Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 121 of 224 (820864)
09-28-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:25 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
I don't remember but I think I must have posted pictures of what I have in mind. The hard thing would be to find a case where they didn't deform in blocks. There is no such thing as one layer being deformed in a different way from the others above and below it.
But that isn't what you've been telling us for the last year. You have said that rocks below an unconformity were deformed differently from the rocks above although at the same time.
Do you now deny that?
There is no such thing as different layers all being deformed in different ways, but that is what one would expect would happen if each was laid down in a separate time frame millions of years from all the others and tectonically deformed in its own time frame.
What actually happens is that older rocks record more tectonic events over time. This is the case in the Grand Canyon section.
Deeper layers record earlier deformations. Hence the Vishnu rocks record something earlier than the GC Supergroup which records something older than the Paleozoic section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 9:36 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 224 (820866)
09-28-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by edge
09-28-2017 9:27 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
But that isn't what you've been telling us for the last year. You have said that rocks below an unconformity were deformed differently from the rocks above although at the same time.
I believe I said that angular unconformities are the only exception to the rule of deformation in blocks of strata, and I'm also talking about STRATA, not granite and schist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 9:27 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 10:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 141 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 6:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 123 of 224 (820868)
09-28-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:31 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
Taq writes:
We observe straight and flat deposits being made right now without any global flood without any rapid deposition. Your model has been falsified.
You do not see anything at all being deposited on the scale and in the form of the Stratigraphic Column.
3/4 of the world lies beneath the waves and are regions of net deposition. That most of the world is marine, and that marine regions are almost always the lowest point (the lowest point being where sediments eventually end up) is why most layers in stratigraphic columns are marine.
How can you continue to be ignorant of this? How can you continually restate your original points as if completely oblivious to the fact that they've been rebutted dozens of times? Are you not reading what is written to you? Are you not understanding what is written to you? Have you just got so much invested in your point of view that you can't give it up no matter how stupid and ignorant it makes you look? I don't say this lightly. That sedimentation has been an ongoing process right up through the present is a basic concept that even a devoutly creationist 6th grader could easily understand. What is your problem that you don't get this?
Faith writes:
Taq writes:
Here is the feature that falsifies your model:
And your photo is pathetic compared to what should be seen of the erosion I'm talking about.
This is how you debate? How productive would it be if we just responded in kind, "No, you're rebuttal is pathetic," (which, ironically, even though I'm just reflecting your invalid criticism back at you, is accurate)?
It has been explained to you many times that sediments seek the lowest points, which are lake and sea coasts and then onward to lake and sea bottoms. These locations are low and flat. What we see in that photograph are deposits of limestone that were once at the surface and had a river flowing across them that eroded a channel. At that time the area was a region of net erosion. Later when the layers became lower in elevation relative to the sea then the region again became one of net deposition.
These scenarios are constructed from very obvious facts, and if you hope to rebut them then you have to stop repeating your original arguments from scratch and begin constructing meaningful responses, and that means going beyond mere name calling like "pathetic" and actually delivering arguments that address all the serious problems in your views, particularly that they ignore facts and evidence and physical laws.
This whole argument is pathetically stupid, that anyone would try to justify such absolute nonsense.
This is a content-free sentence of criticism that actually does communicate useful information, which is that you are woefully ignorant of the topic, and that you haven't any meaningful responses to the rebuttals.
The Stratigraphic Column is over and done with, there is no erosion consistent with millions of years of "time periods" and there shouldn't be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL if the whole Geological Time Scale was true.
Again (I'm repeating this again because I can never know which of what I write you might read, if any - certainly the paucity of knowledge and understanding in your posts say you either don't read or don't understand most of what people write to you), sediments gather at the lowest points, which tend to be flat.
I can't take the stress of this stupidity.
The stupidity causing you stress is your own.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 3:04 PM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 124 of 224 (820869)
09-28-2017 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
09-28-2017 9:36 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
I believe I said that angular unconformities are the only exception to the rule of deformation in blocks of strata, and I'm also talking about STRATA, not granite and schist.
So, at what metamorphic grade do strata stop being strata?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 9:36 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 2:58 PM edge has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 125 of 224 (820870)
09-28-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:07 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:
They aren't going to bend neatly as a block if they are completely lithified.
Why not?
That they do bend together as a unit is evidence that they were all malleable, all of the same age, not millions of years apart.
Lithified rock is malleable, so I don't see what the problem is. Also, why do they have to be of the same age? You don't explain this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 126 of 224 (820871)
09-28-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:25 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:
There is no such thing as different layers all being deformed in different ways, but that is what one would expect would happen if each was laid down in a separate time frame millions of years from all the others and tectonically deformed in its own time frame.
Why would you expect that? You never seem to explain this.
