|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A fair amount of it should be in the erosion itself. What?
The rest is under the strata somewhere. Look under the deepest parts of the strata column, look in the areas that are never defined in the diagrams, under the strata. Look on the other side of the Supergroup. What's there? That's a BIG area we're talking about. And have you looked down the side of the sofa? We're looking for an awful lot of rock, Faith. Hiding comes very high on the list of things that zillions of cubic meters of rock does very badly, just below unicycling and above stand-up comedy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Faith writes: But this theme keeps coming up, from you and PaulK, the idea that I somehow WANT things to be the way I've been describing them. I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed Faith writes:
But I'd have the job then of learning all about them [...] That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me [...] Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. [...] That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point was, my dear Dr. A, that I don't ARRIVE at a deduction by wanting it to be that way, I look at the evidence and discover what's actually there, and what's actually there supports my view very nicely as in fact I DO want it to do.
I do, on the other hand, suspect that Old Earthers systematically seek explanations that fit their theory and ignore those that don't. OR, being fair to all of us, it's just a matter of conflicting paradigms. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Thanks Faith, I understand your reluctance.
But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. ... This is a false statement -- in science things are interpreted according to what the evidence says. When you don't restrain your conclusions to predetermined results, when you follow where the evidence leads, then you come to conclusions based on an approximation of reality. You can see this process in the history of science understanding of such things as gravity, where Aristotle argued that things fell at different speeds according to their weight. Galileo at the tower of Pisa (supposedly) proved this to be wrong. Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment - Wikipedia Newton formalized his law of gravity as the force between two objects being positively related to the mass of each and inversely related to the distance between them:
F = GmM/d^2 And we now know that this is not completely correct, for instance it doesn't explain the orbit of Mercury properly. So we now have General Relativity ... and I won't bother you with the equations ... which takes care of Mercury but seems to have some other anomalies ... but we are getting closer. The age of the earth has a similar history. NOBODY started from a position that the earth must be old. One thing to consider: you can't have evidence that shows great age in a young earth unless the evidence is illusory, lying -- evidence that is part of creation. You can have evidence of young parts of the earth in an old universe\earth ... volcanic lava flows, tephra, etc will date to the time of eruption. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ..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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know you believe that but you're wrong. You are interpreting according to the OE theory. If you weren't you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place before
the GC uplift occurredthe GC was formed all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed the Hurricane fault occurred the magma dike in the GS area occurred all the formations of the southwest were sculpted such as the hoodoos the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened, showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form showing that the OE theory doesn't account for these formations, but rapid deposition and a young earth are the best interpretation Cheers Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The point was, my dear Dr. A, that I don't ARRIVE at a deduction by wanting it to be that way, I look at the evidence and discover what's actually there ... Unless you're too busy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
the GC uplift occurred the GC was formed all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed the Hurricane fault occurred the magma dike in the GS area occurred all the formations of the southwest were sculpted such as the hoodoos yes, and
the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened, False. They are all disturbed in different ways. They don't need to be "catastrophically disturbed" just to suit you. Just because you claim crows should be green and that any crows that aren't green would prove evolution erroneous doesn't mean that black crows prove anything other than that your belief of what should have happened is false. All you prove is that you don't understand geology, know squat about it, and are unwilling to learn.
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form False. The "knife edge" surfaces you are so fond of all show evidence of being a surface, either underwater or in air. Many have evidence of life on those surfaces, and that is enough to prove that they were a surface.
showing that the OE theory doesn't account for these formations, but rapid deposition and a young earth are the best interpretation Double False. Even IF your clouded rose glass observations were true it would not mean that rapid deposition and a young earth would explain them. The fact remains that no such formations have been observed happening TODAY from rapid deposition. NOT ONE. Uranium halos can't form in a few years, but it takes thousands of years for the decay of alpha particles to form the halos ... such halos exist and because of this they are de facto evidence of having taken a long time to be there. This is not interpretation, it is fact. There is a tree in the Sierra Nevadas that is over 5,063 years old. The evidence is annual growth rings, and all you have to do is count them: no interpretation needed. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I have two questions:
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC? Here are the two images Percy posted, to show that the uplift is the mounded area in the Grand Canyon area, the canyon having been cut into the south side of the mound.
You will also notice that the Supergroup, which is the tilted block of strata, two blocks in the second image, under the bottommost layer of the stack of parallel layers that runs for hundreds of miles north-south, right beneath the highest part of the mounded uplift. ABE: I didn't get this question worded as I had intended. I meant to ask 2) What was the cause of the TILTING of the Supergroup? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You are interpreting according to the OE theory. Yes, of course. That's the theory that works. OE Theory is what lead those scientists to be able to predict where coal can be found deep under the ground. And they're getting it right. Their findings, however, contradict a young Earth. If you want to find coal; you don't ask the YEC's, you ask ask the scientists. I suppose their OE Theory could all just be the butt of a joke, but it is yielding results. And that makes them look right.
