Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 496 of 2370 (858507)
07-21-2019 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:27 AM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
quote:
This is impossible Percy, you know there is no way to prove the Flood happened beyond what I've said over and over and over.
It isn’t surprising that there is no way to prove the Flood if it didn’t happen. That you have to rely on assuming the Flood and trying (unsuccessfully) to force the evidence to fit is your problem. It certainly isn’t honest exploration of physical reality.
quote:
The strata prove it, but the strata have been co-opted to the supposed fossil record.
And by co-opted to the fossil record you mean that you have no explanation for the order of the fossil record. But that is certainly not the only evidence against a Flood origin for the strata, as we have been discussing.
quote:
They DO prove it Percy, they are good evidence for it since explaining it by the usual interpretation of millions of years is simply scientifically untenable, and all there is for that point of view is collective belief and assertion assertion assertion
That is one of your usual inversions of reality. The Flood explanation. Is scientifically untenable and supported only by dogmatic belief and assertion, assertion, assertion. That is what you are doing here. The fact that we know your assertions are false does not help you.
Indeed you are reduced to trying to set aside evidence from the strata, for instance by accusing me of making it up Message 461 or insisting that Steno’s Principle of Orignal Horizontality somehow rules out deposition on an irregular surface Message 471.
quote:
. If an untenable theory is believed by the majority what chance to I have to persuade you that my explanation of the strata is the true one?
More accurately, if there is a good scientific theory that explains the strata what chance do you have to persuade us to accept your religious dogma? That is the reality of the situation.
quote:
The strata themselves can only be explained by the Flood and the strata as I've shown many times on the Grand Staircase/Grand canyon cross section prove that the earth is young.
No, we have shown that it proves that the Earth is old and that the strata have a long, long history. You just assume otherwise and try to force everything to fit. And fail.
quote:
Oh yes all this is true but proving it to YOU and proving it to Edge and everybody else is what isn't possible.
That’s because your arguments are obvious nonsense. And no, that isn’t because of the conclusions - the arguments themselves are very, very bad.
quote:
I can only go on trying to make the same case because it proves exactly what I say it proves.
If the best you have is obviously rubbish, it’s time to be honest and admit that you don’t have a case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 497 of 2370 (858509)
07-21-2019 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by Percy
07-20-2019 5:59 PM


evidence?
And you're saying that the Flood deposited sediments flat and horizontally, and then tectonic forces and the state of being water saturated caused the strata to take the form they currently have. Can you describe how that happened for just one stratum? Specifically, how did tectonic forces and water saturation transform the originally flat and horizontal and uniformly thick circle-filled stratum into it's current appearance. Here's a closeup of its most irregular portion:
Take the whole length of the island with its slice-of-bread tilted rocks from Cambrian on the left to Holocene on the right, and stand the whole length of it upright on top of the granite mountain on the left. Doing that will drag along all the wavy strata beneath the island proper, that has been the subject of this discussion, and I hope this is clear because I don't know how else to say it -- again, standing the tilted rocks that extend all the way across the island upright on top of the granite mountain to the left will drag all those wavy irregular strata with them, right? Right? Please make an effort to visualize this. In their current state they won't be nice and straight but originally they would have been, horizontal, flat and straight from left to right. Yes? Yes?
About your Flood and original horizontality, that's not really possible for the first sedimentary layer deposited on the former land, is it.
It has to be. The strata would not have been laid down across the island as they now are, a parade of tilted rocks representing all the time periods from THINKING to right, they would have been laid down from bottom to top as the geological column always is. Those broken off tilted rocks had to have been stacked one on top of another upright from the granite rock upward with the rocks now on the far right of the island at the very top of the tack, and all the strata beneath them extending out to the right of them. Those wavy strata would have been laid out originally flat and level from layer0222 to right across what is now the island. The island itself would have been under water during the Flood too.
When the Flood wiped clean the continental surfaces, it didn't also make them horizontal, flat and without features, did it? The land still had irregular contours and tended to become higher in elevation with distance from the original coast, didn't it? If that's the case, then the first sedimentary left must have been deposited upon a non-horizontal surface, right?
