Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 10:14 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, edge, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), xongsmith (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,225 Year: 12,261/19,786 Month: 2,042/2,641 Week: 551/708 Day: 110/135 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6465
66
6768
...
127NextFF
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 976 of 1896 (715491)
01-05-2014 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:55 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Hi Faith,

Your objections are all based upon personal incredulity that is in turn based upon a profound ignorance. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're not fooling anyone. Ignorance isn't something that you can overcome through mere stubbornness and determination. Your arguments and evidence all boil down to what you just said: "It's SO absurd." With no evidence or rational arguments, that's all you can do.

You've been provided a great deal of information and have managed to ignore almost all of it. You've learned nothing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 977 of 1896 (715492)
01-05-2014 8:51 PM


Channeled scablands again
The channeled scablands of eastern and southern Washington state alone disprove the idea of a global flood at ca. 4,350 years ago.

http://hugefloods.com/

But we don't see any discussion of that flood even though it was three times older than the global flood, and it left evidence clearly read by various -ologists.

The global flood, much younger in time, should have 1) erased all evidence of the older channeled scablands floods, and 2) left evidence on a much larger scale worldwide.

Didn't happen.

But if one wants to see what a real flood can do, that website is a good source of information.


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 988 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 5:42 AM Coyote has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 978 of 1896 (715494)
01-05-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Yes, you create a pathetic strawman, term taken quite literally from a stage dummy made out of clothing stuffed with straw so that the "big brave heroes/tough guys" in the play could make a big grand show of beating him up and throwing him all around the stage. Though from what I've read in medieval and renaissance times that dummy would have been filled with blood and animal entrails, strictly for show, mind you.

You still trot that piece of tripe before us:

...about which I've commented that they demonstrate the principle I keep harping on, that first you get the layers upon layers upon layers, with NO cutting or other disturbance, until "recent time" when finally, suddenly, the planet undergoes tectonic movement, earthquakes, volcanism, etc etc etc, and you get the canyons and the other interesting shapes carved out of and into the strata.

And yet the evidence is still right there in front of your eyes (assuming that you have not yet again hidden them from the truth!). A meandering river channel eroded into limestone. One of so very many. Every single one prominently extending its middle finger at your sanctimonious proclamation of " layers upon layers upon layers, with NO cutting or other disturbance". And, of course, you chose to completely ignore the very existence of vast amounts of physical evidence that shows that you are wrong!

So what if you are wrong? I've been wrong, many times! Learning that you are wrong about something is actually a good thing. That means that you can learn from your mistake. That you can correct some idea that you were wrong about. That you can learn! I'm sorry, but a mind that refuses to learn is already dead. Why anybody would fervently want such a death is quite literally beyond my ability to understand.

But still, the evidence yet again is working against you. You cannot imagine that any kind of erosion could have occurred to the various layers of strata. And yet empirical seismic data definitely show the existence of erosional markings in the buried strata, those markings being meandering river channels eroded into pre-existing layers, eg limestone. They exist! You cannot magically wish them away! They exist! As much as you want to ignore their existence, we will not allow you to ignore them! You want to lie to us? That is your choice, but our choice is to insist upon the truth.

Here's another fairy tale from "creation science" land. A local creationist activist (and the most outrageous liar I have encountered) repeated a ridiculous claim given to him by a recent speaker at one of his meetings. This claim was that the entire issue about the depletion of the ozone layer was a complete fabrication based solely on a laboratory experiment and was a prime example of "bad science". This activist listed a number of questions that he then took to the "experts", sales representatives for air conditioning companies (I am speaking the complete and absolute Truth here!). None of them could explain how a very heavy refrigerant molecule could make its way into the upper atmosphere, so as far as he was concerned he had proven his point.

I did a quick Google search and within 15 minutes I found the FAQs pages of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the very people who actually work with this kind of stuff!). Every single "unanswerable question" that this guy had listed was addressed there. Furthermore, NOAA reported the results of repeated direct and empirical measurements they had made of the earth's atmosphere, which showed that those refrigerant molecules were most definitely present in the upper atmosphere. His response was to run away.

