Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by logician bones View Post
    ox:

    <snipe>

    -Under the runaway subduction model, we would expect some of the lava flows to have been aerial, but I've seen cases of them being originally assumed to be aerial but later features are found more consistent with underwater formation, as mentioned earlier.

    -Again, could you be more specific? We have many places where under the OE view we would expect much more scree than is there. In so many places you see these vertical erosion cliffs with the characteristic slanted areas of scree at the bottom, a major sign of the Flood. At observed rates of erosion those should not just be slants entirely, or even flattened on land, but allegedly the continents themselves are eroding fast enough compared to replacement that they should all be underwater.

    -Scoria is a type of rock, not an argument -- again, please be more specific.

    -Same as with burrows. Note that feces decay much faster than bones, so these being preserved at all shows at least a small scale of catastrophism.

    -Again, obviously we would expect raindrops in the described scenario!




    Beagle:

    Your "exhumed river channel" image is cited as part of the Green River formation, which is often brought up by creationists for a number of reasons that show it was laid down rapidly and eroded heavily during recession. So, we would expect to see that here! This is in fact one of the areas that shows the lack of surface erosion in the layers that is so problematic for your view, inconsistent with the erosion on the surface like that of the image you showed. It also has unusually well-preserved fossils, again showing rapid deposition.

    Not sure what your argument is with the lava river. We expect to see volcanic features; you quoted me mentioning that. And of course lava would follow channels that are there, and later erosion around it would expose the lava (whether during Flood recession or post-Flood). You say creationists in the past have had trouble explaining this... maybe it was worded differently to them, though. Could you clarify?
    This subject was exhaustively covered in the old Tweb, authored by Glen Morton. The simple answer is absolutely NO, these features such as the extensive river valleys, erosion surfaces with evidence of soil formation, lake deposits, remnant standing fossil forests, within repeated in series of geology formations are not remotely expected with any scenario of a world, or extensive regional flood. The problem remains it not simply the presence that needs to explained. It is the presence of these features in repeated cyclic sequences thousands of feet thick.

    In the Appalachia Coal region these formations with meandering river valleys and all of the above are repeated in a cyclic sequence for thousands of feet of sandstone, shale and coal. There are also mud cracks, worm casts, animal and plant fossils, and fossil tracks of animals throughout this sequence.

    There is also the elephant in the room of formations of limestone hundreds feet thick, and continuous formation of coral islands in eroded old volcanoes hundred of feet thick. This geologic sequence is impossible in any mythical nor imaginary version of flood geology.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-17-2016, 08:36 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by logician bones View Post
      The Scablands basalt actually shows features consistent with formation during the Flood,
      Well, a flood. A flood that moved from the center of the continent to the ocean. What exactly is the mechanism for that to happen during a global flood? And why doesn't more terrain look like the scablands if the entire planet experienced this flood?

      Incidentally, i saw you mentioned a post-flood ice age. Any thoughts on how the freezing of that much water and release of the latent heat would affect the planet if it's happening in a couple of hundred years? Or where the energy came from to melt all the ice sheets in a short time period too?
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by logician bones View Post
        Beagle:

        Understood about the reply to my other post in Jorge's topic. I'd kind of rather keep the scientific discussion to one place anyways, so works for me.
        I see you avoided answering the point raised in favor of regurgitating the same YEC excuses.

        The Scablands basalt actually shows features consistent with formation during the Flood, Beagle... and your final comment in this quote looks way off -- do you seriously think one basalt field will have the power to flash ALL the water to steam and resist its erosive power while still mostly molten? From what I've seen that isn't how lava-water interaction works. The initial contact does of course flash the first water into steam, but it also instantly solidifies the surface, and kinetic force of the water that instantly replaces it will push that aside, and the process repeats. When that much water "wants" to go somewhere, the lava there is pushed aside, and unless it really was totally hardened for a while previously as you start out saying, it would indeed carve out channels that big and easily more.
        Fast flowing water carves straight channels. In order to get meanders the water must be flowing quite slowly. Slow flowing water doesn't have the power to carve through rock. It must slowly erode the rock over millions of years to form things like this.
        aGooseneck1556_1558.jpg

        That's Gooseneck Park in Utah. This couldn't have formed in soft mud because the mud would slump.

        Keep in mind this date is part of your view, not ours. I was referring to the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial evidence that matches the Flood scenario. This is evidence of not just any bottleneck, but a bottleneck matching exactly the biblical account of three sons from one man, each with one wife who could come from multiple people groups.
        (facepalm) the usual creationist misunderstanding Y-chromosome Adam and MtEve didn't live contemporaneously and they weren't the only people alive in their time. There are no genetic signs in any species of a sever population bottleneck only 4500 years ago,

        This is assuming that the animals God selected to go on the Ark were heavily "outvolved" branches without the fuller genetic potential, but I would think he probably chose the ones that are more like wolves than a chihuahua for example; retaining most of the original variety in the initial created kind pairs. While I don't accept invoking miraculous interference in the pattern without extreme caution, this is one case where the biblical account clearly describes it, so the evidence needs to be tested in that light, not just on the assumption that those surviving a bottleneck would be a random sampling (so more likely to lack genetic diversity)
        Meaningless drivel.

