|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Really? On what do you base that conclusion? (ABE I will add that even if the lower strata sagged, it doesn’t look as if that applies to anything above the black lignite layer. The strata immediately above it - which is a lake deposit of sticky black clay occasionally interspersed with coarse sand - does not seem to have sagged with them)
quote: I don’t know why you can’t read the legend, but no, there is no salt layer. The bottom layer is gravel and clay. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: I don’t think even think that it is relevant. If there is a lake filling a basin, it doesn’t matter how the basin formed.
quote: These are quite young sediments. According to this the lowest layer shown (which is a river deposit) is late Pliocene to early Pleistocene in age and the oldest part of the lake deposits are 2.5 million years old, which is early Pleistocene, while the youngest are a mere 29,000 years old which is still in the Pleistocene.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: Even if, for the sake of argument I accept that the lignite layer and the rock beneath it sagged,i see absolutely no evidence that the lake sediments above the lignite sagged. The surface is nowhere parallel to the supposed sagging.
quote: That is a strange claim. Why would some local strata look like the geological column ? Also, your diagram is taken from this page
Curiosity Peels Back Layers on Ancient Martian Lake This study defines the chemical conditions that existed in the lake and uses Curiosity's powerful payload to determine that the lake was stratified. Stratified bodies of water exhibit sharp chemical or physical differences between deep water and shallow water. In Gale's lake, the shallow water was richer in oxidants than deeper water was. So this is specifically looking at the case where the water is stratified.
quote: The actual geological column includes more localised strata, valleys, buried river systems, monadnocks and so on. Another case of your deliberate avoidance of the whole picture.
quote: So you misrepresent the geology and claim it as Flood evidence even though you have no idea of how the Flood could do it. If the Flood can’t even sensibly account for your false version of the geological record, how can it possibly be considered anything other than a ridiculous falsehood? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Apparently you can’t find any evidence that the lake sediments sagged either.
quote: Water does that under conditions that wouldn’t apply, and the scale is way too big. Gradual accumulation over long periods of time makes much more sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
Here’s a look at the geology around the Green River Formation.
USGS (pdf) Note especially figure 3. Compare that to Faith’s idea of the geological column. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: But it isn’t nonsense. You only say that because it contradicts your opinions. You haven’t considered the evidence at all.
quote: No, it is just that the evidence shows multiple events, where you assume only one.
quote: But you do not see these things, you just assume them. If you saw multiple instances of the sequence indicating a transgression below the sequence indicating a regression - at a single location - why should it not be interpreted as multiple transgressions and regressions? If you see glacial erosion and glacial deposits within the strata why should it not be interpreted as evidence of a glacier?
quote: And just more assumption. Why not? There are salt deposits in the geological column. Why could they not have formed in the same way.
quote: And yet RAZD listed evidence of age, which you did not answer. And no, the lake did not simply drain. It dried up, that’s how the salt gets deposited.
quote: If the evidence was so easy to address why did you refuse to address it?
quote: You have demonstrated that with your amazing ad hoc inventions about the Flood. Geology, on the other hand, is science and must stick to the evidence (including the evidence you want suppressed).
quote: That is obviously self-contradictory. The evidence does not point to a worldwide flood a mere 4300 years ago. That is why you have to ignore so much of it, that is why we know that it is a false idea of the past.
quote: You aren’t asking for reasonable doubt, you are asking for unreasonable doubt. Your history on this forum reveals a long trail of errors, some completely inexcusable. You ignore much of the evidence to put forward your pre-determined conclusions. Why should any reasonable person prefer your opinions over solid scientific conclusions? And there is no blind faith on our side, we consider the evidence where you largely ignore it.
quote: More assumption.
quote: It is not a case of distaste for the Flood it’s just a fact that the evidence disproves it. As you know. But let’s deal with your posts. First I will point out that the statements you quote were made to refute Flood geology. Price doubtless had more of a model of Flood geology than you have, so it is far from clear that his ideas of what the Flood would produce are less reasonable than yours.
