30,000 feet of water?????

[Subduction Zone]

The images tell a different story. But I understand that people should believe you rather than their own eyes.

No they do not. To see if they are the same stratum or not you have to be able to show that the fossil assemblages of each claimed stratum is different. How are you going to do that with a picture? Are there different lamina? Yes, that is obvious. But stratum and lamina are not synonyms. Especially the way that creationists use the term.

You can't seem to understand that.

 

[blü 2]

There is no water missing. It only looks like that, because ocean floors have gone down, which creates the illusion that more water would be needed.

No intelligent reason to expect universal flood layer. For example because from many areas it would have eroded and also because it was massive event that didn't cause just one layer.

I'll refrain from commenting on your 'no intelligent person' line, and your qualifications for using it.

And we've been through all of what you said before.

You seem very like someone who listens only to reject, in order to maintain the untenable proposition that the bible is inerrant. In such a case, there's no point in continuing the conversation ─ such a position is impermeable to fact and reason, and people who hold such views want to live in a story instead of in the real world.

The choice is yours, of course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think local flood would cause them, especially when they are all over the world.

Why not? Floods do happen all over the world.

... though apparently a lot of them aren't formed by flooding at all. Polystrate fossils can be formed by river delta deposition or lahars, depending on the specific case.

How would you explain local flood causing them?

Local flooding and global flooding would use the same mechanism, no?

... but one interesting implication of what you're saying: if you're right, every polystrate fossil was formed at the exact same time. IOW, every polystrate fossil should be dateable to the exact same age. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

... but one interesting implication of what you're saying: if you're right, every polystrate fossil was formed at the exact same time. IOW, every polystrate fossil should be dateable to the exact same age. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

As if he accepts dating techniques....

On the rare occasion where he will accept dating techniques, it will only be when done on artefacts or geological formation that he feels fits his narrative.
Every other dating that contradicts his story, will be rejected at face value with an argument from incredulity.

ie: "My evidence against this, is that I don't believe it"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As if he accepts dating techniques....

On the rare occasion where he will accept dating techniques, it will only be when done on artefacts or geological formation that he feels fits his narrative.
Every other dating that contradicts his story, will be rejected at face value with an argument from incredulity.

ie: "My evidence against this, is that I don't believe it"

Sure - I strongly doubt that @1213 accepts radiometric data or the like. What I was hoping that he'd reflect on a bit - if he sincerely thinks that he's being intellectually honest - is internal consistency within his worldview.

Whatever timeline he's constructed for himself using whatever method, if he's approaching this honestly, he'll recognize that it has to be a single timeline. He has to fit all the available evidence into a single timeline somehow and whatever he associates with the flood will all need to happen at the same time.

Mixing this in with evidence of even relative order of events (Civilization A supplanted Civilization B, or species X "went extinct in the flood", etc.), I expect that it'll end up as a contradictory mess if he puts a bit of thought into it.

 

[Jimmy]

So He invents fantastic tall tales? That's better? Haven't they resulted in 2,000 years of strife, oppression, and war?
I'm not suggesting an in-depth textbook, just a basic foundation of fact and reason; an investigative rather than faith-based approach to questions.

Knowing hidden spiritual wisdoms isn’t for everyone.

 

[Valjean]

Knowing hidden spiritual wisdoms isn’t for everyone.

And cannot be rationally accepted sans objective evidence. At the very least some consistency or concordance of wisdoms might be adduced.

 

[1213]

Demonstrably not the result of a single flood.



Demonstrably not the result of a single flood.



Demonstrably not the result of a single flood



Demonstrably not the result of a single flood


Demonstrably not referring to one single flood.

Please demonstrate that it is as you say.

 

[1213]

Polystrate fossils only form in three types ...

Sorry, I have not enough reason to believe that.

 

[1213]

So you believe in a version of "evolution on steroids", where evolution occurs at rates so imaginably huge that there would be some 10 to 15 speciation events PER DAY.

I don't think there is even 15 specification events. Can you list even 10, what are they?

 

[1213]

Post such an image and explain your claim.

If stratum is something that consists of many layers of almost the same material, then I apology, it was not a correct word in this case. Obviously all the layers are approximately the same material in same place always, in a fast flood event. I think these images are nice examples of such layers.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fkgov.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fscience%2Fpolystrate-fossil-joggins-full.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=098dd35f6b2064d9fa64bae4cd017801103fa9a3b9b612e1001c6b3bcf4e23bb&ipo=images

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic-www.icr.org%2Fi%2Farticles%2Faf%2Fpolystrate_trees_wide.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e85bb792128b03794c433f205ebf6af7274aa616e3cd97c09df2c3aaaa6024f8&ipo=images

You didn't answer the question. You claimed they were evidence of a global flood.
How?

Because it is the best explanation for the formation. Or can you give a better one?

 

[1213]

Local flooding and global flooding would use the same mechanism, no?

To cause very thick layer, it needs a very big flood. Or do you think a small flood would carry enough sediments to bury a whole tree?

