Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[Roy]

Edit: Not sure why you said AiG, though. The AiG article I'm talking about there was cited by Roy, not me. I just reviewed it to see if it really said what he claimed (it said the opposite and gave a powerful case for it).

Bovine faeces.

I quoted that article for one reason and one reason only: the time taken for fine particles to descend through water. The article did indeed say that fine articles would take too long to descend through water to have settled out during a single-year flood.

Anything beyond that is only in your imagination.

[logician bones]

the ash would [not] selectively settle in this manner in any possible flood scenario.

Okay, why not? How long does it take to settle in air?

The problem with the OEC view is there remains no consistent evidence of any sort of flood on a world nor regional scale that would fit the objective physical evidence.

I assume that was a typo for YEC. Anyway, we have discussed much of the evidence, and only some of it.

I can easily judge the AIG articles and conclusions as indeed extremely 'bizzaro'

Again, what are you talking about? Roy cited AiG. I rarely go to that site, and do not recall citing them except in checking if Roy's citation really said what he claimed. Not that this really matters to your point but I'm confused as to why you keep harping on "the AiG article" as if I had cited an AiG article on my own... It makes me wonder whether you are reading what you're replying to carefully enough to be aware of what's happening.

But it sounds like you are indeed talking about the CMI article. Since it's getting so infamous and I have the search feature up (and no luck so far on that map), might as well grab it myself:

http://creation.com/did-a-meteor-wip...-iridium-layer

I have

Thank you.

There is no source of energy on the earth sufficiently large to move tectonic plates at any reasonable speed.

This was already brought up earlier, and appears to show ignorance of the mechanism suggested, and I pointed out what it was -- the weight of this prior oceanic crust itself. Baumgartner's modeling focused on that; evidently that part does work (assuming his modeling is correct of course).

The plates themselves would shatter under the stress of the movement

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? What plates?

The oceanic material shattering is what I was driving about when I asked about rapid deformation; this would introduce cracks all over the material presumably, which I would think would probably speed up its equalizing in the lower/middle mantle.

If you mean the continental plates, breakup of them is posited at that time. I would presume, though, if you meant those, that it would be much more violent, but his modeling included that. Dunno what to think; for now, please explain which you meant.

that is, except for the fact that the energy released by their rapid motion would cause them to melt entirely, turning the Earth's surface into a liquid magma ocean.

Okay, I thought somebody had said something like that at one point. Can you show the math to prove this as well? (Also, how do you deal with the fact that this was not the result in his modeling? Obviously, it's easy to imagine him missing details in that, but wondering if that's the case or not.)

Even if the earth's surface managed somehow not to melt, the energy released in the earthquakes it would trigger would wipe everything off its surface. The giant Japanese earthquake of 2011 involved only 2.4 meters of motion in a limited physical area, and the devastation it caused was staggering and widespread. And that was sufficient to wrench the entire Earth's axis by 25cm.

It's easier to imagine a model failing to account for that, yeah. Within what time span? Or more importantly, what's the minimum timespan where it becomes feasible? (More than one year I presume?)


By the way, have you run a criticism with all the math and details of it by Baumgardner himself? I'm limited in what I can review myself, as a layman, and obviously among scientists he would be most qualified to spot any major errors in your reasoning if present [Edit: That wording could be confusing. I mean, "most qualified" in the sense that he's going to be much more familiar with all the details of his model than others].

[logician bones]

EDIT: incidentally, that WASN'T the question that was being asked. The question was about the existence of partially melted plate remnants near subduction zones. You know, those things that are only possibly consistent with an ancient earth.

Wait... it sounds like we've been talking past each other. Who asked what? I thought I was the one asking the question and you were trying to answer it. I had asked how OEs would handle the discovery of a large area of submerged material that was reported to be surprisingly large for OE timespans. That was what the earlier discussion was about, and now you appeared to be referring back to it. (And you didn't say otherwise when I said this in reply...)

And what do you mean in the second sentence here?

I quoted that article for one reason and one reason only: the time taken for fine particles to descend through water.

