|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As so often happens in these debates the Flood debunker asserts something unprovable about how this or that makes the Flood impossible and I respond with something equally unprovable to argue that it doesn't have to be that way but some other way that makes the flood possible. So we have the usual list of such speculative stuff coming from you guys here. Velocity is again made a part of it. There's no reason to assume great velocity to carry sediments on to the land and all you can do IS assume it. We've got the "fountains of the deep" stirring up the ocean floor and the ocean water in general which would also stir up the sediments that washed off the land. The water should have been thick with such sediments as the sea level rose over the continents so that they'd be deposited by tides and waves or precipitated out of standing water etc. I'm sure you could think of scenarios more conducive to the Flood if you had a mind to and gave it a little thought but you don't and you won't.
But there is also actual evidence besides this war of unprovable plausibilities, mostly in the cross sections I've spent so much time on in the past, cross sections that show the impossibility of the Time Scale theory plus facts that support the Flood. A lot of it shows that the strata were deposited one after another sediment after sediment before any tectonic activity occurred. This is shown on the cross section of the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area, as well as on mnay others though not quite as unambiguously. But here's another unambiguous one: William Smith's cross section of England, which I'll post at the bottom of the message. It clearly shows that the strata were all laid down before they were tectonically deformed, which among other things disproves the timing claimed for the breakup of Pangaea because ALL the srata from Precambrian to the present were clearly all in place before being pushed into their current tilt. According to current theory Pangaea broke up before all the strata were laid down, but clearly that is not the case. There is no disturbance to the strata shown for that supposed time period. There is no indication whatever on any of the cross sections I have shown that any layer existed for any great time before the next was deposited. All the facts show continuous deposition, rapid deposition followed by tectonic deformation. It's so absolutely clear that one can only marvel at the continued insistence that millions of years existed from layer to layer. Against that kind of irrational mindset there is clearly no point in further debate. And then there's the fact that the sedimentary rocks that form the geological column cover huge areas of geography. This alone shows that former time periods associated with any such layer of rock are an absolutei impossibility. The rocks exist, there is no denying them. Life can't live on a rock, and it can't live where enormous amounts of sediment are getting deposited. Despite what you think is OTHER evidence for your theory, these two facts I'm discussing here show to it to be absolutely impossible. Yet as usual it will be denied, and how can anyone answer flat-out denials? I consider the evidence to show that the Time Scale is absolutely falsified and the worldwide Flood is the best explanation of the facts, yes the evidence, but it will be denied as usual. It makes all the contrary evidence utterly irrelevant. It's been proved over and over on old threads and really, just this one post alone disproves it anyway. There's plenty of other evidence I've given that backs this up though it's more easily rationalized away; this evidence isn't but it will be denied anyway. Here's Smith's cross section:
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wondered about that. Also the chalk cliffs. But the point is made without them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Here's a geological map of the UK done by the same William Smith who made the cross section. What it shows is the strata as they have been eroded away exposing the strata beneath. The cliffs of Dover are of course Cretaceous, just one of the strata. The island was clearly rather roughly treated by the tectonic upheaval after the Flood laid down all the layers.
But I'm sure edge was interested in Siccar Point because it's an angular unconformity. As I recall it's much earlier in the Time Scale than the Dover cliffs, Devonian I think?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All your stuff is open to interpretation because there is no way to know for sure if the past was the same as the present, but the cross sections and the map are straightforward evidence that the Time Scale is a fiction.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The cross section(s) and the map along with tons of other eivdences of the same sort ARE evidence that shows the Time Scale couldn't possibly be true. If anyone would just stop and think, really, just think for a change, you'd have to recognize that layers of sediment cannot possibly represent time periods of millions of years. The diagrams show that the layers were all deposited first, all of them, every last one of them, from Precambrian to Holocene/Eocene, one after another, nothing in between, and in fact nothing coujld possibly have lived when the layers were being deposited, just think for pete's sake, and after all were laid down, all of them, THEN AND ONLY THEN were they tilted and eroded and otherwise deformed. The cross section shows them tilted as a block. all of them from Precambrian to "present" time, and the map shows that they were all laid down and THEN eroded, -- eroded areas expose layers beneath.
