Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 174 (326229)
06-25-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by anglagard
06-25-2006 11:04 PM


Yes solid (or in the case of the Mohorovic discontinuity, plastic) rock exists down to the liquid outer core of the Earth. Water is usually contained in the pores of rock to some degree as deep as the deepest well.
So the idea is that as far as the aquifers are concerned the rock was already there, just as it is now, and water seeped into it over time?
This is far deeper than any action of water could scour from the surface in 150 days as water can only hold so much rock before it falls out of solution, which even if it did would create a single worldwide layer of rock after consolidation.
Without challenging that view of the Flood at this point, I have to remark that the very sharply defined differences between sediments that make up the geological column defy a long-term (millions of years) buildup explanation at least as much as a Flood explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2006 11:04 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2006 11:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2006 11:53 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 174 (326231)
06-25-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
06-25-2006 11:29 PM


I have to remark that the very sharply defined differences between sediments that make up the geological column defy a long-term (millions of years) buildup explanation at least as much as a Flood explanation.
what? how?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 11:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by DrJones*, posted 06-25-2006 11:33 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 11:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 18 of 174 (326232)
06-25-2006 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
06-25-2006 11:31 PM


what? how?
Now you're just gonna get Faith's arguement from incredulity or however that is spelled about how she just can't belive that sediments can build up over long periods of time.
Edited by DrJones*, : spllin

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:36 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 174 (326234)
06-25-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by DrJones*
06-25-2006 11:33 PM


well, let's see what she says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by DrJones*, posted 06-25-2006 11:33 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-25-2006 11:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 20 of 174 (326237)
06-25-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
06-25-2006 11:31 PM


This is off topic here I believe, and I've discussed many other places before anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 174 (326238)
06-25-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
06-25-2006 11:41 PM


This is off topic here I believe,
is it off topic?
well, then stop bringing up offtopic garbage in an attempt to derail the thread, especially if you can't even explain your position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 11:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 22 of 174 (326239)
06-25-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
06-25-2006 11:36 PM


give me a break
Come on; there have been a ton of stupid flood threads on this board and no one has ever presented one reasonable pro-flood argument ever. It's just stupid pseudo-scientific garbage over and over.
Seriously, I think the benefit of the doubt is over for this topic.
http://EvC Forum: Deposition and Erosion of Sediments -->EvC Forum: Deposition and Erosion of Sediments
http://EvC Forum: What Strata does the Biblical Flood Begin & End? -->EvC Forum: What Strata does the Biblical Flood Begin & End?
http://EvC Forum: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction? -->EvC Forum: Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?
http://EvC Forum: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go? -->EvC Forum: Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?
http://EvC Forum: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some -->EvC Forum: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
http://EvC Forum: Long build up of Sediments -->EvC Forum: Long build up of Sediments
I think if there were any non-ridiculous pro-flood arguments they would have been presented by now...
.
Sorry... The world wide flood is my personal pet peeve topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:55 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 174 (326240)
06-25-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
06-25-2006 11:29 PM


So the idea is that as far as the aquifers are concerned the rock was already there, just as it is now, and water seeped into it over time?
Most sedimentary rock - almost all, I guess - had its pores full of water when it was laid down and lost a lot of that water as it compacted and became solid (for that majority of rock that solidified after deposition.) Now it is likely that the particular water that's in a rock today isn't the water that started out there. Most formations have probably had some flow through them at one time or another in their past. I'm quite confident that my aquifer in Algeria started full of (perhaps altered) seawater and didn't swap out for fresh until its edge got exposed to a fresh source, for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 11:29 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 06-25-2006 11:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 24 of 174 (326241)
06-25-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
06-25-2006 11:29 PM


So the idea is that as far as the aquifers are concerned the rock was already there, just as it is now, and water seeped into it over time?
You probably posted this before my edit. If the rock did not pre and post date the flood, and the flood held all that rock in suspension, it would have been Noah's mud not flood.
Without challenging that view of the Flood at this point, I have to remark that the very sharply defined differences between sediments that make up the geological column defy a long-term (millions of years) buildup explanation at least as much as a Flood explanation.
One homogoneous body of water at one time precipitates one type of rock. A global flood does not and can not create streambed deposits here, wind deposits there, and limestone deposits over there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 11:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 1:14 AM anglagard has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 174 (326242)
06-25-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-25-2006 11:47 PM


Re: give me a break
Come on; there have been a ton of stupid flood threads on this board and no one has ever presented one reasonable pro-flood argument ever. It's just stupid pseudo-scientific garbage over and over.
the question was which creationist canard faith would resort to. incredulity? last-thursdayism? evasion? hand-waving? arguments from ignorance? logical fallacies? looks like she picked "evasion."
seem to be the standard one these days. they can make their points all over the place -- but ask them to explain what they mean, and it's off-topic. if they explain themselves, we might be able to point how their position is illogical, or that it's based on a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the science it's related to, etc. keep it vague, and avoid being proven wrong.
i guess that leaves us with only one choice: laugh at the ridiculous ad-hoc claims, and the foolish arrogance of someone pretending to know more about something than they evidently do.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-25-2006 11:47 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 174 (326244)
06-25-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coragyps
06-25-2006 11:52 PM


Most sedimentary rock - almost all, I guess - had its pores full of water when it was laid down
aren't many types of sedimentary rock formed in water to begin with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2006 11:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 27 of 174 (326272)
06-26-2006 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by anglagard
06-25-2006 11:53 PM


