Jump to content


Photo

An Observation


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 19 July 2017 - 03:53 PM

The other day I took a walk down to a local fossil hunting spot here in Dorset that I’d not been to before (it’s called Chapmans Pool – not sure why, because it’s a sea cove).

Attached File  IMAG0517-min.jpg   67.25KB   0 downloads

 

Within the dark grey shale cliff there were lots of white, flattened ammonites seen in vertical section. Notice how they all lie flat along the bedding plane (they were all like this within the strata, I haven’t just selected a favourable spot).

Attached File  IMAG0523-min.jpg   129.17KB   0 downloads

 

Where blocks of harder shale had fallen out on to the beach the horizontal surface of the shale bed was exposed with the ammonites again lying flat.

 

Attached File  IMAG0524-min.jpg   143.37KB   0 downloads
 

The mainstream interpretation is that the shale was laid down as mud in an offshore environment during the Upper Jurassic. When ammonites died they were most likely to fall flat on the sea floor, just as you would expect. The calcareous shells persisted and were buried in sediment over time as generations of ammonites lived and died over the millennia.

I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. In the unlikely event during this global catastrophe there was a local area of water still enough for sediment particles to fall out of suspension then the heavier ammonites would fall to the bottom first in a dense layer to be deeply buried above by pure mud.

This is just one small but simple observation that I think strongly favours a mainstream interpretation. I imagine there will be some here who would disagree ? If so, why ?
 



#2 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 20 July 2017 - 01:20 AM

...

I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. In the unlikely event during this global catastrophe there was a local area of water still enough for sediment particles to fall out of suspension then the heavier ammonites would fall to the bottom first in a dense layer to be deeply buried above by pure mud.
 

..

Would you kindly provide evidence/support for the assessment in bold. All too often people state "if this would happen, we expect that", without actually providing support.


  • Bonedigger and mike the wiz like this

#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 July 2017 - 05:49 AM

 

 

Wibble: The mainstream interpretation is that the shale was laid down as mud in an offshore environment during the Upper Jurassic. When ammonites died they were most likely to fall flat on the sea floor, just as you would expect. The calcareous shells persisted and were buried in sediment over time as generations of ammonites lived and died over the millennia.

 

 

 

Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time

http://creation.com/...n-year-surprise

 

 

 

Wibble: I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles

 

This seems like argumentum ad ignorantiam to me. "I can't think of a way of this happening with a flood, therefore it didn't happen."

 

In fact I can think of a way.

 

This is the problem with your reasoning Wibble - it doesn't change. You suggest there isn't any possible way something can happen. Do you realise if someone comes up with a possible way then it shows that it isn't impossible?

 

For example I remember you claimed something similar with rock you thought was a desert, and yet many of the facts favoured a watery creation of that sandstone.

 

Just because you can't think of a way something could happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. A flood is catastrophic. If for example, these ammonites were somehow killed or died before a flow, then they could be preserved. Or there it could be inexplicable because we can't think of all of the factors and complicatons. Just because humans don't have all of the answers for specific things, doesn't mean this thwarts a flood. The explanation may not be knowable to us in this present time because we can only think in terms of uniformity "the present causes we see are the key to the past." But if there are catastrophic forces we can't calculate the effects of, then the problem is our limited ability to find out why a flood created this scenario.

 

So?

 

As for your claim they all, "lie flat" have you examined and measured the angles for each fossil? They appear to look generally flat I would say, or at least the ones we can see exposed on the top of the rock.



#4 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 20 July 2017 - 11:29 AM

...
I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. ...

.
Is this result possible? If such random angles after deposit are NOT POSSIBLE, then "they should all lie" is out of bounds.

I doubt anyone has an accurate conception of "random", which is the reason for my question.

#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 20 July 2017 - 03:23 PM

 

...
I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. In the unlikely event during this global catastrophe there was a local area of water still enough for sediment particles to fall out of suspension then the heavier ammonites would fall to the bottom first in a dense layer to be deeply buried above by pure mud.

Would you kindly provide evidence/support for the assessment in bold. All too often people state "if this would happen, we expect that", without actually providing support.

