Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
27 online now:
dwise1, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 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")
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 91 of 224 (820801)
09-27-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:30 PM


Re: OE assumptions
Faith writes:

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?

Because that is what happens when sediments settle out of water, they produce flat sediments. The finer the particles the longer it takes to settle out.

We also have modern sand dunes that produce the exact features seen in features like the Coconino sandstones:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 92 of 224 (820802)
09-27-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:31 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:

You do not see anything at all being deposited on the scale and in the form of the Stratigraphic Column.

70% of the Earth is currently seeing this type of deposition.

And your photo is pathetic compared to what should be seen of the erosion I'm talking about.

Why is it pathetic? Do you have more than just bluster?

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 just showed you a geologic formation that directly contradicts your claims. All you seem to have is denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:40 AM Taq has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 93 of 224 (820804)
09-27-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:30 PM


Re: OE assumptions
quote:

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.

You say that, but it isn't as if you have any sensible alternative.

quote:

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?

Because a lot of deposition takes place on flat surfaces like seabeds or beaches ?

quote:

f 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?

You are making no sense here. Material eroded from mountains should be made out of whatever the eroded surfaces are. Why shouldn't it be "identifiable"?

quote:

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.

Obviously there isn't going to be one single layer, just as there isn't one single layer for any other time period. There will be layers, in areas of deposition - unless erosion removes them first. And that's the way it is for all the other time periods too.

quote:

and yet that is what the standard interpretation of the Stratigraphic Column requires for its continuation to be consistent.

And what, exactly is that ? I'd really like to know.

quote:

For the Geological Time Scale to be true, there should not be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL.

What ? Are you saying that sedimentary rocks shouldn't exist ? If not, what DO you mean ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 94 of 224 (820805)
09-27-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
09-27-2017 4:28 PM


the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Oh all the picayune irrelevant PRATTs you are coming up with.

Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are defomed in a whole block of them at once. Twisted, upended, buckled, whatever, always a block of them at once. One would think that tectonic disturbances would have upended a layer here, and then distorted another there, bent one higher up, etc, if normal events happened over millions of years. Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.

The implication of all of this is obvious to any objective observation.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2017 5:04 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 97 by edge, posted 09-27-2017 5:13 PM Faith has responded
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 09-27-2017 5:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 99 by edge, posted 09-27-2017 6:04 PM Faith has responded
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 2:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 95 of 224 (820807)
09-27-2017 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:38 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition.

Okay, let's look at where we actually see sudden deposition from turbulent currents.

That would be in mudflows and possibly in stream channels.

Do you think that those are straight, and flat, ...

and thick, ...

and continent-wide?

I don't think so.

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.

As long as seashores advance and retreat, as long as rivers run to the sea and as long as mountains turn into plains, you are wrong.

As long as the earth 'lives' through volcanoes and earthquakes and storms, you are wrong.

You may have your uninformed opinion, but no one with any experience in the field will ever take your arguments seriously. You should expect ridicule with your over confident beliefs, so don't complain when that happens.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:34 AM edge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 96 of 224 (820808)
09-27-2017 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:51 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
I think you will find that honestly seeking the truth would be less stressful than trying to maintain a laughably false position.

quote:

Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are defomed in a whole block of them at once. Twisted, upended, buckled, whatever, always a block of them at once.

Solids are pretty good at transmitting force, and the more rigid they are the better. So, in fact, we expect this. (ABE in that we expect adjacent layers to show some effect - unless they were absent at the time - rather than the effects being restricted to a single layer)

quote:

One would think that tectonic disturbances would have upended a layer here, and then distorted another there, bent one higher up, etc, if normal events happened over millions of years.

Certainly not. The idea that tectonic forces should affect one layer in isolation, leaving adjacent layers unaffected is quite bizarre.

quote:

Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.

