Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 669 of 899 (819926)
09-15-2017 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 657 by Faith
09-15-2017 8:05 AM


Re: strat column
THEY ARE ALL THE SAME IN BASIC FORM: FLATNESS ON TOP AND BOTTOM, OFTEN UNIFORM SEDIMENT, OFTEN TIGHT CONTACTS BETWEEN RECOGNIZABLY DIFFERENT LAYERS.
We have been over this before. No, they are not necessarily flat on top and bottom, the fact that formations vary in thickness negates your point.
And why can there not be sharp contacts when we know that depositional environments change rapidly on a geological scale.
Faith, you are just rehashing old assertions here. It is getting to be very tedious.
Please support one of them with actual evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 8:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 3:29 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 690 of 899 (820026)
09-15-2017 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Faith
09-15-2017 6:44 PM


Re: strata continuing
Sorry, all edge was doing was repeating the standard explanation with which I disagree. ALL strat columns everywhere were laid down and THEN erosion, volcanism and all the other disturbances occurred.
And the volcanism at the bottom of the GC also occurred after the strata were all in place just as the Great Unconformity did. And I've explained my thinking on this a million times and if you never got it that's just typical for you. You should at least know what my argument is after all this time with a million restatements of it and you don't. That IS your fault, the usual inability to think.
No you don't understand any of it, and you cannot rebut it. All you can do is repeat the idiotic standard interpretation.
To the contrary. I think that we do understand what you are saying.
The problem is that there is nothing to support it.
You are simply wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 6:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 691 of 899 (820027)
09-15-2017 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Faith
09-15-2017 6:59 PM


Re: Conclusions That Support A Premise Dont Work
Most of the creationist-evolutionist debate doesn't involve new evidence. It's all about different interpretations of the same facts held by both sides. Such as: Evos look at a wall of strata and see millions of years; I look at it and see rapid deposition/ the Flood.
There is a sense in which there is new evidence, however, since I would point out different features of, say, a cross section of the Grand Canyon area, than an evolutionist is likely to notice, to show that it supports my interpretation and not theirs.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
The problem you have is that there is too much evidence for all of these processes happening all over the world within the geological record. Neither the Grand Canyon, nor Great Britain are representative of the rest of the world. There is too much evidence of mountain building and erosion for your scenario to be remotely accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 6:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 692 of 899 (820028)
09-15-2017 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Astrophile
09-15-2017 6:01 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
There are about 2500 metres of Triassic New Red Sandstone in Cheshire, and >2700 metres of probable Permo-Triassic in south-east Devon.
And if you look closely, you will see that they are not continental in extent.
Remember the section I showed from New Jersey a few pages back? Those are the equivalent to the ones you mention above. They are related to basins that started to form with the break-up of Pangaea and the ongoing erosion of the various Paleozoic orogenies. While of similar age the types of deposits are very different.
There are about 2000-3900 metres of Namurian-age Millstone Grit in the Pennines. Finally, there are 7-13 km of Devonian Old Red Sandstone in the Shetland Islands, and in the Scottish Midland Valley. I don't know whether these rocks are the same age as the sandstone deposits of the Colorado Plateau.
Well, the Devonian is older so, those sands would not be equivalent to the Mesozoic of the western North America.
The large Mesozoic sandstone formations of the CP appear quite different in texture, form and extent than the Old Red Sandstone anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Astrophile, posted 09-15-2017 6:01 PM Astrophile has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 693 of 899 (820029)
09-15-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 675 by Faith
09-15-2017 3:29 PM


