|
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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
One possibility is that the volcanism was mostly underwater since the continents split at the end of the Flood and in association with whatever caused the waters to recede. Also the Flood would have brought on the ice age. Mitigating factors to the effect of the volcanism perhaps.
As for the animals spreading throughout the earth why is that a problem? Even the animals with yearly reproductive cycles or less frequent cycles would have multiplied greatly in a few hundred years. As for sizes, that's built into the genome, all it takes for any particular variation to show up is the isolation of a part of the gene pool in which that variation is high frequency, and since such small populations would have been breaking off and spreading out from season to season into new territories such isolation would occur frequently. Remember there were only eight human beings on earth at the end of the Flood when I'm saying the continents split. A few hundred years later the population would have grown greatly and they would already have spread quite a bit just like the animals. Some by that time may have already started settling in Europe, others in Asia, others in Africa etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You want to know where the sediments came from? They were washed off the land and churned up from the ocean, haven't I said that often enough? So now we have undisturbed marine ecologies of fully mature marine growth buried suddenly by massive influx of sediments off the lands, that isn't turbulent, but then miraculously picked up while each fossil is preserved in situ undamaged and dropped on top of other such sediment buried mature marine ecologies, stacking them up hundreds of layers deep all over the world. Tearing up the world but preserving the marine growth undisturbed. Where do all those fantastic flying layers come from Faith? Not the sediment, the layers of fully mature marine growth deposited on top of each other hundreds of layers deep. Does the Fantastic Flying Flood now clone these deposits? Those sediments off the lands would not have marine growth, and thus they could not provide a continuous deposit of marine growth on top of marine growth, instead they would show up as intrusions between the layers of non-marine growth. No, Faith, that does not even begin to explain the evidence. You really do...not...have...a...clue. The earth is old.There was no flood. That's what the evidence shows. Enjoyby 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: |
Marine deposits come from the ocean water, what else? What IS the problem? You aren't making any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
One possibility is that the volcanism was mostly underwater since the continents split at the end of the Flood and in association with whatever caused the waters to recede.
But that's not how continents split. The volcanism is subaerial as we see in the East African Rift, or the Great Basin. On top of that, you have the fact that extensive volcanism means high heat flows and high heat flows expand the mid-ocean ridges so that they displace water back onto the land. This is not a marine regressive situation.
Also the Flood would have brought on the ice age.
So, you say. And yet we've never seen an explanation of how that happened, just that it did, period.
Mitigating factors to the effect of the volcanism perhaps.
Unlikely. And that's just the volcanoes.
Remember there were only eight human beings on earth at the end of the Flood when I'm saying the continents split. A few hundred years later the population would have grown greatly and they would already have spread quite a bit just like the animals. Some by that time may have already started settling in Europe, others in Asia, others in Africa etc.
More bald assertions. What is your evidence that this happened. You can say whatever you want (and you do), but there is never any evidence to support your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Marine deposits come from the ocean water, what else? What IS the problem? You aren't making any sense. The depth of those deposits -- meters thick showing continuous growth of the mature marine ecology, organisms dying and their shells being used as support for a new generation, sediments intermingled with the growth so that the floor gradually rises as new growth builds on top of old growth. Meters thick of undisturbed mature marine growth that is only explained by extended periods of time for this to occur, hundreds if not thousands of years without interruption. Cairaco basin for example (from The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1), Message 19):
Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation (full PDF) or view on-line (with free sign-in)(3)
quote: Now I would say "tethered" rather than "anchored" because it is tethered by matching the existing 14C levels to an anchored absolution tree ring chronology that extends back to ~12,400 cal BP (before 1950 ce). This shows a period of over 1500 years of mature marine growth. Diatoms living, reproducing, dying, in a continuous pattern, deposited and left undisturbed by any massive storms. And this is just one set of data, used here because it is anchored in time by consilience with other evidence of an ancient earth. We also have the evidence of Foraminifera extending back over 65 million years in a similar pattern of living, reproducing, dying, in a continuous pattern, deposited and left undisturbed by any massive storms.
... What IS the problem? ... That there is massive evidence that has refuted each stage of your delusional fantasy explanations to the point where making the evidence cram into your delusional microcosm just does not fit. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1138 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
You want to know where the sediments came from? They were washed off the land and churned up from the ocean.. Wouldn't that moving sediment up from the depths of the ocean basins onto the continental plates require velocities so high that the sediment would just be washed back off the continents? We would see, in the ocean basins, thick layers of sand downstream of the continents and only thin, recent layers on the upstream side. To my knowledge we don't see that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Wouldn't that moving sediment up from the depths of the ocean basins onto the continental plates require velocities so high that the sediment would just be washed back off the continents?
