Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8765 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2017 4:54 PM
389 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), caffeine, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,251 Year: 16,857/21,208 Month: 2,746/3,593 Week: 213/646 Day: 91/62 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
36Next
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 451 of 533 (730420)
06-28-2014 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by Faith
06-28-2014 2:18 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
In order for something to be eroded, it must first be present.

What else do you have as evidence for the Flood? All the ingredients of my dinner were grown before they were cooked! How do you explain that, evolutionists!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:25 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25324
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 452 of 533 (730421)
06-28-2014 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 2:22 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
Are you daft? Read what I wrote. Think. Read it again. Think again. Good grief.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 2:34 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12769
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 453 of 533 (730422)
06-28-2014 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by Faith
06-28-2014 2:18 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
But why is it evidence for the Flood? Jumping to conclusions about cherry-picked sites and then universalising those conclusions will emphasise the cherry picking and conclusion jumping rather than leading to the truth.

So make an honest argument which doesn,t rely on jumping to conclusions, or cherry picking if you can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 454 of 533 (730423)
06-28-2014 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
06-28-2014 2:25 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
Well, I am reading it. You write (for example): "This is true of the Grand Canyon where all the strata are there from Tapeats to Kaibab before the canyon itself was cut." Well, yes. This is because in order for a canyon to cut through strata, the strata have to be there before it cuts through them. If they weren't there, it couldn't have cut through them. If the canyon had been cut and then the Coconino Sandstone, for example, had been added afterwards, then if we briefly overlook the gross structural difficulties that this would involve, it would also be true just as a matter of logic that the canyon would not have been cut through it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25324
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 455 of 533 (730428)
06-28-2014 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 2:34 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory. Which is of course what my post is about although you seem to be determined to pretend it's not. There are only three possibilities: you are intentionally twisting my point, or you are stupid or you are crazy. I don't think you are stupid or crazy, but I guess I could be wrong about that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 2:34 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 3:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 457 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2014 3:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 456 of 533 (730431)
06-28-2014 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
06-28-2014 2:44 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory.

OK, let's think about the timing. The Grand Canon Supergroup was laid down between ~ 1200 and 740 million years ago. The Tonto Group dates from the Cambrian Period. Then the rest is Carboniferous and Permian, with the Kaibab Limestone being laid down about 270 million years ago. The cutting of the canyon is relatively recent, say within the last 20 million years.

This means that, yes, the canyon cut through the strata after they were in place, there being no other way for a canyon to cut through strata, because duh.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12769
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 457 of 533 (730433)
06-28-2014 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
06-28-2014 2:44 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
quote:

How about thinking about the timing, WHEN all this happened, because that has enormous implications for Old Earth theory. Which

The timing of the erosion would not in any way affect the time it took to lay down the strata. So no, your argument is false here. More likely in every case the timing of the erosion disproves your views because it started way too early to even possibly fit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 2:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25324
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 458 of 533 (730437)
06-28-2014 3:50 AM


So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years. Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena. We'll deal with the radiometric dating eventually. Creationist ministries already have lots of objections to it anyway.
Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:01 AM Faith has responded
 Message 462 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2014 7:24 AM Faith has responded
 Message 464 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2014 8:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 459 of 533 (730441)
06-28-2014 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:50 AM


No erosion "such" as what? If you mean that the Colorado Plateau contains only one Grand Canyon, we concede the point --- but do not see the need to adduce fictional explanations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25324
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 460 of 533 (730442)
06-28-2014 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 4:01 AM


I guess all I can do is hope somebody reads it who is not stupid, crazy or malicious, one of which I have to suppose you are, and anybody else who fails to appreciate the point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 461 of 533 (730445)
06-28-2014 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
06-28-2014 4:07 AM


As usual, the thing you are supposing is wrong. You should really suppose things less often.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 4:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18664
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 462 of 533 (730448)
06-28-2014 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:50 AM


So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years. Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena. ...

