Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic - Parallel Thread

quote:

---

TC: "The soil itself is 1470 Billion years old, however, no sedimentary deposits began to accumulate above it for 1Ga and so this supports a Cambrian/pre-cambrian beginning for flood deposits."

---

Rubbish. There is no way to tell if the soil is of that age. According to TC himself, the soil on this site could have been washed away two days earlier and then redeveloped by the dawn of the Cambrian. All we can really say is that the development of this soil was interrupted by the superdeposition of the Lamotte Sand. Just as Buddika will find, TC cannot comprehend this simple fact and will repeat his misunderstanding indefinitely.

quote:

---

Buddika: Great argument. Now all you have to do is explain how this supports your case for a flood just 4-5,000 years ago.

---

Heh, heh, heh....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Possibly, thought the answer would be easily indicative, given some characteristics. Your hypothesis is no more tenable than mine with what information we have. You will have to show me that characteristics of the Cambrian sediments directly underlying the paleosol indicate erosion to a degree that would satisfy your hypothesis.

---

Hunh? You said before the Cambrian sediments overlay the soil... Which is it? And, yes I will guarantee that the materials under the soil are an erosional surface.

quote:

---

--It is possible to date paleosols, it is just difficult.

---

Yes and I have shown you one.

quote:

---

--I won't diliberatelly repeat this misunderstanding as I have stated it. It will, however, continue to be support that I may interpret it as a highly likely pre-flood soil, given its geologic position.

---

You cannot however, support the assertion that it is a 1 billion year old soil... If you ever took the time to study geology you would understand this.

I really shouldn't pick on TC. But it's just too tempting:

quote:

---

--I remember something about there being marine sedimentary deposits in the geologic record...this is evidence of the flood. The problem is that you don't think the evidence adds up to make the global flood a conclusive theory. Don't side-step this.

---

What a howler, TC. You're killing me! Did you notice that there are marine sedimentary rocks being deposited on continental crust today? So, where is the flood?

quote:

---

--You don't have to! Grab yourself a textbook on geology and find out how sediments are deposited and their other diagenic processes.

---

Buddika, I'm not sure that this is good advice. Look where it got TC! I'm afraid you will go backwards in stead of forward

quote:

---

--Again I must ask you if you know what orogenesis means. Forget about Mt. Everest!

---

Oh, sure That's convenient! Let's forget about all of the mountains, especially the ones that show different ages of formation.

quote:

---

--Speciation. We do, however, find much in the fossil record which is extremely similar if not identical to modern flora and fauna. The new order of insect Gladiators. We have the remnants of the bug at 45 million years ago, their anatomy is identical to those existing today. I'm sure those fossils encased within Cambrian sediments will be fairly similar to something existing today.

---

So, TC, which Cambrian organisms did mammals speciate from? Remember you have only a couple of thousand years to do this.

quote:

---

--I don't know about you but I learned these geologic principals back when I was in 2nd grade.

---

Really?! In second grade! I have to apologize to you. I didn't realize that you were that advanced. No wonder I can't understand a thing you say

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with admitting this, I'm 16 and I'm making you look like a fool, do you really think your discouraging me? Your arguments are so sloppily thrown every which way that I don't think I'm even learning anything here..

---

Well, there's a reason for that. But I don’t think you want to hear it. But the 16-year old part, yeah, I believe that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No! It is evidence of sedimentation "

​

--The flood predicts sedimentation, and therefore a potential falsification can be made: No sedimentation = no flood. There is sedimentation, therefore, it does not falsify the flood and is evidence for it, though not a conclusive compilation which would render the flood as actually happened.

---

Wrong. There are plenty of locations and times where sedimentation was not occurring. Therefor, according to your analysis, the flood is falsified. Thank you TC.

quote:

---

"What is clear - from the facts of geology - is that there never was a one-time catastrophic global flood that covered everything and wiped out virtually every living organism, as the Bible story in Genesis contends."

​

--Well with your lack in geologic understanding I find that hard to believe coming form you, your effort at trying to support that claim is also very poor.

