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:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 76 of 224 (820756)
09-26-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Minnemooseus
09-26-2017 3:45 AM


Topic Focus
Moose writes:
Well, this topic has turned into a mess real fast. I guess that was my mistake, in opening up the topic just before I was going to have minimal internet time available for a couple of days.
No, this topic is informative and educational. My only advice would be to slow down and not overwhelm any readers. Faith has apparently stopped posting for awhile and without her here you have nobody to refute...keep the explanations brief and concise. (my 2 cents)

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2017 3:45 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 6:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 77 of 224 (820760)
09-26-2017 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Phat
09-26-2017 3:02 PM


Re: Topic Focus
Phat writes:
...keep the explanations brief and concise.
Agreed, but that is very challenging with Walther's Law. These key concepts must be all be grasped:
  • Simultaneous but distinct sedimentary environments each at different distances from shore.
  • The entire collection of sedimentary environments move imperceptibly together inland or outland.
  • As it moves each sedimentary environment gradually and laterally extends its carpet of sediments. This is how a sedimentary layer becomes great in extent, by its original sedimentary environment moving gradually across the landscape.
Note to RAZD: Can you find a higher resolution image? I couldn't make out any of the text.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 09-26-2017 3:02 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 8:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 78 of 224 (820762)
09-26-2017 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
09-26-2017 11:52 AM


Re: Walther's law images
A minor nit-pick.
You quote this statement:
quote:
I think so too. The interesting thing is that, if the Hermit Shale were slid to the left, there would be an obvious discontinuity. We'd see deep water deposition "suddenly" (in geologic terms) change to aeolian deposition. So between the Hermit and Coconino would be an obvious place to look for evidence of "intermediate" layers that transitioned between deep and shallow water but are no longer there because of erosion. Or maybe evidence of a "sudden" uplift or something.
I have bolded the part in question.
The Hermit Shale is not a deep water formation. It is very much continental. Go to this page and click on the Hermit Shale interval in the strat column.
Classzone.com has been retired
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 11:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 79 of 224 (820767)
09-27-2017 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
09-26-2017 8:54 AM


Stripping the Earth' surface and moving the material to the sea
Percy writes:
I'm going to modify this next quote extensively to remove ambiguity:
Minnemooseus, modified writes:
The ocean levels rose with their loads of sediment and began washing over the land. The sediments were deposited on the land in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence". Then the seas receded, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
That may be Faith's vision, producing the sediments out of the ocean basins, but my hallucination produces the sediments from the land surfaces exposed to the waterfalls of rain.
My original paragraph:
Minnemooseus writes:
Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea. There the sediments would be deposited in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence", as the ocean levels rose. Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
Percy writes:
Calling this a "grungy version of Walther's Law" is misleading because it isn't Walther's Law at all. Walther's Law requires an environment that stays in place long enough to produce and deposit sediment types unique to that environment. Seacoast environments produce sand, further offshore produce shale, further offshore produce slate, further offshore produce limestone (in warmer climes), further offshore or other climes produce calcareous ooze.
(Side note: That extraneous "slate" should be excluded.)
My hallucination is the "Walther's Law" sedimentation process in hyperdrive. Massive amount of sediments being washed off the land, into a rapidly rising sea. The results would be similar to the standard non-hyperdrive deposits, except I would expect the sands to be much less mature (meaning that the sands would include much more rock fragments and less chemically and abrasionally resistant minerals, as opposed to a mature sand being more purely quartz).
The limestones and calcareous ooze are biochemical precipitates, having nothing to do with the land derived detritus. Indeed, in the standard model, these precipitates exist as such only because their deposition areas were not swamped with detrital materials. In the hallucination model, the "Walther's Law" package would exclude the biochemical precipitates - They are still very much a "need a lot of time to happen" items.
Percy writes:
So for example, a particular section of sandstone strata was once a spot that was seacoast for a very long time. It takes seacoast a very long time to produce significant amounts of sand. Sand is produced by the normal slow runoff from the land that is acted upon by the agitated waters of the seacoast, like on beaches and such. Sand isn't on beaches because it's been carried there from somewhere else. Sand is on beaches because beaches are where sand is produced. We know it was produced there (and not carried there) because it is made up of the same particles that run off from the land at that particular location.
My hallucination sand is produces by the abnormal massive runoff from the land, in such volumes that it piles up faster than the seacoast agitated waters can have much effect. Thus you get an immature ("dirty") sand.
Percy writes:
Hawaii has beaches where the sand is fine volcanic rock. Australia has some beaches made of ground up coral.
Immature sands, formed in areas lack a quartz grain source. Without a constant supply of new detritus, the seacoast agitated waters would reduce those sands to mud.
Percy writes:
A transgression occurs when the coastline slowly moves inland, either because of rising waters or subsiding land or a combination. The movement inland has to be slow because it takes a very long time to produce sand in the quantities seen in sandstone strata.
The movement inland is slow because the sea rise rate is slow. It does take a very long time to produce mature ("clean") sand in the quantities seen in sandstone strata. In the hallucination model, the rapid sea rise and transgression rates preclude the sand getting cleaned up. Thus you get what I called "some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence"".
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed spelling error in subtitle (stripping, not striping).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 8:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 8:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 224 (820772)
09-27-2017 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
09-26-2017 6:12 PM


