Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which leaves you with you first point, your reason to believe in the flood is because of the bible. But as I pointed out in post 42 (and you didn't really address), the bible doesn't tell us the the flood was global. You can certainly interpret the text that way, but the Hebrew fits a local flood just as well. Which is a problem if the only reason to believe in a global flood is the bible.
The erosional surface you have described between surviving pre flood strata and flood deposits, is a geological feature called an unconformity, which should be easily recognisable, and if there was a global flood would be found all around the world .seriously
a global flood accompanied by tectonic upheavals and tons of lava and volcanic ash which covered the earth w water would be a very dynamic event - creating tons of swirling water full of sediment of all sizes and tons of plant debris and sea life and land animals and plants
the tectonic movements would cause an irregular surface and cause the water/rock materials/other debris to flow in many directions and break apart
I thought the flood covered the highest mounts by 15 cubits? Anyway, once you have flood sediments lid down in any location, it means the flood has already covered that area and all the animals living there will have died. There is no way footprints, borrows and nests could be found in strata above that, because all the animals you need to create these footprints and nests are dead. It is only in strata laid down after the flood and in the uppermost flood stratum that you wee be able to see any signs of life.the entire surface of the earth may not be under water at all times and what was under water would vary in depth from place to place
I agree. If there was a global flood, it should leave loads of evidence. The evidence isn't there. Sure we have the fossils, oil and sedimentary rock, but not deposited by a flood, because as we have seen life continued on through all the layers. Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, but since the flood would have left unmistakable evidence that we would have found if it existed, the geological evidence shows us there wasn't a global flood.some of the sea life would be caught up in turbidity type currents and muddy debris flows and be buried - smaller creatures would be especially vulnerable to this - some of it would escape and survive - especially the larger sea creatures
many of the deposits containing this sea life would not reach land until after the catastrophe was coming to a close and great piles of sediment were accreted to the edges of new land masses thru subduction at convergent margins
land creatures and plants would escape the early upheavals but get caught up as the catastrophe reached full force
when the tectonic upheavals began to slow down permanent deposition would begin to take place - much of the sea life would already be buried - land debris of rock/animal/vegetation mixtures would now get deposited as flood waters ran off higher elevations to the sea
later as all the buried vegetation metamorphosed it would travel by gravity down into lower elevation where it will get trapped as oil and gas and tar - in other places it will form coal seams or remain trapped within shales forming oil shale
in other words there is no way there could be a global flood and not have it affect the animal and plant life
You are not dealing with the fact that any assumptions are confirmed when independent dating methods come up with the same dates, as we have seen with continental drift and radiometric dating. If the assumptions were wrong, different mistaken dating methods should come up with different dates.radiometric dating is full of unproveable assumptions!
Clearly the better model is one where the assumptions can be tested by different techniques that arrive at the same conclusion.it is another possible model - also w assumptons yes
both models have assumptions
which model fits the data better?
to know you have to investigate both - not just one
So do you have any evidence for superfast continental drift?series of break-ups? - maybe or maybe not
It is creationists who keep calling them assumptions, so that in itself isn't evidence. Science of course is not about 'proof' it is about finding ways to test your ideas. The constant decay rate has been tested again and again by different methods of dating coming up with the same answers. We see it with continental drift rates fitting the dates we get from radiometric dating, with varves, tree rings and ice cores giving the same dates and fitting radiometric dating of volcanic eruptions whose ash is found in the varves and ice cores. Carbon dating depend on the levels of C14 in the atmosphere, which depends on solar activity, but the fact that it is still very close to the dates we get from varves and tree rings shows us not only that C14 in the atmosphere hasn't changed that much in that time, but that the rate of decay cannot have changed much either. The different radioisotopes used in radiometric dating decay by very different nuclear mechanisms. There is no reason for a change in the rate on one mechanism to be matched by changes in others, so different radiometric dating methods confirm each other too. Then we can look at decay rates in distant supernovae, and find the rates haven't changed in the millions of years it took for the light to reach earth.all radiometric dating methods share one unproveable assumption of a constant decay rate for elements and have other assumptions too
they are called assumptions because they cannot be proved
if they could be proved they would not be called assumptions
basic
Can your model explain why the rates match?maybe - maybe not - depends which model you use and what assumptions you accept
It is a fact that the rates match. It is a fact that two independent methods of dating giving the same result provide confirmation for each other.your statement is not a fact - it's an idea that may or may not be true
Perhaps if you could show they were untestable assumptions you might have a case, but they are testable and every test supports them.it is a common technique to repeat statements often enough so people get used to hearing them and will accept them as fact ---- soon everyone forgets there were unproveable assumptions involved ---- doesn't make them all of sudden become fact!!!