Yes, but I don't accept this idea that it followed the contours of the land, it settled so that the upper level was horizontal and flat. On this subject it shouldn't matter whether it's explained by the Flood or by the usual Old Earth explanation, it's obvious that the strata simply ARE flat and horizontal, NO NOT PERFECTLY, I"M NEVER left OF ANYTHING PERFECT, but as Steno understood it, all originally horizontal. This original horizontality is apparent in the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase and everywhere else we recognize them. This wavy strata beneath the UK island is what is unusual.
Can you explain how there could be scouring water flowing everywhere over the entire Earth and wiping the continents clean?
What else would forty days and nights of rain on every square inch of the surface do? It would saturate everything that could be saturated, it would make mudslides of all of it. Depending on how fast the sea rose up over the land it would have mixed with the sea water either as it rose or before it rose, I don't know how anyone could figure out which happened. It only takes a day of local heavy rain to bring down huge mudslides in those areas, and if it took a week before the sea rose any appreciable distance onto the land all that mud would already have flowed into the sea. Then been carried back up onto the land with its rising.
Water would start by flowing into the lowest basins, and then it would just keep flowing into these basins causing their water levels to rise. Rising water levels are not a violent flow and would not scour land surfaces.
\
It's the mudflows, the saturated sediments, that would scour the land. And the water/mud is going to fill the basin areas pretty fast at the rate of forty days and nights of incessant rain over every sequare inch of the earth Percy. Besides which the antediluvian land is generally supposed to have been a lot more regular, hills lower etc.
The coasts by the sea would have experienced minimal flow, wouldn't they, since the water was already right there and the coasts would have been covered in water very quickly.
I'm no mathematician but we're talking about the ENTIRE OCEAN SURFACE OVER THE ENTIRE EARTH having to rise, so it would depend on how much volume the "fountains of the deep" plus the forty days and nights of rain contributed how fast it rises. If it rises as fast as you suppose then yes there should have been a lot of muddy water rising at the coastlines.
Or are you imagining violent flows of water deep beneath the surface? If so, what would have driven these flows, and why don't we see any such flows in the oceans today, which cover 71% of the Earth. Can you describe for us any evidence of these flows?
I'm not postulating anything in particular about such flows that I know of and I don't get what your point is. Depends on how fast the ocean water rose how the mudflows from the land would meet up with it.
Perhaps you should seek evidence of the Flood on mountain sides, since once water covered everything but the mountainse flow should have greatly diminished, there no longer being any place for water to flow to. This means that the scouring would be much greater at the base of mountains than at the top. Shouldn't we be able to see this?
The mountains are normally understood to have been more like hills before the Flood. The mountains we have now were tectonically formed after the Flood so I wouldn't look to them for evidence of the rising of the Flood waters.
The general point here is that things that happen leave evidence behind, and the most significant event in the history of the Earth should have left massive amounts of evidence behind. Where is it?
I can say it again: there's tons and tons of evidence in the STRATA, Percy, THAT's what the Flood did, it made those layers2000 upon layers1111 of sediments with dead things in them, which in themselves are evidence of what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things on the earth, which it did, even wiping out whole Kinds such as the trilobites and making extinct some ancient forms of even the Kinds we still have today. And whatever of the land surface existed before the Flood was wiped out and/or covered up by the deposited sediments. I'd be happy to find MORE evidence of course but at the moment this seems to be IT. And it's a LOT.
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 493 by Percy, posted 07-20-2019 5:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2019 10:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 510 by Percy, posted 07-22-2019 11:34 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 498 of 2370 (858512)
07-21-2019 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:09 AM


Re: Absurdity
I have no personal problem with visualizing things on diagrams, dear dear edgie, so it would be only good debate form if you would stop personalizing everything I say.
Now THAT is funny.
I would really *****5 to be able to visualize how the collapsed strata beneath the island connect with such features as the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point -- those are what I mean by the collapsed strata, the ones that are all wavy beneath the flat horizontal ****** at the bottom of the tilted rocks on the island proper, which **** I'm referring to as sea level since it's AT sea level my dear edgie, and everything beneath it looks ***** it collapsed at some point, such as when the tilted rocks on the surface, that Smith called "slices of bread" all fell down into their current horizontal arrangement spread across the island, from what must have been originally an upright position to the far crazy3 on top of the granite rock, doing what strata do elsewhere, climbing up a few miles, the way they do in the Grand Canyon for instance.. ...
That's easy for you to say.
I recommend a logical, structured argument using standard grammatical tools.
I know I'm just a ***** creationist but this can't be all that hard for you to visualize and it makes sense too: the strata would have been laid down horizontally, right, or do you not agree even with that?
