|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I have to admit that I don't understand why you think that this is a good argument. I can't see any reason why there shouldn't be areas where the visible erosion is too small to be clearly seen in a photograph taken from a distance (I find that the 2-dimensional nature of photographs is a hindrance, on top of the distance).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi HBD,
I'm having trouble interpreting these maps the same way you are. Looking at the description of the first diagram from Distribution Of Ordovician Rocks. American, horizontal lines are areas that were submerged during the Ordovician, white regions are areas that were land during the Ordovician, and black is rock from the Ordovician that is exposed at the surface today. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Make more clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: I'm afraid that is another misreading of something I wrote, I have no idea what. No, no misreading. Back in Message 367 you said that you were talking only about uplift at the Grand Canyon and not about the more general uplift that RAZD and I were talking about. But the uplift at the Grand Canyon is just one small portion of the general uplift. It was not a separate uplift. This is why your earlier claim was wrong that some force we were ignoring acted on the supergroup beneath the canyon and caused the uplift there. The entire region was uplifted, not just the Grand Canyon area. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: But absolutely, if anything clearly contradicts God's word it's wrong, period I think this remarkable statements requires its own thread. If I start one will you participate? I realise that you are fairly occupied with the rebuild of the GC at the moment, but maybe after Christmas?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: I've been mostly trying to fathom OE theory here... There's no such thing as "OE theory". There exists no body of scientific thought centered around a hypothesis that asks, "What if the world were ancient?" There are only theories that are accepted because of the evidence behind them, and these are the theories and evidence we've been presenting to you.
...but of course I do have YEC views of these things as well. In this case that slow gradual uplift that is observed today reflects the very slow continental drift of today, the very slow movement of the tectonic plates, but on the YEC view the current speed is what it's all settled DOWN TO since the Flood, having started out much faster. We're already familiar with YEC views. What we're not familiar with is YEC evidence, because none is ever presented. What is presented instead is imaginings like this:
Faith writes: On the OE view, of course, but I'd tend to think of it as evidence of a formerly deeper and faster river cutting deeply into the landscape before settling down to its current size. That's what the meanders in the Grand Canyon suggest to me. What any evidence suggests to you is of no consequence because you have no geological knowledge to influence your thinking. Catastrophic floods cannot cut a meandering river. You claim it can not because of evidence but because you think that's what the Bible says. But the Bible says nothing about how meandering rivers are created. It's you who are claiming catastrophic floods can cut meandering rivers, not the Bible and not God. You have no evidential, Biblical or divine support for anything you're saying. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, sorry, I really don't want to debate that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: Stiill damp sedimentary layers would carve a LOT easier than basalt,... "Damp sedimentary layers" isn't something that actually exists but is just something you've made up. Sedimentary rock doesn't form by drying out. Lithification interrupted isn't completed by drying out.
Again, you can't compare a worldwide Flood to "a flood." Sure we can. For one very obvious thing, energetic water carries larger sediment. The more energetic the water the larger the sediment it can carry. Spring floods on some rivers, including the Colorado before it was dammed, can carry many-ton boulders. Had there been a flood more gigantic than any ever known then it should have carried and deposited sediment larger than any ever known. Since such sediment not in evidence all around the world, we know there was never any worldwide flood such as you imagine. What we have in the strata around the Grand Canyon, and indeed in most of the strata in most of the world, is relatively fine grained sediment, the kind and amount that takes thousands and millions of years to deposit. The first sediment to fall out of suspension is the largest, the last the smallest. Were your flood real we'd see a progression from large sediment on the bottom to small sediment on the top. There is no such progression. There is also nowhere for your flood sediment to come from. Your flood would flow over the land and scour some sediment, then the land would be submerged and that would be that. Your flood would not contain miles of sediment. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You had argued how unlikely it was that the uplift would have occurred only beneath the Grand Canyon unless it had some specific cause that we were refusing to acknowledge, so I provided the topographical map of Arizona so that you could see that the Grand Canyon is just a small portion of a very large region of Arizona that has been uplifted.
I'm afraid that is another misreading of something I wrote, I have no idea what. No, no misreading. Back in Message 367 you said that you were talking only about uplift at the Grand Canyon and not about the more general uplift that RAZD and I were talking about. But the uplift at the Grand Canyon is just one small portion of the general uplift. It was not a separate uplift. Well, the following is message 367 and I wasn't accusing anybody of anything, such as refusing to acknowledge it. I did figure you weren't taking it into account so I pointed it out. I was noting a fact that has interested me all along:
Percy writes: You're also working under the misimpression that only the area beneath the Grand Canyon was uplifted, but if you examine this topographical map of Arizona you'll see that there was an enormous area of uplift stretching all the way from the northern border down through Flagstaff and then continuing further south and east toward New Mexico. It was a huge area that was uplifted. The Grand Canyon is where the Colorado eroded its way down through the gradually uplifting region (the image is huge, you'll have to scroll around):
Faith writes: No, I'm simply FOCUSING on the uplift that is illustrated in the cross-sections. I gather that particular mounded uplift occurred right where the canyon cut from east to west. You and RAZD seem to be talking about a more general uplift that covered more territory. So nowhere did I say you were "refusing to acknowledge" this. As for the uplift on the cross-sections, itt might have been part of the general uplift but according to the cross sections it has its own local form, that mound into which the canyon itself was cut, and over which all the strata in the canyon bend, and under which the Supergroup directly lies. This mounded uplift has been my focus for quite some time, and it does look to me like it's related to the Supergroup which pushes up right under it.
