|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ALL THE TERMS REFER TO THE THEORY, NOT TO PERSONS. Yikes. So if I were to identify the thinking of YEC 'theory' as being schizophrenic, then that would not imply anything personal? Good to know. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So if I were to identify the thinking of YEC 'theory' as being schizophrenic, then that would not imply anything personal? Good to know. If you understood how it applies to the thinking, it would not be personal. The original statement in the article about psychology nobody took as personal. He was demonstrating hidden conflicts in the theory or theories that nobody had recognized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The chalk is a layer like all the layers laid down in the Flood. It extends from the UK to the Middle East.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
At 100 000 years, the ocean has moved in 50 miles. Are you keeping in mind that this all has to become a stack of rocks? I gather that at least the upper sediment of landscape#1 is not yet rock, and now we have ocean starting to move in on top of it? I'm wondering among other things how the extensive straight flat surface at the contact between the strata could be formed under such circumstances.
Sedimentation continues. The sediment more-than-50-miles inland is still the same "terrestrial sediment" accumulating from before. How can this be? Picture the surface of this huge flat rock all this is playing out on, even if it isn't rock yet. What forms on top of it has to be a rock too, all one sediment being the usual case. You can't have two sediments side by side forming on this rock. I don't think I've ever seen such a situation in the strata anywhere. If you still have "terrestrial" sediment accumulating it would have to be accumulating IN the ocean water too -- what would prevent that? It deposited at that same location before, why would it stop? In any case, you have two different "environments" side by side, which doesn't happen. You have to end up with your terrestrial rock on the bottom and a different rock on top of it formed by the ocean transgression. If you have a different vision of this please explain.
However, the sediment above our chunk of lead is now "marine sediment" that is different from terrestrial sediment. Again, apparently beside, or next to, the terrestrial sediment rather than on top of it?
The main points for the rock-formation are as follows: -the rock is now 80-feet deep, The "rock" being landscape #1? If so you seem to be differentiating it from the sediments that have been accumulating above it. Yes?
with 80 feet of sediment above it (40 feet of terrestrial-sediment, and 40 feet of marine-sediment). Here it's one on top of the other. But...
-the sediment around the chunk of lead is now 5% along it's way to becoming rock. This is the "terrestrial sediment" or what?
The main points for the non-destroyed surface (the "landscape") are as follows: -the landscape continues on land... now 50 miles away from the chunk of lead... still growing trees and plants and creatures as happily as ever Side by side with the encroaching ocean? Remember, the ocean-formed rock has to end up on top of the terrestrial rock.
-the marine-scape continues above the chunk of lead... still swimming fish and other ocean dwelling creatures. They are also happy. Am I right that you have two different environments or landscapes side by side? As for the "happy" creatures, this is an intermediate stage where they can go on living in their own habitats. But these environments have to become rock, one on top of the other, at which point the environments will no longer exist and this is when we have to ask where the creatures went. I don't know if we're ready to discuss this, however. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
From encyclopedia.com.
Walther's law of facies implies that a vertical sequence of facies will be the product of a series of depositional environments which lay laterally adjacent to each other. This law is applicable only to situations where there is no break in the sedimentary sequence. Just a moment...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Walther's law of facies implies that a vertical sequence of facies will be the product of a series of depositional environments which lay laterally adjacent to each other. This law is applicable only to situations where there is no break in the sedimentary sequence. OK, I've been using it sloppily. But the particular sequence isn't important for my purposes. The fact that rising sea level deposits a series of different sediments is the important thing for me, because I didn't know anything like that happened until somebody posted the information about Walther's Law here. That fact alone is very useful for understanding how the Flood could have created stacks of sediments, whatever their sequence. Since I have often supposed that the Flood probably wasn't laid down in a smooth continuous rising but punctuated by many breaks, which could be the result of simple wave action, or long tides, Walther's Law wouldn't apply, but the laying down of series of different sediments should still apply, right? I'm glad you posted that but the Flood is supposed to be off topic in this thread. ABE: Occurred to me maybe you were responding to the "side by side" descriptions I was finding in Stile's post. That would probably take some discussion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I believe that Edge's point is, that when you say:
quote: You are flatly denying Walther's Law. It should be quite obvious that Walther's law does describe different sorts of sediment being deposited side by side. And it should not take much thought to see that the divisions between these sediments will move inland during a transgression and back out during a regression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not "flatly denying" anything and you are having one of your typical conniption fits over nothing, just out of this tremendous need you have to find fault with me even if you have to invent it, which of course you usually do.