Jar explained this pretty conclusively in post 476. Have you not been reading the posts on this thread?
Horizontally across the island itself it looks ***** to me since it all starts there, on the crazy4 and all the wavy strata beneath the island are continuous with particular slices of bread ON the island. Right? Come on, make a tiny effort to humor the **** creationist and you'll see it makes sense. SO the strata beneath the sea level **** of the island, above which are the slices of bread rocks, -- beneath that *****, I say, are the continuation of the strata that were originally horizontal that "collapsed" into their currnent wavy situation.
What you are trying to say here?
OK, let me indulte YOU then since I'm talking into a whole different paradigm. YOU may ***** that even those under that sea level ******* were laid down as we see them, over hundreds of millions of years? Is that what I'm not getting here? I would have ******0 you would at least ******1 they were laid down over those hundreds of milions of years flat and horizontally and THEN collapsed into their current position.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. What do you mean by 'collapsed'? What is collapsing?
Oh well maybe communication is simply impossiible on this subject.
No one else here seems to be having a major problem.
ANYWAY I would LOVE to be able to visualize how the borttommost *****2 represents the same Great Unconformtity we find in the Grand Canyon.
If you can visualize a global flood, why can you not visualize a global unconformity?
I have had the understanding for some time that the GC extends maybe even across the entire Earth?
No, the Grand Canyon only extends to the limits of the Grand Canyon.
And then I'd love to be able to visualize how the Devonian-Silurian ******3 is expressed on the other side of the island at Siccar Point. A three dimensional model would be lovely to have.
Again, I'm not sure what you are tying to say. It is expressed as an angular unconformity exposed by erosion.
Is there any way for a geologist who believes in strata laid down over bazillionjs of years one by one, and a creationist who believes that the strata were laid down in one event over a year or two can communicate at all? Is it just that you dont WANT to accommodate my ******4 idea or that it's so different you can't? .
I'm not sure why anyone should 'accommodate your ideas' if they do not conform to reality.
Please concentrate on substance in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 07-22-2019 1:37 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 499 of 2370 (858514)
07-21-2019 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
07-21-2019 9:22 AM


Re: evidence?
quote:
Yes, but I don't accept this idea that it followed the contours of the land, it settled so that the upper level was horizontal and flat.
It’s interesting that you say that after rejecting the idea that sediment could be deposited on an irregular surface when I put it forward in Message 469. Indeed, Percy’s point is the one you say you agree with
Let’s go back to the diagrams:


And we will consider the layer filled with little circles that starts under the a in Devonian, also seen in the detail above.
As can easily be seen it varies in thickness, and those variations are caused by irregularities in the layers beneath it. In fact those layers show a good deal of folding that is not seen at all in the layers above - distinct from the more general tilting.
The conventional explanation is that these layers were tilted and folded before the layer with the circles was deposited. The variations in thickness are the sediment settling so that the upper surface was flat. And there is nothing in the diagram to contradict that.
So these wavy strata as you call them are not proposed as exceptions to original horizontality as you seem to think. The idea is that they were bent and folded after they were deposited - but before the layers on top of them were deposited.
And that really makes a lot of sense. We don’t need to violate original horizontality. We don’t have to propose that that folding or the erosion somehow occurred without leaving signs in the material above them - as you do.
But until you have a viable explanation for how we got this situation it stands as evidence of an Old Earth. And - as it is a genuine difficulty for your views - it’s better evidence than anything you’ve offered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 9:22 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 500 of 2370 (858542)
07-21-2019 3:53 PM


Faith’s claim to have evidence...
...is like using gunshot wounds as evidence of lead poisoning.
Sure, if the bullets are still in the body there is a lot of lead there. But that hardly overrides the evidence that the victim died from being shot.
And that is probably too generous.
The strata show clear evidence of having been deposited over a long period of time, in a range of conditions. The fossil record is incompatible with the Flood - even the numbers of some fossils seem to be too high. The evidence Faith claims supports her shows that she is wrong. She has no real evidence,

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 501 of 2370 (858549)
07-21-2019 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:09 AM


Re: Absurdity
Edge replied to this message already, but I wanted to address some things that he didn't. Apologies if I repeat some things he already said.
Faith writes:
I would really like to be able to visualize how the collapsed strata beneath the island connect with such features as the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point -- those are what I mean by the collapsed strata,...
