Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 409 (752637)
03-11-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
03-11-2015 11:44 AM


Re: water runs down hill
Faith, that is the usual way strata are deposited. High spots get weathered and that material gets deposited in low spots.
Reality shows us that happening as well as core samples and mines and modern technology.
Excuse me but this is absurd. Why should the "high spots" contain one and only one sediment or at least the characteristic mix of sediments we find in some layers? And how after tumbling down from the high places to the low places does it sort itself into nice horizontal layers? And how over millions of years of slow deposition would it actually cover over a whole landscape and then become the extremely flat horizontal base for the deposition of the next layer. THIS IS FLAMING NONSENSE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 11:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 12:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 409 (752639)
03-11-2015 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by edge
03-11-2015 11:51 AM


They show erosion. But I don't know what you mean by 'different'. What would you expect to see?
Something other than the mere shape of the terrain. Tree stumps perhaps, something to suggest the actual surface of the earth. Rivers run underground too so I would expect them to look like rivers on seismic imaging, but really nothing more than a channel that water flows through which could just as well be underground as above.
The absurdity of it all blows me away, sorry. Wish I could get it across better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 11:51 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 12:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 409 (752644)
03-11-2015 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by edge
03-11-2015 12:01 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The Great Unconformity is like the disturbances that occurred after all the strata were laid down, ...
What disturbances are those?
You really don't ever read in context, do you? What's the point of talking to you if you can't follow the discussion? The Grand Canyon itself for the main one, the scouring off of the Kaibab Plateau, the cutting of the stairs of the Grand Staircase, Zion Canyon too, all that sort of thing that occurred after hundreds of millions of years of nice neat horizontal layering.
... it is not like the erosion between the layers.
How is it different? Please explain.
The erosion is an itty bitty bit of displaced sediment seen here and there, hardly visible from a distance, or even close up in many cases, and having no effect on the horizontality of the strata. The disturbances I'm talking about that came after the strata were in place displaced a lot of stuff, built mountains, carved out the canyons, moved tons of sediment, and in the case of the Great Unconformity tilted a whole slab of layers.
I think it did occur after the strata were laid down, but even if it occurred in the Precambrian time frame as you all think it did, it still leaves big questions about why there was such a huge long interval afterward when no such disturbances were occurring, hundreds of millions of years of placid surface conditions on this earth.
Why is that a problem? What principle do you use to say that any particular area must be disturbed or deformed?
1. Common sense.
2. The appearance of the surface of the earth now.
I guess that doesn't bother you, as I keep noting.
I have yet to see a reason why it should bother me. Is there a law that says every place on earth must be disturbed every few thousand years?
Considering the immense scale of the disturbances I'm talking about it's absolutely amazing nothing like them ever occurred during hundreds of millions of years of horizontal stacking of sediments. Mountains building, canyons cutting, so on and so forth. Sure you can rationalize it all away. You can and you do. But it's absurd. Just about NO activity for all those hundreds of millions of years, except a little dribbly bit of "erosion" here and there between layers, and then this massive massive amount of tectonic disturbance. Oh, just a big nothing, no problem.
I wish I could say it clearer about the salt layers. All the cross sections show sedimentary layers above the salt in perfectly typical arrangements as the strata normally form, except that all of them follow the sag of the salt layer. The way I would interpret this, of course, is that they were all laid down in the Flood, perfectly horizontal as usual, and then the salt got wet and started rising and the whole stack deformed along with it.
So, how do you deposit these salt layers in the middle of a global flood?
I don't know. I've suggested perhaps the salt leached out of sedimentary layers after they were laid down. But that's changing the subject. The problem I'm presenting here is a problem for YOUR scenario.
But on the theory of deposition over millions of years I have to suppose that the salt didn't start rising until all those other layers were in place above it. Is that the accepted timing?
Could be. However, the salt is probably still rising in some areas even though there is active sedimentation in the Gulf.
Sedimentation wouldn't stop it. But that sedimentation in the Gulf is also not depositing horizontally as it should, but following the slope of the sag of the salt layer as usual, which suggests that something else is going on. How long does it take for the salt to rise? Because of a disaster or near-disaster with a growing salt dome in Texas that I heard about a while back I suspect it doesn't take anything like millions of years.
There is no other way to account for their all following the contour of the sag, ....
That's not the point, however. No one says this did not happen.
That what did not happen? Do you have any clue to what I'm talking about?
... except that one does have to wonder how completely solidified rock could deform in such a plastic-looking way, one would think it would break.
They do. However, under the proper conditions of temperature, confining pressure and rate of deformation, all rocks are plastic.
Easy I'm sure to assume the proper conditions pertain wherever you see such plasticity in rocks.
But then if the salt began deforming and rising at any point before all those upper layers were in place, the usual timing of that process being many millions of years, then only those already in place would deform along with it and any layers deposited above that would fill in the sag and have the flat horizontal surface they always have.
If the rise stops that is what we would see.
It has nothing to do with the rise, this is about the timing of the laying down of the layers.
I'm probably not getting this said clearly enough. Your answers really didn't address anything I had in mind.
What we are asking is how the salt was deposited in the middle of a global flood.
No, that is not the question. The question is how the standard sedimentary strata could deposit over a sagging surface over millions of years and follow the sag contours rather than filling it in and presenting the usual horizontal flat surface. Since this isn't happening on any cross section I've seen I conclude no millions of years are involved at all, that this proves that the time frame for the deposition of the layers was much much shorter and probably occurred only a few thousand years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:01 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 1:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 139 of 409 (752645)
03-11-2015 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by edge
03-11-2015 12:09 PM


