Evolutionary Theory, Creationism, Panspermia, Simulation Hypothesis? What say you? Any

Daylight63 said:
If you cannot utilize your "hypothesis" of the flood to explain the geology you wished to limit the conversation to, then why do you have that hypothesis?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you"re referring to. You mentioned the need for slow moving or still waters for sediment to separate and I mentioned that was present in the flood story. I guess I was implying the longtime after the initial storm would have created the circumstances for the flat layering.
 
Daylight63 said:
If you cannot utilize your "hypothesis" of the flood to explain the geology you wished to limit the conversation to, then why do you have that hypothesis?
Click to expand...
The other equally puzzling thing for me is as I already mention, my understanding about fossils suggests that rapid burial is required to maintain such detail. I struggle to imagine a scenario of slow burial producing such beautiful examples.
 
Tobytone said:
I'm not sure what you"re referring to.
Click to expand...

You said you wanted to limit the discussion to the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon as an example of quick deposition in a single catastrophic flood.

I merely asked you to explain the features that actually exist at the Grand Canyon using your flood hypothesis.

Tobytone said:
You mentioned the need for slow moving or still waters for sediment to separate and I mentioned that was present in the flood story.
Click to expand...

Sorry but 30 days isn't going to even be MARGINALLY close to the amount of time necessary to account for 100 meters thickness of shale. Physics doesn't work that way.

Tobytone said:
I guess I was implying the longtime after the initial storm would have created the circumstances for the flat layering.
Click to expand...

And this is where your hypothesis fails outright. It's pretty much dead if you can't use it to explain the example you selected.

And that doesn't even START to get into the technical details of what kind of DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES we can see in the rocks. Once we get into those weeds the whole "flood scenario" finally falls apart completely.
 
Hume said:
I asked if you copied your post from another source without citation. You said no. Not seeing anything else to talk about.
Click to expand...
I'm still clueless but that's ok, I appreciate you posting here without cheap insults so for that I thank you. I've been quite surprised so far. I know I've done my share and I'm making attempts to limit my old tendencies.
 
Tobytone said:
The other equally puzzling thing for me is as I already mention, my understanding about fossils suggests that rapid burial is required to maintain such detail. I struggle to imagine a scenario of slow burial producing such beautiful examples.
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis on how fossils are formed is also quite mistaken. Yes sometimes fossils are rapidly buried. But not all the time. Not needed at all in this case.
 
Daylight63 said:
You said you wanted to limit the discussion to the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon as an example of quick deposition in a single catastrophic flood.

I merely asked you to explain the features that actually exist at the Grand Canyon using your flood hypothesis.



Sorry but 30 days isn't going to even be MARGINALLY close to the amount of time necessary to account for 100 meters thickness of shale. Physics doesn't work that way.



And this is where your hypothesis fails outright. It's pretty much dead if you can't use it to explain the example you selected.

And that doesn't even START to get into the technical details of what kind of DEPOSITIONAL FEATURES we can see in the rocks. Once we get into those weeds the whole "flood scenario" finally falls apart completely.
Click to expand...
My apologies for my mistake, the period after the 40 days and 40 nights of the storm was 330 days according to the flood myth.
 
Tobytone said:
My apologies for my mistake, the period after the 40 days and 40 nights of the storm was 330 days according to the flood myth.
Click to expand...

330 days STILL NOT EVEN CLOSE to enough.

Remember: you are trying to amass over 100 YARDS THICKNESS of shale over a very broad region. Several hundred feet thick. AND THAT'S ONLY ONE LAYER. There are MULTIPLE layers of this stuff in the GC.

330 days wouldn't even get you more than a dusting at the bottom of the water column.

That water column will likely have to be on the order of millions of years.
 
Daylight63 said:
And so it goes...
Click to expand...

Daylight63 said:
330 days STILL NOT EVEN CLOSE to enough.

Remember: you are trying to amass over 100 YARDS THICKNESS of shale over a very broad region. Several hundred feet thick. AND THAT'S ONLY ONE LAYER. There are MULTIPLE layers of this stuff in the GC.

330 days wouldn't even get you more than a dusting at the bottom of the water column.

That water column will likely have to be on the order of millions of years.
Click to expand...
Well now, I have experience that suggests you are way off on that one. I guess we'll have to disagree on that point, but that's ok I'm curious if you have any ideas concerning the detailed fossils. How would they form with such detail in the slow burial theory? I just asking without any implications, only my curiosity.
 