 


I'm thinking a mudflow would be by its very nature a turbulent process. Lithified underwater sediment flows aren't called turbidites for nothing. I don't see any reason why suspended ammonites would all end up all orientated the same when the flow ceased ? I suppose it could be fairly easily tested by mixing a load of Nautilus shells into a mud slurry and cascading it down a steep slope, then checking shell orientation.

 

 

Wibble: The mainstream interpretation is that the shale was laid down as mud in an offshore environment during the Upper Jurassic. When ammonites died they were most likely to fall flat on the sea floor, just as you would expect. The calcareous shells persisted and were buried in sediment over time as generations of ammonites lived and died over the millennia.[/font]


 

Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old.[/size]Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time[/size][/font]

 

 
What's this got to do with the question of ammonite orientation ?
 

 

Wibble: I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles[/font]

 
This seems like argumentum ad ignorantiam to me. "I can't think of a way of this happening with a flood, therefore it didn't happen."[/font]
 
In fact I can think of a way.

 


Pray tell then, don't keep it to yourself.
 

This is the problem with your reasoning Wibble - it doesn't change. You suggest there isn't any possible way something can happen. Do you realise if someone comes up with a possible way then it shows that it isn't impossible?[/font]


Isn't that what creationists do all the time - state (not suggest) there isn't any possible way such and such (anything that falsifies Genesis)is possible.
 

For example I remember you claimed something similar with rock you thought was a desert, and yet many of the facts favoured a watery creation of that sandstone. [/font]


And those alternative facts you pushed about the Cocconino sandstone were shown to be either false or non sequiturs before you disappeared from that particular thread. But that has nothing to do with this topic
 

Just because you can't think of a way something could happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. A flood is catastrophic. If for example, these ammonites were somehow killed or died before a flow, then they could be preserved.


Again, what has this got to do with the orientation ?
 

Or there it could be inexplicable because we can't think of all of the factors and complicatons. Just because humans don't have all of the answers for specific things, doesn't mean this thwarts a flood. The explanation may not be knowable to us in this present time because we can only think in terms of uniformity "the present causes we see are the key to the past." But if there are catastrophic forces we can't calculate the effects of, then the problem is our limited ability to find out why a flood created this scenario.

 
Would a present day tsunami deposit ammonites (or nautilus for a modern day analogue) all lying flat and distributed evenly throughout a deposited sediment matrix ? Surely not and scaling it up a million times to a global tsunami type event does not change the laws of physics. Its just a cop out to appeal to some unknowable reason for why you can't explain it when it is very reasonable to conclude that this supposed event which scoured continents would not leave a neat assemblage of a specific ammonite species (Pavlovia rotunda) all nicely lined up within specific strata looking for all the world as if they were sequentially laid down on a muddy sea floor over a long period of time.
 

As for your claim they all, "lie flat" have you examined and measured the angles for each fossil? They appear to look generally flat I would say, or at least the ones we can see exposed on the top of the rock.[/font]

You can tell by eye that they all lie flat, and you seem to agree



#6 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 20 July 2017 - 03:42 PM

 

...
I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. ...

.
Is this result possible? If such random angles after deposit are NOT POSSIBLE, then "they should all lie" is out of bounds.

I doubt anyone has an accurate conception of "random", which is the reason for my question.

 

 

Maybe there would be a non random aspect to the angles if deposited within a mud flow but I don't see why they would end up as they are observed to be.

 

I'm not claiming proof with this, as we know science doesn't do absolutes, I'm saying this little piece in the enormous jigsaw that falsifies a literal Genesis strongly favours the mainstream view and doesn't make sense with a sudden catastrophe.



#7 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 July 2017 - 11:00 PM

 

 

...
I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. In the unlikely event during this global catastrophe there was a local area of water still enough for sediment particles to fall out of suspension then the heavier ammonites would fall to the bottom first in a dense layer to be deeply buried above by pure mud.

Would you kindly provide evidence/support for the assessment in bold. All too often people state "if this would happen, we expect that", without actually providing support.

