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

[Roy]

Or, for a simpler question: how does a lull in rising waters result in an iridium-rich layer?

[shunyadragon]

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.



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 I'll keep trying but for now, consider the argument withdrawn.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.

The question between Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism is which does the evidence support. Can those that propose that the vase amount of energy (thermodynamics particularly the 2nd law) required to form the earth as it is now and its history squeezed into a Creation event ~10,000 or less years. The answer is an emphatic no. What is observed in the thermodynamics of the history of the earth is that the forces generated by the internal heat of the earth act on the earth in natural processes over billions of years. We can see through objective observations over time where these processes such as continental drift, in the ocean ridge system, subduction zones of ocean trenches, volcanics, and mountain building form the features of our continents and oceans over a very long time. The processes of erosion and sedimentation are a clear witness to the immense amount of time to wear down mountains to hills to their truncated roots in plains. and deposit these sediments in the surrounding strata in the oceans and seas. All the evidence points to uniformitarianism.

The problem of the thermodynamics of a world or regional flood is also problematic on the scale OE Creationists claim.The geologic features of the Middle East nor the world are in complete contradiction to any sort of catastrophic flood.

Interesting point - Ancient conglomerates (rounded gravel size sedimentary rocks) contain conglomerate gravel from even more ancient conglomerate, sandstone, marble and granite.

[HMS_Beagle]

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.

I see. You have zero evidence for these fantastic claims. You just dreamed up (or more precisely just regurgitated from YEC website) a whole bushel basket of unsupported ad hoc claims which not only violate most of the known laws of physics but are also often directly contradictory to each other.

Tell me again why anyone should take this woo seriously?

[oxmixmudd]

?? 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?

logician - as backround to the following question, please read through the following OP of a thread I started last year:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Impact-Crater

Granted, I wrote the post to challenge the idea of Jorge Fernandez that these sorts of structures can be explained by volcanic 'steam explosions', nevertheless, the following applies to your argumentation in this thread. Please attempt to explain:

(1) how layers that are required in the YEC scenairo to have been formed during the flood can solidify and form fresh water aquifers while the flood is proceeding, and then have them subsequently be destroyed by a massive asteroid impact (i.e. destroyed in the impact area only), and then have the entire complex be layered yet again under many more thousands of feet in sediment. And All of this in a single year.

NOTE: it is clear from the kind of fracturing seen of the sediments by the impact they were solid rock at the time of the impact.

(2) how the course of a river (the James) can be interrupted and redirected by this self-same impact if all this is under water at the time (as required by the sedimentary layers over which the river flows and which overlay the impact itself

(3) how the fossils in the undisturbed sediments around and above the impact can retain the well-known sorting by animal type and era.



Jim

[Roy]

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?

More bovine faeces. I didn't wait this long. I said the same in post #167:

The majority of the article is irrelevant to any issue actually under discussion; I linked to it purely to support my statement that fine particles take too long to settle through water for them to be deposited during a one-year event.

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).

They admitted that fine particles cannot be deposited and came up with an alternative means of generating chalk beds. AiG's ability to invent fantasy scenarios inconsistent with biology, physics and data does not mean there is a flaw in the 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.

I would be extremely surprised if you have found something I have not already encountered. I also see no point in wasting time on explanations for their invalidity that you can find for your self, and have no expectation that you would accept anyway, since you already abandoned any vestiges of objectivity when you stated that arid deposits resembling those found in deserts "are uncannily like what we would expect from the Flood".

[logician bones]

Some updates:

-Well, the results from what I was looking into from prior discussion here are so conclusive, I'm no longer seeing any room for an Old Earth. Anything's still on the table, but ironically you guys have helped convince me there is no logical conclusion left but a YE. It's obvious most of you aren't interested in understanding why that is so, and I caught several of you in such gross ignorance, I see no reason left to take you seriously. (Ox is still somewhat exempt from this, though.) Although I'm still curious about some of the vague claims Beagle made but didn't back up (maybe he just didn't have time, though).

-Termite nests update: I looked into how fast they can rebuild nests and found that actually they can do this rapidly. I have to take this off of the straggler list of apparent OE evidence. It appears the implication is that the OE argument depended on the (unstated) assumption that old population was lost. If you have to found a new population of termites, then yes, it can take years to build a nest. But rebuilding a nest during one of the lapses in the onset period appears to be very plausible, especially considering (today's) termites can survive for up to 30 hours underwater, so a whole population could survive, tunnel up to the surface, and rebuild quickly, evidently. Usual cautions, but the point is, it no longer looks like a persuasive OE argument.