        This also goes to the question of how much diversity can arise later and we have seen popular arguments on that fail in light of newer research that proved that it does happen very rapidly. I've even seen some accusing YECs of believing in "hyper-evolution" because of these findings!
        Ho do you get from pairs of animals on the Ark to the over 10 million species known today without "hyperspeciation"?

        Yeah, I've heard that argument (not just from OEs, but anti-RS YEs), but it seems... highly exaggerated at best... One issue is that if an area of molten material can, simply by being molten, cause the rest of the planet to melt (through extra heat given off by the radioactivity in it), that should accelerate all other radioactivity and repeat the process until it's all gone, no matter where it started, and we shouldn't have any left -- yet we DO have areas that are molten even today underground, and lava flows on the surface sometimes, and we still have radioactive material. Another is that heat rises, and we're talking about this happening closer to the atmospheric surface than most molten areas today, so you'd think this would be less likely to melt the whole planet than normal.
        More meaningless drivel. It's simple physics that if the RATE group's 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay were squeezed into 1500 years the energy released would vaporize the planet. Even the RATE group admitted it would take a miracle for God to remove the excess heat.

        (This is in response to the radiocarbon evidence.) This is the usual answer, but the tests actually show the opposite. Samples were kept clean and put in machines tested with no sample, and this has consistently been found globally. Creation scientists acknowledge that old-earthers believe that this evidence is explained somehow by contamination (they have no choice!), but this should be easy to test, right? All old-earthers have to do is follow the correct procedures to prevent contamination*, etc. and see if they get the same results.
        Bull. Here is a photo of the YEC sample being "prepared" by cutting them open in the dirt at the dig site.

        femur.jpg

        There is zero credible evidence of any C14 found in dino fossil specimens.

        This isn't the only evidence either -- we also have helium that hasn't yet escaped from crystals due to uranium radioactivity in very low layers, for example. The evidence seems to show that in fact the radiocarbon isn't a result of contamination but both of these examples of radioactivity are due to the YE scenario actually being the case. Given that the counterevidence of longer uniformitarian radiometric dates also fits the Flood (accelerated decay), radiometric evidence as a whole no longer works as an argument against it.
        More already debunked PRATT stupidity from RATE - polonium halos

        Not sure why you're bringing that up -- but this is in reference to using radiometric 'dating' methods on lava that was observed (so we know it is young), and yet gives 'dates' very old. The xenoliths argument is a common one used to try to wiggle out of this, and it seems to me that it could be possible in some cases.
        The fact is every YEC "test' that suppoedly refutes radiometric dating has been contaminated with xenoliths. Every single one.

        About scientific papers, have you tried to find them yourself? CMI articles are usually referenced, and many of those go to OE-sourced papers.
        I've read many hundreds if not thousands of professional scientific papers in my career. There isn't a single one that supports YEC hooey.

        I notice you say that the point about the "sorting" of apparent radiometric ages argument due to lower layers having heat be trapped later has been answered before, but you didn't say what the answer is
        It's NEVER been explained by YECs and it has nothing to do with heat. Older radiometric isotopes are always found in lower strata than younger dating ones except for obvious rare cases of geologic overthrusts. Water can't sort sediments by radiometric age.

        For you, maybe, but geologists are accepting it. We need to see sound proof why they should not.
        No geologists anywhere except for dishonest professional YECs accept young earth Flood BS.

        Such as? Actually the features such as the angle of the dunes are not consistent with desert dunes, but with underwater dunes. (Although there is at least one feature that can be explained in both views; the "frosting" and pitting of the grains. This was held up for years as supposed proof that it could only form from wind, and may be what you're referring to, but newer research showed that they can form in the flood scenario too, especially during cementation.)
        Explain this please. Fossilized dino tracks up a near vertical 300' wall in Bolivia.

        Cal-Orko-Bolivia.jpg

        The tracks were laid in a mud plane around 68 MYA, covered, fossilized, eventually tilted near vertical by plate tectonics and eroded out. Notice many of these tracks are also going sideways or even downhill WRT the wall orientation, so the "trying to escape the Flood" BS doesn't work.

        Right, but you said that we don't have evidence of long-distance transportation.
        I said we DO have evidence of glaciers transporting boulders.

        That case of boulders transported from the Rockies far to the east is a case of that. And they show the kind of rounding that rock transported by water has.
        Provide evidence for this claim.

        Your "exhumed river channel" image is cited as part of the Green River formation, which is often brought up by creationists for a number of reasons that show it was laid down rapidly and eroded heavily during recession. So, we would expect to see that here!
        Bull. Explain how a flood could create a meandering river UNDERWATER, fill it in with harder sandstone, then only erode out the surrounding IN ONE YEAR.