I'm thinking a mudflow would be by its very nature a turbulent process. Lithified underwater sediment flows aren't called turbidites for nothing. I don't see any reason why suspended ammonites would all end up all orientated the same when the flow ceased ? I suppose it could be fairly easily tested by mixing a load of Nautilus shells into a mud slurry and cascading it down a steep slope, then checking shell orientation.

When I read your OP, I was thinking the same thing for the same reasons.

 

Then I got to thinking about it....

The fossil containing rock is shale.  Shale is made up of superfine particulate, much like chalk.  Shale cannot form in turbulent water.  The rock itself demonstrates a lack of turbulence in the water at the time of formation. 

 

Also, many corpses tend to float in a particular orientation.  A flat body creature like an ammonite would likely tend to take on a horizontal orientation.

 

Most of the water for the alleged flood would have had to come from the "fountains."  The flood would have been more like a steadily rising tide than the kind of flood we're used to.  In another post, you mentioned a tsunami.  The difference is that a tsunami lasts a few minutes.  This flood took 40 days to rise, then it stayed at full flood for months and then receded for more months.  Unless you have something like continent size land masses sliding along at speedboat velocities as in Brown's Hydroplates or Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, the slow progression of the flood argues against a lot of turbulence.

 

Bottom line .... it is conceivable that the ammonites could be encased in shale and maintain their orientation.

 

 


 

 

Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old.[/size]Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time[/size][/font]

 
What's this got to do with the question of ammonite orientation ? 

Nothing at all.

 

I'm not claiming proof with this, as we know science doesn't do absolutes, I'm saying this little piece in the enormous jigsaw that falsifies a literal Genesis strongly favours the mainstream view and doesn't make sense with a sudden catastrophe.

I think the chalk argument and hot-spot islands were both much stronger pieces of the puzzle.



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 July 2017 - 07:38 AM

Piasan, flume experiments have proven your outdated canard is a relic of old age credulity;

 

 

For more than a hundred years, geoscientists have assumed that long periods of quiet water conditions are required for the deposition of mud. Based on that belief, whenever geologists have encountered mud deposits in the sedimentary record they have interpreted them as forming in a tranquil deposition environment.

 
Long-age scientists have long attacked the idea that Noah’s Flood was a real, historical event, and disparaged the claim by young-earth creationists that the year-long Flood can account for most of the geological deposits exposed on the earth today. One of their major arguments concerns this widely held but erroneous belief........
 
With graduate student Kevin Thaisen, Schieber designed and built a ‘mud flume’ that looks a bit like an oval race track. They installed a motorized belt with paddles to keep the muddy water moving at a constant speed.
 
For mud they used extremely fine clays, calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite, as well as natural lake muds. According to conventional geological wisdom, talc-sized clay material would not settle from rapidly moving water. However, after only a short time the mud was moving along the bottom of the flume. According to Schieber, ‘They accumulated at flow velocities that are much higher than what anyone would have expected.’
 

http://creation.com/...logical-beliefs

 

As for my mentioning the ammonites that were well preserved, obviously it is evidence they are young, and with other creatures with soft parts surviving, it goes against the false belief in millions of years of fictional evolutionary time.

 

By analogy if someone said to me, "hahaha! Look you believe this mummy was killed by Jack the ripper you idiot, yet the autopsy shown the person drowned like we say, in Egypt at the time of the pharoahs." That might seem significant, but if we can show that it isn't a mummy because it has a coin on it's person saying, "1888" then obviously that has significance.

 

In other words, if ammonites show signs of youth how could they have been the product of millions of years of uniformity?



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 July 2017 - 07:40 AM

This is why I prefer operational science to a long-age historical BELIEF system. What the actual science shows in flume experiments, is that we can get everything fast. Coal, oil, desert varnish, fossilisation, strata, lamination, facies, etc....that's what you tend not to know, that all of the things that apparently require a lot of time, just need more force.

 

Either you need a lot of time and a little force, or a little time and a lot of force. This is an axiom which is proven, and a flood would certainly apply the pressures in a shorter time, and we can believe it happened because God said it did, unlike Piasan, who believes men know better than God.

