Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 601 of 1304 (731933)
07-01-2014 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 599 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:59 PM


Faith writes:
My claim is that all this was the work of the receding Flood waters, and that the sediments were quite hard from compaction so that the cutting was possible.
If the sediments were "quite hard", then thousands of feet of material couldn't be eroded away in only a year. Remember, Niagara Falls only erodes five feet per year.
And if the sediments were so soft that thousands of feet of material could be eroded away in only a year then they would be too soft to remain as canyon walls and would slump into the canyons.
And if they were incompletely lithified and soft, then nothing that happened after the force of compaction of the overlying layers was removed could harden them and they would still be soft today.
You keep insisting on talking about everything but the point I was originally making in Message 448 about the MASSIVE EROSION,...
Yes, the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley represent a great deal of erosion, "massive erosion" if you like. We can tell you think this is a problem for modern geology, but you haven't been able to explain why. The same slow erosion we observe taking place today at many places around the world has also been taking place throughout all of geologic time.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo, clarify slightly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 2:42 AM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 602 of 1304 (731935)
07-02-2014 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:59 PM


You keep insisting on talking about everything but the point I was originally making in Message 448 about the MASSIVE EROSION, you know, the erosion, or washing away, of all the sediment in Monument Valley around the monuments, that left a huge plain in the area.
There's no disagreement there. We recognize that there has been a large amount of material removed.
So what? There has been plenty of time to do that even at a slow rate.
A huge block of strata above the formations was washed away and then the formations were carved out of remaining strata down to the Kaibab in the GC area. My claim is that all this was the work of the receding Flood waters, and that the sediments were quite hard from compaction so that the cutting was possible.
Fine. Now provide us with evidence or some kind of reasoning for this conclusion.
I am not talking about the Precambrian rocks of the GC. I'll let you know when I want to address those.
Okay, we will ignore certain evidence as long as you want.
Meanwhile the point I made in Message 448 still stands as evidence against the OE.
How is that? What is your evidence? Your assertions are not evidence.
I know you can't see it, professional blindess I guess, but maybe some day.
I'm sure the fault is all ours. I doubt that you could possibly be wrong.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:19 AM edge has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 603 of 1304 (731937)
07-02-2014 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:59 PM


quote:
You keep insisting on talking about everything but the point I was originally making in Message 448 about the MASSIVE EROSION,
I think the failure to provide a useful link here is rather diagnostic of your problem, Faith. You assume that you know something, don't make basic and simple checks and get it completely wrong. Here's how to do it: Message 448
Now the problem with your post is that you just claim that somehow this erosion has implications for the old earth - but even when questioned you don't explain what these "implications" are or how you get to them from the observations.
Now in that post you don't address the nature of the erosion or the timescales nor any evidence that would allow us to determine them. When that evidence is discussed you don't exactly have a solid case there either. And even if you could get support from those points you still wouldn't have a good argument against an old Earth.
So no, your message Message 448 does not stand as evidence against an Old Earth. And that's not because of any bias on my part - it's entirely due to your failure to support your opinions in that post and in later discussion.
Let me make a very basic and simple point that I've made before. Just because you assume that the Flood did something doesn't meant that it's evidence for the Flood. You would need to look at the evidence in more detail and show that the Flood DID do it. In your case that is especially true because you are so heavily biased in favour of the Flood that you are likely to make that assumption whether it is reasonable or not.
In short, learn how to rationally argue your point instead of attacking people for disagreeing with your unsupported and biased opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:02 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 604 of 1304 (731938)
07-02-2014 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 601 by Percy
07-01-2014 10:00 PM


massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I can say it again and you won't get it again.
The reason the massive erosion is an issue is that it only happened since all the strata were in place. This struck me again as I saw the formations in the film "Thelma and Louise" which are somehow a lot more real than in a flat photograph for some reason. The strata were in place to a depth of something like three miles, which can be inferred from the existing strata in Monument Valley and the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area. If it only happened after all were in place, in "recent time" that is, then nothing like that happened ever before during the laying down of all those strata, and that can be seen in the walls of the GC at least. Certainly back to the tapeats/Cambrian. That's a few hundred million years when no such massive erosion occurred, and by massive erosion what I mean is no canyon cutting, no cliffs as in the Staircase area, no monuments as in Monument Valley, and there would have been about a mile's depth of strata that just washed away in those areas too, leaving those formations. I guess that's OK with all of you though, we simply live in a time of active erosion that never happened before. Perfectly sensible, takes care of that. End of subject.
Then there are the Precambrian rocks which also keep being brought up. Seems to me that the hundreds of millions of years that occurred "since" then ought to call the OE into question all by itself, but obviously it doesn't. Of course you all know how those rocks were formed, by the usual interpretive method, which, although it is nothing more than hypothesis-formation, is somehow capable of arriving at incontrovertible knowledge just as the real scientific method is. I have my guess about the angular unconformity of course, that it occurred at the same time as all the other massive erosion whose results are seen mostly higher up, and that leads me to think the other events having to do with the Vishnu and the Chuar and all that, also occurred in the same time frame, but I can't prove any of it, so your interpretive conclusions have to stand for now.
ABE: So what really happened? The Flood laid down all the strata as per Walther's Law I assume, then as the Flood water drained it broke up some of the higher strata, then started carving out forms and leaving chunks of it in place which became Buttes, Monuments, Cliffs and Canyons. The forms that got left were just hard enough from compaction not to get washed away with the rest of it above. There was probably some help with breaking up the strata provided by tectonic disturbance, which also formed the Great Unconformity. After the water had drained away then the forms settled down to lithify and get eroded by normal weathering.
I knew you'd want to know. /ABE
I know it seems cheeky of me to think the Flood trumps Geology. But it does. Eventually we'll get it figured out how.
Oh and I also still like my post which was basically on this same subject, way back there in Message 328. HBD didn't like it but what does he know?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 601 by Percy, posted 07-01-2014 10:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 3:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 619 by Percy, posted 07-02-2014 10:20 AM Faith has replied
 Message 628 by edge, posted 07-02-2014 5:37 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 605 of 1304 (731939)
07-02-2014 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by PaulK
07-02-2014 1:18 AM


The link to Message 448 in my post works fine when I check it PK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 1:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 606 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 3:19 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 606 of 1304 (731940)
07-02-2014 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by Faith
07-02-2014 3:02 AM


The link works now, because the Moose fixed it for you, as mentioned in the edit log.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:20 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 607 of 1304 (731941)
07-02-2014 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by edge
07-02-2014 12:55 AM


You keep insisting on talking about everything but the point I was originally making in Message 448 about the MASSIVE EROSION, you know, the erosion, or washing away, of all the sediment in Monument Valley around the monuments, that left a huge plain in the area.
There's no disagreement there. We recognize that there has been a large amount of material removed.
So what? There has been plenty of time to do that even at a slow rate.
Time cures everything they say, sure seems to be the case with Geology. The only thing I would suggest as a counter argument is that I don't see how time would erode away a flat plain like that, between the monuments and in the greater area. I do see how a lot of water could do it though, and scour off the surface of the layer that is the surface of the plain.
A huge block of strata above the formations was washed away and then the formations were carved out of remaining strata down to the Kaibab in the GC area. My claim is that all this was the work of the receding Flood waters, and that the sediments were quite hard from compaction so that the cutting was possible.
Fine. Now provide us with evidence or some kind of reasoning for this conclusion.
I'm aiming for something plausible as an alternative explanation for starters and I think this is plausible. I can point out again as I just did above that I think running water would accomplish the results that now exist far more effectively than piecemeal erosion over millions of years could, especially in the scouring of a surface that is now a large plain. Same could be said of the Kaibab plateau. Time wouldn't scour that clean either [please don't get nitpicky about "clean," it's relatively clean, it's a plateau, the surface of the Kaibab or "Permian"], but running water could have.
ABE: The strata were laid down to a depth of about three miles. That's from Tapeats to Claron at least. This is visible only in the GC diagram, but it must have been the case all over the Southwest and indeed the world, being understood as time, a few hundred million years up until "Recent" time. Certainly the Flood wouldn't have neglected to lay down the whole stack either, though possibly a layer here and there. But the Monuments are built of strata that corresponds to the lower layers of the Grand Staircase, so there has to have been an enormous lot of strata above them originally that has all eroded away. In the Grand Staircase it eroded in chunks that formed cliffs; over the Grand Canyon it has all been eroded away down to the Kaibab, at least a mile depth of strata, maybe quite a bit more. That's a lot of material to get eroded away piecemeal but an anormous amount of fast flowing water could be expected to do it, IMHO of course. /ABE
I am not talking about the Precambrian rocks of the GC. I'll let you know when I want to address those.
Okay, we will ignore certain evidence as long as you want.
As long as you grasp the evidence already given.
Meanwhile the point I made in Message 448 still stands as evidence against the OE.
How is that? What is your evidence? Your assertions are not evidence.
There's a lot more than assertion there, I've reasoned that if such massive erosion occurred only in "recent time" and not during the previous hundreds of millions of years, that the whole OE scheme is called into question. I know you can rationalize it away and have done so, but I think it is enormously good evidence against the OE and for the YE. As for the Precambrian rocks, I just discussed that along with all the rest of this in my post to Percy above.
I know you can't see it, professional blindess I guess, but maybe some day.
I'm sure the fault is all ours. I doubt that you could possibly be wrong.
Oh about some things no doubt but this particular observation about the massive erosion that occurred ONLY in "recent time" does strike me as awfully telling. I keep being amazed by it as I've said, such an obvious fact in favor of the Flood just rationalized away by you guys.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by edge, posted 07-02-2014 12:55 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by Percy, posted 07-02-2014 10:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 629 by edge, posted 07-02-2014 5:50 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 608 of 1304 (731942)
07-02-2014 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by PaulK
07-02-2014 3:19 AM


OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 3:19 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by Percy, posted 07-02-2014 10:37 AM Faith has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 609 of 1304 (731943)
07-02-2014 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by Faith
07-02-2014 2:42 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
quote:
The reason the massive erosion is an issue is that it only happened since all the strata were in place.
That will be true if any erosion going on now. So why is it an issue?
quote:
If it only happened after all were in place, in "recent time" that is, then nothing like that happened ever before during the laying down of all those strata
You need to look at the evidence a bit more before concluding that. Also it needs to be pointed out that if that is just a statement about those localities it can't demonstrate anything about the wider world. If it is intended to be about the wider world, you need to look at a lot more sites, over a larger geographic range.
quote:
That's a few hundred million years when no such massive erosion occurred, and by massive erosion what I mean is no canyon cutting, no cliffs as in the Staircase area, no monuments as in Monument Valley, and there would have been about a mile's depth of strata that just washed away in those areas too, leaving those formations.
I'm not convinced that that is true, but even if it is why would it be a serious problem if it just applied to those locations ? Again, you need more evidence and explanation.
And of course the time required to deposit the rock and for this massive erosion to occur are valid issues that must be resolved. What if they turn out to be consistent with the Old Earth and not the Flood ? Wouldn't the evidence then support an Old Earth and contradict the Flood ?
quote:
...we simply live in a time of active erosion that never happened before. Perfectly sensible, takes care of that. End of subject.
In other words you take your view of what happened at three locations - chosen because they are currently undergoing massive erosion - as describing the situation world wide. Need I point out that such an inference is not at all justified ?
quote:
Then there are the Precambrian rocks which also keep being brought up. Seems to me that the hundreds of millions of years that occurred "since" then ought to call the OE into question all by itself, but obviously it doesn't
Why should it? Especially when we have solid evidence for it ?
quote:
Of course you all know how those rocks were formed, by the usual interpretive method, which, although it is nothing more than hypothesis-formation, is somehow capable of arriving at incontrovertible knowledge just as the real scientific method is
If you are going to seriously discuss the issues then this really has no place, especially as it is far more true of your own arguments, as I point out above.
Again, if you engaged in more serious discussion and dropped the nastiness you would do a lot better here. As it is your problems are very much of your own making,.
Edited by PaulK, : Correct autocorrect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 2:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 610 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 4:05 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 610 of 1304 (731944)
07-02-2014 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 609 by PaulK
07-02-2014 3:51 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Oh I doubt that. I've been posting here a long time and the noncomprehension and general dismissal of my arguments has persisted through the range of attitudes I've expressed. At some point one gives up on getting anything across and just tells it like it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 3:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 4:19 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 611 of 1304 (731946)
07-02-2014 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 610 by Faith
07-02-2014 4:05 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Losing in debates is not a good excuse for bad behaviour. But if you're not even trying to produce serious arguments now, why get so angry when they don't work ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 4:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 4:20 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 4:25 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 612 of 1304 (731947)
07-02-2014 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by PaulK
07-02-2014 4:19 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
There is no honest "losing in debates" going on here. "Bad behavior?'' No it's appropriate behavior for dealing with the reality here.
There is nothing wrong with my arguments. What a strange idea. Telling it like it is means telling it like it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 4:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 4:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 622 by Percy, posted 07-02-2014 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 630 by edge, posted 07-02-2014 5:53 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 613 of 1304 (731948)
07-02-2014 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by PaulK
07-02-2014 4:19 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Being insulted and misrepresented every time I post anything at all eventually requires dealing with you all as the miserable dishonest rude people you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 4:19 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by edge, posted 07-02-2014 5:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 614 of 1304 (731950)
07-02-2014 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 612 by Faith
07-02-2014 4:20 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
There's a lot wrong with your arguments. And your "telling it like it is" looks a lot like attempting to suppress the truth by bullying people into silence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 4:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 4:36 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 615 of 1304 (731951)
07-02-2014 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by PaulK
07-02-2014 4:30 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Wow, what power I have, bullying people into silence? Wow, one lone female creationist against dozens of slavering evo wolves who haven't an iota of honesty or fairness? That's really funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 4:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 4:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024