|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No, they need to be explained and that's why I've got an explanation I've been working on.
Actually, they are quite common. There are at least two angular unconformities and one disconformity in this diagram. But I'd also mention again that they really are the ONLY exception to this rule and that in itself is very interesting, because of the prevailing model were correct there should be a huge number of such "exceptions," it should be the typical case. But it's not How many do you need?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
How do you know it was six separate transgressions and not just six phases of the worldwide Flood?
Because there were six major regressions also. They left behind eroding land surfaces and evolving land organisms such as dinosaurs. How does that comport with your biblical scenario? Only one word: fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Oh nonsense. No. Ah, wonderful ... a dismissal followed by a denial. YEC in action, I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The "evidence" you were giving just never made any sense though I kept trying to see it as you seemed to see it.
Seems kind of strange that on one else had a hard time with it.
I finally realized it's all an attempt to make something out of nothing.
Oh, good! Another casual dismissal.
You can't explain the history of the formation of the strata after they are that extremely deformed, ...
Heh, heh, ... to a real structural geologist this was child's play. You really have no idea.
... and my first take on it was right: The strata on the surface follow a pattern that clearly demonstrates deformation as a unit, and so do the strata underground. The areas you try to make into evidence for deformation before deposition are really just distortions brought about after the deformation.
Finally, an argument by unsupported assertion. I knew you could do it.
And besides, this would be the only example on the planet of what you are claiming for it. That alone falsifies it.
Um, you may want to reword that. That's like saying a black swan falsifies black swans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Not strange at all since you all are quite eager to make as much something out of as much nothing as you can, you don't care if you have to find it in a deformed mess or hallucinate it or whatever you have to do. Since you all are capable of believing that a time period can become a slab of rock and you believe in hundreds of millions of totally unnecessary years for something that should take a few thousand at most, and you believe a reptile ear can evolve into a mammalian ear, and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion, I'm sure it wouildn't be hard to come up with unconformities long after the rock had been deformed even though there are other possible explanations for it. And you believe some salt in a layer is proof positive of a warm climate some ridiculous number of millioins of years ago and so on and so forth.
So, your explanation is that everyone but you is crazy. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
thanks. Yes I know there are all those disagreements so maybe it wouldn't be worth it to read the whole article.
Kinda like most of the posts you disagree with, eh? By the way, I read the article and it was worth the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
There is no evidence left of the perfection of the original Creation, I'm assuming it. What I actually see is wreckage, period.
My, what a ray of sunshine you are today! Undoubtedly, this wreckage has completely destroyed all of your evidence! How convenient for you! You should rejoice! Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
God did it, so in your world death must be a good thing.
Especially when you consider that God also destroyed the evidence by wrecking the world. Wait ... is that good or bad ... ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Most of the fossil things you mention are explainable on the Flood model and those that aren't will be eventually.
The fludde model does not explain the most basic thing about the fossil record: the order of fossils through time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
That's why I limit my argument to a few things I think show the Flood and don't try to deal with the multiplicitous stuff you all throw at us, such as you are doing in this post.
So, you admit to ignoring data. Dress it up any way you want, that's still just denial.
I've proved to my own satisfaction that there is enough evidence for the Flood events and their timing to expect that all the rest of the problems invented by the Old Earthists will fall into place eventually.
I suggest that we all help out and find more data for you to ignore. That should nail things down completely. ABE: I just noticed this statement in your post:
I'm aware of the whole idea of forming and reforming of continents, but on the Flood model there is only room for one, and the accepted timing of the breakup of Pangaea I've shown to be wrong because there should be tectonic disturbance in the Jurassic if it were true and the UK cross section shows no such disturbance, the strata continue through the Tertiary on the same pattern as all the rest..
First of all, you once again commit the error of extending the geology of Great Britain to the rest of the world. Beyond that, you make a superfluous point since there are no Jurassic rocks in the parts of GB that are close to the Paleozoic or Mesozoic plate boundaries. I would expect little disturbance. In fact, we do see that the lower Cretaceous sediments in southern GB overlie a nonconformity in the Jurassic in southern GB.
In fact, the Lower Greensand (depicted by the small circles symbol) fills valleys in the Jurassic sediments.
Both occurrences however are interpreted as transgressive deposits infilling NW-SE palaeovalleys cut into Jurassic basement. https://www.sciencedirect.com/...e/abs/pii/S0016787808801617 The point is that there was little deformation of the Jurassic sedimentary rocks of Great Britain for a reason. They were deposited after the earlier Caledonian Orogeny and still remained far from the continental rifting that formed the Atlantic Ocean. These Jurassic sedimentary rocks are just as I would expect them. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Perhaps she can address this post in particular and ask us to respect her belief as an alternate view on par with scientific evidence.
I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they want. As I've mentioned, I don't think that Faith has any idea how her repetitious, over-confident pronouncements sound arrogant and offensive to logical minds. I agree that we do get overwrought and reactive, but really? Those 'beliefs' on a par with science? I'm sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I guess if it's comforting to surround yourself with all your wealth of facts and evidence and just sit there counting it all, go for it. It's just a matter of time before the Flood will wash it all away.
Well, I do appreciate being constrained by facts. It's challenging, but much more satisfying than just making up stories. And I see that you have nothing to contradict my points. Oh, be sure to check my edits to the post your attempted to respond to. Yah, I know, same old stuff, but it all bears repeating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
(shakes head)
...
Okay, let's see. The Jurassic formations crop out in the southeastern part of Great Britain. It's over a hundred miles NW to Snowdon. Then you have to cross the Irish Sea and then all of Ireland. Then you have another hundred miles or so to the edge of the continental shelf.Far from the continental rifting that formed the Atlantic Ocean???? Great Britain is where the rifting had to have occurred, there is nothing between it and North America except the Atlantic Ocean, and that means the Atlantic Ridge developed right on what is now its western edge. Here I've got people telling me all this movement would have affected Noah who was floating on the sea over a mountain range in the Middle East at the time, but you are saying Great Britain which was where the continental rift occurred was not disturbed? Are we going to argue now about what is 'close' and what is 'far'. This goes beyond silly, Faith. First of all, you don't know the geography, then you do not understand the tectonics of a passive continental margin. There is not nearly the 'bashing and crashing' of a convergent boundary, mountain-building event.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
For an event of such magnitude it's close enough.
I reiterate. You have no idea what happens at a passive continental margin, do you?
But I do find it interesting that you are playing down the effect. Makes it sound like if the continents split in our time with our population it might be a headline but nothing particularly important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
And by the way, you are apparently agreeing with me that the strata were all laid down together and deformed together as a unit, just as it appears on the cross section, since they are all lying in the same direction and there is no particular disturbance during the Jurassic when supposedly Pangaea broke up. So that break-up didn't interrupt the continuing deposition, and the quite dramatic deformation that is present now, the whole stack that was once vertical now flat on its side and all tilted in the same direction, occurred after the continental split. I wonder what caused it then if the split wasn't enough of a jolt to do it.
You really don't understand. I clearly stated three things. First, there was an older orogeny prior to the Jurassic. Therefor, this did not affect Jurassic rocks. Second, the Jurassic section is too far from the continental rift to have suffered significant deformation. Furthermore, I wouldn't expect much deformation from the Jurassic rifting. Third, there is erosion at the top of the Jurassic sediments causing valleys to be formed and later filled in the the Lower Green Sand. These are all contrary to your fantasy story. I fail to see how you could be so confused.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024