Re: strat column
OH GOOD GRIEF. A SLIGHT SLOPE THAT IS NOT EVEN VISIBLE DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT OF THE FLATNESS I'M TALKING ABOUT.
So, flatness isn't all that important.
That's what I'm saying.
I was driving across the desert here the other day and noticed how truly flat it is even though I am above base level in an arguably erosional setting.
Any transgression here would look exactly like what we see in the geological record.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING.
The problem is that we DO understand what you are saying and it conflicts with the actual evidence.
THERE IS NO POINT IN THIS DISCUSSING. THIS IS SICKENING.
I tend to agree, but I think that there may be some people out there who would like to hear the most effective theory.
And your story simply isn't up to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 694 of 899 (820031)
09-15-2017 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
09-15-2017 3:25 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
THEY DON'T "LATER HAVE THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE EROSION!" YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONE THING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THAT CROSS SECTION, WHICH I SUSPECTED LONG AGO.
Oh, I understand what you are saying and that is the problem.
It has no basis in fact.
LOOK AT THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO "EROSION" UNTIL THE CANYON AND STAIRCASE WERE CUT AND THEN THERE IS MASSIVE "EROSION"
Remember, the map is not the terrain.
There most certainly are evidences for erosion within the CP geological record.
THE MAGMA STARTS AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND PENETRATES TO THE VERY TOP -- OBVIOUSLY BEGUN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. I'VE EXPLAINED THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES ALREADY WHEN THIS CROSS SECTION HAS COME UP.
Actually not. Some are cut off at the Great Unconformity and found nowhere above it.
This is just one instance.
I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY FORMED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE AND HAVE ARGUED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.
There is no evidence to support this scenario. We have been over it many times and you have failed to provide any.
I REJECT THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVISIBLE UNCONFORMITIES AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SURFACE.
Well, that is good because there aren't any that are invisible.
IT IS SICKENING TO HAVE TO START ALL OVER EXPLAINING WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES ALREADY TO SOMEONE WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND ONE WORD OF IT.
Well, if you don't have anything new, I certainly agree.
THIS COULD BE MY PROBLEM OF FAILURE TO SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH THOUGH I EXPLAINED IT ALL SO MANY TIMES I DOUBT IT, NOW YOU ARE COMING ALONG KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT. BUT WHATEVER THE PROBLEM THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THIS DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE DEBATE AT EVC IS.
As I said, we understand what you say, it is just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 1:52 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 701 of 899 (820051)
09-16-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Faith
09-16-2017 1:52 AM


Re: the usual miserable finale
The erosion is minuscule, like rubble between layers caused by runoff or perhaps a shifting of the rocks causing abrasion. Erosion of the sort that we find on the surface would look like canyons and cliffs which did finally occur after, ha ha, "millions of years."
Except that you have been shown entire stream systems in the rock record. You have been shown vast deposits of sand that we know came from eroding mountain ranges. You have been shown conglomerate rocks in the case of several erosional unconformities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 1:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 809 of 899 (820193)
09-17-2017 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 805 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:42 AM


Re: monadnocks
It's all based on the Great Unconformity's tilting and the strata in the Supergroup and the granite and the schist and the magma fingers, all ililustrated on the cross section, illustrated as confined to the basement area beneath the Tapeats. This is what is interpreted on the standard theory as having to have occurred before the strata were laid down, but I'm interpreting it as having occurred afterward and I give evidence for that.
My argument is that all those facts are the effect of the great tectonic event that occurred after the Flood, after all the strata were laid down, at which time they would all still be somewhat wet and malleable. In fact I also hypothesize that the Flood began to recede as part of the same tectonic event so it was all still underwater. This malleability is why the whole stack could be lifted up over the GU in the mounded form that is illustrated on the cross section. The GU was tilted and the stack lifted by that tectonic action. The volcanism occurred as part of the same event, forming the granite and the schist. There is one major monadnock which is an extension of the Shinumo quartzite layer in the Supergroup. Most of the Supergroup got broken off by the sliding at the Great Unconformity, but the quartzite was hard enough not to break so easily so that a great length of it coujld penetrate upward into the still-softish layers
above. The faulting in the Supergroup is evident on the cross section; the angle of the monadnock was formed by the tilting of the Supergroup.
That is the only explanation consistent with the scenario I've built.
Still no evidence to support this contention.
Show us the tectonic fabric formed by this type of detachment and faulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 810 of 899 (820194)
09-17-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:56 AM


