Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 106 of 1896 (713526)
12-14-2013 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
12-13-2013 11:20 PM


Re: tides, waves current
So, what's with all the facts? Do you think Faith hasn't figured all this out? She's got all the answers to the big picture. And if she is right about the big picture, then you are just going to have to come up with a better explanation for all those insignificant facts.

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 102 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2013 11:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 107 of 1896 (713527)
12-14-2013 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:47 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
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.
Exactly what I am trying to get you to see Faith, you need to understand how these things actually work. That's what people are trying to explain to you. If you want to make a case for a young earth and a global flood, you need mechanisms that actually WORK! If you talk about mechanisms that work and then you can fit those ideas into a young earth, then great. But your ideas simply don't work.
The Flood is far more plausible just looking at the way the strata lie as I keep saying and describing ad nauseam.
You're not convincing anyone. I find it hard to believe you are really even convincing yourself. Your ideas just don't match what we observe in reality.
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 95 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:47 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 108 of 1896 (713528)
12-14-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by herebedragons
12-13-2013 11:26 PM


Re: tides, waves current
I bet it was actually evaporation.

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 103 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2013 11:26 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 109 of 1896 (713530)
12-14-2013 3:14 AM


carry on
I read through the last collection of posts I haven’t answered and realized I’ve come to that point where I can leave, there’s nothing more to say. I could go through and give some answers, could correct the usual misrepresentations of my view, could object that I do know about this or that I’m accused of not knowing about and so on, but there would be no constructive purpose.
It’s easy to get lost in the particulars of the argument and miss the main point so I’ll just briefly repeat it: There’s just something that defies reason about assigning a lengthy time period to a slab of rock, supposedly populated by creatures defined by the fossils within the rock. Wish you'd wake up and see it. As for the evidence for the Flood, again I’d just say that the strata themselves require the explanation of having been laid down in water.
Beyond that, the particulars of how the Flood might have happened are interesting to think about but I don’t expect to be able to answer them all, it's the unknowable past after all, I'm sure I'm getting much of it wrong. But again, the strata require the Flood, however the details should be understood.
I’m taking a vacation from EvC and wish you all a joyous holiday season.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 8:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 115 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 11:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 12:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 120 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-14-2013 2:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 110 of 1896 (713531)
12-14-2013 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
12-13-2013 9:06 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Since my name's been mentioned.
quote:
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 don't believe that this is true. Let's see some evidence of this "eroded band". Sure, we can find eroded material from the older rock embedded in the newer,yes (and there's nothing surprising about that). But not material eroded from the younger rock.
quote:
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
This is misleading. The time issue wasn't even that important in the original discussion. The question was how the boulder formed and got into the Tapeats Sandstone.
Clearly, the Shinumo Quartzite must have already existed as such while the Tapeats Sandstone was being deposited. I guess that there's a time factor as such there, but I don't see any need to go beyond simple plausibility arguments.
quote:
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.
A question which was something of a distraction. Since we don't have the evidence needed to answer it and it doesn't seem to be directly relevant I don't see any need to worry about it in the context of this discussion.
quote:
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.
Going back to the original posts, the boulder is found embedded in the Tapeats sandstone, above the Hakatai Shale (which is above the Shinumo, where it is present). It's not present in an "eroded band" (the Shinumo Quartizte isn't even in contact with the Tapeats Sandstone at this location).
ANd finally we have the old problem with your ideas about the formation of angular unconformities. We do find get flat, undistorted rocks lying on top of an angular unconformity ? I've yet to see any sensible explanation other than the standard geological view that the flat rocks were laid down on top of the unconformity after it had been eroded flat.