Tobytone said:
Well now, I have experience that suggests you are way off on that one.
Click to expand...

Do you? Why don't you present it? Would love to see how physics is completely wrong.

but that's ok I'm curious if you have any ideas concerning the detailed fossils. How would they form with such detail in the slow burial theory? I just asking without any implications, only my curiosity.
Click to expand...

I'm SO SORRY to have wasted your time. I can see that you are going to actually engage with any actual scientific points but run the usual "Gish Gallop".

Sorry I have no interest in that. I've done it too many times.
 
Daylight63 said:
Do you? Why don't you present it? Would love to see how physics is completely wrong.



I'm SO SORRY to have wasted your time. I can see that you are going to actually engage with any actual scientific points but run the usual "Gish Gallop".

Sorry I have no interest in that. I've done it too many times.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the information you've provided, but when you argued about the turbulence a storm would create, I was merely filling in the aspect of the flood myth you might not have considered. Then, you made a claim that, based on my experience, is simply false, I could detail why, but it seems irrelevant now. The preservation of fossils poses another challenge to the idea of slow burial. Again, everything I know about fossils indicates that rapid burial is necessary for such exceptional detail to be preserved. In the Grand Canyon, these aren't exceptions but the norm. I'm open to any feasible argument explaining how such detailed preservation could occur in so many layers if they accumulated at the supposed rate of .1mm per year. In any event, thank for the discussion, I hope you don't see my pushing back as anything other than an attempt know more, and I do.
 
Tobytone said:
Then, you made a claim that, based on my experience, is simply false,
Click to expand...

What claim? The time it takes to amass several hundred feet of clay? You think it can happen in 330 days?

You will need to support that claim. Because it would pretty much violate all of physics.

I could detail why, but it seems irrelevant now.
Click to expand...

Why?

The preservation of fossils poses another challenge to the idea of slow burial.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Not even close. I already explained this to you in some detail and you are acting like this is a new topic. I'm sorry but you will have to read what I post before responding meaningfully.

Again, everything I know about fossils indicates that rapid burial is necessary
Click to expand...

Then you don't know much about fossils. No offense but that's just absurd. Rapid burial would be valuable if you are trying to preserve organic material from being oxidized or eaten by other critters. But that's such a small fraction of what makes up the "fossil record".

For the SECOND and now LAST time I will remind you that most of the fossils you see are preserved HARD PARTS (bones, shells, etc.) So rapid burial is not needed at all.

for such exceptional detail to be preserved. In the Grand Canyon, these aren't exceptions but the norm. I'm open to any feasible argument explaining how such detailed preservation could occur in so many layers if they accumulated at the supposed rate of .1mm per year. In any event, thank for the discussion, I hope you don't see my pushing back as anything other than an attempt know more, and I do.
Click to expand...

Well, first it would require that you actually read what is being said to you. Like the fossil stuff. I already discussed it, you ignored it and now you want to talk about it.

That's not respectful of my time and my patience.
 
As you've just stated, and as I already know, rapid burial is necessary for preserving tissues for fossilization, which is precisely what we see in the Grand Canyon. I've sent pictures of fossils with remarkably preserved details. Your previous explanation doesn't address the fossils I'm discussing, so instead of directly pointing that out, I chose to reframe the question with images again. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the details, but it certainly appears to me that we're dealing with more than just bones. Let's focus on that first. I'll hold off on explaining my extensive experience with sediment collection at the bottom of large bodies of water, where deposition occurs much faster than you've suggested, and likely quicker than you'd anticipate without having done what I have.
 
Tobytone said:
As you've just stated, and as I already know, rapid burial is necessary for preserving tissues for fossilization, which is precisely what we see in the Grand Canyon. I've sent pictures of fossils with remarkably preserved details. Your previous explanation doesn't address the fossils I'm discussing, so instead of directly pointing that out, I chose to reframe the question with images again. Perhaps I'm mistaken about the details, but it certainly appears to me that we're dealing with more than just bones. Let's focus on that first. I'll hold off on explaining my extensive experience with sediment collection at the bottom of large bodies of water, where deposition occurs much faster than you've suggested, and likely quicker than you'd anticipate without having done what I have.
Click to expand...
So, you're saying you're a bottomfeeder? Okkkaaaayyy... :awesome:

(injecting a bit of humor here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top