Defending the Tale of the Whale

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

Also worth mentioning are deformed conglomerates.

I feel like an idiot, forgetting those!

@Rhythmic_supercat

so under the biblical paradigm It is a belief that there was a noah’s flood. I can personally choose to reject that story or I can accept and believe it.

You can also read it in its original context and understand that it flooded the world known to Noah, or you can choose to force the scriptures into a MSWV straightjacket and pretend it was global.

@Rhythmic_supercat

The other explanation doesn’t offer that choice, you only have evidence and a interpretation of that evidence and acceptance of it, which I’m not to keen on.

That’s because “the other explanation” involves physics and math (and a pinch of chemistry), which don’t allow much space for hand-wavy type answers.

@Rhythmic_supercat

There is nothing to say the water were rushing water’s.

Yes, there is – physics and math.

Those are where I see AiG fail miserably over and over because they just don’t bother with physics and math unless they can somehow make it look like it works for them.

@Rhythmic_supercat

Are you telling me that it will only settle that way?

Not quite. The characteristics of stratified sediments are such that if you even gently bend layers of soft sediment there will be density and layer-surface changes that will result in ‘eruptions’ of more liquefied material into less liquefied as well as the other way around. If you bend the sediments really, really slowly these phenomena can be limited to the layer contact surfaces, but the phenomena can’t be eliminated. One aspect of the problem is that if you tilt sediments, at some point they will try to flow, and the more dense portions will flow through the less dense portions.

@T_aquaticus

Why wouldn’t the fractures verify that the rocks were solid when bent?

This got me thinking about the rock deformation curve from geology class, which I can’t find a duplicate of online – but then it was three-dimensional and not easy to reproduce – and if there’s any way that rocks could fracture and not be solid, which reminded me that “solid” isn’t a very inclusive term; rocks fracture when the stress experienced crosses a three-dimensional surface expressing temperature, pressure, and strength modulus, so rocks can actually fracture when not solid . . . but yeah, though a rock that isn’t actually “solid” can fracture, one that is solid can’t bend without fracturing.

@Rhythmic_supercat

The best that can be done is an alternative explanation, which is what main stream science has done.

No – a proposition can be falsified even if an alternate explanation is not available. That’s how I know – not believe, but know – that the GC and the strata in it were not formed in any massive flood; stick in the numbers and the results say “No way”.

@Rhythmic_supercat

Both explanations are unverifiable and so either one could be true or both are false.

But one – in the case of the GC, the YEC one – can be (easily) falsified.

@Rhythmic_supercat

You are putting things into the story that aren’t there

So is anyone using the term “global” to describe the Flood – that just isn’t in the text.