 

The problem with a "little force" is that a little force can't create a lot of the evidential and factual features we see in nature such as at grand canyon where we have a channel cut out that extends some 30 miles. A little force can't create planated surfaces and erosional remnants which stand thousands of feet tall.

 

Bottom line is you're not really giving me any solid reasons to believe that it must have been a little force over a long time, when scientific experiments have proven otherwise in all manner of conditions. With that in mind, we know that even scientists, as well as Wibble, have stated things in the past such as, "can't have been a flood as this shale can only be laid down in tranquil conditions" only to be proven wrong by experiments, recently.

 

Which compounds Fjuri's point - it's not sufficient to just say things, like "can't be a flood, end of story, or a flood would do this".

 

Now I understand if you want to put that forward as a suggestion, but obviously it can be shown that such statements can actually turn out to be non-sequiturs, rather than correct conditional implications.

 

a conditional implication is sound, if the consequent certainly follows the antecedent 100% of the time. If it doesn't then logically it's a non-sequitur to jump to the conclusion that "if X" then "P would certainly follow".

 

So then to qualify that type of reasoning, you have to back up your implication. 

 

So to say, "if a flood happened X fact would occur", this is a weak non-sequitur, not a true implication, because true implications are testable. With a flood, the only backing for that type of assertion, is our ignorance. In the present we have 0% data for a world-scale flood, it seems reasonable that we can say some things about such a massive flood, we can state some consequences for that flood which are fairly obvious, but for the more complicated things which we are guessing at really, we cannot pronounce things with dogmatic assurance for we do so only from ignorance. To say "a flood would have done this" without it really being known or obvious that it would have done that thing, is really speculation. Yes we can be certain a flood would do some things but we have to carefully list the things that would certainly follow and the things which are speculations.



#10 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 21 July 2017 - 12:45 PM

 

 

...
I try to think about this from a flood geology perspective and it doesn’t work because why would they all be lying flat ? If the ammonites all got deposited within a mud flow they should all lie at random angles. In the unlikely event during this global catastrophe there was a local area of water still enough for sediment particles to fall out of suspension then the heavier ammonites would fall to the bottom first in a dense layer to be deeply buried above by pure mud.

Would you kindly provide evidence/support for the assessment in bold. All too often people state "if this would happen, we expect that", without actually providing support.

 


I'm thinking a mudflow would be by its very nature a turbulent process. Lithified underwater sediment flows aren't called turbidites for nothing. I don't see any reason why suspended ammonites would all end up all orientated the same when the flow ceased ? I suppose it could be fairly easily tested by mixing a load of Nautilus shells into a mud slurry and cascading it down a steep slope, then checking shell orientation.
 

 

I'm sorry Wibble, but you didn't seem to understand my point. (Which is obvious since I only used a single sentence.)

 

I would like you to provide actual experiments (by paper/youtube) instead of these thought experiments. Thought experiments have their time and place, but at this moment an actual experiment would be more conductive.

 

Either you need a lot of time and a little force, or a little time and a lot of force. This is an axiom which is proven, and a flood would certainly apply the pressures in a shorter time, and we can believe it happened because God said it did, unlike Piasan, who believes men know better than God.

Piasan actually made an argument FOR the flood in this topic... Which you addressed as being refuted, nice. It would do you well to read the messages you respond to and reply to them according to their content...


Edited by Fjuri, 21 July 2017 - 01:01 PM.


#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 July 2017 - 02:29 PM

 

 

Fjuri: Piasan actually made an argument FOR the flood in this topic... Which you addressed as being refuted, nice. It would do you well to read the messages you respond to and reply to them according to their content..

 

No, specifically the point I refuted was that shale only forms under waters with a lack of turbulence. That wouldn't mean that it can't form under calm conditions, just that it doesn't only form under calm conditions. I am not saying Piasan is wrong though perhaps I shouldn't have said Piasan chooses men over God, perhaps that part of my post wasn't necessary but he knows I don't mean that in a mean spirited way.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 July 2017 - 02:55 PM

 

 

Fjuri: It would do you well to read the messages you respond to and reply to them according to their content...

