Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 1896 (713572)
12-14-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I don't want to be here, I don't want to deal with all this right now. All I want to say in response to your posts at the moment is:
the horizontality is an issue because it demonstrates the lack of disturbance to the individual layers over their millions of years, no tectonic distortion, no jagged irregular erosion such as would be seen during exposure at the surface for a long period. OF INDIVIDUAL LAYERS. Erosion which would be VISIBLE FROM A LONG DISTANCE AWAY AND NOT REQUIRE PEERING AT IT FROM CLOSE UP>
I would expect magma to disturb the layers IF THE VOLCANO OCCURRED AT ANY POINT IN THEIR FORMATION, BEFORE THE WHOLE STACK WAS LAID DOWN, but the evidence is that it all occurred afterward. And iff I'm right about the effect of the volcano beneath the GC it caused the Great Unconformity, of course also made the granite and the schist, also the quartzite in the Supergroup Shinumo, AND it casued the uplift of the entire canyon area, it uplifted the entire stack above the unconformity, cracking the uppermost layers above the Kaibab, causing the original opening that led to the carving out of the whole canyon, and so on....
Yes, that's my favorite cross-section, the one from Wikipedia, thanks for putting it up. Since the northernmost part of the Grand Staircase also appears to be uplifted where the magma dike penetrates the layers, and the strata to the north of the fault line are appreciably lower and tilted, it suggests that the volcano there is also the cause of the uplift in that region.
And all those long even layers depicted on the cross-sections DO demonstrate my point about the lack of disturbance over millions of years to the individual layers in their laying down phase, and the disturbances that ARE seen ALL occurred after the entire stack was in place, the erosion of all the upper layers, the canyons and other formations, the lack of horizontality of the entire stack as a unit with its slopes and curves -- which ALL the layers follow quite evenly, remaining parallel to one another, and the magma, which penetrates through the entire stack of the Grand Staircase, not through part of it but through all of it, emerging as lava at the top, ALL THAT SHOWS what I've been claiming about how it was only after ALL the strata were laid down in their pristine horizontality that THEN the tectonic and volcanic and other disturbances occurred.
If you would just get that much, all that FACT, you'd have to reconsider the OE nonsense.
But I really don't have time or patience for all this right now, sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2013 3:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 123 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-14-2013 3:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 124 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 4:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 122 of 1896 (713573)
12-14-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
But I really don't have time or patience for all this right now, sorry.
That's ok, take a break, but when you come back let me know how the microscopic calcite particles from plankton fell to the ocean floor BEFORE the fist sized lumps of flint - one of the hardest rocks on the planet - so as to make those nice layers in the chalk I showed you.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 123 of 1896 (713574)
12-14-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I don't want to be here, I don't want to deal with all this right now
You say "right now", but you clearly mean "ever". "Right now" implies you mean to deal with them at some point, but we know that's not going to happen. You've made it clear that you have no intention of considering the points presented in this thread, so don't try to pretend your retreat is only temporary. Everyone including you knows that you are unable to answer these objections and so will avoid dealing with them indefinitely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 4:37 PM Atheos canadensis has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 124 of 1896 (713576)
12-14-2013 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
And all those long even layers depicted on the cross-sections DO demonstrate my point about the lack of disturbance over millions of years to the individual layers in their laying down phase
That is right, finally. They were at the bottom of the sea when they were deposited, so there was not much disturbance during the million and millions of years that their deposition took. Whenever any of the layers were exposed at the surface erosion took place. That was the only time there was erosion.
And all those long even layers depicted on the cross-sections
You do realize that it is just a graphic representation of the strata, don't you? It is not an actual map of the strata.
There are some sections of exposed strata where you can see nice level layers, but there are huge stretches that show all kinds of disturbance. The straight level stretches are not the rule.
I wish you had posted some photos of the specific stretched of strata you are talking about, along with the exact localities.
It is interesting that quite a lot of the trip I made down through the area last May went past parts of the terrain depicted in that cross-section. I came south past several volcanic cinder-cones into Snow Canyon, just north of St. George, Utah. Then I went east through Hurricane, Utah, where there was a long line of tilted and uplifted blocks of crust. The areas right around them are experiencing a housing boom. From there I went southeast into Arizona to Jacob Lake and then on past the Vermilion Cliffs and Marble Canyon. What spectacular scenery all along the way!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 4:35 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 125 of 1896 (713578)
12-14-2013 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Tanypteryx
12-14-2013 4:04 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The strata were never at the bottom of the sea, ever, except during the Flood.
But your thinking that puts YOU in the position of having to explain to Atheos how the sand grains according to him were so clearly formed aerially and not in water. Can't wait to see how THAT discussion goes. (never mind, I know: so the land was raised for a while and then it fell again or the sea level dropped and rose again. And you all think my scenarios are physically impossible. Ha ha.)
And ALL the disturbances you see to the strata anywere occurred AFTER ALL the strata were in place. But you have to start contemplating that fact on a simple level, by looking honestly at that cross-section for starters.