If you weren't {interpreting according to the OE theory} you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place before the GC uplift occurred the GC was formed all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed the Hurricane fault occurred the magma dike in the GS area occurred all the formations of the southwest were sculpted such as the hoodoos the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened, I acknowledge that if I were assuming that the OE Theory was wrong, and that the Earth was in fact young, that those strata could not have been laid down individually and undisturbed. Just loosing the assumption of the OE Theory, and placing no bets on the age, I would conclude that those strata were laid down individually, and were disturbed, over the course of a very long period of time.
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form That doesn't show that. You mentioned us not really considering your alternative, but you seem to be doing exactly that. I don't think you fully understand the concept of the OE Theory. You gotta really stretch the time out. The layers are individual, but some of them are just gradually collecting like dust so deep that it would take what seems like forever. And over that time, the plate that the sediment is sitting on is grudging along the surface it is sitting on, but going even even slower. The kinds of disturbances that would happen in that process, would be unimaginable. And I think you're mistaking what we mean by "surface", the surface of the strata can be covered by water. Way back when it was way over on the other side of the planet, just gradually grudging along, there were all kinds of environments that it went through experiencing. Over long periods of time, remember. And they gradually left behind "individual" layers that represent great changes in the experiences that the surface of the Earth was going through. Changes that would take forever.
[Moose repellent]That's what I meant in Message 44, Moose.[/moose repellent]. So anyways, assuming that the OE theory is wrong and then finding a way to interpret evidence that simply corresponds with that assumption (like saying that the layers couldn't have been laid down individually and undisturbed (which is an assumption of what you're trying to explain)), is not a way to show that the OE theory is wrong. Assuming that the Earth is young, and then suggesting that the strata as observed could not have been laid down in a way that corresponds to what would be a short amount of time, and then concluding that the Earth could not be old, is not a good argument based on good evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Faith writes: But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. I feel sort of sorry for Atheos because he started this thread and he really wants to prove to me that his sand grains make the Flood impossible because he thinks they do. But I'd have the job then of learning all about them, plus researching possible other contexts he wouldn't have thought of in order to find out how they don't prove what he says they do. That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me, I have my own way of thinking about all this and don't want to get sidetracked into all those secondary issues like sand and speleothems. Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. Not necessarily all my own notions about how it might have occurred but certainly the timing of it which makes all Old Earth thinking false, AND the more I look at the strata the more I see that OE theory doesn't account for them, but a worldwide Flood certainly would. So he's got sand grains in the strata that supposedly couldn't have been deposited in water. That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted. He isn't going to do it, you aren't going to do it; that leaves me, and right now I don't want the job. Faith writes: Message 232 You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness Nice double standard Faith. You want us to read all your imaginings and think hard about it, but you will not take a chance at understanding a couple of simple flaws in your story. There are sand formations in some layers of strata, that you are supposedly interested in and looking at, that you say was all deposited by a flood of water, but this sand has all the characteristics of sand on dry land and none of the characteristics of sand deposited under water. It is that simple. Therefore, your story of all the layers of strata exposed by the Grand Canyon being deposited at one short, recent time by your flood is WRONG... IT DID NOT HAPPEN -
Faith writes: Message 243 If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all. I keep wondering why you are involved in discussions here. I cannot imagine that you have convinced a single person of anything, except that the bible isn't true and the biblical flood never happened, and that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC? In short: Plate tectonics. As the surfaces are gathering over the underlying surfaces that are on plates, they are slowing sliding along the surfaces that those plates are sitting on. As things gradually move about and collide and separate and all kinds of stuff, various different anomalies such as that uplift occur.
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup? A section of a very ancient surface of the Earth that was eroded away and gradually deposited upon while it was slowly carried across the underlying surfaces of the Earth through a process that keeps repeating itself today, as it has for extremely long periods of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3027 days) Posts: 141 Joined:
|
You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of the problem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Old Earth doesn't work. You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of the problem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Flood doesn't work. I notice that you've done a lot of posting since my last post and have somehow not managed to respond. You claimed that the reason you were not addressing my argument was because you didn't understand it. I explained it very clearly and offered to clarify any uncertainty you had. As I predicted, when your bluff was called you reverted to ignoring the point entirely. Well here is the promised reminder of your intellectual cowardice. Given your propensity for ignoring the points you can't deal with, I'm certain it won't be the last reminder. Edited by Atheos canadensis, : formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC? Tectonic uplift - Wikipedia
quote: For starters
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup? Grand Canyon Supergroup - Wikipedia
quote: and then they were eroded down to the level covered by the next round of sedimentation. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3027 days) Posts: 141 Joined: |
If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all. Ha! Once again I'm forced to ask if you are a hypocrite or just lack self-awareness. How long now have I been trying to get you to address what I have said? Seems like, according to yourself, you have no business commenting at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Assuming that the Earth is young, and then suggesting that the strata as observed could not have been laid down in a way that corresponds to what would be a short amount of time, and then concluding that the Earth could not be old, is not a good argument based on good evidence. But that's the way creation "science" works: all evidence and interpretations must lead to conclusions that the bible is correct. No matter what!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024