-I did find that mantle map while I was way too busy on other projects to keep up here. AiG recently featured it again in a front page article. Yeah, I have to bring that argument back, and it appears to nail the OE coffin shut for good. The material is in the deepest mantle; the hottest part, so the "temps not that high" argument fails miserably.

-Also found an article debunking the cooling time argument for rock... unfortunately I forget offhand the details and I'm not mainly replying for that reason (mostly the above two), except that basically there's evidence that cracks forming in it do allow heat to escape much more rapidly. The OE argument apparently naively assumes that somehow no cracks form (or insignificant ones) but this is unrealistic and apparently inconsistent with the evidence. I've started a bunch of other time-consuming projects, and my job currently alternates between having a lot of time I'd rather spend on working on those, and being very time and energy consuming. Sorry that means I'll have to go back on my hope (wasn't a promise heh) to go through that here soon (ish). Feel free to abuse me for it LOL. But it wasn't hard to find, so any of you could if you actually cared.


Briefly, to the latest replies:



Lurch:

Your reasoning apparently depended on the cool material being near the surface of the mantle, but it turns out my memory was right; it's at the bottom. (And I did mention already that it depended on the depth. The problem was I was having trouble finding the confirmation of the depth.) I had asked if you were bringing up some other case, so that gave you a chance to escape this, but you have now clarified you meant to be replying to what I brought up.

the claimed vast regions without erosional features did in fact contain erosional features.

As has already been dealt with countless times, this is simply a strawman. The position being attacked was never that there are no erosional features. A flood obviously will produce some! Especially due to sediment-laden currents.

Put this in perspective, Roy. You destroy your own credibility every time you actually argue that a global Flood would somehow not involve any erosion (during onset). Yes, there are "gentle Flood" believers, but I'm not one and I don't know anybody credible who supports that. Certainly it doesn't apply to the RS model.

Iridium-rich clay now falls on the still-exposed areas and also, somehow, on the land that has already been covered by water.

This may be fair. We would need maps of every such layer and coordinate it with all possible versions of the lulls. I don't know if this has been done. If some of it would have to be underwater, and could not be laid down while underwater, then you have a case. Given precedent... I won't hold my breath, you know?

The question between Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism is which does the evidence support.

Overall, yes. But keep in mind modern "uniformitarians" are partially catastrophist. They just see a long series of smaller catastrophes along with much uniform activity.

Can those that propose that the vase amount of energy (thermodynamics particularly the 2nd law) required to form the earth as it is now and its history squeezed into a Creation event ~10,000 or less years. The answer is an emphatic no.

Bald assertion. Again, I'm well aware of what your position is. The problem is that actually investigating the evidence honestly shows the opposite.

We can see through objective observations over time where these processes such as continental drift, in the ocean ridge system, subduction zones of ocean trenches, volcanics, and mountain building form the features of our continents and oceans over a very long time

More merely narrating your view without supporting it. I've given plenty of support for mine already. By the way, the reason I'm bothering to quote this substance-free part is that it reminded me of another problematic detail that went along with that mantle map.

Apparently slowly subducting oceanic plate cannot push down past a certain level in the mantle. Yet that cool material is at the very bottom.

So not only should it have melted by now, it shouldn't even be there if OE was true.

So it's actually evidence for the RS model on TWO counts; the rapid part of the runaway subduction appears to be confirmed. So all the rest of what you mentioned here needs to be understood as happening rapidly during the Flood and later slowing to today's rates.

I admit it still raises my eyebrows that it could happen that fast. I find that questionable. But the evidence appears to be conclusive that it did. At least for now, the only view I can accept based on the evidence is that of the YE.

Maybe there's hidden reasons why all of that falls apart, and maybe later OEs will discover it. But for now, it's very difficult to imagine what that could be. It's clear enough that I think now I can't honestly consider the OE a major possibility after all. Still on the table, or as I put it earlier, hanging off the side, but yeah....

The processes of erosion and sedimentation are a clear witness to the immense amount of time to wear down mountains

Come on Shun. Flood eroded faster. Not rocket science here.

Interesting point - Ancient conglomerates (rounded gravel size sedimentary rocks) contain conglomerate gravel from even more ancient conglomerate, sandstone, marble and granite.

Finally something substantive. Could you elaborate on that? What's the evidence that what is actually found wouldn't fit the Flood/YE scenario? Any references to speed up my finding it? (Since I have almost no time right now. No, you don't have to provide that, though. I might ask again if a search doesn't turn it up though.)

By the way, why have you remained silent about chert? You brought it up, but it appears to conclusively demonstrate a YE. Remember, chert has been found even in the Precambrian (lowest fossil-bearing layers) that can't be older than 20 million years, yet supposedly is at least a billion years old.



