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


Message 676 of 1304 (732096)
07-03-2014 11:14 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.
Again, a link please to where you provided the model, method, process and not just more unsupported assertions.

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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:20 AM jar has replied
 Message 680 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:24 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 677 of 1304 (732097)
07-03-2014 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by edge
07-03-2014 11:09 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Oh yes, THAT formation. As I recall I answered that it doesn't demonstrate anything about the time period that happens to be represented by the rocks themselves (Pennsylvanian and Mississippian), just as the exposed Kaibab plateau doesn't demonstrate anything that happened during the Permian period either but was scoured down to a plateau in so-called "recent" time, meaning at the very end of the Flood. So I would expect that those rocks were also exposed after the Flood by the same means. And all that sagging and dipping of course must have to do with the way all that salt behaves, and the carbonates etc. Don't know what all the far right area represents, the part you say has to do with sediments off the uplift or something like that. Perhaps if I live long enough to study it some more I'll be able to figure it out.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:09 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:29 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 678 of 1304 (732098)
07-03-2014 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by jar
07-03-2014 11:14 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
jar, if you've missed all that I'm sorry, but frankly I wouldn't give you a link to anything or even the time of day if I could avoid it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 11:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 11:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 682 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:32 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 679 of 1304 (732099)
07-03-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Faith
07-03-2014 11:20 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I see. So once again no link, no model, no method, no process.
Got it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:20 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 680 of 1304 (732100)
07-03-2014 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 676 by jar
07-03-2014 11:14 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Again, a link please to where you provided the model, method, process and not just more unsupported assertions.
Faith needs to show us how this erosion is different from what we see going on today.
As a historical perspective, we can see how the Lake Missoula flooding was different due to the landforms created by that erosion. But as it stands now, we have only Faith's say so, that receding flood waters created the landforms that we see.
I may be wrong, but most of the effects of receding floodwater that I've seen consists of a layer of mud. If that were to be washed away, then there needs to be some kind of impoundment or something to cause rapid runoff. So, where is that impoundment? Where are the scablands and the megadunes, etc.?
All we have is expression of incredulity from Faith. The really sad part is that she thinks this to be evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 11:14 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-03-2014 12:03 PM edge has replied
 Message 686 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:19 PM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 681 of 1304 (732101)
07-03-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by Faith
07-03-2014 11:18 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Oh yes, THAT formation. As I recall I answered that it doesn't demonstrate anything about the time period that happens to be represented by the rocks themselves (Pennsylvanian and Mississippian), just as the exposed Kaibab plateau doesn't demonstrate anything that happened during the Permian period either but was scoured down to a plateau in so-called "recent" time, meaning at the very end of the Flood. So I would expect that those rocks were also exposed after the Flood by the same means. And all that sagging and dipping of course must have to do with the way all that salt behaves, and the carbonates etc. Don't know what all the far right area represents, the part you say has to do with sediments off the uplift or something like that. Perhaps if I live long enough to study it some more I'll be able to figure it out.
You understand that this is a depiction of data, do you not?
Then you should set about showing that all of the stratigraphic correlations and geological mapping over the last couple of hundred years are dramatically wrong. Can yo do that? Has anyone done it?
That is the only way you can do it, and I don't envy your task. The only way you will figure it out is to ignore the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:26 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 682 of 1304 (732102)
07-03-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Faith
07-03-2014 11:20 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
jar, if you've missed all that I'm sorry, but frankly I wouldn't give you a link to anything or even the time of day if I could avoid it.
Now, is that nice? Don't worry. I can understand your frustration. There is a reason for it, do you know what that is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 11:47 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 683 of 1304 (732103)
07-03-2014 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by edge
07-03-2014 11:32 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
The reason is long long familiarity with jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:32 AM edge has not replied

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


(2)
Message 684 of 1304 (732105)
07-03-2014 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
07-03-2014 10:40 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Faith writes:
I haven't read a lot of your posts...
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I ask if you could, just out of simple consideration and politeness if nothing else, please read the replies addressed to you? That doesn't mean you have to reply. You can click on the "You have not yet responded" link to change it to "You have acknowledged this reply," or you can just move on, but please at least read them.
--Percy

