Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 166 of 1896 (713638)
12-14-2013 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
12-14-2013 9:52 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I said "INDIVIDUAL LAYERS." The tectonic distortion occurred to blocks of layers at once AFTER ALL THE LAYERS WERE LAID DOWN.
Evidently not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 9:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 167 of 1896 (713639)
12-14-2013 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
12-14-2013 9:59 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Those pictures actually demonstrate my point.
They actually demonstrate that you can't even accurately describe what the rocks look like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 9:59 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 168 of 1896 (713640)
12-14-2013 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Yes, we can see it in the diagram. Notice that the welling up of this magma through all the geologic layers hasn't deformed them one bit.
I woujldn't expect them to and never intended to say any such thing.
Why is it that you keep attributing the bending of layers to the action of volcanoes? Again, they're a result of other forces, not a cause of forces.
I have NEVER attributed the 'Bending of layers to the action of volcanoes." I did jus explain what I had in mind. It is about the UPLIFT OF THE LAND, IN THE CANYON AND THE GS AREAS, period.
ABE: I suppose you mean where I included volcanic action as one of the disturbances that clearly NEVER happened during any of those millions of years of the formation of individual strata. Yeah, well, it didn't happen. It wouldn't have BENT layers, but we should see magma dikes that spill into lava flows at the surface of the layer, a large bubble or blob of magma not just a narrow sill, a blob of magma that would show up in between the layers NOW, distorting the contact between them and that sort of thing. It should even be obvious on any of those cross-sections if it ever happened. Nothing of that sort has ever occurred to the individual layers showing that none of them was ever on the surface of the earth.
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 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2013 11:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:18 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 169 of 1896 (713641)
12-14-2013 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
12-14-2013 11:03 PM


Re: Useless speculation indeed
In case none of you have noticed, I not arguing for the Flood at this point but against Old Earth theory and I believe the canyon area is evidence against OE theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 11:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 12:52 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 170 of 1896 (713642)
12-14-2013 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Tanypteryx
12-14-2013 8:00 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The flood is physically impossible the way you describe it (none of which is in the Bible).
Nothing I have said contradicts the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-14-2013 8:00 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-15-2013 9:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 1896 (713643)
12-14-2013 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
12-14-2013 11:45 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Nothing of that sort has ever occurred to the individual layers showing that none of them was ever on the surface of the earth.
Nothing of that sort has ever happened to me, showing that I was never on the surface of the Earth. That's the power of Creationist Logic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 172 of 1896 (713645)
12-15-2013 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The magma dike is miles from the Hurricane Fault and did not cause the bending there.
OK you've convinced me about the volcanoes. They wre a result of tectonic movement, so was the faujlt, so was the uplift in both GC and GS areas, so was the Great Unconformity, so was the cracking and breaking of the upper strata ets. That's fine. Same result.]
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 173 of 1896 (713648)
12-15-2013 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The magma dike is miles from the Hurricane Fault and did not cause the bending there. Whatever pushed up the layers is gone now. Obviously the layers to the north of the fault (left in the diagram) were at one time separated from the layers to the south by a significant distance, and I couldn't see a way that might have happened. The Internet seems to be sparse on information about the Hurricane Fault, maybe someone can provide some information on how this happened. But it wasn't caused by a volcano.
Seems to me that displacement of the strata AND the Hurricane fault itself which divides the two sections, AND the volcano, were ALL caused by the same tectonic movement at the same time..q
The most I can make out of the diagram was that there was some significant uplift and mountain building that caused the upward bending on both sides of the Hurricane fault, then the mountain range eroded away.
Looks to me like the faulting was produced by a tectonic movement that both caused the uplift to the GS and the dropping of the tilted strata north of it as well as the volcano and I see no "mountain building" in the area. It looks to me like the fault simply split the strata and both were uplifted to some extent but the north side actually dropped, but remained tilted up against the fault.
In fact it's a typical unconformity of the Siccar Point sort and the Great Unconformity sort, with a horizontal layer on top, which I explain as representing all that's left of a higher stack of strata under which the lower was tilted by the disturbance. That IS the CLarion layer you are talking about and it exists on both sides of the fault line.
Following that was a great deal more deposition, first of the Claron layer but then a great many more layers above that in order to bury it under great pressure.
I agree with the great many more layers part because that IS necessary to bury it under great pressure, but since the Clarion layer exists on both sides of the fault line at completely different levels clearly it was NOT deposited AFTER the fault line occurred, it was already there, and the whole stack above it was already there, and was eroded away along with all the rest of it that formed the Grand Staircase and scoured the Kaibab plateau and all that, and it looks like the fault occurred after all that dividing the uplifted side of the GS from the strata on the other side. Even the partially eroded layer above the Clarion is identical on both sides of the fault line, adding to the evidence that it was all one continuous layer before the fault divided them into two sections.
Following that was more erosion back down the to around Claron layer. The erosion on opposite sides of the Hurricane Fault must have been much different, since on the north side the Claron layer was deposited upon a discontinuity on tilted layers, while on the south side the Claron layer was deposited upon the Kairparowits where its sediments had no trouble conforming to this already tilted layer.
Couldn't happen that way, happened as I just described. It was already there, continuous with the Clarion layer on the other side of the fault, and so was the whole stack above it, all before the fault occurred.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:55 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 174 of 1896 (713651)
12-15-2013 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
12-14-2013 11:57 PM


