Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-16-2017 7:34 PM
315 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1 (2 members, 313 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,396 Year: 29,002/21,208 Month: 1,068/1,847 Week: 443/475 Day: 106/102 Hour: 5/8

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
33343536Next
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13374
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 466 of 533 (730456)
06-28-2014 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
06-28-2014 8:05 AM


quote:

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.

Perhaps you'd like to support the claim that this erosion happened "all at once" - especially as it's erosion that is still going on. Explain how it's connected to the Flood. And explain how it could possibly be evidence against the old Earth. The strata had to be present before they were eroded. They took hundreds of millions of years to be deposited and lithified. Even if they were eroded "all at once" that fact would not change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 8:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 467 of 533 (730467)
06-28-2014 11:44 AM


Knock myself out being clear in that post and get back all this weird stuff, everything from trivial silly nonsense about how of course it all had to be in place for the canyon to get cut into it, and how it's nothing but an assertion when the description itself is the evidence and the argument and is really quite clear, certainly no mere assertion but something you ought to be able to think through. Too much to ask I guess. I'm even being asked to "support my claim" when it's very well supported in that post. Truly truly weird. Of course the insistence on dates is to be expected but really, you'd think it might be possible even for a hardened evo to respect a creationist's context once in a while. Oh well, guess not.

So the erosion of the monument is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years. The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 11:46 AM Faith has responded
 Message 480 by Percy, posted 06-28-2014 2:10 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 468 of 533 (730468)
06-28-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Faith
06-28-2014 11:44 AM


Knock myself out being clear in that post and get back all this weird stuff, everything from trivial silly nonsense about how of course it all had to be in place for the canyon to get cut into it ...

If that is nonsense, let's see what you consider to be sense.

So the erosion is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years. The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now.

Since, as I may have pointed out to you before, assertion is not argument, perhaps you could show your working.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 11:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 11:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 469 of 533 (730469)
06-28-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 11:46 AM


Percy didn't show his working, he just asserted that's too much erosion there and that the Flood wouldn't have left the monuments standing like that. That's just assertion.

Just depends on how the water flowed in the area what would have been left standing. Seems to me the idea that the area was incrementally eroded over hundreds of millions of years doesn't fit with the formation of a plain around the monuments.

ABE: Of course the Old Earth view insists it all happened over huge long periods of time anyway, as this site does.

A massive amount of water would wash it all away quite neatly though, and wherever it happened to cut a little more deeply around a chunk of strata it would just keep cutting around it and eventually leave it standing quite straight. Then over the years since then the monument would be gradually eroded year by year leaving the skirt around it. I couldn't find an estimation of the rate of erosion but why is that necessary. Again, a few hundred million years should have reduced it to a pile of dust.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 11:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:08 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 470 of 533 (730471)
06-28-2014 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
06-28-2014 8:05 AM


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.

If you genuinely have a way to calculate how much erosion is associated with an erosional surface, now would be a great time to disclose what it is. Generations of geologists to come will be your debtors.

But if, as I suspect, you are just making stuff up, I would advise you, not for the first time, to stop.

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.

Or for the agency which is very obviously responsible for said erosion, namely the Colorado river. You know, the thing that flows through the Grand Canyon? If that is more than a coincidence, you have yet to explain how it got there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 8:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 471 of 533 (730472)
06-28-2014 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Faith
06-28-2014 11:50 AM


Percy didn't show his working, he just asserted that's too much erosion there and that the Flood wouldn't have left the monuments standing like that. That's just assertion.

You're free to ask him. As I'm asking you.

Again, a few hundred million years should have reduced it to a pile of dust.

Show your working.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 11:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 472 of 533 (730475)
06-28-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 12:08 PM


Let me guess that you don't have a clue how long it took that amount of erosion to fall off those monuments. It's sandstone, it's rather precariously perched too, should be shedding bits and pieces every year with the weather changes like the hoodoos do, and the walls of the Grand Canyon. They say it takes about a hundred years to erode two to four feet from the hoodoos. Not sure how to picture that, it's coming off all the exposed surfaces so what are they measuring, what they capture at the bottom or something? Anyway I can't find an estimate for the monuments or the walls of the GC but using all of it for a reference the erosion of the monuments looks about comparable to me. Of course I'm likely to guess much shorter time periods than any Old Earth indoctrinated source. I think it's largely a matter of intuition myself, but I have a suspicion we're going to have to wait until Judgment Day before the facts are all known.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 481 by Percy, posted 06-28-2014 2:29 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 473 of 533 (730476)
06-28-2014 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 12:05 PM


Path was created, water flowed through it, became Colorado River. River as it now is couldn't have created the canyon, which I do think is intuitively obvious but that won't do it for you will it.