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 692 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 685 of 1304 (732107)
07-03-2014 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 680 by edge
07-03-2014 11:24 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
I may be wrong, but most of the effects of receding floodwater that I've seen consists of a layer of mud. If that were to be washed away, then there needs to be some kind of impoundment or something to cause rapid runoff. So, where is that impoundment? Where are the scablands and the megadunes, etc.?
If Faith's erosive flood caused the spires and buttes in Monument Valley wouldn't they all have a characteristic teardrop shape, as seen from above? And I would expect that the shape would be relative to the direction of water flow.
All we have is expression of incredulity from Faith. The really sad part is that she thinks this to be evidence.
I want to thank you for everything you have posted. I have learned a lot and you have shown me and the lurking readers how truly absurd Faith's arguments are.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:24 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:35 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 707 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 1:43 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 686 of 1304 (732108)
07-03-2014 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 680 by edge
07-03-2014 11:24 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Faith needs to show us how this erosion is different from what we see going on today.
The OE explanation works of course because of all the time you allot, although I don't really think it works, it's just an excuse. However, I already wrote an answer farther down.
As a historical perspective, we can see how the Lake Missoula flooding was different due to the landforms created by that erosion. But as it stands now, we have only Faith's say so, that receding flood waters created the landforms that we see.
I did say that the Missoula flood was a limited flood and not THE Flood of Noah itself, and that I figure Lake Missoula was one of the bodies of water left standing after the Flood. I also think that the tectonic activity after the Flood is probably the cause of their emptying but I'd have to spend some time on each one specifically for that.
I did give my scenario for how the receding Flood waters made the formations of the Southwest, though, more than once I think, but I guess I can give it again. Already did so, below.
I may be wrong, but most of the effects of receding floodwater that I've seen consists of a layer of mud. If that were to be washed away, then there needs to be some kind of impoundment or something to cause rapid runoff. So, where is that impoundment? Where are the scablands and the megadunes, etc.?
Think ocean, not just any old "flood." This is the ocean having transgressed the land to quite a depth, and it's now receding. That's a LOT of water, we're talking water that would break up the strata it had just laid down, even break it up to a depth of a mile or so, break it into huge chunks and carry it off, even into cracks that widen into a Grand Canyon.
Percy's diagram has the surface of Monument Valley arched so that cracks develop here and there, which makes the Flood scenario even easier to explain. Water running across a fairly flat surface will nevertheless develop tracks and if it cuts at all into the surface will follow that cut. I figure that's how it cut around areas of strata to some depth, which then of course remained as the buttes, which became the monuments after the whole area had dried out. If the land was arched and cracks developed as a result, so much easier to account for the tracking of the water around areas of strata.
Again, I think the best evidence that water was the agent of the erosion is the flat plain around the monuments. I know you think that over hundreds of millions of years somehow or other that flat plain would have formed just by the processes of normal wind and weathering erosion. Seems to me what that would have left is a very chunky landscape, not a plain. But of course I'm just an idiot who has been told many times I don't understand physics. Good thing I know better, but convincing anyone with a vested interest in the Old Earth is of course not happening.
All we have is expression of incredulity from Faith. The really sad part is that she thinks this to be evidence.
Well, I do think if you thought carefully about it you'd have to stop your incessant party line long enough to consider that it really IS odd that so much happened in "recent" time, since the last of the strata, the Tertiary, Claron etc., was laid down, while all those strata just lay there for hundreds of millions of years, under water most of the time according to Percy, but that's odd too. Hundreds of millions of years quietly accumulating underwater and then they surface for all this massive erosion to a mile deep or so. Yes I do think that is quite odd and not to be casually explained away. But that's what you're doing and I guess you'll go on doing it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:24 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2014 12:24 PM Faith has replied
 Message 691 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 12:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 696 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-03-2014 12:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 710 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 687 of 1304 (732109)
07-03-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by Faith
07-03-2014 12:19 PM


Something else for you to deny
I did say that the Missoula flood was a limited flood and not THE Flood of Noah itself, and that I figure Lake Missoula was one of the bodies of water left standing after the Flood.
There is a slight problem with this scenario: The date of the flood which caused the channeled scablands is three times older than the date ascribed to the global flood.
Does not compute....

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
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:27 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 688 of 1304 (732110)
07-03-2014 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by edge
07-03-2014 11:29 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Soon as you once grant that anything I've said makes sense and is a new way of looking at something, I may consider doing what you suggest. Unless it's too timeconsuming, which that looks like it might be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by edge, posted 07-03-2014 11:29 AM edge has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 689 of 1304 (732111)
07-03-2014 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Percy
07-03-2014 7:49 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
While you are right that people do congregate around social media (I think), most honest people don't use that as an excuse to continue spouting off about subjects instead of learning about them. Unless, of course, you want EvC the message board to be on the same level as a picture meme that floats around Facebook where every idiot and their mother feels like they are knowledgeable enough to have an opinion. I mean, it's your site so if that's the standard be my guest.

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Percy, posted 07-03-2014 7:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 690 of 1304 (732112)
07-03-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Coyote
07-03-2014 12:24 PM


Re: Something else for you to deny
Yes, Old Earth dating does NOT compute. Once the Flood is recognized it will have to be rethought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2014 12:24 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2014 12:43 PM 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