I wish it were EASY for me to post pictures but it isn't lately. My computer may be on its last legs right now. But there's also that time factor and my impatience. One does get tired of making a great effort to get across simple things only to be ignored and ridiculed. And then if I say THAT I'll only get more ridicule and punishment.
Oh and YES I know it's a graphic for crying out loud. I'm not even going to bother to defend it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 4:04 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 5:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 5:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 129 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-14-2013 5:25 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 126 of 1896 (713579)
12-14-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Atheos canadensis
12-14-2013 3:20 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
You say "right now", but you clearly mean "ever". "Right now" implies you mean to deal with them at some point ...
This is how Cognitive Dissonance works: it becomes stressful to deal with contradictory information, so you devise ways to avoid it and pretend it isn't important, so you tell yourself stories ... "I can deal with it, just not right now, I'll come back to it later, yeah that's it, I'll do it later ..." and when later comes you start all over with the pretense that you KNOW the answer ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-14-2013 3:20 PM Atheos canadensis has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 127 of 1896 (713580)
12-14-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
12-14-2013 4:35 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The strata were never at the bottom of the sea, ever, except during the Flood.
Ok, if YOU say so, it must be true.
But your thinking that puts YOU in the position of having to explain to Atheos how the sand grains according to him were so clearly formed aerially and not in water.
Atheos and I agree about the formations he was specifically talking about. The physical properties of sand clearly demonstrate the the formations he was specifically talking about could only have been formed aerially, when the layers they formed on were exposed on dry land, and could not have been formed by any kind of flood or submersion. This is one of those facts that falsifies your scenario.
If your hypothesis cannot explain the real world observations then it is crap. If you keep insisting it is true in the face of overwhelming and obvious flaws, the you are deluded and probably should take a break.
When you come back all those flaws in your ointment will still need to be explained.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:15 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 128 of 1896 (713582)
12-14-2013 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
12-14-2013 4:35 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
It's too easy Faith ...
The strata were never at the bottom of the sea, ever, except during the Flood.
But you said the strata were laid down by the flood.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 4:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 129 of 1896 (713585)
12-14-2013 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
12-14-2013 4:35 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But your thinking that puts YOU in the position of having to explain to Atheos how the sand grains according to him were so clearly formed aerially and not in water. Can't wait to see how THAT discussion goes. (never mind, I know: so the land was raised for a while and then it fell again or the sea level dropped and rose again. And you all think my scenarios are physically impossible. Ha ha.)
As Tanypteryx has pointed out, he and i are not at odds. He's not making the claim that all strata were deposited by the Flood and therefore the existence of aeolian depositional features is not problematic for him. But despite your misunderstanding of Tanypteryx's position, the fact that you said he now has to explain to me the issue of the angle of repose means you accept the need to explain this issue if one thinks the strata were aqueously-deposited. But again, you know you can't do this and so you will pretend physical impossibilities are a minor issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:19 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 1896 (713586)
12-14-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
12-13-2013 4:24 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Hi Faith,
I'm sure you know the difference between a conclusion and a procedure. You gave me your conclusions. That is not what I asked.
What I asked was this:
I want to be clear. You are in the field in a place you have never been before, don't know the names of any formations or their ages. What is your procedure for figuring out their depositional environments and history. Please go through this step by step, so others know how to do this.
Please answer the question.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 4:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:12 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 131 of 1896 (713588)
12-14-2013 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
We *do* find these things in layers. Here's a picture of the interbedding at the Grand Canyon taken from a Bible website:
That isn't actually interbedding, they're lying. The words "Bible website" should have been a clue.
Actual examples of what Faith is talking about are supplied by the Surprise Canyon and Temple Butte formations, as she'd known if she'd ever taken an interest in the Grand Canyon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(5)
Message 132 of 1896 (713589)
12-14-2013 6:58 PM


Is Faith an evangelical atheist?
The most obvious conclusion from the discussion in this thread and the earlier "introduction" thread, is that Faith is proselytizing for atheism by trying to make Christianity look absurd.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 133 of 1896 (713590)
12-14-2013 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
the horizontality is an issue because it demonstrates the lack of disturbance to the individual layers over their millions of years, no tectonic distortion
no jagged irregular erosion such as would be seen during exposure at the surface for a long period.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 1896 (713591)
12-14-2013 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2013 7:01 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
You pick a picture that demonstrates the tectonic distortion that I've been arguing occurred after the strata were all laid down. My interpretation is different from yours, but you cannot answer it with a picture I've explained in a different way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 7:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 1896 (713592)
12-14-2013 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by petrophysics1
12-14-2013 5:26 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Deal with the answer you got. You're evading.
OH YOU WANT PROCEDURE? IT'S CALLED OBSERVATION AND LOGICAL DEDUCTION.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by petrophysics1, posted 12-14-2013 5:26 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-14-2013 7:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024