Re: Topic Focus
Note to RAZD: Can you find a higher resolution image? I couldn't make out any of the text.
Sadly what I found was a thumbnail of the roxrkool picture on the photobucket account, using TransgressiveFaciesShift on an image search. Maybe email roxrkool and see if we can get a fresh image?
  • Simultaneous but distinct sedimentary environments each at different distances from shore.
  • The entire collection of sedimentary environments move imperceptibly together inland or outland.
  • As it moves each sedimentary environment gradually and laterally extends its carpet of sediments. This is how a sedimentary layer becomes great in extent, by its original sedimentary environment moving gradually across the landscape.
I did run across this image and discussion online:
quote:
How to Identify Transgression and Regression in a Sedimentary Outcrop?
A Marine Transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding. Transgressions can be caused either by the land sinking or the ocean basins filling with water (or decreasing in capacity). Transgressions and regressions may be caused by tectonic events such as orogenies, severe climate change such as ice ages or isostatic adjustments following removal of ice or sediment load. In either case, sea water rises farther up onto land than it did before.
In this case we will have deeper sea sediments (shales and limestones) being deposited on top of continentally-derived beach sediments (sand). This forms a sequence (from bottom to top) of: sand ► shale ►limestone. A maximum transgression occurs where the finest sediments reach the farthest landward.
They also cover regression and stacking the two excerpts gives the same result as my diagram in Message 75.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 09-26-2017 6:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 81 of 224 (820773)
09-27-2017 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Minnemooseus
09-27-2017 1:51 AM


Re: Stripping the Earth' surface and moving the material to the sea
Minnemooseus writes:
That may be Faith's vision, producing the sediments out of the ocean basins, but my hallucination produces the sediments from the land surfaces exposed to the waterfalls of rain.
I said exactly the same thing you said, only in more words to remove the ambiguity. My modified version did not have the sediments being produced out of the ocean basins. Here's what I said again:
Percy in Message 73 writes:
Minnemooseus writes:
Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea.
This has a couple fatal problems, but fine, we'll start with this as an assumption.
I'm going to modify this next quote extensively to remove ambiguity:
The ocean levels rose with their loads of sediment and began washing over the land. The sediments were deposited on the land in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence". Then the seas receded, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
It's all there, everything you said and describing the exact same process, but with the last part modified to remove ambiguity. The ambiguity issue in your text arose when you said, "There the sediments would be deposited...", and since the antecedent was "sea" your text had the sediments being deposited in the sea. I modified the text so that it was clear that the sediments were being deposited on the land as the ocean levels rose.
My hallucination is the "Walther's Law" sedimentation process in hyperdrive. Massive amount of sediments being washed off the land, into a rapidly rising sea. The results would be similar to the standard non-hyperdrive deposits, except I would expect the sands to be much less mature (meaning that the sands would include much more rock fragments and less chemically and abrasionally resistant minerals, as opposed to a mature sand being more purely quartz).
At first I thought your goal was to help Faith by providing the details of how Walther's Law would work in her accelerated scenario, but then you provide details that make clear that it doesn't work, such as producing "immature sand" that is definitely not what we observe (and in such a short period of time you wouldn't even get "immature sand" or anything that resembled sand, just mud), and the lack of time to produce the limestone strata, and that the beaches I mentioned in Hawaii and Australia would actually be mud.
So after seeing your descriptions of these things that definitely conflict with what is observed I decided that your goal must be to show how Faith's ideas don't work, but in that case it makes no sense to me to call it "Walther's Law in hyperdrive." Nothing in Faith's scenario is a process that is part of Walther's Law. Flood waters moving across a landscape is a flood, not Walther's Law in action, and it leaves behind the kind of evidence that floods leave behind like mud and detritus all mixed up in a disorganized mess, not distinct strata.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2017 1:51 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