Let's say we have a low lying basin filled with water. For millions of years there is sedimentation which produces multiple layers over millions of years. Once those many layers have formed there is a change in tectonic activity that uplifts and deforms those sediments which have now lithified. Due to the fact that they are uplifted they will no longer be part of a low lying basin and will no longer collect new sediments. This results in a single block of sediments that formed over millions of years that are all deformed together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 127 of 224 (820872)
09-28-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:40 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
Not happening the way the Stratigraphic Column was built. It was not built in basins or at the bottom of the sea, the strata were laid out flat and horizontal, and that is not happening now.
Sediments are being laid down flat and horizontal on 70% of the Earth's surface right now. That is how water lays down sediments. Denying facts isn't helping your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 128 of 224 (820874)
09-28-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:07 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:
They aren't going to bend neatly as a block if they are completely lithified. That they do bend together as a unit is evidence that they were all malleable, all of the same age, not millions of years apart.
Try putting an iron bar in a vise and squeezing it end-to-end. It will bend.
Then try the same experiment with pudding. Will it bend?
Then try it with a vise made of pudding.
Edited by ringo, : Speeling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 129 of 224 (820883)
09-28-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:51 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:
Oh all the picayune irrelevant PRATTs you are coming up with.
No one is making points that have been rebutted a thousand times, because rebuttal isn't something you usually do. Ignoring points, posts and entire threads is more your style.
Sometimes you do attempt rebuttal, as you do here, but do realize that your rebuttal has already been rebutted, not by just one person but by many, and not just in this thread, but in many prior threads. And you have somehow managed to cram at least one error into every sentence. Let's go through it, shall we?
Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are deformed in a whole block of them at once. Twisted, upended, buckled, whatever, always a block of them at once.
Yes, of course "the strata are deformed in a whole block of them at once." All the strata that are present when the tectonic forces are applied are affected. Nothing else could possibly be true. The tectonic forces, whether bending or shearing, are transmitted through all the strata of a stratigraphic column.
You can prove this to yourself with a simple experiment. Place a baseball on the floor. Now place a stack of 10 floor mats on the floor centered on top of the baseball. The lump of the baseball will be transmitted from the bottommost floor mat all the way up to the one at the top. Hence when you go on to say:
One would think that tectonic disturbances would have upended a layer here, and then distorted another there, bent one higher up, etc, if normal events happened over millions of years.
This couldn't be more wrongheaded. Think about it in terms of the stack of floor mats. How are you going to exert a force from the bottom that affects only some of the floor mats in the stack? You can't. It isn't possible.
The same is true of a stack of strata. When tectonic forces exert pressures from below, it affects the entire stack of strata.
Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.
As you've been told many times, rock strata on a scale of miles are easily bendable by tectonic forces. It is well past time for you to take the discussion to the next step instead of repeating your old arguments ad infinitum as if they hadn't already been rebutted. You should have continued, "Now I know it's been pointed out that strata are bendable, but...(continue with the next argument that you make up)..."
The implication of all of this is obvious to any objective observation.
A paragraph of nonsense carries with it no implications, or at least no implications that aren't about the paragraph's author.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 224 (820885)
09-28-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by edge
09-28-2017 10:11 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
I believe I said that angular unconformities are the only exception to the rule of deformation in blocks of strata, and I'm also talking about STRATA, not granite and schist.
So, at what metamorphic grade do strata stop being strata?
Funny, I recall suggesting that the Schist was metamorphosed Supergroup and was told it's not by one of you geological experts. I still thought it was but oh well.
You can't bend strata that no longer have the form of strata. They stop being strata when they are no longer strata but changed into a shapeless mass of schist by heat and pressure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 10:11 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 6:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 224 (820886)
09-28-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
09-28-2017 5:55 AM


Re: The geologic "created (rock) kind" and evidence that is a little squirrely
Faith writes:
No, you see nothing like what I'm describing, you see no massive erosion between any layers, and there should be a lot between all of them if the standard interpretation is true.
You're still repeating this argument as if it hadn't already been rebutted many times. Continuing to repeat the argument will get you nowhere until you somehow come up with a response to the rebuttal.
Once again, the reason this isn't true is because uneven upland regions are still subject to net erosion, not net deposition. Regions of net erosion are not going to be preserved in the geologic record. Only regions of net sedimentation will be preserved in the geologic record. The vast majority of regions of net sedimentation are low and flat, mostly lake and sea bed. That's why most of the layers in stratigraphic columns are marine layers or from coastal regions.
That doesn't exist but without it there is nothing at all to suggest there was ever such a thing as a time period of millions of years anywhere in those layers.
You are again repeating an already rebutted argument to which you have never responded. We know the strata are ancient because we understand sedimentation rates, we have radiometric dating, and the fossils become increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth.