... but one interesting implication of what you're saying: if you're right, every polystrate fossil was formed at the exact same time. IOW, every polystrate fossil should be dateable to the exact same age. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

I don't think we have any method to really date those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please demonstrate that it is as you say.

Have you forgotten already? The fact that ice floats alone refutes your beliefs.

If you insist on burying your head in the sand no one can make you understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To cause very thick layer, it needs a very big flood. Or do you think a small flood would carry enough sediments to bury a whole tree?

No, it just takes an extended period of relatively quick deposition. And those are not even "trees". They are lycopods. And they were rather tough from what I understand. Modern trees will stand for hundreds of years in some environments today. Why do you think that could not happen in the past?

Rates of deposition vary greatly today. They can be from fractions of millimeters a year to inches a year or even more. By the way, the sediment itself often tells us how quickly it was deposited. Just try to deposit massive amounts of fine grained clay to make shale or even worse huge numbers of coccolithophores that make up chalk in just a year. There is a very limited amount of those that can live in a year. The white cliffs of Dover also refute your myth. As does the picture that I presented of Goosenecks State Park that you totally failed to explain.

Ignoring reality does not make it go away. That is why your Ostrich Defense does not work. t is why your side loses all of the time in front of judges that understand the concept of evidence.

I don't think we have any method to really date those.

That is only because you employ the ostrich defense. Keeping yourself ignorant is not a refutation. Once again, no one can force you to learn. But I can point out how you are calling God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If stratum is something that consists of many layers of almost the same material, then I apology, it was not a correct word in this case. Obviously all the layers are approximately the same material in same place always, in a fast flood event. I think these images are nice examples of such layers.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fkgov.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fscience%2Fpolystrate-fossil-joggins-full.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=098dd35f6b2064d9fa64bae4cd017801103fa9a3b9b612e1001c6b3bcf4e23bb&ipo=images

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic-www.icr.org%2Fi%2Farticles%2Faf%2Fpolystrate_trees_wide.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e85bb792128b03794c433f205ebf6af7274aa616e3cd97c09df2c3aaaa6024f8&ipo=images

Because it is the best explanation for the formation. Or can you give a better one?

No, your explanation was refuted over 200 years ago. It is the worst explanation. And yes, especially as you have used the term "stratum" there are no polystrate fossils. Not because there would be "one flood layer" as you tried to claim, but because different strata have different fossil assemblages. And no creationist has ever demonstrated that there are different fossil assemblages at the bottom and the top if that layer where geologists can easily show that different strata have different fossils.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To cause very thick layer, it needs a very big flood. Or do you think a small flood would carry enough sediments to bury a whole tree?

I don't think you understand that floods - sometimes big floods - are observed frequently by humans.

We observe natural levees forming on floodplains along rivers. They can routinely get several meters tall. With the right conditions, they can be even taller.

How tall are the fossils you have in mind?

And floods aren't the only way to deposit material quickly. Volcanic activity can dump huge thicknesses of soil. For instance, we've seen lahars deposit layers as much as ~450 feet thick.

I don't think we have any method to really date those.

Convenient. Not even relatively?

 

[blü 2]

Please demonstrate that it is as you say.

That's to say, you can't offer any evidence for your own case, your assertion that it was done by magic.

Sorry, I have not enough reason to believe that.

That's not because it's incorrect. It's because you wish not to believe it, so as to protect your magical view.

Because it is the best explanation for the formation. Or can you give a better one?

You really really want magic to be true, don't you.

And yet it explains nothing because you don't know how it works. Worse, in my view, you're not even trying to find out.

Do you think Harry Potter is based on a real magician?

 

[Argentbear]

Sorry, I have not enough reason to believe that.

Every time you say that all i can think of is...

 

[Argentbear]

I don't think there is even 15 specification events. Can you list even 10, what are they?

There would be such an event for every species alive or extinct

 

[Argentbear]

If stratum is something that consists of many layers of almost the same material, then I apology, it was not a correct word in this case. Obviously all the layers are approximately the same material in same place always, in a fast flood event. I think these images are nice examples of such layers.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fkgov.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fscience%2Fpolystrate-fossil-joggins-full.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=098dd35f6b2064d9fa64bae4cd017801103fa9a3b9b612e1001c6b3bcf4e23bb&ipo=images

This is from the joggins cliff of Nova Scotia. the rock the tree trunk is burred in is uniform sandstone with inclusions It was deposited in a relatively short period of time from glacial deposits...you know own of the three kids of sedimentation that polystrate fossils form in

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic-www.icr.org%2Fi%2Farticles%2Faf%2Fpolystrate_trees_wide.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e85bb792128b03794c433f205ebf6af7274aa616e3cd97c09df2c3aaaa6024f8&ipo=images

This appears to be from the red river gorge of Kentucky...Routine flooding depositing silt and mud in successive layers one of the other three kinds of sedimentation that polystrate fossils from in

Because it is the best explanation for the formation. Or can you give a better one?

Without evidence to back up your claim why should anyone believe you?