|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,772 Year: 4,029/9,624 Month: 900/974 Week: 227/286 Day: 34/109 Hour: 0/4 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, Jon, I calculated it as the STARTING speed, 11 feet per day is the average speed, which would have been attained around 100 BC.
And by the way, let's get the history of this information right: I was correcting Pollux's wild estimate of "miles per day" as the supposed creationist idea of the speed. Since I had calculated it a few years ago I informed him that the speed I had come up with was 20 miles per day as the STARTING speed, continually slowing down from there to today's 2 to 4 inches per year. 11 feet per day works out as the average and that would have occurred around 100 BC. The point was not to defend any of it, merely report it, and I'm not interested in defending it now either. But you are welcome to refigure it if you like. It's very simple. I'm not dealing with all the other plates, just the Atlantic ridge, the others may be slower or faster. (I did figure the Mediterranean Sea was probably narrower though and widened at a much slower rate than the Atlantic). Anyway the calculations are simple: it would have taken 4300 years since the Flood to move North America and Europe 3000 miles from each other. See if you come up with a different number than I did. ABE: Funny, I'm now coming up with an AVERAGE speed of about four and a half feet per day. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
etc etc etc with more to be added as whim strikes in essence ∑{ALL OF SCIENCE} Virtually everywhere you look there is evidence of great age. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : + 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 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The argument for the Flood and against Old Earth interpretations that I've been pursuing in this thread is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata as shown in the Grand Canyon area were deposited miles deep without any tectonic or volcanic or earthquake-faulting disturbance to them, including the cutting of the canyon itself, until after they were all in place.
ABE: (with the single exception of the Great Unconformity, those tilted layers beneath the horizontal Tapeats layer at the bottom of the horizontal stack, but there's even an argument that the tilting also didn't happen until all the other disturbances happened). Plus the objection to the idea that a rock layer = a time period of millions of years, completely on the basis of the sediments and fossil contents of that rock. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata as shown in the Grand Canyon area were deposited miles deep without any tectonic or volcanic or earthquake-faulting disturbance to them, including the cutting of the canyon itself, until after they were all in place. While ignoring the information of grain size distribution in the layers that show they were not deposited in a single flood event, the information that shows slow meandering erosion instead of large catastrophic cascading erosion (like the scablands and Palouse canyon exhibit), the information from the speleothems that show long time erosion at different levels during the development of the canyon, the development of the canyon from west to east instead of east to west, the evidence of surface erosion on many of the layers that show time between deposition, depositions that were terrestrial alternating with marine, and many other facts. Science doesn't cherry pick among the facts but develops explanations that include all evidence as best as possible.
Plus the objection to the idea that a rock layer = a time period of millions of years, completely on the basis of the sediments and fossil contents of that rock. Which is just your undereducated opinion based on belief rather than science. Unfortunately opinions have shown an extremely poor record of being able to alter reality in any way shape or form. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The argument for the Flood and against Old Earth interpretations that I've been pursuing in this thread is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata as shown in the Grand Canyon area were deposited miles deep without any tectonic or volcanic or earthquake-faulting disturbance to them, including the cutting of the canyon itself, until after they were all in place. So it's based on an obvious outright lie? OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
Please justify the following statement, "And I don't think all your detailed work REALLY supports this conclusion either."
I have seen no evidence that suggests you know the names of the rocks or understand the significance of the minerals that compose them, or even that you understand the very basics of geology, so why should anyone take anything you say regarding geology seriously? If you can provide a well-reasoned and cogent argument to support the above quote, then you have the right to post in this forum. If you can't or won't, then I suggest you move onto topics and fora more suited to your limited capabilities. You are correct, however, that you do not need an in-depth knowledge of geology to have a discussion here. You, though, have failed miserably not because of simple ignorance, but due to an incurious mind-set and a ginormous ego that prevents you from learning a damned thing. To date, your assertions in this forum are silly and indefensible, and come from a place of utter ignorance and fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Double post.
Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Hi roxrcool,
You testiness is understandable. To have someone tell you that what you do for a living is virtually a fraud is insulting. In the last couple of years I have been reading some Geology and am developing an understanding of how much can be learned from a detailed study of the minerals in a rock. Faith is like someone telling a doctor that you can know from looking at a patient across the room more than with a detailed history, examination, and investigations. I have to disagree with you on one thing. You said she has an incurious mindset. I think the set of her mind is indeed very curious!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
We all have people in our lives who inexplicably believe impossible things in contradiction to all evidence, common sense and even simple logic. Can anyone out there claim success in persuading these people away from their ideas? I know the success rate is greater than 0%, but I bet it's not by much. Should it be any different with Faith?
Agreed. While it's rare for YE Creationists to accept OE science, it happens. We've seen it here a few times, so it's theoretically possible for it to happen to Faith as well.
So if persuading Faith to accept modern geology isn't a realistic goal, what is?
I think a realistic goal with Faith would be to get her to admit she doesn't know everything. That her knowledge and understanding of geology is less than what a first year geology student learns in the first quarter of the year. That she doesn't know what she doesn't know, but that this is easily remedied if she would just take the time to actually read and learn.
I think we've already done it over and over and over again by describing (often in great detail) how Faith's conceptions of geological history stand in contradiction to the evidence and sometimes even of physical laws.
Agreed. Sadly, that's why I no longer participate. I kick myself every time I let her ridiculous posts tempt me back. But I love what I do and I just can't stand seeing my science being lied about incessantly by Creationists. It is for me as I expect it is for others both a mystery and a source of great frustration how we can walk Faith right up to the evidence that shows she's wrong and have her time after time declare that our interpretations are impossible and make no sense. Lately she's gone even further and declared that our simple deductions from the evidence are bizarre and that we must be suffering hallucinations. Even concepts as simple as that the heaviest sediment must fall out first (which RAZD recently repeated) are discarded as if nonsensical. While Faith's behavior is a puzzlement, she's not alone. Mindspawn exhibits the same behavior, as did Buzsaw. I think all we can do is continue presenting the scientific story, because it has great value for those who are able to follow evidence to logical conclusions even when it might contradict what they already believe. I have so much respect for people like yourself, RAZD, Moose, Jar, Dr A, and so many more here who have the patience and the passion to continuously argue with people like Faith. It does make a difference, because others are reading these posts, throwing off the shackles of ignorance, and recognizing the quackery that is YECism. But damn! It's hard to sit here day in and day out, refuting the same ol' crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
A curious mind seeks knowledge, experience, and honest answers to honest questions. Faith wants to mock, lie, and aggrandize her own ego.
I stand by my words. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
IF what I said is true, about the strata being all in place before any major disturbances occurred to them, all the specifics you are talking about have to be irrelevant. The Flood was NOT just any flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And I stand by MY words. It doesn't take a big ego to argue for a very limited range of observations that I'm convinced is the truth, none of which impinge in the slightest on the detailed work of a geologist EXCEPT where you claim it supports OE theory. It doesn't have to.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
IF what I said is true, about the strata being all in place before any major disturbances occurred to them ... ... then monkeys would fly out of your butt. Perhaps instead of indulging in fruitless speculation about imaginary geological conditions and hypothetical butt-monkeys, we should turn our attention to the actual rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nothing you've offered in this thread proves anything I've said is a lie. Only the Great Unconformity can be interpreted as occurring before the strata were all in place, which is how angular unconformities are conventionally interpreted, and I happen to believe it occurred afterward, but I've put aside that argument for now. The cross sections posted support my argument. All your other pictures show that the disturbances occurred after the strata were already there as I've been claiming. Erosion between the layers is not of a magnitude to support the idea that the layer was on the surface. There is such a thing as a different interpretation which has nothing to do with lying.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nothing you've offered in this thread proves anything I've said is a lie. This is not true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024