Sorry about the Kaibab squirrel. I can't find a map of the geographic extent of the Kaibab limestone, but I found this description at Wikipedia for "Kaibab Limestone":
RAZD has responded with all the information you could ever need about the Kaibab Limestone, see Message 117 and Message 118. I see you haven't responded to them yet. The question is, if you do actually reply will it be because you actually read them and understood them, or will you just post another of your empty replies?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 5:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 224 (820887)
09-28-2017 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
09-28-2017 9:41 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
It's been explained to all here many many times that erosion between the layers would distort them in visible ways that that idiotic excuse of a rebuttal photo does not demonstrate. It's been explained to you all many many times that if the time scale were true there would not be a wall of strata at all, it would at least be riddled with deep cuts and visibly massively irregular contacts, not even the hint of a straight line, but really there shouldn't be even any strata at all. There shouldn't be discrete sediments at all. That's been explained over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 9:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2017 3:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 140 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 6:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 8:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 224 (820888)
09-28-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:00 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
OMIGOD, a reply from Faith. Apparently all it takes is posting a very lengthy and detailed message, and then you'll get back five sentences that don't even address the issues they purport to address.
Faith writes:
You reject all dating techniques, so how would you know when the continents split relative to when the fictional Flood waters receded?
By the order of events shown on the cross section of the GS-GC for starters.
This is a non-answer. What events are you referring to in this diagram:
And how are you connecting these events to the splitting of the continents?
And then how are connecting these events to the time period when the fictional Flood waters receded?
You know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago the same way you know snakes can talk.
Y'all just have to lie about that don't you?
Except that I'm not lying about it, am I. In fact, you confirm I'm telling the truth by your next statement:
Yes I know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago because apparently God said so. He also said that on one occasion a snake talked. On another occasion a donkey talked. Something neither normally does.
So it's exactly the way I said it was, isn't it, that you know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago and you know snakes talk, and the Bible is the source of your information for both.
So when you call me a liar it isn't because I told a lie about you, it's because I told the truth. Apparently calling people liars who tell the truth about you just happens to be the type of person you are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 134 of 224 (820891)
09-28-2017 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
09-28-2017 3:04 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
It's been explained to all here many many times that erosion between the layers would distort them in visible ways that that idiotic excuse of a rebuttal photo does not demonstrate.
Well that would be due to the fact that the erosion and the carved riverbed in the photo occurred before the next layer was deposited ... after the land was again submerged in a shallow sea and sediment deposition occurred ... not once but twice:
First the Mauv Limestone sediment was deposited; then the surface was exposed and eroded, including a river channel, before being submerged again.
Second the Temple Butte sediment was deposited on top of the Mauv limestone sediment and filling the river channel and building a whole layer on top of the Mauve limestone sediment -- we know this from other sections where the Temple Butte sediment forms a thick layer; then the surface of the Temple Butte sediment was exposed and eroded, and in this location it was eroded away except for what remains in the river bed, before once again being submerged.
Third the Redwall limestone sediment was deposited on top of the Mauve and Temple Butte surface leaving us with the picture seen.
There is no erosion "between the layers," there is erosion during the time between the layers being deposited.
... it would at least be riddled with deep cuts and visibly massively irregular contacts, ...
Like this deep river cut that was then almost completely eroded away ...
... There shouldn't be discrete sediments at all. That's been explained over and over.
There certainly should be no discrete sediments from a flood deposition, everything should be all jumbled up and it should form AT LEAST ONE (1) continuous world wide layer of jumbled material (mostly dense material) -- a layer that covers the whole globe without a break. Where is it? The best you have was this
And that -- generously speaking -- only covers ~60% of North America ... a small slice of the global surface.
How can you believe something this picayune is the result of the massive world wide flying carpet flood.
Without such a world spanning layer of a single depositional environment, there just is no evidence of the kind a global flood would necessarily produce.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 132 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 4:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 224 (820893)
09-28-2017 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
09-28-2017 3:44 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Water
River water
Sea water
Deposits separated sediments
In layers
That's what the Flood did
That's how the Stratigraphic Column was formed
It did not make a jumble
It made a stack of sediments
The idea that there were describable periods of time (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic etc) with definable identifiable living things in some stage or other of "evolution" between the former and the next, each marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles, is so nonsensical I don't know how you all keep yourselves convinced. It can only be by some kind of strange delusion.
You keep saying I haven't provided evidence but I've provided it so many times in the past I'm too tired to drum it all up again. If I could easily find all the relevant threads I'd do it but I'm not up to that either. And besides, the kinds of utterly ridiculous rebuttals I get to anything I say is not much of a motivator. I'm SOOOOOOOO tired of arguing these obvious things to the same old answers.
And again, I'm not reading some of these posts, particularly those by anyone who has attacked me personally and refuses to apologize. I'm sure I'm not missing much anyway, just the same old same old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2017 3:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2017 4:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2017 4:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 139 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 6:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 9:19 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