Later, I found that he was still posting that ozone-layer claim in its original form. After several heated emails over the matter, he finally relented and took that page down, after 13 years! What was his strongest argument? Because he himself could not understand how heavy molecules could have distributed themselves into the upper atmosphere, then it could not possibly have happened Think about that. He could not figure it out, so it could not possibly have happened! Do you remember when some others asked you, Faith, when you had become God? This is the exact same situation, where the creationist has imagined himself to be omniscient.

This guy is a mechanical engineer. Furthermore, he is a state licensed mechanical engineer, which does really mean something, because that means that he is really supposed to know his stuff! Which includes all kind of physics. You want to talk about good expert witnesses? Those are the MEs. They really need to know their physics. I knew another ME who did a lot of work as an expert witness in court. From the skid-mark evidence he could determine who was travelling how fast in what directions, etc, at the time of the accident. MEs really have to know their physics.

So here's this creationist ME who cannot even begin to imagine how a heavy molecule could have made its way up into the atmosphere. Every ME has to know about most all of physics, especially a licensed ME. A very well-known part of physics is fluid dynamics. Gee, imagine a knowledgeable ME who is totally ignorant of fluid dynamics. The exact-same fluid dynamics that will cause large particles, even boulders, to be carried into sediments indicative of rapid flooding.

My main point with this creationist ME is that his ultimate argument was that he personally could not understand how those heavy refrigerant molecules could have made their way into the upper atmosphere, therefore such a thing was completely and totally impossible, even though they have been directly and empirically detected. He was totally and obviously wrong and for good reason.

How does this pertain to you? You are exactly like that creationist ME, though I consider you to be much more personally honest than he is. You cannot understand why the world is like it is, but it still is that way. Your theology cannot accept the world being the way that it actually is. I'm truly sorry, but I cannot do anything about a false theology.

PS

I thought about it shortly, but then decided why not?

You're a creationist. Who created the world? The universe too, but I'll settle for the world for right now.

Have you come up with your answer yet? I'm quite sure you do not want to say it, but it's "The Creator". Right?

Faith, I have a really big problem with "creation science". And I mean besides it's having been created from the very start as a lie and deception and all. My really big problem with it is the false theology that it drags in with it. That's the false theology that if the world is really how we find it to be, then Scripture is meaningless and God doesn't exist. Now, I'm just fine with that personally, but I lived through the 1970's "Jesus Freak Movement", so I also know something about how those people think and what they value. That makes that "creation science" theology one of the stupidest and most self-destructive things that anyone could have ever imagined!

Regardless of any theological preconceptions, the way in which the Creator has spoken to us should be through The Creation. What does It say? What does the evidence say? And, no, you are not allowed to ignore any of that evidence, not one single word!

Edited by dwise1, : PS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 997 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 4:39 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 979 of 1896 (715495)
01-05-2014 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:55 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
There was never any "information" given to answer my point, let alone "correct" information. If the point is squarely faced, no more OE. There are also no profound problems with my ideas, there is only the speculations of my opponents, just speculations, no information, no profound problems. Meanwhile, the absurdity of treating a rock pancake as an era in time, and its fossil contents as an evolutionary stage, needs to be recognized, apprehended, thought about.

But first, Faith, it needs to be demonstrated. Simply saying over and over that it's absurd, to people who understand geology and therefore find that what you're misdescribing makes perfect sense, is not much of an argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


(2)
Message 980 of 1896 (715501)
01-05-2014 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:55 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Hi Faith.
I think I can understand to an extent how you feel about the layers because I have in the past wondered about them in the same way. However in studying about YEC vs OEC matters I realised you can not consider things like the GC in isolation and by distant observation. You have to get up close and personal with the rocks and consider them in relation to accumulated knowledge. This includes the overwhelming evidence for long age found in a multitude of studies.

You gaze across the GC and -Beauty! - All those neat appearing layers where a bit of mud came in from one direction in the Flood, then some came from another etc. Then later some rushing water carved the GC. But then you study the layers in detail, and as has been painstakingly pointed out, the different layers represent different environments, different modes of formation, and different ages.

