|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: General Flood Topic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
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: --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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wehappyfew Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Coragyps
Can you explain vast ages of chalk from a uniformitarianistic POV can you? I'd love to hear that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Again, if you understand how they occur they are not incredible at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
D'oh! I'm sorry, Randy! I shouda known that! Yeah, fast slow hot cold currents, that's the trick.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024