        This is in fact one of the areas that shows the lack of surface erosion in the layers that is so problematic for your view, inconsistent with the erosion on the surface like that of the image you showed. It also has unusually well-preserved fossils, again showing rapid deposition
        I just showed you the eroded out and infilled rivers between the strata. You answer is to claim that since some areas show no such erosion that no areas do??

        Not sure what your argument is with the lava river. We expect to see volcanic features; you quoted me mentioning that. And of course lava would follow channels that are there, and later erosion around it would expose the lava (whether during Flood recession or post-Flood).
        Show how that much erosion could happen just in the last 4500 years.

        BTW these massive Gish Gallop posts of yours are a real pain. They picking one point and addressing it instead of all the arm flapping.

        Comment


        • #19
          Kbertsche:

          If you've actually read the RATE report, you will see this admission from the RATE group itself. They calculated the heat released from their "accelerated nuclear decay" scenario and concluded that the earth would have melted. They could provide no scientific explanation for why the earth didn't melt. The decided that this points to "new science" which has not yet been discovered, or to miracles.
          I didn't know they hadn't suggested something at the time, no (or I don't recall it anyway). I've read articles summarizing the results and acknowledging this is a problem in some interpretations, and saying that later the idea came up that it might not have all happened during the Flood. I was replying, though, to Beagle's statement that there are no known processes that could lead to sorting and implication that if this one happened at all it has to be deadly. It seems clear that it had to happen during the Flood to some extent, though under exactly what conditions still needs work, and whether it really had to be deadly does not seem proven at all.

          As for a miracle here, like I said before, I'm suspicious of arguments relying on miracles without the being supposedly doing the miracle telling us that's what he did. That said, this is a tricky one because it isn't something the Bible could comment on even if one was done; the people of the time would not have understood radioactivity.

          The scatter in dates/radiocarbon content is consistent with contamination, but not with an actual finite age.
          Could you be more specific on this? On both the pattern and what you mean by an "actual" age -- keep in mind the argument is not that we're getting an actual age per se, but that the radiocarbon could not last as long as it would need to if it is not the product of contamination. Keep in mind also that the argument isn't that there is zero contamination, but that in cases where it would not be expected in enough amounts we find more C14 than should still be there.

          This especially doesn't seem likely when you factor for the C14 found in diamonds. Can you see why it's natural to be suspicious that the claims of contamination may be due to having no choice in order to maintain the OE paradigm?

          For old samples, it can be a huge factor
          The problem is, whether they are actually (that) old is what is at issue; relying on this to explain it away (despite all the other evidence) would be circular reasoning.



          JonF:

          I don't know if you've seen Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.
          The actual quote at that link is that the decay may have been enough (maybe it's confirmed from later research, but worth pointing out; Kbertsche's above statement would be a little too far in terms of what they admitted in the report itself), and more importantly, if most of it happened during the Flood. Looks like even in the initial report, then, the idea that some of it didn't was present.

          The link also seems to be talking about something different from what I brought up, since it refers to radiocarbon decay in living bodies. That's another idea I've heard, though I didn't recall that it came from RATE specifically, which seems to suggest the whole planetary region somehow experienced universal accelerated decay either through a miracle or some other effect that doesn't depend on chemical conditions etc. But the research says that chemical conditions do cause different effects of heat on decay, so what I was talking about in volcanic layers would not apply to the Ark passengers (not their own radiocarbon; they'd still have to have a planet that isn't vaporized, though!).

          Note, though, that surviving Ark passengers isn't all that's needed; many marine creatures are obviously still with us too.



          Shun:

          extensive river valleys, erosion surfaces with evidence of soil formation, lake deposits, remnant standing fossil forests [...] not simply the presence that needs to explained. It is the presence of these features in repeated cyclic sequences
          Actually, all of those things are expected. The first and last I've gone over earlier; basically they weren't rivers but are erosion features from Flood currents (well, most of them), and many of those supposed standing forests match what we saw at Helens; uprooted trees became waterlogged and sank upright. Others with roots intact may have been transported when the soil they were in turned to mud, and were buried in the same way. Soil -- the issues are how much and where; there would have been soil on the original surface of course and it should end up somewhere. Lake deposits -- are you talking about the annual layers argument?

          There are also mud cracks, worm casts, animal and plant fossils, and fossil tracks of animals throughout this sequence.
          The latter three are obviously expected and see my other comments about this. Mud cracks, same question to you as when this was brought up earlier -- can you be more specific? What is the argument there? I don't seem to recall this one.

          limestone hundreds feet thick
          Tall vertical features may be expected depending on where and when they happen in both Flood and competing views, but could you be more specific on why you think this is a problem?

          continuous formation of coral islands in eroded old volcanoes hundred of feet thick
          Again, why do you see a problem here? I'm not sure which sites you're referring to, but evidence has shown that in times of increased water runoff, coral can grow faster than otherwise. There was an old anti-Flood argument that relied on thickness of corals that this finding debunked; that might be what you mean.