I don't think anyone understands what you mean by collapsed strata. What is it about the strata of the Great Unconformity and Siccar Point that lead you to describe them as "collapsed?" By "strata of the Great Unconformity" I assume you're referring to the strata *below* the unconformity at the Grand Canyon, which would be the Supergroup.
...the ones that are all wavy beneath the flat horizontal line51 at the bottom of the tilted rocks on the island proper, which line I'm referring to as sea level since it's AT sea level...
So let's break out the diagram so we can see which wavy strata you mean:
I don't see any wavy strata just below sea level. Can you be more specific about where you mean by giving us some kind of guideposts, such as saying, "I'm referring to the strata just below sea level and beneath the word 'Cretaceous' in the diagram." Or even better, you could use peek on some of my previous posts to see how to zoom in on a small portion of the diagram, then you could display precisely the part of the diagram you're talking about.
...and everything beneath it looks like it collapsed at some point, such as when the tilted rocks on the surface, that Smith called "slices of bread" all fell down into their current horizontal arrangement spread across the island, from what must have been originally an upright position to the far left on top of the granite rock, doing what strata do elsewhere, climbing up a few miles, the way they do in the Grand Canyon for instance.. If I had a way to draw it I would.
First, the "granite rock" on the far left is not a granite rock. It is a mound of sedimentary layers. It is not anywhere as steep as it appears in the diagram because the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated. Here's a closeup of it. Look carefully and you should be able to see the lines that separate the layers of strata:


Second, I want to be sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the strata in the diagram to the right of this mound were once vertical, not horizontal, and that they were situated atop this mound in a vertical orientation? Do I have that right? If so, what evidence led you to this idea? What are you seeing in the diagram that suggests to you that this was once the case?
I know I'm just a crazy creationist but this can't be all that hard for you to visualize and it makes sense too...
If I understood you correctly then it's not hard to visualize at all, but it has got to be one of the most crazy ideas you've ever suggested.
...the strata would have been laid down horizontally, right, or do you not agree even with that?
Everyone agrees that horizontal deposition is what happens when other factors aren't present. Even sediments deposited upon a slope will tend to eventually become horizontal, as sediments tend toward the lowest point and will fill the lower elevations faster.
Horizontally across the island itself it looks like to me since it all starts there, on the left...
What does "it" refer to? That is, what is that you imagine started over there on the far left at the mound?
...and all the wavy strata beneath the island are continuous with particular slices of bread ON the island. Right?
Of course. There's nothing particularly special about current sea level. Sea levels rise and fall, and of course the strata will remain continuous through time unless faulting is somehow introduced.
Come on, make a tiny effort to humor the crazy creationist and you'll see it makes sense.
What makes sense? Again, if I understood you correctly, you're proposing that the strata were once in a ridiculous vertical configuration sitting atop that mound, but you haven't explained why you think that, or how such a configuration could have come about. Crazy is exactly the word for it. If it's not crazy then you're going to have to provide evidence and a rational explanation.
SO the strata beneath the sea level left of the island, above which are the slices of bread rocks, -- beneath that layer, I say, are the continuation of the strata that were originally horizontal that "collapsed" into their current wavy situation.
This is a very tough sentence to parse. I'm unlikely to interpret it correctly, but I'll give it a try. I'm going to assume that where you said "left of the island" (which would be off the diagram) that you really meant "on the left side of the island," because it would make no sense to speak of strata that are not on the diagram.
Given that assumption, you appear to be saying that the bottommost strata on the left side of the diagram that are below sea level are continuous with the strata to the right. I think we would all agree with this since that's precisely what the diagram appears to show. But I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you say those strata to the right "'collapsed' into their current wavy situation." Collapsed how? From being vertically stacked atop that mound?
So do I have that right? If so, then none of it makes any sense, particularly the part about the strata being vertically oriented atop the mound and then "collapsing" into their current configuration. One big problem is that distance from Snowdon to Harwich is about 200 miles, so if those strata were once vertical then they would have extended 200 miles into the sky, which is above the altitude of many satellites.
OK, let me indulge YOU then since I'm talking into a whole different paradigm.
If I understood you correctly, what you're suggesting isn't a paradigm so much as a collection of crazy ideas that have no evidence and appear to be self-evidently impossible.
