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:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 67 of 1896 (713445)
12-13-2013 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:29 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
The chemical binding of the grains takes how long? Why should it take millions of years? A hundred or much less ought to do it quite nicely.
Get your paper published on super-fast cementation, change the entirety of geological theory and collect your Nobel Prize.
While we're waiting:
Cementation involves ions carried in groundwater chemically precipitating to form new crystalline material within sediment pores; this is how "sediment" becomes "rock". The new pore-filling minerals form "bridges" between original sediment grains, thereby binding them together. So sand becomes "sandstone", and gravel becomes "conglomerate". Cementation occurs as part of the diagenesis or lithification of sediments.
Cementation occurs primarily below the water table regardless of sedimentary grain sizes present. Large volumes of pore water must pass through sediment pores for new mineral cements to crystallise and so millions of years are generally required to complete the cementation process.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:48 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 71 of 1896 (713450)
12-13-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
12-13-2013 7:48 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
4300 really ought to be sufficient.
Ought to be according to your personal beliefs, but sadly isn't, apparently.
Can't wait to see you provide evidence of super-fast cementation, it should be really easy because you can show it happening, after all you reckon 100 years is enough, so you'll be able to show the process starting in just a few years.
But, you'd expect geologists to have done that already wouldn't you?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 7:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:00 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 73 of 1896 (713452)
12-13-2013 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:00 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
how much time any of it involves, any measurements they actually made, they just gave their wild millions of years total.
Until it was pointed out to you yesterday that it was the process of cementation that forms sedementary rocks, you didn't know about it. Now you think that 100 years is more than adequate and 4,300 years a breeze.
I admire your ability to just make stuff up on the hoof, but really, if it took so little time we would see it happening wouldn't we? How come all geologists have missed this obvious fact?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 122 of 1896 (713573)
12-14-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
But I really don't have time or patience for all this right now, sorry.
That's ok, take a break, but when you come back let me know how the microscopic calcite particles from plankton fell to the ocean floor BEFORE the fist sized lumps of flint - one of the hardest rocks on the planet - so as to make those nice layers in the chalk I showed you.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(11)
Message 213 of 1896 (713719)
12-16-2013 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:57 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
Please stop suggesting that I came up with these ideas because I NEED them. Do you think that way? Neither do I. It occurred to me as I was studying the diagram as the likely way things ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and it gives a good explanation for the carving of the canyon. Period.
Of course you need them, you wouldn't be remotely interested in either evolution or geology if both of them didn't cause a huge problem for your beliefs.
I didn't bother to remark on it at the time, but this comment of yours in the chalk thread - which you have abandoned before providing any answers at all - stuck in my mind.
Faith writes:
Of course I do not accept that interpretation of the ordering of fossils as proving evolution up some fantasy time scale. There has to be a mechanical principle of sorting that explains it.
You display there your need to find a new and impossible explanation to a well understood process that fits with your pre-conceived ideas. You're not looking for the correct explanation, you're looking for one that doesn't show that your beliefs are wrong. That's not science, it's not even honest.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 10:54 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 220 of 1896 (713737)
12-16-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
12-16-2013 10:54 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
But I don't make them up, I discover them.
No Faith, on this occasion you have made no discoveries and are simply saying that there MUST be an explanation. ie you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, therefore there MUST be an explanation for anything that says otherwise.
And the same thing about need could be said about the arguments on the Old Earth side, as quite a lot of ad hoc speculation is used against my arguments, as you would recognize if you would take the time to appreciate that fact.
Ignoring the tu quoque fallacy, this is obviously not true. Up until a few hundred years ago, everyone believed the earth and universe to be young, it took a very long time and a huge amount of undeniable evidence to change the minds of those creationists. You're just a throwback.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:25 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 484 of 1896 (714235)
12-20-2013 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
12-20-2013 12:44 PM


Re: Palouse Canyon -- what extreme flood cascade flow does
Faith writes:
But absolutely, if anything clearly contradicts God's word it's wrong, period
I think this remarkable statements requires its own thread.
If I start one will you participate? I realise that you are fairly occupied with the rebuild of the GC at the moment, but maybe after Christmas?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 12:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 8:31 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 612 of 1896 (714449)
12-22-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Faith
12-22-2013 3:00 PM


