Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 4:38 AM
331 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,006 Year: 28,612/21,208 Month: 678/1,847 Week: 53/475 Day: 0/53 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 166 of 224 (820948)
09-29-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers.

Only in Faith's world.

We have explained to you repeatedly that every location on earth has a stratigraphic column. Do you really think that they are all the same?

Those forming now are not connected to the Stratigraphic Column in any way and I do consider it some kind of deceit to try to claim they are when they do not occur in the right places, they are not large enough, they are nothing like those in the Stratigraphic Column. I'm sick of arguing this.

As are most of us.

You do not get to define geological terms.

Yes it IS obvious and I've utterly lost patience with the ridiculous tall tales being palmed off as evidence of the column's continuation.

So, you have lost patience.

Is that your best evidence?

For anyone to look at the picture of the stratified mountainside I posted and think those strata could possibly have been formed by slow sedimentation on a plain like the one in the picture of the Ruby Mountains, or on a sloping seashore either, is another case of deceit, perhaps self-deception but the idea is so OBVIOUSLY absurd there is no point in wasting my time producing some kind of proof. The debate is a sham. To be honestly convinced of such ideas would mean being so self-deceived there is no point in talking to such a person.

So, it's obvious.

Is that your next-best piece of evidence?

And now I'm being challenged on the time it took for the hoodoos to erode to their present condition. I did think the rate of erosion was pretty standard knowledge but now I have to substantiate it. Sorry, I can't do it, I'm not up to it, and again it's OBVIOUS that that degree of erosion did not take millions of years, or even a hundred thousand. The expansion and contraction of the rock with seasonal temperature changes causes grains to fall off, forming the hoodoo shape. The same occurs with all the formations of the American Southwest. That rate of erosion alone shows that the strata of which they are composed was laid down just a few thousand years ago, supporting the Flood, not the Geological Time Scale.

So, the rate of erosion tells you the age of the earth.

Please explain.

The actual appearance of the strate of the Stratigraphic Column proves the Flood. And I'm sick to death of having to argue with idiotic objections to obvious points. So suspend me already, it would be a blessing.

And the appearance of rocks proves the flood.

Is that another piece of evidence for your story?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 8:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 167 of 224 (820950)
09-29-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
09-29-2017 2:56 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:

The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata olf the Stratigraphic Column could not have been formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain like the one in the picture, and to say it could just makes you one of the deceivers.

Where is the evidence to back this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 168 of 224 (820960)
09-29-2017 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers.

*sigh* - I've been explaining to you for years that there is no such thing as THE Stratigraphic/Geological Column.

From 2016, Message 539:

quote:
Sorry, there is only ONE geological column on which the Geo Timetable is based.

Sure, but that's abstraction. There is not an actual geological column that has all of the layers in it.

Different places on the planet have different stratum in their individual geological columns. So really, there are lots and lots of geological columns.

What is refered to as The Geological Column is an artifact of summing all of the individual geological columns into one master geological column, but its not a real thing that exists in the planet rather it is a concept of what all of the stratum together would look like.

There is only ONE kind of strata that I'm ever talking about, so no, I'm not going to stop talking about them as one particular phenomenon.

But you're not talking about a real thing. You're talking about an abstraction as if it is a real thing. That's only ever going to lead you astray and cause confusion.

Nowhere on Earth is there a place where The Geological Column exists in it entirety.

Sorry.

You know, if you Google "the geological column" then you get either creationist sites talking about it, or evolutionist sites talking about the creationist sites talking about it. You don't get any scientific sites talking about it:

https://www.google.com/#q=the+geological+column

Why do you think that is?


From 2014, Message 1265:

quote:
No, that is not the Geologic Column. Sheesh.

I didn't say it was. I said it was a geological column, which it is.

There isn't really an actual real thing that is the geological column, because its going to be different at different places.

What people refer to as the Geological Column is just an abstraction that represents all of the layers underground.