YOU may think that even those under that sea level layer were laid down as we see them, over hundreds of millions of years? Is that what I'm not getting here?
I'm not familiar with the geology of England, but probably most if not all of the strata in the diagram (unfortunately there is no key) are marine. This stratigraphic diagram by Smith seems to indicate that they must all be marine, the only possible exceptions being the sandstone layers. Maybe Edge can confirm whether they're all marine or not:
I would have thought you would at least think they were laid down over those hundreds of millions of years flat and horizontally and THEN collapsed into their current position.
You are correct that we all believe the evidence of geology that these strata were deposited over the past 500 million years and were originally fairly horizontal and flat, except when deposited atop a layer that was not horizontal and flat. But I don't think anyone knows what you mean by "collapsed."
Oh well maybe communication is simply impossible on this subject.
Communication will be fine once you describe what some of the things you've said mean, such as the strata being configured vertically atop that mound, and the strata collapsing.
ANYWAY I would LOVE to be able to visualize how the bottommost layers represents the same Great Unconformity we find in the Grand Canyon.
I don't think the Siccar Point unconformity and the Grand Canyon unconformity are contemporaneous events. The Siccar Point unconformity is only about an 80 million year gap from 425 to 345 million years ago. The Grand Canyon unconformity is a roughly billion year gap from 1.7 billion to 550 million years ago. I don't see how they could be related.
I have had the understanding for some time that the GC extends maybe even across the entire Earth?
By GC I assume you really meant the Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon. The Great Unconformity is very unusual in it's great extent, but it is still only continent wide, not worldwide.
And then I'd love to be able to visualize how the Devonian-Silurian layer is expressed on the other side of the island at Siccar Point. A three dimensional model would be lovely to have.
Here's a stratigraphic diagram. You can see Hutton's Unconformity near the bottom:
Is there any way for a geologist who believes in strata laid down over bazillionjs of years one by one, and a creationist who believes that the strata were laid down in one event over a year or two can communicate at all? Is it just that you dont WANT to accommodate my line254 idea or that it's so different you can't?
It's not that your ideas are so different they can't be understood. It's that what you're trying to say often isn't clear, and when it is clear it's often impossible. Addressing my requests for clarifications and answering my questions would help make your ideas more clear.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Faith, posted 07-22-2019 1:09 PM Percy has replied
 Message 551 by Faith, posted 07-22-2019 8:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 502 of 2370 (858551)
07-21-2019 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:27 AM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
Faith writes:
This is impossible Percy, you know there is no way to prove the Flood happened beyond what I've said over and over and over.
You've said yourself that the Flood is an assumption. If you're correct then of course you can't prove it (prove meaning support with strong evidence and rationale). Repetition of ideas you've made up can't prove an assumption.
The strata prove it,...
What happened to the Flood being an assumption?
but the strata have been co-opted to the supposed fossil record.
It isn't just the fossil record. All the evidence points to an ancient Earth, none to your Flood.
They DO prove it Percy,...
Again, what happened to the Flood being an assumption?
...they are good evidence for it since explaining it by the usual interpretation of millions of years is simply scientifically untenable,...
Because why?
...and all there is for that point of view is collective belief and assertion assertion assertion.
You're just casting aspersions at science that shows your religious views wrong. Seek evidence instead.
If an untenable theory is believed by the majority what chance to I have to persuade you that my explanation of the strata is the true one?
A theory is shown untenable using argument supported by evidence, something you don't do. You instead write posts like this one.
The strata themselves can only be explained by the Flood and the strata as I've shown many times on the Grand Staircase/Grand canyon cross section prove that the earth is young.
I'm sure no one can fathom why you believe this.
Oh yes all this is true but proving it to YOU and proving it to Edge and everybody else is what isn't possible.
I think all of us here will follow wherever you're able to show the evidence leads.
I can only go on trying to make the same case because it proves exactly what I say it proves.
Yes, your majesty.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:37 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 503 of 2370 (858556)
07-21-2019 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Percy
07-21-2019 7:40 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
I used the word "assumption" in the specific context of defending the use of any biblical concept at all on this thread. I was insisting I have to have it or there's no argument. If assumption is the wrong word I'll use another. I've given the evidence many times, as I said, the strata and the fossils. That's the evidence, it's terrific evidence, but it's been co-opted to the ToE so I can't even say that it's good evidence. But it is. the best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Percy, posted 07-21-2019 7:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by JonF, posted 07-21-2019 8:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 553 by Percy, posted 07-23-2019 8:50 AM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 504 of 2370 (858560)
07-21-2019 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:37 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
"Assumption" seems right to me; something accepted without proof.
