keep doing?
Do you remember The Bob Newhart Show (1972-1978; not his 1961 variety show) where he played a psychologist? Besides the regular patients, it featured one-time presentations of other patients.
One such patient was a very bitter middle-aged black man who complained constantly about how much everybody hated him, nobody liked him, just because he was black. Finally Bob suggested, "Maybe nobody likes you because you are a very unlikable person." "Wow! I never thought of that! Thanks, Doc!"
He had his breakthrough. You could have your breakthrough if you would allow yourself to.
Chemical lithification doesn't need thousands of years.
Chemical lithification? I had to look that up. From what I read it looks like chemical lithification is a term usually reserved for things like beachrock, a surface rock that doesn't take long to form because it's just sand and pebbles and shells glued together with organic material from coastal life. Compression isn't part of its formation, and usually it's pretty crumbly, though not always.
But we're talking about sedimentary rocks like sandstone, limestone, shale, slate, mudstone, etc., the types of sedimentary rock that comprise the vast preponderance of sedimentary layers and that only form at depth. They don't form through chemical lithification but through compression that expels water (due to the great weight of overlying layers) and through cementation. Some sedimentary rock evolves further through diagenetic processes (mostly additional chemical reactions).
Suppose you tell us how long sedimentary layers take to lithify, and how you know how long it takes?
And if you squash pores what happens to the water in them?
JonF answered this already, but in case it wasn't clear, he was explaining that because water moves very, very slowly in lithifying rock that it rules out your very short timeframe.
I poked around the Internet for just a few minutes looking for an authoritative source stating how long lithification of the major types of sedimentary rock takes, but I couldn't find one. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but a short search didn't find it, and any answer would have to be highly varied given the huge variation within each type of sedimentary rock.
But I was able to find a video of someone using a giant press to crush sand into sandstone. This video is positioned at precisely the spot where he determines the hardness of the sandstone he created (if you want to see how he created the sandstone disk you'll have to watch from the beginning). You only have to watch 20 seconds to see how soft and crumbly his sandstone is:
But was the pressure of his press as much as the pressure of, say, a mile of overlying sediments? To produce his sandstone disk he set up his press to deliver 100,000 psi. A mile of overlying sandstone yields a pressure of only 5500 psi. So even though he compressed his sand about 20 times more than a mile of sandstone, it wasn't enough to produce any cementation. Obviously it takes compression plus time. We just haven't yet been able to find out how much time.
But as JonF said, it takes time to force the water out of the pores, and it takes more time for the chemical reactions of cementation (the diagenesis part of lithification) to occur. These facts would seem to make fast lithification unlikely, but it would be nice if we could find some research on it.
Well, what I said is going to end up being true, ...
But what if you're wrong? You must realize that you can be wrong. You are, after all, a fallible human, the very type that often makes mistakes and gets things wrong. Unless you are secretly an Infallible Goddess (which even you have denied), then you are a fallible human who is as prone to any other fallible human to making mistakes and being wrong, more prone than some, maybe less prone than others.
IOW, you can be wrong!
quote:"As long as the world is turning and spinning, we're gonna be dizzy and we're gonna make mistakes." - Mel Brooks
There are consequences to being wrong, as well as causes and necessary corrective actions, all of which can be identifiable. The consequences can be either major or minor. The causes for being wrong could be easily apparent or not, minor or not. And the corrective actions could either be easy or difficult.
In the Navy, we had Operational Risk Management (ORM) training, which applies to all endeavors. Basically, you assess all the risks you can, all the things that could go wrong, and come up with plans to deal with them should they occur.
So, if you turn out to be wrong, what are the consequences? What is the worst that could happen? And why?
For example, if we are wrong about the age of the earth, then that would mean that we got something wrong in our understanding about nature. It would depend on how wrong we are. Off by millions or a couple billions of years would mean that we were wrong about a few things. That is good, because that's how we learn. Off by so much that the earth turns out to be only 6,000 years old and that would be devastating for science and technology. That would mean that everything we thought we knew about how everything works would be dead wrong. And since all our modern technology is based on that understanding and much of it directly on that understanding, then there would be no reason for any of it to work. That would be devastating, especially given no methodology to create an entirely new science.
