|
Author
|
Topic: Did the Flood really happen?
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 796 of 2370 (859198)
07-29-2019 6:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 795 by ringo
07-29-2019 5:34 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
That line is the bottom edge of the drawing by William Smith, it is obviously sea level, where the land meets the water. Yes the strata continue from the horizontally arranged pieces of strata whose tops are clearly broken off, to the strata beneath the line, where they appear to me to be on the soggy side from being underwater.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 795 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 5:34 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 799 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:30 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 797 of 2370 (859199)
07-29-2019 6:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 794 by JonF
07-29-2019 3:50 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
I described the ENORMOUS geographic extent of the srata that make up the geo column in the Midwest and in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area. Today's sedimentary deposits in a mere lakebed are pathetically small by comparison and couldnlt possibly be a continuation of the geo column.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 794 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 3:50 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 811 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 7:02 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 798 of 2370 (859200)
07-29-2019 6:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 794 by JonF
07-29-2019 3:50 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
What part of Arizona? And what depth is shown here? You need a lot more information. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 794 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 3:50 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 813 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 7:18 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 831 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2019 8:01 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 799 of 2370 (859202)
07-29-2019 6:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 796 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:21 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: Yes the strata continue from the horizontally arranged pieces of strata whose tops are clearly broken off....
No, nothing is "broken off". The waterline is irrelevant. They're just continuous strata.
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 796 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 800 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:31 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 800 of 2370 (859203)
07-29-2019 6:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 799 by ringo
07-29-2019 6:30 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Pretty odd then that William Smith didn't include them in his cross section.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 799 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:30 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 801 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:35 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 801 of 2370 (859204)
07-29-2019 6:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 800 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:31 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: Pretty odd then that William Smith didn't include them in his cross section
Huh? The cross-section is exactly what we're talking about - the continuous strata shown in the cross-section. Just pretend the sea level line isn't there. It doesn't add anything to understanding the strata.
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 800 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:31 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 803 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:39 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: evidence?
The flood would not have laid down many layers, it would have laid down a simple structure with larger stones precipitating out first and, of course no igneous or metamorphic strata. Consider the strata shown by the valley of the Grand Canyon. The flood certainly wouldn't have laid down volcanic basalt at a low level, sandstone in the Bright Angel formation, limestone and dolomite in the Muav formation, shale in the Supai formation, sandstone in the Coconino formation, shale in the Toroweap formation, lava and cinders in the Shivwits and Uinkaret formations and sedimentary rock on top of that lava.
And that's just a few of the many, many different layers. I've analyzed the Grand Canyon in great detail. The volcanic action clearly occurred after all the sedimentary strata were in place. The sediments were laid down separately so each layer would be sorted by size within itself, the layers wouldn't sort according to each's overall size. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 803 of 2370 (859206)
07-29-2019 6:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 801 by ringo
07-29-2019 6:35 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
That's not the Smith diagram.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 801 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:35 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 804 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:43 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 804 of 2370 (859207)
07-29-2019 6:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 803 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:39 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: That's not the Smith diagram.
Then why are you bringing up a different diagram? The point is that 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 803 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:39 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 805 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:45 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 805 of 2370 (859208)
07-29-2019 6:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 804 by ringo
07-29-2019 6:43 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
This is the original cross section by William Smith. The other is an elaboration of it. Sorry, I should have posted it earlier but I wrongly assumed you'd know what I was talking about.
The horizontal line at the bottom is clearly sea level. That line is also drawn on the other diagram, showing that the distorted strata beneath that line are under water. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 804 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:43 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 807 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:53 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 806 of 2370 (859209)
07-29-2019 6:51 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
The short pieces of tilted strata are easier to see on the original Smith cross section. ALL of them in his picture are broken off tilted short pieces of strata. He apparently didn't know that they continue beneath the island so he only drew how they look on the surface.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 788 by Percy, posted 07-29-2019 1:21 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 814 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 7:23 PM | | Faith has replied | | | Message 843 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 4:27 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 807 of 2370 (859210)
07-29-2019 6:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 805 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:45 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: This is the original cross section by William Smith.
I think I understand the diagram. (I haven't been corrected by the smart people yet anyway.) What I don't understand is why you think something has been "broken off". It doesn't matter where the water line is. The strata are continuous.
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 805 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:45 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 808 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:57 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 808 of 2370 (859211)
07-29-2019 6:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 807 by ringo
07-29-2019 6:53 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
The tops of the strata had to be broken off. Percy says they were eroded off. But they would originally have been long lengths of strata right? They had to be broken off.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 807 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 6:53 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 809 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 7:00 PM | | Faith has replied | | | Message 844 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 4:40 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 809 of 2370 (859212)
07-29-2019 7:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 808 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:57 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: But they would originally have been long lengths of strata right?
They're still long lengths of strata, as I have said. The rest of their length is below sea level but it's still there, continuous.
All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 808 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:57 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 810 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 7:01 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 810 of 2370 (859213)
07-29-2019 7:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 809 by ringo
07-29-2019 7:00 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
They originally had other ends.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 809 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 7:00 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 812 by ringo, posted 07-29-2019 7:10 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 816 by JonF, posted 07-29-2019 7:27 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
