|
Author
|
Topic: Did the Flood really happen?
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
Message 781 of 2370 (859164)
07-29-2019 12:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 779 by Faith
07-29-2019 12:19 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: I'm having a terrible time figuring out your diagram now, I thought it would get easier and clearer but it isn't. I just discovered there's a Paint program on this public computer so maybe I could draw it after all. But my first attempts were a bust, don't remember what tool does what and my eyes really do make it hard to get around there. Well, maybe later. Anyway your diagram doesn't look like anything I want to accept yet although I'd love to accept it just to bring this to an end. Let's not change horses in mid-stream. We can go through the diagrams one little step at a time. First, this one is fine, right? It only shows the horizontal strata as you envision them as the flood waters start to recede. It has arrows on the right indicating that the island extends further off in that direction:
G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G
F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F
E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E
D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D
C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> C
B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B
A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A And this simple one shows what the surface would look like after the granite bedrock is pushed up into the flat strata by tectonism. It's an illustration of how mild the tilts are, and a reminder that the geologic diagrams are greatly exaggerated in the vertical dimension:
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
This is the more detailed representation of the granite basement rock having pushed up into the flat strata, just realize that the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated. There is not really a sharp point at the top:
/\
/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ / / /\ \ \ \
/ / / / \ \ \ \
/ / / / /\ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G ---------------- / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ -------------------------> G
F ----------------- / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------> F
E ------------------ / / / / \ \ \ \ ---------------------------> E
D ------------------- / / / \ \ \ ----------------------------> D
C -------------------- / / \ \ -----------------------------> C
B --------------------- / \ ------------------------------> B
A ---------------------- -------------------------------> A This is okay so far, right? If it's not okay then explain how I should change it, but if it is okay then please describe the next step so I can revise the next diagram. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 779 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 12:19 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 782 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 12:46 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 782 of 2370 (859165)
07-29-2019 12:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 781 by Percy
07-29-2019 12:37 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
No it's far from OK. The mild tilt illustraton is fine if we picture the rock/mountain pushing up beneath the center point. But the next picture should be the whole stack of strata breaking at that point. The broken ends on the right will become the pieces of strata we see spread across the sea level line on the diagram being discussed earlier. the whole block of strata on the right should fall sort of tilted until those broken ends are positioned as we see them on the original diagram, and the rest of the strata fall beneath the sea level line and bend toward the right.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 781 by Percy, posted 07-29-2019 12:37 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 783 of 2370 (859168)
07-29-2019 12:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 782 by Faith
07-29-2019 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
But the next picture should be the whole stack of strata breaking at that point. The broken ends on the right will become the pieces of strata we see spread across the sea level line on the diagram being discussed earlier.
But we don’t see any broken pieces of strata spread across the sea level line.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 782 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 12:46 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 784 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 1:00 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 784 of 2370 (859170)
07-29-2019 1:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 783 by PaulK
07-29-2019 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Well, I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 783 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2019 12:57 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 786 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2019 1:06 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 788 by Percy, posted 07-29-2019 1:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 785 of 2370 (859171)
07-29-2019 1:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 780 by Faith
07-29-2019 12:36 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Faith writes: Forget the sea floor. It's not located where it would have to be to continue the geo column. The geologic column is conceptual and world-wide. It exists everywhere on the planet, so it is impossible for it to be mislocated. Any sediment settling upon sea floor is settling atop the geologic column. Because of the vast size of the oceans, over 70% of the planet's surface, the vast majority of sedimentation is occurring upon sea floor.
No sedimentary deposit today qualifies. Because why?
I don't know if cores have been taken in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, but there is a vast surface of Kaibab and Coconino layers, covering the whole area, and cores should show the same strata we see in the Grand Canyon, and we're talking probably thousands of square miles. You just said that cores from the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area should show the same strata as cores from the Grand Canyon. Care to try again?
All the sedimentary deposits proposed to continue the geo column today are a pathetically paltry offering. You're contradicting yourself. First you said there are no contributions to the geologic column on the sea floor, and now you're saying there are but they are paltry. You need to choose one position and stick with it. If you choose the latter then I think we probably all agree with you. An inch of sediment per millennium, the rate in mid-ocean away from coasts, *is* paltry, but the rate is much higher near coastlines and in warm shallow seas conducive to calciferous sedimentation. Continuing to declare your views without evidence or rationale is not the way to proceed. Find supporting evidence for what you believe, then present it and argue it. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 780 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 12:36 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 786 of 2370 (859172)
07-29-2019 1:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 784 by Faith
07-29-2019 1:00 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
Well, I do.