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

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


(3)
Message 111 of 1896 (713541)
12-14-2013 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
12-13-2013 4:24 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Faith writes:
The original horizontality of the layers, which of course is easily determined if they are still horizontal, but is to be assumed even if they have been tilted or buckled;
When it snows on a hill in your part of the country, don't you get a uniform but tilted layer of snow?
But anyway, why do you think horizontality means "flood"? Isn't slow deposition equally as capable of leaving horizontal layers, like this photo of an ancient Roman shipwreck on the seafloor where sediments are gradually collecting:
...depending on the local situation the fact that completely different sediments are laid one upon another, which defies any slow normal-time explanation,...
A change in sediment type needs only a change in the nature of the overlying water column, which is often caused by changes in depth and proximity to shore. Sediments close to shore tend to be sand, those further out and deeper tend to be shale, and both tend to be made up of larger particles because waters are more energetic close to shore. Sediments far from shore receive little contribution from the runoff from land and so tend to be dominated by the detritus of biological activity.
When a region subsides (decreases in elevation), as it first sinks beneath the waves the sedimentation is primarily sand. The ancient city of Alexandria, Egypt, is an example of relatively recent subsidence. Portions now lie beneath 15 to 20 feet of water, and today the sedimentation is primarily sand. As it sinks further and becomes further from shore the sedimentation will transition to shale. Should it subside enough to be far from shore the sedimentation will transition to a primarily biological composition, like limestone.
Subsidence and uplift cause transitions between these three most common forms of sedimentary layers. They can be seen occurring today in oceans all around the world, and the history of these changing sedimentary processes can be observed in the geologic layers.
Energetic floods like yours deposit undifferentiated jumbles of everything washed from the land or sea floor mixed together. There is nothing about a flood that would produce the uniform layers of sand, shale or limestone observed in the geologic column. More importantly, floods move and deposit coarse sediments, not fine sediments like the ones that make up most of most layers of the geologic column.
... the fact that the interface between the layers, which may be totally different sediments, most often shows a knife-edge close contact, no blurring between them,...
Just how do you imagine a flood might produce these highly differentiated layers: first a layer of sand, then switching on a dime to shale, then limestone? Do you have examples of floods doing this anywhere in the world? Of course you don't, because floods don't do this.
But we do have examples all around the world of all the types of sedimentary layers forming right now. We know the conditions required to form these layers. Layers like these aren't found after floods, such as the tsunami in Japan or the periodic flooding of rivers in the American interior.
The sedimentary layers we see being deposited today have layers beneath them, and we can drill cores and see layers that were deposited hundreds, thousands and millions of years ago. We can see the transitions between types of sedimentary layers, and we can drill cores in many different places and track the encroachments and retreats of ancient seas across time.
About your "knife-edge" transitions, they're not as knife-edged as you believe - close examination does reveal some gradual transition. The transition between layers represents thousands of years and the transition from one type of depositional environment to another was very gradual. In the Grand Canyon each inch of layer represents around two or three thousand years, thereabouts.
... whatever small degree of erosion that may be seen there being explainable as runoff between the layers;...
In your flood scenario, the land is submerged and sediments are being deposited onto it. As one layer is completed and before another layers begins, how do you imagine runoff to occur on a submerged landscape?
...and the fact that any distortion such as buckling or folding, explainable by tectonic or volcanic force, always affects a whole block of strata at once while the strata themselves remain parallel to each other,...
How do you imagine this an argument for the flood?
...raising the question why the disturbance waited millions of years to occur (the individual strata always being explained in terms of such long time frames).
Why does Vesuvius wait thousands of years between major eruptions? Why did the Japan earthquake and tsunami wait until a couple years ago? We live on an active and dynamic planet. The internal flows in the mantel and core cause forces to build up and occasionally seek relief using processes that we understand to a fair degree but cannot predict with any accuracy.
Then if the contents of the individual layers are dug out, this usually shows a particular collection of fossils gathered within, which always suggests that they died en masse in a catastrophe that provided ideal conditions for fossilization rather than one by one in any normal scenario of life and death.
Most fossils are not discovered in sedimentary rock that suggests flood or catastrophe, nor are they generally found as a "collection of fossils gathered within." Certainly we've uncovered fossil graveyards, but generally fossils are scattered about within a sedimentary layer, and radiometric dating reveals great differences in the ages of the fossils.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 4:24 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 112 of 1896 (713542)
12-14-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
12-14-2013 3:14 AM