---

Can you elaborate on this? It would seem that your rebuttal here is very poor. You should have come up with some facts. Actually, B is correct on this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yes and I have shown you one. "

​

--Where at? And if you have, why is it impossible to know its age?

---

TC, when a process (such as soil devlopment) is truncated by another process (such as the deposition of beach sands), the only thing you can say about the age of the original process is that it is no younger than the process that truncated it. This is a dating method. It is a relative dating method. If a soil is overlain by the Lamotte Sand, then we can only say that it is older than deposition of the Lamotte if only by a short period. The other thing we can say is that if the soil is developed on Proterozoic rocks it must be at least somewhat younger than the substrate that it exists on, especially since an unknown amount of material must have been eroded from those rocks. Okay, this gives you a range of ages. However, since we know that soils continually develop and are slowly washed away by wind, water and soil creep, the younger age would be far more likely. Furthermore, since there is a hiatus in the geological record, one might also assume or suggest the possiblility that there might have been several erosional events and that several soil horizons might have developed and eroded away at this location and only the youngest one preserved. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this.

quote:

---

"You cannot however, support the assertion that it is a 1 billion year old soil... If you ever took the time to study geology you would understand this."

​

--Sounds like you have the data which says that it isn't? I'd like to see it, since you have so much confidence that this is 'yet another' opportunity to show that I don't know anything about my geology right?

---

I have an understanding of relative dating and geological processes which you have not had the opportunity to acquire.

quote:

---

--You seem to enjoy attempting this at times.

---

I don't think that 'attempting' is quite the right word here.

quote:

---

--No mater the age of the paleosol whether it be 1Ga, or 700Mya, my suggestion as it being a preflood soil isn't very hindered.

---

True, but it does expose your lack of understanding of basic processes and suggests that you are easily swayed by professional creationists and popular myths.

quote:

---

B: "2. Quit it with the jargon. I am not impressed by your technical terms, and most laymen would not even understand them. If you must use your flashy geology buzzwords to boost your confidence, then have the curtesy to define what you mean by them, so there are no misunderstandings. In a non-technical forum like this, they are best avoided altogether."

​

TC: --I'm sorry if you don't understand the terminology. Do you know what a laymen is? Its a non-scientist, so I have no idea what your trying to say there.

---

To be truthful here, TC, you do not know the terminology all that well either. You have simply goaded Buddika into an area in which you have done some reading and he has not."What a laymen is????"

quote:

---

--Why should I define them? Its simple geologic terminology, maybe you should read an 'earth science' textbook before you engage in such a debate.

---

Oops, have I heard this before?

quote:

---

You have obviously indicated you don't know much on the subject of geology, indicative by your lame appeals to parroting links in hopes that they will have the refutation. You don't even understand what is included in half of the links you parrot it seems.

---

Sorry, TC, but you have done no better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:I know the terminology from which I have spoken in the thread very well.

---

Oh, you mean where you said that geochronologists never use the term 'apparent' when talking about radiometric ages? Or when you stated that 'in-place' really means 'might have been transported?'

quote:

---

Of which he has shown he knows little to nothing. Can you support your assertion that I am doing no better than Buddika? Please don't tell me that he is actually being reasonable... You are reading the posts are you not? They are utterly ridiculous.

---

I have said only that you have manuevered Buddika into a discussion where he is not as acquainted as you with the literature. I can readily tell that he is a layman. I can also tell that you are a layman, but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about.

quote:

---

--I mean sure, even if the global flood is easily falsified by various observations, he has not done a good job at it even in its littlest degree.