 

Settle down, just because you made one salient comment doesn't make you the chief arbitrator of debating and me an errant pupil, and thinking you caught me off guard  and attempting to make it look that way is opportunistic behaviour.

 

In other words, don't make the obvious mistake of jumping to the conclusion that I can't read and pay attention, if it seems there is an example where I didn't pay attention. 

 

If I genuinely didn't pay attention, it isn't for the reason you think. It is in fact by design

 

The reason I don't take part seriously in a topic like this is because of the telescope analogy, which would explain the error I believe Wibble makes, in his approach to these issues. That isn't an attack on him, I just believe he basically can't break free of his own subjectivity.



#13 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 21 July 2017 - 02:57 PM

When I read your OP, I was thinking the same thing for the same reasons.
 
Then I got to thinking about it....

The fossil containing rock is shale.  Shale is made up of superfine particulate, much like chalk.  Shale cannot form in turbulent water.  The rock itself demonstrates a lack of turbulence in the water at the time of formation.

 

Agreed 

 

Also, many corpses tend to float in a particular orientation.  A flat body creature like an ammonite would likely tend to take on a horizontal orientation.


Not so sure about that. It would depend on the distribution of mass of the animal. In life it is thought they hung vertically in the water column, like the Nautilus today. I’m not sure why it would necessarily assume a horizontal position after death, except perhaps if gases from decay made it float on the water surface.
 

Most of the water for the alleged flood would have had to come from the "fountains."  The flood would have been more like a steadily rising tide than the kind of flood we're used to.  In another post, you mentioned a tsunami.  The difference is that a tsunami lasts a few minutes.  This flood took 40 days to rise, then it stayed at full flood for months and then receded for more months.  Unless you have something like continent size land masses sliding along at speedboat velocities as in Brown's Hydroplates or Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, the slow progression of the flood argues against a lot of turbulence.


I’m not arguing that there was fast flows and turbulence, it’s just that many creationists would assert that there was this situation during the flood. I mentioned ammonites within mudflows because I recalled IndyDave often asserting these sediment flows were spreading back and forth over the land as tectonic forces violently jostled the planet. I agree with you that shale forming sediment would only be deposited in relatively placid conditions.
 

Bottom line .... it is conceivable that the ammonites could be encased in shale and maintain their orientation.


Assuming that after death the sinking velocity of ammonites was similar to that of the clay particles then they could be equally distributed throughout the resulting shale deposit but maintaining their horizontal aspect during this descent seems implausible to me. Also, there aren’t just ammonites in the Upper Kimmeridgian strata I showed in the OP. There are burrowing bivalves and other benthic marine organisms that in life would not have been floating in the water column. If the YEC explanation is also a relatively benign deposition of all this sediment, why aren’t all these much denser than water objects all accumulated at the base of the deposit, below the ammonites ?

 

I think the chalk argument and hot-spot islands were both much stronger pieces of the puzzle.


Yes they are, as is the angular unconformity argument. This one is just my personal observations and as such I could easily have missed something that overturns it. As it stands, the mainstream explanation seems much the stronger one to me.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:12 PM

 

 

Wibble:  I agree with you that shale forming sediment would only be deposited in relatively placid conditions.

 

It doesn't matter what you agree or believe, flume experiments have shown they can be deposited under turbulent conditions. It's the same with canyons, we have seen a canyon cut out in days, so it doesn't matter if you believe they can only be cut out in millions of years.

 

I think this is always the problem Wibble, you basically DISCARD any actual science, that shows anything that runs counter to what you believe happened



#15 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 21 July 2017 - 03:59 PM

 

 

 

Wibble:  I agree with you that shale forming sediment would only be deposited in relatively placid conditions.

 

It doesn't matter what you agree or believe, flume experiments have shown they can be deposited under turbulent conditions. It's the same with canyons, we have seen a canyon cut out in days, so it doesn't matter if you believe they can only be cut out in millions of years.

