|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Flat formations can be formed in many ways.
But the professional creationists have told her otherwise. "Widespread flat layers are diagnostic of flood deposition." No explanation necessary. It's obvious, after all...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: I can't look at straight flat formations like that without thinking Flood. This one is very, very strange to me. I can look at 'straight, flat deposition' in the Kgalagadi basin at the moment, no Flood involved.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It might surprise you to know that I didn't get that from any professors or even from creationist books. That's how I personally see the world. Most creationists don't attribute all the strata to the Flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Besides tectonic tilting I should have added that many creationists think the sea floor dropped and that's where the Flood water went.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The problem is explained well in the post you are answering.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not identical, COMPARABLE, comparable in relation to the size of the formation, comparable in relation to the kind of rock.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's an observational thing. I gave the pertinent information. You can SEE that it didn't happen before. That's my point.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
First I didn't say "identical". Second you haven't provided any real basis for comparison at all. I'd pretty much expect a hoodoo to be destroyed by "comparable" erosion to the pictured butte. And that doesn't even address the main issue that you need more than a rough eyeballing of the talus through photographs or film to get anything meaningful.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It's not something you can observe by looking at present-day erosion. And how would you "observe" that a hoodoo had been at a site hundreds of millions of years ago, before erosion destroyed it anyway ?
quote: Then why do you go on and on about the sites where this erosion has occurred recently when that is not in the slightest bit pertinent to the question of whether similar erosion occurred in the distant past ?
quote: As I point out above and in my previous post that isn't true, and it certainly can't be seen by looking at present day erosion.
quote: Then you've worked very hard at obfuscating it - and the evidence you've been talking about doesn't - and couldn't - support it. Edited by PaulK, : Minor corrections and clarifications
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: All that's true but long periods are not required on Flood timing. But you believe this because of faith, not evidence. Whenever confronted with evidence that directly contradicts your Bible-based theories you say that you don't have answers yet but that you know you're right. But the number of things you have no evidence for is legion. You have no answers for burrows, nests and stream beds buried in layers, nor for fossils sorted by degree of difference from modern forms, nor for the amount of accumulated radiometric decay increasing with increasing depth, nor for erosion boundaries between layers, nor for limestone, sandstone and shale that forms by drying, nor for where the water came from or where it went. What you do have is many misconceptions about geology. You believe it's unnatural for layers to be deposited flat, despite that most layers are marine and we can see flat layers being deposited in oceans all around the world today. You believe an absence of major tectonic disturbances over long time periods is unnatural, despite great distance from plate boundaries and evidence of much normal tectonic activity. As long as you believe impossible things to be true and true things to be false your views have no chance of convincing anyone. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi everyone,
I'm not moderating this thread, just passing on some information. Adminnemooseus is concerned about the quality of discussion in this thread, and after just now reading the large number of one sentence responses I can see why. I think all we have to do to moderate his concerns is to provide more context and clarity in our responses.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: Sure, that will do for an OE theory about how it happened. You're referring to this image:
I didn't provide the image to convince you but to make clear the views of modern geology. You didn't seem to understand how geology believes the buttes of Monument Valley formed. You seemed to think geology had no explanation for the origin of buttes, that all it believed was that the buttes were once a little bigger, and then weathering made them a little smaller and created surrounding skirts of scree. But geology understands how the buttes formed much better than that. The buttes were not just a little bigger in the past. Before the region was uplifted and rivers began cutting into the landscape it was all just a flat plain and there were no buttes at all. The tops of the buttes were once the floor of this region that was at least a thousand feet higher than the current valley floor. Crisscrossing rivers created canyons whose sides eroded, thereby gradually widening the canyons until they began joining, eventually leaving only the buttes we see today. We understand you reject the views of modern geology. At this point I think most of us are just trying to help you understand what modern geology actually believes so that you can reject real views instead of misconceptions. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify next to last paragraph.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I was hoping you'd reply to this part of Faith's message:
Faith in Message 556 writes: Compacted very hard, soft enough to be fairly easily shaped, hard enough not to slump. Lithification would happen later (ABE: although with all the water trickling through the layers it could already have begun /abe). --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Besides tectonic tilting I should have added that many creationists think the sea floor dropped and that's where the Flood water went. Might you share with us the evidence that leads many creationists to think this? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It might surprise you to know that I didn't get that from any professors or even from creationist books. That's how I personally see the world.
Good, then you can explain why extensive flat strata indicate a flood. What is your reasoning? To avoid the one-line response, I will explain. I know of nothing in all of geology that says a formation is somehow, intrinsically limited in extent. As long as the depositional environment is broad, then the rocks deposited can be extensive. One only need to look at the near continental extent of the Sahara Desert to refute this notion. I also know of no rule that any particlular sequence of rocks must be disrupted over any length of time. On a stable continental platform, there is no reason to say the deformation must occur everywhere in a billion year time period.
Most creationists don't attribute all the strata to the Flood.
So you are not discussing just the Paleozoic system in the Grand Canyon? I thought you were confining yourself to the Cambrian to Permian section of the GC. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024