Re: carry on
Happy holidaze Faith,
and when you abuse a pine tree remember ... there is a continuous unbroken validated tree ring chronology made from trees that lived from the present to the deep past -- 10,460 BCE and that the more ancient members of this proud lineage are German pines.
Remember that the holiday you will be celebrating is Winter Solstice ... it has nothing to do with Christianity, but everything to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun.
This is a time that cultures around the world recognize as significant, the shortest day of the year, and it was celebrated long before christianity tried to take it over.
Remember that Christians have been waging war on Winter Solstice by trying to convince people that it has something to do with Christ. It doesn't.
Remember that when you exchange gifts that this is a German pagan tradition, not a christian one.
Hanging up a stocking? also a German pagan tradition.
And, when you come back remember all these unanswered posts here. They are a gift to you to learn from.
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 109 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 3:14 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 113 of 1896 (713543)
12-14-2013 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:01 PM


footprints ...
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.
ROFLOL. Contradicting the bible again ... bad bad Faith
So they are all running for their lives to get away from the next wave ... which is why the footprints are all orientated in the same direction right? What direction is that Faith?
really
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 92 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:01 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 114 of 1896 (713558)
12-14-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:26 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
Contrary to what you seem to expect, I love those cross sections of the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area and got a lot of my inspiration from them.
Well, that's very interesting since most of the layers consist of the kind of fine-grained sediments that cannot result from a flood.
It seems clear from that cross section itself that the layers that cover the Kaibab at the Grand Staircase also originally covered it at the Grand Canyon but were subsequently eroded away,...
Yes, that's correct, the layers above the Kaibab at the Grand Canyon were eroded away. I won't quote the rest of what you say, just let me ask why you think you need anything more than uplift and erosion? Is it because you need the erosion to be very rapid, so you imagine that volcanoes and tectonic forces somehow caused the overlying strata to become "cracked and broken up" so that they could be eroded and carried away quickly? Don't you think all this cracking and breaking up would have left evidence behind? Don't you think that several thousand cubic miles of sediment eroded away within the last couple thousand years would have ended up somewhere where we'd notice so that you could point to it and say, "See, there's all the material from the sedimentary layers that used to lie above the Kaibab!"
Things that have actually happened leave evidence behind. The things that you think have happened have somehow managed to leave no evidence behind, while the things that geologists think have happened have left evidence behind literally all over the place.
This is why I asked that those particular view from within the GC where the horizontality and flatness are clearly preserved, be the subject under consideration, to demonstrate the lack of disturbance to the individual layers, which should contradict the idea that they were laid down individually over millions of years.
Again, why do you think "horizontality and flatness" indicate flood? The majority of layers are marine, and huge expanses of marine basins are flat.
And why do you think "lack of disturbance to the individual layers" is contrary to slow deposition over millions of years? Why do you even think the layers are undisturbed, since they contain evidence of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, folding, intrusions and faults?
But nobody wanted to do that and the cross sections actually demonstrate the same principle anyway as the layers are shown to be individually undisturbed, the distortions having occurred to the stack as a whole.
Why do you think a stack of sedimentary layers being distorted together is contrary to slow deposition when the layers originally formed millions of years before?
I've assumed the malleability which is shown in the distortion of strata in groups reflects the expectable condition of dampness right after the Flood, but it isn't crucial to my argument.
That's good, because it's wrong. Soaking a rock doesn't make it malleable.
Besides, if the Kaibab was deeply buried long enough after the flood for you to believe it became rock, then that was so long after the flood that your special kind of rock that is malleable when wet would have dried out and would no longer be malleable. So you can just forget your "wet rock is malleable" argument. The facts are that rock is pliable on a scale of miles, and when heated it is pliable on a scale of feet. You don't need any special malleable rock to cause a stack of sedimentary layers to bend without fracturing.
The rest of your argument seems to be that over the course of millions of years each newly forming sedimentary layer would experience its own unique set of bendings and distortions, and that they therefore couldn't form a neat stack of layers. This goes back to my question about the snow at the beginning of this message. If the top layer became bent and distorted into a series of ups and downs, why wouldn't the next layer deposited atop it conform to it just like snow?
you would see individually distorted contact lines between layers, and you would see irregular thicknesses over short lengths as deposition of new sediments would have had to fill in the irregularities of the lower disturbed layer.