 

I think this is always the problem Wibble, you basically DISCARD any actual science, that shows anything that runs counter to what you believe happened

 

 

 

I don't discard science Mike. What you do is compartmentalize ideas but don't look at the whole suite of facts. You may explain one aspect of a problem in isolation but then not realize/ignore the knock on impact on the rest of the argument.

 

So you argue that a turbulent flow could have laid that sediment (presumably very rapidly during the flood). So then now explain why the ammonites all lie flat and why the sea floor dwelling animals I mentioned in my previous post (bivalves etc,) are equally vertically distributed ? Surely you wouldn't say a bivalve would settle out of suspension at the same rate as mud particles ?



#16 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 21 July 2017 - 04:28 PM

I'm sorry Wibble, but you didn't seem to understand my point. (Which is obvious since I only used a single sentence.)
 
I would like you to provide actual experiments (by paper/youtube) instead of these thought experiments. Thought experiments have their time and place, but at this moment an actual experiment would be more conductive.


I did understand your point, its just that I couldn't find any actual experimental data to prove it (either for or against) so I stuck to the thought experiment :D

 

By a mud flow I'm picturing something akin to a volcanic lahar. Under such conditions I'd be shocked if ammonites would orientate all horizontally. If we're talking an underwater flow of suspended fine particles also carrying ammonites then perhaps I'm not so sure that they couldn't all settle out horizontally mixed in with the silt. I agree experimental evidence would be ideal here on that specific point.
 



#17 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 21 July 2017 - 05:05 PM

Could the preponderance of ammonids and other marine fauna in the lower layers be explained by the floodwater of the deluge being non-saline and thus inhospitable to marine life?

#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:09 PM

Piasan, flume experiments have proven your outdated canard is a relic of old age credulity;

My "canard" is the result of direct observation.  We know fine silts will remain suspended in turbulent water.  We observe this in river deltas where the heavier particulate settles out first and smaller material goes farther out to sea.  Mining sluices provide a real world example.

 

 

 

..... According to conventional geological wisdom, talc-sized clay material would not settle from rapidly moving water. However, after only a short time the mud was moving along the bottom of the flume. According to Schieber, ‘They accumulated at flow velocities that are much higher than what anyone would have expected.’

http://creation.com/...logical-beliefs

The key to keeping the fine material from settling is turbulence, not velocity. 

 

I have noted that for the most part the rising .... or receding for that matter ....  water will have little turbulence.



#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:27 PM

This is why I prefer operational science to a long-age historical BELIEF system.

If you like, I can produce a number of examples where you've gone with your "BELIEF system" over operational science....  particularly with respect to the flood.

 

What the actual science shows in flume experiments, is that we can get everything fast. Coal, oil, desert varnish, fossilisation, strata, lamination, facies, etc....that's what you tend not to know, that all of the things that apparently require a lot of time, just need more force. Either you need a lot of time and a little force, or a little time and a lot of force.

When I was a computer tech, we had an expression for that ..... "When in doubt, get a bigger hammer."  Simply applying more force will often have other side effects that we should see.  For example, if something was blowing one amp fuses and we couldn't find the problem, we'd just put in a 20 amp fuse and replace everything that smoked.

 

 .... a flood would certainly apply the pressures in a shorter time

Do you have any idea the depth of water that would be required to apply the kinds of pressure you need for some of the things you're talking about?

 

.... we can believe it happened because God said it did,

Want to discuss the operational sciences now?  Pick your creationist flood model, Vapor Canopy? Hydroplates?  Catastrophic Plate Tectonics?  Let's have a go ......

 

.... unlike Piasan, who believes men know better than God.

Mike has already contacted me on this one.  No offense taken.  But I will point out that my doubts about the flood, and YEC in general are based on observational science.

 

It's only fair I point out my original "BELIEF system" was YEC.  It was operational science that convinced me otherwise.

 

The problem with a "little force" is that a little force can't create a lot of the evidential and factual features we see in nature such as at grand canyon where we have a channel cut out that extends some 30 miles. A little force can't create planated surfaces and erosional remnants which stand thousands of feet tall.