Anyway we're getting off the fact that massive erosion occurred after all the strata were in place rather than during their laying down, and that part is demonstrable despite all the weird ways it's getting obfuscated here, and that order of things, again, is evidence that the whole Old Earth scenario is a crock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:05 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:38 PM Faith has responded
 Message 482 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 4:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 484 by herebedragons, posted 06-28-2014 4:59 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 474 of 533 (730477)
06-28-2014 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:28 PM


Let me guess that you don't have a clue how long it took that amount of erosion to fall off those monuments.

That would be why I'm not making quantitative claims that I can't back up with quantitative arguments.

Unlike, for example, you.

I think it's largely a matter of intuition myself ...

Says it all, doesn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 475 of 533 (730478)
06-28-2014 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:34 PM


Path was created, water flowed through it, became Colorado River.

Do you know what a river is?

Anyway we're getting off the fact that massive erosion occurred after all the strata were in place ...

This again? Yes, time runs forward. We concede the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 476 of 533 (730479)
06-28-2014 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 12:38 PM


That's the only point I'm interested in. And the Colorado River did not create the plain surrounding the monuments.

ABE: But the Flood water that finally settled down to river size and ran through the canyon I suppose might have been involved.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:38 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 477 of 533 (730480)
06-28-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 12:37 PM


I did suggest you could take the rate of erosion of the hoodoos for some kind of reference point. All those formations have talus or skirts of yearly erosion. I don't know what two to four feet for the hoodoos actually refers to, but it does all look comparable as far as the amount of stuff at the bottom goes. I mean the formations are still standing though obviously pared down and the erosion skirts haven't completely swallowed them up, which presumably could happen given enough time. Two to four feet in a hundred years does mean the hoodoos will eventually break down to nothing. So will the monuments. But it hasn't happened yet. Don't you think two to four feet, whatever it refers to, suggests that if it had taken millions of years there would be no formations left? I mean, intuitively, common-sensically speaking.

ABE: CORRECTION: "Two to four feet" should be "two to four INCHES per hundred years." Sorry.

Edited by Faith, : correction

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 12:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 1:14 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 478 of 533 (730482)
06-28-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:54 PM


Well, here's the National Park Service on the subject of the Bryce Canyon hoodoos:

Unfortunately hoodoos don't last very long. The same processes that create hoodoos are equally aggressive and intent on their destruction. The average rate of erosion is calculated at 2-4 feet (.6-1.3 m) every 100 years. So it is that Bryce Canyon, as we know it, will not always be here. As the canyon continues to erode to the west it will eventually capture (perhaps 3 million years from now) the watershed of the East Fork of the Sevier River. Once this river flows through the Bryce Amphitheater it will dominate the erosional pattern, replacing hoodoos with a "V" shaped canyon and steep cliff walls typical of the weathering and erosional patterns created by flowing water.

So yeah, the hoodoos will only last a few million years. But obviously that clock starts ticking at the point when the erosional processes start carving the hoodoos, not at the point where the sediment that will eventually form them is laid down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 1:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26756
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 479 of 533 (730485)
06-28-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2014 1:14 PM


The thing is, at the rate given, they have obviously NOT been eroding for the supposed millions of years since they were formed. And yes I KNOW it starts at that point. Sheesh.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2014 4:50 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16339
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 480 of 533 (730490)
06-28-2014 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Faith
06-28-2014 11:44 AM


Faith writes:

So the erosion of the monument is too much for 4300 years? That's pretty funny. It's certainly way too little for a couple billion years. The whole monument should have been dissolved into dust by now.

The oldest layers of the buttes in Monument Valley are maybe 300 million years old, and they have only been exposed to erosive forces for tens of millions of years, but they're aren't tens of millions of years of accumulation of scree because scree, too, is subject to erosive forces. Particles erode off each piece of scree, the piece becomes smaller and smaller, and finally there is nothing left. But of course more scree is continually added to the pile as long as the buttes continue to exist.

The sandstone/siltstone sides of the buttes in monument valley erode at a maximum rate of about a half foot per thousand years, and the scree at the base of the buttes is the material that eroded off their sandstone/siltstone faces. It we look at the image of West Mitten Butte again, which towers a thousand feet above the valley floor, we can see that the scree is in piles that are many, many feet deep:

Since the scree is in piles at least a hundred feet thick, then at a rate of a half foot per thousand years it must have been accumulating for at least a hundred thousand years.

You also haven't explained how narrow towers survived floods so forceful they eroded rock at a rate many, many times faster than even Niagara Falls, and you're still operating under the misimpression that rock forms by drying.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 11:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 9:16 AM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
33343536Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017