---

That was not my point. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, when a process (such as soil devlopment) is truncated by another process (such as the deposition of beach sands), the only thing you can say about the age of the original process is that it is no younger than the process that truncated it. This is a dating method. It is a relative dating method. If a soil is overlain by the Lamotte Sand, then we can only say that it is older than deposition of the Lamotte if only by a short period. The other thing we can say is that if the soil is developed on Proterozoic rocks it must be at least somewhat younger than the substrate that it exists on, especially since an unknown amount of material must have been eroded from those rocks. Okay, this gives you a range of ages. However, since we know that soils continually develop and are slowly washed away by wind, water and soil creep, the younger age would be far more likely. Furthermore, since there is a hiatus in the geological record, one might also assume or suggest the possiblility that there might have been several erosional events and that several soil horizons might have developed and eroded away at this location and only the youngest one preserved. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this. "

quote:

---

--I understand all of this. I can agree that my initial representation of it as being a 1 Ga is a large summarization, but that doesn't defeat my initial arguments regarding the paleosol. What you've explained here is a story without data. Its what do you call it, A 'just so' story. Whether it is 'preferred', or not, simply isn't good enough.

---

It was not my point to provide data. It was my point to show that your scenario was logically erroneous and did not consider some very important possibilities (you might say that your statement was a 'just-so' story). So, what you said was that the soil remained in-place for a Ga... no transport, no erosion, and no continuos development of new soil. Does this really sound plausible to you?

quote:

---

"I have an understanding of relative dating and geological processes which you have not had the opportunity to acquire."

​

--I haven't acquired it in the same setting as you have[et. college lectures], but it has been acquired from the many initiatives of mine regarding geochronology.

---

RRRight!

quote:

---

"True, but it does expose your lack of understanding of basic processes and suggests that you are easily swayed by professional creationists and popular myths. "

​

--My analysis was compltely free from references to creationist material so this isn't applicable.

---

Right. I will remember that the next time that someone accuses mainstream scientists of bias.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh, you mean where you said that geochronologists never use the term 'apparent' when talking about radiometric ages?¹ Or when you stated that 'in-place' really means 'might have been transported?'²"

​

--[1] - We settled this back where this 'inconsistency' started, in the paleosols thread (which I will continue when I get my comp problems and make progress on my current projects) and mainly in this post:

​

http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols

---

You specifically stated that geochronologists do not refer to 'apparent ages'. This is false.You also said that because Yuretich used the term 'in place,' that he really meant that prior transport was a possibility.

quote:

---

--I would still very much like to see what you have to say about this 'certain age' phenomenon.

---

I was talking in YOUR frame of reference. In other words, what you want is a certain age rather than an apparent age. As I remember now, you also did not understand the meaning of the error estimates on radiometric ages, either. I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric.

quote:

---

--[2] - This was also settled, in situ means in place of origin or deposition, you just have to read it in context. As I used it in my context, it could have been both.

---

Yes, and this was wrong. Unless you intentionally wish to confuse the readers.

quote:

---

In the context of Yuretich, I never argued that he probably meant it as a place of deposition.

---

Correct. You used it in the context that he might not have offered enough of data to support his point and it was open to interpretation. He adamantly refused this possibility.

quote:

---

That would have been a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding never occurred.

---

Then you were not clear. [quote]"I have said only that you have manuevered Buddika into a discussion where he is not as acquainted as you with the literature. I can readily tell that he is a layman. I can also tell that you are a layman, but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about."--What do you mean 'but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about'? [quote] Well, let's see. Yuretich, a professor of sedimentology is wrong in his interpretation of the Specimen Ridge trees. Joe Meert, another professor who has devoted his entire career to geolgoy is also wrong, or worse yet, misunderstand a number of geological concepts. Now you ridicule Buddika because he does not follow some of your convoluted logic using fairly advanced jargon. Yes, I would say that you THINK you know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

All I am doing in that thread is showing myself and the board for my own satisfaction (though I am fully open for a deeper delve into a geologic discussion, it just hasn't happened yet and apparently should not be expected) that his arguments against flood geomechanics are foolish and that him saying that 'he knows' the flood couldn't happen is just an argument from his personal incredulity[thus void of credibility].

---

Nevertheless, Buddika is correct in his conclusions regarding the flood myth. Why have you not taken some of the lessons that you have been given here and asked more questions or expanded on the ideas? To the contrary, you have rationalized/defined them away and ignored explanations of radiometric dates etc., and then stubbornly defended your errors. I seriously doubt your desire to have a meaningful discussion and would rather simply bash another layman.

quote:

---

"Right. I will remember that the next time that someone accuses mainstream scientists of bias."

