Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 163 (558386)
05-01-2010 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
04-30-2010 10:47 PM


Flood evidence is everywhere you look
There were no high mountains before the Flood. The land was relatively flat, with just some low hills. The Flood then covered it all, dissolved and broke it all up and separated out the various sediments which it redeposited in the strata -- ALL the strata -- no strata could have been formed apart from the Flood. They are worldwide, they are composed of separate sediments, they are all packed full of fossilized life forms. All the living things died at the same time just as God said they would, and were fossilized because the conditions were perfect for fossilization and otherwise such conditions hardly ever occur. They are there as a witness to the Flood for those who have the eyes to see. There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood, the only kind of event capable of doing all that.
After the Flood or as part of that whole period of upheaval, the continents broke apart, magma from the Earth's interior pushed up the volcanoes, tectonic forces raised the mountains. The mountains too were all made up of the strata laid down by the Flood and packed with the dead things that all the strata are packed with. So we find marine creatures in the high mountains.
Witness the lack of strata on the nearly uniform sphere of Mars for comparison. I'm not sure about other planets but aren't they more or less the same in this respect? Mars for sure had no planet-wide Flood and therefore no strata. It's pretty much a bald sphere except for the scars where pieces of flying space debris have collided with it, sometimes releasing magma from the interior in volcanoes and jostling the crust a bit too, but without anything to compare with the tectonic breakup on Earth.
Everything points to a worldwide Flood on Earth for a rational person who just looks at the evidence.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 04-30-2010 10:47 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DrJones*, posted 05-01-2010 12:46 AM Faith has replied
 Message 25 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 2:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 26 by cavediver, posted 05-01-2010 2:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 05-01-2010 11:50 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 42 by bluescat48, posted 05-01-2010 12:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2010 1:28 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by Kitsune, posted 05-01-2010 4:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 163 (558417)
05-01-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by DrJones*
05-01-2010 12:46 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Yes Mars is just a bald sphere, it certainly doesn't have a mountain thrice the height of Everest. Olympus Mons is right here on Earth. And it doesn't have canyon systems either, afterall the Valles Marineris is greater than anything on Mars.
As I said:
...pretty much a bald sphere except for the scars where pieces of flying space debris have collided with it, sometimes releasing magma from the interior in volcanoes and jostling the crust a bit too, but without anything to compare with the tectonic breakup on Earth.
Mars has some features, yes, but the overall look is of a uniform bald planet. It has what you say, a high mountain and a deep valley, apparently formed by the impact of the flying meteors which released the volcanoes. There's quite a bit less of all that than on planet Earth, however. Also, the sides of the valley are uniform, not stratified as in the Grand Canyon. The "skirt" of eroded material from the sides is all uniform, not in stratified layers as in the Grand Canyon.
And the stratifications that can be seen in some pictures are all of the same kind of stuff, not the separated sediments we see on Earth -- it took the Flood to separate them out like that on Earth.
No, local floods couldn't do that on the scale we see it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by DrJones*, posted 05-01-2010 12:46 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 11:08 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 163 (558418)
05-01-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-01-2010 6:22 AM


Re: It is said: There is plenty of strata on Mars...
That picture is not of strata, certainly not of strata such as we see on earth. It looks like what happens when you pour hot fudge or pudding, or thick mud, just ripplings at the edges. Lava flow perhaps. If you cut through it vertically you will see no strata. There is nothing on Mars like our strata of completely different kinds of sediments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 6:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 163 (558420)
05-01-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Vacate
05-01-2010 2:56 AM


Re: Flood evidence
Volcanism on other planets was apparently caused by meteor hits that broke through the crust, according to something I read. Perhaps some on Earth had the same cause. All I said was that all these forces including the movement of the continents were part of the same cataclysmic event on Earth. No "magic" anything. What look like strata on other planets is nothing like Earth strata with the completely different sediments all neatly horizontally laid down. The worldwide extent of them ought to convince a person that local floods didn't do that.
