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:   Origin of the Flood Layers
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 181 of 409 (752741)
03-12-2015 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:35 PM


There's some truth to that. I don't want to let too many assertions go by without some kind of response.
There is nothing wrong with assertions as long as they are backed up. This is something that YECs do not seem to fathom.
The sad thing is that, yes, sometimes the 'evo' side makes assertions without support, but YECs almost never pick up on it. In fact, I often make unsupported assertions trying to draw out YECs, but they (usually) simply do not have the reasoning power to recognize this ad attempt an response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:45 PM edge has replied

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


Message 182 of 409 (752742)
03-12-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by edge
03-12-2015 3:41 PM


If nothing else, such a long drawn-out discussion about absolutely nothing, as we've been having for pages now, is convincing me to avoid making ANY kind of remark off the cuff. Sheesh. It won't make a difference though. It doesn't matter what I say I always get a bazillion objections to it that require endless laborious explanations. Support or no support, I don't think it matters, I'll be subjected to a barrage of complaints and objections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:41 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 183 of 409 (752744)
03-12-2015 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:41 PM


It was supported by the fact that you aren't absolutely certain it was once surface. That leaves it open to interpretation.
Okay, I do not deal with absolutes in this context. It is possible that someone fabricated the chart. I seriously doubt that, but until I research the data, no, I will never say anything is absolute. That's the department of religious dogma, which you adhere to (and I'm absolutely certain of that).
But realistically, no, my lack of absolute certainty is not evidence to the contrary. I'm sure that you can always find someone out there who will disagree with something no matter how certain you are (sounds familiar, eh?). For instance, would you accept my uncertainty about the correctness of the Bible suggest that there is an alternative interpretation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:49 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 184 of 409 (752746)
03-12-2015 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by edge
03-12-2015 3:48 PM


Sigh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:48 PM edge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 185 of 409 (752748)
03-12-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:08 PM


Faith writes:
I spend a LOT of time where I think it will count most.
What you do is sit at your PC and google.
You have no formal education or qualifications in any of the diverse subjects that you feel capable of pontificating on. You never leave your armchair to phyically look at the stuff you have crazy ideas about. You don't do even basic desk research - you don't know what it is, you do not have access to it and wouldn't understand it anyway.
You think that your uninformed, plucked out of thin air, unevidenced and untested mad schemes are as valid as those of real scientists - those who have spent their academic lives studying an aspect of a particular rock formation, gene or animal species and had their work exposed to the criticism of their peers.
Their work is built on hundreds of years of earlier scientists' efforts. Hundreds of thousands of real scientists spending years on obscure specialisms - all of their efforts having to fit and add to the giant jigsaw called a theory. Most are lucky to find a single piece.
And there you sit in your hermetically sealed little religious bubble, blissfully ignorant of real research, making stuff up from nothing, thinking that the stuff you thought of in the last ten minutes is just as valid as the empirically tested, reference based, peer reviewed real science that is actually a life's work. It's an insult to ignorance, it needs another word.
You honestly do not have a fucking clue.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 186 of 409 (752750)
03-12-2015 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:45 PM


If nothing else, such a long drawn-out discussion about absolutely nothing, as we've been having for pages now, is convincing me to avoid making ANY kind of remark off the cuff. Sheesh.
Hey, you are in control. You could have exercised good judgement in the beginning and kept your fingers off the keyboard. You could have avoided making outlandish statements.
It won't make a difference though. It doesn't matter what I say I always get a bazillion objections to it that require endless laborious explanations. Support or no support, I don't think it matters, I'll be subjected to a barrage of complaints and objections.
Puh... lease...!! try to stay on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 187 of 409 (752753)
03-12-2015 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:08 PM


I would think that even a diehard science pedant MIGHT, just once in a while, be able to understand the GOOD reasons why a creationist does what we do.
We understand the reasons you make these arguments, and we understand that they are not scientific reasons.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 167 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 4:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 188 of 409 (752757)
03-12-2015 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
03-12-2015 4:12 PM


I didn't say they were scientific reasons and it's none of your business anyway. They are necessary strategy for mustering my resources as *I* need to muster them, not being a scientist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2015 4:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 189 of 409 (752761)
03-12-2015 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
03-12-2015 2:43 PM