Again I recommend to you Daniel Wonderly's book, and if you haven't read it, RAZD's Age Correlations thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1094 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(11)
Message 981 of 1896 (715502)
01-05-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
that a gigantic rock pancake, that may stretch for hundreds or even thousands of miles across a continent, somehow represents a particular time period in Earth's history, IS ABSURD."

Let's do a quick comparison...

The Sahara Desert, which is currently being deposited, and the Navajo Sandstone, which is Jurassic in age and deposited in the western U.S.

The interpreted depositional area of the Navajo Sandstone and time-equivalent correlatives:

The Sahara Desert as it occurs today:

Now let's compare the two:

So if we can have a desert the size of the Sahara being deposited today, why could that not have happened in the past? I believe I read somewhere that there were some aeolian units found further East that are suspected to be equivalent to the Navajo as well, making it larger than is known today. Still, even if it covered the entire U.S., it would still be smaller than the contemporary analog.

In addition, consider the size of the oceans today. An immense area of the planet is covered by water, which is why most of the rocks we see on the surface of the Earth are marine sedimentary. Reasonable enough. However, with plate tectonics, we know that much of the marine sediments never become rocks exposed on the surface because they are consumed in subduction zones. Sure, we get some marine rocks squeezed onto the continent during subduction, but these are usually so deformed they hardly look like marine rocks anymore.

Marine sediments/rocks can be preserved if they once formed inland seaways that were later uplifted (Western Interior Seaway, for example), marine sediments deposited in passive continental margins then uplifted, those brought in via accreted terranes (such as island arcs), and through continental collision (Alps, etc.). Much of the western U.S. is formed through the accretion of island arc terranes, which are primarily composed of marine sedimentary rocks.

While we typically do do not see these marine units extending for thousands of miles across continents, they can be fairly extensive depending on their age (the older, the less likely they will survive tectonic upheavals) and where they are located (interior cratonic areas are very stable). I am not a stratigrapher, but petroleum geologists use their knowledge of sequence stratigraphy, geologic evolution of the continents, biostratigraphy, and many other tools to predict the best places to drill. They are successful for a reason.

What you don't understand yet is that these "rock pancakes" as you call them, are not necessarily homogeneous across their entire extent. In the case of continental units like the Navajo, the sand grains that form the sandstone will have different compositions depending on where you take a sample. This can tell us that the northern portion of the unit is formed of sand that was sourced say from a granitic terrane, the southern end from clean beach sands, the east end from a metamorphic terrane, the central portion from volcanic rocks. All of which will have their own particular mineralogical compositions and geochemistry.

Similarly, as you traverse across the Navajo to the south where it could meet the ocean (use your imagination) or perhaps a lake, the Navajo will gradually grade into a different rock type altogether. Aeolian sand dunes with interfinger with beach sands, or maybe lacustrine carbonates, or maybe a large fanglomerate shedding off an adjacent mountain range. While these rocks are no longer aeolian dune deposits, but a completely different rock type, they are still being deposited at the same point in time. They are time-correlative or time-equivalent.

Sediments are being deposited all across the continents in basins, small and large, while at the same time, higher elevation rocks are being eroded away. Therefore you can have deposition in one place at the same time you have erosion in another. In addition, as more and more sediment is deposited, the crust beneath the basin will sink with the weight, thereby accommodating more and more sediment until something forces a change.

Now let's look at some three dimensional images of depositional environments and what they look like in the subsurface. The cross-section is what we'd see in the canyon walls of the GC, in road cuts, or exploration drilling.

This is an image of a transgressing sea, meaning the sea is undergoing a relative sea level rise (compared to land). With rising sea levels, marine sediments encroach onto the continents.

This is an image of a transgressive-regressive sea, meaning the sea first underwent a relative sea level rise, followed by a relative sea level fall (compared to land). With rising sea levels, marine sediments encroach onto the continents, but with sea level fall, the continental sediments encroach towards the ocean while simultaneously depositing atop the previous sediments.

Example of transgression in our favorite rocks.

A lacustrine carbonate environment.