The idea that they were laid down gradually over time is also ridiculous because it implies that nothing happened except the quiet laying down of the layers for billions of years and then all of a sudden after all that time they suddenly were cut into by gigantic canyons, carvings of the hoodoos and other features that expose the strata's height and depth.
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 25 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 2:56 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 10:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 163 (558448)
05-01-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Vacate
05-01-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Flood evidence on Mars?
Volcanism on other planets was apparently caused by meteor hits that broke through the crust, according to something I read. Perhaps some on Earth had the same cause
Good, then you are no longer claiming that only a period of "upheaval" after a worldwide flood can cause volcanoes.
I did not say anything of the sort about the cause of volcanoes. What I said in Message 22 was:
After the Flood or as part of that whole period of upheaval, the continents broke apart, magma from the Earth's interior pushed up the volcanoes, tectonic forces raised the mountains.
I said it was all part of the same event, I certainly did not say the upheaval was the only cause of volcanoes. Do learn to read more carefully. It's hard enough debating these things without being misread.
All I said was that all these forces including the movement of the continents were part of the same cataclysmic event on Earth. No "magic" anything.
You say that but provide no evidence to support your assertion.
Stop changing the subject. I was correcting your misreading. At least get what I'm saying and then raise other questions.
I see no reason to think that your story is anything but a story. Tell me what evidence you have that it was one flood and not two, for example.
What is magical about your idea is that you give no reason why it is even worth considering. You are giving a "just so" story that isn't even logically consistent. If fossils are only created in a worldwide flood, is the worldwide flood water special? What is the difference between this special non-magical fossil creating water and normal water?
I did not say fossils could ONLY be created in a worldwide flood, I was clear that there could be other causes but that the Flood is the best explanation for what we actually see of the worldwide extent of the fossils in the stratifications. The actual strata are WORLDWIDE and PACKED WITH FOSSILS, and the conditions for such phenomena would have been met in such a worldwide event -- the rapidity of burial, the compression -- AND it all occurred in SEPARATED SEDIMENTS that then solidified into limestones and sandstones and shales -- the laying down of separate sediments wouldn't happen on any long-term scenario but could be explained by a large quantity of water. All that is good evidence for a worldwide Flood. There is nothing magical about it except in your illogical mind.
What look like strata on other planets is nothing like Earth strata with the completely different sediments all neatly horizontally laid down.
This makes no sense. Mars sediments look nothing like Earth sediments, but the photo that I provided certainly looks like "sediments all neatly horizontally laid down" martian sediments.
NO, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE SEDIMENTS such as we see in the Grand Canyon -- different limestones, sandstones, shales and so on -- they are all the same Martian stuff in some kind of layering but not at all like we see on Earth. All over the Earth you can see places where the strata have been exposed, the Grand Canyon area the place where you can see the most in one place, and to a depth of a mile at least, two if you figure it all in together with the strata of the Grand Staircase to the north of the GC. You see layer upon layer of DIFFERENT sediments stacked up neatly horizontally. And you can see this all over the Earth though not to such a depth in most cases. Where would those separate sediments come from if each layer represents millions of years? Why a few million years of a certain kind of limestone which suddenly changes to a few million years of a certain kind of clay? Ridiculous idea. But a Flood that could sort sediments to a depth of two miles would be a worldwide Flood.
It would be a tad absurd for you to require Mars to have the same looking sediments when the planet is not composed of the same materials. I admit the photo doesn't look like Earths rocks/sediments but I did provide a photo that shows anything but a "uniform sphere" (mountains and valleys aside).
Thank you for admitting that Mars does not have strata like those on earth.
I said Mars is "pretty much" bald and it is. There are some scars on the surface. The Valle Marineris just looks like a big scar on an otherwise smooth sphere. Up close it looks like a deep gouge, no layering, just fallen eroded material all in one "skirt." There are craters elsewhere where meteors hit -- some filled with lava where the impact broke through to the magma beneath the crust.
Here's what I said in Message 22
Mars for sure had no planet-wide Flood and therefore no strata. It's pretty much a bald sphere except for the scars where pieces of flying space debris have collided with it, sometimes releasing magma from the interior in volcanoes and jostling the crust a bit too, but without anything to compare with the tectonic breakup on Earth.