​

--What do you mean? Mainstream scientists do have a bias, and that bias is the 'mainstream bias'. I don't know what would be wrong with saying that, I have a Young Earth bias, you have an old earth bias. My recent readings out of The origin and evolution of the Solar system - Woolfson, 2000, supports that there is a tendency for scientists to attempt to avoid adaptation to new theories which are effective at altering comprehensive theories in science. Not only is it indicative in the text, it was directly admitted.

---

My point was that I doubt your analysis was free of input by creationist material. It is not possible to come the conclusions you have without some kind of mythological basis.[This message has been edited by edge, 12-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You specifically stated that geochronologists do not refer to 'apparent ages'. This is false."

​

--Not really and certainly not verbatim, I said, "...We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank['], or some such."

---

You are dancing, TC.

quote:

---

When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something.

---

A-one and-a-two!

quote:

---

"You also said that because Yuretich used the term 'in place,' that he really meant that prior transport was a possibility."

​

--Wrong.

---

Okay, you implied that since he didn't specifically mention the lower parts of the trunks not being abraded then they permitted the interpretation of being prior-transported, even though Yuretich expressly said that they showed no such evidence and are 'in-place.' This means that you basically want to apply your own facts in the absence of a description.

quote:

---

"I was talking in YOUR frame of reference.¹ In other words, what you want is a certain age rather than an apparent age.² As I remember now, you also did not understand the meaning of the error estimates on radiometric ages, either.³ I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric.⁴"

​

--[1] - Were you?

---

Gee, let me think now. What did I say? That I was speaking from your point of view? Yep, I guess that's it.

quote:

---

You stated that "At this point, it became quite clear that you are confusing 'absolute age' with 'certain age', which is complete misunderstanding of geochronology." This seems to indicate that since I don't know about some phenomena of 'certain age' as opposed to relative or absolute age that I then have a 'misunderstanding of geochronology'.

---

Nonsense, I am saying what I meant to say. You want a certain age because you cannot handle uncertainty. You want a supreme authority to tell you the age of the rocks.

quote:

---

--[2] - I want a 'certain age'? Again explain what you mean by 'certain age'? Evidently you want me to give you a dating method which gives you a date which you could assume is more accurate than radiometric.. I hope this isn't what your saying.

---

No. This is what you will accept because you do not understand the premises under which radiometric ages are derived. You would rather have it written in the bible.

quote:

---

--[3] - Nope, I know all about 'Error Brackets' or 'Error Bars'. This was also cleared up in that very same post:

​

quote:

---

You keep compounding your error! Please, it is getting painful to watch! Those are not approximations, they are limits of analytical error."
--I do not have, nor claim to understand all of the geological literature, its just that nothing you have illustrated says that I don't understand this area of it. I have even often made reference to these error bars. I said 'approximation' because that is what it is, an attempt to 'come close to' the actual age of the sample.

---

​

Just as I have been saying. You do not have a command of the geological literature. The error brackets have little to do with the accuracy of the apparent age. They refer to the analytical error only.

​

--[4] - I don't think I remember making an assertion such as this in this, but maybe it was in the initial related thread? If I made the assertion, I'm pretty sure that there was good reason.

---

Maybe not this in particular but geological terminology in general.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC:When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something.

---

Well, when someone talks about an apparent age, I assume that they mean the age is 'apparently something.' We were discussing the term 'apparent,' and you seemed to indicate that all ages were accepted as certain. If this is not the case you need to make yourself clearer.

quote:

---

--Also, I gave Yuretich an E-mail quite a while ago and haven't received a response as of yet. How did you get a response within the day? I would still like to see the context of his e-mail for my own satisfaction.

---

I don't think he is very fond of creationists.

quote:

---

"Maybe not this in particular but geological terminology in general."

​

--So your telling me that when you said, "I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric." What did you mean?

