I'm proposing this thread to continue the discussion that was going in the Hello thread and hopefully get a more detailed explanation of the reasoning behind her arguments out of Faith. I'll start reiterating in broad strokes the conflicting opinions and by linking my last post and reposting the most significant part.
My position is that the Great Flood never happened based on a wide variety of geological evidence. In particular I have been focusing on what I consider to be very straightforward evidence of sedimentary structures, features and fossils (discussed below) that are diagnostic of an aeolian depositional environment.
Faith believes that the Flood is responsible for the entire rock record. Her main point is that the horizontality of the strata proves that the strata were laid down rapidly and continuously by the Flood with no terrestrial environments existing.
Below I reiterate the evidence I have presented thus far and here I invite Faith to provide a more detailed explanation of her reasoning.
From
Message 351:
I think you're trying to say that the shape of aeolian grains causes them to settle in the shapes associated with aeolian depositional environments even though they were really deposited by the flood. This is a convenient fantasy, but not something that is actually supported by physics. The shape of sand does not noticeably affect the pattern in which it is deposited. I'm going to post the aeolian characteristics again for you to respond to. This time see if you can produce something a smidge less laughable than a caps locked statement that the rocks are flat that doesn't address any of the points.
1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water).
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossils
Note that reiterating that the strata lay flat does not address these points. Your claim is that all strata were deposited by the Flood. Therefore you need to specifically address evidence that indicates that they weren't deposited in an aqueous environment. Explain why aeolian bedforms formed in an aequous environment. Explain how the laws of physics took a break and allowed wet sand to be deposited at the 34 degree angle of repose characteristic of dry sand as opposed to the 45 degree angle of wet sand. Explain the coarsening upwards pattern. And again, explain the presence of an in situ, terrestrial dinosaur sitting on its nest. Go on. Give it a try.
I would particularly like Faith to respond to the problem presented to her hypothesis by the existence of an in situ nesting terrestrial dinosaur (Norell et al., 1995 A nesting dinosaur) which proves that at least that section of the rock record represents a terrestrial depositional environment and the existence of cross-bedded strata with an angle of repose of 34 degrees that physical law does not allow to occur in wet sand.
Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments
I'm very interested in hearing where Faith got this information. It seems contradictory to me because such assertions are clearly extra-biblical and yet she maintains the the Bible is the only reliable source of information about geology. She's mentioned tides several times, but this raises and obvious question: If the entire planet is covered by water, where are the tides going and how can they be exposing the land? And she also seems to be imagining great waves that have such huge gaps in between them that the underlying sediments are exposed for unspecified amounts of time. I'm no expert in hydrodynamics, but I'm pretty sure that's not how waves work, even giant ones.
But go right ahead and keep posting your Jeers, that's really all you understand about any of this.
Funny, coming from the single most prolific jeer-er on the thread.
I'm also keen to see Faith's response to
Message 378 by Dr. A.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Added intro
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Removed a excellent but snarky pun from the title, removed some snark that got carried in with a quote from the last thread.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : A stray snark was identified and throttled
™ Version 4.2