Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 643 of 740 (734994)
08-04-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
07-31-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Good for evil and evil for good, black for white and white for black, bitter fr swt..
Faith writes:
The written word can be misunderstood but the mute natural world is in itself undecipherable.
I suspect that, as is your habit, you were just grasping for whatever argument was convenient at the time without regard to consistency or rationality, but if you *do* really believe this then your participation in this thread with its many (faulty) analyses of evidence from the natural world makes no sense.
Why did it take so long for the human race to arrive at any decent scientific understanding of anything in the natural world?
Consistency evidently didn't even extend as far as the next sentence. If the natural world is "undecipherable" (previous sentence), then how is it we have any scientific understanding at all (current sentence).
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 644 of 740 (734995)
08-04-2014 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Faith
07-31-2014 2:33 PM


Re: Cardenas
Faith writes:
Absolute nonsense, Percy. For one thing everybody has assumptions and putting them aside isn't even possible in most cases.
The only assumptions we're making is that the universe is comprehensible. Even our belief that the laws of the universe are unchanged today from millions of years ago is not an assumption, as there is copious evidence that those laws have not changed in any detectable way.
If you think we have unwarranted assumptions then you can bring them to our attention and we can talk about them, but so far we've been able to provide evidence for everything you've accused us of assuming.
In the same way we will call your unwarranted assumptions to your attention, and that the Bible contains the truth about geological history is an unwarranted assumption on your part. If you're doing science, which is what you should be doing in this thread, then you must cast your assumptions aside and provide evidence for your positions.
Scientifically we must begin with a clean slate and then let the evidence guide our thinking.
But I don't think it's missing, I think the evidence is glaringly obvious wherever you look around this planet. I think science thinks it's missing because science is operating under a delusional theory that colors everything so they can't see the truth about the rocks they are looking at.
So you say, but you're the one who can't seem to provide any explanations of the evidence that don't violate the laws of physics, and who makes up irrational self-serving rules like that the natural world is undecipherable or that where science conflicts with the Bible that science is wrong.
It makes no sense to look at rocks that were clearly formed in a worldwide catastrophic event involving water...etc...
Obviously marine sediments involve water, but there's no evidence of a worldwide catastrophe that laid down the entire geologic column in a single year. The point that I made, and that you ignored, is that you've been able to offer no evidence of a global flood other than to look at the geologic layers and state, "These say 'Flood' to me."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 645 of 740 (734996)
08-04-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
07-31-2014 2:35 PM


Re: Good for evil and evil for good, black for white and white for black, bitter fr swt..
Faith writes:
You guys are good at assertions about such things, with a TOTAL absence of the evidence you think you are so enamored of. My theology is solidly biblical. And I keep trying to avoid such subjects on threads like these but that would mean ignoring the zillion challenges that people throw at me about them.
We all wish it were true that you try to avoid arguments based upon God and Bible in the science threads, but unfortunately it is not. When asked in this thread to support your assumption that there must have been a global Flood, instead of evidence you cited God and Bible, and when challenged and requested to focus on the evidence you instead vigorously defended what you see as your right to use God and Bible as arguments in science threads.
If in the future in this thread (and all science threads) you would actually like to avoid citing God and Bible and keep your attention focused on the evidence I'm sure we would all find it welcome.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 646 of 740 (734997)
08-04-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by Faith
08-02-2014 3:41 AM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
Sure, if you really believe the faults had to go to the top of whatever layer was the topmost at the supposed time they occurred. I can't prove otherwise of course, but there's no necessary reason to believe that. For this example, though, it looks that way. I just wouldn't be dogmatic about it if I were you.
A fault cannot fail to go to the top of a stack of layers, because the rocks making up the strata are heavy in the extreme. No space can ever open up in a stack of layers for more than an instant before the layer above would fall into it. Your advice to not be dogmatic about this is good scientific advice in general, but one mustn't take it too far. In this case what you're actually saying is to not be too dogmatic about gravity.
Look at it this way. We have these layers that I've labeled A through H:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Now a fault occurs that extends from layer H all the way up through layer D, but no higher. Let's say the amount of slip is a kilometer or two, in other words, nothing trivial like a meter a two. Here's what that would look like:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD|         Empty
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE|            Space
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF|DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
------------------------|GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------Basement Rock----|HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
See all that empty space of a kilometer or two between layer C and layer D on the right half of the diagram? A gap that large is impossible. If the thought of simple gravity acting on rock isn't persuasive to you then I offer validation in the fact that no gap of this size in sedimentary layers has ever been observed. As further validation I offer the frequent collapse of caves and mines (which are never anywhere close to a kilometer or two in height) when insufficient support is provided.