          Lurch:

          why doesn't more terrain look like the scablands if the entire planet experienced this flood?
          Well, that's a big question I always have about any feature of any significant size or uniqueness under any view, but usually if you look into it it doesn't take long to find answers. This one seems harder to research without asking a geologist specializing in the scablands specifically, but I would think (at first glance at least) that the basalt would be expected to be a factor; basalt flows wouldn't happen everywhere, and it seems from what admittedly little I know on this one that basalt flows that far into a continent would be especially rare (at the breakup sites I would think they would be common, though).

          The short answer though to any such question is that the fact is that Earth does have varied landscapes and materials in large groupings in some places even today, so we would expect that this would still be the case during the Flood. Assuming the whole thing would all look the same doesn't seem rational to me.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by logician bones View Post
            Well, that's a big question I always have about any feature of any significant size or uniqueness under any view, but usually if you look into it it doesn't take long to find answers. This one seems harder to research without asking a geologist specializing in the scablands specifically, but I would think (at first glance at least) that the basalt would be expected to be a factor; basalt flows wouldn't happen everywhere, and it seems from what admittedly little I know on this one that basalt flows that far into a continent would be especially rare (at the breakup sites I would think they would be common, though).

            The short answer though to any such question is that the fact is that Earth does have varied landscapes and materials in large groupings in some places even today, so we would expect that this would still be the case during the Flood. Assuming the whole thing would all look the same doesn't seem rational to me.
            Flood basalts - the basic terrain that was carved by the scablands - are quite common and cover huge areas of the planet's surface. Siberian Traps, Deccan Traps, areas near the Rift Valley, Iceland, etc. Why don't all of them show signs of a giant flood, if said flood was global?

            (Hint: because there was no global flood)
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by logician bones View Post
              Shun:
              Actually, all of those things are expected. The first and last I've gone over earlier; basically they weren't rivers but are erosion features from Flood currents (well, most of them), and many of those supposed standing forests match what we saw at Helens; uprooted trees became waterlogged and sank upright. Others with roots intact may have been transported when the soil they were in turned to mud, and were buried in the same way. Soil -- the issues are how much and where; there would have been soil on the original surface of course and it should end up somewhere. Lake deposits -- are you talking about the annual layers argument?
              My major in graduate school was in geomorphology, hydorgeology and sedimentology, and NO flood current erosion cannot create meander river patterns and oxbow lake patterns like those associated with large river systems that are illustrated in prior posts. These meandering river system patterns are created over a long period of time in large rivers with a small gradient for example; the Mississippi River.

              The mud cracks with and animal tracks and in discrete silt and clay layers repeatedly in over thousands of feet of sediment layers.

              What was seen at Mount Saint Hellens is not even close to what is found in the Appalachian syncline Coal region where these forests occur in large regions of swamps where deposits of coal form with root systems in place in nature weathers soil formations numerous. There are no volcanic deposits in the Appalachian syncline formations where these fossil forests occur. These deposits are too vast and uniform equivalent to todays large river systems like the Amazon and the Congo rivers, and do not remotely resemble flood current erosion and deposition.

              The repeated cyclic layers over thousands of feet of sediment are not lake varves. Though lake deposits including varved clay deposits do occur in individual layers through out the cyclic sandstone, siltstone, shale and coal in repeated sequences. The layers range from less than a foot to sandstone layers up to 40 feet thick.
              There are numerous plant and animal fossils in each of the layers that associated with the individual environments of the layer. I have collected racks of a frog like animal swimming over the mud surface with worm. All these cyclic layers occur in nature repeated layers with meandering river systems, swamps oxbow lakes in each layer. None of this can be explained by flood currents nor deposition.


              You are ignoring the elephant in the room of the vast limestone deposits and humdred of feet of coral atoll deposits around ancient eroded volcanoes. in the Pacific Ocean

              Glenn Morton is a Christian geologist and extensivelly covered this evidence in detail in the previous threads in the old Tweb. I may try and resurrect this material.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-17-2016, 04:44 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                I see you didn't read my message or my link or the links from there, many of which are to YEC material.

                The RATE Group proposed approximately 4 billion year's worth of decay pre-life, and 500 million year's worth during the fludde. They acknowledged that the decay during the fludde would have boiled the water and melted the surface of the Earth... and they also acknowledged they had no viable hypothesis to refute that. They also acknowledged that the radiation from the 40K in Noah's body would kill him and every living thing on the Ark dead, dead, dead. 10,000 times a lethal dose. And they sort of hypothesized an explanation that is incompatible with the laws of physics.

                RATE I took three years, with some interim results published. Same for RATE II. Total six years. There was a RATE III proposed but it was turned down. I have no idea what was proposed.

                I.e. there is no further work in the eleven years since 2005, and then never will be.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Beagle:

                  I see you avoided answering the point raised
                  Sorry, not following you. What point do you mean here?

                  Fast flowing water carves straight channels.
                  Yes it does. When fast enough etc.