Re: ain't strawmen nice?
Faith writes:
There is no unconformity anywhere in that long stretch of parallel layers shown on the cross-sections of the GC to the top of the GS that have been posted a number of times. There are only the parallel layers a mile deep. There is an unconformity at the very north end of those layers, and there is the Great Unconformity beneath the canyon. Neither changes the fact that there is a stretch of hundreds of miles of undisturbed parallel layers a mile deep between the GC and the GS, which on OE time covers according to Dr. A three quarters of a billion years. Long time for no tectonic or volcanic or earthquake or visible erosional activity to happen to any of the layers during that long span pver such a large area.
I know nothing about geology and even less about the Grand Canyon so maybe I can mediate.
You're saying:
1. There's a section of the GC that's (how many) hundreds of miles long showing flat, undisturbed sedimentary layers.
Is this true chaps?
2. These layers represent about 750m years.
True?
3. If both those things are true, is there anything remarkable about it? Should we be surprised that a particular stretch of land has not been subject to disturbance? Is there anything special about this stretch that says that we should expect it?
4. My ignorance of the GC is complete, so are the layers that Faith is looking at formed underwater? Do they contain fossils of sea/lake living organisms?
5. Does erosion of the sort we're talking about only occur after an uplift or retreat of water so that the layers become susceptible to the sort of erosion I'm familiar with caused by rain, frost, wind? Or can erosion occur under water. (Obviously it can at areas of turbulence near a coast or in shallows, but my mental image of deep water is of extreme calm.)
In the end, it seems to me that Faith has a fairly simple question 'is it reasonable for there to be a hundred or so miles of undisturbed layers of sediment for such a long period?'
To be honest I can't think of a reason why it's not, particularly as we have the evidence of massive disturbance at both ends of the hundred miles. The question seems to me more like 'is it reasonable to expect all the sediment layers to be broken up many times and in many places and if so, how much jumbling should we expect?'

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Faith, posted 12-22-2013 3:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2013 3:48 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 615 by NosyNed, posted 12-22-2013 3:52 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 12-22-2013 4:58 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 619 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2013 5:07 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 621 of 1896 (714460)
12-22-2013 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Faith
12-22-2013 4:58 PM


Re: ain't strawmen nice?
Faith writes:
The only thing that's unusual about them is that they course over such a distance without being distorted by the tectonic and other disturbances
No Faith, that's your assertion. The question remains "is that unusual?"
The earth has a large surface area and sediments are usual not unusual. The Grand canyon IS unusual in that it exposes those sediments to us in a very, very, small area; so unusual that it's described as one of the wonders of the world. So the question remains, "should we be surprised that a section of x hundred miles is undisturbed?"
My feeling is no, but I don't actually know. However, I suspect that there are people that do. I'd start with a geologist.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 12-22-2013 4:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 723 of 1896 (714770)
12-27-2013 11:32 AM


This is where the Atlantic plate meets the Eurasian plate in Iceland. There are places where you can have a foot on each continent.
The whole are is active, hot springs and geysers everywhere and a volcano or 8. This one ruined the world's travel plans a couple of years ago:
If those plates moved faster that their current 2.5cm per year, you'd see a lot more of that happening.
I've stood in that Atlantic ridge and felt my boots get hot, seen rocks smoking and been on an island where there wasn't one 6 months ago and was too new to be on a map.
The trouble with sitting at a computer looking at these phenomena thinking you can figure it all out, is that it gives you no no idea of the enormity of it.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 739 of 1896 (714787)
12-27-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 735 by Faith
12-27-2013 4:41 PM


Re: Reasons to believe the Flood Happened
Faith writes:
I haven't said it often enough? Plants carried along with the sediment in the Flood waters and deposited as a layer wherever they happen to be found.
Ta da!
All you have to do is find marine fossils mixed in with the terrestrial in the same layer and you've proved it.
Ta da!
In your terminology, they must be there, so find them. But if you can't ask yourself what that means.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by Faith, posted 12-27-2013 4:41 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 744 by roxrkool, posted 12-27-2013 6:23 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 764 of 1896 (714822)
12-28-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 759 by Faith
12-28-2013 6:28 AM