I don't need to provide a photo that looks identical to Earths materials, I simply provided an photo that shows many layers of sedimentary rock in a crater that eroded by wind over an unknown period of time.
Yes, and you are right that there are some kind of strata there, but none of it looks even remotely like our miles deep separated rock strata.
Now since something similar on Earth is evidence for a flood, my contention is your logic dictates a worldwide flood also occurred on Mars.
There is nothing about the look of Mars that suggests a worldwide Flood.
then all of a sudden after all that time they suddenly were cut into by gigantic canyons, carvings of the hoodoos and other features that expose the strata's height and depth.
Care to point to this "all of a sudden theory"? I mean from scientists and not creationists. A specific example of a gigantic canyon would be great
Think, just think. Take a look at the Grand Canyon. Take a look at the formations in the Southwest US. In fact take a look anywhere on earth you can see some of the strata exposed. But especially the Grand Canyon.
What do you see? A stack of horizontally laid down different sediments to a depth of a mile. But no canyon was cut through them until the stack was finished all the way to the top. How come for billions of years those layers just quietly accumulated with no canyon being cut into them until they were all there?
Think.
You don't need a scientist or anyone to prove this point. Just think.
While your at it can you provide some links to scientists who say things cannot change (wind, water, temperature, etc) because a passing glance at the news reveals that nature changes quite often for the unexpected. So while a creationist may be at a loss to explain why a river suddenly changes direction, a person who looks for evidence can find plenty of examples how it does happen for various reasons even within our short lifespans.
I don't say things can't change. I'm saying the strata OBVIOUSLY didn't change, just look at them. There they are all stacked up from a depth of one mile, undisturbed until the canyon was cut AFTER they were all there. Question is why did the world wait a few billion years before cutting the canyon through them all?
from message 35 writes:
And the stratifications that can be seen in some pictures are all of the same kind of stuff, not the separated sediments we see on Earth -- it took the Flood to separate them out like that on Earth.
No, it took Earth materials to look like Earth materials.
Flood or no flood Mars could never have the same separated sediments as Earth because Mars doesn't even have those types of rock/sediments (or at least in the same amounts or locations)
And you know exactly what the surface of Mars is made of and that it couldn't be broken up into separated sediments just as Earth was?
There is absolutely no logical reason why a period of a few million years would only accumulate clay which became shale, and then in the next period of millions of years only sand which became sandstone, and the next a kind of limestone and the next a different kind of limestone. Not to mention that you'd need the compression of a huge stack above to turn them to rock and fossilize the dead things contained in them or it would all erode away. None of it makes sense on the Old Earth idea. But it does make sense on the idea that it was all sorted out into layers by water -- to a depth of AT LEAST a mile remember. That depth means the water was worldwide.
from message 34 writes:
It looks like what happens when you pour hot fudge or pudding, or thick mud, just ripplings at the edges. Lava flow perhaps.
Wrong. Read the caption under the picture. Those are Yardangs formed from wind in sedimentary layers. The layers are inside a crater. An impact formed a crater, the crater filled with sediments. Those sediments are now eroded rock and that picture is huge, those layers are deep.
You are looking at the wrong picture. I was talking about the one Percy posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 10:41 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 12:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 163 (558449)
05-01-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Apothecus
05-01-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
There's plenty of evidence in my description in Message 22if you just think about it. What we actually see is best explained by what I described than by the usual geological explanations. And if that's not good enough read the description just above this post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 11:08 AM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 7:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 163 (558486)
05-01-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vacate
05-01-2010 12:51 PM


Re: Flood evidence on Mars?
I said it was all part of the same event, I certainly did not say the upheaval was the only cause of volcanoes.
You did say
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood, the only kind of event capable of doing all that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assumed that "all that" also included the period of upheaval mentioned directly after; that broke apart continents, pushed up volcanoes, etc. So if the flood wasn't needed to cause volcanoes can I also assume its not needed to break up continents?
STRATA AND FOSSILS were caused by the Flood. Volcanoes and tectonic activity accompanied the event OR followed it. AFTER I said. Part of the same event but I did not say the flood CAUSED it.