                  In order to get meanders the water must be flowing quite slowly.
                  That generally tracks, yes...

                  Slow flowing water doesn't have the power to carve through rock. It must slowly erode the rock over millions of years to form things like this.
                  Here's where you go wrong for several reasons I've explained; basically, the water would not always be going at top speed, and yet for a time would be going at still enough speed and with enough force due to the amount. You need to engage with this.

                  And like I said, I get the impression you think that modern creationist sites are hiding formations like what you put in this image here from their audience, but I've seen articles showing them freely and pointing out features that show they formed in the Flood recession.

                  For example:

                  http://creation.com/horse-shoe-bend-arizona

                  The opening paragraphs summarize your basic argument:

                  ...a well-known geologist [...] declared that Noah’s Flood could not have formed this feature. During an energetic event such as Noah’s Flood, he said, the water would flow in a large gush in one direction. [...]

                  This professor, who has authored well-known books on geology, was absolutely sure that Noah’s Flood could not explain the meandering loop.
                  So if you want me to think that you are really a reliable judge on this, I need to see you move past stage one of this argument and deal with the counterarguments already offered. You especially need to show me that you understand that water will flow slower later in the recession and that the possibility that there is enough force there to rapidly erode meandering channels needs to be eliminated with actual evidence, not just a blind assumption that it somehow couldn't.

                  This couldn't have formed in soft mud because the mud would slump.
                  This is answered at the link I give above. Basically this is forgetting the action of cementation. However, the layers may have been too soft to call actual stone at the time, or some of them might have been. (This may be more of a factor for the earlier Flood erosion channels discussed earlier, though.)

                  (facepalm) the usual creationist misunderstanding Y-chromosome Adam and MtEve didn't live contemporaneously and they weren't the only people alive in their time. There are no genetic signs in any species of a sever population bottleneck only 4500 years ago,
                  Beagle, this wasn't the argument. It sounds like you were skimming this part, saw "mitochrondria" and leapt to an assumption of a common argument you've heard that also uses that word. (I can forgive it... but I'm starting to see a pattern of this in your posts... If you don't have time to read what you're replying to, I'm okay with you just taking a raincheck, okay?). Also, it isn't about evidence for timing of the bottleneck; this pattern of three female lines and one male line matches the expected pattern without reliance on questionable dating methods. There's no reason you have to accept 4500 years for this bottleneck in order to acknowledge the evidence does show one.


                  Ho do you get from pairs of animals on the Ark to the over 10 million species known today without "hyperspeciation"?
                  Why would you want to keep that off the table? The cases of rapid speciation I mentioned could be called that, couldn't they? Actually it's a fair word for what would have happened in larger amounts just after the Ark. Remember that I suspect God would choose the individuals within each original kind that have more of the original genetic variety in them (as well as later mutation potential in some cases). Well, after leaving the Ark, these would follow the natural "outvolving" where the different variations of one gene split into the various multiplication patterns of some populations lacking one gene, others another, etc. This would clearly rapidly produce different branches within the kinds (but not species yet at that point).

                  Speciation is a trickier subject because "species" has been defined inconsistently (so, not sure what the actual number would be by the definition I'd use), but I would use it to refer to reproductive incompatibility primarily. This would be expected to happen in the different branches once they become geographically separated and changes both due to mutation and metainstructions (we're not sure right now how much of observed change is either; very recent evidence is expanding our knowledge of metainformation so some prior assumptions of random copying errors are being re-evaluated; maybe many more need to be).

                  How many total species among Ark descendants you get depends on a large amount of factors, but we would expect that once the main groups speciate, it could slow down later as things stabilize, so in contrast to everyday observations today, it would seem "hyper".


                  Here is a photo of the YEC sample being "prepared" by cutting them open in the dirt at the dig site.
                  Okay, that may be fair. Can you give me more info to track down whether you're reliable on this? You say "the YEC sample" -- which sample? Who were the YECs? What source did you get this from? And were they actually using the sample in that photo for a test that this would ruin?

                  (My immediate guess on being told they were splitting a bone open would be they were probably looking to test the widespread soft tissues claims, not using that sample for C14 testing... but maybe not.)


                  There is zero credible evidence of any C14 found in dino fossil specimens.
                  I can guess why, but rather than put words in your mouth, could you explain why you say that?


                  The tracks were laid in a mud plane around 68 MYA, covered, fossilized, eventually tilted near vertical by plate tectonics and eroded out. Notice many of these tracks are also going sideways or even downhill WRT the wall orientation, so the "trying to escape the Flood" BS doesn't work.
                  I wouldn't accept the date, obviously, but I don't see an immediate problem with any of the rest of this -- why do you think there is? We should see tracks in a lot of places and in a lot of different patterns, right? Also, could you explain the downhill comment? I'm guessing this is against the finding that at GC most of the tracks are uphill? Do we know this would be at the same time and conditions during the Flood so that the same behavior would be expected? Given that it was tilted, do we know what the original orientation was? (And if so, how, to all of these?)


