The TRVE history of the Flood...

Or the Bay of Fundy. I was there last fall and it struck me what a good place that would be to model creationist flood behavior.or Faith's contention that footprints would be left in one layer as the tide came in.It does look like mudflats with erosion channels that resemble the u-shaped channels seen at Palouse River, Mt St Helens, channeled scablands, and other places that have been discussed (Catastrophic Cascade U-channels vs V-channel Grand Canyon, Message 432 on the Why the Flood Never Happened for example. The whole bay was a U-channel. There were some rock spires, but they were totally different from the ones in the Grand Canyon: and they were only in one section near the shore, not out in the middle. You can see the scouring effect of the water laden with silt (think sandpaper). I walked out on the mudflat and rock outcroppings at low tide around some of these, and the only footprints I saw were the ones just made since the tide receded, they were fresh and showed raised edges typical of fresh new footprints.Except near the rocky shore, when the tide recedes the surface is soft wet mud that would flow into footprints, the incoming water picks up the surface, eradicating any vestige of footprints, and turning the water brown with fine sediment particles, which are still suspended when the ebb tide begins. Coarser particles are deposited, but the mud remains soft, wet and sticky. Part of the reason the tide can come in faster than a person can run, is that the muddy bottom is soft, you sink in, it clings to you (They had hose stations to wash your feet/shoes after walking on the exposed bottom).Enjoy

Another location we can look at (other than the Bay of Fundy previously noted) is Qualicum Beach in BC. Because of the tide pattern being a mix from one end of Vancouver Island and the other end, it varies from two intermediate high tides a day to one large high tide a day (like nearly same wave patterns added together):See Qualicum Beach Airport for one week forecast of heights.

quote:

---

Why Low Tides Matter in Parksville BC & Qualicum Beach, BC — 2013 Road Trip Series

​

​

Did you know that Parksville and Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada are the home to some of the island’s best wide open sprawling white sandy beaches thanks to the low tides.

​

We will go as far to say that the low tides in Parksville and Qualicum Beach create some of the best sandboxes your children will ever play in!

---

Sand castles, footprints of children running up and down the beach ... all eradicated by the high tides so that the beach is once again pristine at the next low tide. Even with 24 hours between peak high tides there is no preservation, nor lithification, of sandcastles and footprints.EnjoyEdited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Your first post on this thread was Message 548.It is in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.Delusional much? Or just more confused than normal?Have a cup of coffee and relax, it's all good.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

So confused then. An obsession with winning doesn't make it so.Enjoy

CRR, See "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Message 120.Some questions for this thread:

1. did the extinct species of this clade become extinct before or after the flood,
2. how can you tell?
3. if before then doesn't this show that not all original species were preserved?
4. or did they speciate from the ark species and then die out rapidly right afterward? ... which seems wasteful

How does creation explain this waste? Evolution does.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Typical god-of-the-gaps and arguments from incredulity. Let's review the ending:

quote:

---

The following topics and questions should be addressed in Part 2. Due to many other time-consuming tasks, however, I will probably come back to this topic only in a few months:

• Many Giraffidae species and genera appear in the fossil record practically simultaneously and the assumed ancestors co-exist millions of years with their "more evolved" offspring (illustration)
• Using evolutionary assumptions, one can almost always postulate a line of descent out of a large variety of forms.
• Neck vertebrae: Why is it so difficult to count to eight, in the giraffe neck?
• The question of causes (1): Macromutations — Possibilities and limitations
• The question of causes (2): Further hypotheses on the origins of the long-necked giraffe.
• The question of causes (3): Is Intelligent Design verifiable and falsifiable?
• Species concepts and basic types
• With regard to a duplication of a neck vertebra: could there ever be a continuous transitional series of fossils?
• The question of chance
• "Old" and entirely new research topics by the ID-theory.
• Mitchell and Skinner
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgement
• References

---

I'll only comment on the ones worth comments:1: Punctuated equilibrium, shocking. Gaps in the fossil record, even more shocking.2: I'll go further: given a set of fossils in close proximity in time and space, that show numerous familial resemblances, with younger (later) fossils more derived than older (earlier) fossils, that can empirically be arranged in a nested hierarchy by their traits and timing, it is entirely logical and rational to "postulate a line of descent" because that fits the predictions and expectation of evolutionary processes. No other known scientific theory fits such data. Such a postulated pattern leads to predictions of where and when new fossils may be found, as a test of the concept. ... If, however, the data does not fit these constraints imposed by the spacio-temporal matrix, then such a postulate would not be called for.4: Please define "macromutations" - hopefully using a current biological science definition. Hopefully this isn't your "hopeful monster" pseudo-macro-evolution typical of creationist fantasies.8: Duplication of parts during fetal development is a common mutation. See polydactyly for examples. This would be considered a normal part of "microevolution" by biological scientists.9: Chance (mutation) ... AND selection (survival and sexual). Sexual selection can be particularly rapid, especially when one bull mates with several cows, and it also explains the sexual dimorphism. In the wild today bulls with longer necks win the battles for mating, showing that this selection is continuing. So you would agree that "it is entirely logical and rational to "postulate a line of descent" because that fits the predictions and expectation of evolutionary processes" and that we are just arguing over the time scale of the process, not the details. Correct? Rapid radiation into new ecologies with low selection pressure would allow this, however herbivores need the plants specific to them (koalas and eucalyptus trees?) and the predators would be evolving right behind them: this would keep selection pressure relatively similar to today, with the same ratios of predator and prey we see today.Also this does not explain the evidence of biogeography, the patterns of populations and their descendants through time and space: one would expect to see the fossil record show this radiation pattern of dispersal of all species from one location and in one time period. Sadly, for you, it doesn't, while evolution coupled to the geological sciences does explain the observed patterns of species and fossils, it explains why similar ecosystems are inhabited by different species on the different continents (grassland grazers for example). So rapid speciation and rapid extinction, fascinating, but it doesn't seem consistent with the all powerful all seeing god/s behind this purported scenario. More like deism ...Does this period also include rapid geographic relocations of continents, as Faith has proposed IIRC, so that species ancestors could run to their respective continents before they broke up and sailed across the seas to their current locations?Inquiring minds want to know.Enjoy

