|
Author
|
Topic: Did the Flood really happen?
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
Message 841 of 2370 (859287)
07-30-2019 1:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 840 by Faith
07-30-2019 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Since you've run from the discussion of deposition and extensions of the geologic column like a scared little bunny, shall we look forward to inane repetition of your claims that the geologic column is done growing and the growing that is happening is small compared to the layers of the Southwest US in the near future?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 840 by Faith, posted 07-30-2019 12:57 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 842 of 2370 (859305)
07-30-2019 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 837 by Faith
07-30-2019 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Well, in Re: evidence?
Funny, as I recall, you have always been the one with the inability to understand physical reality. In any case, since this IS a debate, I DO disagree with you about my study of the Grand Canyon area and my conclusions. Curiously, you are the outlier when it comes to understanding the physical reality. Nobody agrees with you, yet we agree with one another. That's a clue. Enjoy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 837 by Faith, posted 07-30-2019 12:49 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 852 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:09 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 843 of 2370 (859307)
07-30-2019 4:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:51 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: 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.
When you refer to the "broken off tilted short pieces of strata," do you mean from the base of the diagram beneath a stratum and then tracing upward to the left all the way through the stratum to the surface? If so, then what is it in the diagram that makes the top of the strata appear broken off to you? Where are all the strata that used to extend above the current surface but that broke off? Why aren't they lying on the landscape in immense blocks?
He apparently didn't know that they continue beneath the island so he only drew how they look on the surface. Smith drew much more than how the strata appear on the surface. I think you meant to say that he only drew how they look from roughly sea level on upward to the surface. Smith was able to make very good estimates of the attitude and extent of strata because he had access to a great deal of mine and canal data, but his diagram is not a cross section. It is a composite of his data from all around the UK. Here's a map of most of the places on his diagram. I've connected the places in the same order as they appear on his map from Snowdon to the Thames Valley:
As you can see by the way the places are scattered all over the UK (including one in Scotland) and by their order, Smith's diagram is not a cross section. It is just a representation of the order, attitude and type of the strata. You can find my map here in this link so you can play with it if you wish and verify its accuracy. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 806 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:51 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 844 of 2370 (859309)
07-30-2019 4:40 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: The tops of the strata had to be broken off. Percy says they were eroded off. No one should take my word that erosion shaped the geographic topography of Great Britain. It is science that established that.
But they would originally have been long lengths of strata right? They had to be broken off. As the strata were uplifted (to a greater degree in the west than in the east, which is responsible for the tilt) they became more and more exposed to weathering and erosion. The more weathering and erosion the faster an exposed surface is worn away. The strata never rose miles into the sky. They were eroded away as they uplifted. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 808 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:57 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 845 by jar, posted 07-30-2019 4:44 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 846 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2019 4:57 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 845 of 2370 (859310)
07-30-2019 4:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 844 by Percy
07-30-2019 4:40 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
The problem with your explanation; " They were eroded away as they uplifted."; is that that takes time. Millions of years. But Faith "knows" it all happened in the year of the flood and the few thousand years before the drawings were made.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 844 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 4:40 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17826 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 846 of 2370 (859312)
07-30-2019 4:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 844 by Percy
07-30-2019 4:40 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
I should add that higher regions are less likely to see deposition and more likely to see erosion. While there may well have been additional strata on Snowdon at the time it was uplifted, it is not so likely that later material was deposited and if it did it was probably removed by erosion before it could lithify. Much of the rock Faith assumes to have broken off - and vanished - may never have existed in the first place.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 844 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 4:40 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 847 of 2370 (859317)
07-30-2019 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 837 by Faith
07-30-2019 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Well, in Re: evidence?
Faith writes: Funny, as I recall, you have always been the one with the inability to understand physical reality. Hey, leave me out of this. I'm not the one who made myself the topic of discussion. You made a claim about yourself ("I've analyzed the Grand Canyon in great detail"), and people have the right to rebut any claims you make.
In any case, since this IS a debate,... This claim that you're engaging in debate isn't true either. You respond to less than half the messages to you, you ignore many of the points of messages you do respond to, and you respond to almost none of the longer more technical messages. You repeatedly declare what you think happened but are never able to support it with facts, evidence and argumentation. Many of your scenarios are patently impossible, but you make no effort to inform yourself of the practical implications of the laws of physics.
I DO disagree with you about my study of the Grand Canyon area and my conclusions. No one who listened to your arguments about the Grand Canyon, including YECs, would agree that you've analyzed it in great detail. Your approach depends upon assuming the Flood really happened, instead of upon evidence it really happened, then you propose scenarios completely uninformed by any of the practical aspects of geology or physics. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 837 by Faith, posted 07-30-2019 12:49 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 848 of 2370 (859319)
07-30-2019 6:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
07-30-2019 12:53 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: Strata will not bend like that. Cut off the top triangle all the way down, another five or so layers, or even a tad lower. Okay, I'll do that.