The situation Stile and I are addressing has to do with a stratigraphic column which as far as I've ever seen is a vertical stack of different sediments, and that is the foundation for this discussion, the vertical strata and nothing else. I've recognized the lateral aspect of Walther's Law in the abstract but not known how to apply it. However, nothing in the discussion here has had anything to do with Walther's Law at all, and I'm quite sure that Stile was not applying Walther's Law but let's see what he says. ABE: I realized that the situation Stile is describing has nothing to do with Walther's Law anyway, since that applies to sediments deposited by changing sea levels. He is talking about ocean transgressing over, or into, a sedimentary accumulation that was deposited by terrestrial means. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Your dislike of criticism is no justification for false accusations.
quote: Since I was explaining why your objection to Stile was wrong it is rather hard to imagine that it is irrelevant to your discussion.
quote: And thus you prove me right, by explicitly denying that Walther's Law applies4 to a transgression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The chalk is a layer like all the layers laid down in the Flood. It extends from the UK to the Middle East. Yes, we know that you make such claims but you never seem to be able to provide any support for those assertions and of course reality shows that you are once again wrong. We know the origins of chalk and what it is made from and it would be impossible even in your fantasy world before the flood to create such massive columns of chalk in the few years you allow before the flood and certainly impossible to create such massive columns in the year of the flood. In addition, the thousands of years of sea erosion since the flood has not been able to move the chalk deposits anywhere. No Faith, the Biblical Flood stories cannot explain the chalk deposits. So once again: How does your flood explain vertical stacks of millions of alternating light colored and dark colored, fine grained the coarse grained layers? How does your flood explain the biological sampling found in reality? How does your flood explain the White Cliffs of Dover or the other British Chalk deposits? How does your flood explain cross bedded sand dunes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The chalk cliffs are a huge flat layer like all the strata.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: And missed South Africa. So much for being global.
The chalk is a layer like all the layers laid down in the Flood. It extends from the UK to the Middle East.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So much for being global? My my. I don't think there's a single
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jar writes: The chalk cliffs are a huge flat layer like all the strata. Well, of course reality shows that not all strata are flat layers but the chalk cliffs generally are. And while there is no flood mechanism that can explain such nice flat layers without the micro layering seen in other big flat layers such as salt beds (yet another thing the Biblical floods cannot explain) the Biblical flood once again fails miserably as an explanation. In fact it is absolutely impossible for a one year even like the picayune Biblical flood stories describe to produce anything like the chalk deposits. However the conventional geological and biological theories do explain the chalk beds. So once again: How does your flood explain vertical stacks of millions of alternating light colored and dark colored, fine grained the coarse grained layers? How does your flood explain the biological sampling found in reality? How does your flood explain the White Cliffs of Dover or the other British Chalk deposits? How does your flood explain cross bedded sand dunes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: You're starting to get it, Faith. There's is not even one stratigraphic column that's is literally global. In fact, all stratigraphic columns are different every few metres. It seems as if you're starting to get to it. That's basic geology.
So much for being global? My my. I don't think there's a single stratigraphic column that is literally global. Why should there be? Faith writes: Really? How so? The stratigraphic columns to the south of my house are completely different from the ones to the north of my house. Just one of the usual nonsensical notions people come up with to try to debunk the Flood. Pathetic really. (To the geologists here; my house is built on the northward facing slopes of hills formed by the upper quartzites of the Transvaal Sequence, dipping south, while the contact between the Transvaal Sequence and the Bushveld Igneous Complex runs east-west around 50 to 100 m north of my house). Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024