This is why your earlier claim was wrong that some force we were ignoring acted on the supergroup beneath the canyon and caused the uplift there. The entire region was uplifted, not just the Grand Canyon area. I believe it's quite clear on the diagrams that there was a separate uplift event right under the canyon area, whether it was related to the larger uplift or not. As far as I know it's not usually taken note of as any special thing though it has been of special interest to me as I've looked at those diagrams. Thinking I'm accusing you of refusing to notice it when all I'm doing is calling it to your attention IS some kind of misreading. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"Damp sedimentary layers" isn't something that actually exists but is just something you've made up. It is exactly what would have been the case at the end of the Flood which you deny ever existed.
Sedimentary rock doesn't form by drying out. Lithification interrupted isn't completed by drying out. Why would lithification be interrupted and who said anything about lithification anyway? I've been talking about events I hypothesize occurred at the end of the Flood, which would include the strata being solid enough to hold their shape but not lithified as I've come to understand this term. It doesn't matter to me which words are used, I'm trying to convey something that only occurred once on the planet and can't fairly be compared with tiny little floods. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I'm trying to convey something that only occurred once on the planet and can't fairly be compared with tiny little floods. Those "tiny little floods" such as the ones that created the Channeled Scablands left a lot of evidence behind. We can read that evidence and determine the age of the floods, the direction, and a lot of other details. And if you study those floods, they cut primarily through soils, and to a much lesser degree through rock. It is in soils that we can read the evidence of those floods, and they are less than 15,000 years old. I did my MA thesis on a site that was started shortly after the last of those floods Your mythical global flood, which supposedly is much younger, about 4,350 years ago, didn't leave any such evidence. Creationists have to search back to 65 million years ago, and even 250 million years ago looking for something -- anything! -- that might have been left by a large flood. It just gets sillier by the minute. I don't know how you can convince yourself of all the nonsense you try to peddle off on us. Do you really think about all of this, or are you just grasping at strawmen?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your mythical global flood, which supposedly is much younger, about 4,350 years ago, didn't leave any such evidence. Creationists have to search back to 65 million years ago, and even 250 million years ago looking for something -- anything! -- that might have been left by a large flood. It just gets sillier by the minute. The Flood left a ton of evidence all over the earth. It left all the strata, it left the Grand Canyon and all the formations of the Southwest (It's really kind of amusing to think of the separate layers of which the hoodoos are built as each representing millions of years of time), it left the scablands, it left the traces of the huge lakes such as the Missoula and Lahontan and Bonneville, it left the dinosaur beds and the fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The Flood left a ton of evidence all over the earth. It left all the strata, it left the Grand Canyon and all the formations of the Southwest (It's really kind of amusing to think of the separate layers of which the hoodoos are built as each representing millions of years of time), it left the scablands, it left the traces of the huge lakes such as the Missoula and Lahontan and Bonneville, it left the dinosaur beds and the fossils. This is overly silly, even for you. You are trying to cram events spanning millions of years all into a single flood year. Do you really believe all this nonsense? What happened to the amazing human mind that you were gifted with? (Want to buy a bridge?)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
The Flood left a ton of evidence all over the earth. Yeah, a ton of evidence spread evenly over the whole earth. No wonder we cannot find it. Faith, you will never know the meaning of evidence. Everything you claim is evidence ignores the physical impossibilities of everything you assert.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I believe all of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: Just because they occur on a flat plain doesn't mean that's the only way they occur. When you find a meandering river that's not on a flat plain, you let us know.
Faith writes: But I don't know, it just looks to me like the higher part of the walls in the canyon where the river meanders had to have been cut by deeper and wider water and since that's how I explain the whole canyon, since no mere river could have cut it, it makes sense to explain the deep meanders that way too. The canyon is wider at the top than at the bottom because of slope retreat, not because the river was much wider in the past. The longer a portion of canyon wall is exposed to the elements, the more it will be eroded and fall into the canyon in pieces that range in size from the minute to the huge. Over time the river will eventually carry away all the debris from erosion, but the larger pieces remain around for a consider time. You can see the debris from erosion of the canyon walls in this image, both in the foreground and the background:
What still gets me is how so many here and even that video geology guy explained the deep meanders as water cutting more deeply into uplifting land, even maintaining its own level while the land rises around it. When you said uplift "forces" the water to cut deeper that's really the same idea. That still hits me as dope talk, a violation of the laws of physics. It not only violates no laws of physics, it's extremely common. Imagine the bottom of a river that is flowing along at a normal rate. Now imagine an incredibly tiny uplift, one where just a square foot of river bottom in the middle of the river uplifts one inch. The river will begin eroding it away. Now imagine that a foot long patch of river bottom extending from one bank to the other uplifts one inch. This means that both the river bottom and the river bank are both an inch higher now than they were, but only for a one-foot long stretch of river. The river will begin eroding it away. When the river bottom is flat again then the river banks will be an inch higher than they were before, but only for this one foot stretch. This is how riverbanks grow gradually higher during gradual uplift. Now imagine this for a two-foot long stretch of river. The same thing will happen. Now imagine it for a ten-foot long stretch. The same thing will happen. Gradually lengthen the stretch of river that you're imagining to a mile, to ten miles, to a hundred miles. Gradually the river will erode the river bottom back to its original level again, and the river banks will be one inch higher. Now imagine the river uplifting along this hundred mile stretch for year after year. The river will gradually incise itself into the landscape, the river banks growing higher and higher above the river. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024