Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

No, but you should stop telling us how to build clocks.

I have told you how I built my clock, not yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have told you how I built my clock, not yours.

And your clock might be right twice a day.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And your clock might be right twice a day.

My 'clock' has many more parts than just the flood story, and it works better than most.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My 'clock' has many more parts than just the flood story, and it works better than most.

I sincerely doubt it. When asked specific questions about it you seem to have no answers.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I have told you how I built my clock, not yours.

Your clock runs on miracles. Which is fine. If it tells you the time you like that's A-OK.

But I'm not going to call you up for a time check.

 

[Obliquinaut]

My 'clock' has many more parts than just the flood story, and it works better than most.

Are you a literalist on all things in the Bible or just the Noachian Flood?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well hopefully in this exchange you have picked up a few new geology terms:

Transgressive Sequence Stratigraphy
Regressive Sequence Stratigraphy
Isostacy
Hjulstrom Diagram
Clay Size Particles
Clay Mineral
Correlation

Might make the geology articles a bit more comprehensive. And when you read bout epieric seas you are talking about seas that covered parts of continents. All of which kind of looks like your hypothesis of the Noachian Flood (without the miracle waters and the miraculous world-wide peneplain.

None of these processes apply substantially to the flood, although isostacy might have contributed a little to the depth of the water ( the Amazon River basin sinks a bit under the weight of seasonal flooding). Also uplift of the sea beds at the edges of the continents would help move water onto the land as well. We can only speculate about how much the continents would sink under the enormous weight of the floodwaters, and how much the sea beds would rise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

He certainly wouldn't have had to gopher wood.

Groan.

 

[Obliquinaut]

None of these processes apply substantially to the flood.

Well, technically they ALL DO. EVEN BY YOUR OWN STATEMENTS. Didn't you suggest that the water was "pushed up" by the rising ocean floor or some such? That's Isostacy. Didn't you talk about the water rising up over the continents? That's TRANSGRESSION. Didn't you say the water receded? That's REGRESSION. Didn't you talk about LAMINAR FLOW? That's hydrology.

EVERYTHING I listed there is related directly to your own points that you made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OWG, do you understand why the fact that one has to get on a long waiting list for transplants where countless potential donors are checked and disqualified refutes the flood?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, technically they ALL DO. EVEN BY YOUR OWN STATEMENTS. Didn't you suggest that the water was "pushed up" by the rising ocean floor or some such? That's Isostacy. Didn't you talk about the water rising up over the continents? That's TRANSGRESSION. Didn't you say the water receded? That's REGRESSION. Didn't you talk about LAMINAR FLOW? That's hydrology.

EVERYTHING I listed there is related directly to your own points that you made.

The difference is the effect of those processes in regard to the flood. Transgression and regression are evidenced by deposition of various materials over substantial distances and time frames, and usually associated with rising or falling seas. The flood water came in once and receded once, leaving little evidence of either process. Laminar flow is an obvious feature of ever deepening water moving over the land. Why you are disputing it is a puzzlement to me.

 

[Obliquinaut]

All you've done is add technical terms to the processes I described.

And You know why I did that? So you'd know that GEOLOGY ALREADY UNDERSTANDS A LOT OF THOSE TOPICS. And indeed between SubductionZone and myself we tried to explain to you what geology says those processes would lead to.

For example I have mentioned the sinking of the continents under the weight of the flood water years ago in these discussions.

Yes and I learned about SUBSIDENCE long ago. (Although I'm not so certain of your claim of the weight of the water doing the pushing, certainly in the case of continental glaciers this is a known effect). But the point is you keep trying to act like you are talking science and when shown how science actually knows about these things you run away from it

I think you are just playing 'gothcha' with these terms.

To some extent. Yes. When you claim things about how the waters came up over the continents you seemed to think there was no evidence that would leave and we told you that indeed this process is already WELL known in the geologic record.

When you try to tell us about sediment falling out of water we point out the Hjulstrom diagram and discuss clay minerals (which take an EXCEPTIONALLY long time in VERY CALM waters to fall out and form shales.

