Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 6:41 AM
195 online now:
caffeine, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 190 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,783 Year: 18,606/29,783 Month: 551/2,043 Week: 103/386 Day: 6/47 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8889
90
9192
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1895
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1336 of 2887 (829722)
03-12-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1333 by Faith
03-12-2018 2:59 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred.

Good grief! If the effects are only seen in certain layers that can only be used as evidence that something happened to only those layers where we see the effects. The lack of any effects in other layers cannot be used to show that the event effected those layers.

Faith writes:

Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days.

They were not built by the flood. The evidence presented completely refutes your fantasy flood. There was no global flood, ever and the lack of a single "chaos layer" proves it.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1333 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 2:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1338 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:46 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1337 of 2887 (829723)
03-12-2018 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1328 by herebedragons
03-12-2018 11:17 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
When I'm responding to jar, whose posts are usually just a bunch of wild assertions and accusations, I don't usually bother to try to prove anything, so "looks like" is the best he's going to get from me. I'm just countering his assertions with assertions from the other point of view.

Remember that, according to you, the surface was violently stripped of materials during inundation by a flood that has no equal. How did animals survive that to be happily skipping around between waves? It doesn't add up..

I've noticed you like to embellish my concepts with terms like "violent." What I usually say is that forty days and nights of heavy rain everywhere on the earth should have stripped the sediment from the land, and I've often given the example of local floods that collapse hills and bury cars and that sort of thing to give a basis for trying to imagine the same kind of event multiplied a billion times. But it doesn't have to be "ALL" the sediment.

What you are imagining is landscapes being captured like a snap shot of time. And you say that if long periods of time existed we should find these "snap shots" throughout the geological record. But in reality, the type of process that would be required to capture a "snap shot" of time in a landscape is a major, rapid flooding event. But we don't see that. We see the result of slow, gradual processes that work to destroy the current surface and build up new surfaces. What you imagine doesn't line up with reality.
\

It's conventional Geology that gives us those "snapshots," by taking the isolated bits and pieces from a rock and constructing a whole scenario based on them.

out the paleosols, termite nests and in situ root systems I presented in Message 993. Those were transported? To the location where apparent ancestral population migrated after the flood? Seems kinda speculative... actually beyond speculative and into nonsense.

Of course paleosols were transported, and root systems, no problem with those. Your language conjures up a whole intact termites' nest but all these things are usually just the bits and pieces I'm talking about, not whole anythings. And dinosaur nests too are usually just smashed flattened remnants yet they get described as if they are intact, just the way a fossilized leaf and a fossilized creature become whole exotic landscapes with trees and animals of a particular "time period."

But the main evidence of the Flood is in the way the strata were laid down and everything else has to follow from that though they may be hard to explain..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 1328 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:17 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1347 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:48 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1354 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:42 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1338 of 2887 (829724)
03-12-2018 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1336 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2018 3:31 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Good grief! If the effects are only seen in certain layers that can only be used as evidence that something happened to only those layers where we see the effects. The lack of any effects in other layers cannot be used to show that the event effected those layers.

A tectonic event can produce local effects. Cracks in the Hermit filled with Coconino sand could be due more to the characteristics of those rocks and the level of the tectonic force than the timing..

They were not built by the flood. The evidence presented completely refutes your fantasy flood. There was no global flood, ever and the lack of a single "chaos layer" proves it.

Now that's just the fantasy of your side. You have no idea what a worldwide Flood would have done but you don't mind acting as if you do.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1336 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 3:31 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1895
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1339 of 2887 (829725)
03-12-2018 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1334 by Faith
03-12-2018 3:02 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

Flat and straight refers to the appearance of strata from a distance, has nothing to do with variations in thickness over thousands of square miles.

And yet, in the past you have erroneously extrapolated that appearance of flat and straight from a distance to imply those same features over thousands of square miles.

Faith writes:

The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers.

How does the "appearance of flatness" from a distance defy the idea of millions of years between some layers? Some layers took millions of years to be deposited and some layers were exposed to erosion for millions of years before the next layer was deposited.

The flatness is an illusion of distance, but why would flatness be evidence against vast amounts of time?

We have shown measurement surveys where the thickness of layers varies greatly, so that shoots down your continued statements "that the flatness defies the the idea of millions of years between layers."


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1334 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1340 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 4:21 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1340 of 2887 (829727)
03-12-2018 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1339 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2018 3:54 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact. And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness. I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack, and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other. I want to post pictures of these but although Percy says it's easy things have changed on Google Image and I'm unable to figure out how to do it.

