Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 6:32 PM
350 online now:
Faith, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,257 Year: 6,863/21,208 Month: 2,624/2,634 Week: 287/525 Day: 46/74 Hour: 7/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
124125
126
127128129130Next
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith
Member
Posts: 24019
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1876 of 1939 (762666)
07-14-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1875 by Admin
07-14-2015 10:52 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Yes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1875 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 10:52 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1877 of 1939 (762669)
07-14-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1875 by Admin
07-14-2015 10:52 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
So is this an accurate statement of your basic position or not? You just objected to part of it a short while ago, and while you've provided assent to my clarification you haven't actually endorsed that statement, and I'm trying to avoid leaving things in a state of ambiguity:

All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.

Tectonic forces tilted the layers below the Great Unconformity, leaving the layers above undisturbed.

I think this is a clear statement of the discussion (and it is well-needed). I can see questions beginning to form.

For starters, does Faith believe that the schist and gneiss of the basement rocks (Vishnu) are part of the same stratigraphic flood sequence as the overlying Paleozoic rocks? And what would be the evidence for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1875 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 10:52 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1878 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:00 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24019
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1878 of 1939 (762670)
07-14-2015 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1877 by edge
07-14-2015 11:45 AM


Re: Resuming Discussion
For starters, does Faith believe that the schist and gneiss of the basement rocks (Vishnu) are part of the same stratigraphic flood sequence as the overlying Paleozoic rocks? And what would be the evidence for that?

I've stated I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence. I can give you my hypothesis but that's it: the basement rocks would have to have been part of the Flood strata deposition, abe: some transformed by heat and pressure plus igneous intrusions./abe In the Grand Canyon the Supergroup is made up of strata which confirms at least that much of my hypothesis. The schist and gneiss would have to have formed beneath the Paleozoic strata after all were in place, the transformative forces somehow not reaching into the strata above, and I can't prove it so that's that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1877 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 11:45 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1879 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 12:37 PM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1879 of 1939 (762674)
07-14-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1878 by Faith
07-14-2015 12:00 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

I can give you my hypothesis but that's it: the basement rocks would have to have been part of the Flood strata deposition, abe: some transformed by heat and pressure plus igneous intrusions./abe In the Grand Canyon the Supergroup is made up of strata which confirms at least that much of my hypothesis. The schist and gneiss would have to have formed beneath the Paleozoic strata after all were in place, the transformative forces somehow not reaching into the strata above, and I can't prove it so that's that.

Again, I'm trying to remove confusion and ambiguity. What qualities of the strata of the Supergroup are you referring to? And when you say that those qualities confirm "at least that much of my hypothesis," what part of your hypothesis are you referring to?

Edited by Admin, : Clarification coming...

Edited by Admin, : Clarification.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1878 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:54 PM Admin has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24019
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1880 of 1939 (762675)
07-14-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1879 by Admin
07-14-2015 12:37 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
The fact that it is made up of strata.
The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1879 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 12:37 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1881 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 1:02 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1882 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 1:04 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1881 of 1939 (762676)
07-14-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1880 by Faith
07-14-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
The fact that it is made up of strata.
The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata.

How is that different from depositional processes going on today?

In other words, why must it be a biblical flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1882 of 1939 (762677)
07-14-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1880 by Faith
07-14-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

The fact that it is made up of strata.
The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata.

Your extreme brevity is making it very difficult to discern your meaning.

Yes, it's a fact that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata.

Yes, it's a fact that floods can result in sedimentary deposits.

But are you saying that it's a fact that the Flood deposited the layers of the supergroup? Something else? What?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 12:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 1:07 PM Admin has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24019
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1883 of 1939 (762678)
07-14-2015 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Admin
07-14-2015 1:04 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
As I said, I'm no longer claiming anything I can't prove. This is my hypothesis, period. My hypothesis is that the Flood laid down ALL the strata, and that would include the Supergroup.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 1:04 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1884 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 2:03 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1885 by Coyote, posted 07-14-2015 2:05 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 2:06 PM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1884 of 1939 (762682)
07-14-2015 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
07-14-2015 1:07 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Hi Faith,

I'm just trying to achieve clarity and avoid ambiguity. This is in your own best interests because you have many times accused everyone of purposefully misunderstanding you. So please work with me here.

When I read through your last few posts, they appear contradictory. On the one hand you say things like, "I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence," and on the other you state things as fact, such as "The fact that it [Grand Canyon Supergroup] is made up of strata," which is indeed a fact, and "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata," which is only a fact depending upon what you mean.

So do you mean only that floods can leave sedimentary deposits? If so, then that's fine, but you need to say that.

But if you mean something more, perhaps that it's a fact that the Flood deposited the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, then that's not a fact, and it contradicts your statement that you would no longer be making claims for which you have no evidence.