No, since we have evidence to the contrary. We know that rock can be deformed even if it is hard (fossils within the rock are sometimes distorted by the pressures). And we'd expect adjacent layers to be affected - if they were present when the distortion occurred (certainly if they were soft). This is why I reject the idea that the fault in the tilted strata at the Grand Canyon occurred after the layers above were in place - neither the faulted strata nor the strata above them show any sign of being compressed by upward motion of the faulted strata.

quote:

The implication of all of this is obvious to any objective observation.

Yes. You are inventing ignorant rationalisations.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 97 of 224 (820810)
09-27-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:51 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are defomed in a whole block of them at once.

You have never provided evidence for this. You have only repeated the claim over and over.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:25 AM edge has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7999
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 98 of 224 (820811)
09-27-2017 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:51 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:

Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are defomed in a whole block of them at once. Twisted, upended, buckled, whatever, always a block of them at once.

That's because they were a block of sediments prior to tectonic forces shaping them.

Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.

Why do they have to be damp in order to deform?

Added in edit:

You can also find fossils that are deformed by tectonic activity, such as fossil seashells.
http://www.tandfonline.com/...10.1080/00288306.1990.10425690

Unless you think seashells are made up of damp mud, you can't claim that rocks have to be mud in order to bend.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:07 AM Taq has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 99 of 224 (820815)
09-27-2017 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:51 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.

I'm not clear on this.

First of all, why does it have to be one event?

What caused this one singular event?

How does the weak, damp rock in the Grand Canyon rock sequence maintain its integrity when all of the rocks below the Great Unconformity are being convoluted and faulted?

Over thousands of square miles?

The implication of all of this is obvious to any objective observation.

Well, do you know what I say when a YEC says something is obvious?

Do you really think that a YEC is objective?

Your credence has exceeded the elastic limit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:03 AM edge has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 100 of 224 (820818)
09-27-2017 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:20 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Minnemooseus writes:

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.

Yes, that's true, he's using "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.

Well, sort of. I would say he was drawing an analogy, not extending a concept. He started with creationism's created kinds, where all life exists just as God originally created it living in an ecosystem consisting of weather and landscape and so forth. Then he drew an analogy with the Earth as a created kind, where all minerals and water and so forth also exist just as God created them in an ecosystem consisting of erosion and sedimentation and earthquakes and so forth. The analogy holds no appeal for me so I won't defend it, but that's the analogy he was making.

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.

Something happened geologically as a result of the Fall? What, pray tell? It has nothing to do with this thread, but I'm curious.

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.

What we see today contains no evidence of a Creation resembling anything in the Bible. We can be pretty sure of the general process of Earth's creation based on the evidence before our very eyes.

I don't happen to believe in the idea of apparent age.

For the average creationist there is the idea of apparent age, while for you there is the denial of even the idea of apparent age. Your refusal to discuss sedimentary processes (one example of this avoidance in this thread is Taq's Message 68 that you haven't replied to) and radiometric dating makes this very clear.

Not sure what it has to do with mineral resources either.

Moose probably meant to refer to minerals in general rather than mineral resources. The phrase "mineral resources" brings to mind veins of valuable ores like copper and tin and iron and silver and gold. I think Moose was just referring to all the types of minerals that exist all across the Earth, many of which require complex and very time consuming processes to create. Minerals represent more evidence of the appearance of great age. If the Earth is actually young then there was no time to create these minerals, so they must have been created by God.

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.

You are again free-basing on speculation.

Here's where you are clearly not distinguishing between the original Creation and the destruction caused by the Fall, which wrought "thorns and thistles"...

Again, are you implying that there was any geological destruction as a result of the Fall? There's certainly nothing about it in the passages anywhere near that "thorns and thistles" phrase. I'm not trying to bring the Bible into the discussion - I'm just trying to understand the origin of your interpretation of what happened.

...plus the destruction caused by the Flood which rearranged all that "dirt"...

"Dirt" is something else that takes a very long time to produce, and so "dirt" must be included among Moose's minerals as something that must have been part of the original creation.

...plus the tectonic event that split the continents that I believe the GS-GC cross section shows to have occurred...