It doesn't matter how a given layer was supposedly laid down in what order, remember that all these layers are assigned time values so that one had to have been laid down before the next was whether there were supposedly gaps between depositions or not, but they are all timed in millions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1339 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 3:54 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1343 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 6:46 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1344 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 8:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1341 of 2887 (829728)
03-12-2018 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1333 by Faith
03-12-2018 2:59 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.

Conventional Geology is always interpreting this or that event or phenomenon to have occurred during this or that time period,...

Radiometric dating is just one of the 20 or 30 issues you're ignoring in this thred.

...but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred.

Maybe Edge or HereBeDragons can confirm, but I would expect that dating a fault that goes to the surface would be difficult to date, which appears to be the case for the Bright Angel Fault. I thought I was maybe on to something with the Cataract Creek fault zone, but no luck.

Nevertheless let me tell you what I found. A webpage about the Cataract Creek fault zone, some of which is part of the Bright Angel Fault System, has this to say:

quote:
These faults are located on an erosion surface cut on Paleozoic rocks between the Mogollon Rim and the Grand Canyon. Extensive unpublished mapping has been conducted in this area (Shoemaker and others, 1974 #2166), but no intermediate or large-scale published maps exist for most of this area. Cataract Creek faults displace Paleozoic bedrock; Quaternary alluvium is sparse in this area. The geology of the southeasternmost faults of the Cataract Creek system has been mapped in detail (Newhall and others, 1987 #2154). These few faults apparently do not offset Pliocene volcanic rocks.

As near as I can gather, the Cataract Creek fault zone extends from the Grand Canyon 40 miles south down to the Mogollon Rim. About the southeasternmost faults it says that they have been mapped in detail and that they "do not offset Pliocene volcanic rocks." The Pliocene began about 5 million years ago, so these particular faults of the Cataract Creek fault zone must be at least 5 million years old. But since these faults extend through the Paleozoic layers, they must be younger than 250 million years old.

So it seems that we can only date these particular faults to a range between 5 and 250 million years ago, and they definitely did not form while the Paleozoic layers were being deposited. Ah, well.

Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days.

There is no evidence in the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase region of sudden deposition by a flood, for a sizable and varied number of reasons that you're ignoring. See Message 1258 for that list of issues.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1333 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 2:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1342 of 2887 (829729)
03-12-2018 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1335 by Faith
03-12-2018 3:07 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

THE APPEARANCE AND PLACEMENT OF THE KNIFE-EDGE TIGHT CONTACT ABOVE IT, WHICH IS ELABORATED IN MY BULLETED LIST. SHEESH.

I rebutted your bulleted list in the very message you're replying to. Here's the rebuttal again straight from my Message 1329:

This is from the paper Paleozoic stratigraphy of part of northwestern Arizona. I'm unable to get to the paper itself, so I can't get more detail. This quote comes via a Google Scholar search, and without more context a conclusive interpretation isn't possible, but it seems to imply that the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit is made of sandstone, which would make it part of the Coconino Sandstone, not the Hermit Shale:

quote:
The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones.

But

  • it clearly says the contact is "abrupt" and
  • "marked by a sharply defined line" which certainly doesn't include the lighter part

HereBeDragons got access to the paper and provided an excerpt revealing that the above quote is incomplete, but I'll get to that when I reply to HereBeDragons. For now let's just take that quote as I originally found it in my Google Scholar search. The quote says that there is "a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones." Everything pink is below the inch-wide something. Everything gray is from the bottom of the inch-wide something upward into the Coconino.

The excerpt HereBeDragons provided also describes the "shale" in Hermit Shale as a misnomer, saying that it is really predominantly sandstone, but in my reply to HereBeDragons I'll point out that that there seems to be other opinions on that.

  • and that it is between the Hermit and the Coconino.

Well, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, and since the inch-wide something is gray, guess where the line between the Hermit and the Coconino has to be?

  • If that is sandstone right beneath it, it is part of the Hermit, not the Coconino.

You use a lot of pronouns. I can't be sure what "that" and "it" refer to.

  • It also says it is a different color from the other sandstone, one being gray the other pink, showing that it is not part of the Coconino.

Similar to what I said above, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, guess what the gray inch-wide something has to be part of?

  • It's absurd to think there would be a clear contact within the Coconino at that level rather than dividing the Hermit from the Coconino.