---

I mean what I said. Your criticism of Buddika for lack of familiarity with geological terms is sophomoric and hypocritical.

quote:

---

It seems that your trying to tell me that since he doesn't understand the terminology that my pointing out this fact was immature and hypocritical?

---

Is English a second language for you? Do you understand what 'hypocritical' means?

TC gaffes...

quote:

---

B: "The corals are alive today. Everything died in the flood. Where did the corals that are alive today come from?"

​

TC: --Ah, yes, I see. I had the impression that you were trying to argue that it takes too long to create a coral reef. I would have to say after thinking about this more and referring to some texts, that the corals did not die. Your links on coral bleaching are irrelevant, though the thoughts on heat being a factor in inhibiting growth or killing the coral may be applicable. Of course, however, corals grow in an enormous variety of environments. Some grow at the bottom of the ocean.

---

Please amplify. What oceans, and how deep? I know of no corals living in the deep sea basins.

quote:

---

Others must grow near the surface, and others grow in the arctic and antarctic regions.

---

Perhaps you can give us an example of a living Arctic coral reef.

quote:

---

areas which would have been ideal for corals survival would have been on top of continents and in the arctic and antarctic regions.

---

Arctic an Antarctic would provide ideal environments for corals? And what do you mean by 'on top of continents?' Remember your surges? How do you expect corals to survive on top of mountains in between surges? This is utterly silly even according to your own model.

quote:

---

B: "Where is your case for your pretence that that these ranges were created in the last 5,000 years, since this again flies in the face of scientific knowledge? Or are you operating under the common creationist delusion that simply asserting something often enough makes it so? Please don't bother to actually try answering this. A simple arrogant assertion coupled with an insult will be more than sufficient by your standards."

​

--Again, you have no date, only relative dating methods. Nothing is going to give you an "age", ...

---

Really? What about radiometic ages? You seem confused once again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I mean what I said. Your criticism of Buddika for lack of familiarity with geological terms is sophomoric and hypocritical."
--Sophomoric? How was it sophomoric?

---

Because you are pretending to understand the subject.

quote:

---

"Please amplify. What oceans, and how deep? I know of no corals living in the deep sea basins."

​

--Ahermatypic corals are found in deep cold waters.

---

I repeat, what oceans and how deep?

quote:

---

"Perhaps you can give us an example of a living Arctic coral reef. "

​

--Couldn't give you a reef type which grow in arctic regions, didn't say I could though either. Scleractinin corals live in temperate, Arctic and Antarctic waters though.

---

What the heck is 'temperate arctic water?' And where do accumulations of such corals build up limestone deposits?

quote:

---

"Arctic an Antarctic would provide ideal environments for corals?¹ And what do you mean by 'on top of continents?' Remember your surges? How do you expect corals to survive on top of mountains in between surges? This is utterly silly even according to your own model.²"

​

--[1] - Translocation of corals toward the more temperate/arctic/antarctic regions would amount to less overall temperature extremes. Vardiman suggests that Polar bottom waters would be much warmer than currently (of course) 16-17.5^oC.

---

And then they would form limestones? Remember that is what we have in the geological record. Not isolated organisms.

quote:

---

"Really? What about radiometic ages? You seem confused once again."

​

--You forgot the part where I said it was appearance of age. The point I was making is that if the flood happened, there is expected to be no method for dating events, only principles of superposition and other such relative dating methods.

---

No, I didn't forget. Why would there be not methods for absolute dating? Are you simply ignoring radiometric ages?

quote:

---

--[Edit] - I find it odd to see that whenever an ill-informed YEC comes in and starts to parrot his/her blather around and I counter him with criticism, its always 'Go TC', 'Congrads for a great post TC', or 'Your learning TC!'. Though when I begin to criticize the ill-informed evo, I am shunned, scrutinized with every inconsistency [correct or not], and immediately abhorred as if I were a scientific rebel.