The two legs of your figure have to be separated: the left/west one is going to fall into the sea, and the right one is going to fall down on that side until only a short part with its broken ends is seen above the sea level line and the rest have fallen beneath it. I don't know what you mean when you ask me to separate the two legs of the figure. Can you be more specific?
And really, the figure shouldn't be so steep either. I think I can make it less steep, but that shouldn't be necessary. Geology diagrams are typically exaggerated in the vertical direction, so the angle in the diagram I'm trying to compose for you is pretty typical. Also, we're trying to diagram what happened at Snowdon, and the angle of my diagram is pretty much the same as the angle of Snowdon in Smith's diagram. Here's a closeup:
Here's the revision: These are the originally horizontal strata:
G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G
F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F
E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E
D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D
C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> C
B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B
A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A And this is after the granite basement rock has uplifted and pushed up into the strata. I know you want the legs "separated" in some way, but you'll have to explain what that should look like:
______________________
/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G F E D C B A A B C D E F G Once we get the above the way you want it then we'll move on to the next diagram in the sequence. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 838 by Faith, posted 07-30-2019 12:53 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 853 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:15 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.0
|
|
|
Message 849 of 2370 (859325)
07-30-2019 6:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 840 by Faith
07-30-2019 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Thank you for quoting nothing and replying to 5% of a long post.
Faith writes: The ends had to have been broken off for the reasons I gave: otherwise there would have been long lengths of strata where the short pieces stop at their tops. An interesting hypothesis, but now you have to present the evidence supporting it. As I asked before, where in this diagram do you see evidence of strata having "broken off"? Please be specific by providing reference to labels, letters or features of the diagram, for instance, "Look at the strata indicated by the Malvern label."
I hope you don't mind if I just get too tired to pursue this endless discussion. I know how I see it, you are never going to get it no matter how I labor to describe it. Don't give up. I'm pretty sure I can diagram it if you can describe it. Whatever you're seeing inside your head, just look at my diagram and tell me how to change it so it matches your vision. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 840 by Faith, posted 07-30-2019 12:57 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Ice age
A flood miles deep lasting for months would have pulverized and melted the polar ice caps, not to mention every glacier on the planet. But the ice caps were there centuries before the birth of Christ. The records go back as far as Pytheas of Massalia. That's an impossibly short time for ice caps to form! Centuries before Christ fits the YEC view but before the Flood, no. There wouldn't have been any ice at all on the planet before the Flood, no ice caps, no glaciers. All that would have been the result of the Flood. You have to think outside the usual scientific box. If you look up ice age, by the way, you may run across the information that we are still IN the last ice age, in the phase where the earth is warming up and meltinjg it all. Kind of gives a different perspective on global warming. And without reference to the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 851 of 2370 (859399)
07-31-2019 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 731 by JonF
07-27-2019 1:33 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Again, the extent of the new sedimentary layers is minuscule by comparison with that of the layers found by core sampling in the Midwest US and in the area of the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 731 by JonF, posted 07-27-2019 1:33 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 854 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 2:42 PM | | Faith has replied | | | Message 861 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 3:57 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 852 of 2370 (859400)
07-31-2019 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 842 by RAZD
07-30-2019 3:14 PM
|
|
Re: Well, in Re: evidence?
Yeah, that's how politics works.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 842 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2019 3:14 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 853 of 2370 (859401)
07-31-2019 2:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 848 by Percy
07-30-2019 6:06 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
You have to cut the top off your lower figure down to the point where you have two separatee "legs" of strata, one to the right and one to the left. The rising of the mountain would have broken it all apart like that, and there never would have been that upper point you put on it. It would have started breaking as soon as the mountain pushed on it from below and would have been broken completely in two before the mountain even got to its upper level. The left one will fall away into the sea and the right one will fall MOSTLY beneath the sea level line on the right, leaving its broken-off ends above that line, tiltedas we see them on the diagram, forming the current geograpny of the whole island from left/west to right/east. The strata beneath the sea level line will form the strata we also see on that diagram, the distorted strata that are the extensions of those broken off pieces, that bend toward the east and show various specific kinds of disturbances within them as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 848 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 6:06 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 859 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 3:28 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 854 of 2370 (859409)
07-31-2019 2:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 851 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:08 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Again, the extent of the new sedimentary layers dwarfs those found anywhere in the Americas by any means. The Pacific Ocean is 15 times larger than the United States and 6.5 times larger than North America and 3.6 times larger than the Americas (North, Central, and South). The Atlantic Ocean is 2.5 times larger than the Americas. The Indian Ocean is 1.7 times larger than the Americas. All these oceans are areas of net deposition and are adding to the geologic column. Lying ain't gonna change that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 851 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:08 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 855 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:45 PM | | JonF has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 855 of 2370 (859412)
07-31-2019 2:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 854 by JonF
07-31-2019 2:42 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
The Pacific Ocean bears not the slightest geographic relation to the geological column anywhere. And those sedimentary deposits you all point to on the land are minuscule by comparison to the extent of the Geological Column. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 854 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 2:42 PM | | JonF has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