And it can certainly contain volcanic layers, and layers that aren't completely flat.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 8:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 169 of 224 (820975)
09-29-2017 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:34 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:

In my scenario most of the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood,...

What evidence are you looking at that tells you that "the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood"? Obviously the mountain ranges could only have been pushed up after the strata were in place, but how do you know it was at the end of the Flood? Isn't that just one more thing that you're making up?

...just as in my scenario the Great Unconformity was also pushed up.

As has been explained to you many times in messages to which you have not replied, it is impossible for the Grand Canyon Supergroup to have been pushed up without affecting the layers above.

And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored...

It's never been ignored. We couldn't possibly be ignoring it because it's in the cross section that keeps getting displayed:

The tectonic forces that uplifted the region affected the entire stratigraphic stack of strata, from Vishnu Schist to Grand Canyon Supergroup to the Grand Staircase. The reason the tectonic forces affected the entire stack is because the entire stack was in place when these particular tectonic forces were active.

The tilt of the Grand Canyon Supergroup is completely absent from the layers above them because the layers above them did not exist when the Grand Canyon Supergroup became tilted. That the upper layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup were at one time exposed at the surface is shown by the eroded surface of the Great Unconformity underlying the Tapeats, which is the first layer deposited upon the supergroup.

...strata were already in place when the GU was formed.

You are simply repeating your unevidenced and impossible assumptions again. It isn't possible for tectonic forces to affect some layers but not others. That's why the region was uplifted as a unit, because all the strata from the schist to the supergroup to the Grand Staircase layers were already in place when the tectonic forces were in play. And that's also why the Grand Canyon Supergroup was tilted all by itself without affecting any of the layers above, because the layers that are above the supergroup now did not exist at the time the supergroup was tilted.

That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time.

You're again just baldly repeating your position without an ounce of evidence. Your position has been rebutted many times, and you've been unable to respond to the rebuttals, mostly ignoring all of them. If the monadnocks were pushed up into the Tapeats and in some places even higher into the Bright Angel Shale, where is all the evidence of this event that would have been left behind? The answer is "nowhere," because the evidence for your "story" does not exist. The evidence that we do see shows slow sedimentation around the monadnocks.

It bears occasionally repeating that things that happen leave evidence behind. All the evidence supports the fact that the strata of the stratigraphic columns around the world were deposited by gradual sedimentation over eons, and we can see this very same type of sedimentation going on today.

Things that did not happen do not leave evidence behind, which is why there's no evidence for the Flood.

And all of this of course proves that the Geo Time Scale is false.

Things that are true and that have evidence have the power to prove things true or false, but you haven't said anything true or correct or accurate or even vaguely corresponding to anything in the real world, and you certainly haven't offered any evidence. In fact, you managed to compose yet another paragraph where not a singe sentence contained a true statement.

Then of course if you add the flat flat strata with their tight tight contacts you have evidence of rapid deposition. Flood, not vast ages of time.

A flood would leave undifferentiated mud deposits. A flood would not sort a chaotic mix of sediment load into a sequence of strata of unique compositions. A flood would not sort by radiometric date and difference of fossils from modern forms. A flood would not preserve tracks and burrows. A flood, especially one as short as the great Flood, would not have the time to allow fine sediments to settle.

One thing *I* find curious is that the erosion of motley sediments from mountains onto a plain that isn't anywhere near flat like the strata is made to account for the strata.

The plain I showed in Nevada isn't as flat as the strata? It most certainly is. What are you, blind? Here's the image of the Ruby Mountains again with the plain in the foreground:

This idea makes me feel like Geology is a big joke you are all playing on us. It's really hard to believe that you believe such an idea. Being subjected to this kind of intellectual deceit doesn't inspire me to care a lot about the debate.