When you try to tell us there were very few places that the water would have to rush through on the coasts I showed you how you could figure out a contemporaneous global flood using correlation in three different points on the globe separated by great distances.

So you see, for every "hypothesis" you come up with we are presenting you with WHAT THAT HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO PRODUCE IN COUNTLESS OTHER PLACES IN TIME.

If you consider that a "gotcha" then consider yourself got.

THAT is why if you want to debate science learn the science. And if you are shown that your hypothesis needs work, then for heavens' sake come up with something better than "Geology doesn't have much to do with this." ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU YOURSELF HAVE BEEN USING GEOLOGY IN HOPES NONE OF US KNOW IT.

You were wrong. There are a few of us on here who know geology rather well!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes and I learned about SUBSIDENCE long ago. (Although I'm not so certain of your claim of the weight of the water doing the pushing, certainly in the case of continental glaciers this is a known effect).

I told you that I read scientific articles all the time. Here's one I read several years ago.

Flooding, Low Water, High Water in the Rainforest

I chose this article among many as it reveals the depth of the annual flooding in the Amazon River basin. Note the date of this discovery (also note the amazement of scientists over this discovery).

I'm reasonably sure I can defend all my other statements as well.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I told you that I read scientific articles all the time.

Yes, that's great! But it was abundantly clear here that you really didn't have the facility with these particular topics. This isn't a knock on you. Not everyone has a degree or degrees in geology!

The problem is, when people who do have some facility with these topics point out potential flaws in your hypotheses it's very annoying to have you then back away from geology altogether as if you hadn't tried to leverage it yourself until you met people who do have more facility with the topic in detail.

I'm reasonably sure I can defend all my other statements as well.

So far you have hypothesized various mechanisms that can be easily debunked. When shown the flaw you simply make ex cathedra statements about how there are so few areas on earth that would cause water to be constricted upon moving up on land. You were shown how even that (bizarre and unfounded) hypothesis could still be overcome using other aspects of geology. You tried leveraging laminar flow but never could get around to showing anything like a Re number to prove your point (let alone the presence of a near perfect global peneplane at the time of the flood.

Indeed when you were pushed up against you finally simply decreed that the Flood would have very little to do with Geology.

That isn't a defense of your position. That's a route of your position.

The only position you currently have that cannot be assailed with science is "It's a Miracle". At least there you wouldn't have to deal with those of us who have probably read just a few more geology articles than you.

 

[Gene2memE]

I think the flood occurred long before what is usually believed. I have no date.

So, somewhere between now and then. Interesting.

You've apparently so little evidence for this recent (circa last 50,000 years ago at a maximum) global event that you're unwilling to apply a date to it.

Tell me, what is your confidence level that this event - a planet wide extinction event involving mass flooding - occurred?

Also, what physical evidence leads you to think it occurred?

Or, is this a totally faith based position? If so, it renders further discussion pointless.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You tried leveraging laminar flow but never could get around to showing anything like a Re number to prove your point (let alone the presence of a near perfect global peneplane at the time of the flood.

You just didn't understand how I was using it in my argument. I was quite clear. That's on you, not me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, somewhere between now and then. Interesting.

You've apparently so little evidence for this recent (circa last 50,000 years ago at a maximum) global event that you're unwilling to apply a date to it.

Tell me, what is your confidence level that this event - a planet wide extinction event involving mass flooding - occurred?

Also, what physical evidence leads you to think it occurred?

Or, is this a totally faith based position? If so, it renders further discussion pointless.

So stop discussing it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, that's great!

That's it? An astounding scientific discovery (that proves I'm right) and that's all I get?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So far you have hypothesized various mechanisms that can be easily debunked. When shown the flaw you simply make ex cathedra statements about how there are so few areas on earth that would cause water to be constricted upon moving up on land. You were shown how even that (bizarre and unfounded) hypothesis could still be overcome using other aspects of geology.

Your examples don't disprove anything. Look at a world map that shows elevations. You'll see where the water came in. There are very few places where the water had to flow through constrictions.

 

[Gene2memE]

So stop discussing it.

Ok, so you do acknowledge that it's a purely faith based position.

Why then, are you arguing about physical evidence for/against the flood?