Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 571 of 1304 (731860)
07-01-2014 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Coyote
06-30-2014 9:22 PM


Re: Guyana tepui
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Coyote, posted 06-30-2014 9:22 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:17 AM edge has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 572 of 1304 (731861)
07-01-2014 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by Faith
06-30-2014 7:45 PM


Re: Guyana tepui
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 573 of 1304 (731862)
07-01-2014 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by edge
07-01-2014 3:01 AM


Re: Guyana tepui
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by edge, posted 07-01-2014 3:01 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by edge, posted 07-01-2014 8:00 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 574 of 1304 (731863)
07-01-2014 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 566 by edge
06-30-2014 9:42 PM


Besides tectonic tilting I should have added that many creationists think the sea floor dropped and that's where the Flood water went.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by edge, posted 06-30-2014 9:42 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 7:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 587 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2014 8:20 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 588 by edge, posted 07-01-2014 8:23 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 575 of 1304 (731864)
07-01-2014 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by edge
06-30-2014 9:36 PM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
The problem is explained well in the post you are answering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by edge, posted 06-30-2014 9:36 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 8:17 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 576 of 1304 (731865)
07-01-2014 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 568 by PaulK
07-01-2014 1:08 AM


Not identical, COMPARABLE, comparable in relation to the size of the formation, comparable in relation to the kind of rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 1:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 6:31 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 577 of 1304 (731866)
07-01-2014 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by PaulK
07-01-2014 1:27 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 1:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 6:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 578 of 1304 (731867)
07-01-2014 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 579 of 1304 (731868)
07-01-2014 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:24 AM


Re: All that erosion that sculpted around the strata
quote:
It's an observational thing.
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:
I gave the pertinent information.
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:
You can SEE that it didn't happen before.
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:
That's my point.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 580 of 1304 (731872)
07-01-2014 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 550 by Faith
06-30-2014 6:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 581 of 1304 (731873)
07-01-2014 7:16 AM


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
EvC Forum Director

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 582 of 1304 (731875)
07-01-2014 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Faith
06-30-2014 7:15 PM


Re: Erosion of an Entire Valley
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 7:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 583 of 1304 (731876)
07-01-2014 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by edge
06-30-2014 9:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by edge, posted 06-30-2014 9:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by edge, posted 07-01-2014 1:51 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 584 of 1304 (731877)
07-01-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 574 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:19 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 585 of 1304 (731878)
07-01-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:17 AM


Re: Guyana tepui
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:17 AM Faith 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