Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Why the Flood Never Happened
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 91 of 1896 (713505)
12-13-2013 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:32 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Schrodinger's cat, Faith, Schrodinger's cat!
but laid them down by currents and waves and tides over some period of time
You think that just because we weren't there to see any of this happen that you are free to make up anything and it will be sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Well it's not! It has to be something that could actually work.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:47 PM herebedragons has replied

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


Message 92 of 1896 (713507)
12-13-2013 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Atheos canadensis
12-13-2013 6:03 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, and tides and long waves that wash across thousands of miles of land mass would give a fair amount of time between waves too
You keep saying this and it keeps making no sense. Perhaps you are simply not communicating effectively so try to be as clear as possible this time. Based on what you've said e.g.
During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES
...you believe that during the Flood there were huge waves that a) went down deep enough that the substrate was exposed at the base of them
I can't make sense of this. "Went down deep enough" in relation to what? "Substrate exposed?"
The idea I have basically in mind is that the first part of the Flood would have dissolved and moved most of the land mass down to the substrate, even scouring the substrate, and all of the dissolved stuff would have been mixed into the water along with dead and dying creatures which would have been together in their groups, then carried in the water in currents and at different levels and however ocean water sorts things and redeposited on the land as separate sediments in successive depositions. Of course I don't know exatly how this would have happened but I know from Wikipedia articles I read some time ago that oceans have layers and currents and wave action and tides so all of it must have contributed to the final effect.
The idea of very long waves is built on observations of 1) waves depositing sand on beaches, and Dr. A. gave a good illustration of a depth of sand that was built up in layers by wave action even preserving the ripples of former depositions, which I find very helpful; and 2) the information that some of the strata extend for huge distances across the land, the Coconino Sandstone for instance, which is easily seen at a distance in the Grand Canyon as a white band near the top of the Canyon, extends over a number of states in the Southwest; and the Redwall Limestone extends clear across the US and is found even in the UK. This information I got from a British creationist ministry lecture by Paul Garner about the Grand Canyon, a video of which I posted here sometime in the last year or so.
The waves would have brought in sediments over the sediments already laid down. I am able to imagine some problems with ALL the layers having been created this way, since the water would have been deeper earlier in the Flood and then become shallower as the Flood waters receded, but I'm not clear what different effects that might have had if any. When deeper I'd expect more precipitation from the water, or deposition from underwater currents rather than waves. Etc.
and b) had enough time between them to allow ephemerally-exposed sediments in which animals left tracks. Is that right? You think that there was ground exposed between waves during a flood that covered the tops of mountains?
No, between deposits what would have been exposed is the previous deposit, and one thing creationists agree on is that there were no very tall mountains before the Flood, that these were created by the tectonic action that occurred after the strata were all in place and pushed up the high mountains because of the movement of the continents which we expect was a lot faster at the beginning than the usual idea and then gradually slowed to their present inch or two per year. And yes we're aware of the objections to this.
The Flood started with something called the "fountains of the deep" being released, which is interpreted to have something to do with the break up and movement of the continents apparently shortly after the strata were built up, toward the end of the Flood or afterward.
It does appear that after all the strata were laid down various forces disturbed them, tectonic, volcanic etc. I think the way the strata are exposed here and there in the UK in a sort of colorful patchwork shows the scouring off of the strata that had originally been laid down above them, scoured off as the Flood waters receded, which is also how I've explained the disappearance of the strata above the Permian / Kaibab plateau, which were originally over the Grand Canyon.
Two points about this. First, it makes absolutely no sense. How could a wave have exposed substrate before or behind it? This is not how waves work.
I don't know what I said that gave you that impression.
Second, this is completely extra-biblical and in fact un-Biblical. You have made it clear that you think the Bible is the only way to know anything about the past, but here you are averring something (dry land during the Flood) that is definitely not in the Bible.
No idea what I said that gave you that impression. None of it was dry until long after the Flood had completely receded, but the long wave action I picture as exposing the previous (very wet) layer of sediment as it went back out to sea I picture happening more toward the end of the Flood during the receding of the whole volume of the water, but I do figure it had to create a great depth of the strata.
And where exactly did the track-makers come from? You're claiming that in the middle of a global flood there were still animals that were paddling around, waiting for these fantastical waves to expose the substrate so they could walk around for a little while, then be engulfed again by the next wave.
I don't know, that's also a question I have, but it seems to have been the case that in some of the layers there is evidence of still-living creatures. The burrows of course would have to be explained by creatures that were buried in the sediments and tried to burrow out. The long waves at least allow a period of time in which footprints could have been registered in the wet sediment. Some are said to be dinosaur footprints but they look rather similar to bird feet. Birds could of course fly between waves.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 6:03 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 11:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 8:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 93 of 1896 (713509)
12-13-2013 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:27 PM