So when you say, "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata" immediately after stating that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata, what do you mean?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 1:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1888 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 5:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1885 of 1939 (762683)
07-14-2015 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
07-14-2015 1:07 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith upthread writes:

I've stated I'm no longer making claims for which I don't have evidence.

Faith writes:

As I said, I'm no longer claiming anything I can't prove. This is my hypothesis, period. My hypothesis is that the Flood laid down ALL the strata, and that would include the Supergroup.


There is no evidence for a global flood. That religious belief has long since been disproved.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 1:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1886 of 1939 (762684)
07-14-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
07-14-2015 1:07 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
As I said, I'm no longer claiming anything I can't prove. This is my hypothesis, period. My hypothesis is that the Flood laid down ALL the strata, and that would include the Supergroup.

OKay, good. Perhaps you'd entertain some suggestions as to why that cannot be so.

For instance...

If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks from the Grand Canyon to the east, we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then suddenly, they disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments.

Most of us would interpret that as a tectonic event occurring during that time period, with deeper basement rocks being uplifted and exposed to erosion whereby sediments are shed from the higher lands above sea level.

In other words, this depicts a tectonic event on the edge of the Colorado Plateau rocks in the middle of your global flood. That would negate your proposal that there was only one tectonic event, only occurring after deposition of the entire section of sedimentary rocks.

What say you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 1:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1887 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 2:30 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 1889 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 7:43 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1887 of 1939 (762686)
07-14-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by edge
07-14-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
edge writes:

If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks from the Grand Canyon to the east, we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then suddenly, they disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments.

I had trouble interpreting this one. Is this a good paraphrase, if not please correct:

"If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks in the Grand Canyon from west to east we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then as we continue east they suddenly disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments."

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 2:06 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24019
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1888 of 1939 (762706)
07-14-2015 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1884 by Admin
07-14-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
So when you say, "The fact that the Flood would have laid down strata" immediately after stating that the Grand Canyon Supergroup is made up of strata, what do you mean?

Floods may lay down layers of sediment, and rivers and rising sea level also lay down layers of sediment, but I will reword this to remove the word "fact" and say that my hypothesis is that the Flood would have laid down ALL the strata in the Grand Canyon including the Supergroup.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1884 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 2:03 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24019
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1889 of 1939 (762714)
07-14-2015 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by edge
07-14-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion

If we trace Pennsylvanian aged rocks from the Grand Canyon to the east, we find that they become more and more coarsely clastic, meaning that more and larger rock fragments make up the units. Then suddenly, they disappear against a major fault with crystalline intrusive rocks on the other side which look very much like the material being eroded to form the sediments.

Most of us would interpret that as a tectonic event occurring during that time period, with deeper basement rocks being uplifted and exposed to erosion whereby sediments are shed from the higher lands above sea level.

In other words, this depicts a tectonic event on the edge of the Colorado Plateau rocks in the middle of your global flood. That would negate your proposal that there was only one tectonic event, only occurring after deposition of the entire section of sedimentary rocks.

What say you?

I'd be well advised to say nothing at all on this miserable thread, since I know I'll only be subjected to abuse of some sort or other and even I can only take so much. But I'm an ***** so I'll give the usual answer, which I've given before, maybe on this thread but I don't remember.

This is the part I always disagree with:

Most of us would interpret that as a tectonic event occurring during that time period,

I don't know in this case but the usual example is of the rock of that particular time period being exposed at the surface. Is that the case here?

I see no reason to think the tectonic event occurred "during that time period" at all. My hypothesis is that tectonic events occurred right after the Flood. In the case of the exposure of a lower layer my guess would be that the layers above were eroded away due to the tectonic movement, just as they were eroded away above the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon area. The existence of the fault adds to that idea too.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 2:06 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1890 by Admin, posted 07-14-2015 8:02 PM Faith has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1890 of 1939 (762716)
07-14-2015 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1889 by Faith
07-14-2015 7:43 PM


Re: Resuming Discussion
Faith writes:

I see no reason to think the tectonic event occurred "during that time period" at all. My hypothesis is that tectonic events occurred right after the Flood. In the case of the exposure of a lower layer my guess would be that the layers above were eroded away due to the tectonic movement, just as they were eroded away above the Kaibab in the Grand Canyon area. The existence of the fault adds to that idea too.

I'm going to disallow this argument because it makes no sense to say that buried layers were eroded. This is a terribly confused paragraph. Please rephrase into something that makes sense. We will not be discussing nonsense, nor will we be spending pages and pages trying to make sense out of nonsense.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1889 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 7:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1891 by Faith, posted 07-14-2015 8:16 PM Admin has responded
 Message 1894 by edge, posted 07-14-2015 9:16 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1895 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2015 9:17 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
124125
126
127128129130Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017