The evidence is the best evidence. All of it demands explanation and discussion of why it supports a particular interpretation.
Derogatory comments on the mainstream explanation are irrelevant, even though you have nothing else. Claims of impossibility are meaningless without demonstration why it's impossible. Rejecting explanations out of hand doesn't say anything about their viability.
As to your interpretation, it's clear that your claim it's supported by the evidence is wishful thinking. You can never explain why the evidence supports your interpretation. Without that explanation you're just blowing smoke out a lower orifice and nobody will be convinced. All your arguments boil down to "I don't know how it could have happened but I can't be wrong about the fludde".
You're human. You can be wrong. No matter how many times you say you can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:57 PM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 505 of 2370 (858561)
07-21-2019 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by JonF
07-21-2019 8:54 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
The "derogatory" comments are really analyses and arguments.
Water creates sedimentary layers in many situations. The Flood provided the best possible conditions fior burial of a great number of creatures as well as for their fossilization. The mainstream interpretation can't explain these things without going into contortions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by JonF, posted 07-21-2019 8:54 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2019 12:31 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 507 by JonF, posted 07-22-2019 10:27 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 506 of 2370 (858569)
07-22-2019 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:57 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
quote:
The "derogatory" comments are really analyses and arguments.
The analyses seem to be more than somewhat lacking.
quote:
Water creates sedimentary ****** in many situations.
Including, for instance, lake deposits which hardly fit your view.
quote:
The Flood provided the best possible conditions fior burial of a great number of creatures as well as for their fossilization
Many fossils were buried in less than ideal conditions - and there are certainly conditions better than a massive Flood which destroys everything. Slow burial by fine sediment in an anoxic lake bed is a really great set of conditions - and we have a very famous example. But I don’t see that happening in your Flood.
quote:
The mainstream interpretation can't explain these things without going into contortions.
You say that but I’ve yet to see any worthwhile argument. It seems to be just another of your attempts to pretend that your opponents are as bad as you. Or in this case only nearly as bad.
You really do have to go into contortions to explain the evidence - we still haven’t seen you reconcile your explanation of the order in the fossil record with your explanation of trace fossils - each of which would qualify as going into contortions on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 507 of 2370 (858586)
07-22-2019 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by Faith
07-21-2019 8:57 PM


Re: honest exploration of physical reality.
The derogatory comments are pointless derogatory comments. Calling something impossible or ridiculous without discussion is not analysis or argument. None of what you post is analysis or argument.
E.g. the without a discussion of exactly *how* the fludde sorted the fossils and how the coral reefs and paleosols wound up as they did you don't have the best explanation; you have no explanation.
But tell us about the "contortions" in mainstream explanations. What are those contort and what (other than your opinion) makes them unrealistic? Got any analysis or argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 8:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by jar, posted 07-22-2019 10:52 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 07-22-2019 12:55 PM JonF has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 508 of 2370 (858589)
07-22-2019 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by JonF
07-22-2019 10:27 AM


Maybe just a few explanations of how either Biblical Flood did ...
Maybe if we just limit the issue to a few examples Faith can present the model, mechanism, process or procedure to show how either of the Biblical Floods created even just the few examples.
  1. create millions of alternating layers of finer material covered by courser material,
  2. transport whole islands of coral intact and deposit them right side up,
  3. create and preserve wind blown sand dunes,
  4. leave tracks of critters and intact nests,
  5. sort biological samples by critter and plant and pollen by type.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by JonF, posted 07-22-2019 10:27 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2019 11:24 AM jar has not replied
 Message 511 by dwise1, posted 07-22-2019 12:20 PM jar has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 509 of 2370 (858599)
07-22-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 508 by jar
07-22-2019 10:52 AM


Re: Maybe just a few explanations of how either Biblical Flood did ...
6. Sort the rock and fossils by age - oldest deepest - and make radio dating match.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by jar, posted 07-22-2019 10:52 AM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 510 of 2370 (858603)
07-22-2019 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
07-21-2019 9:22 AM


Re: evidence?
