Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 661 of 1304 (732078)
07-03-2014 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Faith
07-03-2014 8:41 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
And to answer my own post, that's a lot of what I post, observations, the implications of which I think others should recognize too, which I do explain, so that you all can see the point I'm trying to make.
So YOU think so, eh?
Well, why didn't you say so? I mean, that clears everything up for me!
It's usually all in the phenomenon itself, further evidence isn't required.
So evidence is intuitive?
It just ought to be?
ABE: Again, I really like my Message 328 because it shows the massive activity and erosion that occurred only in (imaginary) "recent" time, and the absence of any such activity for the hundreds of millions of years preceding it.
But you have never told us why. On what principle do you base this conclusion?
Was there any such erosion in those years?
Why should there be?
Please tell us what schedule erosion should occur upon in order to satisfy your viewpoint.
I think all that also occurred after all the layers were in place, the "streambed" and all the rest of it.
Well, not 'all of the layers', but certainly after many of them.
So what? Why is this a problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:41 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 662 of 1304 (732079)
07-03-2014 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 657 by Faith
07-03-2014 8:51 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
That's why I like that diagram so much, because it does contain a record of all that. I think there may have been layers above the Claron originally too but we can't know that, can we?
And there may have been layers above the current Canadian shield in Nunavut. So?
I know about the supposed buried "canyon" according to Morton anyway. Just a huge hole in a buried layer that got filled in by sand, which I figure occurred after it was buried. Find me a buried butte though, that should be interesting.
No, it's not just a 'huge hole'. It is a complete drainage system. how did it get there during your flood? Why was it then buried?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 10:50 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 663 of 1304 (732080)
07-03-2014 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by Percy
07-03-2014 8:58 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I think Faith is under the impression that you believe there *was* a "quiet" period in the GC region, where "quiet" is defined as a period during which the region was not being eroded in the same way it is today.
Well, I'm trying to approach it from Faith's standpoint. That's kind of difficult because her whole concept of 'no massive erosion' is arbitrary and irrelevant.
We know that there was a huge amount of erosion from the Uncompahgre uplift in the middle of Faith's "no massive erosion" period. It just wasn't where she wants it to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 8:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 10:40 AM edge has replied
 Message 668 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 10:42 AM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 664 of 1304 (732082)
07-03-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by Percy
07-03-2014 8:40 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
But it is also possible that the proper conditions *did* arise in the past and created a great many buttes and canyons, but so much time passed and so much erosion occurred that they were all completely eroded away.
I think this is an important point. Erosion is a process and landforms are temporary. We see only a snapshot of that process and all of the buttes will be someday gone. But, as should be painfully clear, that will still be a long time in human terms. Sometimes, I think that YECs see the planet as being in a final and complete form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 8:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 10:28 AM edge has replied
 Message 669 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 10:43 AM edge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 665 of 1304 (732083)
07-03-2014 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by edge
07-03-2014 10:20 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
We see only a snapshot of that process and all of the buttes will be someday gone.
Current buttes. But there will be new buttes forming.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 10:20 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 10:41 AM jar has replied
 Message 670 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 10:44 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 666 of 1304 (732085)
07-03-2014 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 663 by edge
07-03-2014 10:15 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I haven't read a lot of your posts so don't recall whatever you might have said about this Uncompahgre uplift. I looked it up but don't see anything there that tells me what you have in mind. I would actually like to see some clear information, preferably cross sections, from that period of hundreds of millions of years, the more the better, and from everywhere in the world.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 10:15 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 684 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 11:52 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 667 of 1304 (732086)
07-03-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by jar
07-03-2014 10:28 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Not if they were formed by the receding Flood waters there won't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 10:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 10:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 668 of 1304 (732087)
07-03-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 663 by edge
07-03-2014 10:15 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
edge writes:
Well, I'm trying to approach it from Faith's standpoint. That's kind of difficult because her whole concept of 'no massive erosion' is arbitrary and irrelevant.
