Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 436 of 519 (812143)
06-15-2017 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by dwise1
06-15-2017 2:58 AM


just the usual
Sorry I do not see the Flood as involving miracles beyond the few stated in the text -- the bringing of the animals and the closing of the door to the ark. Nothing else is treated as a miracle, it is all described in terms of physical events with causes and effects, so I have no option other than to treat them as such physical events.
Water covering the earth would be a physical event, right? You all are going to deny it no matter how creationists try to defend it. If we try to show physical evidence for it you all call it a miracle anyway; so if we called it a miracle you'd just dismiss us completely.
But again, even if it was a miracle there would be physical evidence for it and really that's all I've been arguing anyway. The strata and the fossils are THE indisputable evidence, along with showing the absolute absurdity of the contrary interpretation. The case has been made and all I've seen from the opposition is denials and changing the subject.
The idea that you or anyone else knows whether the rapid deposition of the Flood is possible is really ridiculous. You can't see into the past either and your guesses are no better than mine. I did find a site a while back, a science site, not a creationist site, that said they'd recalculated the timing of continental drift and found out it could have been much faster than is currently thought. I don't know if I could find it again, I ran across it while looking for something else. So there's an example of how scientific dogma can change, and since this dogma is about the prehistoric past which can't be proved but only speculated about, we can put your speculations on the list of Wild Guesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 2:58 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 4:21 AM Faith has replied
 Message 440 by Pressie, posted 06-15-2017 6:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 444 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 437 of 519 (812145)
06-15-2017 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
06-15-2017 3:53 AM


Re: just the usual
And yet everything you have written has been seen and known to be complete and utter nonsense, the ramblings of a person utterly ignorant of even the most basic processes involved.
We know quite well how flood waters work. We know quite well how those flood waters will sort things out. We know quite well that that there is only one possible explanation that can explain the order in which fossils are sorted in the geological column, not to mention the order in which radiometric isotopes are also sorted.
We can explain all that quite simply. You have absolutely no explanation.
All that you can ever demonstrate is that you have no explanation and that your gods are pure bullshit. Why do you insist on disproving your gods in such a manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 3:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 4:51 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 438 of 519 (812146)
06-15-2017 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Faith
06-15-2017 12:10 AM


Re: where the sediments came from
Faith writes:
If you take a handful of dirt, say out of a garden where there may be a mixture of sand and clay and silt and soil and other things, and stir it into a jar of water won't it separate into sediments,...
Nope. The material settle to form one single 'layer' grading from the coursest and heaviest material at the bottom to the smallest and lighter material at the top. Separate layers don't form at all.
Faith writes:
... and isn't that a rough model for what I'm describing?
Nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 12:10 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by edge, posted 06-15-2017 11:17 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 439 of 519 (812150)
06-15-2017 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by dwise1
06-15-2017 4:21 AM


Re: just the usual
Strata and Fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by dwise1, posted 06-15-2017 4:21 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2017 6:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 440 of 519 (812156)
06-15-2017 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
06-15-2017 3:53 AM


Re: just the usual
This one was funny.
Faith writes:
You can't see into the past either...
I sure can. Every time I look at the sun I can see what happend there around 8 minutes ago...Eight minutes ago counts as the past, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 3:53 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 441 of 519 (812158)
06-15-2017 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Faith
06-15-2017 4:51 AM


Re: just the usual god-magic
Strata and Fossils.
Sorted by magic by gods that want to deceive people.
Because if they wanted to provide evidence of a fantastic flying flood fantasy they wouldn't sort radioactive isotopes in matching layers with species of trilobites (or foraminifera or diatoms).
It has to be god-magic because water doesn't have a brain or means to sense things. Nor does it get suddenly endowed with such powers during a flood except by god-magic.
Pick up whole layers of living fully developed marine ecosystems, transport them undamaged hundreds of miles to pile them up where a mountain will be pushed up by flood water ... it's all god-magic.
How silly to think that the deposits occur over long periods of time with the radioactive isotopes being deposited gradually year after year after year, as the evolving foraminifera and the evolving diatoms die and their shells deposit on the ocean floor year after year after year, as the evolving trilobites lived and died on the ocean floor year after year after year.
Curious how that so thoroughly explains the sorting of the radioactive isotopes and the sorting of different evolved species of foraminifera, diatoms, trilobites, etc, into matching layers worldwide. Without effort. Without god-magic. Without changing the laws of physics or the behavior of water. without having to make stuff up.
Why would anyone think such a silly thing when it is much more rational to make up wild scenarios, that keep getting wilder the more things are brought up that need to be explained by the god-magic while pretending that it is scientific.
How silly.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 439 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 4:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 442 of 519 (812172)
06-15-2017 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Faith
06-14-2017 8:16 PM


Re: Crabs
It remains true that water sorts things and makes layers of sediments.
Water does not sort things in the manner we see in the fossil record. It sorts similar things together. But we do not see similar things together in the fossil record.
The point about radioactive isotopes is that there is an obvious pattern in how they appear in rocks. Oversimplifying a bit, the amount of radioactive isotopes decreases with depth and the amount of their daughter isotopes increases with depth. No matter how you interpret that pattern, the pattern objectively exists and demands explanation.
"I don't know about that" is not an explanation; it's an admission of the failure of your "theory".
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 8:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by edge, posted 06-15-2017 10:22 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 443 of 519 (812173)
06-15-2017 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:17 PM