Faith writes:
And you're saying that the Flood deposited sediments flat and horizontally, and then tectonic forces and the state of being water saturated caused the strata to take the form they currently have. Can you describe how that happened for just one stratum? Specifically, how did tectonic forces and water saturation transform the originally flat and horizontal and uniformly thick circle-filled stratum into it's current appearance. Here's a closeup of its most irregular portion:
Take the whole length of the island with its slice-of-bread tilted rocks from Cambrian on the left to Holocene on the right, and stand the whole length of it upright on top of the granite mountain on the left.
I don't understand why you quoted my paragraph - nothing you said in reply answers any of the questions. You said tectonic forces and being saturated with water caused the irregular shape of the stratum running through the center of this image:


Now you're presenting a completely different story, that the whole length of strata wass stood upright atop Snowdon. Read the caption at the top of the diagram. It says, "Diagram Section From Snowdon to Harwich, About 200 Miles." If you stood those strata upright they would reach way up into space.
Doing that will drag along all the wavy strata beneath the island proper, that has been the subject of this discussion, and I hope this is clear because I don't know how else to say it -- again, standing the tilted rocks that extend all the way across the island upright on top of the granite mountain to the left will drag all those wavy irregular strata with them, right? Right? Please make an effort to visualize this.
I think you should make an effort to visualize this, strata standing on end and rising a couple hundred miles into space.
In their current state they won't be nice and straight but originally they would have been, horizontal, flat and straight from left to right. Yes? Yes?
Again, no one doubts that deposition tends toward the horizontal. We're asking you how you explain non-horizontal and very irregular strata boundaries, like the one in the closeup above. So far you've offered two completely different explanations: a) tectonic forces and water saturation; and b) the strata stand on end on Snowdon and then collapse. Which is it? Either way, both have severe problems.
About your Flood and original horizontality, that's not really possible for the first sedimentary layer deposited on the former land, is it.
It has to be.
And then in the next paragraph you concede that it doesn't. Inconsistent much?
Those broken off tilted rocks had to have been stacked one on top of another upright from the granite rock upward with the rocks now on the far right of the island...
You've been saying "far left" up until this point, so I assume you really meant "far left" and not "far right" here. Stop messing with your disallowed words. They're still available from peek.
...at the very top of the stack, and all the strata beneath them extending out to the right of them. Those wavy strata would have been laid out originally flat and level from left to right across what is now the island. The island itself would have been under water during the Flood too.
So if all the strata were submerged when the important events happened, why do you keep talking about the strata above sea level separately from the strata below sea level?
When the Flood wiped clean the continental surfaces, it didn't also make them horizontal, flat and without features, did it? The land still had irregular contours and tended to become higher in elevation with distance from the original coast, didn't it? If that's the case, then the first sedimentary left must have been deposited upon a non-horizontal surface, right?
Yes, but I don't accept this idea that it followed the contours of the land, it settled so that the upper level was horizontal and flat.
This is where you contradict what you said earlier. You evidently do understand that sediments deposited upon a non-flat non-horizontal will result in a non-flat non-horizontal boundary. So why are you insisting that the irregular lower boundary of that stratum with circles formed in some other way than simply that the lower surface was already that way when the sediments were deposited atop it.
And of course the sediments deposited atop it will tend toward the horizontal since the lowest regions tend to fill with sediment faster. Snow examples might not be helpful to people in Nevada, but that's how it works. The snow falls evenly everywhere, but the lowest points fill in faster and after a heavy snowfall you can look out at your front steps and see nothing but a smooth slope.
On this subject it shouldn't matter whether it's explained by the Flood or by the usual Old Earth explanation, it's obvious that the strata simply ARE flat and horizontal, NO NOT PERFECTLY, I'M NEVER THINKING OF ANYTHING PERFECT, but as Steno understood it, all originally horizontal. This original horizontality is apparent in the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase and everywhere else we recognize them. This wavy strata beneath the UK island is what is unusual.
Still not sure what you mean by wavy strata. Maybe all you mean is strata that aren't flat and horizontal, that they're not like the strata at the Grand Canyon when viewed from a distance? There's no mystery. The distortions in the layers of the diagram were caused by forces of uplift and subsidence, possibly tectonic.
Can you explain how there could be scouring water flowing everywhere over the entire Earth and wiping the continents clean?
What else would forty days and nights of rain on every square inch of the surface do?
How do you know how much rain there was? What evidence do you have for the amount of water from rain versus the fountains of the deep?