I thought so -- why did you wait so long to say this? But that actually isn't what you said:

Even your YEC authorities admit that fine particles can't be deposited in under a year

But the article admitted no such thing, as I showed. It pointed out that there's a flaw in the argument that it can't be deposited; assuming unrealistic conditions (still water rather than water permeating the larger-particle sediment below).

And notice, that's the point that actually matters here -- whether or not the chalk could be deposited. Keep in mind I'm not saying their argument proves it can, and your other arguments about level of detail could be invoked here; there's a lot they did not discuss in great detail about chalk deposit sites. But they did at least show stronger thinking than you did if you thought that by it taking too long in still water this would disprove the Flood. So that factor would need to be dealt with in an OE argument.

Plus, since in reviewing the source I found some arguments that look like other powerful YE evidence I'd now like to see you deal with those if you can.

[TheLurch]

This was already brought up earlier, and appears to show ignorance of the mechanism suggested, and I pointed out what it was -- the weight of this prior oceanic crust itself. Baumgartner's modeling focused on that; evidently that part does work (assuming his modeling is correct of course).

No, it doesn't show ignorance. It reflects adherence to reality. The weight difference between the crust and mantle is simply not sufficient to drive rapid, directional motion.

Now, i realize that you have a source that has supposedly created a model where this works. But the model's wrong, and you (by your own admission) lack the ability to recognize that it is.

As i said, i've already done the calculations about the amount of energy needed to lift the oceanic plates as called for in the model and posted it in these forums. I'm not going to do it twice, especially if you're willing to ignore the fact that it's already been done.

[TheLurch]

I also note that you're now dodging any admission of how the existence of partially melted plate remnants, by the calculations i've provided, can only be accounted for with an ancient earth.

[HMS_Beagle]

LB can you please provide your YEC explanation for the K-Pg (formerly known as the K-T) boundary layer? It's the thin layer of iridium found all over the Earth and dates to 66 MYA.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]21105[/ATTACH]

The scientific explanation consilient with all the evidence is that it was deposited from the ejecta of the asteroid which hit at Chicxulub and took out the dinosaurs 66MYA. Thanks in advance.

Bumped for logician bones.

LB, if you can't explain the K-Pg boundary layer can you please link to a YEC site that can explain it? Thanks!

[logician bones]

The weight difference between the crust and mantle is simply not sufficient to drive rapid, directional motion.

Okay? Then... why did the modeling say it was? I have your assertion on one hand, and his on the other, and he appears to know what he's talking about...

Now, i realize that you have a source that has supposedly created a model where this works. But the model's wrong, and you (by your own admission) lack the ability to recognize that it is.

Well, maybe, but maybe not. If you can show telling evidence against it rather than assertion, or math apparently actually related to the map of the alleged remnants, etc. then we'll see. I don't know how to judge beforehand whether you'll show evidence that's clear even to a layman. All I know how to do is ask you to show it if you have it, and if it goes over my head, then we'll see about inability (for now LOL).

As i said, i've already done the calculations about the amount of energy needed to lift the oceanic plates as called for in the model and posted it in these forums. I'm not going to do it twice, especially if you're willing to ignore the fact that it's already been done.

Link?

I also note that you're now dodging any admission of how the existence of partially melted plate remnants, by the calculations i've provided, can only be accounted for with an ancient earth.

Like I said above, I don't know what you mean. It appears you were trying to bring up a new argument when I thought you were alluding to past discussion of my question. I'm sorry I misunderstood, but now you'll need to provide more to explain what it is you're trying to say. It sounds like you have a different map of some just-subducted material (not the material from earlier discussion), and your earlier math, which appeared to be flawed due to attacking a strawman about where the subducted material I meant was, was actually meant to be making a separate OE argument. Just so you know, you didn't make that clear. It sounds like you forgot about the prior discussion so you didn't realize what you said appeared to bring it up again (especially since you didn't correct me when I mentioned this....).

So, start over. What's the argument? And the map?

[logician bones]

Beagle, see my reply here. And the URL to the page I mentioned is in the post that started this page.

[HMS_Beagle]

Beagle, see my reply here. And the URL to the page I mentioned is in the post that started this page.