A meandering river with related sediments.

We can identify the environment based on the rock sequences we see in outcrop and we'll have a pretty good idea of what we can expect in areas the rocks are not visible. This is a model. Sure, our models are being revised and supplemented every day, but at least we have them.

If you were to traverse the country today on foot, what would you see? You'd see different types of sediment that change depending upon the environment you find yourself in. You would pass through braided stream valleys, deserts, mountains, lakes, volcanoes, prairies, alluvial fans, and so on, until you have passed through a patchwork of sediments and depositional environments that may one day be buried, lithified, uplifted, eroded, and on display for the next generation of geologists.

During this, you see life everywhere. It is continuing today as it no doubt did in the past (we have the fossils to suggest this), with hardly a care that sediment is being deposited and rocks are being eroded or that Faith thinks it's pure fancy. We hardly notice it happening today except during catastrophes, or if we look for it.

The fact that you can't or won't understand what the rocks are telling you, really makes no difference at all. All that matters is that geology can back up any assertion with real life evidence and draw reasonable and valid conclusions from them. We are also completely aware that the next geologist can force us to change them should they discover something new and compelling.

What can Creationism give us that is useful?

If you want to learn what geologists today actually believe, then a good book to pick up is Prothero's "Interpreting the Stratigraphic Record." It's a second year college textbook. Another good one to pick up would be a book on historical Geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 990 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 7:19 AM roxrkool has responded
 Message 991 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 8:20 AM roxrkool has responded
 Message 992 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 11:20 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 982 of 1896 (715503)
01-05-2014 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 973 by Percy
01-05-2014 8:14 PM


Re: The Strata Speak but you don't know crap about them
Percy writes:

Faith might not exactly understand what you're asking, so just for clarity let explain that you're asking how she might evaluate a sedimentary layer such as one might find exposed at the Grand Canyon to determine what conditions were like when the sedimentary layer was first deposited.

Percy
I am not asking for evaluations or interpretations.

Put in the field with rocks you know nothing about what is the first thing you do?

Can't answer that, and I already know Faith can't, I know she doesn't know shit about the SCIENCE of geology.

If you can't answer as well ,you could always ask, after all I have spent 37 years working as a petroleum geologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 973 by Percy, posted 01-05-2014 8:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 983 by Percy, posted 01-06-2014 10:31 AM petrophysics1 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 983 of 1896 (715508)
01-06-2014 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 982 by petrophysics1
01-05-2014 10:59 PM


Re: The Strata Speak but you don't know crap about them
Hi Petrophysics,

This thread isn't about who has field skills in geology. It's about the implications of the evidence that geologists have already gathered.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by petrophysics1, posted 01-05-2014 10:59 PM petrophysics1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2014 4:32 PM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 984 of 1896 (715524)
01-06-2014 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by Faith
01-05-2014 7:55 PM


NSCE Smackdown
http://ncse.com/...grand-canyon-4-grand-canyon-rocks-0015276

quote:
Yet in the cliffs of Grand Canyon, we see exposed cross-sections of river channels smack in the middle of rocks supposedly laid down underwater during the Flood. Here is one colorized and labeled example, which rafters encounter at mile 41 on the river:

What’s going on here is that the Muav Limestone was deposited in relatively deep water along the coastline of what would become North America. Then over a hundred million years later, the region was uplifted. When rocks are lifted out of the water, they tend to erode rather than deposit; this erosion planed off the top of the Muav (and maybe removed other units as well). Then sinuous rivers cut into the flat top of the Muav, twisting and turning as they undulated toward the sea. We see the remnants of these rivers in the Temple Butte Formation, which is exposed in dramatic half-moon incisions into the Muav. These incisions occur in different orientations as you find them on opposite sides; you’re looking at the cross-section of a twisting fossil river changing its course, much as the Mississippi River does today.

It’s pretty hard to imagine how such river channels could form if they were thousands of feet under water. ...


Bold for emphasis

That's a river channel Faith. where the Temple Butte Formation fills in the channel cut into the Muav Limestone. One of many such depositions on both sides of the canyon carved by a ... wait for it ... meandering river.