Quite reasonable.No need to apologize. I really hold no position on this. I'm not particularly impressed by any of the theories man has advanced yet, and take notice. I'm in favor of good clear communication, and people not being barred from that by false perception, esp of one another.
Well actually, one of your numbers was off by a factor of 10, but I got the point anyway. Is it safe to say that neither of us see 40' of sediment / day as being a reasonable average over the course of a year?
Indeed.And here I was wrong. I didn't realize there was someone in our midst who was ok with the above #, of 40' / day. It would be interesting to see that notion defended.
Fair enough. But I would like you to consider the bioherm question as one of the most important.you've asked a lot of questions - i doubt you could or would keep up if someone else was asking so many questions of you
Please link me to the ones I've missed, and I will answer them as quickly as I can.you haven't answered all of mine either
Do you have evidence to back this assumption?the pre-flood seas were shallow - the earth's crust had not broken up into tectonic plates yet
But we don't see the bioherms only at convergent margins-- in fact, at the moment I can't think of a single example of a shallow-water bioherm found at a convergent margin, modern or ancient. Bioherms are much more common at passive margins.a global flood accompanied by great tectonic upheavals which included the opening up a new ocean (Atlantic) would certainly break up coral reefs and at the later stages could deposit them at the convergent margins of continents thru subduction - it doesn't need to be more technical than that
Obviously you don't understand how hydraulic sorting works. In a high-energy environment, as you have described the flood to be, small, light objects (as well as objects with high surface area to weight ratios) stay suspended in the water column. This means things like trilobites, brachiopods, and members of the Ediacaran fauna, all small and light or with large surface area to weight ratios, should remain suspended (as should the fine-grained sediment we find them in), while big things (the bones of already-dead whales, for example, or large clasts) should sink to the bottom. We don't see this! Even if you'd like to say that some of the areas of the flood weren't violent, or the energy waxed and waned multiple times, we should still see upward- fining packages of sediment where large dead things (entombed in large clasts) are at the bottom and small dead things (with accompanying small clasts) are at the top-- and these don't have to represent primary deposition, they can just as easily represent piles of sediment reworked from calm-flood deposits by a more intense period of the flood. But we just don't see this. Hydraulic sorting kills your flood. Sorry.why not? - sure it could see my previous post #95
No primary research is done without the researcher visiting their field site. It doesn't work that way. And this isn't even about the fact that he didn't visit the sites, it's about the fact that he is either deliberately misleading or massively untalented as a stratigrapher-- there are mistakes and omissions throughout his article, as I pointed out.I agree the article lacks some legitimacy by his not having visited the site personally - but it's not always possible to visit every site - especially if the question is one you can not devote a large amount of time and resources to - many researchers are forced do the same thing and list their references so the same criticism can be made of others also
And I destroyed it. Sorry.you want links so I gave you a link
But he discounted the 'uniformitarian' example using faulty logic and selective omission. He hasn't shown the classic geology interpretations to be wrong, or his interpretations to be better. That has to happen in order for his interpretations to be valid.but he does go thru a uniformitarian example then provides an alternative explanation of pseudosols and an alternate flood interpretation
It's not about whether one can make multiple interpretations; there are INFINITE interpretations for everything. It's about the fact that he hasn't shown his interpretation to be BETTER THAN the other. If he cannot do that, his interpretation is of no value.this is enough to show there is more than one interpretation that can be made about the issue of paleosols - uniformitarians prefer one and yec's prefer another because they think differently