                  Provide evidence for this claim.
                  (That the transported boulders were rounded.) Well, are you doubting that they were? I admit I hadn't considered that possibility since secular sources were cited using water transportation explanations too. I just looked it up on CMI and found this link:

                  http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers

                  Looks like they're known to have gone west too -- not sure why my memory treated it as only east (obviously it would go both ways -- sorry...).

                  Do you have cases of these boulders not being rounded enough?


                  I just showed you the eroded out and infilled rivers between the strata. You answer is to claim that since some areas show no such erosion that no areas do?
                  No, I was saying that the original argument about the lack of the level of surface erosion we observe today is something I'd like to know how OEs could explain. Your approach appeared to be trying to dodge this by pointing to features both views expect. You still don't seem to be recognizing that we expect channels at multiple levels during a deposition flood, especially of this scale (or, if you insist they could not form, what process would enforce this rule globably?).


                  Show how that much erosion could happen just in the last 4500 years.
                  Well, I admit I can't prove the actual amount, but you would expect a lot in the recession and in the increased storm activity following it, right? Can you prove it wouldn't be the right amount given those factors?
                  Last edited by logician bones; 07-17-2016, 05:34 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Lurch:

                    Flood basalts - the basic terrain that was carved by the scablands - are quite common and cover huge areas of the planet's surface. Siberian Traps
                    This one example, from a quick google search, does prove that conclusion well enough for me, so that's fair.

                    Why don't all of them show signs of a giant flood, if said flood was global?
                    This part, though, seems to still be assuming that every area would have the same features. But reworded a little it's a fair question (why wouldn't the Flood produce Scablands features everywhere?).

                    What research have you done to try to answer this, out of curiosity? I'm rusty on the specifics of this one and will need to review to see if this has already been answered. I certainly don't think leaping to the assumption of no Flood is anywhere near rational, though!

                    Do you acknowledge that there are many factors that would result in different features in different locations? Can you list some of them and why you think they would not work to explain this?




                    Shun:

                    My major in graduate school was in geomorphology, hydorgeology and sedimentology, and NO flood current erosion cannot create meander river patterns and oxbow lake patterns like those associated with large river systems that are illustrated in prior posts.
                    Well, the geologist I mentioned earlier would apparently agree with you... but others are not agreeing and raised points at that link. What would you say in response to those?

                    It certainly seems to make sense that as the recession slowed, there would be a spectrum of speeds, and somewhere in between top speed and normal river speeds there could be enough to erode recently deposited layers, following the existing channels, so meandering would have to be expected to some extent. You would agree with that latter bit at least, right? (I'm not asking you to agree to the amount, but that meandering patterns should be expected in the later stages.)


                    What was seen at Mount Saint Hellens is not even close to what is found in the Appalachian syncline Coal region where these forests occur in large regions of swamps where deposits of coal form with root systems in place in nature weathers soil formations numerous
                    Not sure I'm following your grammar here... What do you mean by "not even close" -- as in not as big? Looks like the rest, though, is saying that we have proof of forests (I presume atop each other) buried in place. Well, if it can be proven that's what happened instead of their being moved before burial, for multiple overlapping layers, that would obviously be disproof. Can we rule out the alternative I mentioned? (And do we actually have them overlapping and so forth?)

                    Do you accept that in the Flood scenario, at least some trees might be moved with roots still attached, for example? And buried upright as the (admittedly detached-root) Helens cases showed?

                    (Incidentally I don't recall what percentage of Helens trees did land upright, though.)

                    There are numerous plant and animal fossils in each of the layers that associated with the individual environments of the layer. I have collected racks of a frog like animal swimming over the mud surface with worm. All these cyclic layers occur in nature repeated layers with meandering river systems, swamps oxbow lakes in each layer. None of this can be explained by flood currents nor deposition.
                    I can imagine situations where that argument would work... but why can't it in these cases? What do you mean by associated here for example?

                    You are ignoring the elephant in the room of the vast limestone deposits and humdred of feet of coral atoll deposits around ancient eroded volcanoes. in the Pacific Ocean
                    Shun, I asked you to clarify both of these, and mentioned one thing you might have meant about coral. What is your argument that both of these are problems for the global/near-global flood scenarios?



                    Glenn Morton is a Christian geologist and extensivelly covered this evidence in detail in the previous threads in the old Tweb. I may try and resurrect this material.
                    I would be interested in that. I tried to research it after your previous post. Looks like I may have been using the wrong name, though -- I thought you spelled it Glen. Out of time now to continue...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by logician bones View Post
                      What research have you done to try to answer this, out of curiosity? I'm rusty on the specifics of this one and will need to review to see if this has already been answered. I certainly don't think leaping to the assumption of no Flood is anywhere near rational, though!

                      Do you acknowledge that there are many factors that would result in different features in different locations? Can you list some of them and why you think they would not work to explain this?
                      I'm going to quote you from a different thread:

                      "Assuming miracles as ad hoc patches just to make a conclusion work is bad science, though, yes -- but that isn't what we propose."