ETA: This is all an artifact of arguing from ignorance. You don't know much at all about your flood, or what it would produce or its effects, do you?
I know a lot more about it than the debunkers do. And as for arguing from ignorance, no doubt, but you are arguing from entrenched bias that can't see reality.
As always happens in discussions with you I find you obnoxious, unclear and unwilling to communicate. Apparently you are very touchy about being insulted. I'm sorry about that, but I get very tired of trying to talk to someone who has your attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 03-11-2015 12:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 145 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 1:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 409 (752646)
03-11-2015 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by edge
03-11-2015 12:09 PM


BIG underground rivers then. Sheesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 1:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 144 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2015 1:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 409 (752653)
03-11-2015 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by herebedragons
03-11-2015 1:15 PM


I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.
I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done. If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2015 1:15 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 1:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 151 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 2:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 152 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 2:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 156 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 8:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 409 (752655)
03-11-2015 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Coyote
03-11-2015 1:46 PM


I make logical sense in plain English. I am not interested in scientific accuracy, only in getting across some perfectly logical observations. It's not hard to get with some good will and some suspension of the obsessive pedantry you all take for science. But as usual it's a lost cause as I knew anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 1:46 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 1:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 157 of 409 (752697)
03-12-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by herebedragons
03-12-2015 8:14 AM


It's not about the terminology, it's about why we think these "buried canyons" were at one time on the surface. These seismic images look nothing like underground rivers... they look exactly like canyons that were cut by a river while exposed to the surface.
OK but just because they "look like" canyons that were cut by a river on the surface doesn't prove that's what they are. However, it's interesting enough and I have the time now so maybe I'll go take a look.
Why should we think they were not at one time exposed to the surface? WHY???? Because you say a world wide flood deposited the entire geological column in a single event? Just because you say so????
The point was to claim that there is possibly another way of interpreting the images, that's all. When another interpretation is possible it doesn't prove anything about which is correct but it may certainly raise some doubt about the accepted interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 8:14 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by JonF, posted 03-12-2015 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 159 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 409 (752707)
03-12-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by edge
03-12-2015 2:04 PM


The other interpretation is only that the imaged phenomena weren't necessarily ever above ground. I wasn't saying more than that. Since you don't have solid proof, just that it looks that way to you, that is a plausible interpretation it seems to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:04 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 03-12-2015 2:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 409 (752712)
03-12-2015 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
03-12-2015 2:30 PM


You guys make WAY too much of such comments from me. The idea as I understood it was that it "looks like" phenomena on the surface and that was the entirety of the claim to evidence. And I figured it wouldn't occur to them that possibly it never was on the surface so I very helpfully suggested that possibility. There are so many claims for Old Earth Geology and against the Flood I have to pick and choose and that isn't one I'd expect to spend a lot of time on at this point so the suggestion that maybe the "river valley" was never on the surface is all I wanted to put out there. If they'd claimed very rigorous open-and-shut evidence I might have spent some time on it. Might. But as I said, it's just one of those thousands of claims that I can't spend my life on. I put time in on the issues that strike me as the best possibilities for making a case, and this isn't one of them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 03-12-2015 2:30 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 172 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by jar, posted 03-12-2015 5:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 409 (752715)
03-12-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2015 2:51 PM


Mountain out of a molehill. Sheesh.
It's not IMplausible, they can't say for sure can they? No, they only say it LOOKS LIKE stuff they've seen on the surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 2:51 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 3:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 170 by jar, posted 03-12-2015 3:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 173 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 409 (752721)
03-12-2015 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2015 3:02 PM


I spend a LOT of time where I think it will count most.
If I can't answer a particular allegation, it's not going to help my case to spend time on it, now is it?
I would think that even a diehard science pedant MIGHT, just once in a while, be able to understand the GOOD reasons why a creationist does what we do.
But I guess not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 3:02 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 3:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 174 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 185 by Tangle, posted 03-12-2015 3:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-12-2015 4:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 168 of 409 (752723)
03-12-2015 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by edge
03-11-2015 2:48 PM


So, how else would a river valley form at depth within the geological record?
Tectonic movement of rock underground, water running between layers. Guessing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 2:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:34 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 191 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 5:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 409 (752733)
03-12-2015 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by edge
03-12-2015 3:29 PM


Actually, we are pretty certain.
What is your level of acceptable certainty?
Oh I'm sure you're pretty certain, you usually are. But I'm not arguing this point. I put out a suggestion, not meant to definitively answer anything, just to suggest that MAYBE there's another way to look at it. If it ever comes to arguing it, THEN I'll research it and assess your evidence. Is there something wrong with making suggestions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:29 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 177 of 409 (752736)
03-12-2015 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by edge
03-12-2015 3:27 PM


Then you should prioritize more carefully. But my guess is that you just cant' help yourself whenever there is a chance to disagree with mainstream science
There's some truth to that. I don't want to let too many assertions go by without some kind of response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:27 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:41 PM 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