---

This is because, in this case, you have drawn Buddika into an area where he is not so informed. This was basically an ego trip for you. Why do you not challenge wehappyfew to such a debate on evidence for the flood? You have set yourself up as an expert in this debate and you are far from that.Besides, when you criticize the YECs you are right! Here you are marginally correct on some specific points, such as turbidites, but your overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Because you are pretending to understand the subject. "

​

--So which one is it? Subject or terminology?

---

Well, now that you mention it, both.

quote:

---

"I repeat, what oceans and how deep?"
--In a general understanding of ahermatypic corals, it is a global correlation. They are found all over deep ocean basins. Scleractinian corals for instance, live in temperate, arctic, and Antarctic waters, which are also the principal contributors to reef structure.

---

Good, then you can show us an Arctic or Antarctic living reef. Please provide examples, if possible.

quote:

---

Depth is of little significance seeing as there is no factor of light penetration.

---

Unclear. What do you mean by 'no factor of light penetration?'

quote:

---

"What the heck is 'temperate arctic water?' And where do accumulations of such corals build up limestone deposits?"

​

--I didn't say 'temperate arctic water', I said "..live in temperate, Arctic and Antarctic waters". This is referring to global latitudinal localities.

​

--Are you bringing up coral limestone deposits now or were you trying to argue this earlier?

---

Does it matter?

quote:

---

Speaking of coral deposits, were no longer talking about post-flood or during flood, but pre-flood corals.

---

We are? You mean Precambrian corals?

quote:

---

"And then they would form limestones? Remember that is what we have in the geological record. Not isolated organisms."

​

--That's because most coral deposits occur on continents, not on the ocean basins.

---

But you say above that they are found everywhere. So, which is it? Where are the corals in the deep ocean basins?

quote:

---

"No, I didn't forget. Why would there be not methods for absolute dating? Are you simply ignoring radiometric ages?"

​

--Not really, radiometric dating is what I was specifically referring to. What I am saying is that if the flood occured, there can be no absolute dating method, at least none that I know of.

---

Why not? So you are saying that the flood caused radiometric ages to be erroneous?

quote:

---

Only relative. The reason radiometric ages would work within the framework of the flood ...

---

I thought you said they don't work.

quote:

---

...is because exponential increases in daughter isotopes as we go further down into the geologic column would have been caused by an alteration in decay rates, or due to a global geochemical process of chemical fractionation from within the earth.

---

Good, now we are getting somewhere. Just what are these global processes and how much do they affect decay rates? Why did they coincidentally happen at exactly the same time as the flood? How did life on earth survive the increased radiation flux and the heat generated by same? (Wait, you've already avoided these questions before, oh well...)

quote:

---

"This is because, in this case, you have drawn Buddika into an area where he is not so informed. This was basically an ego trip for you. Why do you not challenge wehappyfew to such a debate on evidence for the flood? You have set yourself up as an expert in this debate and you are far from that."

​

--This wasn't really an attempt to add credibility to my ego. It would be quite absurd if I were to believe that I would from an ill-informed individual. The reason I wouldn't set up such a debate with wehappy is because I would expect defeat. Not necessarily because the flood didn't occur, but because he is much more intelligent and informed than I. I will suffice to say that wehappy is quite brilliant and illustrates this characteristic of his well within his posts. If I am going to talk with wehappy, I would generally do so with the expectation to obtain knowledge rather than apply my pre-existing intelligence and know-how. If it be the other way around, it is likely expected that I would be doomed to fail miserably. Of course, a discourse carried out with the intention to learn may not go without preliminary disagreement and the exchange of ideas. I haven't set myself up as an expert, only that I know that Buddika doesn't know what he is talking about and would like to have this fact exhibited, not for my ego, but for my own twisted satisfaction.

---

Sounds like your goals are not necessarily to learn anything then, so what is your objective of drawing another layman into a technical debate here? You haven't really added much to the debate, youself. If you are trying to learn something you have a strange way of going about it. Besides the thread is totally out of control with little but tit-for-tat insults.

quote:

---

"Besides, when you criticize the YECs you are right! Here you are marginally correct on some specific points, such as turbidites, but your overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete."

