Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 856 of 2370 (859413)
07-31-2019 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:45 PM


Re: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 857 of 2370 (859415)
07-31-2019 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:45 PM


Re: evidence?
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:
1. a columnar diagram that shows the rock formations of a locality or region and that is arranged to indicate their relations to the subdivisions of geologic time.
2 : the sequence of rock formations in a geologic column.
(Merriam-Webster, note "a locality or region")
quote:
The geological column is the theoretical classification system for the layers of rocks and fossils that make up the Earth's crust (also known as the standard geologic column). Fossiliferous layers can often be traced across entire continents and correlated with rocks in other countries.
(CreationWiki.com, note "crust" )
quote:
The geologic system is a conceptual arrangement of rock formations around the world meshed together into a single, unbroken record of Earth's past.[1] It is also known as the geologic column or geologic timescale.
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 858 of 2370 (859416)
07-31-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:45 PM


Re: evidence?
And I called it in Message 841,although I wasn't expecting it so soon:
quote:
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 855 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 859 of 2370 (859422)
07-31-2019 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 853 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:15 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 11:56 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 860 of 2370 (859428)
07-31-2019 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 850 by Faith
07-31-2019 1:53 PM


Re: Ice age
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 1:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 861 of 2370 (859431)
07-31-2019 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:08 PM


Re: evidence?
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

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 863 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 4:04 PM Percy has replied
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 6:13 PM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 862 of 2370 (859434)
07-31-2019 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 850 by Faith
07-31-2019 1:53 PM


Re: Ice age
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 1:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 6:01 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 863 of 2370 (859435)
07-31-2019 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 861 by Percy
07-31-2019 3:57 PM


Re: evidence?
What makes you think she means depth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 3:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 865 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 4:35 PM JonF has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 864 of 2370 (859439)
07-31-2019 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:45 PM


Re: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 870 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 5:57 PM Percy has replied
 Message 872 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 6:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 865 of 2370 (859442)
07-31-2019 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 863 by JonF
07-31-2019 4:04 PM


Re: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 4:04 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 866 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 4:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 868 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 5:52 PM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 866 of 2370 (859445)
07-31-2019 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 865 by Percy
07-31-2019 4:35 PM


Re: evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 4:35 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 867 of 2370 (859447)
07-31-2019 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by Faith
07-31-2019 2:45 PM


Re: evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 869 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 5:54 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 868 of 2370 (859448)
07-31-2019 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 865 by Percy
07-31-2019 4:35 PM


AgainRe: evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 4:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 877 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 6:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 886 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 7:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 869 of 2370 (859449)
07-31-2019 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 867 by DrJones*
07-31-2019 5:33 PM


Re: evidence?
No, but there are places where it is so extensive there is no doubting that its overall extent far exceeds anything being deposited today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 867 by DrJones*, posted 07-31-2019 5:33 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 7:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 884 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2019 9:35 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 889 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 10:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 870 of 2370 (859450)
07-31-2019 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 864 by Percy
07-31-2019 4:28 PM


Re: evidence?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 4:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 879 by JonF, posted 07-31-2019 7:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 888 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 9:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024