Therefore faults must extend all the way up to the surface, and that stack would instead look like this:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA|
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB|
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC|AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD|BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE|CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF|DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
------------------------|GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-------Basement Rock----|HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
And there are faults to the right of that one that go all the way from the bottom to the top, that is to the Base Tertiary, which shows that all the layers were in place when those faults occurred, and there's nothing there to show that the one you mention was earlier except its shortness, which probably doesn't mean that.
What you're referring to as the shorter fault must have extended up to the surface that existed at the time of the fault. Nothing else is possible.
The fault just to the left of that section of strata that lies beneath the Late Jurassic Shelf Edge, occurred with the pushing up of that whole section, leaving the very same strata on the left lower in the stack. That's all that happened there. All the strata were already in place at that time. Probably also the Base tertiary but of course that can't be proved based on the fault lines.
Here's the diagram again:
The part up until the last sentence is written in a way that indicates you think you disagree with me on that point, but either I don't disagree with you or I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
But about the last sentence about the Base tertiary, it could not have been present when the fault occurred, else there would be a discontinuity at the Base tertiary boundary and the fault would be represented on the diagram as extending into the Base tertiary.
Well you're good at the OE fairy tale, I'll give you that. Of course there were no millions of years, no eroded layers of an imaginary unconformity, just all the strata laid down in sequence and faulted and deformed according to whatever forces acted upon various parts of it.
These are just bare assertions with no accompanying evidence or argument. I'll ignore them.
A NOTE ON INTERPRETIVE VERSUS PRACTICAL GEOLOGY
Now, all this is a perfect example of what I'd been calling "historical Geology" that is all nothing but unprovable untestable interpretations. I'm calling it Old Earthism now because that other term apparently includes more than I want to include. But the principle is quite clear. You've got the whole OE interpretive system going there without any way to verify it. Using the very same data I just answer with my own interpretive system which I think is a lot more plausible. For the purposes of Practical Geology none of this should matter, just the positions of the rocks relative to each other. If the Base tertiary was laid down before the faulting or after doesn't matter, all that matters for practical purposes is where the rocks are now.
This, too, is just bare assertion, so I'll ignore this, too.
Feel free to repeat these arguments when you've got something to support them with.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 647 of 740 (734998)
08-04-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
08-02-2014 3:43 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:
This is all interpretive stuff. You have no more support than I do for your interpretation.
When you have more evidence than the "aliens did it" advocates, please let us know.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 648 of 740 (735000)
08-04-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 569 by Faith
08-02-2014 10:02 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:
That diagram shows the usual time periods of the Geo Time Scale, indicating that those layers have been there some time, so where are the new accumulating sediments you are talking about?
Here's the diagram again:
The topmost layer is the Plio-Pleistocene, which extends from about 5 million years ago through the present. The cross section in the diagram runs right across a big section of the Mississippi River Delta, which we know receives a great deal of sediment every year, as does much of the Gulf of Mexico, though of course less than at the mouth of the largest river in North America. So this diagram represents an example of sedimentary layers adding to the geologic column.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 10:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 649 of 740 (735001)
08-04-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:28 AM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
Yes, your diagram shows the geologic column.
More completely you could have said, "Yes, your diagram shows the geologic column, and since this is at the mouth of the Mississippi sediments must be accumulating atop it."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 650 of 740 (735002)
08-04-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:54 AM


Re: An important admission
Faith writes:
It's obvious, take it or leave it.
When people suspect you have no evidence then better to remain quiet than to speak and remove all doubt.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 651 of 740 (735003)
08-04-2014 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Faith
08-03-2014 4:50 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
Let's see. If that "Triassic" salt has supposedly been rising for millions of years but if the reality is it's been rising for only a few thousand I wonder when we might expect those domes to surface in real time rather than OE fantasy time. Anybody calculated their rate of rise?
Excellent question. Yes, someone has calculated their rate of rise. This is from the paper Geology and Hydrogeology, Barbers Hill Salt Dome, Texas:
6. Stratigraphic and structural data indicate that dome growth has slowed since the Eocene, but is still continuing today at a rate of about 40 t060 ft (12 to 18 m) of uplift per million years. This low rate of diapirism would not be a significant factor affecting longterm stability of a toxic waste repository.
That's just the first one I happened to find. It shouldn't be any trouble finding many more if you think that would help.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 4:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 653 of 740 (735006)
08-04-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 613 by Faith
08-03-2014 5:41 PM


Hi Faith,
You say "I've argued" and "I would argue" and so forth, but all you've really done is state your position. You've never offered any evidence for how faults could occur that do not extend to the surface. Please read my Message 642, the part with the diagrams of layers experiencing a fault. It shows how when layers fault downward that all the layers above must go downward with them. And of course when layers are pushed upward then all layers above must be pushed upward, too. It's not possible for there to be significant gaps of empty space between strata, nor for strata to simply disappear or be compressed to invisibility.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 654 of 740 (735007)
08-04-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Faith
08-03-2014 6:04 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
If you're going to say the uppermost layer is as good as horizontal based on the vertical exaggeration, and I agree it is great, then you might as well say that entire formation is horizontal from bottom to top, and in any case the Plio-Pleistocene layer follows the contour of those beneath it though it should have a clearly horizontal surface even at that scale if it's really new deposition.
