Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Flood Topic
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 42 (23120)
11-18-2002 4:51 PM


I'm creating this thread to deviate discussions in the 'Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic' and be concentrated here.
Edge:
"Why is that? You have made a statement, so how about supporting it? You have never responded to this argument by evolutionists except to mutter some vaguely worded statement including 'hydrologic sorting', 'ecological domains' or some such nonsense. You have never explained any of these processes nor rebutted this argument against the flood. You can assert that it is wrong all you want, but that will not make it so."
--Wow there edge, slow down. I think I must say again that you've apparently been talking to TB quite a bit seeing as you confuse us regularly. Regarding this segment:
quote:
Why is that? You have made a statement, so how about supporting it? You have never responded to this argument by evolutionists except to mutter some vaguely worded statement including 'hydrologic sorting', 'ecological domains' or some such nonsense. You have never explained any of these processes nor rebutted this argument against the flood. You can assert that it is wrong all you want, but that will not make it so.
--Unlike TB, unless he has veered from it, I don't agree that hydrologic sorting explains much anything in regards to the general geologic column. And if I read you right, 'ecological domains' would only explain the deposition of a certain area on the earths surface, not an explanation for vertical linear fossil correlations. I don't think that to give a general explanation for fossil stratigraphy would be possible unless it was a vague enough generalization of a process involved. Also, I would partially withdraw my comment that his argument is a fallacious one. I thought he was speaking of fossils in general, not directly toward index fossils. Before I hit the sack, while off-line and reading my post, I was pretty sure this would be addressed without much hesitation.
Joz:
"I know bud it was merely a (not so) cunning ploy to get TC to tell us which bits of evidence we missed so that we on the EEC DTBC (Disprove the bible committee) could polish things off...
I mean surely he must have some.... "
--What could possibly be found that would be in support of a worldwide flood occurring at ~4,500 years ago? This is analogous to the notion that the earth is 4.6Ga. The notion relies almost completely on the consensus involving the nebulae hypothesis for solar cosmogeny, and isotopic geochemical evolution constraints in coherence with the nebulae hypothesis only beginning to be touched on and some which have yet to be grasped. Strictly, I don't think that there will or can be found direct evidence of such a global event or even a successful suggestion as to a method of determining whether there are or aren't direct evidences able to be scrutinized. That is to say, evidence of this scenario would be indirect in that a consensus can be attributed in explanation the worlds remnant and vestige formations.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-18-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wehappyfew, posted 11-18-2002 9:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 42 (23148)
11-18-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
11-18-2002 4:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I'm creating this thread to deviate discussions in the 'Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic' and be concentrated here.
--What could possibly be found that would be in support of a worldwide flood occurring at ~4,500 years ago? This is analogous to the notion that the earth is 4.6Ga. The notion relies almost completely on the consensus involving the nebulae hypothesis for solar cosmogeny, and isotopic geochemical evolution constraints in coherence with the nebulae hypothesis only beginning to be touched on and some which have yet to be grasped. Strictly, I don't think that there will or can be found direct evidence of such a global event or even a successful suggestion as to a method of determining whether there are or aren't direct evidences able to be scrutinized. That is to say, evidence of this scenario would be indirect in that a consensus can be attributed in explanation the worlds remnant and vestige formations.

Are you taking English lessons from Brad McFall? This paragraph is nearly incomprehensible (to me, anyway). If you want to communicate with simple-minded people like me, please use small words, short sentences, commas, and explain things in baby-sized steps.
If you want to start a debate thread here on Noah's Flood, I will participate. I will be a somewhat infrequent poster, however, due to the large amount of time required for thoughtful responses.
If you are ready to begin, how about starting with number 10 first - the crinoid/Karoo dilemna? I'm sure you are familiar with the problem... there are hundreds of thousands of rock formations composed of mind-boggling numbers of fossils (most of them carbonate shells). If all these creatures were alive at the same time, they would have overcrowded the pre-Flood Earth to the point of blocking all sunlight over the entire surface. There is enough opacity (is that a word?) in the dead creatures of the geologic record to block the sun thousands of times over. Appealing to greater pre-Flood productivity is useless, unless you want to postulate sunlight that is strong enough to penetrate through hundreds of feet of brachiopods, clams, crinoids, corals, forams, etc.
Your turn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 11-18-2002 4:51 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 42 (23152)
11-18-2002 9:55 PM


And, TC, be sure to give a hypothesis as to where all that calcite/aragonite came from: the reaction that all known carbonate shell-builders use is (Ca+2) +2 (HCO3-) --> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O. Total mass of carbonate rocks in the crust is estimated to be around 3.5 x 10^20 kilograms.
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 11-18-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 12:21 AM Coragyps has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 42 (23170)
11-19-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
11-18-2002 9:55 PM


Coragyps
Can you explain vast ages of chalk from a uniformitarianistic POV can you?
I'd love to hear that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 11-18-2002 9:55 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 11-19-2002 12:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 11-19-2002 7:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied

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


Message 5 of 42 (23251)
11-19-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 12:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Coragyps
Can you explain vast ages of chalk from a uniformitarianistic POV can you?
I'd love to hear that.
Actually, the real problem comes when one tries to explain it from a catastrophic POV...
How 'vast' are we talking about here? What you don't seem to understand that while chalk was being deposited in some areas, others experienced volcanism, or erosion or pelagic deposition, or coarse-grained clastic deposition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 12:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 5:44 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 42 (23285)
11-19-2002 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by edge
11-19-2002 12:02 PM


^ It's still incredible vertical amounts of chalk over vast areas Edge, and you know it, and unless I'm mistaken, the major chalk deposits around the world occur preferentially in certain of your 'eras'.
Same with coal.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 11-19-2002 12:02 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 11-19-2002 11:23 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 42 (23294)
11-19-2002 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 12:21 AM


"Can you explain vast ages of chalk from a uniformitarianistic POV can you?
I'd love to hear that."
I asked first.
It's already been explained: A shallow sea was where, for instance, the cliffs-of-Dover chalk is now back in the Cretaceous. The climate was warm, there was lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and conditions were good for coccolithophorids to grow. They grew, they died, and their tests settled to the seafloor. They piled up there, and compacted somewhat to make the layer that oil and gas comes out of now. This layer was buried by later sediments, deposited under different conditions.
Now your turn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 12:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 8:19 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 42 (23298)
11-19-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coragyps
11-19-2002 7:27 PM


^ Why predominantly in one point in time and why so abrruptly at both interfaces? Why so incredibly enriched?
Our explanation?
Same as yours, but the abruptness and enrichment are explained by catastrophic sorting. Fast currents can sort materials to high purity. It represented a stage in the flood and hence explains why we get this primarily at only a few points in the geo-col.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 11-19-2002 7:27 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 11-19-2002 8:37 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 11 by edge, posted 11-19-2002 11:30 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 16 by wehappyfew, posted 11-21-2002 11:59 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 42 (23301)
11-19-2002 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 8:19 PM


Fast currents would have a hard time depositing sediments with such slow sinking times as coccolithophorid tests...particularly without mixing in silts and clays.
Are you positing all the carbonates in the world being laid down in the "flood year"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 8:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 11-20-2002 10:34 PM Coragyps has replied

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


Message 10 of 42 (23313)
11-19-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It's still incredible vertical amounts of chalk over vast areas Edge, and you know it, and unless I'm mistaken, the major chalk deposits around the world occur preferentially in certain of your 'eras'.
Not really incredible when one understands the environment of deposition. To me, the gread chalk beds speak of extremely long periods of uninterrupted quiet water deposition. Something like this is not flushed into place in a few days.
quote:
Same with coal.
Again, if you understand how they occur they are not incredible at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 5:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 11 of 42 (23314)
11-19-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 8:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Our explanation?
Same as yours, but the abruptness and enrichment are explained by catastrophic sorting. Fast currents can sort materials to high purity. It represented a stage in the flood and hence explains why we get this primarily at only a few points in the geo-col.
Please support this statement showing what direction the currents were flowing and where the source area of the sediment was. Where are the bedding forms that give you this information? And no, fast currents would not allow deposition of such fine grained material as coragyps has indicated to you. Generally, high flow regimes result in coarse-grained deposits. I am surprised that your extensive reading has not told you about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 8:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 42 (23428)
11-20-2002 9:57 PM


TC or TB, (or any other Noah fan), I'd like an answer to post #3 above, please.

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 13 of 42 (23434)
11-20-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
11-19-2002 8:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
Fast currents would have a hard time depositing sediments with such slow sinking times as coccolithophorid tests...particularly without mixing in silts and clays.
Are you positing all the carbonates in the world being laid down in the "flood year"?

You don't understand. In TB's magic surging flood the currents could have been both fast and slow at the same time. As far as I can tell these surges are supposed to be able to do anything required by flood geologists to overcome the impossibilities in their models. They can come from any required direction, carry any required about of sediment any required distance and make as many layers of whatever type as needed during the flood year, even with time for animals to come in from "high ground" and make tracks and build nests and for trees to grow and soils to form between surges so why couldn't they have both fast and slow currents at the same time?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 11-19-2002 8:37 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by wj, posted 11-20-2002 11:15 PM Randy has not replied
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2002 1:17 PM Randy has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 42 (23442)
11-20-2002 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Randy
11-20-2002 10:34 PM


Well, it's marginally better than saying "It's a miracle, god did it." I suppose TB wants to maintain a thin veneer of scientific credibility when addressing the evidences which are inconsistent with a biblical global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 11-20-2002 10:34 PM Randy has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 42 (23512)
11-21-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Randy
11-20-2002 10:34 PM


D'oh! I'm sorry, Randy! I shouda known that! Yeah, fast slow hot cold currents, that's the trick.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 11-20-2002 10:34 PM Randy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024