|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Ringo writes: Faith writes:
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. I guess we could consider what might have survived, but the Bible DOES say that whole world perished: 2 Peter 3:6 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Percy seems to be interpreting this particular diagram correctly.
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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: We’ve already won, time and again. That:# why you have to resort to these silly tactics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024