Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,466 Year: 1,347/14,231 Month: 271/1,076 Week: 4/376 Day: 4/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 271 of 320 (634024)
09-18-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:36 AM


Just being real writes:
I find this akin to saying, We want you to tell us about the American Independence Day, but you are not allowed to mention the date of July the Fourth Seventeen hundred and Seventy Six. If the "age" of the strata is the evidence, then how can we present "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" without discussing the age of the strata? Remember, we are not talking about just any global flood, but a geologically RECENT global flood.
Not at all. You have to find empirical evidence for such a flood first. If you can’t present any evidence for the flood, any speculation on the age of something that didn’t happen is just wishful thinking. In this thread, we discuss the evidence for that event. In other words, you have to provide evidence that some strata were deposited by a global flood. So far you’ve not presented anything, apart from straw men about what you claim uniformatist geologists say. Seeing that you can’t even present one little piece of evidence, now you want to discuss age, you might as well discuss the age of the fairies in my garden. We need evidence that such a flood occurred first.
Just being real writes:
So the question is (since your the Man with all the power and his hand poised to pull the plug at any second), are we going to be permitted to discuss potential evidence for a global flood in the "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood" thread, or not?
Evidence. We’re here to discuss evidence. You can’t discuss the age of fairies in this forum. You can discuss evidence for the flood.
It also doesn't help you to ignore questions. Jbr, could you refer us to any "uniformatist" geologist who claimed that different strata around creationist "polystrate" fossils are "millions of years apart"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:36 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 272 of 320 (634027)
09-18-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Just being real writes:
I've never seen a tree start growing in a depth below a couple of feet. And I have never seen them grow through other layers sedementary ROCK. The trees you suggest are an example of doing this, again have not been found growing through even one let alone more than one seem of coal.
Are you serious? Do jou think that those trees grew through layers of ROCK?
Just being real writes:
No I totally get that you are saying the layers were laid down quickly, what I don't get is that they are sepperated by not 50 years, as in your dad's pocket watch analogy, but rather millions of years.
You just keep repeating the same straw man. Nobody has ever said that they are separated by millions of years. Quite a few people have pointed at this, but you just ignore it.
I'll repeat, seeing that you seem to ignore this: No "uniformatist" geologist has ever said that those layers are separated by millions of years. You ignoring it only reflects badly on you.
just being real writes:
And the trees are supposed to have waited around for each "quick" layer to cover more of it up, until it was eventually fully covered and then presevered. That sir, I do not get at all.
Again, they didn’t have to wait millions of years.
We see it happening all over the world today. You were even shown examples of where it is happening today. You ignoring it won’t let the facts go away.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 273 of 320 (634035)
09-18-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Just being real, I started reading your reference in post 266, Creation Evidence Museum of Texas I came to the third paragraph, which reads:
creationevidence writes:
In The Creation-Evolution Controversy author R.L. Wysong wrote about an unusual polystrate tree, This polystrate tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggest that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years, or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise, the tree would have rotted and collapsed.[2]
I didn’t read further. I can’t believe that people can mislead so openly and you still believe them.
Let’s start. The Clarno formation has all characteristics of being deposited by lahars. You know what that is?
A lahar is a type of mudflow or debris flow composed of a slurry of pyroclastic material, rocky debris, and water. The material flows down from a volcano, typically along a river valley. Your R.L. Wysong should stick to being a veterinarian, he is a clown when he comes to geology. He doesn’t even klnow the very basics of geology. "Volcanic sandstone
The animals and plants couldn’t get away quickly enough from the lahars, they died and were covered quickly by pyroclastic deposits, not sandstones. This is described even in Wiki. There’s a huge difference between pyroclastic material and sandstone.
From: John Day Fossil Beds National Monument - Wikipedia
Wiki writes:
Volcanic eruptions about 44 million years ago during the Eocene deposited lavas accompanied by debris flows (lahars) atop the older rocks in the western part of the province. Containing fragments of shale, siltstone, conglomerates, and breccias, the debris flows entombed plants and animals caught in their paths; the remnants of these ancient flows comprise the rock formations exposed in the Clarno Unit.[36] Preserved in the Clarno Nut Beds are fossils of tropical and subtropical nuts, fruits, roots, branches, and seeds.[37] Large mammals inhabiting this region between 50 and 35 million years ago included browsers such as brontotheres and amynodonts, scavengers like the hyaenodonts, as well as Patriofelis and other predators.[37] Eroded remnants of the Clarno stratovolcanoes, once the size of Mount Hood, are still visible near the monument, for example Black Butte, White Butte, and other buttes near Mitchell.[38]
Also note that the Clarno is not one stratum. It consists of lots of strata.
Then the John Day Formation: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/12/4/229
geoscienceworld writes:
The John Day Formation in Oregon consists largely of silicic to intermediate pyroclastic material ranging in age from about 19 to 37 m.y. Stratigraphic and lithologic variations within the formation indicate that the bulk of this material was derived from vents west of the 121st meridian, in or near the present-day Cascade Range. Voluminous dacitic to andesite air-fall material was probably derived from volcanoes within the western Cascade Range, whereas rhyolitie ash-flow tuffs and lava flows were erupted from vents farther east. Sparse alkali basalt and trachyandesite flows, compositionally distinct from Cascade Range lavas, were erupted from local vents within the John Day outcrop area. Initiation of John Day volcanism about 37 m.y. ago signified a shift in the locus of calc-alkaline volcanic activity from the Blue Mountains to the Cascade Range and marked the emergence of the Cascade Range as a major volcanic feature.
This formation was deposited as volcanic deposits. You should familiarize yourself what a pyroclastic deposit looks like. Then you should familiarize yourself on what a sandstone looks like. Volcanoes don’t produce any deposits at the rate of the thickness of this page annually. They produce deposits when they erupt. Volcanic deposits are products of volcanic action.
Just being real, I’m not going to read the rest of your article. They twist the truth way too much. I’d rather get my information from honest sources. Pyroclastic deposits are a result of volcanoes. Not global floods.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 274 of 320 (634038)
09-18-2011 12:48 PM