That's about the limit of your ability to argue this subject, isn't it, making derogatory comments. They only serve to show the intensity of your blindness and lack of discernment. The evidence is staring you right in face with the Ruby Mountain image (it isn't too white so I assume you're not going to be making up excuses that you can't make it out), and that plain is as flat as can be. That plain is just as flat as strata in your image. Click on it to blow it up to large size and you'll see that the boundary between strata only look flat from a distance - up closer you can see the irregularities (your image is of the Desert Mountains, by the way, something you failed to mention):

"Pretty flat" does not describe the strata except after they've been subjected to a few thousand years of settling. Here is a picture of one place where the original flatness of the strata is very apparent:

No one denies that the strata look very flat from a distance. But when you examine them up close then "pretty flat with irregularities" is the much more accurate description.

The vertical surface has been severely eroded leaving the original strata clearly visible in their pristine horizontality with their very tight contacts.

You have this very unhealthy obsession with "very tight contacts" as if it were evidence for sudden deposition. Sudden chaotic deposition would leave behind mud with no differentiation of layers. That's what floods do. Nevada isn't that far from Texas, take a drive and see what kind of deposits the hurricane-caused floods left behind. While you're at it look for the denuded landscapes. Allow me to direct you to an article about the floods in Texas (Harvey victims in Texas still recovering as focus shifts to Irma and Florida):

quote:
Residents and leaders across Houston and Southeast Texas are in the midst of a mud-caked recovery from Hurricane Harvey...

See that? "Mud-caked" is what they're dealing with, not differentiated sediments. And let's not have another repeat of your unevidenced assertion that the unprecedented magnitude of the Flood would have produced differentiated sediments, fossils and radiometric ages. When you have evidence for it then you can say it. Until then it will only draw ridicule, not just because it is unevidenced, but because it just isn't something that could ever happen. Active flood waters mix things up, not sort them out, and they certainly don't sort fossils and radiometric materials.

This is a location where the tectonic upheaval didn't twist the strata for some reason, but something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material to leave the mountain there.

Not everything tectonic is a "tectonic upheaval" that leaves behind twisted strata, so it makes no sense that you expressed some expectation for twisted strata. But aside from that, look at the Grand Staircase cross section - it left most of the strata pretty level. There isn't much online information about the Desert Mountains, but you are correct that "something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material". It's called erosion.

Like waterfalls and volcanoes, mountain ranges are just temporary features on the surface of the earth. This will always be the case until plate tectonics stops and there is no more erosion. It will be a dead planet.

There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out.

What scientific evidence do you have that time will not continue indefinitely on into the future, leaving there plenty of time for mountain ranges to be eroded away. Indeed, many strata are composed of material from mountain ranges that no longer exist.

The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet.

How do you know, based upon evidence, how much time is allotted to this planet?

Most of the mountains were pushed up by the great tectonic upheaval that separated the continents and played some big role in the receding of the Flood waters.

How do you know, based upon evidence and given that you have no dating methods, when the mountains were pushed up relative to the separation of the continents (which actually happened more than once) and the fictional Flood?

The amount of erosion that can be seen on some formations such as the hoodoos of the Southwest has to have occurred since their formation in the Flood,...

What evidence do you have that the hoodoos were formed by your fictional Flood?

...and what that amount of erosion shows is a few thousand years' worth.

Everyone knows the hoodoos are very young geologically. They're composed of very soft materials that erode at the rate of several feet per century, about a half inch per year. How is the fact that soft materials erode faster than hard ones helpful to your case?

And that would of course be the amount of erosion that's happened to the Ruby Mountains and all other formations since they all originated either in the Flood or by the tectonic activity afterward.

It never occurred to you that the hoodoos have their unique appearance because of the softness of the material? And that the Ruby Mountains don't have that kind of appearance because they're composed of harder material? The Badlands of South Dakota are cousins to the hoodoos in the sense that they're composed of relatively soft materials that erode at the rate of maybe an inch per year. Many of the layers of the Grand Canyon are made of even harder materials than the Ruby Mountains and so erode at a very slow rate, probably less than a millimeter per year.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 170 of 224 (820977)
09-29-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:37 AM


Re: suggestion
Faith writes:

I wonder if it would be possible to present one argument at a time.