speleothems demonstrate slow geological erosion of the canyon
In case none of you have noticed, I not arguing for the Flood at this point but against Old Earth theory and I believe the canyon area is evidence against OE theory.
While ignoring the evidence of old age in the wind erosion of the rocks that leaves a patina over time, in the speleothems at different heights in the sides of the canyon that formed when the river level was at their height in the canyon and the caves they formed in were eroded out.
Grand Canyon - Wikipedia
quote:
A recent study places the origins of the canyon beginning about 17M years ago. Previous estimates had placed the age of the canyon at 5—6 million years.[12] The study, which was published in the journal Science in 2008, used uranium-lead dating to analyze calcite deposits found on the walls of nine caves throughout the canyon.[13]
That study found different age speleothems in different height caves in the walls of the canyon. The ages correlate with height in the canyon wall with higher cave speleothems being older than lower cave speleothems.
Rapid erosion does not form caves. Thus you should agree that these caves formed after the canyon was cut.
Slow erosion forms caves, especially where they are in limestone and dissolve in water or water with weak carbolic acid.
Speleothems only form after the caves have been made and it takes time to deposit the layers of calcite (from Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems another thread Faith ran away from):
How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow | WIRED
quote:
It turns out that the time stamps were there all along. They were just hidden away inside the hundreds of caves inside the Grand Canyon's walls. Strange formations known as mammilary coatings -- named for their vague resemblance to breasts -- line some of the cave walls. Mammilary coatings form on the walls of caves that are submerged just below the water table. As the Colorado River sliced deeper down into the Colorado Plateau, the water table gradually dropped. Mammilary coatings marked the river's fall. And as mammilary coatings form, they also happen to trap a lot of uranium. By measuring their age, scientists can measure how long ago they were near the water table.
Three geologists from the University of New Mexico have explored caves along the Grand Canyon, ranging from the very bottom to the rim. In this week's issue of Science, they report that the highest caves have mammilary coatings dating back about 17 million years, and the lowest ones date to about 800,000 years. And all the caves between the top and bottom have the intermediate ages you’d expect. By measuring the distance from the rim to the caves, the geologists were then able to estimate how fast the Colorado River carved the canyon. The downstream end of the canyon formed first, and only later did the upstream end catch up. These new measurements show that even as the river sank down into the earth, the earth itself rose, lifted by hot rock welling up through the crust ...
The speleothems can be dated because uranium is soluble in water but thorium and lead are not
Thus one speleothem categorically disproves a young earth explanation for the canyon as a whole.
The staggering of these up the canyon wall with different ages at different heights all show long term erosion of the canyon -- the time it took to cut from one level down to the next level down to the next, etc
The canyon is old, very old, it formed by slow erosion. Get used to it.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 11:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:58 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 175 of 1896 (713654)
12-15-2013 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
12-15-2013 12:52 AM


Re: speleothems demonstrate slow geological erosion of the canyon
The OBSERVABLE overall structure of the strata clearly disproves the Old Earth, which is engtirely a matter of interpretation, not observation, as is all the evidence you've come up with. I'll take mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 12:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 1:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 187 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-15-2013 10:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 176 of 1896 (713655)
12-15-2013 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
12-15-2013 12:58 AM


Re: speleothems demonstrate slow geological erosion of the canyon
The OBSERVABLE overall structure of the strata clearly disproves the Old Earth, which is engtirely a matter of interpretation, not observation, as is all the evidence you've come up with. I'll take mine.
There are over 900 caves in the canyon walls Faith -- observed, documented demonstrated "disturbing" of the canyon by slow erosion ...
AND
The speleothems are observed, documented formations that take looooong time to form
They are at different levels of the canyon wall and are different ages and the age and height correlate -- that isn't interpretation Faith that is observation of the evidence.
You can't explain them with a young earth formation after a young earth creation of the canyon.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 12:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 1:45 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 177 of 1896 (713656)
12-15-2013 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
12-15-2013 1:03 AM


Re: speleothems demonstrate slow geological erosion of the canyon
Yeah well the speleothems may take a LOOOOOOONNNNG time for form, but the Canyon itself couldn't have. So figure that one out.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 1:03 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 7:58 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 178 of 1896 (713657)
12-15-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by herebedragons
12-14-2013 12:28 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
guess I am not clear on this image, Percy. If layers separated by over 100 million years are inter-bedded, wouldn't that be problematic.
EXCELLENT question.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 12:28 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 179 of 1896 (713658)
12-15-2013 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Percy
12-14-2013 1:23 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Where is your 100 million year figure coming from? Is that a claim from that website? I was only using their image as an example of a complex boundary between layers, in this case interbedding.
If that image isn't a good example of interbedding let me know and I'll try to find another.
Again, the problem with this image is that it has nothing to do with what I was saying about the kind of disturbances one would expect to individual layers had they been exposed at the surface for any great length of time, or just about any length of time for that matter. This picture shows disturbance to the whole block of layers together, not to any of the individual layers separately. Clearly it occurred after they were all laid down.
As for the interbedding, it's not a "disturbance." The horizontality is undisturbed.
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 118 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 1:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-15-2013 1:59 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 180 of 1896 (713659)
12-15-2013 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by herebedragons
12-14-2013 2:00 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
According to the image the rocks are layered:
Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian / Mississippian / Cambrian
Interbedding between rocks of that different of ages would be problematic, would it not?
I assume this is erroneous information from this site, but not sure. Do they simply alternate between Redwall-type limestone and Muav-type limestone without corresponding fossils (Ie. Mississippian or Cambrian fossils)?
Yep, ask it HBD. See what you get.
Demonstrates the absurdity of assigning millions of years of age to the strata.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by herebedragons, posted 12-14-2013 2:00 PM herebedragons 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