Oh, I know. It's clear that you're trying to reason within her framework of beliefs so as to show her the contradictions, but Faith's Message 654 refers to "...those hundreds of millions of years of quiescence that you consider to be quite normal in the GC/GS area." I interpreted that to mean she now thinks modern geology agrees with her that the region experienced a significant period of "quiescence", whatever "quiescence" means.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 10:15 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 669 of 1304 (732088)
07-03-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by edge
07-03-2014 10:20 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Yes, I do see the planet as in a final and complete form.* I used to believe in the billions of years but got over it. Now I see the effects of the Flood everywhere I look.
ABE: *Although I wouldn't call it "final and complete," as it was perfect at the Creation and has been deteriorating since the Fall, and was very dramatically roughed up by the Flood. This planet is nothing like the original Creation, it's a sad wreck of what was originally created.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 10:20 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 1:22 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 670 of 1304 (732089)
07-03-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by jar
07-03-2014 10:28 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Current buttes. But there will be new buttes forming.
Exactly. As long as there is a source area for buttes in a give area, they will continue to form. Ultimately that source is also gone. Erosion is destructive down to sea level. Admittedly, the Canadian shield has been largely eroded by continental ice sheets, but the principle is that any exposed rock is subject to erosion. Maybe I'm looking too far ahead here, but I'm just trying to define the end product where erosion stops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 10:28 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 671 of 1304 (732091)
07-03-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 662 by edge
07-03-2014 10:10 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
No, it's not just a 'huge hole'. It is a complete drainage system. how did it get there during your flood? Why was it then buried?
It's the sort of thing that would have formed after the Flood, not during. And it wasn't "then" buried, it was already buried in the strata laid down by the Flood, so however this drainage system developed, it developed within the stack of strata after the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 10:10 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 1:27 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 672 of 1304 (732092)
07-03-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
07-03-2014 10:41 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Except as usual you never provided a model for how the receding flood water could create the buttes and for the fact that we see erosion continuing to happen.
No Biblical Flood needed or evidenced.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 10:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:02 AM jar has replied

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


Message 673 of 1304 (732093)
07-03-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by jar
07-03-2014 10:58 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I did describe how the receding Flood water did it, also how it formed the GS and the GC.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 10:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 676 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 11:14 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 674 of 1304 (732094)
07-03-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
07-03-2014 10:40 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I haven't read a lot of your posts so don't recall whatever you might have said about this Uncompahgre uplift.
Of course you haven't.
I looked it up but don't see anything there that tells me what you have in mind.
What I have in mind is a nearby locality where erosion was occurring outside of the small area in which you wish to confine your argument.
I would actually like to see some clear information, ...
'Clear' is in the eye of the beholder and an arbitrary qualification.
... preferably cross sections, ...
Done.
... from that period of hundreds of millions of years, ...
That would be the idea.
... the more the better, and from everywhere in the world.
I seriously doubt that any number would be sufficient for you.
Perhaps you remember this:
Do you understand it? There was some discussion about it at the time, but all I can remember is that you rejected the evidence depicted.
The Mississippian rocks are shown in undifferentiated blue, below the jagged line representing an erosional unconformity. The Pennsylvanian rocks thicken significantly to the east where the source of sediment (the uplift) exists. The horizonta line is a reference line at the top of the Pennsylvanian rocks.
What the diagram shows is that, during the Pennsylvanian the Uncompahgre uplift shed huge amounts of sediment, the weight of which probably depressed the basin.
I say that this is 'massive erosion' during the Pennsylvanian. It is unfortunate that it did not occur where you seem to expect it should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 10:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:18 AM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 675 of 1304 (732095)
07-03-2014 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Faith
07-03-2014 11:02 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I did describe how the receding Flood water did it, also how it formed the GS and the GC.
Actually, you haven't. Where is the evidence that shows this is different from typical erosion that forms canyons and valleys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:02 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