We *do* find these things in layers. Here's a picture of the interbedding at the Grand Canyon taken from a Bible website:
AbE: This image raised the suspicions of HereBeDragons, for good reason as it turns out. The layers in this image cannot be interbedding, see my Message 188 for an explanation.
Perhaps you're expecting such things to be conspicuously common, but large regions of sea floors are far from plate boundaries (where the most significant disturbances occur) and simply collect sediments for millennium after millennium, and most of the layers of the Grand Canyon formed on quiet sea floors.
I don't remember mentioning faulting, but perhaps I did, but the point would be that over millions of years on the OE model you would expect multiple volcanic events...
We do see multiple volcanic events, but you seem be expecting more than are recorded in the geologic record. Given that 99.99% of the world's surface has no volcanoes, just how many and how close together do you think volcanoes should be in the geologic record? Most areas of the Earth's surface go for millions and millions of years without sprouting a volcano.
...which is clearly an effect to the entire stack as a whole, brought about by a couple of volcanic incidents that must have occurred in roughly the same time frame AFTER the entire stack was laid down over two miles deep.
Take a look at the diagram again, this time taking note of the fact that the Grand Canyon and Zion Canyon are around a hundred miles apart:
Volcanoes are a geologic expression of lava welling up from the interior and cannot affect buried layers. They're a result of the tectonic and magma forces, not a driving force of layer deformation. Magma pressuring the terrain up into a volcano would not have much if any bending effect on layers it passes through, and especially not on deeply buried layers miles away. If you're looking for something to drive the bending of layers you probably need to look to tectonic forces.
At the north end of the Grand Staircase some cross sections show that the strata north of where this diagram ends are tilted as a block at the fault line that has also pushed up the end that you see in the diagram.
You mean like this diagram from Wikipedia:
They also show a magma dike from the bottom of the strat to the top just south of the point where the diagram ends.
Yes, we can see it in the diagram. Notice that the welling up of this magma through all the geologic layers hasn't deformed them one bit. Why is it that you keep attributing the bending of layers to the action of volcanoes? Again, they're a result of other forces, not a cause of forces.
The strata on the other side shown in other cross sections are quite a bit lower and tilt downward as a block away from the fault line, though they are identifiably the same strata in the same order as those in the Staircase.
If you mean the tilted strata at the extreme left of the diagram separated by the Hurricane Fault, yes, they're the same strata in the same order, though not all strata are present on both sides of the fault.
The conclusion is that one volcanic event caused one faulting event at that point that split the strata into two sections,...
The magma dike is miles from the Hurricane Fault and did not cause the bending there. Whatever pushed up the layers is gone now. Obviously the layers to the north of the fault (left in the diagram) were at one time separated from the layers to the south by a significant distance, and I couldn't see a way that might have happened. The Internet seems to be sparse on information about the Hurricane Fault, maybe someone can provide some information on how this happened.
But it wasn't caused by a volcano. The most I can make out of the diagram was that there was some significant uplift and mountain building that caused the upward bending on both sides of the Hurricane fault, then the mountain range eroded away. Following that was a great deal more deposition, first of the Claron layer but then a great many more layers above that in order to bury it under great pressure. Following that was more erosion back down the to around Claron layer. The erosion on opposite sides of the Hurricane Fault must have been much different, since on the north side the Claron layer was deposited upon a discontinuity on tilted layers, while on the south side the Claron layer was deposited upon the Kairparowits where its sediments had no trouble conforming to this already tilted layer.
But again, it wasn't a volcano behind the Hurricane Fault. The rise of magma through layers would have an influence in a roughly circular radius and would not cause a roughly east/west fault line and an uplift miles and miles away.
I could also describe the volcanic event under the Grand Canyon in the same terms...
I'm sure you could, but it wouldn't be based upon evidence, and it wouldn't be anything you've ever been able to convince anyone else of, including creationists.
I hope I've been clear;
You've been very clear. Wrong, but very clear. Things that happen leave evidence behind. Find some evidence and then interpret it in ways consistent with the way we observe the world actually behaving.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE, add disclaimer about one of the images I used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 12:28 PM Percy has replied
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Percy has replied
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 6:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:37 PM Percy has replied
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:45 PM Percy has replied
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:05 AM Percy has replied
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:21 AM Percy has replied
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 12-17-2013 10:33 AM Percy has replied

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


(3)
Message 115 of 1896 (713559)
12-14-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
12-14-2013 3:14 AM