Those are layers 7, 8 and 9 in the cross-section we have seen before, and the unconformities here have been pointed out to you before. It is also shown in part 1:

http://ncse.com/...n-claim-4-grand-canyon-rocks-were-0015274

Which bears reading as well as the earlier part on claim #5
http://ncse.com/...s-grand-canyon-5-fossil-footprint-0015205

How do you explain a water channel at that depth? How do you explain it meandering back and forth across the canyon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Butte_Limestone

quote:
The Devonian Temple Butte Limestone outcrops through most of the Grand Canyon. Within the eastern Grand Canyon, it consists of thin, discontinuous lenses, and relatively inconspicuous lenses that fill paleovalleys cut into the underlying Muav Limestone. Within these paleovalleys, it at most is only about 100 feet (30 m) thick at its maximum. Within the central and western Grand Canyon, the exposures are continuous. However, they tend to merge with cliffs of the much thicker and overlying Redwall Limestone

Here are other pictures of other channel crossings, not colorized:


Geologists can explain it. Your model can't ... because it is wrong.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 970 by Faith, posted 01-05-2014 7:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2014 3:09 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 5:25 AM RAZD has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 985 of 1896 (715525)
01-06-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by RAZD
01-06-2014 3:05 PM


Re: NSCE Smackdown
We've been here before, that's exactly the sort of thing that Faith describes as "invisible".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2014 3:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 986 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2014 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 986 of 1896 (715526)
01-06-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 985 by Dr Adequate
01-06-2014 3:09 PM


Re: NSCE Smackdown
yeah, but I thought maybe the colorized picture would make it clear.

Of course you realize that the problem for creationists is that if the canyon was NOT carved by the purported flood then it is obvious that the flood did not occur.

They are trapped into it

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 985 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2014 3:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 987 of 1896 (715536)
01-07-2014 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 984 by RAZD
01-06-2014 3:05 PM


Limestone Romance
This is another angle on a picture Dr. A posted earlier. It all looked to me like erosion that occurred after the strata were laid down, and it still does, only you've now highlighted a feature that wasn't apparent in the earlier picture, this supposed riverbed.

Funny, the Muav and the Temple Butte limestones look identical to me, at least the lower part of the Temple and the Muav, except for the color that's been added to distinguish them, and the barely discernible line that you romanticize into an ancient riverbed. Do riverbeds normally take such a neatly scooped out rounded form? Not that I've ever noticed.

And where are the pebbles and stones and rocks that usually collect in riverbeds, how come it's all limestone filled in with limestone? So this river ran for what, millions of years in hard limestone, in this nice rounded scooped out gully and then suddenly this other calcareous ooze just came along out of the blue and filled it in? I dunno, RAZD. You think your model explains this? Seems to me it's full of holes like the rock itself. As for the Flood model, so one limestone filled in a gully in another, it doesn't strike me as a great difficulty for the Flood model even if I can't say exactly how it happened.

Those ARE all limestones, right, subject to dissolution and the formation of karsts or caves, right? There is nothing out of the ordinary about that happening on "my model" after the Flood. There is nothing out of the ordinary about water running between the layers anyway, but its forming holes also makes sense since we're talking about limestones. The fanciful Romance you gave of how it all formed simply isn't necessary. It was all laid down in the Flood, and then the various forms of erosion occurred, the rubble skirt in front, the holes etc.

Another problem OE has is how the strata always form these horizontal straight connections such as between the Temple Butte limestone and the Redwall. It's somewhat collapsed now but originally it had to have been straight as all the strata originally were. But you're talking a river in a landscape, presumably. How does that form a flat horizontal surface on which the redwall ultimately deposited?