The problem is that a little force will create a canyon that meanders and has sharp bends... like the Grand Canyon.  A lot of force will tend to push right thru making turns much wider .... like the Snake River Canyon.

 

 

 

 

This is why I prefer operational science to a long-age historical BELIEF system. What the actual science shows in flume experiments, is that we can get everything fast. Coal, oil, desert varnish, fossilisation, strata, lamination, facies, etc....that's what you tend not to know, that all of the things that apparently require a lot of time, just need more force.

 

Either you need a lot of time and a little force, or a little time and a lot of force. This is an axiom which is proven, and a flood would certainly apply the pressures in a shorter time, and we can believe it happened because God said it did, unlike Piasan, who believes men know better than God.

 

The problem with a "little force" is that a little force can't create a lot of the evidential and factual features we see in nature such as at grand canyon where we have a channel cut out that extends some 30 miles. A little force can't create planated surfaces and erosional remnants which stand thousands of feet tall.

 

Bottom line is you're not really giving me any solid reasons to believe that it must have been a little force over a long time, when scientific experiments have proven otherwise in all manner of conditions. With that in mind, we know that even scientists, as well as Wibble, have stated things in the past such as, "can't have been a flood as this shale can only be laid down in tranquil conditions" only to be proven wrong by experiments, recently.

 

Which compounds Fjuri's point - it's not sufficient to just say things, like "can't be a flood, end of story, or a flood would do this".

 

Now I understand if you want to put that forward as a suggestion, but obviously it can be shown that such statements can actually turn out to be non-sequiturs, rather than correct conditional implications.

 

a conditional implication is sound, if the consequent certainly follows the antecedent 100% of the time. If it doesn't then logically it's a non-sequitur to jump to the conclusion that "if X" then "P would certainly follow".

 

So then to qualify that type of reasoning, you have to back up your implication. 

 

So to say, "if a flood happened X fact would occur", this is a weak non-sequitur, not a true implication, because true implications are testable. With a flood, the only backing for that type of assertion, is our ignorance. In the present we have 0% data for a world-scale flood, it seems reasonable that we can say some things about such a massive flood, we can state some consequences for that flood which are fairly obvious, but for the more complicated things which we are guessing at really, we cannot pronounce things with dogmatic assurance for we do so only from ignorance. To say "a flood would have done this" without it really being known or obvious that it would have done that thing, is really speculation. Yes we can be certain a flood would do some things but we have to carefully list the things that would certainly follow and the things which are speculations.

 

 

 

 



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:20 AM

 

 

Piasan: The problem is that a little force will create a canyon that meanders and has sharp bends... like the Grand Canyon.  A lot of force will tend to push right thru making turns much wider .... like the Snake River Canyon.

 

Yes but you can't then say the reverse. It's not quite as simple as this, I don't quite mean that axiom as some kind of binary thing, obviously force has many levels, and with the flood there are many stages. It's not just a matter of *bang* a great big tsunami then it assuages. In fact the flood model has stages. The recessional stage has two phases, the abative phase (a lot of force) with sheet water flow off, this is what caused the 30 mile channel at grand canyon in which it sits. Then there is the dispersive phase, with less energy.

 

Of course it's begging the question to say a little force will create grand canyon over a long time because you don't know that any more than if there is a 40 foot gouge in the roadway and rain sits in it, that the rain caused the gouge. The St Helens canyon was cut in days, which has many striking similarities to grand canyon, which is something we do genuinely know and have witnessed. Focusing on dissimilarities between the two isn't logically sound if those differences are only there because of scale. What truly matters is we 100% know, that a canyon can be cut in days with many similar features and some similar topography. To expect the grand canyon to form at St Helens in days, on a miniature scale, would be highly unrealistic in my opinion since the cause of the two canyons wouldn't be the same. But for those features we would expect it to be able to create, it did create.

 

It's not a debate really, because they watched the canyon form in days, proving canyons can form in days. The size of the water flows at grand canyon and the "meandering", is easily explainable if the river is left there. According to my axiom the river could still act on soft rock, and shape it, a lot faster than the same effect on hard rock over millions of years. That meandering was likely cut quicker when the river was slightly larger, and the rock relatively fresh. So it may be a case of "not either, or, but a bit of both".