                      Yet this is precisely what you're doing - you just haven't mentioned the word "miracles" yet. We have a global flood that somehow produced scabland-like features in one place, gentle erosion over long periods of time in two others, and essentially hasn't done anything much at all in Iceland or north of the Rift Valley.

                      The scientific explanations - vastly different ages, plus a rare massive flood in the Scablands - handles this nicely. You, in contrast, have no choice but to go ad hoc: maybe (completely undefined) local conditions might have taken what was a single traumatic event and made it different in all these locations.

                      Just as you have to go ad hoc on plate tectonics - the evidence for plate movement is conclusive, so you have to tack on a period of rapid plate motion to make it fit with your chronology, rather than the evidence.

                      Just as you have to go ad hoc on glacial periods - the evidence for the glaciers is too persuasive, so you have to pretend there was only one glacial period, and that the ice grew and retreated with enough speed that it would have thrown the earth's entire energy budget off.

                      Just as you have to go ad hoc on the source of the water, which simply doesn't exist in sufficient quantities to create a global flood.

                      Doesn't that collection of clumsy hacks seem in the least bit problematic to you?
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by logician bones View Post
                        Here's where you go wrong for several reasons I've explained; basically, the water would not always be going at top speed, and yet for a time would be going at still enough speed and with enough force due to the amount. You need to engage with this.
                        There's nothing to engage. It's pure BS and hand waving on your part. Incised meandering rivers can only be caused by slow water flow eroding the rock over deep time. You can't get around the laws of physics by wishful thinking.

                        For example:

                        http://creation.com/horse-shoe-bend-arizona

                        The opening paragraphs summarize your basic argument:
                        That's one more huge pile of lies and BS fro your YEC sources. The laws of physics don't suddenly vanish because some YEC professional liars find them inconvenient.

                        Beagle, this wasn't the argument. It sounds like you were skimming this part, saw "mitochrondria" and leapt to an assumption of a common argument you've heard that also uses that word.
                        I didn't skim past anything. You tossed out the usual creationist misunderstanding of MtEve without any understanding of the actual genetic science involved. And you still ignore the fact there are no major genetic bottlenecks seen in any species 4500 years ago.

                        Also, it isn't about evidence for timing of the bottleneck; this pattern of three female lines and one male line matches the expected pattern without reliance on questionable dating methods.
                        No such evidence exists. I'll be charitable and assume ignorance on your part instead of willful dishonesty.

                        Why would you want to keep that off the table? The cases of rapid speciation I mentioned could be called that, couldn't they? Actually it's a fair word for what would have happened in larger amounts just after the Ark.

                        How many total species among Ark descendants you get depends on a large amount of factors, but we would expect that once the main groups speciate, it could slow down later as things stabilize, so in contrast to everyday observations today, it would seem "hyper".
                        Hyperspeciation across all lineages starting 4500 years ago is an event that has zero evidence for and lots of evidence it never happened.

                        Okay, that may be fair. Can you give me more info to track down whether you're reliable on this? You say "the YEC sample" -- which sample? Who were the YECs? What source did you get this from? And were they actually using the sample in that photo for a test that this would ruin?
                        That BS sample came for this YEC site.

                        http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

                        Notice in their data they have different parts of the same animal (Triceratops #2) C14 dating over 9000 years apart. If that isn't evidence of bogus contaminated dates then what is? You tell me how different parts of the same animal lived 9000 years apart.

                        I can guess why, but rather than put words in your mouth, could you explain why you say that?
                        Because every piece of YEC "evidence" offered to date has been dog crap. See the example immediately above.

                        You claimed boulders from the Rockies were found on the east coast of the U.S. Your website says they were found in Washington State to Montana where glaciers could have easily deposited them. Do you wish to retract your previous claim?

                        I wouldn't accept the date, obviously, but I don't see an immediate problem with any of the rest of this -- why do you think there is? We should see tracks in a lot of places and in a lot of different patterns, right? Also, could you explain the downhill comment? I'm guessing this is against the finding that at GC most of the tracks are uphill? Do we know this would be at the same time and conditions during the Flood so that the same behavior would be expected? Given that it was tilted, do we know what the original orientation was? (And if so, how, to all of these?)
                        As expected you have no explanation for the tracks in the vertical cliff, just a song and dance.

                        Well, I admit I can't prove the actual amount, but you would expect a lot in the recession and in the increased storm activity following it, right? Can you prove it wouldn't be the right amount given those factors?
                        More BS and hand waving. I was really hoping you'd be that rare creationist actually willing to engage with the data. But no...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by logician bones View Post
                          This pattern of three female lines and one male line matches the expected pattern without reliance on questionable dating methods. There's no reason you have to accept 4500 years for this bottleneck in order to acknowledge the evidence does show one.
                          Small problem. There's more than one male lineage. We have the lineage of the Y chromosome that appears to have been common to all modern humans at the time they evolved. And then there's a rare Y chromosome lineage, found only in Africans, that appears to have been the product of introgression from archaic humans. (Think of us breeding with Neanderthals and some of us ending up with their Y, but it happening in Africa instead of Eurasia.)