Photographic Record of Rapid Geomorphic Change at Mount Pinatubo, 1991-94, Figure 19F.
quote:
A second-generation, 10-m-tall buried telephone pole (the first generation was completely buried). Remains of the glass factory are in the background. The budding scientist in the photograph was spray painting marks at 2-m elevations on third-generation posts, such as that in the background. (C.G. Newhall, August 13, 1994)
{emphasis added}

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 275 of 320 (634040)
09-18-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Just being real writes:
If you told me of a fossil that scientists believed to be a transitional, and I threw Piltdown man out there, the intent would be obvious.
Which brings me to another point. The fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax was discovered by paleontologists and biologists, because it contradicted newly discovered evidence and did not fit in with reality. Scientists don’t need and don't use Piltdown Man. Anyway, Piltdown Man has got nothing to do with the age of the earth or what we think about how rocks were deposited. Whether Piltdown Man was a hoax or not, would not change the science of Geology in the slightest.
Creationist hoaxes are discovered by scientists, but creationists keep on using them in every religious tract and at every opportunity. It’s because creationists can’t even pretend to do science without misleading laymen. Creationists have only got hoaxes. Nothing else. You repeating the complete untruth about uniformatists say millions of years passed between those layers is a very good example of that. You keep repeating something that surely is not true. Even when you have been pointed at the truth numerous times.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few paragraphs
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the spelling of the word wheter to whether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 276 of 320 (634041)
09-18-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Robert Byers
09-17-2011 4:48 AM


Robert Beyers writes:
Yet the finale thing is that the earth shows to have been covered in water to account for the layers of sedimentary rock in great depths below the k-t line
Then how do you account for all those fossils of reptiles and mammals and land plants way below the k-t line? Why don't we find even one fossil of an elephant or a human below that line, but only way above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 4:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 277 of 320 (634042)
09-18-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Robert Byers
09-17-2011 4:48 AM


Evidence?
Yet the finale thing is that the earth shows to have been covered in water to account for the layers of sedimentary rock in great depths below the k-t line.
All deposited at once.
Your evidence for this is?
And why are you dealing with the k-t line when the flood is placed by biblical scholars at about 4,350 years ago, not 60 million years ago.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 4:48 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 2:41 AM Coyote has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 278 of 320 (634044)
09-18-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
09-16-2011 11:23 AM


(Off topic)
Hi RAZD
Please be patient. I'm reading. You have to realize that I'm not familiar with the Grand Canyon at all. Never seen a "rock" over there. I'm more familiar with the "rocks" and depositional environments of the Fish river Canyon in Namibia. Fish River Canyon - Wikipedia. However, I'm trying to have a look at the literature! Quite a few differences, but also a few similarities. I'm trying to get used to, for example, the geochronology, as the nomenclature we use is very different to American nomenclature. Another link to the Fish river Canyon http://www.mme.gov.na/...tractions/Fish%20River%20Canyon.pdf
Edited by Pressie, : Had the word "one" just before "nomenclature". How it got there, I don't know. Getting old I guess. Changed it.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the word I spelled geoshronolgy to geochronology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2011 11:23 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 897 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 279 of 320 (634063)
09-18-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Just being real
09-17-2011 4:37 AM


Hi just being real,
Which btw brings me to another point. If you want to have a contest between creationist blunders and evolutionist blunders, there are just as many stones to throw in each camp. Obviously this would be a pointless endeavour.
Actually it gets quite humorous to compare these 'blunders' and the hoaxes of creationists to those of science, especially to compare them with current knowledge and who provided it.
See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes
No hoax yet has ever been uncovered by a creationist, they were all uncovered by science
Science discards invalid information.
Creationism holds on to, and repeats, invalid information.
For instance creationists keep bringing up Piltdown man as if it were some icon necessary to science -- it isn't, it is discarded as a hoax and has no effect on modern science. The perpetuation of talk about Piltdown by creationists is dishonest.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 265 by Just being real, posted 09-17-2011 4:37 AM Just being real has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 280 of 320 (634225)
09-20-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Percy
09-17-2011 9:32 AM


