Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic - Parallel Thread
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 40 (26621)
12-14-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by edge
12-14-2002 3:09 PM


--Sorry, I'm going to make this a bit brief out of frustration, this is my 3rd attempt at writing a response without it being spontaneously deleted..
"Because you are pretending to understand the subject. "
--So which one is it? Subject or terminology?
"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. Depth is of little significance seeing as there is no factor of light penetration.
"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? Speaking of coral deposits, were no longer talking about post-flood or during flood, but pre-flood corals.
--Also, if coral Calcite is a major part of the bulk Cambrian+ sediments, this would very much effect that which is going on in this thread.
"And then they would form limestones? Remember that is what we have in the geological record. Not isolated organisms."
"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.
"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. Only relative. The reason radiometric ages would work within the framework of the flood 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.
"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.
"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. 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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by edge, posted 12-14-2002 3:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by edge, posted 12-15-2002 12:17 AM TrueCreation has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 40 (26622)
12-14-2002 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John
12-14-2002 3:35 PM


"Interesting that ahermatypic corals do not build reefs."
--Well the definition of 'ahermatypic' is the inverse of hermatypic isn't it? [A hermatypic coral is a reef-forming coral]
--Regarding the hermatypic corals and survival there are many species which survive well in the a low Co range as indicated by the graph inBarnes - Invertebrate Zoology; 1974, pg. 132. A graph representing the no. species of hermatypic corals at Bikini Atoll.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John, posted 12-14-2002 3:35 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 12-14-2002 10:42 PM TrueCreation has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 40 (26625)
12-14-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
12-14-2002 9:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Interesting that ahermatypic corals do not build reefs."
--Well the definition of 'ahermatypic' is the inverse of hermatypic isn't it? [A hermatypic coral is a reef-forming coral]

LOL..... Why didn't you quote the second sentence in my post? The one that points out that the survival of ahermatypic coral doesn't explain the survival of HERMATYPIC or REEF BUILDING coral. And, as far as I can tell, the division between hermatypic and ahermatypic is more properly the presence of symbiotic zooxanthaellae not, despite the name, the fact that the coral does or does not build reefs.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 12-14-2002 9:40 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 12-14-2002 11:30 PM John has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 40 (26628)
12-14-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
12-14-2002 10:42 PM


"LOL..... Why didn't you quote the second sentence in my post? The one that points out that the survival of ahermatypic coral doesn't explain the survival of HERMATYPIC or REEF BUILDING coral. And, as far as I can tell, the division between hermatypic and ahermatypic is more properly the presence of symbiotic zooxanthaellae not, despite the name, the fact that the coral does or does not build reefs."
--There are hermatypic and ahermatypic scleractinian corals. The hermatypic types are found in warm tropic ocean waters. There is more in my response to edge.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 12-14-2002 10:42 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 12-14-2002 11:55 PM TrueCreation has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 40 (26629)
12-14-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
12-14-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
There are hermatypic and ahermatypic scleractinian corals. The hermatypic types are found in warm tropic ocean waters. There is more in my response to edge.
But not much more. You have hermatypic corals, which build reefs. These are very sensitive to light levels, fresh water, temperature and turbidity. There are ahermatypic corals which do not build reefs. These are not as sensitive to the environments in which they live. Assuming the latter could survive the flood, how does this account for the presence of the former? It doesn't. You seem to be saying that since ahermatypic corals could survive the flood ( which I doubt ), then all corals could survive. It doesn't make sense. Its like throwing a hundred people off a boat and arguing that since some of them can swim, all of them will survive.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 12-14-2002 11:30 PM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 36 of 40 (26632)
12-15-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TrueCreation
12-14-2002 9:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 12-14-2002 9:29 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 12-16-2002 4:56 PM edge has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 40 (26850)
12-16-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by edge
12-15-2002 12:17 AM