Here's the diagram again:
What Coragyps is saying is that layers are, for all practical purposes, as horizontal as the lines on this page. They appear non-horizontal on the diagram because of the scale. There's no horizontal scale on your diagram, so I'll have to assume it's a normal amount of vertical exaggeration for a geological diagram. If you stretch the diagram, say, 50 times in the horizontal direction then even lines that look like this:
\
 \
  \
   \
    \
     \
Will look like this after being stretched 50x:
----------------------
This carries implications for the actual attitudes of the faults, too. Faults that lie at what looks to be a 45 degree angle in the diagram are actually almost horizontal. Here's a slightly compressed version of the diagram to give you an idea of how quickly things can become horizontal when you begin approaching the proper scale:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 6:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 656 of 740 (735010)
08-04-2014 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:56 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Faith writes:
You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you.
I think you're just saying this to provoke a response, instigate a crisis.
Faith writes:
I never said waves scour the landscape, I've said the forty days and nights of rain which would bring about something on the order of millions of local scale floods all at once.
Well, then I guess I misinterpreted this from your Message 455:
Faith in Message 455 writes:
Huge waves would have to have occurred somewhere in this process, though, because tides didn't stop and waves don't stop coming up over the land when there is still land for them to come up over. When the water was so heavy with sediments from the scouring, such a wave could have contributed quite a bit of deposition.
So I guess the scouring you mention here isn't from the waves but from the rain. But you say the rain caused "millions of local scale floods", and local scale floods do not scour landscapes. How do you see the landscape being scoured down a depth of miles?
But there you are with your local flood again as if it holds any clues to what a Flood a bazillion times its size would do.
But it was you who described the great Flood as many local floods growing and combining. I agree that that makes a lot of sense in a scenario where it begins raining and just never stops, but it isn't going to scour a landscape down by miles, or even feet in most places. When a low lying region is already filled with water how are there going to be any scouring flows? How could water be flowing violently into a region already filled with water?
Also, the antediluvian landscape would not have been covered by sediments. Land, for the most part, is most often a region of net erosion, not deposition, and even if this were not true, from creation to 4300 years ago is simply too short a time for any significant amount of sediments to have accumulated.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix last sentence so it refers to the correct time period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by edge, posted 08-04-2014 1:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 667 of 740 (735045)
08-05-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:03 AM


Faith writes:
Yes that was my theory and I still haven't given it up completely, but there's no real problem if there were volcanoes during the Flood. I used to thinkj that until the Grand Canyon area seemed to show otherwise.
Do you mean that you used to think there were volcanoes during the flood, but then after looking at the Grand Canyon region you decided that there had been no volcanoes during the flood? If that's what you meant, then yes, the record of geological events in the Grand Canyon region cannot be extrapolated to the entire rest of the world. Each region of the world experienced its own unique geology.
So far the evidence is those two tuffs in the Muav from you and a Nevada formation from edge...
My recollection is that there were far more examples of tuffs and basalt interspersed with sedimentary layers than just three. Let us know if you're interested in the other examples.
...oh I think that was pillow lava which forms underwater,...
Yes, that's correct. Normal basalt deposits or layers form in a terrestrial environment, pillow basalt deposits or layers form in marine or lake environments. The ocean crust is all pillow lava because it forms when lava extrudes into water at oceanic ridges. The Cardenas formed in a terrestrial (reading up a bit I see that the correct geological term is subaerial) environment. The Wikipedia section on the depositional environment of the Cardenas Balsalt even describes how it tells us what what the region was like at the time:
Wikipedia writes:
The lava flows of the Cardenas Basalt represent the subaerial eruption of basaltic and andesitic magma. The interbedded sandstones and hyaloclastites provide evidence that these eruptions occurred in wet coastal environments such as river deltas or tidal flats. The coarseness of the lapillites in the upper unit indicates that the volcanic vents from which this material erupted were close to present day outcrops. The character of the individual flow units suggest that the volcanic strata accumulated at a slightly greater rate than basin subsidence.
This is saying that because the Cardenas includes interbedded (alternating) sandstone and hyaloclastite sublayers, we know the environment was coastal. A modern day example might be the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, whose lava flowed into the ocean until around 2011.
Pillows and tuffs aren't really a problem.
For scenarios where lava was extruded in a subaqueous environment, pillow basalts not only aren't a problem, they're precisely what you would expect. But tuffs, which form from aerially born ash (which can fall into a sea or lake deposit on the bottom), and basalts do not form in subaqueous environments and wouldn't be consistent with such a scenario.