Nobody denies this. It's just that nothing works better than the 'uniformitarian' approach, so there's no reason to use anything BUT the uniformitarian approach.my point is not to prove either one but to show there is more than just the uniformitarian approach
I made a long post last night on K-Ar dating listing the assumptions and the problems I have with it ........................but now I can't remember which thread it was in
i also posted a link to a 2 page USGS article on the age of the earth for you to read - did you see it? ..........now it's lost in the shuffle
that's a problem w forums like this
i don't think i have read all your responses to me yet either ---but there's other stuff i gotta go do
i would use a composite of petrified wood deposits from around the world - i have an extensive collection of articles w pics - when seen all together the similarities are striking and they make a good case for global catastrophe involving lots of water and volcanic ash and involve large land animals and much other plant debris within the same deposits
of course it requires radiometric dating to be falsified which i consider a valid possibility - those who don't will discount it as nonsense
it would be a time consuming venture and then it gets lost in the shuffle and no one comments - sorry - not worth it - but it's a good idea if someone else is interested enough to start a thread on petrified wood - i don't need to make the posts for myself to see
The only alternative is as Raze does, deny the flood left any identifiable evidence.
The erosional surface you have described between surviving pre flood strata and flood deposits, is a geological feature called an unconformity, which should be easily recognisable, and if there was a global flood would be found all around the world .
the flood was not one single swoosh wipe everything away event - it was a series of events - upheavals occurred and broke rock - sediment was created and deposited - some of it was then picked up again and reworked and redeposited - many unconformities would be created and this is what is found
I thought the flood covered the highest mounts by 15 cubits?
doesn't mean the mtns stay covered for the duration of the flood event
and they weren't necessarily as high as the Himalaya
in the young earth/global flood model there may not have been much if any pre-flood tectonics raising high mountains such as the Himalaya
in such a model there would be very little sediment in the pre-flood earth
and mountains would not be composed of huge roof pendants composed of ocean and land sediments pushed up by rising magma
the abundance of pre-flood terrestrial plant life and the huge animals that vegetation supported also suggests the pre-flood earth had a lower elevation of mountains as compared to the post-flood earth
Anyway, once you have flood sediments lid down in any location, it means the flood has already covered that area and all the animals living there will have died.
yes - for deeper ocean-areas - smaller bottom-dwelling sea critters would be tumbled about less and have greater likelihood of remaining intact and would be buried sooner and deeper
swimming sea creatures would escape these initial burials - some would later be buried - some would survive - they live in a very large body of water
land life would be swept away in the most violent floods and get the most tumbling and transport and be buried at shallower depths - these deposits would show greater mixing of species
this is what the fossil record shows!!
There is no way footprints, borrows and nests could be found in strata above that, because all the animals you need to create these footprints and nests are dead. It is only in strata laid down after the flood and in the uppermost flood stratum that you wee be able to see any signs of life.
Unfortunately we find these signs of life all through the geological column.
I agree. If there was a global flood, it should leave loads of evidence. The evidence isn't there. Sure we have the fossils, oil and sedimentary rock, but not deposited by a flood, because as we have seen life continued on through all the layers.
you are using the old-earth model when you say this and thinking in terms of slow deposition over millions of years
using the yec flood model all of the fossil record and all fossil fuels etc all represent a series of cataclysmic closely spaced events and in that model it represents tons of evidence for a global cataclysm
Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, but since the flood would have left unmistakable evidence that we would have found if it existed, the geological evidence shows us there wasn't a global flood.