 

 

 

Wibble: I don't discard science Mike. What you do is compartmentalize ideas but don't look at the whole suite of facts. You may explain one aspect of a problem in isolation but then not realize/ignore the knock on impact on the rest of the argument

 

No this is actually what you do, and I have specifically shown you do this in your other thread, when if you are shown something goes against long ages on a point you thought favoured it, you will jump to another issue to change the goal hoop and then say, "now explain how youth explains this".

 

Your tactic is to forever focus on the portion of evidence which seemingly is consistent with long ages, and highlight the problems for youth.

 

As I have explained before in depth, to which you called a lot of "unnecessary" ranting, or some such thing - the issue of the age of the earth is a broad debate. Because both positions are based on inductive reasoning largely, and historical, and there is a vast array of diverse evidence, this is why in the past I used the telescope analogy, which you now have forgotten I used.

 

If we use a telescope to look into the distance to see what a sign on a board says, "5 miles to mikey town", that is fine - because the issue is specific. But with a broad issue, you can't use the same measure. For example you cannot say, "look through my telescope at this one portion of a mountain, look it is covered in snow, therefore your claim the mountain is generally snowless is a lot of baloney".

 

That doesn't work. 

 

I find it highly ironic and amusing therefore, that you would accuse me of this type of reason when my position personally is that I can't know for sure what happened in the past but you insist on long ages. Furthermore it is even more amusing because each of these topics you create are an example of that telescope analogy. For why would some ammonites (specific) ever pertain to such a broad issue of the ages of the earth (broad).

 

That is why in these debates, I change the focus of the telescope on purpose as to see more of the mountain. I deliberately bring in other issues because those other issues also pertain to the age issue. But each topic you raise is an attempt to argue, "because of specific thing P therefore conclusion X pertaining to broader issue Z."

 

That is why I don't really take part in your topics, because this issue of uniformity versus youth/catastrophe, is a very broad issue. You can never pick out some evidence and ignore the rest of the evidence. You have to focus on the type of evidence which is the most consequential out of all of it, and I don't believe you will allow yourself to see the most consequential evidence. A lot of the types of evidence you pick aren't direct evidence of great age, and don't particularly "stop" a flood, they are usually just speculations and a conclusion that because you think a flood couldn't do it but only ages could, you jump to that conclusion.

 

Now I am not saying you can't debate these individual issues. I am just saying they aren't as important as you THINK they are.

 

Think how easy it would be for me, for example, to use your tactic. If I made a topic about planation, there would only be silence because how can softer rock erode at the same speed as much harder rock, evenly and flatly, like we find on planated surfaces? See - I could create that topic and constantly say, "how could it be anything other than flood since only water can provide such an erosive force to erode evenly." Now would it be incredibly clever if I just forever focused on that point and dismissed all the other issues that pertain to that broad debate? No, it wouldn't but Wibble seems to think it proves a great deal.

 

You won't be able to find one thing that can give you prove off evo and not creation. Those "minutia tactics" are often used by people that try to find an obscure science-reason why "it can only mean evo". In other words - obtuse people that think they can get that type of reasoning past the tactically astute

 

 

 

Wibble: So you argue that a turbulent flow could have laid that sediment (presumably very rapidly during the flood).

 

No, I would say I don't. I would represent my argument this way; I am saying that it seems to me shale could form in tranquil conditions or turbulent conditions and it seems to me there is a possibility for those conditions with a flood.

 

That's all I have to say in this topic. Wibble will have his final word because of the ILLUSION that gives to the audience that the silent debater has no answers because he didn't respond. Another very common psychological tactic. Let's hope the readers are clever enough to see through it. I have noted how Wibble must, always have the final word, and it seems to me he thinks it proves a great deal. What it proves is I have spent sufficient energy already to the point it is unfair to ask more of me. It is futile to continue to debate if it goes in circles but the average man thinks that if you just carry on repeating the same things ad nauseam until your last breath, it will prove a great deal. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users