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


(1)
Message 82 of 224 (820774)
09-27-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
09-26-2017 11:52 AM


Re: Walther's law images
I found a high quality version of the image and replaced it in your post.
I think you're communicating the information Faith needs, but I also think that each step of the process of cutting up the paper into strips and relabeling them needs to be better described, perhaps showing how the first few layers are constructed one at a time. It might also help to explain that the paper strips are just moving back and forth according to whether the sea has transgressed or regressed. And to mention that the deposits are always found in the same order. And to bring in the relevant information from other messages rather than just linking to them. And probably other things.
Don't get me wrong. What you did is excellent, and once you get it then it's obvious, but the concepts aren't simple, and how the pieces fit together diagramatically in a meaningful way isn't immediately clear. I had to stare at your colored columns for some minutes before it dawned on me what you were doing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 10:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 224 (820778)
09-27-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
09-27-2017 9:19 AM


Re: Walther's law images
I found a high quality version of the image and replaced it in your post.
Thanks, I've replaced my copies with this version.
I think you're communicating the information Faith needs, but I also think that each step of the process of cutting up the paper into strips and relabeling them needs to be better described, perhaps showing how the first few layers are constructed one at a time. ...
And what the sources of the material are, and how they are graded by particle sizes.
The sands and siltciclastic muds are from continental erosion with the finer particles being carried further (by wind and water) from shore before deposition (gets back to Stoke's Law), while the carbonate sediments and cocolith foram ooze are from biological sources (mixed with some very fine air-born particles).
... It might also help to explain that the paper strips are just moving back and forth according to whether the sea has transgressed or regressed. ...
That was the idea behind the paper strips, which I also illustrated for the Grand Canyon (with some modifications from other posters as noted).
... And to mention that the deposits are always found in the same order. And to bring in the relevant information from other messages rather than just linking to them. And probably other things.
I'm sure there is a lot more information involved, however we do need it simple and direct to minimize arguments about irrelevant details.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 9:19 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 84 of 224 (820791)
09-27-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Minnemooseus
09-26-2017 3:45 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood, which had to have rearranged things tremendously.
You are invoking a flood of such miraculous powers, that it could mimic producing the results of every known geologic mechanism.
I don't grasp how this is an answer to what I said.
I was responding to your Message 6 where you were saying something about the "created kind" in an unfamiliar context. That is, the "kinds" in YEC theology are all living things, but you seem to be extending the concept to the physical world. In any case I answered that you don't seem to be making a distinction between what was originally created, either living things or physical world, and what happened to both as a result of the Fall. Since what we see today is the ruined condition of the Creation it's hard to be sure what the original state of things was.
Just as a reminder here's what I was responding to:
The nature of the precise erosion and deposition model of THE FLOOD is dependent on the nature of the "created kind" Earth.
Presumably, there can be an element of apparent age in God's creating of an Earth complete with all the various mineral resources included.
I don't happen to believe in the idea of apparent age. Not sure what it has to do with mineral resources either. I've wondered what the original condition of those minerals was. Now they are scattered here and there but originally my guess is they had some definable form and location though I can't piece together a clear idea of that.
A complete ecosystem of earth ("rock and dirt") and water and vegetation and animals. I guess the question is, would an intelligent design and creation of the Earth's crust include the impression of long and complex processes? After all, the mark of quality design and construction is simplicity and functionality, not a "Rube Goldberg" complexity and dubious functionality. The Earth's crust sure seems like bad design to me?
Here's where you are clearly not distinguishing between the original Creation and the destruction caused by the Fall, which rought "thorns and thistles" as well as the death of living things, including diseases, plus the destruction caused by the Flood which rearranged all that "dirt" plus the tectonic event that split the continents that I believe the GS-GC cross section shows to have occurred after all the strata were laid down by the Flood waters, at the time the water receded, as well as the volcanism, all destructive processes that seem to be connected to the Flood.
That's the basic part of my YEC Model. Nothing miraculous is necessary to it, just the unprecedented magnitude of the Flood itself, but if you put your mind to trying to account for what such a worldwide event might have done I think it can probably explain what is now taken for complex time-determined events that are partly complex because not seen as connected the way I see them.
