Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 1817 of 1896 (717952)
02-03-2014 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1815 by herebedragons
02-03-2014 9:08 AM


Re: restatement
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
And
"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."
(Often attributed to Mark Twain)

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 1815 by herebedragons, posted 02-03-2014 9:08 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 1841 of 1896 (718073)
02-04-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1821 by Faith
02-03-2014 5:29 PM


Re: restatement
A layer represents millions of years according to OE thinking.
Not exactly. A layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time.
What a bunch of evasive crap. The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS.
Curiously this response has very little to do with the factual correction that Herebedreagons gave you of your simplistic misunderstanding.
You blow up because you can't even stand being wrong about your misimpressions of what science actually says.
And stop accusing me of this that and the other, which you do even without quoting me to prove anything about it. You are just making up crap like all the rest of them. Such as my conclusions don't follow my observations. This has got to be YOUR stupid misreading, idiot. PROVE IT or shut up.
All Herebedragons said there was a correction of your misimpressions, that's not accusing you of anything, Faith, it is just one more instance of telling you where you are very simply wrong.
We use various methods to date the rocks and that tells us that a "layer represents a period of time in which a specific depositional environment existed. A geological layer could very well represent a very short period of time or a very long period of time" ... which may or may not be millions of years.
It's not a difficult concept. The problem/s you have stem from getting information from unreliable sources.

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 1821 by Faith, posted 02-03-2014 5:29 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 1842 of 1896 (718075)
02-04-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1839 by edge
02-04-2014 1:00 AM


Re: restatement
I happen to think that angular unconformities such as the Great Unconformity, even if located deep under flat-lying strata, were formed after all the strata above were laid down, and were not ever mountains. The weight of the overhead strata, two miles deep over the Supergroup, would have resisted the force that tilted the Supergroup
How is that? Why would the overlying rocks not deform while the ones underneath do so, assuming both were present at the same time?
This doesn't really make sense even in a rheological model. Do you have experiments showing this phenomenon?
... so that it formed there, from the tectonic force and perhaps also the volcanic force which was exerted at the same time and made the granite and the schist basement rocks.
No. That much disruption will not leave the superjacent rocks unaffected.
If the underlying rocks were that mobile, they would contain fragments of the rigid rock above.
Instead, we have the opposite effect where rounded fragments of the underlying unit are found in the upper. In fact, they are found in troughs within the underlying unit. These things are not possible in the scenario that you attempt to develop.
Amazing isn't it? The supergroup just rolls over way down deep in the earth, and still ends up with a sheared off, fairly level top, but no rubble from the rocks around it to allow it to turn over.
Bind Moggling fantasy.

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 1839 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 1:00 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 1849 of 1896 (718126)
02-04-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1845 by Faith
02-04-2014 3:31 PM


suggestion
just a quick note
Amount of resistance -- weight, pressure from above -- would apparently have been equal to the force from beneath at that level, so that the effect of the force that created the Great Unconformity and the granite and the schist would not have continued into the strata above.
Pressure and weight are both linear functions of the rock density in each layer and the depth of the overall formation (all layers above).
Resistance would be a function of friction, which is a function of force normal to the surface being moved, which is a function of pressure and the area of contact.
To turn an angular block underground would mean that surfaces of contact would change over the course of the rotation AND you would need voids to make room for the movement.
It would be much more practical to argue that there were two periods of tectonic activity - one at the beginning of the flood when the "fountains of the deep" opened, which then turned the supergroup, followed by scouring by the flood and then you laying down of layers, and then finally the tectonic uplift etc etc etc.
At least then you don't need to roll over the supergroup underground.
It would still be silly putty argument from imagination, just not as silly as before.

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 1845 by Faith, posted 02-04-2014 3:31 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 1865 of 1896 (718171)
02-05-2014 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1861 by Faith
02-05-2014 6:05 AM


mountains and the names of layers
As I said, all evidence says that the Appalachians formed at a continental covergent boundary. The Mid-Ocean Ridge had nothing to do with it.
How odd. I thought the continents were separating from that ridge.
They are separating now, previously they were colliding and the Appalachians formed during the period of collision. This is why they are older than the Alps ...
Message 1862: I always thought the Alps were very high mountains and the Appalachians very low mountains more like rolling hills.
They were high mountains but now they are greatly eroded mountains.
"During the Triassic" is utterly meaningless to me. I associate all the names of eras with ROCKS. The idea that basins formed during the Triassic or during the Carboniferous and Tertiary is just gobbledygook,
Because you are ignorant of even basic geology, refuse to learn the terms that school children know about, and pretend that your lack of knowledge is superior to actual knowledge.
These are just the "names" of layers, so they designate locations in the geological strata with oldest layers at the bottom and youngest layers at the top.
Even if you ignore the absolute dates of geology in order to make you fantasy conceivable, you still need to pay attention to the relative ages - what layers are below other layers, when plates collided and when they separated.
Doing otherwise is just plain foolish silly putty fantasy.

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 1861 by Faith, posted 02-05-2014 6:05 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1874 by herebedragons, posted 02-05-2014 10:44 AM RAZD 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


Message 1866 of 1896 (718174)
02-05-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1852 by edge
02-04-2014 6:46 PM


Re: More evidence for Faith to ignore.
That wasn't the point. The point is that if Cretaceous rocks are deformed in one mountain range, but not in another, it suggests that they are of different ages.
You need to use grade-school terminology with Faith, as it seems she doesn't understand anything more complicated ...