You believe there's something in the strata of the Grand Staircase that is evidence for the tectonic events that split the continents? Whatever would that be?

...after all the strata were laid down by the Flood waters,...

The strata have the opposite appearance of flood deposits.

...at the time the water receded,...

You reject all dating techniques, so how would you know when the continents split relative to when the fictional Flood waters receded?

...as well as the volcanism, all destructive processes that seem to be connected to the Flood.

More pure fiction on your part. You reject all dating techniques and so have no way of knowing when the volcanism happened (other than it came after the sedimentary layers were deposited), and you have no way of connecting it to your fictional Flood.

That's the basic part of my YEC Model. Nothing miraculous is necessary to it,...

The Flood was an act of God, so of course the miraculous is necessary to it. Your decisions about what happened miraculously and what didn't is just a fantasy world you've constructed. There's not an ounce of evidence for it in the real world, and there certainly isn't anything about it in the Biblical myths, either. You don't have geology or theology or biology or any -ology except Faithology.

...just the unprecedented magnitude of the Flood itself,...

There's nothing unprecedented about the magnitude of the Flood. The world's oceans already cover about 3/4 of the planet.

...but if you put your mind to trying to account for what such a worldwide event might have done...

You haven't put any effort at all into deducing what a worldwide flood would do. This is self-evident in that you invoke none of the processes that we know take place in floods, and you ignore a great many physical laws, too.

...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.

Fantasy cannot be used to explain reality.

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,...

Your opinion doesn't mean much because you simply ignore real world processes and physical laws. For someone who believes in talking snakes and Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt and Moses stretching out his hand to separate the sea, you have a stunning inability to recognize the miraculous in your own extra-Biblical ideas.

...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.

Except that the Flood doesn't have any facts. If it had facts you'd be talking about them, instead of putting your ignorance of science on full display.

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.

I think, or at least I hope, that Moose was simply summarizing your view, not endorsing it as something he himself accepts.

Not sure why "grungy" but I do have a less than textbook version of Walther's Law in mind for the Flood.

You don't have any version of Walther's Law in mind, textbook or otherwise.

Just the fact that rising sea level deposits sediments HAS to apply to the Flood transgression and regression too.

A flood moving across a landscape is not Walther's Law or anything close, and it deposits mud, not stratified layers.

I don't know why Percy felt he had to picture the deposits the length of the shoreline...

By definition Walther's Law must apply across the length of the coastline. Sediments seek the lowest point, and there is no lower point on a landscape than a coastline. Come on, Faith, just use some common sense and logic at least once in a while.

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.

Except that there's no evidence of scoured off land on a world-wide scale. The strata we see reflect the depositional environments where the sediments came to rest.

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,...

What would be much harder to explain would be a process that we can observe today going on before our very eyes, namely sediments being deposited at all the lowest points around the globe (mostly lake and sea bottom), and that appears identical to the strata we observe, but that wasn't the process that created those strata. Existing strata are consistent with current sedimentary processes in that they seem to have occurred at the same rate, one that is consistent with the radiometric dates, and that is also consistent with the changing fossil types with increasing depth.

...or even in periodic "shallow" transgressions and regressions.

Do you mean "shallow" as opposed to the depth of the Flood? A sea or lake may be shallow or deep or somewhere in between, but nothing can change the fact that the depositional environments will becoming increasingly different with increasing distance from shore, with sand forming at coastlines, slate and shale further out, limestone further out yet, and pelagic deposits in the regions furthest from shore. The thickness of sedimentary deposits is a function of how slowly or quickly the transgression or regression (i.e., the longer a depositional environment spends in a single location the deeper will be the deposits). These are the important concepts. There's not really any such thing as "shallow" transgressions and regressions.

Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".

Why?

I of course believe Moose shouldn't be using the term Walther's Law in a Flood context, but the reason he's saying this is because the Flood could only transgress once and regress once. It's in the Bible, check it out.

...is all that the "mother of all unconformities" you have in mind?

