|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
You are right, the bible doesn't mention the Pacific Ocean.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The geologic column underlies every point on Earth, including the oceans. Message 770:
You seem to think that the geologic column appears only in "very definite locations". No, the geologic column is defined as:
quote:(Merriam-Webster, note "a locality or region") quote:(CreationWiki.com, note "crust" ) quote:(Conservapedia, note" around the world "l Did you notice that none of those definitions restrict the location of the geologic column in any way? Every point on the crust (which encompasses all the parts that are above the mantle, including sea floors is the top of "the" geologic column. Really it's the local portion of a world-wide geologic column. The interior layers of the crust vary widely from place to place. But we can tell from context that "geologic column" really means "local geologic column. When sediment accumulates on the ocean floor, it's accumulating on top of the (local} geologic column, and adding to it.
Message 789: 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:
If you want to speak only of layers on land, you need to use a different term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And I called it in Message 841,although I wasn't expecting it so soon:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: 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. Are you sure you want it that way? Rock is fairly plastic on a scale of miles, and in your Flood scenario the rock is water soaked and more pliable. Also, the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated and the bending is much less than it appears in the diagram. It's more like this that I presented once before:
For now I'll just follow your instructions. Here's what you described would look like:
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:
/|_ _|\ / / |__ __| \ \ / / / / |__ __| \ \ \ \ / / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / G R A N I T E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ G F E D C B A A B C D E F G When the granite basement rock uplifts into the strata, what happens to the rest of the horizontal strata to the left and right? I think we have to show that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: 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. Don't jump too far out of the "scientific box" - this is a science thread. You haven't yet shown that the Flood really happened, so you can't yet talk about before and after the Flood. Even if you change your claim to be that before 4500 years ago there were no ice caps or glaciers, where is your evidence? Contradicting your claim is the large body of evidence that the glaciers and ice caps go back millennia. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: 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. It doesn't make sense that you''re saying this in reply to JonF's Message 731 - the word "extent" doesn't even appear in that message. He doesn't begin trying to explain extent to you until much later in Message 811 and Message 813. You say "extent" but what you really mean is "depth." JonF was talking about extent. He described the extent in area over which sediments are being deposited throughout the oceans, not the depth of sediments. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No frozen margaritas? Say it ain't so!
We are still technically in an ice age. That has nothing to do with the fact that the climate is changing extremely quickly, largely caused by our industrialization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What makes you think she means depth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: The Pacific Ocean bears not the slightest geographic relation to the geological column anywhere. You're ignoring pages of messages on the geological column and simply declaring, "It doesn't exist there," without any evidence or explanation. Assertions made with no evidence can be ignored, and this is an acutely ignorant thing to say anyway. The worldwide extent of the geologic column is definitional, and there's nothing controversial about it. Naturally YECs would disagree with the scientific interpretation of the geologic column, but there's no reason to assert absurd things like that there's no geologic column beneath the oceans. We've even shown you cores from beneath the oceans that record the history of sedimentary deposits through geologic time. Whether you believe the cores go back only 4500 years or millions of years, they still exist. Neither Answers in Genesis (their article on the geologic column) nor the Institute for Creation Research (one of their articles about the geologic column) agree with you.
And those sedimentary deposits you all point to on the land are minuscule by comparison to the extent of the Geological Column. We all agree that the sedimentary deposits of the past 4500 years are minuscule compared to the billions of years of sedimentary deposits that came before. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
JonF writes: What makes you think she means depth? Because she talks about the layers of cores, and cores are vertical in depth. But I suppose nothing should surprise me at this point - maybe Faith really doesn't know how much greater in extent the oceans are than land. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I still think she means area, but who can be sure?
I've pointed out the relative sizes twice now. So she can't have learned it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
the geological column is not a singular thing. the column where I am is not the same as where you are or where Percy is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Again, the oceans are not on the land. To continue the geological column the layers must be on top of it, and those that are are way too small -- the geograpnhic extent of the layers in the geo column in both the Midwest where core sambles have identified it, and in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, is enormous, a matter of thousands of square miles in each case. If you like the word "area" better than "geographic extent" then the area exceeds thousands of square miles. No lakebed accumulating sediments today, or any other location you want to point to ON THE LAND, covers any area worth considering as part of the geo column.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, but there are places where it is so extensive there is no doubting that its overall extent far exceeds anything being deposited today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If core samples over the extent of the Midwest show the familiar geological column there is no other evidence needed. If the same layers cover thousands of square miles in the area of the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, no other evidence is needed. Those two facts demonstrate what I've been talking about. All the attempts to make teeny little lakebeds suffice, or commandeer the ocean beds as the next layer of the geo column, are ...I'm trying to avoid insulting language ... how about "inadequate."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024