The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. Even lake deposits could be found over hundreds of miles - the Great Lakes cover more than 94,000 square miles. The quote is lacking in detail - it does not deny that some deposits are more localised. Nor does it contain any information that would let us conclude that these rocks are problematic for mainstream geology. It may be a starting point for an argument but you need to go further, much further. And this is evidence against the Flood
The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago. The Flood cannot explain they order in the fossil record. You know that.
quote: Which is why it is useless to you. The time periods are not strata. That rocks from a particular time period are found in two places tells you very little. They could have been deposited millions of years apart in completely different conditions. Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag and 1 typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: If that was true you wouldn’t be ignoring so much evidence.
quote: Well, no. Geologists aren’t trying to cover up the truth and pretend that you are right. They are trying to understand the evidence - something you don’t do.
quote: The order of the fossil record is objective fact. Your opinion about evolution is irrelevant to that.
quote: The rocks only represent time periods in that they were deposited at particular times and therefore provide evidence about the environment at that time. There is nothing silly about that.
quote: You’ve never presented any valid reason to think that there is a physical impossibility there. Indeed you seem to be horribly confused about the whole relationship between the time periods and the rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Of course there are quite a lot of discontinuities, both vertically and horizontally. Indeed, differing sediments will often indicate a discontinuity.
quote: The fossil contents vary by the environment of the time, of course.
quote: One of them doesn’t even show layers. And the other only says that the microfossils are the same worldwide - not the rocks.
quote: The first claim is false. As for the second, I see no reason why pluvial lakes should not be a source of evaporites.
quote: Perhaps you would like to explain your definition of honesty since it requires us to say things that we believe to be false - and have good reasons to believe false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
And I’ll bring my reply over
quote: But it is not really about one-time events. Lakes and rivers and seas, earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic eruptions. These are things that exist today.
quote: And indeed the events are repeatable - in a general rather than exact sense - but that is good enough. Astronomy has it worse, yet that is still accepted as science.
quote: And that is why the Flood was rejected by geology. All the supposed evidence for it had more reasonable interpretations.
quote: Which only means that you want it to be wrong because it contradicts your beliefs. If you want to see real irrationality, your own arguments are full of it.
quote: And yet the methods are quite sound. Even if the rocks are not dated directly the relationships between them (remember the law of superposition?) provide adequate evidence to work out ages from the rocks that are directly dated.
quote: So you say, but you’ve never come up with any real problems.
quote: Of course the conditions are more common in sone environments than others - and unsurprisingly fossils are more frequently found in rocks formed where favourable conditions would have been more common. And the order is easily explained under the conventional view. It’s your Flood geology that can’t explain it.
quote: But Faith you don’t see any such thing. You just make up crazy nonsense. And you can’t call that anything but irrational.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: In fact we may learn a lot of things about them. We can identify lakes, deserts, rivers. We can identify ancient tectonic events. We can work out a whole lot from the type of sediment and how it lies and how it relates to other nearby rocks. Your objection is not an honest objection, it is just an excuse for discarding conclusions you don’t like.
quote: Neither of these are true and you have not given any valid reason to think otherwise. But then you think that the idea that the sediment was deposited over a particular period of time is absurd. You think that the order of the fossil record is an illusion - despite the fact that it is based on (and is the product of) repeatable and repeated observation.
quote: I don’t think that your preferences have anything to do with which is the better explanation. Since the mainstream view accounts for the evidence very well, while you discount large amounts of evidence (because the Flood can’t explain it!) and don’t even have a good explanation for the remainder. In the face of those facts any honest person would have to admit that the mainstream stream view was by far the better explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Here is one example (an old one, but I’m using a search engine)
Message 94It is based on witness evidence, the very best kind of evidence there is. All the speculations at thousands of years remove cannot be proved, but a witness from the time itself is worth gold. It is your rank prejudice that calls it "unscientific." Very recently you stated:
Message 1373Unless you want to count Noah and those to whom he told the story of the Flood, or Gilgamesh for that matter, and I would count them myself... It is pretty clear that we do not have an account from Noah or anyone who talked to Noah.(And, of course, Gilgamesh was not a witness to the mythical Flood)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: Really? You think that someone who claims to be able to explain the evidence but ignores most of it and doesn’t have a good explanation for the rest should be believed?