I said as much in my answer to you:
Faith writes:
It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect.
Again, you're invoking a flood of miraculous powers, that could mimic...
As I say above I don't see it as miraculous, and since I believe the Flood caused most of what you interpret as those "long and complex processes," as described above, it's the Old Earth explanations that are being imposed on the Flood facts, not the other way around.
Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock,
Thank you for recognizing that since others sometimes deny it.
and send it all washing to the sea.
Yes, makes sense to me.
There the sediments would be deposited in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence", as the ocean levels rose.
Not sure why "grungy" but I do have a less than textbook version of Walther's Law in mind for the Flood. Just the fact that rising sea level deposits sediments HAS to apply to the Flood transgression and regression too. I don't know why Percy felt he had to picture the deposits the length of the shoreline but that figures since many of them cover huge amounts of territory. Sediments from both the scoured off land and the deep parts of the sea are in the strata and surely there is enough going on in a worldwide Flood to account for both. What ought to be much harder to account for is the idea that any of those huge sedimentary deposits occurred incrementally over millions of years, or even in periodic "shallow" transgressions and regressions.
Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
Why?
Bottom line - Your flood would leave a pretty simple layer of sediments, progressively thicker seaward, the base of which would be the "mother of all unconformities".
In some places the "basement" rocks beneath the Tapeats sandstone layer are pretty lumpy and unformed, which is certainly an uncomformity (those are usually granite or schist, however, which I see as formed by the volcanism that occurred at the end of the Flood), but in other places such as beneath the GC there were strata laid down (the Supergroup) -- is all that the "mother of all unconformities" you have in mind? It's even possible isn't it that the surface on which the sediments BEGAN to be deposited isn't even visible anywhere?
The land surfaces would be devoid of any soil covering and any life form, plant or animal. The ultimate "anti-Eden". God would need to do a miraculous "fixer-uppering" to make the Earth livable again.
The results of a sea transgression/regression is a pretty simple, straight forward thing.
Not quite sure what you are picturing here but given the originally extremely fertile condition of the pre-Flood world plus the extraordinary vitality of pre-Flood living things seeds should have germinated pretty rapidly in whatever surface presented itself in a given location still wet from the Flood. This level of vitality would be vitiated over the ensuing decades and centuries (as human longevity also decreased over the next few denturies) but it should have provided a good start to the reseeding of the post-Flood environment.
Unfortunately I've lost interest in debating anything, all I want to do is work on the YEC model. All the efforts at debunkery are just boringly irrelevant at this point. When Percy, or anybody, discounts the Flood as just a "religious idea" it's clear there's no fighting the prevailing perspective. I may go through and pick out statements here and there I want to answer but I realize that is frustrating to people who are here to try to destroy the whole idea of the worldwide Flood that I KNOW happened about 4500 years ago. Oh well.
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 72 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2017 3:45 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 8:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 85 of 224 (820793)
09-27-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:20 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
That's the basic part of my YEC Model. Nothing miraculous is necessary to it, just the unprecedented magnitude of the Flood itself, but if you put your mind to trying to account for what such a worldwide event might have done I think it can probably explain what is now taken for complex time-determined events that are partly complex because not seen as connected the way I see them.
1. What could this supposed global flood NOT do? What features would a geologic formation need in order to be inconsistent with your model?
2. What criteria do you use to determine if a geologic column was produced rapidly by a recent global flood?
3. What features would a geologic column or feature need in order to evidence long periods of deposition, according to your model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:38 PM Taq has replied
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:30 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 86 of 224 (820794)
09-27-2017 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Taq
09-27-2017 3:25 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
2. What criteria do you use to determine if a geologic column was produced rapidly by a recent global flood?
The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition. The fact that the Geologic (Stratigraphic) Column has in fact come to a stopping point despite strained efforts to pretend it is still ongoing, is evidence of its being pretty recent.
What features would a geologic column or feature need in order to evidence long periods of deposition, according to your model?