tides, waves ≠ current
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, ...
So the moving water in your flood runoff filled the Grand Canyon in rapid deposition?
... , and tides and ...
In an open ocean there would be two tides per day for the sun, one just after local noon and one just after local midnight, and you would also have two slightly larger tides for the moon with a 50 minute later per day period compared to the sun.
These tides would be comparable to tides in the middle of the ocean today -- 3 to 4 ft. -- and generally so insignificant that you cannot observe it when in the open ocean.
The height of open ocean tides would also decrease towards each pole and would be zero at the poles.
... long waves that wash across thousands of miles ...
Indeed, with an open ocean the reach for the buildup of waves is virtually infinite, however long waves do not mean high waves ... then length of the wave is determined by the reach, the height by the energy and a 20 ft long wavelength (peak to peak) 3 ft high would not be significantly different from a 200 ft long wavelength 3 ft high or a 2000 ft long wave 3 ft high.
These long open reach waves would be caused by the trade winds and would not keep increasing in size -- once they matched the speed of the winds there would be no further input to make them bigger.
These waves would also decrease in height towards the poles and end up at zero height there (they would cancel themselves out).
... would give a fair amount of time between waves too.
Now you are talking about speed of the waves, which is related to the wavelength ...
BUT the water doesn't flow with the waves, it travels in a circular path with the circles decreasing in size with depth, and when the bottom is shallow compared to the wave height then the wave piles up -- this is what causes breakers at the beach, the waves trip over their stationary bases.
What causes erosion and deposition is the interaction of waves and shore, with rip-tides and transverse currents.
No shore means no rip-tides and no transverse currents ... that's why you get such "horizontal" depositions in ocean bottoms ...
It doesn't take too long to get deep enough off shore for the impact of waves to be negligible.
Even when Hurricanes come inshore they do a lot of damage at the shoreline, but offshore there is little effect.
How do you build Antarctica?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
Edited by RAZD, : poles

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:28 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 94 of 1896 (713510)
12-13-2013 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
12-13-2013 8:06 PM


