Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 817 of 1352 (808236)
05-09-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
05-09-2017 8:00 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
(double post)
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 8:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 820 of 1352 (808256)
05-09-2017 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by ringo
05-09-2017 12:07 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Since Faith claims that practically all sediments, worldwide, were laid down by the flood, I don't see how that is possible. If there were stretches of ocean with water clear enough for whales, etc. to survive, how would there be layers of sediment below them? Wouldn't you have vast areas of the earth's surface with virtually no geological column?
It certainly raises a lot of issues, doesn't it?
You know, 'fountains of the deep', mudflows in profusion, and all that; not to mention the tectonic effects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by ringo, posted 05-09-2017 12:07 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 824 of 1352 (808304)
05-09-2017 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
05-09-2017 9:41 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
If it's in the Bible it's the explanation it's not made up.
But most of what you give us is not in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about mudslides or flood-deposited limestone or galloping continents, etc.
I don't know, but these aren't issues we're debating.
I understand that you wouldn't want to talk about contrary evidence.
What I claim mostly is that the strata are THE evidence for a worldwide Flood and absolutely NOT evidence for the Geological Time Scale. This has been my claim in post after post from different angles for years. But again, I think it's indisputable just on the face of it.
Why?
What you are really saying here is that you are not required to provide evidence.
Sin was the cause of the Flood. Beyond that, again you are raising questions that are not part of the debate. I try to stick to the evidence that it happened, not how it happened.
Sure. It's always good for YECs to avoid details.
I'm sorry, but sin is not a mechanism.
All a way to avoid the indisputable fact that sediments full of dead things stacked miles deep suggest an enormous water catastrophe and not hundreds of millions of years of time periods.
Why is that? You keep saying these things but never really support them.
Why couldn't normal mortality over millions of years not create the same situation?
Oh right! Because you don't want it to. Sorry.
What it applies to is rising sea level and that's what we have here.
But with a flood or mudflow, there is no time to create an environment and that is what the law depends upon. Walther's Law relates to the vertical sequence of sedimentary rock types produced by a succession of depositional environments. A flood or mudflow produces an interruption of the environments, just as a lava flow would, therefor producing an interruption of the vertical sequence of rocks.
But I'm sure that you know better.
The calcium carbonate they are made up of was already created, it was merely transported and deposited as layers that became limestone.
No, the carbonate would be mixed with other sediments if they were transported.
What do you mean "overwhelm?" I would assume they deposit as layers the same way they always do with rising sea level. And there's no reason to suppose that the water was ever that deep as it was rising. Just deep enough to deposit whatever depth of sediments that got deposited.
The sand, silt and clay would be too abundant for the rock to be called limestone.
I thought I was answering the question how ocean sediments would have been carried on to the land. Some stirring of the water would seem to help with that.
Yes, and the limestone would be all mixed up with clastic rocks and would be deposited that way. There would be no true limestone beds. Again, sorry, but the evidence suggests that quiet waters with little or no clastic debris produces limestone.
If mammals weren't why would people have been?:
Because of evolution, mammals and people were not present at the time.
I'm cutting the rest of this off for the sake of brevity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by Faith, posted 05-09-2017 11:54 PM edge has not replied
 Message 831 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:06 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 844 of 1352 (808443)
05-10-2017 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by Faith
05-10-2017 11:06 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
It's just wonderful how good you are at ignoring the obvious fact that a stack of sedimentary rocks is the highly unlikely outcome of time periods in which creatures supposedly lived.
Again, this is just an assertion.
What do you mean by rocks being the 'outcome of time periods'? That makes no sense.
Do you really expect our own "time period," with all its mountains and valleys and so on, to ultimately reduce down to a few flat 0layers of sediment spread over hundreds or thousands of square miles, just like all the others supposedly did?
For the parts that are currently under water on the continental shelves and in river deltas etc., yes. And I believe they would be datable by the trash that we put in the oceans.
I don't know why this isn't screamingly obvious to you or anybody else. Perhaps it is but you can't give up the status quo? All that intellectual stimulation and so on? So much for scientific objectivity.
When a YEC says something is obvious, it means that they don't need to provide evidence.
