|
Author
|
Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 153 of 1896 (713614)
12-14-2013 7:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by Faith
12-14-2013 7:42 PM
|
|
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I usually give you credit for at least being able to understand what a person is saying. The best I can say now is that I was wrong, because the only alternative is to figure you are intentionally lying. I understand that you said this:
Faith writes: the horizontality is an issue because it demonstrates the lack of disturbance to the individual layers over their millions of years, no tectonic distortion ... and this:
Faith writes: You pick a picture that demonstrates the tectonic distortion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:42 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 159 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 9:52 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 156 of 1896 (713617)
12-14-2013 8:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
12-14-2013 7:43 PM
|
|
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I said the tectonic distortion in all cases occurred AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. Your pictures prove nothing except that there WAS tectonic distortion. But you admit that there was tectonic distortion. Good. This means that claiming there wasn't any is not a good argument against real time-frames.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 7:43 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But it's not bollocks because it says "Bible" on it. I just wanted an explanation as to why these layers look like they are interbedded. The red of the Redwall Limestone isn't actually the color of the limestone. If you took a hammer and chipped a bit off, it would look gray --- like limestone does. The red is iron oxides which have been carried down by water and deposited on the surface of the rock. Obviously there's nothing to stop the water running further down and staining bits of the Muav Limestone below. So you can't tell one from the other by looking at the color, you have to either look at the fossils or look for the unconformity between them.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 182 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:51 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 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 314 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 |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 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 |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 186 of 1896 (713671)
12-15-2013 10:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
12-15-2013 2:51 AM
|
|
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
CLEARLY the picture shows the interbedding of a grey rock with a red rock, red-dyed or whatever is irrelevant . There's no way the red just sort of landed on alternating layers, they are INTERBEDDED. And I'd like to hear an explanation for that too. The explanation for the thing you made up in your head is that you made it up in your head.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Faith, posted 12-15-2013 2:51 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 252 of 1896 (713791)
12-16-2013 4:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
The Tapeats wouldn't have been solid rock, it would have been wet compressed sediments. The Shinumo layer was tilted as part of the Supergroup up against the bottom of the Tapeats and the abrasion broke off the piece of layer as a boulder What happened to the rest of it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 246 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:37 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 255 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:36 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 256 of 1896 (713807)
12-16-2013 6:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
12-16-2013 5:36 PM
|
|
Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
A fair amount of it should be in the erosion itself. What?
The rest is under the strata somewhere. Look under the deepest parts of the strata column, look in the areas that are never defined in the diagrams, under the strata. Look on the other side of the Supergroup. What's there? That's a BIG area we're talking about. And have you looked down the side of the sofa? We're looking for an awful lot of rock, Faith. Hiding comes very high on the list of things that zillions of cubic meters of rock does very badly, just below unicycling and above stand-up comedy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 255 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:36 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 286 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 7:55 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 257 of 1896 (713809)
12-16-2013 6:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:28 AM
|
|
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes: But this theme keeps coming up, from you and PaulK, the idea that I somehow WANT things to be the way I've been describing them. I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed Faith writes: But I'd have the job then of learning all about them [...] That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me [...] Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. [...] That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:28 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 258 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 6:35 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 261 of 1896 (713823)
12-16-2013 7:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
12-16-2013 6:35 PM
|
|
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The point was, my dear Dr. A, that I don't ARRIVE at a deduction by wanting it to be that way, I look at the evidence and discover what's actually there ... Unless you're too busy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 258 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 6:35 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 272 of 1896 (713835)
12-16-2013 9:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
12-16-2013 8:18 PM
|
|
Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
I'm sure we've explained this to you, but let's go through it again. First there was a non-magical process of deposition, such as we can see happening today. Then there was a non-magical process of uplift, such as we can see happening today, caused by the sort of non-magical tectonic processes that we can see happening today. Then there was a non-magical process of erosion such as we can see happening today. You may find this hard to grasp, since it involves real things that actually happen rather than an invisible genocidal wizard doing magic; but if you think about it for a bit I hope you'll admit that things can happen even if they aren't impossible. In fact, it's quite common.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 263 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 8:18 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 278 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 2:57 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 273 of 1896 (713836)
12-16-2013 9:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:23 PM
|
|
Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Since you don't even try to reproduce any of my arguments but just call them "bad" proves you haven't a clue what I've said. Maybe he figured that you'd know what your arguments were without him telling you. I reckon there's at least an even chance.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:23 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 294 of 1896 (713866)
12-17-2013 10:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
12-17-2013 2:57 AM
|
|
Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
1) What caused the uplift to the Grand Canyon area? 2) What caused the TILTING of the Supergroup? IIRC: 1) The Laramide Orogeny; 2) The Grand Canyon Orogeny.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 278 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 2:57 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 300 of 1896 (713882)
12-17-2013 12:49 PM
|
|
|
G.C.S.
Another interesting view of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.
|
™ Version 4.2