Re: tides, waves current
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, ...
So the moving water in your flood runoff filled the Grand Canyon in rapid deposition?
No, the water laid down all the layers to a few miles in depth and then the canyon cut through them, by the means of a great volume of sediment-laden water that rushed into cracks in the upper strata, the water possibly coming from a large post-Flood standing lake above and to the east of the canyon area, or Flood water that was in the process of receding and was still quite deep.
... , and tides and ...
In an open ocean there would be two tides per day for the sun, one just after local noon and one just after local midnight, and you would also have two slightly larger tides for the moon with a 50 minute later per day period compared to the sun.
These tides would be comparable to tides in the middle of the ocean today -- 3 to 4 ft. -- and generally so insignificant that you cannot observe it when in the open ocean.
But toward the end of the Flood when the water had receded quite a bit, those tides would have had the effect of sending sediment-laden water farther onto the land mass than the normal waves would.
... long waves that wash across thousands of miles ...
Indeed, with an open ocean the reach for the buildup of waves is virtually infinite, however long waves do not mean high waves ... then length of the wave is determined by the reach, the height by the energy and a 20 ft long wavelength (peak to peak) 3 ft high would not be significantly different from a 200 ft long wavelength 3 ft high or a 2000 ft long wave 3 ft high.
But the height isn't a big part of the picture I'm trying to create here. Think of the Indonesian tsunami that flowed an enormous distance over the land area. That's what I would expect of the waves toward the end of the Flood, especially during high tide.
... would give a fair amount of time between waves too.
Now you are talking about speed of the waves, which is related to the wavelength ...
Waves go out, waves come in . Tidal waves go way way out and take a long time to come back in. In the case of the last stages of the Flood the water's edge would still be high on the land, and the land was relatively flat too, I do picture a lot of tidal wave sized waves that would suck way out before returning with new cargo they deposit over thousands of miles of the land area. Before there wree high mountains.
BUT the water doesn't flow with the waves, it travels in a circular path with the circles decreasing in size with depth, and when the bottom is shallow compared to the wave height then the wave piles up -- this is what causes breakers at the beach, the waves trip over their stationary bases.
Yeah but you are getting way too specific for this simple scenario. I'm sure anyone can dream up objections but the basic idea doesn't depend on such particulars as you are concerned about. Think of a VERY VERY LONG "beach," the entire just slightly hilly land mass before the continents split apart, with ocean water that is slowly receding stage by stage from covering the entire land mass, wave action starting to make a difference (that it didn't make when all the land was completely covered, though there would still have been movement in the water, currents and so on) the waves started to be an issue, as I say, as the water recedes and the land starts to be exposed.
What causes erosion and deposition is the interaction of waves and shore, with rip-tides and transverse currents.
In the case of the Flood we're talking interaction between deep water with currents and layers interacting with entire land mass, and then waves as the water recedes interacting with land mass.
No shore means no rip-tides and no transverse currents ... that's why you get such "horizontal" depositions in ocean bottoms ...
It doesn't take too long to get deep enough off shore for the impact of waves to be negligible.
Even when Hurricanes come inshore they do a lot of damage at the shoreline, but offshore there is little effect.
Again, I'm not talking about waves during the deep water part of the Flood although I realize I wasn't being specific enough. I do have in mind the period when the water was receding. I suspect I've been clearer in former discussions along these lines.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-13-2013 10:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 11:20 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 95 of 1896 (713513)
12-13-2013 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by herebedragons
12-13-2013 7:30 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
You think that just because we weren't there to see any of this happen that you are free to make up anything and it will be sufficient to explain the phenomenon.
Actually, that's what the Old Earth theory amounts to, something just made up that is taken as sufficient to explain it all.
Well it's not! It has to be something that could actually work.
And the OE theory is so far from "actually working" it's a joke. That's what I'm trying to get across. This is the past that NOBODY was there to see, all anyone can do is come up with plausibilities. The plausibility factor with the Old Earth is pretty low it seems to me. The Flood is far more plausible just looking at the way the strata lie as I keep saying and describing ad nauseam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 7:30 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 12:08 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 96 of 1896 (713514)
12-13-2013 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by subbie
12-13-2013 9:50 AM