I don’t know how you manage that when the strata clearly continue below the sea level line. Some of them seem to be shaded above the line, but even then I can see that they are the same strata above and below (and the fact that the shading ends at the sea level line should be a big hint that it doesn’t indicate a break)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 784 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 1:00 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 787 of 2370 (859174)
07-29-2019 1:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 782 by Faith
07-29-2019 12:46 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: No it's far from OK. The mild tilt illustration is fine if we picture the rock/mountain pushing up beneath the center point. But the next picture should be the whole stack of strata breaking at that point. You're misunderstanding the diagrams I presented. Let me explain again. This is what the actual real-world tilt would look like at the surface after the granite bedrock was pushed up into the flat strata by tectonism. I do not attempt to show the individual strata beneath the surface in this diagram:
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
But geologic diagrams greatly exaggerate the vertical dimension. This is a diagram of the exact same thing as the above diagram, except greatly exaggerated in the vertical dimension, and with internal details:
/\
/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ / / /\ \ \ \
/ / / / \ \ \ \
/ / / / /\ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G ---------------- / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ -------------------------> G
F ----------------- / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------> F
E ------------------ / / / / \ \ \ \ ---------------------------> E
D ------------------- / / / \ \ \ ----------------------------> D
C -------------------- / / \ \ -----------------------------> C
B --------------------- / \ ------------------------------> B
A ---------------------- -------------------------------> A This should again be exactly what you described, the granite bedrock pushing up into the horizontal strata. The only difference between this and the previous diagram is the vertical scale, which is greatly exaggerated in this one. If this is not a correct representation of your thinking then please tell me how to modify it. But if it is then we can go on to the next diagram in the sequence. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 782 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 12:46 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 792 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 2:37 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 788 of 2370 (859175)
07-29-2019 1:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 784 by Faith
07-29-2019 1:00 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: PaulK writes: Well, I do. I have the same question as PaulK. Where in this diagram do you see "pieces of strata...spread across the sea level line." Please be very specific about where you see them such as by saying, "You can see these pieces of strata at the sea level line underneath the letter 'a' in Jurassic." Then we can blow up the diagram as large as necessary to make it possible for everyone to see these pieces of strata:
--Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 784 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 1:00 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 789 of 2370 (859178)
07-29-2019 1:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 780 by Faith
07-29-2019 12:36 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Forget the sea floor. It's not located where it would have to be to continue the geo column.
The geologic column covers the entire earth, as the definitions I posted show. Drop a grain of sand anywhere on earth, including the oceans, and wherever it lands it is on top of the geologic column. Off Greenland:
Mediterranean Sea:
Norwegian Sea:
All the sedimentary deposits proposed to continue the geo column today are a pathetically paltry offering.
And we are back to derogatory assertions with no analysis or discussion. What makes them pathetic and paltry other than your desire to ignore the reality?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 780 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 12:36 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 790 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 2:21 PM | | JonF has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 790 of 2370 (859182)
07-29-2019 2:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 789 by JonF
07-29-2019 1:34 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Come on, you know sedimentary deposits in lake beds are proposed to continue the geo column and that IS pretty patehtically inadequate even if the geo column is only as extensive as I've described it. The cores I had in mind look exactly like the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase sequence, don't see that yours do, but of course I know the Flood should have deposited the entire stack all over the world, it's just that people often deny it so I try to think in terms of other kinds of deposits the Flood would have made. If everyone agrees with you that makes me quite happy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 789 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 1:34 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 794 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 3:50 PM | | Faith has replied | | | Message 830 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 7:58 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 791 of 2370 (859184)
07-29-2019 2:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 788 by Percy
07-29-2019 1:21 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
See the straight line under the darker upper part of the diagram, that runs across the whole diagram from left to right? That's what I've been calling the sea level line because that's where sea level is today and was also in William Smith's time. Everything above that line is the tilted short, broken-off pieces of strata I'm referring to. On this diagram they've got the strata draped over them that continue beneath the sea level line. What I'm talking about is clearer on William Smith's own drawing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 788 by Percy, posted 07-29-2019 1:21 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 792 of 2370 (859185)
07-29-2019 2:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 787 by Percy
07-29-2019 1:15 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
NO. The mildly tilted illusration I understood just fine. Now it needs to break from the pressyre beneath it. The diagram beneath it is NOT the same thing and couldn't possibly be. Cut off the topmost triangle and it will just begin to be the broken strata I say the mountain would have caused. And get rid of the horizontal sections at the bottom right and left, they have nothing to do with anything I said. Go back to your original drawing to see that the strata would go from horizontal to the tilted illustration you give there. No longer horizontal and your tilted strata would keep falling until only their very top ends remain on the surface of the island, tilted toward the mountain, and all in order from Cambrian to Holocene. Aand the rest of that block of strata are beneath the sea level line where they get distorted as we see them on that other illustration.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 787 by Percy, posted 07-29-2019 1:15 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 835 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 10:04 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 793 of 2370 (859186)
07-29-2019 2:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 791 by Faith
07-29-2019 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
See the straight line under the darker upper part of the diagram, that runs across the whole diagram from left to right? That's what I've been calling the sea level line because that's where sea level is today and was also in William Smith's time.
Yes, we see that.
quote:
Everything above that line is the tilted short, broken-off pieces of strata I'm referring to
So it’s just the ends of the strata poking above the sea level line. They aren’t separate broken-off pieces at all. As I showed back in Message 659. And in your reply you claimed to know that.
quote:
On this diagram they've got the strata draped over them that continue beneath the sea level line.
I cannot make sense of this. Everything draped over them would be above the line and therefore what you call short broken-off pieces of strata.
quote:
What I'm talking about is clearer on William Smith's own drawing.
Smith’s diagram only shows the strata on the surface and doesn’t show what is beneath them. It literally cannot show what you want, because the information isn’t there.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 791 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 2:28 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 794 of 2370 (859187)
07-29-2019 3:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 790 by Faith
07-29-2019 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Come on, you know sedimentary deposits in lake beds are proposed to continue the geo column and that IS pretty patehtically inadequate even if the geo column is only as extensive as I've described it. And we are back to derogatory assertions with no analysis or discussion. What makes them pathetically inadequate? All of the cores I posted are from the ocean, two of them from the deep ocean. Where did Lake beds come in? Everyone agrees with me that the geologic column is growing in areas of net deposition. Here's a core from Arizona:
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 790 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 2:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 795 of 2370 (859196)
07-29-2019 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 791 by Faith
07-29-2019 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: See the straight line under the darker upper part of the diagram, that runs across the whole diagram from left to right?
That line is just a line. It doesn't exist in reality. The strata are continuous above sea level and below sea level. There is nothing "broken off".
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 791 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 2:28 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 796 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:21 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