And the idea that the sediments would mix together, natural and commonsensical though the idea would seem to be, is contradicted by all kinds of experiments: even water at high velocity sorts out sediments into layers, as Berthault's flume experiments show, plus his observation of a high stack of layers produced by a flooding river; and when water is simply standing sediments also precipitate out into layers.
First, those were not mudflows. We have examples of volcanic mudflows such as those from Mount Saint Helens that show mixed lithologies and lack of bedding.
Second, I am talking about mixing fine graind clastic sediments with carbonate to produce impure limestone. This is actually quite common, but we also get large amounts of pure limestone. That would not be possible in a turbulent environment that moves sediments on to the continents as you suggest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 845 of 1352 (808444)
05-10-2017 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Faith
05-10-2017 1:48 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
This is really hilarious the way this obvious denial of reality is clung to by everybody here. The strata full of dead things are IN-YOUR-FACE EVIDENCE both for a worldwide Flood and against the preposterous idea that they represent time periods that then all collapsed down into stratified rock.
Why is that?
Why couldn't it be fossils forming over millions of years?
I know it would cost all the sophisticated evos here enormously to just pry open one eye to a slit and take a squint at this obvious fact because it could threaten your whole worldview, your livelihood, and especially your egos to consider it for half a second.
Ever notice how things become 'obvious' where a YEC cannot provide evidence?
I sympathize, I really do because it happened to me when I became a Christian, and later a creationist as well, that I lost most of my friends, all really in the end, have to tolerate from nonChristian family and even some Christian friends a pretty total void in acknowledgement of all the things that matter most to me, all for the sake of continuing to have any kind of relationship at all, and then of course I also have to put up with being treated like the village idiot at EvC and so on. Who wants it?
Did you ever think that it might be you who is the intolerant one?
But the strata/fossils is such obvious evidence for the Flood and against the Geo Time Scale I have to imagine some such reason for refusing to recognize it. Paradigmosis will do up to a point but I think we're beyond that point.
Once again, "it's obvious"... to a YEC.
Why does that not make me feel confident that it is correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 846 of 1352 (808445)
05-10-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by Faith
05-10-2017 2:02 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
The reality of the strata and fossils trumps all of that.
So then you can ignore them, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 2:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 848 of 1352 (808448)
05-10-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:25 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
I have no need to "ignore" what you call "buried terrain features since I've amply explained them.
If you did, you didn't do very well.
You should assume that THE Flood (not A flood) deposited that limestone because 1) it's a layer among layers stacked to a great depth and covering a great area,
Why? According the Walter's Law that is explained by rising or declining sea level. No flood necessary.
2) it's not shallow it's humongous in most cases
And we have explained that by subsidence. The fact that thicker parts of the formations are in the deeper parts of the basin support this.
3) some of those layers are interpreted as time periods in which land creatures lived, all of which supposedly collapsed down in the end to vast slabs of rock, in this case limestone, which is impossible;
Actually, this isn't true.
I had hoped not to get into this (because I'm sure you won't understand it and will simply deny the facts), but most major formations are time-transgressive. This is a necessary outgrowth of Walther's Law. As a sand layer propagates along the surface of the land, time passes. Consequently, the farther inland a beach sand (for instance) is, the younger it is. This is born out by biostratigraphy wherein the Tapeats Sandstone will see two indicator fossils of trilobite depending on where you are.
If you are interested, I will look up the details, but if you are just going into your ususal denial rant, I'm not going to bother.
3) The Flood would certainly have killed a lot of sea creatures and buried them in limestone; ...
And?
and 4) such a stack of layers is excellent evidence for a spectacularly huge worldwide water catastrophe and very BAD evidence for the standard interpretation.
If you are under the impression that saying something is evidence is, in itself evidence, you are sadly mistaken.
So, you've given us 4 lines of evidence which are not evidence for a global flood.
That's nice.
The evidence from Spirit Lake is excellent reason to reinterpret the Yellowstone petrified forest as formed in water as the trees in Spirit Lake were.
Did you just ignore the conversation we had on this?
That was brought about by a volcano too, which stripped the trees and deposited them upright in the lake, where they formed layers as they ran out of space. It's a remarkable situation that perfectly parallels the Yellowstone "forest." Being full of volcanic ash is evidence that it was a volcano that caused the whole scenario, not evidence that the trees are growing in the stuff.