You're not responding to any of the arguments and rebuttals anyway, so why don't you pick an issue where there is actual evidence that you can describe, and that doesn't already have a dozen rebuttals that you're ignoring.

I'll never get to the posts here, and it's still true that I don't feel like even acknowledging the existence of some of the posters,...

Yes, it's all about you, isn't it. You're the queen of crude and rude, you think of yourself as judge and jury of all that is true, and you've told us that you already know what is true anyway, but it's actually everyone else's behavior that is the problem. Yeah, sure.

...but if one argument out of all the different posts could be isolated I could deal with that a lot better than the pile-on here.

That's an interesting theory, but given your history success seems very unlikely. You will still apply all your strategies of repeating your positions ad infinitum, ignoring posts, ignoring evidence, ignoring rebuttals, ignoring simple logic, and declaring your opinions to be the God's honest truth.

Current Faith message response rate: 33%

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 5:52 PM Percy has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29747
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 171 of 224 (820981)
09-29-2017 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:37 AM


So let's do just one issue:
Faith writes:

I'll never get to the posts here, and it's still true that I don't feel like even acknowledging the existence of some of the posters, but if one argument out of all the different posts could be isolated I could deal with that a lot better than the pile-on here.

What is the flood model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to deposit millions of alternating layers of fine silt covered by coarser silt?

Faith you have been offered opportunities to explain how your flud can do what is seen in reality but you have never provided the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that satisfactorily explains ANYTHING seen in reality.

Maybe this time you will make an honest effort. I'm sure it could be spun off into a Great Debate and you can even have veto power over who should present the reality based argument.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 172 of 224 (820982)
09-29-2017 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Percy
09-29-2017 4:33 PM


Re: suggestion
Your personal comments in this post just guarantee I'm not dealing with your arguments at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 4:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 9:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 173 of 224 (820986)
09-29-2017 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by edge
09-29-2017 9:29 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
There are different portions or versions of the Stratigraphic Column in different locations, but there is still only one Stratigraphic Column, to which is attached the Geological Time Scale, illustrated thusly:

And by the way it goes up to the present time and it stops there with every indication that it is completed.

There are no other layers being added to this stack. Wherever they are being laid down it is not as a continuation of this stack.

You will deny this because you must, because if it isn't continuing it proves that it was the result of the Flood. So the debate is over isn't it?

And yes the claim that a stretch of desert could become strata is so ludicrous you should give it up immediately. Strata are FLAT, ALL of them are originally laid down FLAT and the picture I posted is a nice illustration of that. It also suggests the absurdity of assigning a time period to such a formation but that also won't be obvious to you because at all costs you must not think such a thing. I have to argue this stuff because Geology HAS to believe it can cobble strata together out of a desert plain which is impossible. You CAN'T entertain anything else. The debate is over.

And yes the time it has taken to carve the hoodoos by erosion is the time since the Flood. That you have to deny as well. The debate is over.

But all three of those observations support the Flood and kill the Geological Time Scale. Along with all the others I've made over the last ten or so years. But it's all denied and explained away in the most ludicrous fashion.

The debate is over.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by edge, posted 09-29-2017 9:29 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2017 6:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 178 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 9:36 PM Faith has responded
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2017 3:10 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 184 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 7:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 187 by ringo, posted 09-30-2017 11:53 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 09-30-2017 12:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 224 (820988)
09-29-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and off-topic banner. Shut off signature also.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 175 of 224 (820989)
09-29-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
09-29-2017 2:56 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:

The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata of the Stratigraphic Column could not have been formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain like the one in the picture, and to say it could just makes you one of the deceivers.

Now we're insane deceivers? And your only argument is that the sediments are "motley", whatever that means?