Beagle, no substance to your latest reply. Nothing you said there is supported, as far as I know (or any of you have been able to show... Or any of the other OEs I've followed over the years...).




ox, unfortunately I don't have time for extended review; I just wanted to give a brief update since I had hoped to be able to reply to other things in more detail and since I won't have that time anytime soon, didn't want to leave you all completely hanging (I did mention the termite update in tekton's channel, but you might not all have seen it). I did read something about aquifers a while back, but I don't recall the details now. For now, I'll just ask if you can actually provide evidence that this could not happen. At least from what little you said about it in that post, it isn't immediately evident why it might be a problem.

Are you basically asking how sediment can solidify quickly? I believe I mentioned already that evidence for that has been found (basically it boils down to a natural result of the Flood! It doesn't normally happen quickly in dry conditions, but has been reproduced in wet conditions rapidly). If that's what you mean, presumably it would apply here, as just one example of it in action. (It's probably involved in Shun's conglomerate-of-conglomerates argument too and anything else of that sort.)

River course -- this would probably be a sediment-laden current as discussed earlier. It would change because water rising, ebbing, etc. would obviously make the onset a chaotic process as changing currents interact with also-changing terrain.

Undisturbed fossil sorting -- unclear what your point is. If it's undisturbed, then why wouldn't it retain the order already expected due to many reasons already discussed?

They admitted that fine particles cannot be deposited

Um, no, Roy, the whole article was about a method of deposition, and its strong evidence.

They admitted it couldn't be deposited in still water and then proceeded to show that it wasn't still water.

fantasy scenarios inconsistent with biology, physics and data

How so? They showed in detail how apparently it is consistent with all of these things... It sounds more like this is just a catch-phrase you use when cornered because it "sounds impressive."

[TheLurch]

Your reasoning apparently depended on the cool material being near the surface of the mantle, but it turns out my memory was right; it's at the bottom. (And I did mention already that it depended on the depth. The problem was I was having trouble finding the confirmation of the depth.) I had asked if you were bringing up some other case, so that gave you a chance to escape this, but you have now clarified you meant to be replying to what I brought up.

That's completely false. The earth's core is hotter than its surface. Therefore, the mantle closest to the core will be hotter than that above it.

Yes, some convection occurs - that's how mantle plumes create things like Yellowstone and Iceland. But that reinforces the larger point - if the upper mantle were warmer, no convection would occur, and you'd never get mantle plumes.

I'm going to assume that the rest of your claims in this post are equally garbage, and not bother going through them.

[Roy]

Some updates:

...and continued dishonesty.

I'll just highlight a couple of examples.

If you have to found a new population of termites, then yes, it can take years to build a nest. But rebuilding a nest during one of the lapses in the onset period appears to be very plausible, especially considering (today's) termites can survive for up to 30 hours underwater, so a whole population could survive, tunnel up to the surface, and rebuild quickly, evidently.

The sources I can find that describe termites surviving for 30 hours underwater also state that they do so by adopting an immobile, oxygen-conserving state. This is incompatible with them tunneling up to the surface.

Also, what surface? Their nest is underwater; if they tunnel up they'll be swimming. You may think it possible for termites to build nests in the sea, but I doubt anyone else does.

There's also at least one example of fossil termite nests above multiple layers of volcanic ash, so your termites not only need to be able to tunnel underwater, they also need to be fireproof.

the claimed vast regions without erosional features did in fact contain erosional features.

As has already been dealt with countless times, this is simply a strawman. The position being attacked was never that there are no erosional features.

It's not a straw-man. The position being attacked was "the huge flat areas without the type of surface erosion we see today", and the examples of erosional features provided were of the type we see being produced today.

This, however, is a straw-man:

.Put this in perspective, Roy. You destroy your own credibility every time you actually argue that a global Flood would somehow not involve any erosion (during onset).

I've never argued that. In fact, I've explicitly stated the opposite on several occasions. Either you've forgotten what was said (and can't be bothered to look), or you're lying.

Iridium-rich clay now falls on the still-exposed areas and also, somehow, on the land that has already been covered by water.

This may be fair. We would need maps of every such layer and coordinate it with all possible versions of the lulls. I don't know if this has been done. If some of it would have to be underwater, and could not be laid down while underwater, then you have a case. Given precedent... I won't hold my breath, you know?

I won't hold my breath either. I don't think you have any intention of describing your magically convenient lulls to the point where any such co-ordination is possible.

But despite what you say, it's not necessary. Your hinted at iridium deposition process requires iridium to be laid down underwater because of (i) the discrepancy between your and Oard's concepts of what a 'lull' is, and (ii) the existence of multiple iridum layers in some locations.