Even though you have been shown and shown and shown the erosional boundaries between layers and the evidence of other river beds part way up the Grand Canyon wall, and all the other "disturbances" that DID occur ... when just ONE disproves your delusional hypothesis ... you prefer to hide under a blanket of willful ignorance pretending they don't exist.

Even though you have been shown that a great flood would not produce the erosional pattern of the Grand Canyon, but rather the erosional pattern of the scablands, that such erosion does not produce spires and perpendicular canyons and many other features found in the Grand Canyon ... you prefer to deny that the canyon is actually evidence that such a flood did NOT occur during or after it's formation ...

... We'll deal with the radiometric dating eventually. ...

Such as the radiometric evidence of different ages for different parts of the canyon shown by the speleothems and the other evidence of age in the canyon.

... Creationist ministries already have lots of objections to it anyway.

All falsified proclamations, delusional assertions and discredited lies, and none of it supported by objective empirical evidence of the kind found in real science.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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 458 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 8:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25324
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 463 of 533 (730450)
06-28-2014 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by RAZD
06-28-2014 7:24 AM


RAZD you "show" me this that and the other and I disagree with it. The scablands are NOT what the Flood would do, they are clearly the result of a catastrophically draining large source of water like a huge lake, like Lake Missoula, which in fact IS the source of the scablands. Lake Missoula was most probably water left standing after the Flood, as were the other huge "prehistoric" lakes. And then they all drained away, the Missoula catastrophically.

You also "show" me what you are calling "erosional patterns" in the Grand Canyon and I disagree with all that too. Sorry. You'd need to have LOTS more erosion BETWEEN layers to make the case you need to make against what I'm pointing out. Lots more, tons more, visibly tons more.

The MASSIVE erosion of the entire stack of layers all at one time is something else entirely and it's fantastic evidence against the Old Earth and for the Young Earth and for the receding Flood as the source of the massive erosion. Since this is such fantastic evidence it calls all the OE dating into question. And from what you've written here I have to suppose that you don't know what I'm talking about.

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 462 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2014 7:24 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2014 9:21 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:05 PM Faith has responded
 Message 485 by RAZD, posted 06-28-2014 5:44 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12769
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 464 of 533 (730453)
06-28-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Faith
06-28-2014 3:50 AM


quote:

So you all prefer to blow off the obvious implication of the fact that there was no such disturbance for hundreds of millions of years

Pardon us for not agreeing with one of your assertions before you even make it, yet alone show it's true,

quote:

Every time I see an example of it such as those hills of sculpted strata in the movie I'm struck with the obvious implication that it makes the millions of years bogus and the Flood the best explanation of the phenomena.

The fact that you jump to a silly conclusion does kat mean that it is an implied by the evidence. Again you need to make a case, rather than complaining that people don't automatically agree with everything you say.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 3:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 465 of 533 (730454)
06-28-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:57 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
Faith writes:

Looks to me like a massive amount of water washed around those formations and washed away all the strata that had to have been there at one time, leaving those monuments, buttes, bumps, hills, whatever they are. Just as it looks like a massive amount of water washed away the strata above the Kaibab rim of the Grand Canyon and formed the cliffs of the Grand Staircase.

You have to blow up this image of West Mitten at Monument Valley to full size to see it clearly, but scree is all around it, far more scree than could have been eroded in the few thousand years since your imagined flood:

Massive flows of water do not erode rock quickly. For example, Niagara falls cut back about 5 feet a year before the diversion of water for hydroelectric power generation. I know you think rock in this western region was softer then and only hardened later, but rock doesn't form this way, plus if the rock had been soft then how would a massive flood have left behind totem structures like this instead of breaking them off:

I don't care if you want to put your varves and your tree rings and your radiometric dating on your side of the evidence ledger for now. But this fact has to go on the Flood side of the evidence ledger.

Fact? What fact? All you've done is described what you've imagined in your own mind. In the real world water doesn't erode rock very quickly, and rock doesn't dry and harden.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add clarification about Niagara Falls cutback rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
36Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017