Faith, it is the evidence that decides scientific issues. Where do you think the sediments eroded off mountains go? There is nowhere to go but down, driven by gravity and carried by wind and water. Sediments seek the lowest point. That's how the plain in the foreground of this image formed:

If this region should somehow sink beneath the waves then this plain could become preserved in the geologic record. It only takes the application of natural processes for this to happen. That's not to say that that will ever happen to this plain, but whatever happens to it will be a result of the same natural processes we observe going on around us everyday and that have been described for you many times. How you remain so ignorant and so in denial of so much that are just simple facts of the world is a mystery.

And the amount of erosion we see in the hoodoos and all the formations of the American Southwest counts back a few thousand years, not millions.

The hoodoos are not that old is because they're composed of relatively soft material that erodes at a rapid rate, feet per century. The hoodoos won't be around much longer, geologically speaking. As I mentioned before, the badlands of South Dakota are also composed of relatively soft material. Most strata are composed of harder material and take much longer to erode.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 176 of 224 (820990)
09-29-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:43 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:

You just proved the futility of this whole debate, not that it's anything new, it's par for the course and I'm an idiot for continuing in it.

The futility of the debate is very one-sided, to the betterment of the side with the evidence from the real world and to the detriment of the side arguing for 2000-year old religious myths. And yes, you're an idiot for making a whole series of absurd assumptions, such as that people become convinced by the number of times you repeat yourself without change, that discussions are won by ignoring evidence and arguments, that the real world must yield to your religious beliefs, that the Bible is literally inerrant, that your interpretations of the Bible are inerrant, and worst of all, that you yourself are inerrant.

The strata are NOT different in form,...

It remains a mystery why you post nonsense like this. Of course the strata are different in form. Here's your own image showing how different the various strata can be:

Besides these visual differences in appearance at a distance, the strata are composed of different minerals, the grain sizes are different, the fossil content are different, the radiometric ages are different, etc.

...so the idea that I need to differentiate between particular ones claimed to be produced by sediments falling on the plain from some formed some other way is just more of the same kind of deceit.

Don't be insipid.

...and there are NO strata that could POSSIBLY be formed that way, and yes it's OBVIOUS. If you can't see it you must be blinded by bias.

There you go, declaring your position yet again without an ounce of any evidence or argument. With all the evidence weighing on just one side, anyone who balances out the scales can only do so with a ton of bias. Religious bias, in this case.

The rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known, you can go find it yourself though it's been posted somewhere here too, and the rate is consistent with a few thousand years, certainly not millions.

The hoodoo formations themselves are relatively young geologically. The strata making up the hoodoos, depending upon which ones you're referring to, can be millions to hundreds of millions of years old.

Same with all the formations of the American Southwest, which can be judged by the erosion at their base. Since the original size of the hoodoos can also be easily calculated there is also that to confirm the time factor.

The rate of erosion is a function of the hardness of the strata. Hoodoos have their unique appearance because of the softness of the material. I have no idea what you mean by "all the formations of the American Southwest" because that runs the full gamut, but the rate of erosion will vary by the hardness of the strata. This has been explained to you by multiple people multiple times. You obviously are not reading the messages posted to you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 177 of 224 (820991)
09-29-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
09-29-2017 5:52 PM


Re: suggestion
Faith writes:

Your personal comments in this post just guarantee I'm not dealing with your arguments at all.

You're already not dealing with my arguments (or anyone else's, for that matter), so how is this a change?

If you had any valid arguments you'd make them, but you don't, so you instead use repeated empty declarations of your original position and evidence avoidance and argument avoidance and lies and bluster and insults and absurd declarations of infallibility. If it angers you to have your behavior called to your attention then there's a simple fix: stop doing it. Behave like a human being for a change.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 5:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3580
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 178 of 224 (820992)
09-29-2017 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
There are different portions or versions of the Stratigraphic Column in different locations, but there is still only one Stratigraphic Column, to which is attached the Geological Time Scale, illustrated thusly:

That is NOT a stratigraphic column, paired with the geologic time scale. It IS the geologic time scale, annotated with some of the fossils that are characteristic of the various time periods. The annotation does not include any specific information about rock type, which would vary from location to location. There is no such thing as THE STRATAGRAPHIC COLUMN.