Do learn to read more carefully. It's hard enough debating these things without being misread.
Fair enough, I was a bit quick on thinking I understood something that, to me, sounds pretty far out there. I will try and get a lot more clarification from you before I begin to think I understand you in these matters.
Thank you.
Stop changing the subject. I was correcting your misreading. At least get what I'm saying and then raise other questions.
I raised the question, the question still stands. I feel little need to raise more questions when the most obvious seems to be the unique properties of the water at that time. You said it right here in message 22:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water has currents and layers within itself. Ordinary water. Sediments are known to collect in layers at the mouths of rivers. Ordinary water does these things. The Flood would have been such a prodigious amount of water it carried tons of separated sediments and dead creatures and deposited them in enormous layers all over the earth. The weight of the layers themselves would have created the compression necessary for fossilization.
So either support your assertion with evidence or I am left with "magical water". No subject change required. (*** you do talk of this further down the post, fair is fair ***)
I did not say fossils could ONLY be created in a worldwide flood
Good. I hope your clear enough that I can think I understand.
conditions for such phenomena would have been met in such a worldwide event
For the most part, correct. But all it takes is one example and it falls apart. There are plenty of counter examples that creationists fail to address. Cliffs of Dover to start.
Nonsense. If the total picture is the best explanation then the single example that seems not to fit just awaits the understanding of how it fits. The geological explanation of the strata and the fossils is so utterly stupid by comparison that we don't need to explain everything by the Flood to recognize that it explains the overall picture beautifully.
I see no problem with the Cliffs of Dover anyway. Just a deposit of limestone by the enormous Flood, one of many.
There is nothing magical about it except in your illogical mind.
Hey now, don't forget you wrote this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no other way the strata and fossils could have been formed but by a worldwide Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You left me scratching my head. I think I have it figured out now though that the strata, fossils, volcanoes, and possibly more items can form from something other than a worldwide flood. I think this is progress!
You added words where I had written none, you jumped to conclusions not based on what I had written. If you read it straight you wouldn't get the silly stuff out of it you are getting.
The Flood itself, the water itself, broke up the land and separated out the sediments and carried them along with the bazillion dead creatures in the layers and currents that naturally occur in the oceans to their final resting places in the strata we see all over the earth. AS PART OF THE SAME EVENT volcanic and tectonic action seem to have also occurred -- what caused what I don't know and did not say, just that it all seems to have occurred as part of the same event. The breakup of the continents could have come some time after the Flood and yet it seems to have been part of the same general upheaval.
Why a few million years of a certain kind of limestone which suddenly changes to a few million years of a certain kind of clay?
Because once the land isn't covered by ocean its pretty unlikely that it will continue to accumulate the corpses of marine organisms. I don't care how long it was underwater, once its not its done creating limestone layers. Rivers change direction and land rises and falls. You can find examples in your newspaper.
Oh brother. Millions of years of nothing but limestone, then SUDDENLY allakazam! Millions of years of nothing but sandstone. What utter nonsense you all believe, when a worldwide Flood EASILY explains it all.
Thank you for admitting that Mars does not have strata like those on earth.
No problem, I have eyes. I would neither make the claim nor suggest it. I believe I have explained myself enough on this matter, if you want further explanation or a quote just ask.
There is nothing about the look of Mars that suggests a worldwide Flood.
The only item that isn't present on Mars that you have mentioned is continental breakup. Mars even does it better in some cases.(volcanoes and canyons) So the only thing that differs is that on Earth the layers are composed of different materials. I don't care how many times you flood Mars it will not have the same materials as Earth. Neither will Saturn. So obviously its going to look different, so how do we tell if the flood occurred? By looking at your other criteria - volcanoes, canyons, sedimentary layers, continental breakup. If I am missing any that you have mentioned please let me know.
Volcanoes on Mars appear to have been created by meteors breaking through the crust and releasing the magma beneath so that the craters that form fill with lava. I see no Flood evidence of any sort.