See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? ... thinking this is due to a WWFlood is facile ignorance of the total geological database.Enjoy

As I said in Message 923: Since there was no reply on that thread I added a new post, Message 191, just for you. More facile ignorance of the total geological database. Can you tell me how floods and fountains built mountains?Or were the mountains there before the flood, then covered in water long enough for mature marine ecologies to develop and create layer after layer after layer of limestone, and then how was that limestone heated and pressurized to turn it into metamorphic rock?Can you tell me how flood erosion left spires inside the Grand Canyon, and why the Grand Canyon starts cutting through a slope to a high point on the ridge, while lower ridge elevations to the north and south have no such erosion?See If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? for details. Curiously no creationist has yet tackled that thread topic. Inquiring minds want to know.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Sorry, but that belongs on the Humour thread ... it doesn't explain the impurities ...

It's too ridiculous to bother, sorry.I opened the link and was bombarded with creationist drivel, and it didn't take long to find that the cause for the article was to fake an answer to the problem of evaporites.You're going to have to do better than use sites like this.Enjoy

There are two possibilities here:First, that you are a gullible fool that is easily fooled by photoshoped pictures that even Creationists think is bunk, and for that fool I ask a simple question: where are the skeletons on display ... they would be a huge attraction.Second, that you think others here are gullible fools that will take your troll bait to go offtopic.Enjoy

In area 51?

Fixed it for you. "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution."Enjoy

"A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution."Except evolution is not a belief (it is accepted science theory based on fact), nor is it "strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence" -- first, there is no invalidating evidence and second, if you have a better theory that explains all the evidence, I'm all ears.YEC, on the other hand is a false belief held onto with religious fervor in spite of the invalidating evidence ... or do you want to return to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and reply to the second set of evidence there -- you haven't gotten far against the Bristlecone Pine data, and that is just the beginning of the evidence that eviscerates a young earth belief.The natural history of the earth does not show any evidence of a world wide flood some 4500 +/- years ago. The Bristlecone Pines alone prove that, located on top of mountains, with some dead trunks still rooted in the ground that show 7,000 growth rings and a dendrochronology that uses wood samples lying on the ground within the grove, samples that would have floated away in a flood, and trees that show continuous growth for over 8,000 years.You are one of the rare intelligent creationist debaters here, imho, but I"m sorry, the earth is old, very very old, and evolution is real: we can find nested hierarchies all over the fossil and genetic record, but they all keep extending back in time, rather than terminating abruptly all at one time. That is what the evidence shows.Nested clades show the cat kind diversification and the dog kind diversification, but they also show the carnivore kind diversification that includes both cat and dog, but also bears, and then the mammal kind that includes them and all other mammals, including people.This is shown in both the fossil record and the genetic record, two independent means to arrive at the same conclusions -- consilience that did not have to occur in design, but which is necessary for evolution to be valid.Enjoy

Ok, I "believe" that objective empirical evidence is representative of reality, and that such evidence can be used to test the validity of theories ... because the alternative is that everything is imaginary ...... but that still does not make it "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence ... " - because it is supported by the evidence, rather than invalidated.Your definition also says at the bottom:

quote:

---

Synonym Discussion of belief
belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer. ⟨• my belief that I had caught all the errors⟩ faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. ⟨• an unshakable faith in God⟩ credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent. ⟨• a theory now given credence by scientists⟩ credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof. ⟨• gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness⟩

---

So belief (faith) in god is different from belief (credence) in theories based on evidence.So I would go with the credence synonym.Curiously my definition website gives a different take:

quote:

---

belief

​

noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:
   a belief that the earth is flat.
   
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
   a statement unworthy of belief.
   
3. confidence; faith; trust:
   a child's belief in his parents.
   
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
   the Christian belief.

​

Synonym Study
2. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology. Certainty indicates unquestioning belief and positiveness in one's own mind that something is true: I know this for a certainty. Conviction is settled, profound, or earnest belief that something is right: a conviction that a decision is just.

---

Enjoy