I looked at your answer and the cited webpage. Nowhere did you or it explain what actually caused the layer of iridium. The only physical process which science knows of to produce such phenomena is a meteor impact, in this case a whopping big one.

Please try again - what is the YEC cause of the world-wide K-Pg iridium layer?

[logician bones]

I looked at your answer and the cited webpage. Nowhere did [..] it explain what actually caused the layer of iridium.

?? Could you explain this statement in light of this part?

Source: http://creation.com/did-a-meteor-wipe-out-the-dinosaurs-what-about-the-iridium-layer

Oard points out that iridium enrichment can be caused by massive volcanism, as many evolutionists agree. This would certainly have been a feature of the Flood year, associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11). However, Oard agrees that the largest iridium anomalies were caused by meteorites striking during the Flood:

‘Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would accumulate only during temporary lulls in the Flood.’

This explains the fact that so-called spikes are really composed of multiple spikes or are spread over a wider layer of sediment. John Woodmorappe has pointed out:

‘there are now over 30 iridium “horizons” in the Phanerozoic record. These can be explained by a slowdown in sedimentation rate as iridium rained from the sky (whether from a terrestrial, or an extraterrestrial source). They pose no problem for the Flood at all.’

© Copyright Original Source

Maybe you just meant they don't commit to one explanation or the other?

[HMS_Beagle]

?? Could you explain this statement in light of this part?

Maybe you just meant they don't commit to one explanation or the other?

How can there be 30 "lulls" during a massive worldwide flood? Where did the sediment in the water go during those times? Why are there no dinosaur remains in the significant thicknesses of strata found above the K-Pg layer? Where did all that post K-Pg event material come from?

[logician bones]

How can there be 30 "lulls" during a massive worldwide flood?

The basics of this were discussed before I returned after losing my login info. It would probably be simpler if you read that (before page 10 here), so I don't have to repeat myself. This is inherent to the main Flood model, Beagle.

Where did the sediment in the water go during those times? Why are there no dinosaur remains in the significant thicknesses of strata found above the K-Pg layer? Where did all that post K-Pg event material come from?

All of this should be clear if you read the old pages. Usually I'll add "if you don't have time I'll repeat later" but in this case, that should be pretty easy for you to do. I will say for now that it's obvious you don't understand the model from this question about "in the water" -- the lull periods are not just about water-covered times, but lulls in the rise of the water. You seem to still be holding to the misconception I pointed out in Morton's work; the oversimplistic idea that the Flood was like flipping a light switch, one moment no Flood, next moment total submersion. It doesn't work that way.



BTW, two notes re: prior discussion:


1) It is really hard to find that dang mantle map I had in mind. Difficult enough that I need to withdraw that point. I tried googling it too; no luck (in quick results, and that's all I have time for today). If I can't find it easily on even YEC sites, it would be unfair for me to expect OEs here to be familiar with it and have a ready answer. I'm wondering now if it actually wasn't a CMI article. It might be in one of their videos. Or something else. I'll keep trying but for now, consider the argument withdrawn.

2) While searching for it I happened upon several sources that claim to debunk some of the arguments just brought up in here. I'll try to review them and link and pull quote. First I think I need to go through the whole topic again and make a collection of every OE argument. I was planning to do that at some point anyway since getting OE arguments was the whole point of my asking these questions of you guys. I can probably put that into my newer database system and work from there.

I was also hoping to get the saving feature done on that multi-quote thing before I got into a lot of very-detailed answers here, but the OE posts have been coming in so fast and on so many subjects all at once I've had zero time for that (I did get the settings initializing mostly done though). If it's not too much to ask, a little time for me to catch up would be nice. Don't worry; I don't plan on ignoring anything LOL.

[TheLurch]

Okay? Then... why did the modeling say it was? I have your assertion on one hand, and his on the other, and he appears to know what he's talking about...

There's a difference between "knows what he's talking about" and "tells you what you want to hear". The fact that he's proposing an idea that nobody who does geology research takes seriously should provide you a hint of which of the two is involved here. Find me one academic research paper where this sort of rapid plate motion makes an appearance. When you fail, what will that tell you?