You make my case.
The flood water did not move the continents. That was from the breaking up of the continents and so part of structural earth issues.
Yet the great chaos one can imagine, soooo much more then the Japan matter, would include thowing great slabs of land about intack and busting them into pieces and so despositing them everywhere and so in sections of the flooding waters there could be great eddys of quiet water where layering of even fine sediment could be done.
further layering of fine or any kind of sediment could be from just other sediment forces. the water just a bigger agent.
All that goes on in layering issues is a segregation of sediment.
in our quiet days its just water that segregates. yet any force could do this. Wing even a little bit does in the desert.
Whatever force did the segregating it is simply easily an option to see a massive force of water with every kind of convulsion leading to every kind of result that water moves in .
Fast here and slow there.
Then everything covered and so today we talk about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 09-17-2011 9:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 09-20-2011 8:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 281 of 320 (634226)
09-20-2011 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Coyote
09-18-2011 1:53 PM


Re: Evidence?
The data is that some 75% of the dry land was once covered by water. the rest is areas that are volcanic and so either knocked the sedimentary rock off or kept off the sediment.
Creationism sees this as from the biblical flood year.
Its just what we want to find.
The k-t line this YEC sees as the flood line or year. all belove deposited by the flood year.
Just segegated flows/events in the flood year need be invoked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2011 1:53 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-20-2011 2:59 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 284 by Coyote, posted 09-20-2011 11:33 AM Robert Byers has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 282 of 320 (634230)
09-20-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Robert Byers
09-20-2011 2:41 AM


Re: Evidence?
The data is that some 75% of the dry land was once covered by water. [...] Its just what we want to find.
No. What you want to find is data showing that 100% of the land was once simultaneously covered by water. The data showing that this is not the case is not what you want to find, 'cos of it falsifying your hypothesis.
the rest is areas that are volcanic and so either knocked the sedimentary rock off or kept off the sediment.
Volcanos don't do this. Like water, they are not a sort of magic bulldozer operating for the convenience of creationist apologists.
The k-t line this YEC sees as the flood line or year. all belove deposited by the flood year.
Well that leaves you with one very difficult question to answer. If the sediments below the KT line were deposited by the magic flood, and the sediments above were deposited by non-magical geological processes --- why do they look the same? The fossils are different, but the sediment types, the sedimentary structures, the relationships of the sediments ... are just exacly the same. Why is it that the results of a magical cataclysm look absolutely identical to the results of normal processes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 2:41 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 21346
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 283 of 320 (634251)
09-20-2011 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Robert Byers
09-20-2011 2:37 AM


Hi Robert,
You're still getting distracted by details. The question isn't, "Can Robert Byers imagine this?" Obviously the answer is yes, Robert Byers can imagine this.
The key question is, "Can Robert Byers produce any evidence for what he imagines?" The answer here is just as obvious: No, Robert Byers cannot produce any evidence for what he imagines.
If in your imagination "the great chaos" of 4500 years ago "would include throwing great slabs of land about intact" and produce "great eddies of quiet water where layering of even fine sediment could be done," then you need to produce evidence of these things.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 2:37 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1598 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 284 of 320 (634265)
09-20-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Robert Byers
09-20-2011 2:41 AM


Re: Evidence?
The k-t line this YEC sees as the flood line or year. all belove deposited by the flood year.
You have still ignored the important question of dating.
You are mixing two events separated by about 65 million years.
The flood is said by biblical scholars to have occurred about 4,350 years ago. Forget about the k-t boundary, as that was some 65 million years ago!
The scientific evidence is clear: there is a progression of critters from the k-t boundary to the present, with modern humans showing up very near the end of that span. There is no evidence for humans anywhere near the k-t boundary.
If you are going to imagine a global flood at the k-t boundary you need to show evidence that all forms of scientific dating are wrong, and that the entire geologic column since that time is wrong (among other things).
Do you have any evidence, or are you just going on belief? (If so, see signature.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Robert Byers, posted 09-20-2011 2:41 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:51 AM Coyote has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9301
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 285 of 320 (634414)
09-21-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Robert Byers
09-17-2011 4:48 AM


The newly observed pulses in Iceland make a point. That water can instantly segregate sediment .
Then you need to point to specific formations that these pulses created and show how they produced alternating layers of fine grained sediments and diatoms as well as sorting organic debris by tiny differences in 14C. Until you do so, you have no argument.
The great flood can be imagined to have numerous things going on at the same time. . .
It just takes imagination to figure out all these details. . .
This is only the first, tiny step on the way to demonstrating that the flood actually occurred. Your next step is to figure out what type of evidence would falsify your ideas. The next step is actually finding evidence that support your ideas.
You will notice that the title of this thread is "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood". The title is not "Imaginations on the Global Flood". You need to supply evidence to support your ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Robert Byers, posted 09-17-2011 4:48 AM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RAZD, posted 09-21-2011 4:30 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 288 by Robert Byers, posted 09-22-2011 1:56 AM Taq has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023