Bedding planes are incredibly common within layers. What is your rationale for calling it absurd?

It's incredibly easy to get the impression that you don't read most of what is posted to you, that you just pick out one thing that catches your eye and reply to that. In this case you replied to my first sentence and apparently never read down to where the rebuttal of your bulleted list appears.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1335 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1895
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1343 of 2887 (829730)
03-12-2018 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1340 by Faith
03-12-2018 4:21 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact.

Obviously, there are flat places and non-flat places. You keep thinking that some flat places represent all places.

Faith writes:

And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness.

You have an odd definition of flatness. And no, ALL the strata from the Cambrian to the Holocene are not flat.

The hermit Formation is Lower Permian and is not flat.

quote:
At Bass Trail the Hermit formation is 332 feet thick. At Kanab Canyon, 30 miles northwest of Bass Trail, it is 775 feet thick, according to a section measured by Walcott and compiled by Noble (1922, Pl. XIX). At South Hurricane Cliffs, approximately 32 miles southwest of Kanab Canyon, the formation is 933 feet thick. It decreases slightly in thickness westward and is approximately 700 feet thick at North Grand Wash Cliffs and Pakoon Ridge.

The Navajo Sandstone is Middle Jurassic and is not flat. It varies from less than 300 feet thick to 2200 feet thick. UTAH GEOLOGIC LAYER THICKNESS MAP

Faith writes:

I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack, and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other.

I would like to know how you can look at layers and tell anything about their ages or whether they have been disturbed or not.

You have it backwards, the canyons between the mountains and hills were carved out of the whole stack. I don't know how you can look at that and not see that it takes millions of years to erode away all that material.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1340 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 4:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1344 of 2887 (829732)
03-12-2018 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1340 by Faith
03-12-2018 4:21 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:

Tanypteryx in Message 1339 writes:

Faith writes:

The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers.

How does the "appearance of flatness" from a distance defy the idea of millions of years between some layers?

The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact. And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness.

I think what Tanypteryx meant when he said "from a distance" is that detailed examination often reveals a contact that isn't so flat but has irregularities that can't be discerned from a distance. That doesn't happen to be true of the Coconino/Hermit contact that you describe as "knife-edge tight," but it is true of many other contacts.

More generally, contacts between strata come in all varieties, from sharp contacts to regular contacts to transitional to interfingered and probably lots of contact types I'm unaware of. And sediments can be deposited on flat and mostly horizontal surfaces (a common case) but also on sloping and irregular surfaces. Thicknesses of strata can vary greatly across their extent.

I think the real focus of Tanyperyx's question was how extensive and flat sedimentary layers rule out millions of years between some layers, in other words, unconformities created by erosion of the underlying layer before sedimentation resumes. As has been shown, erosion flattens landscapes.

I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack,...

By "straightness of strata" in mountains do you mean tilted but straight? If so then this doesn't seem unusual for mountains, particularly for basin and range terrains.

...and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other.

How could uplift subsequent to deposition have anything to do with how the layers were originally deposited?

I want to post pictures of these but although Percy says it's easy things have changed on Google Image and I'm unable to figure out how to do it.

Yes, Google Image has changed, and as is the rule for software updates these days, not for the better. You're using Internet Explorer, right? Follow these steps in Google Image:

  1. Enter the search terms you want for the image and hit return (or click on the little magnifying glass icon).
  2. Click on the image of interest. It will create a new section just below the image that includes a larger version of the image.
  3. Right click on the larger version of the image and select Properties from the menu.
  4. From the properties window select the image URL text and copy.
  5. Go to your message entry box at EvC Form and paste the text of the image URL into your [img] code.

If you've upgraded to Windows 10 and instead are using Microsoft Edge (in essence, that's Internet Explorer for Windows 10) then abandon all hope ye who enter here. Follow these steps:

  1. Enter the search terms you want for the image and hit return (or click on the little magnifying glass icon).
  2. Click on the image of interest. It will create a new section just below the image that includes a larger version of the image.
  3. Right click and select "Ask Cortana about this picture". This will bring up a sidebar.
  4. Click on "See full size picture".
  5. The picture will be displayed in its own tab with the picture's URL in the address box at the top. Copy the URL text.
  6. Go to your message entry box at EvC Form and paste the text of the image URL into your [img] code.

Chrome is much better and easier because it isn't insane after step 3:

  1. Enter the search terms you want for the image and hit return (or click on the little magnifying glass icon).
  2. Click on the image of interest. It will create a new section just below the image that includes a larger version of the image.
  3. Right click on the larger version of the image and select "Copy Image Address".
  4. Go to your message entry box at EvC Form and paste the text of the image URL into your [img] code.