Re: Cretaceous—Paleogene boundary
I answered your claim about evidence all at the same level. The Flood made ALL the levels, there is not just ONE level where you are going to find it and that is one of the biggest bits of nonsense about this discussion that comes up. All you have to do is look at the strata in a road cut to see evidence of the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by subbie, posted 12-13-2013 9:50 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by subbie, posted 12-13-2013 9:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 97 of 1896 (713515)
12-13-2013 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
12-13-2013 9:19 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
There are some layers that appear intact at a great distance, but up close you see disturbances in the tops of the kind I have already mentioned.
That's why I required it to be at a distance, because the kinds of disturbances that would have occurred during very long exposure at the surface of the earth would be visible from a great distance. But they aren't and even up close there is no sign of any kind of disturbance on many layers. You have to get up close to see any of the erosion you are talking about, even the erosion in the particular layers you have identified in that diagram.
Some such layers show terrestrial type erosion on their surface layers.
At least at the Great Unconformity the band of erosion can be explained as caused by abrasion between the upper and lower levels, which I like to explain as due to the tilting of the Supergroup strata by the volcanic action beneath. The strata would have violently tilted against the upper strata which remained intact due to the tremendous weight of the strata above, and the tilting and sliding would have abraded both levels, and the evidence is that the eroded band is composed of material from both levels. This got discussed in far more detail on other threads.
I'm not happy with other creationist explanations which explain the eroded band as a slurry which eroded the Supergroup, I like my own better. Paul K and I had an argument about how a particular boulder of quartzite got into the eroded band because quartzite takes a long time to form. Clearly it came from the layer called the Shinumo in the Supergroup, but the question I had then was how that particular layer got metamorphosed into quartzite but the other layers in the same group are just sedimentary rock. I don't know but it's clearly a hunk of that particular quartzite that was abraded and got buried in the eroded band, by the shifting of the rocks brought about by the force of the underground volcano, according to my favorite theory.
I'm too tired to continue. Later.
ABE: Speaking of the Great Unconformity, that is exactly the same kind of formation as Siccar Point where Hutton made his famous determination that the rocks were very very old just by looking at that formation. It's an unconformity with horizontal strata lying on top of vertical strata of rock from two didfferent kinds of sediment, both sandstones I think, a greywacked and a red sandstone. Sorry too tired to go look it up, but the difference between them does factor into how I explain how it happened. Hutton thought the lower strata were tilted and then the upper were laid down over it. He supposed millions of years for all that to happen.
First thing I'd point out is that if you look at a picture of the Siccar Point formation you must notice that there is absolutely no difference between the erosion of the two levels of rock caused by the Scottish sea weather. You'd think that millions of years beteween the formation of the two would produce some diference in their surface erosion.
Anyway, the way I explain the formation as well as the Great Unconformity is that they were both originally a deep continuous stack of horixontal layers, Siccar Point once having a stack above it to a great depth that has since eroded away, and after the whole stack was laid down all over the world that's when we got the tectonic plate movement that buckled and folded and displaced a lot of strata in various places as the continents moved, and also caused volcanic activity. In the two places under discussion the lower strata were tilted by the volcanic and/or tectonic force up against a heavy weight of upper strata that resisted the tilting and stayed horizontal so that onlyl the lower tilted. The fact that two different kinds of sediment define the two levels suggests that the difference facilitated the sliding between the two levels.
There is a band of erosion between the two levels in both places, the vertical or tilted strata versus the horizontal strata above, and in both places the band is composed of sediments from both upper and lower levels. This suggests that the erosion was NOT cfreated during a long period of exposure of the lower tilted strata at the surface but by abrasion between two already existing rocks.
Another thing that suggests that is that had the upper strata been laid on top of the tilted strata a long time afterward, the sediment from the upper strata should have filtered down between the cracks in the titted strata, but the band of erosion appears to be a band unto itself and the strata remain distinct from each other.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 9:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 11:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2013 3:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 98 of 1896 (713516)
12-13-2013 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:50 PM


Re: Cretaceous—Paleogene boundary
I answered your claim about evidence all at the same level. The Flood made ALL the levels, there is not just ONE level where you are going to find it and that is one of the biggest bits of nonsense about this discussion that comes up. All you have to do is look at the strata in a road cut to see evidence of the Flood.
So, there's one iridium level, all around the world, but everything else is different in different places, and one event did it all.
I think we can all see where the nonsense is.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 99 of 1896 (713517)
12-13-2013 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:28 PM


Re: tides, waves current
Faith writes:
Flood water that was in the process of receding and was still quite deep.
But toward the end of the Flood when the water had receded quite a bit
with ocean water that is slowly receding stage by stage from covering the entire land mass
as I say, as the water recedes and the land starts to be exposed.
and then waves as the water recedes interacting with land mass.
I do have in mind the period when the water was receding.
In this post you talk a lot about the flood water receding. Can you explain a little bit about how that happens and where the flood water receded to?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Pollux, posted 12-13-2013 11:13 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 12-13-2013 11:17 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 103 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 11:26 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 100 of 1896 (713519)
12-13-2013 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx
12-13-2013 10:24 PM


Re: tides, waves current
Adding to tanypteryx's question, which relates to plate tectonics, could we have an indication when the plates started to move, for how long, and how fast? Also an indication of what the vulcanism was like. We have tens if not hundreds of millions of cubic kilometres of volcanic products and tens of millions of square kilometres of oceanic crust to be produced and some subducted, along with countless seamounts. That of course is before we consider the way radiometric dates are consistent with ocean floor and seamount travel times at current rates of movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-13-2013 10:24 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 101 of 1896 (713520)
12-13-2013 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx
12-13-2013 10:24 PM


