Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 451 of 2370 (858376)
07-19-2019 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Faith
07-19-2019 7:56 PM


Re: Granite example missed the point
The boulder interrupted what I was saying about the strata. I have no interest in it. It would take a lot of information about the environment in which it is found to figure out anything about it anyway. But I'm back in the strata myself and not interested. You of course who really do have geological knowledge (apart, of course, from all that historical hooha I mean) might have a notion about it you could most kindly and generously bestow upon us?
Well, it's not really a granite first of all. It was probably transported. Not very far, but the local bedrock would tell us this. It might be glacial.
ABE: Ah...
From the image address, I see that it is called an 'erratic', so someone else thinks that it is a glacial erratic.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 7:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 8:22 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 452 of 2370 (858377)
07-19-2019 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by edge
07-19-2019 8:16 PM


Re: Granite example missed the point
Not granite, wow, and here I accepted Percy's saying it was granite.
Transported, makes sense. Bedrock clue OK.
Glacial, good possibility, yes.
You really did bless us with your knowledge and here I was expecting the usual putdown. Thank you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by edge, posted 07-19-2019 8:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by edge, posted 07-19-2019 8:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 453 of 2370 (858378)
07-19-2019 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Faith
07-17-2019 6:33 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
Faith writes:
None of those sites existed before the Flood. You are welcome to your different view of the dates, but my view is biblical and the Flood is as far back as anything goes.
And there you go arguing from the Bible again. Where is your evidence that the Flood really happened and that there's nothing on Earth older than the Flood?
Evidence for either view doesn't really exist.
It's good that you recognize there is no evidence for your Flood, but science has both archaeological and radiometric evidence for the age of those sites. To mention just one, the evidence from Jericho is that it was first occupied about 11,000 years ago and has been fairly continuously occupied since about 6500 years ago. The deeper the archaeological layer the older the radiocarbon date. Jericho existed both before and after 4500 years ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 07-17-2019 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 8:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 454 of 2370 (858379)
07-19-2019 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Percy
07-19-2019 8:22 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
We disagree, I don't accept your dates, the Flood is my assumption based on the Bible and that is that. If it is going to be questioned at every turn there is no point in this discussion at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Percy, posted 07-19-2019 8:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by edge, posted 07-19-2019 8:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 459 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2019 1:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 491 by Percy, posted 07-20-2019 4:47 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 455 of 2370 (858380)
07-19-2019 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
07-19-2019 8:22 PM


Re: Granite example missed the point
Not granite, wow, and here I accepted Percy's saying it was granite.
Colloquially, it might be called a granite and, in fact, it may be granitic in composition (by chemical analysis), but it is almost certainly a gneiss. It is likely Precambrian in age, especially considering the internet source which is based in Ontario. I was going to guess New York (but I suppose the guy's clothing kind of gives him away ).
You really did bless us with your knowledge and here I was expecting the usual putdown. Thank you.
If someone asks an honest question I can be very congenial. Unfortunately, I find the most YECs do not really ask questions. They just want to preach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 8:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 456 of 2370 (858381)
07-19-2019 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Faith
07-19-2019 8:27 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
We disagree, I don't accept your dates, the Flood is my assumption based on the Bible and that is that. If it is going to be questioned at every turn there is no point in this discussion at all.
This is what I was talking about in my last post. YECs typically want to end the discussion. This is largely because the facts are against them and dismissal + denial is the only way to escape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 8:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 8:47 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 457 of 2370 (858382)
07-19-2019 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by edge
07-19-2019 8:44 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
There is no intent there to end the disacussion. The Flood is my basic assumption, there is no way to get rid of that fact without ending the discussion, so Percy's endless complaining about it is what would end the discussion. Leave it alone, it's my assumption, I am engaged in explaining most of these issues on its basis. if that is not acceptable SAY SO AND WE CAN END THIS CHARADE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by edge, posted 07-19-2019 8:44 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Percy, posted 07-20-2019 4:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 458 of 2370 (858383)
07-19-2019 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by ringo
07-17-2019 7:33 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
Ringo writes:
Faith writes:
I guess we could consider what might have survived, but the Bible DOES say that whole world perished: 2 Peter 3:6
What "perished" is not the issue. You were talking about sites such as Ur, Jericho, Sidon and Rujm el-Hiri. The Bible doesn't say anything about such sites being destroyed.
Faith is arguing from a Bible perspective again, but even though it isn't relevant in this thread the Bible does imply that God is going to do some serious damage to the Earth, which could be interpreted as also affecting any signs of civilization:
quote:
Genesis 6:13 So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."
But instead of citing the Bible, if Faith really believes the Flood washed away everything on the surface of the Earth then she should try to show that no evidence of human habitation exists anywhere in the world prior to 4500 years ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by ringo, posted 07-17-2019 7:33 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 459 of 2370 (858391)
07-20-2019 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Faith
07-19-2019 8:27 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
quote:
We disagree, I don't accept your dates, the Flood is my assumption based on the Bible and that is that.
Thanks for admitting that your beliefs are based on the Bible and not on the geological - or archaeological facts. I also note that rejecting the evidence because it contradicts your assumptions is hardly conducive to discussion.
quote:
If it is going to be questioned at every turn there is no point in this discussion at all.
The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether the Flood happened. Obviously questioning it is the main feature, not a sideline that can be dropped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 8:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 460 of 2370 (858392)
07-20-2019 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Faith
07-19-2019 7:11 PM