The Vallee Marineris clearly does not have layers of any sort. It has sheer walls from which erosion has fallen, all of one type of sediment.
I personally don't see why any of this has to do with a global flood but I don't see why it has to on Earth either.
I'm sorry I mentioned Mars. It looks like a bald sphere with some pock marks and gashes and nothing at all like Earth, certainly no strata like Earth, which seems to make a good comparison, but since there's so much contention about Earth itself I wish I'd left well enough alone.
The evidence for a worldwide Flood on Earth is excellent in its own right but those who reject the Bible refuse to consider this actual evidence.
How come for billions of years those layers just quietly accumulated with no canyon being cut into them until they were all there?
Why not a mile down the road? How is it the grand canyon got eroded but other areas a mile away not at all? Rivers change direction, read a newspaper.
You are missing the entire point.
Question is why did the world wait a few billion years before cutting the canyon through them all?
Why did the world wait a few billion to move the town of Concepcion 10 feet west? The answer is that everything changes, some things take a long damn time.
I have NO idea what you think the relevance is of such a comment. It's utterly unrelated to anything I said.
You are describing changes that go on NOW, but if geo theory is correct they never went on before recent time. The evidence is the neat parallel of the layers that built up quietly for all those billions of years without even a river to disturb them.
And you know exactly what the surface of Mars is made of and that it couldn't be broken up into separated sediments just as Earth was?
No, but evidence suggests that it all pretty much looks the same from the photos that I have seen. Certainly not the variety that is present on Earth.
The idea is that the Earth wasn't separated into those separate sediments until the FLood did it.
There could be a larger variety of rock on Mars for all I know, a few rovers and satellite images on Mars is hardly comparable to our current knowledge of Earth.
None of it makes sense on the Old Earth idea.
Things change, and not according to your schedule apparently.
You are looking at the wrong picture. I was talking about the one Percy posted.
Percy was kind enough to re-post the image from my link. My link has the caption that explains what the image shows. No hot fudge, just layers of sedimentary rock eroded by wind.
It looks like something that originally ran like lava.
(I didn't write much of anything on your flood evidence, I have been up since yesterday and tried to keep this post as short as possible. I didn't ignore it for any other reason and hope we can perhaps discuss it next post or on another thread? I hope I have, at least trivially, explained my point of view by simply saying "things change")
No, you have completely missed the point that things did NOT change for billions of years according to the current geological theory that explains the strata as the accumulation of all that time, but then only SUDDENLY changed as canyons were SUDDENLY cut and mountains SUDDENLY raised AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE ALREADY IN PLACE. The strata are THERE. They were laid down horizontally supposedly over billions of years. And only AFTER they were all in place, in "recent" time according to geo theory, did all the activity happen that eroded them, cut them, lifted them into mountains, or buckled them to make the Appalachian type mountains and so on. You can SEE the strata in all these formations. They were already THERE. A very quiet planet for biillions of years THEN all that activity? Give me a break.
I don't think geologists think such a thing, they just managed to not notice this is the implication of their system. I'm sure they think all the same kinds of events that go on now also went on during all those ages when life was supposedly evolving. But the actual evidence is that nothing happened to disturb all those strata for billions of years, no canyon cutting, no deep erosion, no rivers cutting gorges through them, no wind altering their horizontality, no mountains buckling them and lifting them up -- all that ONLY happened in "recent" time IF their theory is correct.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vacate, posted 05-01-2010 12:51 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 73 by Vacate, posted 05-02-2010 2:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 5:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 163 (558506)
05-01-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Apothecus
05-01-2010 7:37 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
No, not opinion,
Evidence:
Abundant fossils and separate sediments in layers over the entire earth, compressed to rock, takes prodigious amount of water to sort, takes prodigious amount of water to deposit in layers, takes enormous weight of strata to compress enough for fossilization. Couldn't happen except in a rapid event.
Evidence against geo theory: no similar strata on other planets which there should be if geo theory were correct.
Evidence against geo theory: Ridiculous fact that layers were untouched by normal events such as canyon cutting, erosion by wind and weather and rivers, buckling and raising up by tectonic forces, until ALL were neatly in place. Evidence all over the earth.