And by the way it goes up to the present time and it stops there with every indication that it is completed.

In essence, you have an illustration from a (geologic) history book. And just like any history book, it only goes to (at most) the present. Just because you don't find the future in history books, doesn't mean that nothing is happening in the present or going to happen in the future.

...if it ("the stratagraphic column") isn't continuing it proves that it was the result of the Flood.

Whether or not "it" is continuing has nothing to do with the mode of formation.

And yes the claim that a stretch of desert could become strata is so ludicrous you should give it up immediately. Strata are FLAT, ALL of them are originally laid down FLAT and the picture I posted is a nice illustration of that.

The sediments of that stretch of desert is strata. In the future, further erosion and/or deposition will modify the surfaces nature.

TO ALL - NOW - WHAT WAS AND IT MY INTENT FOR THIS TOPIC:

"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

I apologize for not making topic theme clearer. I should have done something beyond just using that sentence as the topic title. God knows, no one ever looks at what the topic title is.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Spelling error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 09-29-2017 9:58 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 09-30-2017 2:53 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 179 of 224 (820993)
09-29-2017 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 9:36 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
Minnemooseus writes:

TO ALL - NOW - WHAT WAS AND IT MY INTENT FOR THIS TOPIC:

"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")

I apologist for not making topic theme clearer. I should have done something beyond just using that sentence as the topic title. God knows, no one ever looks at what the topic title is.

Since no one is currently serving as moderator in this thread, we are but slaves to what Faith deigns to reply to. Faith stopped responding to discussion about Walther's Law a number of messages back.

The accepted practice for a participant to take on a moderator role is to recuse themselves from participation in the thread for a couple days first. One of us could do that, but I don't think it would be helpful on this particular topic because Walther's Law probably lies beyond Faith's horizon of comprehension (the multiple zones of different types of sedimentation taking place simultaneously combined with the sediments being produced by particular environments seem to be the main problems), or Faith will exhibit her displeasure at moderation by ceasing participation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 9:36 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26701
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 180 of 224 (820995)
09-30-2017 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 9:36 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
All that interests me is the stack of sediments, wherever they are found, however many of them are found in a given location, that either actually climb from the Cambrian to the Holocene or fit into that sequence, the stack of strata on which the Geological Time Scale is built.

THAT stack of sediments is over and done with, there is nothing building on it since the so-called "Holocene."

The hoodoos were formed in the very uppermost layer of the Grand Staircase. The Holocene perhaps? It's the last one, the uppermost one, and nothing could possibly build upon it. The entire area was subjected to extreme erosion obviously at the end of the building of the strata, or in other words the end of the Flood, brought about by the receding water of the Flood, which carved the staircase and Zion canyon and the Grand Canyon too.

Should we wonder why there isn't a hint of any hoodoos forming in any lower layers of the strata in that area? There was plenty of time of course, millions of years so y'all say. But no hoodoos. No canyons, no staircases, no erosion at all to speak of. Of course in a million years any hoodoos that did form would have eroded down to nothing. Yeah, I guess that's the explanation. Sure.

I guess you guys really do believe all this utter nonsense. The obvious falseness of it and the obvious evidence for the Flood are not going to be heard then. Oh well the evidence is all here at EvC scattered all over the place but it's here if anybody cares to track it down. If they don't, I don't care either. This whole debate is a miserable sham. Old Earth Geology is a delusion, and so is the ToE but I guess nobody is going to figure that out until the Very End.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 9:36 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2017 4:01 AM Faith has responded
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 7:38 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 09-30-2017 2:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017