This is a problem that Faith does not seem to recognize, but it is very important. The Faith scenario would seem to defy gravity and everything we know about sedimentation and hydrodynamics (basically that water flows downhill). It also fails to explain how fossil communities transported in a turbulent state (and it would have to be turbulent to rise out of the abyss and cover a continent in the timespan of a year) and yet be preserved and perfectly sorted into very distinct layers. This kind of transport would almost have to be some kind of a mudflow without any particular dynamic explanation. I think her response the last time I brought this up was something like, "Well, it wasn't like a mudflow everywhere." And yet these events/strata seem to cover entire continents ... It's all very inconsistent (even internally) and disorienting to the reasonable audience. There are so many things wrong with the Faith scenario, that one has no idea where to start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There are so many things wrong with the Faith scenario, that one has no idea where to start. It is based on belief, not evidence. In an approach that is the exact opposite of science, creationists have a specific conclusion (belief) in mind, and do their best to fit the evidence into that conclusion. This is, of course, why presenting evidence won't change the minds (beliefs) of a great many creationists.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool 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 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
That is because Faith is making ad-hoc excuses without considering the implications - often without the understanding she'd need to be able to properly consider the implications. And this is how she has to treat - what she calls - evidence for the Flood.
It's not science, it's just bad apologetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As so often happens in these debates the Flood debunker asserts something unprovable about how this or that makes the Flood impossible and I respond with something equally unprovable to argue that it doesn't have to be that way but some other way that makes the flood possible. So we have the usual list of such speculative stuff coming from you guys here. Velocity is again made a part of it. There's no reason to assume great velocity to carry sediments on to the land and all you can do IS assume it. We've got the "fountains of the deep" stirring up the ocean floor and the ocean water in general which would also stir up the sediments that washed off the land. The water should have been thick with such sediments as the sea level rose over the continents so that they'd be deposited by tides and waves or precipitated out of standing water etc. I'm sure you could think of scenarios more conducive to the Flood if you had a mind to and gave it a little thought but you don't and you won't.
But there is also actual evidence besides this war of unprovable plausibilities, mostly in the cross sections I've spent so much time on in the past, cross sections that show the impossibility of the Time Scale theory plus facts that support the Flood. A lot of it shows that the strata were deposited one after another sediment after sediment before any tectonic activity occurred. This is shown on the cross section of the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area, as well as on mnay others though not quite as unambiguously. But here's another unambiguous one: William Smith's cross section of England, which I'll post at the bottom of the message. It clearly shows that the strata were all laid down before they were tectonically deformed, which among other things disproves the timing claimed for the breakup of Pangaea because ALL the srata from Precambrian to the present were clearly all in place before being pushed into their current tilt. According to current theory Pangaea broke up before all the strata were laid down, but clearly that is not the case. There is no disturbance to the strata shown for that supposed time period. There is no indication whatever on any of the cross sections I have shown that any layer existed for any great time before the next was deposited. All the facts show continuous deposition, rapid deposition followed by tectonic deformation. It's so absolutely clear that one can only marvel at the continued insistence that millions of years existed from layer to layer. Against that kind of irrational mindset there is clearly no point in further debate. And then there's the fact that the sedimentary rocks that form the geological column cover huge areas of geography. This alone shows that former time periods associated with any such layer of rock are an absolutei impossibility. The rocks exist, there is no denying them. Life can't live on a rock, and it can't live where enormous amounts of sediment are getting deposited. Despite what you think is OTHER evidence for your theory, these two facts I'm discussing here show to it to be absolutely impossible. Yet as usual it will be denied, and how can anyone answer flat-out denials? I consider the evidence to show that the Time Scale is absolutely falsified and the worldwide Flood is the best explanation of the facts, yes the evidence, but it will be denied as usual. It makes all the contrary evidence utterly irrelevant. It's been proved over and over on old threads and really, just this one post alone disproves it anyway. There's plenty of other evidence I've given that backs this up though it's more easily rationalized away; this evidence isn't but it will be denied anyway. Here's Smith's cross section:
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Where would you put Siccar Point on this section?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wondered about that. Also the chalk cliffs. But the point is made without them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Siccart Point is several hundred miles North East of that section, to the right of Edinburgh (topish right). The 'white cliffs' are about 70 miles South of London on the bottom right hand side.
It's an odd section of the UK to a Brit's eyes as it's a diagonal drawn through the bottom of England and Wales - missing almost all of the country. Draw a line from London (bottom right) to Wales (slightly higher up on the left) and you've got it.But maybe there's a geoligical reason for it. But like Faith I haven't a clue about geology. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Here's a geological map of the UK done by the same William Smith who made the cross section. What it shows is the strata as they have been eroded away exposing the strata beneath. The cliffs of Dover are of course Cretaceous, just one of the strata. The island was clearly rather roughly treated by the tectonic upheaval after the Flood laid down all the layers.
But I'm sure edge was interested in Siccar Point because it's an angular unconformity. As I recall it's much earlier in the Time Scale than the Dover cliffs, Devonian I think?
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:
|
As so often happens in these debates the Flood debunker asserts something unprovable about how this or that makes the Flood impossible and I respond with something equally unprovable to argue that it doesn't have to be that way but some other way that makes the flood possible. ... Time Scale is Disproved, ... Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, but delusion. You have made 3 posts on that thread, including"
Faith writes: No, RAZD, I can't explain it to support the Flood, it's good evidence for your side, so I leave it at that for now. So no, you have not disproven the time scale, you haven't even attacked it, all you have done is avoided the evidence. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024