Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 91 of 533 (726002)
05-05-2014 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-05-2014 4:15 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model; the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.
Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.
quote:
Siliclastic sediments would have been scoured off the land mass and redeposited; ...
So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land? How can you have a beach with no land masses available? How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from?
...limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself. How's that for a start?
"Coughed up"? Please describe.
How do you form coral reefs in one year? How do you form limestones in deep, turbulent waters? How do the calcareous skeletons form, survive and then become deposited without significant contamination?
What's neat about this model of sea transgression/regression is not where the sediments come from but that the sea DOES deposit them in layers.
?? As far as we know, it still is.
So where's the global fludde?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:26 PM edge has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 92 of 533 (726003)
05-05-2014 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by edge
05-05-2014 4:10 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Apparently, the only geology that matters is the one on display in the Grand Canyon. It's not like the rest of the world is also composed of rocks or anything.
Maybe it's time to discuss a new, more complex geologic section with ample evidence of tectonic upheaval?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:24 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 533 (726004)
05-05-2014 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
05-05-2014 6:05 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
What is your evidence that limestone was scoured off the sea floor, and why would limestone come from the sea floor while siliclastic sediments were scoured off the land, which makes no sense since both contain only marine fossils? Why the difference? If you're going to make stuff up you should at least try to be consistent. Of course that would require actually knowing something about the topic you're discussing.
This is an important observation. I would like to point out also that since the limestones and siliclastics are found together interbedded, in multiple layers, in most stratigraphic columns; the 'scouring' and 'coughig up' are completely incompatible with both the record and each other.
The situation is impossible, a desperate, ad hoc position.
Unless one just wants to declare a miracle and go home...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 6:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 533 (726005)
05-05-2014 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by roxrkool
05-05-2014 6:09 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Apparently, the only geology that matters is the one on display in the Grand Canyon. It's not like the rest of the world is also composed of rocks or anything.
Maybe it's time to discuss a new, more complex geologic section with ample evidence of tectonic upheaval?
I don't think it would make much difference to Faith. She cannot even get a simple situation to make sense.
If we started throwing volcanic rocks around and complex faulting, it might a true catastrophe, right here at EvC.
I'm not going to be responsible for that.
I will aver, just for the record, that global geology is a lot more complex than Faith thinks, and way beyond anything we can possibly discuss here. I'd think that would have become apparent by now, but you just can't predict with these people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by roxrkool, posted 05-05-2014 6:09 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:31 PM edge has replied

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


Message 95 of 533 (726006)
05-05-2014 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by edge
05-05-2014 6:06 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.
And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know.
So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land?
Bedrock I suppose.
How can you have a beach with no land masses available?
Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated.
How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from?
See above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:06 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 8:12 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 96 of 533 (726007)
05-05-2014 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by edge
05-05-2014 6:24 PM


complexity of geology
If we started throwing volcanic rocks around and complex faulting, it might a true catastrophe, right here at EvC.
Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood (ABE: or I should say during the end phase of the Flood) and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.
I'm not going to be responsible for that.
I will aver, just for the record, that global geology is a lot more complex than Faith thinks, and way beyond anything we can possibly discuss here. I'd think that would have become apparent by now, but you just can't predict with these people.
Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow, I stick to those that I can. That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:24 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 8:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 97 of 533 (726008)
05-05-2014 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:31 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.
Based on what?
Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow, I stick to those that I can.
Heh, heh...
You can?
That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.
You really think you comprehend? Why do you think that there are two regional transgressions at the GC along with several minor ones? And that's just the Paleozoic...
Sorry, Faith, not buying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:46 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 98 of 533 (726009)
05-05-2014 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:26 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know.
You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
Bedrock I suppose.
And that bedrock would be... land?
Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated.
So, you agree that there were land masses during the global fludde? Well, thats kind of like ...
what we have ...
ummm...
now....
What happened to ye global fludde?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:49 PM edge has replied

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


Message 99 of 533 (726010)
05-05-2014 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by edge
05-05-2014 6:38 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.
Based on what?
It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.
Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow, I stick to those that I can.
Heh, heh...
You can?
Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.
That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.
You really think you comprehend?
Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.
Why do you think that there are two regional transgressions at the GC along with several minor ones? And that's just the Paleozoic...
Sorry, Faith, not buying.
ABE I haven't yet tried to apply the model to the GC, haven't even fully digested it, I'll let you know when I have. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 97 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:38 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 7:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 8:52 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 100 of 533 (726011)
05-05-2014 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by edge
05-05-2014 6:43 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Everything that could be dissolved or turned into mud came off the land, I assume there was foundational rock that wouldn't. You are quite the nitpicker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:43 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 7:23 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 533 (726012)
05-05-2014 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:46 PM


Re: complexity of geology
It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.
Ah, but some occurred before.
Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.
I differ. Your language clearly shows that you have no background in science, much less geology.
Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.
Heh, heh...
And this is just the watered down stuff. You really have no idea.
Of course you aren't buying your own straw man, which is what this is, since I haven't yet tried to apply the model to the GC, haven't even fully digested it, so this idea is coming only from you.
Well, I do kind of have to guess what you are saying.
But more basically, I'm not buying anything you say about geology or your interpretations, like "It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down."
I've explained this all before, but I'm not going to bother again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 7:33 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 102 of 533 (726013)
05-05-2014 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:49 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Everything that could be dissolved or turned into mud came off the land, I assume there was foundational rock that wouldn't. You are quite the nitpicker.
So, it appears you agree that there was emergent land during the fludde.
I repeat my question: what happened to the global nature of the fludde?
And actually, we know that some 'foundational rock' eroded anyway. We can see the results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 7:27 PM edge has replied

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


Message 103 of 533 (726014)
05-05-2014 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by edge
05-05-2014 7:23 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
So, it appears you agree that there was emergent land during the fludde.
No, it was all under water.
I repeat my question: what happened to the global nature of the fludde?
See above.
And actually, we know that some 'foundational rock' eroded anyway. We can see the results.
Fine, I'll take that into account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 7:23 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 7:32 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 104 of 533 (726015)
05-05-2014 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
05-05-2014 7:27 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
No, it was all under water.
How did beaches form with all of the land underwater, then?
Fine, I'll take that into account.
Just pointing out your lack of knowledge in the subject material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 7:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 7:38 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 105 of 533 (726016)
05-05-2014 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by edge
05-05-2014 7:19 PM


Re: complexity of geology
It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.
Ah, but some occurred before.
Beg to differ, Honorable Geologist Sir.
Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.
I differ. Your language clearly shows that you have no background in science, much less geology.
I'm not a scientist, but my English should be pretty good.
Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.
Heh, heh...
And this is just the watered down stuff. You really have no idea.
Probably not but sometimes the simplest version of things is the most useful whereas knowing too much can get you missing the forest for the trees.
Of course you aren't buying your own straw man, which is what this is, since I haven't yet tried to apply the model to the GC, haven't even fully digested it, so this idea is coming only from you.
Well, I do kind of have to guess what you are saying.
I went back and reworded that because at first I thought you were mocking something you thought I believed, but then I saw you were describing the facts as you see them.
But more basically, I'm not buying anything you say about geology or your interpretations, like "It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down."
No, I suppose you wouldn't.
I've explained this all before, but I'm not going to bother again.
As you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 7:19 PM edge 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