Re: Absurdity
quote:
I already explained that diagram but as usual you don't get it, though you always accuse me wrongly of misunderstanding the physical world. It's you who misunderstand it and say the most absurd things, as about the GC cross section years ago and then the shadow in the picture of the ledge of the Tapeats sandstone, and then the contact line between two layers whose identity I forget. You really have a terrible time understanding the physical world,but the problem for me is that your inability to understand becomes the standard you use against me.
Let us note that your explanation of the order of the fossil record is in conflict with physical reality. It is also in conflict with your explanation of trace fossils (which also doesn’t seem to fit with physical reality or your assertion that the Flood obliterated the pre-Flood world). And there are more examples.
Percy seems to be interpreting this particular diagram correctly.


How did that irregular boundary between the layer running across the center with the little circles in it and the one below form if the Flood always left behind flat and originally horizontal strata?
The irregularities in the lower contact have no clear relationship to those in the upper contact. Indeed, we can see that the thickness of the dotted formation varies according to the presence of irregularities in the lower contact. The obvious interpretation is that those irregularities were in place when the dotted formation was deposited, and were filled by the sediment. Unless you have evidence to the contrary that interpretation is obviously reasonable and obviously in line with physical reality.
quote:
The diagram is of the strata long after they were laid down straight and flat and horizontal, then after the tectonic upheaval that broke off the strata to the left and knocked down the rest into those "slices of bread" across the surface of the island, and ALSO pushed the right side of the strata beneath what is now the island's sea level, where over time their remaining saturated with water and never drying out distorted them.
That's my interpretation.
Let us note that there is no explanation there, just the assumption that you are correct no matter what. That hardly demonstrates an understanding of physical reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 07-19-2019 7:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Faith, posted 07-20-2019 8:41 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 462 by edge, posted 07-20-2019 8:51 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 461 of 2370 (858397)
07-20-2019 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by PaulK
07-20-2019 1:31 AM


Re: Absurdity
Let us now note that you are making up any old thing you can think of to discredit anything I say and support Percy and the whole thundering herd of people who are anti-creationist here. Maybe if you trample me to death you'll win?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2019 1:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2019 8:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 462 of 2370 (858399)
07-20-2019 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by PaulK
07-20-2019 1:31 AM