That's evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 7:37 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 8:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 62 of 163 (558508)
05-01-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by anglagard
05-01-2010 8:08 PM


The Accuser Strikes Again.
I see. Then please show me that they believe that the strata were quietly laid down for billions of years during which time no erosion happened, no canyon cutting happened, no carving of hoodoos happened, no buckling of strata or raising of strata to mountains happened. Please.
From what I've read they all think these things happened in the past same as now.
The evidence clearly shows that they didn't happen in the past, and I've never read anything that implies that geologists agree with what this evidence shows or even recognize it. I will take it back if you can show me they do. Better if they can actually explain it of course. That should be very amusing.
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 61 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:08 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 70 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 9:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 71 by Coragyps, posted 05-01-2010 9:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 72 by bluescat48, posted 05-01-2010 10:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 163 (558512)
05-01-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
05-01-2010 8:23 PM


Re: The Accuser Strikes Again.
That you have to ask simply proves that you didn't understand what I said in the first place although you were quite willing to excoriate me for it anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:23 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 76 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 6:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 163 (558549)
05-02-2010 8:24 AM


Strange. I'm apparently the only one here who HAS actually looked at the strata. Certainly never read a word of Kent Hovind about it. Odd that nobody here can even understand what I wrote in order to think about it. But really you must simply be refusing to think about it.
Or you should be able to see with your own two eyes that if the geological explanation were correct the strata all over the world would have to have been laid down quietly without a glitch, all neatly horizontally, and stayed in place for millions of years per layer, without any tectonic disturbances or deep erosion or the like for all those billions of years. How do you get a deep stack of strata if they undergo such disturbances?
All over the world, remember, not just forming in the ocean or a lake here and there. As if you could get a mile's deep worth of layers in such a circumstance anyway. Two miles if you take into account the upper strata to the north of the Grand Canyon. So after they were all in place, in what is laughably distinguished as "recent" time from the lower strata, then we get the erosion that carved the formations of the Southwest and not before.
Still can't see it? Amazing.
Why won't you just think about it? How did the strata stay so neatly parallel over billions of years if the same kinds of events were always going on as go on today? I mean you can SEE the neat horizontality of the strata to a great depth in some places, and in other places you can at least see how they maintain their parallel form under recent-time buckling, you can see the strata in all the high mountains too. All neatly parallel. All in place before the mountains were raised.
So again, think, children, how come it was only after the entire stack was built, in what geologists call "recent" time, that the mountains were raised, that the hoodoos were carved, that the Grand Canyon was cut? Come on, I know you can think that well. Come on.
And then there is that ridiculous idea that sediments that were laid down slowly over millions of years could compress living things enough to fossilize them even under water, before they rotted away or were eaten. Surely at least as an hypothesis you can see that a rapid build-up of the layers would create a compression that COULD fossilize all those things that slow deposition just couldn't.
No? Odd.

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 163 (558550)
05-02-2010 8:39 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 05-02-2010 2:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 163 (558553)
05-02-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Apothecus
05-02-2010 8:45 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
There's nothing to dodge, dear. The obvious glaringly conspicuous point I'm making about how the strata had to have been formed makes all such questions irrelevant.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 8:45 AM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 163 (558554)
05-02-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 9:01 AM


Coragyp's post was one of those typical interpretive sallies that is mistaken for evidence. You think if he just proclaims that such and such happened in the past that it DID happen in the past. You guys don't know the difference between a fact and an interpretation. Truly sad.
You even think you "see" something happening when you've merely bought a particular interpretation and aren't seeing anything at all, are blind as a bat.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:01 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 163 (558556)
05-02-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 9:07 AM


Re: Mars has sediment
Why don't you actually look at the picture of the valle marineris? There are no strata. The Grand Canyon has strata. Why do you believe everything you read?
Why don't you actually think? The geologists have this theory they have to defend so they are trying to do that even as the evidence goes against them. There is NOTHING on Mars even remotely similar to the strata of Earth. Nothijng.
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 87 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:07 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2010 9:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024