Re: carry on
Faith writes:
I read through the last collection of posts I haven’t answered and realized I’ve come to that point where I can leave, there’s nothing more to say. I could go through and give some answers, could correct the usual misrepresentations of my view, could object that I do know about this or that I’m accused of not knowing about and so on, but there would be no constructive purpose.
You kind of got steamrolled on this one.
It is a shame that once everyone gets up to speed and starts pointing out all the flaws in your argument, you pick up your marbles and leave.
There are always details, consequences, clues, evidence, that will be left by any events in the geological history. We can predict some of the evidence we should see if various hypotheses are true. When we discover details that do not fit with our hypothesis we have to figure out what it means and how it will change our hypothesis. The devil is in the details.
That is where you go wrong every single time you participate at EvC. The details that are flaws in your argument, you ignore, but if you cannot explain them your whole argument falls apart.
You accuse us of misunderstanding your argument and repeat it over and over. You seem to think that is the reason we disagree with you is a lack in understanding.
We understand you just fine. Your hypothesis just is not that complicated.
Understanding does not mean agreement. We disagree with you because you are wrong.
Faith writes:
Beyond that, the particulars of how the Flood might have happened are interesting to think about but I don’t expect to be able to answer them all, it's the unknowable past after all, I'm sure I'm getting much of it wrong.
Too bad you have not answered any of the particulars. The past is only unknowable if you never actually study it, and sitting in your living room with your silly mind experiments is not studying it.
But again, the strata require the Flood, however the details should be understood.
That should read "some of the strata require water for deposition, but there is no evidence of a worldwide flood."
Happy Holidays!

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 109 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 3:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 1896 (713563)
12-14-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
12-14-2013 3:14 AM


Re: carry on
It’s easy to get lost in the particulars of the argument and miss the main point so I’ll just briefly repeat it: There’s just something that defies reason about assigning a lengthy time period to a slab of rock, supposedly populated by creatures defined by the fossils within the rock. Wish you'd wake up and see it.
And if only you could provide a good argument for this, instead of just saying it, your wish would be granted.
As for the evidence for the Flood, again I’d just say that the strata themselves require the explanation of having been laid down in water.
And if only you could provide a good argument for this, instead of just saying it ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 3:14 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 117 of 1896 (713564)
12-14-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I guess I am not clear on this image, Percy. If layers separated by over 100 million years are inter-bedded, wouldn't that be problematic. A quick Google search shows this source to be the only place where this is particular "problem" is discussed, so seems suspect. Explanation?
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 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 1:23 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 1:58 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 118 of 1896 (713567)
12-14-2013 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by herebedragons
12-14-2013 12:28 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Where is your 100 million year figure coming from? Is that a claim from that website? I was only using their image as an example of a complex boundary between layers, in this case interbedding.
If that image isn't a good example of interbedding let me know and I'll try to find another.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 12:28 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 2:00 PM Percy has replied
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:00 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 119 of 1896 (713568)
12-14-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
12-14-2013 1:23 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
According to the image the rocks are layered:
Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian
Interbedding between rocks of that different of ages would be problematic, would it not?
I assume this is erroneous information from this site, but not sure. Do they simply alternate between Redwall-type limestone and Muav-type limestone without corresponding fossils (Ie. Mississippian or Cambrian fossils)?
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 118 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 1:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:13 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 10:19 AM herebedragons has not replied

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


(2)
Message 120 of 1896 (713570)
12-14-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
12-14-2013 3:14 AM


Re: carry on
So after much deliberation you have granted yourself permission to ignore all the objections to your Flood fantasy. What integrity. You continue to insist that you needn't deal with all the impossibilities required by your fantasy because your gut reaction to the appearance of the strata (but only if you don't look too closely) tells you that the Flood is the only explanation, but this convinces no one. It's like insisting that Lamarckism is right because there is a large-scale pattern showing that animals are well-adapted to their environments. Never mind all the minor details that show Lamarckian evolution is impossible and not responsible for what we see, the big picture is all we need. Just look at those giraffes stretching their necks up to the tops of trees! It's so obvious!
It's no wonder you've never found yourself convinced by anything presented to you over the years; you just avoid questions, refuse to think about them and then run away from the discussion when your constant evasions reveal the weakness of your position even to yourself.
Run along then. Ask Santa for a snorkel so you don't suffocate with your head buried in the sand the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 3:14 AM 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