quote: And how would you know that?
quote: Faith hasn’t been able to find any. And do remember that we are talking about Faith’s views not creationism in general (which is bad but not as bad as Faith’s nonsense).
quote: I guess you must share Faith’s redefinition of honesty. I am not aware that anyone tells obvious falsehoods - falsehoods that should be obvious even to them - is usually considered honest. Let us also note that you have a habit of making fallacious and misleading arguments,
quote: That deposition can happen rapidly in some cases is not in dispute. That all of it happened rapidly is very much lacking in evidence. Also, flumes are not a natural condition. The rest is a collection of assertions. Some of them extremely dubious. But the evidence still stands - you don’t for instance have any answer to the order of the fossil record.
quote: You have, in fact given good cause to question your honesty. For instance when you falsely accused me of presenting Faith as a representative of creationism - instead of the fringe loon she is. And here you are doing just that - for real
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: None of it was generally aimed at creationists.
quote: You mean signs like noting that Faith discounts most of the evidence we’ve been discussing ? And no, I have quite often read creationist articles.
quote: But scientists are well aware of that. The mere fact that Flood geology is only believed by Young Earth Creationists - all of whom seem to be YECs before encountering it - is itself a red flag.
quote: I can say, without doubt that I understand those rules far better than you. You have a lot of learning to do,
quote: That doesn’t change the fact that creationist arguments often are very bad. Especially Young a Earth argument. The information argument, for instance, which relies on omitting any clear measure of information such that we cannot tell if a mutation increases information or not. Or I remember an especially awful probability argument from Lee Spetner who should have known better.
quote: And that there is a fallacious argument right there. Scoring highly in a test doesn’t make your posts any better.
quote: You’re not even addressing the problem. All I am asking for is an explanation of how the observed order could be produced by the Flood. Evolution doesn’t enter into that, And you are wrong to say that there has to be an order. If the Earth was old and species were fixed there would be no special order to the fossil record at all.
quote: And here you also make an error. The relationship between mammals and reptiles has as much to do with taxonomy as th3 order of the fossil record. An extreme disagreement between the two would have been a serious problem for Darwin.
quote: You could look at the order and ask how the Flood could do it. We have and nobody has been able to find an explanation, nor - to the best of my knowledge has any creationist. That is the problem. Too bad your answer ignores it -but since your answer is fallacious anyway it’s no great loss.
quote: I think that you would if it were claimed that the experiment proved that abiogenesis happened in nature - rather than merely demonstrating the possibility of it occurring. Which would be the relevant parallel.
quote: The point, of course, is that any honest person would recognise that Faith had come nowhere near showing that the Flood was even a viable explanation, let alone a better explanation than that offered by science. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Obviously it wouldn’t. The order in the fossil record is not an order of environments.
quote: That’s silly. The fact that some life moved on to land doesn’t mean that all marine life vanished. Marine life went on living and dying and being fossilised.
quote: You do if you wish to claim that you have a viable explanation of the evidence. The order is a known empirical fact, first observed in the very early days of geology.
quote: And that is empirically false, too. We can observe the sediments deposited on land and those deposited by the sea.
quote: Except for the ones which weren’t deposited by water at all. Desert sand and loess come to mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: No, I am saying that the geological record is not ordered by the depositional environments. You won’t find a fixed order of marine to terrestrial sediments or types of sediment.
quote: Oh, no. That isn’t what she said. Every time we talk about the observed order in the fossil record she starts assuming we’re talking about an evolutionary order and with her ideas about progress thrown into it. So, if we get marine sediments followed by terrestrial sediments followed by marine sediments Faith assumes we’d see fossils of marine organisms followed by fossils of terrestrial organisms followed by fossils of marine organisms. And that goes against her idea of the order of the fossil record. Which is just silly, and she ought to know better. It’s just another example of her refusal to understand with the usual consequence. All she’s doing is making herself look worse - but that’s her problem.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024