I've got a little list ...
Faith writes:
You guys make WAY too much of such comments from me. The idea as I understood it was that it "looks like" phenomena on the surface and that was the entirety of the claim to evidence. And I figured it wouldn't occur to them that possibly it never was on the surface so I very helpfully suggested that possibility. There are so many claims for Old Earth Geology and against the Flood I have to pick and choose and that isn't one I'd expect to spend a lot of time on at this point so the suggestion that maybe the "river valley" was never on the surface is all I wanted to put out there. If they'd claimed very rigorous open-and-shut evidence I might have spent some time on it. Might. But as I said, it's just one of those thousands of claims that I can't spend my life on. I put time in on the issues that strike me as the best possibilities for making a case, and this isn't one of them.
It's not just thousands of such issues but rather millions.
So let's make a little list of "issues" that neither you or anyone else have explained with some flood or in 6000 years.
What looks just like Valleys and rivers and deltas buried deep underground.
Salt beds hundreds of feet thick buried tens of thousands of feet underground.
Salt domes.
The Green River varves, six million alternating layers, light then dark, super fine then coarser material.
The chalk layers that became the White Cliffs of Dover.
How rain for 40 days and 40 nights would wear granite differently than tens of thousands of years of water pouring over Niagara Falls or other similar falls?
How are waves today different than waves during the Biblical floods?
How are currents today different than during the Biblical Floods?
What model, method, mechanism or process in a flood would cause tsunami waves after the water had stopped rising and was receding?
How any flood can make stone.
There are a few things, very few things, where you need to present a model, method, process or mechanism that explains what is seen.
AbE:
And this is really, really important Faith.
If just one item from that list and the thousands of other issues does not have a process, model, method or procedure that will allow creating in a 6000 year period then the earth is older than 6000 years.
In fact the earth must be older than the minimum time needed to create any item on that or all the other lists.
It really is that simple.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(3)
Message 190 of 409 (752766)
03-12-2015 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
03-09-2015 1:21 PM


I don't recall you making that point, but what I mean by time periods is the millions of years currently assigned to the layers of the Geo Column otherwise known as the Geo Time Scale, the Eras and so on. Time gaps of hours or even days are something else, and would fit into a Flood scenario that takes wave action and tides into account.
Wave action and tides do not add Ar, Sr, or Pb to rocks and minerals. Layers are not dated by depth. They are dated by the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks that make up those layers. Water is incapable of sorting these rocks by such small differences in rare isotopes. A recent flood is completely incapable of producing the measured ages found in the rocks themselves.
For example, If an asteroid did hit the Earth 4,000 years ago, then the tektites produced by that asteroid would date to 4,000 years ago, or at the lower age limit of hte K/Ar dating method. They don't. Instead, the K/T tektites at the K/T boundary date to 65 million years before present. A flood can not falsely age these tektites, and it certainly can't decide to only put these tektites of a specific age right above the last dinosaur fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


(4)
Message 191 of 409 (752768)
03-12-2015 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
03-12-2015 3:12 PM


Tectonic movement of rock underground, water running between layers.
That is how underground rivers form, water runs down through cracks in easily erodible material, such as limestone, and carves out caverns and tunnels until it finds a place to escape. Cross sectional shapes are generally rounded. Flow patterns are random since they follow cracks and the most erodible materials. They tend to form in stacks as the water works it's way down through the layers.
------------------------
Canyons form by water flowing to the lowest points until they converge into larger and larger flows of waters. They cut down into the terrain and form primarily V shaped cross sections. This creates a characteristic dendritic (branching) pattern.
Each system produces very characteristic features. They cannot be confused one for the other.
Faith writes:
It was supported by the fact that you aren't absolutely certain it was once surface. That leaves it open to interpretation.
You throw this around like it has some valid logic to it. It doesn't. It is not a mater of "absolute certainty." It is about "reasonable certainty."
Here is an seismic image of a buried feature.
There is just no way to confuse this with an underground river system. It was clearly formed in the same way as a subaerial canyon system. And we can be reasonably certain of that - reasonably certain enough to conclude that this feature was NOT formed underwater; that while it was forming, it was exposed at the surface and subsequently buried.
Faith writes:
But as I said, it's just one of those thousands of claims that I can't spend my life on. I put time in on the issues that strike me as the best possibilities for making a case, and this isn't one of them.
But this is an important issue for you. There are buried features that could not have formed underwater. The flood was not active during those times. Perhaps those canyons formed BEFORE the flood through "normal" erosion and then were buried BY the flood? That would be a more logical answer to the problem. But NO, you just want to ignore it and suggest that because we are not absolutely certain (i.e. we don't have a time machine) that you can just toss out any hair-brained idea and simply dismiss it.
This is not about scientific precision, but about looking at the evidence rationally and honestly.
The point was to claim that there is possibly another way of interpreting the images, that's all. When another interpretation is possible it doesn't prove anything about which is correct but it may certainly raise some doubt about the accepted interpretation.
You offer interpretations based on considering the evidence not by making stuff up to save your personal theory. There may be some variations on how to interpret those seismic images, but formation by water running between the layers is NOT one of them.
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... 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.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 6:15 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 03-13-2015 3:56 AM herebedragons has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 192 of 409 (752774)
03-12-2015 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by herebedragons
03-12-2015 5:51 PM