But they were growing in it. Did you not read my link? One by a real geologist and not the Sarfati poseur?
And the trees are obviously dead, dead before they got stacked that way. Lots of good evidence to rethink the usual explanation. Reality, PK, Reality.
Not really.
Once again, your choice is to ignore data that you do not like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 856 of 1352 (808459)
05-11-2017 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
05-10-2017 11:10 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
otally disagree, ICANT, I think there's tons of evidence for the worldwide Flood. I don't know much about Ellen G White, I wouldn't read a cultist.
You keep saying things like this but never give us any evidence. All you provide is assertions.
If you do provide evidence, it's either completely fallacious or not conclusive. Like saying that millions of creatures fossilized in water-lain sediment. Why would that necessarily be a flood? You cannot tell us, can you?
It's just 'obvious', right?
Well, it isn't obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 859 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 1:20 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 869 of 1352 (808526)
05-11-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
It is interesting how your first statement from NCSE demolishes the YEC arguments you make even before you make them.
But, let's look at a few things you say.
The fossil sequence is indeed an interesting question. Have out of sequence fossils ever been found?
Out of sequence, no. Of an extended range yes. That is the nature of discovery. However, the likelihood of finding a Cambrian mammal is more remote every day.
Or, has evolution made predictions about the fossil record that have been confirmed or otherwise by subsequent discoveries?
Yes, see 'tiktaalik'.
Fossils have turned up in the wrong place many times and this continues today.
Please document. What do you mean by 'even today'? The problem being?
This leads to the range of fossils often being extended.
And this is a problem?
Vertebrates have been confirmed in the early Cambrian.
You realize that 'vertebrate' is kind of a broad category, don't you? Why not discuss giraffes, or trout?
Pollen fossils have been found in Precambrian strata although it was claimed that flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era.
Please document. Are you talking about the modern pollen grains found in the Hakatai Shale?
Grass was not supposed to have evolved until millions of years after the end of the dinosaurs but traces of grass have been found in fossilized dinosaur coprolites (dung).
Again, please document. I have personally seen grass fossils in 50myo rocks and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they occurred in the Cretaceous.
Ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Picture T. Rex stomping along with a duck flying overhead.
Please document. I am skeptical, though it is known that some mammals did exist during the Cretaceous period. They were not, however, livestock or lions.
Perhaps that Precambrian rabbit will soon appear.
Well, get to work.
(Oh, wait! Silly me ... 'field work' is not a YEC strong point).
Similarly there are many living fossils, animals and plants that were thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago. Coelacanth, Wollemi Pine, a rodent called Laonastes aenigmamus , and a sponge called Nucha vancouverensis are examples.
Yes, some of members of old taxa remain, however, they are known to be different from the older species. This is not shocking.
There are several mechanisms that separately and together could provide a Creationist explanation for the sequence in the fossil record.
● Ecological zonation
● Differential escape
● Hydrodynamic sorting
● Biogeographic provincialism
So, are you saying that Devonian swamps (an ecological zone) had the same flora and fauna of modern swamps?
And just how did maple trees escape along with mammals and humans to higher ground, leaving no ancestors behind?
And why would a large dinosaur be hydrodynamically sorted from a large modern mammal such as an elephant?
And finally, where can we find the mammoth biogeographic province in Triassic time?
These arguments just don't float.
I snip the rest of your post for the purpose of brevity, but I hope you can get the gist of your problems with the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by JonF, posted 05-11-2017 12:51 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 877 of 1352 (808591)
05-11-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by Faith
05-11-2017 12:47 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
In that case they obviously cover MORE territory than the maps show.
True enough. However, one of those places where it is not shown is to the north, on the Canadian Shield, from the Iowa-Minnesota state line to the north.
It turns out that this is where the sand for the Saint Peters Sandstone came from. It was an area that was actively being eroded with the sand being deposited on a shoreline along a southerly sea. In fact, some of the grains came from the older Potsdam Formation, a sandstone that formed during the first Paleozoic transgression that we call the Sauk Sequence. It is also noted that some of the smaller grains are wind-abraded.
What this means is that there was a land mass to the north. In other words, there was dry land in that area, therefor, no global flood.