                          See:
                          http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(13)00073-6

                          So, sorry! Clearly wrong on that one. Might have been right when it was first stated, but science moves on, even if creationism doesn't.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by logician bones View Post
                            Well, the geologist I mentioned earlier would apparently agree with you... but others are not agreeing and raised points at that link. What would you say in response to those?
                            Meandering river systems can only form slowly over time in large relatively flat terrains of river basins like the Congo, Amazon and the Mississippi River with associated oxbow lakes from older river patterns. The river systems in the Coal bearing formations were surrounded by swamps where the coal formed like the Congo and the Amazon. The meandering river pattern of the Grand Canyon was established on a broad plain, before the uplift created a greater gradient, and the river system cut the canyon through consolidated rock.

                            It certainly seems to make sense that as the recession slowed, there would be a spectrum of speeds, and somewhere in between top speed and normal river speeds there could be enough to erode recently deposited layers, following the existing channels, so meandering would have to be expected to some extent. You would agree with that latter bit at least, right? (I'm not asking you to agree to the amount, but that meandering patterns should be expected in the later stages.)
                            No not even a little bit. The time factor and topography required for the vast meandering river system found in ancient consolidated rock layers repeated in a layered layer cake uniform and consistent manner in vast river systems.

                            No meandering river systems only form over long periods of time leaving oxbow lakes and swamps where old river channels formed and were abandoned.



                            Not sure I'm following your grammar here... What do you mean by "not even close" -- as in not as big? Looks like the rest, though, is saying that we have proof of forests (I presume atop each other) buried in place. Well, if it can be proven that's what happened instead of their being moved before burial, for multiple overlapping layers, that would obviously be disproof. Can we rule out the alternative I mentioned? (And do we actually have them overlapping and so forth?)

                            Do you accept that in the Flood scenario, at least some trees might be moved with roots still attached, for example? And buried upright as the (admittedly detached-root) Helens cases showed?

                            (Incidentally I don't recall what percentage of Helens trees did land upright, though.)

                            I can imagine situations where that argument would work... but why can't it in these cases? What do you mean by associated here for example?
                            Some trees were upright, but the vast majority were deposited in a disorder jumble associated with the huge ash flow. There is no such record of a catastrophic event in the entire Appalachian syncline depostional sequence.

                            Geologists cannot imagine this because these forests are extensive with root systems and associated with swamp deposits that form the coal were they grew. The other problem is the Appalachian formations are a layer cake of alternating sandstone, shale, and coal associated with the uniform natural formations they were deposited in. Each layer has its own natural erosion surfaces and meandering river and stream systems with coal deposited in the swamps surrounding these river systems. These are vary natural formations and deposited in an orderly manner. No flood deposition possibly could explain this uniform layer cake thousands of feet thick covering hundreds of square miles. Below these formations are the Permian Red Beds. Mostly terrestrial wind blown sand and silt deposits in an arid climate, in a very natural orderly layer cake manner.


                            Shun, I asked you to clarify both of these, and mentioned one thing you might have meant about coral. What is your argument that both of these are problems for the global/near-global flood scenarios?
                            Coral grows very very slowly. The coral in atolls around ancient volcanoes is hundreds of feet thick and continuous without interruption. First, this coral growth takes millions of years. No short time scenario nor world flood fits this scenario. Limestone forms slowly over millions of years by precipitation of Calcium/Magnesium Carbonates often mixed with coral reefs. There many formations of Limestone all over the world in between other strata of sandstone and shale like a layer cake. The parallels in the modern world are the Bermuda and Caribbean Limestone and coral reefs, and the Great Barrier Reef n the process of formation. The rate of growth of coral and time of formation can be measured. This cannot happen in any flood scenario, nor young earth scenario.




                            I would be interested in that. I tried to research it after your previous post. Looks like I may have been using the wrong name, though -- I thought you spelled it Glen. Out of time now to continue...
                            I will look for the thread.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I found some of old Tweb archive here:

                              Old version of Tweb
                              I found an old version of Tweb here but limited in an archive site. My attempts to access it were inconsistent, but I was able to access up to 2013. Any suggestions?

                              https://web.archive.org/web/20130424...eb.com/campus/

                              I posted this previously here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ersion-of-Tweb

                              I looked for the threads in Natural Science, but did not find the one I wanted yet. There are aa few related threads by Glen Morton, but I have not found the one I want yet. This partial archive only goes up to 2013 leaving a gap of several years bofor the current Tweb resurrection.



                              ;
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I believe that covers up to near the crash. However, few thread pages are preserved. It appears that they have only the pages referenced directly from the forum page; i.e. pages 1-n and the last page, where n is small but I don't remember it.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X