Now, if you are wrong about the age of the earth, what would be the consequences and why?
Uh, a worldwide Flood would have flooded everything in the world, there's no need to name each part of it for that to be true.
I think the point is that a culture that didn't know that China even existed could not know whether it was flooded.
Let's say the flood was real, the ark was real, and it had lifeboats. How would Noah have enough crew to spare to row out in lifeboats to check if China (and Africa, and the Americas and other continents that they didn't know existed) were flooded? How would they position themselves over the peak of Mt. Everest to measure that the flood waters covered it to a depth of more than 15 cubits? How would they even know Mt. Everest existed? There's no indication they knew about it, since they seemed to believe Mt. Ararat a very tall mountain when it's dwarfed by Mt. Everest and the rest of the Himalayas. That is, how could Noah have ever established that the flood was actually worldwide and how high the waters rose?
Given all this, it doesn't seem possible for Noah and his family to have known how much of the world was flooded, and all indications are that they're mythical anyway. In a science thread you need a factual basis for your claims, not revelation.
Fun fact I discovered while looking up mountain heights: Mt. Ararat is higher than the highest mountain in either the Rockies or the Alps.
Why are the Bible writers taken for such iidiots? Of course they knew their own experience didn't define the world, and the Bible itself makes that clear. If the earliest writers were that limited certainly the later writers weren't and they wouldn't put up with the earlier accounts if they knew them to be false. But they treated them as God's own revelation. They knew there was a worldwide Flood, Peter described a worldwide Flood.
You should be using a factual basis for your arguments, not revelation. As an aside, this paragraph includes a couple contradictions. How would later Bible editors know if the Genesis authors actually knew the true extent of the flood, and why would it matter to them if they were treating those writings as "God's own revelation"?
Well, being a Bible literalist myself, though that term is not really accurate as some people misuse it, but anyway since I take the Bible as a revelation of the truth about everything, I know there were no rainbows before the Flood because it didn't rain before the Flood.
You have no factual basis establishing that there were no rainbows before the Flood, and no factual basis for the Flood, either.
A citation for lithification not needing thousands of years? You need a citation showing that it does rather than that it's just the usual assumption of people who are guessing as usual. But hey if I find a lab experiment that makes my point I'll post it for you.
Factual support is needed either way, but you should already have seen my Message 228 showing that compression by itself is insufficient for cementation. Even 20 times greater pressure than a mile of sandstone couldn't produce any cementation.
That's exactly what I meant by deserving it. And I am practicing stopping my misdeeds. Interestingly only a few of those that get labeled my misdeeds here are really my misdeeds. And there are extremely few if any of them on this thread.
Percy excoriated me in private for the personal focus of my post about the ancient idyuts, and it does sound llke a personal attack when I reread it so I'll say I'm sorry and aim for less personal terms in future.
But you should be using facts here in the science forums, not revelation. If the Flood really happened then the facts will support it.
I've never been sure what "the fountains of the deep" refers to, or "the windows of heaven" that were opened to allow the rain, but something dramatic happened that permanently changed the climate of the Earth.
What facts support a dramatic worldwide (I assume) event 4500 years ago? What facts support a permanent change in the Earth's climate at the same time?
The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
I'm not up on the thlnking about how there was rain before the Flood, I've understood the opening of the windows of heaven to refer to the first rain. I'm not sure it matters much since the forty days and nights of rain that began the Flood was far in excess of any other before or after, but it's something to thlnk about.
I've assumed there is no evidence that could be pointed to for the climate differences before and after the Flood, but I'd love to thlnk there is. There was already a big change at the Fall when Adam and Eve were cast out into a world changed from lush abundance to requiring hard labor to grow food and cope with thorns and thistles that apparently hadn't existed before. That may be the time of the biggest change but none of this is crystal clear from scripture as far as I know.
But of course I thlnk the evidence for the Flood itself is enormous and obvious wherever one looks around the Earth, including the strata and a general impression of a wrecked environment, and if that evidence isn't apparent to anyone else after all my arguments there's little hope in my mind that evidence for a climate difference would be apparent either.
I can point to thistles and thorns and the hard work of growing food, but that won't show a change, it will only be interpreted as the way it's always been. What evidence could there be of a former lush environment since it's all been destroyed?