​

--I think I was a bit more accurate than 'marginally correct' on my points referring to turbidities.

---

Then please explain the relationship between proximal and distal turbidites. Tell us about levees and direction of transport. Oh well, you're just going to look them up... Anyway, in many cases your analysis was correct, but not in all cases. While tubidite deposits may be quite thin, there are places where they are much thicker as well. Those areas tend to not have much bioturbation because the organisms have been killed off.

quote:

---

If when you say my 'overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete' you are referring to the flood in general, this is utterly true, no argument there.

---

Or lack of a flood. Actually, I am referring to virtually all geological processes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Well, now that you mention it, both."

​

--Easy to say.

---

Is that a rebuttal?

quote:

---

"Good, then you can show us an Arctic or Antarctic living reef. Please provide examples, if possible."

​

--Didn't say I could. In fact I think I made it clear that you don't find reefs in most temperate and arctic/antarctic waters. I don't think I need to find this either.

---

Hmm, but you have just inferred this in the geological record. I don't suppose you might consider constraining your just-so stories with a few facts or examples or something.

quote:

---

"We are? You mean Precambrian corals?"

​

--Not really because it wouldn't have a relation to geologic strata. I'm talking about pre-flood existing corals, not coral deposits in the pre-Cambrian (don't think there are anyways).

---

TC, you said the flood started in the Cambrian. If there were coral prior to the flood then they must be Precambrian.

quote:

---

"But you say above that they are found everywhere. So, which is it? Where are the corals in the deep ocean basins? "

​

--You can check my reference if you like, Barnes - Invertebrate Zoology; 1974. It states:

​

quote:

---

Many species of corals need relatively shallow water and do not live at depths below the light penetration level. This is true of all reef-building species, most of which have a vertical distribution of 90 meters or less below the water surface. This vertical restriction is imposed by the symbiotic zooxanthellae (dinoflagellates in the palmella state) that live in the tissues of corals. The zooxanthellae require light energy for photosynthesis, and the corals cannot exist without the zooxanthellae. Only ahermatypic corals which lack zooxanthellae are found in deep cold waters.

---

---

So, where are they found? Where are these do these corals form reefs or even generic limestone deposits in the deep ocan basins?

quote:

---

"Why not? So you are saying that the flood caused radiometric ages to be erroneous?"

​

--The flood itself didn't cause the distribution of radioisotopes in Cambrian+ crusts, though in a sense the distribution (or what caused the distribution) caused the flood. This is true in both cases, altered decay rate or chemical fractionation.

---

Okay, now present some evidence to support your assertion.

quote:

---

"Good, now we are getting somewhere. Just what are these global processes and how much do they affect decay rates?¹ Why did they coincidentally happen at exactly the same time as the flood?² How did life on earth survive the increased radiation flux and the heat generated by same? (Wait, you've already avoided these questions before, oh well...)³"

​

--[1] - Well it is possible that both processes were went hand in hand, but I never said that both chemical fractionation and an alteration in decay rates happened simultaneously. in these 'global processes', that which was expelled from the earth and latterly distributed on the globe, assuming the reasonable assumption of superposition, lower stratum will have a higher quantity of "daughter" isotopes than an above stratum. An alteration in decay rate would simply make the appearance of age for obvious reasons.

---

What? That makes no sense at all. How does this support increased decay rates? What is the mechanism of increased rates?

quote:

---

--[2] - See above, I didn't say that they[the two processes] happened at the same time. If I take your statement here in a different context, I would mean to say that if it were the process of the decay rate alteration the increased decay rate would have been the cause of the flood so its a cause and effect relationship, not a coincidental occurrence.

---

But why didn't they occur earlier in the earth's history? Or later? What triggered the increased decay rate?

quote:

---

--[3] - Could you elaborate a little more on this one?