You are not dealing with the fact that any assumptions are confirmed when independent dating methods come up with the same dates, as we have seen with continental drift and radiometric dating. If the assumptions were wrong, different mistaken dating methods should come up with different dates.
assuming constant decay rates for the spectrum of elements used in older date calculations gives consistently older ages across the board
if decay rates were faster in the past then all radiometric age dates are too old by the same amount
the dates would still have value for relative age dating in the yec model - this means the geological column in the yec/gf model represents the order of events of the global flood and related tectonic events and later events such as local floods at remnant lake sites
What about your assumptions, that continental drift moved much much faster in the past, that radioactive decay was much much faster in the past? How do you explain that for some reason these two separate processes matched each others rates of change?
if they both happened slowly at the same rate and the calculations match --then if they both happened quickly at the same rate then why wouldn't they also match?
Clearly the better model is one where the assumptions can be tested by different techniques that arrive at the same conclusion.
.
So do you have any evidence for superfast continental drift?
.
It is creationists who keep calling them assumptions, so that in itself isn't evidence. .
Perhaps if you could show they were untestable assumptions you might have a case, but they are testable and every test supports them.
But we don't see the bioherms only at convergent margins-- in fact, at the moment I can't think of a single example of a shallow-water bioherm found at a convergent margin, modern or ancient. Bioherms are much more common at passive margins.
But your assertion that the bioherms would be broken up and redeposited is not reasonable in the slightest. Are you telling me that the Capitan Reef
(yes, that entire mountain is a reef), was ripped up, hung around in the water column for a while, and was then deposited in it's current position? Really?
Of course, it wouldn't just be the reef, it would be the reef-derived basinal grainflows, the forereef talus pile, the reef itself, and all of the back-reef lagoonal sediments (which stretch for tens of kilometers behind the reef), that were ripped up as a single coherent block, floated around in the water column, and were then redeposited in their current position. Are you serious?
Here's a map showing the trend of the Capitan Reef complex, both in outcrop and in the subsurface:
Notice the scale.
You're talking about a clast about 5000 square miles in size.
That's 4 times bigger than Rhode Island!
Come on. I know you can do better.
.
(yes, that entire mountain is a reef), was ripped up, hung around in the water column for a while, and was then deposited in it's current position? Really?
.
Obviously you don't understand how hydraulic sorting works. In a high-energy environment, as you have described the flood to be, small, light objects (as well as objects with high surface area to weight ratios) stay suspended in the water column. This means things like trilobites, brachiopods, and members of the Ediacaran fauna, all small and light or with large surface area to weight ratios, should remain suspended (as should the fine-grained sediment we find them in), while big things (the bones of already-dead whales, for example, or large clasts) should sink to the bottom.
yes - but what if they are not dead yet!
We don't see this! Even if you'd like to say that some of the areas of the flood weren't violent, or the energy waxed and waned multiple times, we should still see upward- fining packages of sediment where large dead things (entombed in large clasts) are at the bottom and small dead things (with accompanying small clasts) are at the top-- and these don't have to represent primary deposition, they can just as easily represent piles of sediment reworked from calm-flood deposits by a more intense period of the flood. But we just don't see this. Hydraulic sorting kills your flood. Sorry.