Link?

Search can't seem to find any posts i've made with the word "plate" in them. Since i know i've made some, i can only assume that my earlier posts are lost to posterity.

Like I said above, I don't know what you mean.

You've said above that the presence of cool plate remnants is obviously evidence of a young earth. I showed they are evidence of an ancient one. You've now changed the subject without acknowledging that your initial statement is incorrect or showing how my math is wrong.

[Roy]

Except (as demonstrated even earlier, starting with post #1 in this thread) the supposed "widespread flay layer boundaries" are just another regurgitated YEC lie.

Where and how exactly has this been demonstrated?? I've read every post in here, and every attempt so far has either:

1) Committed the fallacy of pointing to positive evidence of some erosional features, rather than explaining the vast regions without them which was the problem (so the response does not address the argument, and in fact attacks a silly strawman that the Flood would have no erosional features except at the top, which I've debunked in detail).

Congratulations! You have now confirmed without doubt that you make up your own lies rather than repeating those of others.

The opening post in this thread did not commit any such fallacy. It demonstrated that the claimed vast regions without erosional features did in fact contain erosional features.

You can continue claiming that there is "positive evidence of the lack of surface erosion features" or "vast regions without them" until you are blue in the face, but unless you actually name one of those regions your claim is insubstantial, and since Tiggy has already documented one such substantial claim to be false, you have nothing that needs addressing.

2) Simply denied the evidence.

You have just denied the evidence of erosional features in one of the vast regions supposedly without them.

You are excellent at hand-waving grandiose claims of vast regions of uneroded layers, or countless numbers of YEC articles on buttes, but whenever you are asked for a single specific example you resort to bluff, bluster and blatherskite.

LOL @ Roy. Nah, I'd rather see if you guys can do homework LOL. But if you don't, maybe I will later.

Fine. I've read thousands of YEC articles and don't recall ever having seen one of those of which you insist there are lots. You refuse provide any evidence that the YEC articles you keep referring to exist, although if they did exist it would be easier for you to simply cite one than to keep making these unsupported claims.

Maybe one day I'll encounter a YEC advocate who isn't a lying evasive hypocrite, but you aren't the one.

[Roy]

All of this should be clear if you read the old pages. Usually I'll add "if you don't have time I'll repeat later" but in this case, that should be pretty easy for you to do. I will say for now that it's obvious you don't understand the model from this question about "in the water" -- the lull periods are not just about water-covered times, but lulls in the rise of the water.

Excellent.

Let's interpret the article's description of iridium deposition in light of this new information:

Source: ibid

‘Iridium-rich clay falling from the atmosphere would accumulate only during temporary lulls in the Flood.’

This explains the fact that so-called spikes are really composed of multiple spikes or are spread over a wider layer of sediment. John Woodmorappe has pointed out:

‘there are now over 30 iridium “horizons” in the Phanerozoic record. These can be explained by a slowdown in sedimentation rate as iridium rained from the sky (whether from a terrestrial, or an extraterrestrial source). They pose no problem for the Flood at all.’

© Copyright Original Source

So
(i) floodwaters are encroaching on the land, and iridium rain is conveniently falling only over the areas that are already underwater, in order that iridium not accumulate when there isn't a lull.
(ii) the floodwaters stop rising (the 'lull'). Iridium-rich clay now falls on the still-exposed areas and also, somehow, on the land that has already been covered by water.
(iii) the floodwaters rise again. They deposit additional material above the iridium-rich layer not just where they cover the land but also where they have yet to reach (otherwise there would be nothing to separate iridium-rich layers).
(iv) another lull. The floodwaters cease rising (and cease depositing sediment where they are not), but do not recede. Iridium rain moves once again to cover the exposed areas, creating a second iridium 'horizon' separated from the first one.
(v) repeat twenty-nine more times.

Or perhaps you have a better explanation how multiple separate iridium horizons can be caused by lulls in the rise of the water? Don't forget that any land exposed before the lull will remain exposed during the lull and perhaps even longer.