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 1852 by edge, posted 02-04-2014 6:46 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1886 of 1896 (718855)
02-09-2014 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1884 by saab93f
02-09-2014 6:35 AM


Re: mountains
On the other hand 20 ft of new oceanfloor forming every day for thousands of years would most likely show somewhere.
Complete with flip-flopping magnetic polarity.

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 1884 by saab93f, posted 02-09-2014 6:35 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1887 by saab93f, posted 02-09-2014 10:46 AM RAZD 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


(4)
Message 1891 of 1896 (721577)
03-09-2014 8:28 PM


Summary of sorts, or is it Highlights?
As noted by Percy there are a lot of posts on this thread, and mine number some 217 (this will be the 218th), second only to Faith. Without Faith this thread would not have covered the material involved.
The many problems with creationist flood geology is that it ends up with more questions than answers, and many contradictions besides being contrary to the behavior of the physical world according to the known laws of physics etc.
Foremost in this is the apparently magical way water behaves ... as if it had hands and an intelligence ... during the flood event. In ways not seen anytime since.
A major portion of this thread centered on the Grand Canyon, where the creationist claim is that it was carved suddenly by flood runoff. Through sedimentary layers deposited in a magically sorted time sequence during this flood.
Problem #1: when catastrophic outflow over earthen dams occurs, the result is a U shaped straight channel, as evidenced in the scablands, or the Palouse River (see Message 387), or at Mt St Helens (see Message 432), and not a meandering V shaped channel as seen in the Grand Canyon.
Problem #2: water does not erode at the bottom of the water column -- the fastest water flow is at the surface and the relative velocity drops with depth, reaching virtually zero at the bottom of the channel. It does not carve channels in cracks deep under water.
Problem #3: speleothems (see Message 46) in caves in the canyon walls show long ages passed as the river cut to different depths, demonstrating that the canyon was carved over many thousands of years. The dating is based on radiometric measurements of uranium deposited in the speleothems when they formed after the caves formed after the canyon was cut to their elevation.
Creationists don't like radiometric dating for several reasons, not least of which is that it shows the vast age of the earth, but they usually wave it away by saying that things were different before the flood.
IF the canyon was formed AFTER the flood, by the runoff, and the caves formed AFTER that and the speleothems AFTER that, then we are into the time when radiometric dating is valid, and this means a contradiction to a recently formed canyon.
Problem #4: the sloth skull and dung (see Message 709) that were found in one of the caves in the walls of the canyon, showing that it had lived after the canyon was formed. This is a prehistoric animal that has been extinct for thousands of years.
So this is another contradiction.
Problem #5: IF the flood outflow carved the canyon then why did it carve it in this location, when there is a lower and wider pass over the Kaibab ridge just a few miles north and another smaller pass a few miles south (see Message 886 and Message 954) ... at locations that are devoid of any erosion channel across the ridge.
It's not that I insist on a "dam model" here, rather it is taking the argument of a world wide flood that covers all land and then drains away and follow this to a logical conclusion: at one point the water was above this ridge, at a later time it was below, so at one time in between it was at a level that would flow across this ridge, and it would have eroded all the low points.
Why don't we see similar canyons in those locations?
Problem #6: IF the flood outflow carved the canyon then why aren't there many many more similar canyons carved by this flood water in other locations around the world?
What makes the Flagstaff Arizona area so special?
Problem #7: There are remains of a filled in river part way up the Grand Canyon (see Message 984 and Message 1014), one that meandered back and forth and crossing the canyon in several locations. When and how did this river form?
Problem #8: erosion of the layers part way up the canyon walls cannot be accounted for by the creationist model and thus they contradict the model as well.
Problem #9: sorting of material into layers with different sizes of materials that cannot occur in sudden deposits, layers that show terrestrial evidence, etcetera, all contradict a fast deposition during a flood.
Problem #10: tectonics records of fault lines cross the canyon in several locations, and if these fault lines determined the path of the canyon then there are several places where the river would have had a shorter path than where it flows, and there is no evidence of tectonic faults along the alignment of the canyon. When rivers do follow fault lines there is still evidence of those fault lines in the ground (Palouse river and one of the tributaries to the Grand Canyon are examples) and the channel is straight rather than meandering. Fault lines don't meander, and they generally occur in parallel paths (not crossing paths).
Positing a meandering crack that crosses fault lines and that is then carved out by standing water is not supported by either the evidence of tectonics OR the evidence of the way water behaves at the bottom of a water column.
This does not get into the extensive discussion of water behavior and the hydrology of both river flow and erosion patterns, nor does it go into the other discussions of age measurements (ie elements taken from the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread), but this is enough to show that the Grand Canyon cannot rationally be considered any kind of evidence for a world wide flood, rather it demonstrates an age of the earth much greater than a Young Earth scenario is required to explain all the evidence.
I have tailored my summary to pertain to creationist arguments in general, rather than answer points that Faith has made up, so that the general reader can see how hopeless it is to argue that the canyon is evidence of a young earth.
Based on the multitude of different information from different aspects of the canyon demonstrating an age of the earth much greater than a Young Earth scenario it would be delusional to think it was formed recently, rapidly, and by magical flood water.
I may add more from other posts if I think it necessary, as there is a lot of information that has not been mentioned in this summary.
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : space
Edited by RAZD, : spling
Edited by RAZD, : per admin request

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)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024