Re: Absurdity
Percy seems to be interpreting this particular diagram correctly.
How did that irregular boundary between the layer running across the center with the little circles in it and the one below form if the Flood always left behind flat and originally horizontal strata?
The irregularities in the lower contact have no clear relationship to those in the upper contact. Indeed, we can see that the thickness of the dotted formation varies according to the presence of irregularities in the lower contact. The obvious interpretation is that those irregularities were in place when the dotted formation was deposited, and were filled by the sediment. Unless you have evidence to the contrary that interpretation is obviously reasonable and obviously in line with physical reality.
This detail of the diagram is packed with information that most people may not be able to see. Every line and every dot and smudge has a very specific meaning. There is so much that I cannot take the time to begin an explanation, but if there are specific questions, anyone feel free to ask.
A couple of basic observations are important, however. First, there are three unconformities separating four distinct packages of rocks in the diagram. Each one has a story and the deeper you go, the longer story. Each of those unconformities are erosional in nature. We can tell by the oval-shaped symbols just above the jagged unconformity line. They denote gravel deposits and there are gravels just above each one of the unconformities.
The curious thing is that the gravel fragments are composed of the same rock that occurs below the unconformity. They are what we call 'locally derived'. The implication here is that those cobbles and boulders were completely lithified prior to erosion. Otherwise, they would not survive the mechanical erosion producing the unconformity surface.
This happens three times in the history as depicted in the detailed diagram.
The lowest unconformity is the Great Unconformity that we all know about. The second one is the one visible at Siccar Point placing the Old Red Sand over older rocks, and the third one is the where the sea transgressed a third time depositing the New Red Sand (and the fourth package of rocks).
Note that the rocks below the Old Red Sand are shown schematically as folded, whereas the ones above (packages three and four) are simply tilted. Again, this is the situation at Siccar Point. This shows that there was a tectonic event prior to the Old Red. The tilting occurred much later after much or all of the third and fourth rock package were deposited.
The whole point here is that William Smith's work, over 200 years ago, absolutely demolishes Faith's biblically forced interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2019 1:31 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 07-20-2019 8:56 AM edge has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 463 of 2370 (858400)
07-20-2019 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Faith
07-20-2019 8:41 AM


Re: Absurdity
quote:
Let us now note that you are making up any old thing you can think of to discredit anything I say and support Percy and the whole thundering herd of people who are anti-creationist here.
Let us note that I am not making up any old thing. That is what you do. Let us also note that you have no sensible answer to my points. As is commonly the case.
quote:
Maybe if you trample me to death you'll win?
We’ve already won, time and again. That:# why you have to resort to these silly tactics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Faith, posted 07-20-2019 8:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 464 of 2370 (858401)
07-20-2019 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by edge
07-20-2019 8:51 AM


Re: Absurdity
1, Smith didn't make a diagram of the lower strata did he? Those you are talking about I mean, that are below sea level.
2. Did all the unconformities you are talking about occur during the time these strata were beneath sea level, or before that happened?
3. I know you think it's obvious but I don't get why you think Smith demolished anything I've said.
4. You're going to kill me anyway, but I thought I'd mention in advance that any interpretation I come up with is going to disagree with your dating. Maybe by the time I figure it out you'll have lost the urge to strangle me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by edge, posted 07-20-2019 8:51 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by edge, posted 07-20-2019 9:29 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 465 of 2370 (858402)
07-20-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
07-17-2019 8:34 PM


Re: the UK diagram
Faith writes:
I finally figured out that your diagram was taken from the UK cross section.
No shit, Sherlock. What gave it away? Was it where I said, "I've magnified the diagram and put the layer with the little circles in roughly the center." Here it is again:


You want to know how the Flood did that but I never said the Flood did that and I don't believe the Flood did that, not as we see it now.
You do love your pronouns. When you say, "I never said the Flood did that and I don't believe the Flood did that," what are you referring to? Everything in the whole diagram? Everything in the portion I cropped and magnified? Just the boundary between the layer with the little circles in it and the one below? And if the Flood didn't do it (whatever "it" is) then what did do it, and what other things did it do? This contradicts your claim that world geology is a result of the Flood.
Of course I believe the Flood originally laid down all those strata straight and flat.
But as the above diagram shows, they're not straight and flat and could never have been straight and flat.
After that tectonic upheaval tilted the upper rocks.
Everyone agrees the tectonic forces created the tilting.
It's hard to picture what it did to the lower parts of those strata at that point but after the Flood receded in this case it left a lot of the strata under water and the irregularities have to be the result of that.
"Being under water," is not an answer and is certainly not evidence of anything. Please describe the evidence you've collected that leads to the conclusion that water somehow created the very irregular boundary between the layer with the little circles in it and the one below. Also present your evidence that whatever happened took place around 4500 years ago.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Provide improved image.
Edited by Percy, : Provide improved image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 07-17-2019 8:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 07-20-2019 9:26 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024