Re: Temple Butte layering in channel
That's a good point. So the channel was filled by the Flood deposit of the Temple Butte limestone. But something had to cut the channel after the strata were laid down, and that is often done by the acidic water that dissolves limestone.
So, this acidic water cut the channels but left no evidence of chemical attack in the rest of the rock?
Please show us evidence for this mechanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 820 of 899 (820229)
09-17-2017 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Faith
09-17-2017 1:47 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
What's physically impossible is the absurd idea that the GU is the root of a former mountain range that grew up and then eroded down to flatness before the strata started building above it. Or that strata would lay themselves down in a mounded form a mile deep. Or that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon. Or that a whole scenario of a "time period" could have existed where there now is only a vast flat slab of sedimentary rock, let alone dozens of them. Or that mammals evolved from reptiles. Or that mutations are the source of healthy alleles.
Still no evidence supporting your position.
All you can do is complain about the impossibility of an old earth and established geological processes.
For instance, I can show that what we see beneath the great unconformity looks pretty much like what we see in modern mountain chains and that the erosion is very similar. on top of that, rock evidence and radiometric dates back up the idea that the GU is an erosional surface.
All you are giving us is stories. Fantastic ones, to be sure, but exactly no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 1:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 8:30 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 825 of 899 (820241)
09-18-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 822 by PaulK
09-18-2017 1:24 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
This is absolutely bizarre. Here you are talking about the source of a boulder, and you were talking about the monadnocks; but at the same time you're saying everything was planed off to a flat surface. Monadnocks are, by definition, not flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2017 1:24 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 833 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:51 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 839 of 899 (820300)
09-18-2017 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. SO DOES THE TILT. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH. THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.
Well, that's convenient.
Your evidence is invisible.
Faith, when one adjacent block of rocks moves relative another, that is a fault. Fault planes are evidence of that motion and they have certain characteristics that tell us about the forces and the geometry of the movement. What characteristics can you show us? If the Shinumo rocks jut up into the Tapeats (and they actually go further, up into the Bright Angel Shale), why do they not get sheared off along such a fault? Otherwise, they are evidence that any erstwhile fault would be locked up and unable to activate. Please give us a reason to think that this makes sense.
That's just another way of asking for evidence, in a way that you might understand.
INTERESTING YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER A CREATIONIST EXPLANATION, THE DEBRIS FLOW, TO EXPLAIN THE MOVEMENT OF THE QUARTZITE BOULDER. INTERESTING THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
Actually, this doesn't look like a debris flow to me. I think the more likely explanation is a talus slope from one of the Shinumo islands in the Tapeats sea. Given that the Shinumo cliffs and talus slopes are up to hundreds of feet high, having one boulder roll further out on to the beach isn't much of a stretch.
Practically every day I see the same thing on my way to work: a thick sandstone formation with one big boulder sitting right there in the fine sand, about half a billion years later than the Shinumo boulder.
So, basically, I'm not seeing the problem that YECs have with this occurrence.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 840 of 899 (820301)
09-18-2017 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:51 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
HOW YOU GET THIS OUT OF ANYTHING I SAID IS BEYOND ME. THE BOULDER POINT WAS AN ASIDE, NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE MONADNOCK.
Well, maybe it should be.
THE MONADNOCK WAS HARD ENOUGH TO RESIST BEING PLANED OFF SO IT GOT PUSHED UP INTO THE STRATA ABOVE.
Without leaving any evidence of deformation in the overlying rocks.
Sure.
I'D HAVE TO SEE A MORE COMPLETE DIAGRAM TO KNOW IF IT BROKE OFF OR WHERE IT BROKE OFF.
Well, it clearly isn't broken off in some places.
If you were correct, we'd see evidence that would look like stripped gears all along the unconformity on a global basis.
And your scenario of undisturbed upper plate rocks is absurd. The only rocks that have anywhere to really move are the ones at the surface of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 9:53 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 842 of 899 (820304)
09-18-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 841 by Faith
09-18-2017 9:53 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
There probably is some evidence but it's not exposed.
As I said, how very convenient for you.
Does this also mean that you don't have to look for it?
Besides the sediments were wet so they'd just settle back to their condition before being disturbed.
So they moved and then they moved back.
Your evidence has a strange way of disappearing.
Why should it look like stripped gears if the sediments were still wet? And again, there may be evidence that just happens to be out of sight.
Good. That way you can make up whatever you want.
I thought you said that the Shinumo Quartzite was resistant to deformation.
Do you have any idea what happens to wet sediments when they flow?
The evidence of the whole stack's being lifted is quite clear on the cross section as I've many times pointed out. The strata would not deposit over a hill like that, they had to have been pushed up.
Or not. The point is that this is irrelevant as evidence for your scenario as in opposition to the mainstream conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 9:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 2:01 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 852 of 899 (820323)
09-19-2017 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
09-19-2017 2:01 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
What is the need for the snarky tone?
To show the absurdity of your position. And I dare say that I am less 'snarky' than you. I have to say that I tend to take willful ignorance and downright arrogance as an insult.
Really. I'm trying to build on my model or hypothesis or whatever, and I'm making use of the evidence I have available, and I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to get it all to work together based on the evidence I have.
First of all, you have not provided any kind of evidence that supports your 'hypothesis'.
Furthermore, you are not building a model, nor getting it to work together. You are simply trying to prop up a preconceived idea with ad hoc explanations and assertions.
I know it's galling to you that I don't accept standard geological interpretations and I'm truly sorry that everything I say is so offensive to you.
Mainly, I am puzzled by the YEC tendency to glibly disregard evidence and deny facts, all the while making up fantastic stories as though they have some relationship to reality. I cannot fathom why people fail to use the faculties that they say were given to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 2:01 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