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 984 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2014 3:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 989 by Tangle, posted 01-07-2014 5:42 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1008 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2014 8:16 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 988 of 1896 (715537)
01-07-2014 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 977 by Coyote
01-05-2014 8:51 PM


Re: Channeled scablands again
The scablands were created by the catastrophic drainage of one of the gigantic lakes that was left after the Flood.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 977 by Coyote, posted 01-05-2014 8:51 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 993 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2014 11:50 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 994 by ringo, posted 01-07-2014 11:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6954
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 989 of 1896 (715538)
01-07-2014 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 987 by Faith
01-07-2014 5:25 AM


Re: Limestone Romance
Faith writes:

Funny, the Muav and the Temple Butte limestones look identical to me,

This sums up your entire analytical methodology doesn't it?

You sit at home behind your computer screen look at a picture and randomly decide that the geologists that have studied those rocks, chiselled away samples of them, analysed them and determined what they actually are based on hundreds of years of prior research, are wrong.

You are the very definition of hubris, a perfect fit.

Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities,

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 5:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 990 of 1896 (715543)
01-07-2014 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 981 by roxrkool
01-05-2014 10:34 PM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Well, Roxy dear, you can certainly run rings around the Creationist with your technical knowledge, you are quite impressive with it and I've never had any doubt you are a terrific geologist. And you must have put a lot of work into this post too.

But let's see what I can do with this.

Faith writes:

that a gigantic rock pancake, that may stretch for hundreds or even thousands of miles across a continent, somehow represents a particular time period in Earth's history, IS ABSURD."

Rox writes:

Let's do a quick comparison...
The Sahara Desert, which is currently being deposited, and the Navajo Sandstone, which is Jurassic in age and deposited in the western U.S.

So you want me to notice that there is this Navajo sandstone layer in the western US -- most of it in Utah I gather from the diagram (I know it's a layer in the Grand Staircase) but spilling over on all sides as well -- that is quite a bit smaller than the Sahara sands, and you ask:

So if we can have a desert the size of the Sahara being deposited today, why could that not have happened in the past?

Well, first I'd ask how you know the Sahara is BEING deposited? What is the source of the sand that is supposedly BEING deposited?

But my main question would have to do with how you expect that Sahara sand to get turned into a rock pancake within a stack of rock pancakes. I guess you have to imagine the sea rising again and the water flattening out all that sand into a horizontal layer so that some other sediment then gets deposited on top of it, making a nice sharp straight flat contact with it?

And then when you go on to describe the marine sediments being deposited in the oceans, one has to ask how they could ever become strata on the land, even deposited over or under something like the Sahara sands. For that the ocean floor would have to rise, no? So we've got sea rising and falling and ocean floor rising -- and falling? But isn't this simply physically impossible no matter how many millions upon millions of years you assume for it to happen in?

When I read the descriptions of each layer as exposed in the Grand Canyon, how this one was shoreline and that one was coastal and the other was formed in a shallow sea but yet another was Aeolian and still another was formed at the bottom of the ocean, I have the question how the layering of all these rocks with their entirely different origins could possibly occur physically at all, no matter how much time you give it. People make a big deal out of the question where the Flood waters went, but somehow take for granted all this rising and falling of sea and land.

To end up with something like the strata exposed in the GC you'd have to have the marine sediments layered over by the Sahara sands and then probably layered over again by something else marine and so on. Oh but I just realized, aren't those sand grains shaped in their Aeolian environment so they supposedly couldn't ever be under water anyway, so now we have to get the marine sediments at the bottom of the ocean to deposit ON TOP of the sands, somehow flattening the sands which don't normally lie flat at all but make dune hills, yet as shown in the GC you get that nice straight horizontal contact line between the sandstones and the marine layers, and I assume you have in mind that the planet is continuing to build strata such as we see in the GC. See, I have a big problem with the mere mechanics that have to occur to explain the formation of strata, which it seems to me the Flood deals with a hundred times better than any OE scenario. The planet can be covered with gigantic areas of desert sands and the oceans with marine sediments, but getting them to stack up as the existing strata obviously did, uh uh.

I've barely touched your post but already have to take a break, so I'll continue with it next post. Since the rest of your post may answer some of my questions it might be better if you not answer yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by roxrkool, posted 01-05-2014 10:34 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1018 by roxrkool, posted 01-07-2014 11:56 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1058 by roxrkool, posted 01-08-2014 11:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
6465
66
6768
...
127NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019