It doesn't matter how a given layer was supposedly laid down in what order, remember that all these layers are assigned time values so that one had to have been laid down before the next was whether there were supposedly gaps between depositions or not, but they are all timed in millions of years.

I had trouble parsing this - is maybe the second "was" not supposed to be there? But yes, one layer has to be laid down before the next can be laid atop it, which is Steno's Law of Superposition. I hope that's the Steno law you decided to keep. And yes, a layer is as old as radiometric dating says it is, possibly millions or billions of years old. Of course, sedimentary layers cannot be directly dated. We have to hope for serendipitous volcanic deposits within or at least bracketing a layer, and intrusions can put a lower limit on age.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1340 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 4:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1345 of 2887 (829733)
03-12-2018 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1321 by Faith
03-12-2018 9:08 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers look exactly the same and in fact there are lots of very tight contacts there.

To the untrained, yes.

There are 'tight' contacts everywhere. What are you saying?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1321 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 9:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1346 of 2887 (829734)
03-12-2018 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1331 by Percy
03-12-2018 1:33 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Well, this is different. What would have happened to the top of the Hermit during the seismic events?

Not sure. This is new to me though I've traced some references back to the late 60's. I have seen sandstone dikes cutting into shaley units suggesting that the sandstone is not yet lithified. Never thought too much about it. If the cracks are as geometrically related to the Bright Angel fault as they say (and knowing the source, that's a big 'if') it's pretty compelling evidence for liquefaction and injection.

Does this have anything to do with the inch-wide something?

Probably not.

Do you no longer think the Coconino sand penetrations into the Hermit were mud cracks?

My mind is open. I have some reservations, but realistically it has no effect at all on the age of the rocks.

Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.

My understanding that it is an old fault, possibly going back to the Proterozoic. It is supposedly active now.

I have a lot of questions about this whole thing that might only be answered by a field trip to the site.

For one thing even Whitmore mentions that fragments of lithified Coconino are present in the area of alleged liquifaction. That argues against the young earth position.

It's all very complex and will take some time to digest. I have a very smart friend who did a senior thesis on clastic dikes. I might contact him.

My current theory is that the base of the Coconino was not completely lithified due to groundwater combined with a lack of cementation, and temporary seismic over pressures might have resulted in injectites. In fact this is one of the possible reasons that large-scale crossbeds in sandstones are lost ... liquefaction, slumping and bioturbation.

By the way a lot of the old literature shows that things are pretty complex. For instance, the other week I saw a layer in the Cutler Formation that looked like little box garden of flat, waterlain sediments with organic material in it... probably a small oasis, if you will. Sand dunes are more complex that one would think But that's one more reason that I don't necessarily trust Whitmore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1331 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 1:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1358 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 8:41 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1347 of 2887 (829735)
03-12-2018 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1337 by Faith
03-12-2018 3:34 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Of course paleosols were transported, and root systems, no problem with those. Your language conjures up a whole intact termites' nest but all these things are usually just the bits and pieces I'm talking about, not whole anythings. And dinosaur nests too are usually just smashed flattened remnants yet they get described as if they are intact, just the way a fossilized leaf and a fossilized creature become whole exotic landscapes with trees and animals of a particular "time period."

Faith, have you ever see what waves do to soil?

Truly? You expect to pick up termite nests and move the along with dinosaur nests and tracks to another location?

Sorry, no buying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1337 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1348 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 9:56 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1348 of 2887 (829736)
03-12-2018 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1347 by edge
03-12-2018 9:48 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood. How it happened I don't know and don't care once I know the Flood did it, and I do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1347 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:48 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1349 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 10:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1359 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 10:19 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1349 of 2887 (829737)
03-12-2018 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1348 by Faith
03-12-2018 9:56 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood. How it happened I don't know and don't care once I know the Flood did it, and I do.

Nothing like having an open mind, yes?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1348 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 9:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1351 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 10:58 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1350 of 2887 (829738)
03-12-2018 10:43 PM


THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
Straight flat strata, tight contacts. These pictures alone are to my mind proof of the Flood over the absurd timescale interpretation. HOW straight flat and tight is irrelevant; they've been there over four thousand years.


Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Replace links to images and to webpages with images with the images themselves.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1352 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 11:10 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8889
90
9192
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018