There might be further local unconformities inside the the flood deposits, what you need it a global unconformity between the flood strata and preflood rock. Finding unconformities themselves are not evidence of the flood, because they would also be formed by ordinary geological processes. What would distinguish flood geology from ordinary geology is the global unconformity. Which doesn't exist.the flood was not one single swoosh wipe everything away event - it was a series of events - upheavals occurred and broke rock - sediment was created and deposited - some of it was then picked up again and reworked and redeposited - many unconformities would be created and this is what is found
They don't have to stay covered. Once you have 15 cubit seas washing over the tallest mountains in a region, all the animal there are going to drown. You won't have any left to leave footprints in higher layers of sediment, there with be nothing alive to build nests, dig burrows and plants will not have time to grow roots through the soil before the next layer of flood sediment washes in.doesn't mean the mtns stay covered for the duration of the flood event
Actually creationists vary considerably over when the flood strata start. Obviously the higher up the geological column you place it, the more sedimentary rock you had befor the flood, either created or formed by preflood geology. But the further back you place it the more life you have to explain in the flood sediments.and they weren't necessarily as high as the Himalaya
in the young earth/global flood model there may not have been much if any pre-flood tectonics raising high mountains such as the Himalaya
in such a model there would be very little sediment in the pre-flood earth
Actually once you buy into continental drift, even if it is the creationists superfast model, you buy into underwater sediments forming rock and being pushed to very high altitudes by tectonic movement. A problem with creationism is that they hold onto old arguments for a flood, even if newer ideas contradict it. An old argument was fossilised fish and shellfish found in the mountains. Only possible explanation is being washed there by a flood. Until creationists took plate tectonics on board which completely explains how marine fossils end up as part of mountains. But you still get the old argument being used alongside it.and mountains would not be composed of huge roof pendants composed of ocean and land sediments pushed up by rising magma
Actually there is simply too much for one planet to support at one time.the abundance of pre-flood terrestrial plant life and the huge animals that vegetation supported also suggests the pre-flood earth had a lower elevation of mountains as compared to the post-flood earth
No, it does show what I said, that all life on the face of the earth would have drowned and nothing would have been left to leave footprints nests roots and burrows.yes - for deeper ocean-areas - smaller bottom-dwelling sea critters would be tumbled about less and have greater likelihood of remaining intact and would be buried sooner and deeperAnyway, once you have flood sediments laid down in any location, it means the flood has already covered that area and all the animals living there will have died.
swimming sea creatures would escape these initial burials - some would later be buried - some would survive - they live in a very large body of water
land life would be swept away in the most violent floods and get the most tumbling and transport and be buried at shallower depths - these deposits would show greater mixing of species
this is what the fossil record shows!!
No I am not using the old earth model. I am looking at the young earth model and showing that the evidence doesn't fit it.you are using the old-earth model when you say this and thinking in terms of slow deposition over millions of yearsI agree. If there was a global flood, it should leave loads of evidence. The evidence isn't there. Sure we have the fossils, oil and sedimentary rock, but not deposited by a flood, because as we have seen life continued on through all the layers.
using the yec flood model all of the fossil record and all fossil fuels etc all represent a series of cataclysmic closely spaced events and in that model it represents tons of evidence for a global cataclysm
Sure there is evidence you can make fit. It is the evidence that doesn't fit that is the problem.using the old earth model that's correct
using the yec flood model there is tons of evidence
It is not being older that is the problem, it is that the ages that different dating methods give are consistent. If our understanding of the rates in the past is wrong, why do they give the same answer? If it was only one wrong dating method the the answers would be consistently wrong. But we are talking of wildly different dating methods from nuclear decay to tree rings. There is an infinite number of ways to be wrong, each dating method has its own infinite number of ways to be wrong. How can they give the same answers? Unless the rates we use are the right ones.assuming constant decay rates for the spectrum of elements used in older date calculations gives consistently older ages across the board
No. because there are different ways nuclei decay, alpha decay is very different from electron capture. There is no reason, even if you changed universal constants, for the rates of decay to by the same amount. And how does that make continental drift change at the same rate? How would that possibly make tree ring growth change at the same rate, or varves be laid down thousands or millions of time faster? How does a change in the decay rates of isotopes make seasonal deposits of of ice we see in ice cores so much faster in the past?if decay rates were faster in the past then all radiometric age dates are too old by the same amount
So the rates of decay all changed in just a year?the dates would still have value for relative age dating in the yec model - this means the geological column in the yec/gf model represents the order of events of the global flood and related tectonic events and later events such as local floods at remnant lake sites
THe question is why the rates match?if they both happened slowly at the same rate and the calculations match --then if they both happened quickly at the same rate then why wouldn't they also match?
It is only a problem for the model that cannot be tested - like creationism, not for a model that can be tested and passes the tests.when dealing w events of the past this will be a problem no matter what the modelClearly the better model is one where the assumptions can be tested by different techniques that arrive at the same conclusion.
doesn't mean the mtns stay covered for the duration of the flood event
and they weren't necessarily as high as the Himalaya
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?