On, and further evidence of your dishonesty is that you ignored almost all of my criticism, choosing only a small manageable snippet to address.

Bald assertion. Again, I'm well aware of what your position is. The problem is that actually investigating the evidence honestly shows the opposite.

So you complain about him making a bald assertion, then immediately made an even balder and accusatory one yourself.

They admitted that fine particles cannot be deposited

Um, no, Roy, the whole article was about a method of deposition,...

Their method is not deposition, but filtration.

... and its strong evidence.

They admitted it couldn't be deposited in still water and then proceeded to show that it wasn't still water.

Their method for the flood producing strata of fine material requires the pre-existence of strata of even finer material. It's only strong in the sense that it stinks.

One last thought: you're still producing only hand-waving pseudo-explanations. No details, no examples, no evidence, no citations. Just creationist claptrap.

[HMS_Beagle]

Beagle, no substance to your latest reply. Nothing you said there is supported, as far as I know

That's because you know nothing. You've turned willful ignorance into an art form. The rest of your blithering garbage is not worth wasting time on.

[Roy]

P.S. You still haven't produced a single example of a detailed flood stratigraphy, despite repeatedly claiming that there are a large number of them.

[tabibito]

Mesopotamia is in the Uruk period, with emerging Sumerian hegemony and development of "proto-cuneiform" writing; base-60 mathematics, astronomy and astrology, civil law, complex hydrology, the sailboat, potter's wheel and wheel; the Chalcolithic proceeds into the Early Bronze Age.
c. 4000 BC—First neolithic settlers in the island of Thera (Santorini), Greece, migrating probably from Minoan Crete.
c. 4000 BC—Beaker from Susa (modern Shush, Iran) is made. It is now at Musée du Louvre, Paris.

The Yangshao culture was a Neolithic culture that existed extensively along the Yellow River in China. It is dated from around 5000 BC to 3000 BC. The culture is named after Yangshao, the first excavated representative village of this culture, which was discovered in 1921 in Henan Province by the Swedish geologist Johan Gunnar Andersson (1874–1960). The culture flourished mainly in the provinces of Henan, Shaanxi and Shanxi.

Let's see if I have this right ... The earth was created 6000 years ago, but we have evidence of human activity - spread across the world - dating to 7000 years and more ago.

[HMS_Beagle]

Mesopotamia is in the Uruk period, with emerging Sumerian hegemony and development of "proto-cuneiform" writing; base-60 mathematics, astronomy and astrology, civil law, complex hydrology, the sailboat, potter's wheel and wheel; the Chalcolithic proceeds into the Early Bronze Age.
c. 4000 BC—First neolithic settlers in the island of Thera (Santorini), Greece, migrating probably from Minoan Crete.
c. 4000 BC—Beaker from Susa (modern Shush, Iran) is made. It is now at Musée du Louvre, Paris.

The Yangshao culture was a Neolithic culture that existed extensively along the Yellow River in China. It is dated from around 5000 BC to 3000 BC. The culture is named after Yangshao, the first excavated representative village of this culture, which was discovered in 1921 in Henan Province by the Swedish geologist Johan Gunnar Andersson (1874–1960). The culture flourished mainly in the provinces of Henan, Shaanxi and Shanxi.

Let's see if I have this right ... The earth was created 6000 years ago, but we have evidence of human activity - spread across the world - dating to 7000 years and more ago.

[YEC nutjob]

That's just evidence the Sumerians and Chinese developed time travel!

[/YEC nutjob]

[Roy]

The rest of your blithering garbage is not worth wasting time on.

Maybe... I learned more about termites in 5 minutes than lb did in 6 months.

[rossum]

Let's see if I have this right ... The earth was created 6000 years ago, but we have evidence of human activity - spread across the world - dating to 7000 years and more ago.

Correct. We even have a reliable news report of the event from a non-fake news source:

Members of the earth's earliest known civilization, the Sumerians, looked on in shock and confusion some 6,000 years ago as God, the Lord Almighty, created Heaven and Earth.

According to recently excavated clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform script, thousands of Sumerians—the first humans to establish systems of writing, agriculture, and government—were working on their sophisticated irrigation systems when the Father of All Creation reached down from the ether and blew the divine spirit of life into their thriving civilization.

"I do not understand," reads an ancient line of pictographs depicting the sun, the moon, water, and a Sumerian who appears to be scratching his head. "A booming voice is saying, 'Let there be light,' but there is already light. It is saying, 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' but I am already standing on grass."

"Everything is here already," the pictograph continues. "We do not need more stars."

Source: The Onion - Sumerians Look On In Confusion As God Creates World.

rossum

[tabibito]

Thanks for that one. I'm sure the link will come in handy some time.