The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed so I don't know how anybody can say they prove anything about when the layers were deposited.
This was explained in a number of recent posts by several people. Could you perhaps examine that material and then be more specific about why you think we can't discern the relative timing of faults and sedimentary layers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 709 of 740 (735129)
08-06-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 661 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:40 AM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Faith writes:
You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you.
I think you're just saying this to provoke a response, instigate a crisis.
I'm completely sincere. It's been a problem for quite a while now.
I don't doubt the sincerity of the feelings, but you have negative feelings about everyone, and now you're giving voice to them in a way that, intended or not, couldn't be better designed to undermine discussion. I'm just going to keep my focus on the topic.
You're describing mud descending from hillsides and burying valleys. How well does this describe what we see today, and how well does it fit with the scouring you also claim happened?
  • If hill and mountainsides were denuded during the flood, why aren't they denuded today? Where did all the soil we see today on our hills and mountainsides come from? Prominences in a submerged landscape would receive very little sediment. And anyway, hills and mountainsides today are covered with soil, not marine sediment such as found in the geologic column. There are very likely lithified marine layers beneath the soil, but the soil itself is definitely not marine.
  • This descent of mud from hills and mountainsides into valleys could not have happened in flat regions like Kansas where there are few hills and mountains.
  • If all the soil from hills and mountainsides washed into the valleys, then valleys were regions of net sedimentation and were not scoured. But you say it was scoured, so ignoring that contradiction, once the mud from hills and mountainsides slides into the flooded valley, how is water going to violently flow into this already water filled valley and denude its landscape down to bedrock?
  • When mud descends from hills and mountainsides into valleys, it is never discovered that any footprints, nests or burrows have been carried whole and unharmed with them.
  • While some hills and mountains in some regions contain a great deal of soil, those in other regions do not. Mudslides are not uncommon in our far western region, but they almost never happen in the east where the hills and mountains are made of rock.
Here you make an assertion about what falling and rising water can do:
...but it's hard to see how that much destructive water both falling on the land and rising in the ocean flood waters wouldn't have broken up everything.
Three quarters of the world is covered with water today. Water rises and covers the land all the time. Landscapes are never scoured down miles, not even feet except by fast moving water, and even fast moving water erodes rock very, very slowly.
The ocean bottom wasn't scoured, either. We can tell because there's a continuous record of sedimentation on ocean floors going back millions of years. Large storms that flood the land are apparent in the sedimentary record off the coastlines of lakes and oceans because they sweep a huge amount of debris and sediment off the land, and there is no record of a global flood 4300 years ago.
Deeply buried antediluvian layers would have been lithified. How do you imagine them to have been wiped away? Rising waters cannot break up rock, and huges waves crashing onto rocks can't break them up either without the passage of much time. In this video waves are crashing onto rocks with little effect, and even in your young Earth scenario this has been going on for at least 4300 years, yet these rocks haven't been broken up:
Here you admit an unavoidable possibility that until now I thought you had ruled out:
Perhaps it's possible it didn't TOTALLY devastate everything, scour it all down completely, who knows,...
You rhetorically ask how could we know whether the flood didn't completely scour the landscape, and the answer is that we could know by seeking and finding these antediluvian remnants. They should be easy to find because they won't be sedimentary yet they'll contain the sand, mud, clay, limestone, footprints, burrows and nests which provided the raw material for the sedimentary layers left behind by the flood.
About why the antediluvian landscape couldn't have been covered by sedimentary deposits, there are two reasons:
  • Most land is an area of net erosion, not net deposition. In most parts of the antediluvian world the land would have been slowly eroding away.
  • There was not sufficient time between creation and 4300 years ago to deposit sediments in depth of any significance. Only a few meters of sediments at most could accumulate in a couple thousand years, and only in low lying areas like lakes, oceans, and a few terrestrial regions.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:40 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Coragyps, posted 08-06-2014 8:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 711 of 740 (735132)
08-06-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:52 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:
The Plio Pleistocene follows the contour of the deformed strata beneath showing it's been there some time and isn't a recent deposit.
Here's the image again:
The Plio-Pleistocene extends from about 5 million years ago to the present. This means the bottom of the Plio-Pleistocene is is not a recent deposit, just as you say. It is the top of the Plio-Pleistocene that is a recent deposit. The top most particles on this layer are from today.
I have no problem with deposition continuing by the way, I just don't see it on the diagram.
That's correct, there's nowhere on the diagram showing the sedimentation that is taking place today. Does this mean you doubt there's sedimentation taking place there today? If so then rest assured that since this cross section runs across the mouth of the Mississippi River that there is sedimentation taking place there today.
By the way, since you say you have no problem with deposition continuing, and since it's continuing atop a geologic column, can we now agree that the geologic column is still growing in regions of net sedimentation?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:52 AM 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