Re: tides, waves current
Godidit. With a giant straw.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-13-2013 10:24 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 102 of 1896 (713521)
12-13-2013 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:28 PM


Re: tides, waves current
No, the water laid down all the layers to a few miles in depth and then the canyon cut through them, by the means of a great volume of sediment-laden water that rushed into cracks in the upper strata, the water possibly coming from a large post-Flood standing lake above and to the east of the canyon area, or Flood water that was in the process of receding and was still quite deep.
So when you want rapid deposition you call on rushing water and when you want rapid erosion you call on rushing water ... that is magically different from the rushing water you used to deposit sediment ... got it.
But toward the end of the Flood when the water had receded quite a bit, those tides would have had the effect of sending sediment-laden water farther onto the land mass than the normal waves would.
Nope. If anything they would affect stuff by mixing it up in the same place -- water doesn't flow around the world with the tides or waves Faith, the water goes in circles that decrease in size with depth ... look at the colored dots below:
Top view on the left with a section view on the right.
The red dots on the left would be the yellow dots on the right.
But the height isn't a big part of the picture I'm trying to create here. Think of the Indonesian tsunami that flowed an enormous distance over the land area. That's what I would expect of the waves toward the end of the Flood, ...
Do you realize that the height of a Tsunami wave in the open ocean is only a couple of feet and the reason they get so big is because of interference from shallow bottoms and land -- that's why ships are better off at sea than in harbor.
As your magical flood waters mysteriously disappeared the waves would start to interfere with the bottom and they would 'break' and flatten out, losing energy in turbulent upper water but leaving the bottoms relatively quiescent.
... especially during high tide.
No no no ... you just don't have a clue how this works.
During Hurricane Sandy the storm surge passed through here combined with a spring high tide (sun and moon aligned). The water rose and flowed inland coming to the foundation of my house and then went away. No big waves. No turbulent deposit of sediment. Just calm clear water. I went kayaking on it, launching from my driveway.
Waves go out, waves come in . Tidal waves go way way out and take a long time to come back in. ...
The time is due to the orbits of sun and moon, The height varies due to other factors having to do with interaction with land masses. The basic tide is 3-4 ft in height.
... In the case of the last stages of the Flood the water's edge would still be high on the land, ...
And before that the process of receding to that point would take the energy out of the waves.
... and the land was relatively flat too, ...
So the water would recede just like Hurricane Sandy's high water from my house.
... I do picture a lot of tidal wave sized waves that would suck way out ...
Again, no, that is not how water behaves.
... before returning with new cargo they deposit over thousands of miles of the land area. ...
You do realize don't you, that in your scenario Noah's Ark would have been dashed to pieces on a barren scoured shore and then buried by multiple layers of fast hardening sediment ...
And you do realize don't you, that none of this is mentioned in Genesis.
... Before there wree high mountains.
Which would show erosion and scouring if what you fantasize were real ... sadly, for you, they don't.
In the case of the Flood we're talking interaction between deep water with currents and layers interacting with entire land mass, and then waves as the water recedes interacting with land mass.
Where do the currents come from Faith? Magic? There are currents, but not because of waves.
Again, I'm not talking about waves during the deep water part of the Flood although I realize I wasn't being specific enough. I do have in mind the period when the water was receding. I suspect I've been clearer in former discussions along these lines.
When the bible says the waters were calm?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 12:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 103 of 1896 (713523)
12-13-2013 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tanypteryx
12-13-2013 10:24 PM