That's the idea, a LOT of mud in that flood. Took a loo-o-o-o-ong time to dry out.
A worldwide flood would involve multiple currents at multiple levels going multiple directions, as well as tides and waves, just as the oceans today do. It's not exactly your "homogeneous body of water." I don't know about wind deposits, but a worldwide flood could certainly leave limestone deposits in one place and in another place create streambeds from the prodigious amount of runoff that would have occurred in the drying-out phase, which would have lasted a loo-o-o-o-ong time, and probably laid down layers of sediment too while the flood had not yet completely receded.
But my point was that whatever you can say about how ridiculous the flood scenario is, can be said back about the ridiculous idea of thick worldwide layers of homogeneous sediments with predictable fossil contents that don't spill over into the layers above and below, but just stay right there in their own peculiar sediment bed, sharply demarcated from the different sediments above and below, very sharply and neatly. Millions of years of only one kind of sediment-plus-particular fossil contents maybe, followed by millions of years of only another completely different kind of sediment. I know I've said this a million times and it's called an argument from incredulity, but some things just don't make sense on the face of them if you actually think about it.
{Edit: But instead of contemplating the just plain nonsense of such an idea, what is done instead is to set about figuring out complicated ad hoc explanations for each particular layer and locality based on the old earth assumption.
{Edit: About windswept sands, I know some rocks have patterns that are normally created by such conditions, so that is how they are explained. I'm incredulous about that too, of course, that this deep dune would take millions of years to create and then ...sharply, suddenly just come to an end while all this limestone-in-the-making (or clay/shale or whatever) starts building up on top of it and finally compresses it to sandstone in a nice neat layer over millions of years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 06-25-2006 11:53 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 1:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 30 by anglagard, posted 06-26-2006 1:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by Jazzns, posted 06-26-2006 11:52 AM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 174 (326276)
06-26-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
06-26-2006 1:14 AM


A worldwide flood would involve multiple currents at multiple levels going multiple directions,
go fill your bathtub with water. pour something in it, milk, or sand, food coloring. anything really. now put your hand in it, and push the surface in one direction. put your hand deeper, and push the lower parts.
what happens?
Millions of years of only one kind of sediment-plus-particular fossil contents maybe, followed by millions of years of only another completely different kind of sediment.
this may be a bit of a suprise to you, but it's not "one kind of sediment" in a layer. sediments (plural) are combined, nicely mixed in each layer. the distinctions are not different kinds of sediments, but different mixtures of sediments. you get sharp demarcations when something suddenly changes -- for instance, there's one particular band that runs all the way around the world, and contains a high degree of iridium. it's called "the k/t boundary" and is evidence of cataclysm.
But my point was that whatever you can say about how ridiculous the flood scenario is, can be said back about the ridiculous idea that thick worldwide layers of homogeneous sediments with predictable fossil contents that don't spill over into the layers above and below, but just stay right there in their own peculiar sediment bed, sharply demarcated from the different sediments above and below, very sharply and neatly.
try making a sharp demarcation in water. you deposit something in water, you get the same effect as if you deposit something from a vapor in the air -- a nice, even, homogenous deposition. as pointed out above, nearly ALL sedimentary rocks are formed in water. that's why the compositions are so homogenous in and of themselves.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 1:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 1:36 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 29 of 174 (326280)
06-26-2006 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by arachnophilia
06-26-2006 1:27 AM


Comparing bathtub water with a worldwide flood is beyond comment.
this may be a bit of a suprise to you, but it's not "one kind of sediment" in a layer. sediments (plural) are combined, nicely mixed in each layer. the distinctions are not different kinds of sediments, but different mixtures of sediments. you get sharp demarcations when something suddenly changes -- for instance, there's one particular band that runs all the way around the world, and contains a high degree of iridium. it's called "the k/t boundary" and is evidence of cataclysm.
So it's one MIX, who cares? It's one THING separated out from another completely different kind of MIX-thing, and in any case the obvious difference from one to another and the sharp division between the layers makes no sense on a millions-of-years scenario. And as a matter of fact MOST of it IS one pecular kind of sediment. That's how they got their name, you know, the Coconino Sandstone and the Tapeats Limestone and all that.
The iridium is evidence of a meteor hit some time during the flood,the iridium from which was carried along on the surface of a sediment-laden current or wave until the whole shebang finally settled down and dried out. The KT boundary cataclysm is nonsense.
{Edit: Not that you care but you obviously haven't read one thing I ever wrote on past threads about this subject, which got pretty involved.
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 28 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 1:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 2:13 AM Faith has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 30 of 174 (326284)
06-26-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
06-26-2006 1:14 AM


That's the idea, a LOT of mud in that flood. Took a loo-o-o-o-ong time to dry out.
Thats not the idea, the idea is that several miles of rock magically turning to dirt, because of the flood means the flood is at best mud, not water.
Water and rock does not act in the manner which you would require in order to assert that all aquifers, no matter how deeply buried, were created in some global flood.
{ABE - How does rain, or indeed being under miles of water cause miles of rock to erode in 40 days? magic?}
My assertion still stands, either hydrology provides yet more evidence for an old Earth or one must believe in Last Thursdayism.
Edited by anglagard, : Just saw silly assertion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 1:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 2:08 AM anglagard 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