"Well, now that you mention it, both."
--Easy to say.
"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.
"Unclear. What do you mean by 'no factor of light penetration?'"
--light is not a factor in the growth of ahermatypic corals.
"Does it matter?"
--I was just trying to make sure that this wasn't something I missed and you were reiterating here.
"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).
"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.
"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.
"I thought you said they don't work."
--Sorry, misspelling, meant to say wouldn't.
"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.
--[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.
--[3] - Could you elaborate a little more on this one?
"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.
--[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.
--[3] - The thread was a preliminary attempt to open a door for there to actually be benefit from attempting to inject or absorb knowledge.
--[4] - Good thing its over, I am satisfied and feel that there is no need for a verdict.
"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:
--[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 this article explains, being another dominant mechanism for turbidity current formation.
--[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.
--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:
--From the quote above:
...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...
"Me: 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.
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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by edge, posted 12-15-2002 12:17 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 12-16-2002 10:01 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 38 of 40 (26917)
12-16-2002 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TrueCreation
12-16-2002 4:56 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TrueCreation, posted 12-16-2002 4:56 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TrueCreation, posted 12-17-2002 5:35 PM edge has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 40 (27071)
12-17-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by edge
12-16-2002 10:01 PM


"Is that a rebuttal?"
--How could it be a rebuttal? There was nothing to refute.
"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."
--No, not in the geologic record, in the ocean basins. It isn't a just so story, it is a statement of observed fact documented in the resource I supplied. Barnes, Invertebrate Zoology, 1974.
"TC, you said the flood started in the Cambrian. If there were coral prior to the flood then they must be Precambrian."
--Well if you want to see it in the context that Precambrian is a time frame rather than strata, then sure. In this case everything is pre-cambrian though.
"So, where are they found? Where are these do these corals form reefs or even generic limestone deposits in the deep ocan basins?
--Didn't you read the quote? It specifically stated that Only ahermatypic corals which lack zooxanthellae are found in deep cold waters. I never said that they made limestone deposits in the ocean basins..
"Okay, now present some evidence to support your assertion."
--Well lets see, catastrophic plate tectonics requires heat, an period of altered decay rates increases mantle viscosity, hence catastrophic plate tectonics results. As to what caused the accelerated decay is more difficult to answer.
"What? That makes no sense at all. How does this support increased decay rates? What is the mechanism of increased rates?"
--It supports increased decay rates because what would be expected from such a decay event is seen in the geologic record. There are mechanisms which can decrease the half-lives of radioisotopes such as altering meson masses, though I will not argue that there is a completely natural explanation. There will be, no doubt, a barrier where there must be a supernatural intervention. We have deduced that this intervention must involve the decay rate of radioisotopes, it is possible to do this by altering natural values, though it is an intervention nonetheless. Though of course, this intervention isn't just a futile thing which we are required to get something observed. This simple change results in everything else Flood geology theorizes.
--There will be no direct evidence for such a decay, though indirect observations such as the distribution of isotopes in the earths crust are evidence.
"But why didn't they occur earlier in the earth's history? Or later? What triggered the increased decay rate?"
--Well if it occurred earlier in earths history, the flood would have been earlier now wouldn't it?
"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."
--Most of the decay occured during the creation, much less of this decay occurred during the flood.
"And you would do the teaching, eh? LOL! "
--I did say we/I. It isn't difficult to teach someone with as little knowledge as buddika has exhibited.
"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."
--What do you mean by debate him on 'his own grounds'?
"Well, you are wrong on a couple of counts. Turbidites DO deposite reverse graded bedding. That is how they were discovered. "
--I was talking about the horizontal granulometric distribution, not vertical bedding, this is a blooper of Buddika's not mine.
"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."
--He said that that was his definition so it is logical to think that being it as his 'definition' that that is what they are the result of which was misleading.
"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."
--Nothing in my comment contradicts this, why do you think I put so much emphasis on their thickness and lack in erosive power? I have made no error.
"I will stand by my statement and have given you several examples, including the definition of 'in place.'"
--Your definition is incorrect and was your definition, I however quoted a geologic resource verbatim.
"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. "
--I remember saying that turbidites have different origins. But what do you mean about the different types of turbidite deposits?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 12-16-2002 10:01 PM edge has not replied

logicalunatic
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 40 (27495)
12-20-2002 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
11-30-2002 1:50 PM


John, your solution to the Ice Cap mystery was amazing. I nearly peed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 11-30-2002 1:50 PM John has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024