And just from a practical standpoint, how do you imagine scouring water flowing everywhere upon the earth. Consider a hill, for example. Where is the scouring flow of water across the top of the hill going to come from? At some point the top of the hill will just be an island in the middle of a vast sea. Where is the scouring flow of water going to come from that removes this hill from the landscape?
It would saturate everything that could be saturated, it would make mudslides of all of it.
What evidence do you have of widespread mudslides 4500 years ago?
Depending on how fast the sea rose up over the land it would have mixed with the sea water either as it rose or before it rose, I don't know how anyone could figure out which happened.
The way you figure out what happened is to look at the evidence. If you don't know how to figure out what happened then why are you telling us what happened?
It only takes a day of local heavy rain to bring down huge mudslides in those areas,...
How much of the world are you imagining was vulnerable to mudslides? In your view the pre-Flood world didn't have mountains but only low hills with mild slopes, and it was extremely lush with vegetation that would anchor the soil.
...and if it took a week before the sea rose any appreciable distance onto the land all that mud would already have flowed into the sea. Then been carried back up onto the land with its rising.
And your evidence for this?
Water would start by flowing into the lowest basins, and then it would just keep flowing into these basins causing their water levels to rise. Rising water levels are not a violent flow and would not scour land surfaces.
It's the mudflows, the saturated sediments, that would scour the land. And the water/mud is going to fill the basin areas pretty fast at the rate of forty days and nights of incessant rain over every square inch of the earth Percy. Besides which the antediluvian land is generally supposed to have been a lot more regular, hills lower etc.
So let's say the water is collecting in a basin at a very rapid rate, and the water in the basin is also expanding at a very rapid rate of 1000 feet/hour. That's only a few inches per second and is a very mild flow. Where do you imagine your violent scouring water flows are coming from?
The coasts by the sea would have experienced minimal flow, wouldn't they, since the water was already right there and the coasts would have been covered in water very quickly.
I'm no mathematician but we're talking about the ENTIRE OCEAN SURFACE OVER THE ENTIRE EARTH having to rise, so it would depend on how much volume the "fountains of the deep" plus the forty days and nights of rain contributed how fast it rises. If it rises as fast as you suppose then yes there should have been a lot of muddy water rising at the coastlines.
That doesn't answer the question. If the sea coast was submerged by rising water, then there was no scouring flow there. Right?
Or are you imagining violent flows of water deep beneath the surface? If so, what would have driven these flows, and why don't we see any such flows in the oceans today, which cover 71% of the Earth. Can you describe for us any evidence of these flows?
I'm not postulating anything in particular about such flows that I know of and I don't get what your point is. Depends on how fast the ocean water rose how the mudflows from the land would meet up with it.
That doesn't answer the question, but I agree that it depends upon what actually happened. What evidence do you have of what actually happened?
Perhaps you should seek evidence of the Flood on mountain sides, since once water covered everything but the mountains flow should have greatly diminished, there no longer being any place for water to flow to. This means that the scouring would be much greater at the base of mountains than at the top. Shouldn't we be able to see this?
The mountains are normally understood to have been more like hills before the Flood. The mountains we have now were tectonically formed after the Flood so I wouldn't look to them for evidence of the rising of the Flood waters.
But you should still be able to find pre-Flood hills and study if the pattern of scouring supports your scenario. That would be evidence. If you think every pre-Flood hill was washed away, then what is your evidence of that?
The general point here is that things that happen leave evidence behind, and the most significant event in the history of the Earth should have left massive amounts of evidence behind. Where is it?
I can say it again: there's tons and tons of evidence in the STRATA, Percy, THAT's what the Flood did, it made those layers upon layers of sediments with dead things in them, which in themselves are evidence of what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things on the earth, which it did, even wiping out whole Kinds such as the trilobites and making extinct some ancient forms of even the Kinds we still have today. And whatever of the land surface existed before the Flood was wiped out and/or covered up by the deposited sediments. I'd be happy to find MORE evidence of course but at the moment this seems to be IT. And it's a LOT.
You haven't cited any evidence. All you've done is told farfetched stories. The strata give every appearance of being slowly deposited over long time periods in a variety of depositional environments. The order of the strata is contrary to a flood cause. The distribution of fossils is antithetical to a flood cause.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 07-21-2019 9:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 07-22-2019 3:15 PM 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