That is how underground rivers form, water runs down through cracks in easily erodible material, such as limestone, and carves out caverns and tunnels until it finds a place to escape. Cross sectional shapes are generally rounded. Flow patterns are random since they follow cracks and the most erodible materials. They tend to form in stacks as the water works it's way down through the layers.
I think that one important take away here is that the pattern of dendritic tributaries with upstream branching is very different from the trellis-type pattern of caverns where you can see closed loops and geometric patterns. The former is a surface pattern of coalescing streams, whereas the latter are patterns of selective dissolution of limestone; and are readily visible in your example.
I would differ on the point of underground 'rivers' being random, however, since they tend to follow fracture sets that are not just geometrically related to regional stresses, but are sometimes predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 5:51 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 10:07 PM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 193 of 409 (752791)
03-12-2015 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by edge
03-12-2015 6:15 PM


I would differ on the point of underground 'rivers' being random, however, since they tend to follow fracture sets that are not just geometrically related to regional stresses, but are sometimes predictable.
Yea, OK... "random" is kind of an unfortunate word and I have tried to think of a better descriptor, but I can't think of anything else that really fits. It's not that there is no rhyme or reason to their course, but no universal pattern that they follow. The dendritic pattern of surface rivers is pretty much universal, but underground rivers don't really have that kind of recognizable pattern. Recognizable features, yes... but I think random is appropriate to describe them, unless you have a word that works better?
But anyway, there is really no mistaking one for the other.
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... 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.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 6:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 03-13-2015 2:54 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 194 of 409 (752798)
03-13-2015 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by herebedragons
03-12-2015 10:07 PM


Recognizable features, yes... but I think random is appropriate to describe them, unless you have a word that works better?
Random means 'no pattern'. I would say that there is a strong NE-trending orientation to the pattern of caverns in the Lechuguilla map.
In geology, there is almost always some kind of control. That is what makes the two patterns that we have been discussing so different. Even in detail, there are probably some kind of fracture sets that control the directions of cavern formation. Whether a specific fracture actually develops an open space may appear random but that probably depends on other factors such as the presence of faults, preferred flow directions or variable cementation or location within a fold. Nevertheless, at some scale, there is a pattern. There are other details we could discuss such as intersections and pipes, etc. This is how we do exploration for certain types if ore deposits. I admit that some features are hard to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 10:07 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 195 of 409 (752799)
03-13-2015 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by herebedragons
03-12-2015 5:51 PM


There is just no way to confuse this with an underground river system.
Fine. Nevertheless it's about a river in a valley, running water.
Canyons form by water flowing to the lowest points until they converge into larger and larger flows of waters. They cut down into the terrain and form primarily V shaped cross sections. This creates a characteristic dendritic (branching) pattern.
So far you haven't said anything to explain why this couldn't happen underground.
It was clearly formed in the same way as a subaerial canyon system.
And why couldn't such a system have formed underground as well?
And we can be reasonably certain of that - reasonably certain enough to conclude that this feature was NOT formed underwater;
And I never said one thing to imply I think such things formed underwater. UnderGROUND is what I've said. And AFTER the Flood, not during it. Are you also "reasonably certain" that it couldn't have formed underground, and if so, why?
that while it was forming, it was exposed at the surface and subsequently buried.
Still haven't given any evidence why this HAS to be so, why it couldn't have formed underground.
Faith writes:
But as I said, it's just one of those thousands of claims that I can't spend my life on. I put time in on the issues that strike me as the best possibilities for making a case, and this isn't one of them.
But this is an important issue for you. There are buried features that could not have formed underwater.
But as I said I'm looking for the best way to make a case. There are lots of "important issues" but it doesn't make sense to work on those I have the least chance of proving.
Again I never said any of it formed underwater. I don't know where you are getting this idea.
The flood was not active during those times. Perhaps those canyons formed BEFORE the flood through "normal" erosion and then were buried BY the flood? That would be a more logical answer to the problem. But NO, you just want to ignore it and suggest that because we are not absolutely certain (i.e. we don't have a time machine) that you can just toss out any hair-brained idea and simply dismiss it.
Thinking it formed during the Flood would be harebrained, but I don't think that. I think it formed afterward.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 5:51 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 03-13-2015 7:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 198 by herebedragons, posted 03-13-2015 8:24 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024