Really, all it takes is some honesty and clear thought. But as I said I know it isn't going to happen. You won't think about it, you just won't. The establishment understanding, utterly false though it is, is just believed to be true and breaking that mindset isn't going to happen. Even Smith, the maker of the section and the map believed it. Anybody here ever going to wake up and see the truth? Guess not. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The problem is that all the OTHER evidences are just a distraction since what I posted trumps them all. IF you would think about it. But you prefer the distractions, can't even get you to focus on the evidence I've presented. You accuse me without even thinking about the evidence. It's the evidence that shows the truth, I'm not believing anything except what the evidence shows.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You haven't thought about it at all, you're just spouting the usual party line. I wonder lately if you even know how to think, you've said such utterly foolish things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
NOBODY has even tried to address the points I made about the cross section (Message 355) and the map. You've all either changed the subject entirely or blasted me with accusations. Not any attempt to address my argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Siccar has to be interpreted as I've done many times, as tectonic tilting of the lower section while the upper were in place.
But the cross section itself and the map both illustrate my point that the layers were all in place before being deformed or eroded. That plus the fact that nothing could live when the sediments were being deposited is enough to show that the Time Scale is a fantasy and that the Flood is the most likely explanation of the strata.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Concerning Siccar Point, there is no evidence to support the standard interpretation either, as is the case with so many things on your side -- as usual it is just assumed that the horizontal section was laid down later. I'd have to check Siccar again but my impression of many angular unconformities is that the upper section often looks sort of... perched there rather than deposited, which would be evidence on my side.
The cross section ought to be sufficient to show that the strata were all laid down before deformation, whatever you think of Siccar Point. And that order of things means the standard understanding of when Pangaea broke up is wrong. The whole island was covered with strata, then deformed. Actually it looks like the entire island was raised to the north, which explains why the Cretaceous Dover cliffs go right down to the water though they are quite high in the geological column, though that's just a side observation, not an argument. In any case the cross section I've posted so many times of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area shows the same order of events, strata all in place followed by massive tectonic disturbance, raised land, volcanism, erosion. I've shown dozens of other cross sections too to make the same point although they aren't as clear as these two -- they don't support an argument against it either though, they're just ambiguous. The map adds to the picture by showing how the layers have been eroded away exposing the layer beneath in the usual Geo Time Scale order. Whole island composed of strata. It would be nice to see a three dimensional model of it, I bet one exists somewhere. Perhaps Geology has taken note and has an explanation for the interesting Southwest-to-Northeast pattern of erosion indicated on the map? I've been wondering about that. Is that the direction the tilted strata follow perhaps, that are shown on the cross section? Otherwise it suggests the direction of the receding Flood water across the island, which I've been figuring occurred simultaneously with the whole tectonic upheaval. Nobody believed Alfred Wegener at first either you know and a lot of his work must have involved looking at maps. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Either my observations are correct or they are not. I'm not the subject here, address my points. If I hung out at Siccar Point or the Grand Canyon for a year you wouldn't take anything I said any more seriously anyway, as well I know from the way creationists are treated who have spent lots of time at those sites.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Terrible isn't it that I have such nerve? I agree. I know when I'm right. Terrible.
I wonder if edge has been to Siccar Point? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you have contradictory evidences you go with those that are indisputable and put aside those that require something to be true that you can't prove.l
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The trilobites are nothing more than cousins, and for whatever reason the Flood did sort sediments and creatures. You have no proof for your theory either, it IS all theory, period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know, which I've said many times before. All I can say is that water sorts things, otherwise I stick to arguments I know prove the Flood without question.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024