---

If you decayed all of the fissionable materials that we see evidence of today in a matter of one year, then you should show that the heat produced would not sterilize the planet.

quote:

---

"Sounds like your goals are not necessarily to learn anything then, so what is your objective of drawing another layman into a technical debate here?¹ You haven't really added much to the debate, youself.² If you are trying to learn something you have a strange way of going about it.³ Besides the thread is totally out of control with little but tit-for-tat insults.⁴"

​

--[1] - In that specific debate, I didn't expect to learn, I expected to let him admit that he doesn't know what he is talking about so that we/I could actually teach him something here.

---

And you would do the teaching, eh? LOL!

quote:

---

--[2] - Yes this is the effect of a narrow minded individual trying to defend a point he cannot defend, and in a struggle to do so, makes appeal to ad hominem and spouting pre-teen blather. Of course in doing this, it has aggitated the opposing view (myself) I tried to stay out of the bandwagon though.

---

Well, why not debate Buddika on his own grounds. Remember evolution is not a simple matter that everyone can master all of the aspects of, despite what your professional creationists might lead you to believe.

quote:

---

"Then please explain the relationship between proximal and distal turbidites.¹ Tell us about levees and direction of transport.² Oh well, you're just going to look them up... Anyway, in many cases your analysis was correct, but not in all cases. While tubidite deposits may be quite thin, there are places where they are much thicker as well. Those areas tend to not have much bioturbation because the organisms have been killed off.³"

​

--I do not need to look them up because I already have, these points are exactly what I attempted to get accross to Buddika:

---

Riiiight. You never mentioned either in your posts.

quote:

---

--[1] - I explained to buddika here this difference precisely:

​

quote:

---

Post #36
"Your blind blather about turbidity has been deleted since I defined turbidity quite clearly. If you are beset by one of your "differential interpretations" from mainstream science, then please do enlighten us by defining turbidity currents and turbidite deposits yourself, right here."

​

--Your definition was incorrect. You stated that "Turbidity currents deposit or redeposit material washed from the land. . They are characteristically graded from coarsest material to finest (bottom to top)" This is partially correct and also wrong, and is misleading. Turbidity currents do not deposit coarse to fine materials vertically to any significance, they are deposited in a horizontal granulometric correlation due to the turbidities movement. Fine grains settle further away than more coarse ones. Turbidity currents also are not confined to depositing or redepositing material washed from land as ... article explains, being another dominant mechanism for turbidity current formation.

---

---

Well, you are wrong on a couple of counts. Turbidites DO deposite reverse graded bedding. That is how they were discovered. Also, Buddika never said that the deposits were exclusively washed from the land. The word 'redposited' covers what you are talking about. But you knew that, of course.

quote:

---

--[2] - Likewize for this issue:

​

quote:

---

Post #25
"So, once again for the congenitally retarded: it makes not a jot of difference what the animals were, they could not have made these burrows regardless of whether the burrows were made on dry land or under aquatic conditions, since there was not enough time if the global flood came and went in one year.

​

Get it now?"

​

--No actually you aren't getting it. Do you even understand the mechanics of turbidity currents? They are generally thought of as having devastating effects. Though, each turbidite deposit is a mere 1-5cm in thickness! That is highly minute. Turbidities are highly erosive submarine currents and given that the turbidities which took place in the Haymond formation didn't do even the smallest job at eroding the underlying poorly consolidated sediments, you have got to be kidding me to say that that would then wipe out an entire population of whatever the crustacean was. What is also disregarded is that turbidities do not spread out all over the ocean floor, they travel in considerably narrow proportions.

---

---

Several errors once again. Not all tubidity currents are considered devastating. And there are turbidites greater than 5cm in thickness. And they are not all highly erosive. [quote]--I know this and there is no assertion in all of that thread which contradicts this. Though there are places where it is indicative that this is another point I tried to get across Buddika:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You: Or lack of a flood. Actually, I am referring to virtually all geological processes."

​

--I don't have a misunderstanding of 'virtually all geological processes', I understand quite a bit though not all, not even you, Meert or Wehappy can say that you understand all geologic processes.

---

---

I will stand by my statement and have given you several examples, including the definition of 'in place.' No, but we can see your errors. Now are you going to explain the different types of turbidite deposits? You have tap-danced away for several paragraphs.