I think that what Moose means by the "mother of all unconformities" is where the Flood stripped all the land off the continents. The first layer of strata deposited upon the denuded landscape would represent a world-wide unconformity.

It's even possible isn't it that the surface on which the sediments BEGAN to be deposited isn't even visible anywhere?

You're again arguing for a point of view that by your own admission has no evidence.

Not quite sure what you are picturing here but given the originally extremely fertile condition of the pre-Flood world...

There is no geologic or fossil evidence for an "extremely fertile condition" in the world, pre-Flood or any other time, nor is such a state mentioned in the Bible. This is your own fantasy.

...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.

This is just more of your fantasy.

Unfortunately I've lost interest in debating anything,...

Oh, what a surprise, you don't want to debate anymore. Well, actually, maybe not so much a surprise. I suppose most of us have little interest in debating things where our ignorance would be so profoundly displayed.

When Percy, or anybody, discounts the Flood as just a "religious idea" it's clear there's no fighting the prevailing perspective.

Don't blame it on me. The fault lies with you, for arguing a position completely unsupported by any evidence and in fact completely contradicted by the evidence.

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.

You know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago the same way you know snakes can talk.

--Percy


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:00 AM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 101 of 224 (820820)
09-27-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:38 PM


Re: The geologic "created (rock) kind" and evidence that is a little squirrely
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.

Curiously I was looking at The Absurdities of the Geologic Time Scale (in proposed new topics) where you discussed this ...

quote:
So, back to the absurdities: a slab of rock, this limestone, which on some accounts extends across most of North America, represents a time period on the surface of the earth, which one would assume looked at least somewhat topographically like the surface of the earth today with mountains and valleys and rivers and canyons and cliffs and so on. But it extends now only as a very thick flat slab of limestone across most of North America. The characteristics of the period and the creatures that lived during it are determined by geologists from the fossil contents of the limestone. We must imagine a complete earth landscape packed into that rock.

This would only be the case for the strata that contain fossils of land animals. It would make things easier if all the lower or "earlier" strata were assumed to be from a period when the whole earth was under water, but instead we get interpretations of different depths of water and when we get to the Coconino sand it is assumed to have formed "in air."

I think I'm going to have to rewrite some of this.

Here's a representation from the creationist website Alpha and Omega Ministries of the extent across North America of the Tapeats Sandstone which is the lowest layer seen in the Grand Canyon above the basement or Precambrian rocks:

Next image shows the extent of the smaller limestone formation, the Kaibab Plateau:

======


And I looked at that last picture and thought that it did not support your concept of continent wide deposits ... even taking massive erosion into account (neither does the first picture) ... and then I looked closer.

Now what I find curious, if not amusing, is that this last picture is not about the Kaibab Plateau limestone formation at all, but about the ecological distribution of the Kaibab Squirrel on the north side of the Grand Canyon and the related, but reproductively isolated Abert Squirrel on the south side and extending south and east from the canyon. Now the Kaibab Squirrel is descended from the Abert Squirrel after being isolated by the erosion of the Grand Canyon. Over many, many, many generations.

This raises many questions, from explaining how the Kaibab Sqjuirrel got there and nowhere else, to how well do you vet the information you post and claim as evidence.

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. ...

Exactly as we see in the Grand Canyon, with several unconformities between layers, and where gradual uplift has distorted the whole area, causing north-south fault lines, while the river cuts and cuts and cuts the canyon down, from the west end towards the east end, with the timing documented by uranium dating of the mammillary speleothems in caves lining the walls of the canyon.

... Some signs of former vegetation BETWEEN the layers too, maybe petrified downed trees; ...

Like the evidence of burrows and roots and tracks in the sandstone in several locations.

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 86 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 5:55 AM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 102 of 224 (820822)
09-27-2017 9:22 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.

This argument might for some reason make sense to you, but not to anyone else. Not anyone else anywhere. The vast majority of (the very slow) sedimentation around the world today is taking place on flat surfaces, and the contact points of one piece of sediment with those around it is tight.