Re: water deposition
I listed real observable evidence, why do you ignore it?
  • You neglected to explain why the evidence supports your claims and not ours. Your "explanations" have consisted solely of unsupported assertions.
  • We've addressed it in great detail over and over again, and you have ignored our presentations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 444 of 519 (812174)
06-15-2017 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
06-15-2017 3:53 AM


Re: just the usual
Sorry I do not see the Flood as involving miracles beyond the few stated in the text
I.e. you are explicitly invoking miracles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 3:53 AM Faith has not replied

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


(4)
Message 445 of 519 (812181)
06-15-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by JonF
06-15-2017 9:31 AM


Re: Crabs
quote:
Water does not sort things in the manner we see in the fossil record. It sorts similar things together. But we do not see similar things together in the fossil record.
Exactly. It's kind of strange that trilobites are not only sorted exclusively into the Paleozoic, but that olenellus sp. Is always at the bottom.
For such turbulent transport up from the bottom of the ocean, after "stirring" by the fountains of the deep, to not mix them up with their Permian "cousins" is beyond belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by JonF, posted 06-15-2017 9:31 AM JonF has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 446 of 519 (812189)
06-15-2017 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:05 PM


Re: water deposition
Faith writes:
The evidence is in the tight contacts between the layers, their flatness and straightness before tectonic deformation, the accumulation in some places of the whole sequence from Cambrian to Holocene without tectonic disturbance, the absence of any erosion on a scale that would imply conditions for a time period at that level in the geological column, the fact that the sediments cover enormous areas of geography layer after layer which would kill anything that had lived there, in other words the evidence shows deposition one layer after another, which implies deposition by an enormous amount of water over a short period of time.
If we were to show you layers that were not flat or straight would this disprove a recent global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 447 of 519 (812191)
06-15-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Pressie
06-15-2017 4:23 AM


Re: where the sediments came from
Nope. The material settle to form one single 'layer' grading from the coursest and heaviest material at the bottom to the smallest and lighter material at the top. Separate layers don't form at all.
This is a good point that hasn't entered the discussion previously. Turbidites form what are known as Bouma sequences. They consist of individual 'fining upward' beds showing continuous grading of sedimentary grains in the upward direction. The point is that these are individual density flows showing distinct points in time and reflect the passage of time with continued events.
Turbidite - Wikipedia
Here is an image of an ideal turbidite.
Notice that the base is almost perfectly flat and usually consists of deep sea organic mud onto which the turbidite layer is deposited.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Pressie, posted 06-15-2017 4:23 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2017 1:09 AM edge has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 448 of 519 (812325)
06-16-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Faith
06-15-2017 1:10 AM


Re: Sediment source
I don't understand the point about the amount of sediment. If it was there in your scenario then it was there in mine. To have a mountain to erode means you had the sediments to build it. My scenario has all (or most) of the land mass, hills, the works, saturated by water and reduced to mud then separated by the water into sediments. I really do not get how there is any more of a problem accounting for the amount of it on my scenario than on yours.
My scenario is that repeated uplifts of rocks into highlands (proto-mountains) are the weathered and eroded to produce the sediments. A repeated process spread over a great amount of time. And there is evidence for such, including the remaining cores of the mountains (eg. We have areas in northern Minnesota that have metamorphic rocks that were once buried (IIRC) something along the lines of 20 Km. 20 Km of material was weathered and eroded off. By the way, those rocks are radiometricly dated at at least 2.3 billion years old, so there has been lots of time for that weathering and erosion.
You seem to be invoking very fast "catastrophic weathering" of the rocks, to produce your sediment supply. Aka, a miracle.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 1:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:19 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 449 of 519 (812327)
06-16-2017 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by edge
06-15-2017 11:17 AM


Re: where the sediments came from
Nope. The material settle to form one single 'layer' grading from the coursest and heaviest material at the bottom to the smallest and lighter material at the top. Separate layers don't form at all.
This is a good point that hasn't entered the discussion previously. Turbidites form what are known as Bouma sequences. They consist of individual 'fining upward' beds showing continuous grading of sedimentary grains in the upward direction. The point is that these are individual density flows showing distinct points in time and reflect the passage of time with continued events.
After I posted my last message last night, it occurred to me that vast areas of repeated Bouma sequences might be the expected result of Faith's (very iffy) stirring up of ocean basin sediments / slopping the water and sediment onto the continents scenario.
Instead of what widely varying sedimentary rocks that we have, we would have vast areas and volumes of rocks looking like this:
Source of photo
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by edge, posted 06-15-2017 11:17 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by edge, posted 06-16-2017 1:12 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 450 of 519 (812328)
06-16-2017 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Minnemooseus
06-16-2017 12:58 AM


Re: Sediment source
You seem to be invoking very fast "catastrophic weathering" of the rocks, to produce your sediment supply. Aka, a miracle.
How is the expected result of worldwide rain for forty days and nights a miracle? A few days of heavy local rain can produce catastrophic mudflows, therefore worldwide rain for over a month should be expected to produce some pretty "catastrophic weathering" in pretty short order. But why "rocks?" I'm supposing mostly fertile soils and packed sediments supporting lush vegetation in the pre-Flood world, all fairly easily subject to erosion by such a downpour of rain.
"
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-16-2017 12:58 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by edge, posted 06-16-2017 1:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 456 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 5:30 PM 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