Re: Another Summary
Faith, if I was looking at that graphic without knowing anything at all about geology or the Grand Canyon except some generic things ( which is actually the case) I'd see the layers first and think that one of two things must have happened, either
1. The layers were put down carefully one at a time on top of each other like the bottled layers of sand you get in some seaside towns a souvenirs.
Or
2. A pile of loose sediment was shaken up in water and left to settle creating the layers composed of different size sediment.
I could check which was the case by looking at what's in the actual layers. If there's larger particles on top of smaller ones, I know for certain that 2. Is wrong. And if 1. Is correct it must have taken a long time to build up those layers.
I also see that the horizontal layers appear to have been raised up to the right of the picture. It even looks as though there are a couple of lumps of rock underneath lifting it, that don't belong there, as though they aren't part of the original layers. I don't know how they got there.
I can see that the uplift has caused a crack in the centre where the layers have shifted out of alignment and I can also see that the river on the right has cut into the rocks through the layers almost to the level of the non-uplifted layers.
Without knowing anything at all about geology, I say that something lifted the land there, bent the layers and cause the river to cut into the rocks as they rose. It couldn't have happened quickly because the river would just have diverted to lower land probably into the small valley caused by the fault. So again I'm thinking a long period of time because the layers had to first form, then slowly uplift and equally slowly get cut into.
The left of the picture has several other features.
The first is 8 or 9 more layers on top of the ones I've just been looking at. From the angle of the exposed layers, it looks like they've been eroded right to left, I'd assume that was prevailing wind direction - but it's a guess.
The vertical black line severing all the layers looks like some form of volcanic activity, you can see how something - i'm assuming larva - has seeped sideways between layers and something has been forced up through those layers and I'm wondering whether at least some of those extra layers are formed from larva and the mound is actually an old volcano.
Then on the very far left there's another fault, I've no idea what that is, but it's another disturbance that's gone through the entire stack.
So, i have a few hypotheses, some of which I can prove just by checking simple facts and some that may remain a mystery to me - but it would be fairly easy to do.
I could go on and look at dating methods, fossil layers, chemical compositions, other canyons elsewhere and so on and see whether there's still a consistent picture. After all, a single fossil out of place would make a mess of the whole thing.
But no matter how I look at that picture, I can't see how a single catastrophic flood created those features. I'm trying to but it just doesn't fit with what we can see and go on to test.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 6:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 8:36 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 770 of 1896 (714831)
12-28-2013 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 766 by Faith
12-28-2013 8:36 AM


Re: Another Summary
Faith writes:
Your ponderings are interesting, but all I wanted you to do was recognize that all the strata were laid down before any of the canyons, fault lines, magma dike etc. occurred.
I think you could have that as a reasonable starting point for the central sections and particularly the canyon itself. Not so the additional layers to the left which could be volcanic - though that's easily checked. Is anyone saying that the layers were put down *after* the canyon was formed?
I really don't see what point you think you're making by saying that a small section of the earth's surface hasn't been disturbed, particularly when you can see evidence of fracturing on either side and lifting underneath.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 8:36 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 2:50 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 798 of 1896 (714869)
12-28-2013 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 785 by Faith
12-28-2013 2:50 PM


Re: Another Summary
Faith writes:
The point is WHEN they were disturbed. The fact that such a long block of strata ARE undisturbed calls the Old Earth interpretation into question, since it seems to me one should normally expect a lot of disturbance over the hundreds of millions of years represented there but it doesn't exist.
But the schematic does show a lot of disturbance - it shows a large bending and uplifting and fissures plus some large anomalies at each end of the section. What more would you expect and why? It's also just a schematic, i suspect the reality is far more complicated than that.
And the fracturing and uplift so clearly came AFTER all the strata were in place it contributes to that same interpretation -- those disturbances didn't happen as the strata were being laid down, they happened to the entire stack as a whole AFTER it was all in place.
Is anyone saying otherwise?
Again, the whole scenario should call the OE interpretation into question it seems to me. Unless they want to argue that the planet really was that placid for that many hundreds of millions of years as some have hinted they may.
I have no reason to expect the entire planet to be broken into small pieces and jumbled up and that's obviously not what we see. I would expect very many large sections to remain undisturbed for millenia otherwise the sediments couldn't form they way they have could they?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 2:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 1:27 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 809 of 1896 (714882)
12-29-2013 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 807 by Faith
12-29-2013 1:27 AM


Re: Another Summary
Faith writes:
The problem is that it implies hundreds of millions of years of NO disturbances, which makes little sense on a planet that supposedly would have undergone the sorts of disturbances we are aware of in our own time, those faults and tiltings of strata and volcanic deposits that should have occurred between layers over hundreds of millions of years -- I mean like those we see at the top of the formation, not the narrow sills, but magma that would interfere with the laying down of any subsequent strata.
The earth's surface area is about 200m square miles and in that section we're looking at a tiny proportion of it. I don't find it at all surprising that there are sections of the earth that have remained relatively undisturbed for hundreds of millions of years.
Not all the earth is geologically active - at least not in the sense you mean, volcanic and tectonic - the rocks in those formations are sedimentary, for them to form at all they need long periods of calm as they gradually build, compact and finally cement.
I also suspect that if you actually looked at those rocks you'd find plenty of evidence of movement and faulting - just not on the catastrophic scale you are asserting is always necessary.
You're also looking at a schematic showing - at a rough count - 10 layers that are relatively undisturbed but a further 15 on top of them that have been totally eroded. If you looked at the section to the right of the diagram alone, you wouldn't know that there had ever been a further fifteen layers above the 10 you're looking at and being amazed that they hadn't been interfered with by time. In other words, you are being surprised, only because you are seeing what HASN'T yet been disturbed but ignoring what has. You don't know what is missing from the picture, but are surprised by what is there.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 1:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 7:15 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024