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.

I can't believe you are repeating yet again one of the most stupid and ignorant things you could say. All around the world there is rain and wind and flowing water causing erosion and weathering, and all the tiny particles of that erosion and weathering are ending up somewhere, usually eventually the mostly flat bottoms of seas and lakes, and that's what we call sedimentation. And it's occurring right at the top of the current stratigraphic column. And when the deposits become deeply buried enough then the pressure (and also sometimes heat) causes a process called lithification that turns the deposits to rock. Which is how all the strata formed that you see in the walls of the Grand Canyon.

This is why you can't convince anyone of anything. Even a blind creationist understands that sedimentation atop the stratigraphic column has to still be occurring today. There is no possible way it couldn't be happening. Erosion and weathering did not stop after the flood, there is no possible force that could stop it, and so sedimentation continues.

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.

But a landscape that is uneven is one that is still subject to erosion, not sedimentation. Sedimentation happens at the lowest, flatest levels (think sea and lake beds).

I live in New Hampshire, here's an image from a bit north of my location:

Sedimentation is not happening here. This landscape is never going to be preserved in the geological record. Now here's an image from a bit east of me by the seacoast:

See how flat? This is where sedimentation is likely to be occurring. Of course the sediments also continue on into the sea, but low flat regions like this is where sedimentation occurs, and that is why most of the strata we find in the geologic record are flat.

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.

Sometimes the vegetation *is* preserved. Sometimes so much of it is preserved (and transformed by heat and pressure) that we expend a lot of effort pumping it out of the ground so we can burn it in our cars.

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?

Well, if you'd been reading posts instead of ignoring you would have seen this explained dozens of times, including a few times in this very thread. It's called Walther's Law, something you have yet to understand.

What exists is evidence of massive water deposition, ALL the strata following the same pattern of flatness and straightness.

We've been over this (at least I think we have - I posted it, but that doesn't mean you read it). Let me repeat the list of items from Message 65 that the Flood did not do

  • Sorts material into different strata.

  • Sorts strata out of order regarding density.

  • Sorts fossils out of order regarding fossil size/density.

  • Sorts fossils by order of increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth.

  • Sorts strata by increasing radiometric age with increasing depth.

  • Maintains tracks and burrows.

  • Creates unconformities.

  • Creates angular unconformities (don't forget to include where all the missing material went)

--Percy


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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 103 of 224 (820834)
09-28-2017 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
09-27-2017 9:03 PM


Re: The geologic "created (rock) kind" and evidence that is a little squirrely
No, you see nothing like what I'm describing, you see no massive erosion between any layers, and there should be a lot between all of them if the standard interpretation is true. That would be visible from miles away and would distort the layers beyond recognition. That doesn't exist but without it there is nothing at all to suggest there was ever such a thing as a time period of millions of years anywhere in those layers.

Sorry about the Kaibab squirrel. I can't find a map of the geographic extent of the Kaibab limestone, but I found this description at Wikipedia for "Kaibab Limestone":

Northern Arizona, southeast California, east-central Nevada, and southern Utah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 9:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2017 7:56 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2017 8:58 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 3:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 104 of 224 (820835)
09-28-2017 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
09-27-2017 8:09 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
You reject all dating techniques, so how would you know when the continents split relative to when the fictional Flood waters receded?

By the order of events shown on the cross section of the GS-GC for starters.

You know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago the same way you know snakes can talk.

Y'all just have to lie about that don't you? Yes I know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago because apparently God said so. He also said that on one occasion a snake talked. On another occasion a donkey talked. Something neither normally does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 09-27-2017 8:09 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-28-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 105 of 224 (820836)
09-28-2017 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by edge
09-27-2017 6:04 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
First of all, why does it have to be one event?

Because that best explains what is seen on the GS-GC cross section.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by edge, posted 09-27-2017 6:04 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2017 6:20 AM Faith has responded
 Message 120 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 9:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019