ENORMOUS amounts of distorting erosion between layers, that often cuts deeply into lower layers, the sort of thing that would have occurred during millions of years at the surface of the earth. Some signs of former vegetation BETWEEN the layers too, maybe petrified downed trees; distortions in a single layer here and there because of such obstacles, instead of the remarkably conformed flatness of sediment upon sediment. More variety in the sediments, not any of the clear demarcation between say a limestone and a sandstone. Why should that occur on the surface of the earth ever? None of that exists. What exists is evidence of massive water deposition, ALL the strata following the same pattern of flatness and straightness.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 3:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2017 3:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 4:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 95 by edge, posted 09-27-2017 4:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 9:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 9:22 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 87 of 224 (820795)
09-27-2017 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:38 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
quote:
The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition.
Really ? Why can't slow deposition come out flat ?
quote:
The fact that the Geologic (Stratigraphic) Column has in fact come to a stopping point despite strained efforts to pretend it is still ongoing, is evidence of its being pretty recent.
It is a genuine fact that sedimentary deposition continues, and there is no reason to assume that none of it will ever become rock.
quote:
ENORMOUS amounts of distorting erosion between layers, that often cuts deeply into lower layers, the sort of thing that would have occurred during millions of years at the surface of the earth.
Like the famous monadnocks or the buried canton ?
quote:
Some signs of former vegetation BETWEEN the layers too, maybe petrified downed trees; distortions in a single layer here and there because of such obstacles, instead of the remarkably conformed flatness of sediment upon sediment.
Wouldn't that be a sign of rapid deposition ? Given slow deposition you would find plant remains generally within layers.
quote:
More variety in the sediments, not any of the clear demarcation between say a limestone and a sandstone.
That's odd. Wouldn't a violent Flood tend to mix things up ?
quote:
What exists is evidence of massive water deposition, ALL the strata following the same pattern of flatness and straightness.
Except the ones that don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 88 of 224 (820798)
09-27-2017 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:38 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition.
We observe straight and flat deposits being made right now without any global flood without any rapid deposition. Your model has been falsified.
ENORMOUS amounts of distorting erosion between layers, that often cuts deeply into lower layers, the sort of thing that would have occurred during millions of years at the surface of the earth.
Here is the feature that falsifies your model:
Your model has been falsified twice now.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:31 PM Taq has replied
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Taq has replied
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:42 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 89 of 224 (820799)
09-27-2017 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Taq
09-27-2017 3:25 PM


OE assumptions
Actually, the main thing is that there isn't a sane reason at all for there even to BE any strata to "evidence long periods of deposition." Why should there be ANY flat straight sedimentary rocks at all, let alone neatly stacked miles deepas we see for instance in the Grand Canyon? If you have continual deposition say from eroding mountains why should it be of any identifiable sediment rather than the tumble-down lumpy surface we see around us today? The idea that there is eventually going to be another layer to commemorate today's "time period" with appropriate fossils is absurd, and yet that is what the standard interpretation of the Stratigraphic Column requires for its continuation to be consistent. For the Geological Time Scale to be true, there should not be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 3:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 4:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2017 4:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 9:03 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 90 of 224 (820800)
09-27-2017 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
09-27-2017 4:28 PM


the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
You do not see anything at all being deposited on the scale and in the form of the Stratigraphic Column. And your photo is pathetic compared to what should be seen of the erosion I'm talking about.
This whole argument is pathetically stupid, that anyone would try to justify such absolute nonsense. The Stratigraphic Column is over and done with, there is no erosion consistent with millions of years of "time periods" and there shouldn't be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL if the whole Geological Time Scale was true.
I can't take the stress of this stupidity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 4:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 4:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 9:41 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