JSTOR: Access Check
Care to discuss?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed url from subtitle. I presume it got inserted there accidentally. Such has caused problems in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:47 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2017 8:14 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 884 of 1352 (808641)
05-11-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 883 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2017 8:14 PM


Re: Rather trivial comment about St. Peter Sandstone
Your greater point probably stands just fine, but I had to comment on your saying "no St. Peter Sandstone in Minnesota". The type locality of the St. Peter Sandstone is in Minnesota.
Offhand, I think the Paleozoic ends about half way north in Minnesota. I'm pretty sure that there are some limited Mesozoic age deposits in the iron range area, to the northwest of Lake Superior.
I reread the article to see where I went awry on that one.
It says that the shoreline fluctuated across southern Minnesota and some wholly terrestrial deposits occur there. South of the state line the sands are all marine.
Thanks for the catch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2017 8:14 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 891 of 1352 (809088)
05-16-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 887 by CRR
05-16-2017 6:14 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Conclusion
The weight of evidence favours the conclusion that fossil pollen is contained in ‘Precambrian’ shale. This is contrary to expectations based on the accepted geological column.
Only if you ignore the facts that the pollen grains are found on fractures in the rock and do not exhibit darkening of color with age as is normal for older pollen. They also show no compression that should happen with burial under miles (as averred by Faith) of sediments.
More Precambrian Pollen
Fossils of spores and pollen have been found in the Precambrian Roraima formation, as reported in a 1966 article in the prestigious journal Nature. That means they are at least 1,300 million, or 1.3 billion years ‘out of date’. Pollen paradox - creation.com
The first thing I noticed about this occurrence is that nothing has been published since the 1960's when it was first announced.
Again, there is no flattening of the pollen grains as would be expected of such a strongly metamorphosed rock and it is thought that pollen grains would not even survive such a high temperature metamorphism.
Once again, one researcher mentions that ultrasonic cleaning of a sample removed the pollen from the rock suggesting that the grains were confined to fractures in the rock.
All the data suggest contamination by percolating meteoric water carrying pollen into a groundwater system.
Here is a kind of technical article on the subject:
Roraima pollen paradox - RationalWiki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 6:14 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 899 by JonF, posted 05-16-2017 2:00 PM edge has not replied
 Message 901 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 2:41 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 895 of 1352 (809119)
05-16-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 893 by Davidjay
05-16-2017 10:36 AM


Re: I always answer, 'Just ask Jesus'
And do see my new signature for further information against evolution ...
Okay.
"Evolutyionists are used to forcing their theory on students and scientists. They are not used to answering any questions on this theory, because it is their religion."
You are obviously kidding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 10:36 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 12:18 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 898 of 1352 (809161)
05-16-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by Coyote
05-16-2017 12:21 PM


Re: I always answer, 'Just ask Jesus'
You are still trying to avoid responding to the evidence I posted disproving the flood (see Message 892, above).
You have no answers, eh?
Just remember, "evolutionists" are the ones who refuse to answer questions. Just keep saying that over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2017 12:21 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1965 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 904 of 1352 (809269)
05-17-2017 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by CRR
05-17-2017 2:41 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Except for;
Bernard, S. et al., Exceptional preservation of fossil plant spores in high-pressure metamorphic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 262(1—2):257— 272, 2007
Yes, these are Triassic rocks, and they are carbonates, very much unlike the Roraima rocks in question, in both composition and age.
They were also subjected to what we call high-pressure metamorphism which is not the same as high-temperature metamorphism. Their maximum temperature was probably about 360C. The Roraima rocks were probably subjected to higher temperatures since biotite is a specified component.
And I assure you that they look nothing like the pollen found in either the Hakatai shale or the Roraima rocks.
Nevertheless, if you look closely at my post, I mentioned that such remains are thought to be destroyed by high-grade metamorphism (not that they are) and this is confirmed in the abstract of your cited paper. It is clear that some fossils do survive such metamorphism which only raises another question for you.
What happened to the macrofossils of the flowering plants that produced the Precambrian pollen? Where we see the accepted occurrences of pollen fossils in more recent rocks, we also find things like leaves, branches and root systems. Where are they in the Roraima rocks?
So, is this the only beef you have with my post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 2:41 AM CRR 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