Re: tides, waves current
Oooo I got this ... remember the mountains were much lower before the flood so after the flood the mountains and the surrounding land masses lifted at about 2 feet per year. Also continental drift caused great rifts in the ocean floors where the water could run into and return to its subterranean lair. All the while none of the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Sumerians, or Greeks noticed this violent terrestrial restructuring.
Or there is a big drain in the bottom of the Pacific that was pulled so the water could all drain back to the subterranean caverns.
Oh wait ... remember the story of Odysseus? They came to that whirlpool, Charybdis I think, and all were lost but Odysseus. That could be the drain that was letting the water back underground.
Either way. Whats the difference?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-13-2013 10:24 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 12:14 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 104 of 1896 (713524)
12-13-2013 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
12-13-2013 9:06 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
That's why I required it to be at a distance ...
And if you go to the moon the earth looks like a smooth ball.
... , because the kinds of disturbances that would have occurred during very long exposure at the surface of the earth would be visible from a great distance. ...
Some are some aren't -- sometimes the "disturbance" is horizontal.
You can see some in the Grand Canyon.
... But they aren't and even up close there is no sign of any kind of disturbance on many layers. ...
Probably they had little to disturb them. Some disturbances only occur in specific places, like earthquakes along fault lines. No fault lines no earthquake disturbances.
... You have to get up close to see any of the erosion you are talking about, even the erosion in the particular layers you have identified in that diagram.
No those can be see from a distance.
But getting up close does show you that erosion has occurred, just not the kind you predict ... and the failure of your prediction is due to your hypothesis being wrong, not to how the earth actually behaves. A scientist throws out the hypothesis when this happens, you throw out the evidence.
At least at the Great Unconformity the band of erosion can be explained as caused by abrasion between the upper and lower levels, which I like to explain as due to the tilting of the Supergroup strata by the volcanic action beneath. The strata would have violently tilted against the upper strata which remained intact due to the tremendous weight of the strata above, and the tilting and sliding would have abraded both levels, and the evidence is that the eroded band is composed of material from both levels. This got discussed in far more detail on other threads.
But this doesn't explain the top of the Tonto Formation (layer 9) or layer 6 ... or the complete lack of debris from all that grinding ...
I'm not happy with other creationist explanations which explain the eroded band as a slurry which eroded the Supergroup, I like my own better. Paul K and I had an argument about how a particular boulder of quartzite got into the eroded band because quartzite takes a long time to form. Clearly it came from the layer called the Shinumo in the Supergroup, but the question I had then was how that particular layer got metamorphosed into quartzite but the other layers in the same group are just sedimentary rock. I don't know but it's clearly a hunk of that particular quartzite that was abraded and got buried in the eroded band, by the shifting of the rocks brought about by the force of the underground volcano, according to my favorite theory.
I'm too tired to continue. Later.
Yes, it is tiring to make up complete nonsense.
btw ... is there anyone you don't disagree with?
Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 9:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 105 of 1896 (713525)
12-13-2013 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:01 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
The long waves at least allow a period of time in which footprints could have been registered in the wet sediment
Okay, so I think I have a clearer understanding now. You hadn't made it clear that you envision this all happening near the tail end of the Flood. You don't think the substrate was exposed, you just think that between waves the water was shallow enough to allow animals to make tracks. This doesn't really solve your problem though. You admit that you are unable to explain all these animals survived all throughout the Flood, which is good, but then you pretend like this glaring problem with your explanation is a minor detail, which is bad. Not that I'm surprised; you do after all classify defying the laws of physics as "minutiae". As you have stated, you think these tracks were being lain down at the end of the Flood, meaning that (according to the Bible), these animals must have survived at least five months from the start of the Flood to the time when the water began to recede. Impressive. What were they eating? And again, what were they doing in between these low-water periods? The fact that you have absolutely no idea of how to explain this in the context of your Flood should be a red flag. And your bird explanation is weak. Besides many theropod tracks being far too big for a flying animal, this fails to account for the multitude of tracks that are clearly not remotely bird-like. How many more impossibilities do we have to point out for you to stop handwaving them away?
Speaking of impossibilities, I'm still waiting to hear how you explain the major issue of the physical impossibility of wet sand having a 34 degree angle of repose. Clearly writing a long post is not the issue, so it is once again clear that you are simply afraid to actually address it because even you sense how hard it destroys your fantasy. I know you will not have the courage to address it now anymore than you did before, but I do get a chuckle out of seeing you back down over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:01 PM Faith 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