|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Again, the oceans are not on the land. Of course the oceans are not the land, but the world wide geologic column exists everywhere around the globe.
To continue the geological column the layers must be on top of it,... You think the geological column must be on land? Why? Any geology book will tell you otherwise. Why this determination to be so ostentatiously wrong? It's also inconsistent within your own belief system, since you believe the Flood deposited the strata in a marine environment, and the strata beneath the world's oceans are being deposited in a marine environment. You can't accept one without the other. The rest of your message is just silly statements that assume the geologic column exists only on land, so I'll ignore them. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Of course the oceans are not the land, but the world wide geologic column exists everywhere around the globe. Today that is true. What is Ocean base today is not the land. But much of what is today land was once Ocean base. The problem is that that is simply another piece of evidence that the Earth is NOT 6000 years old but rather billions of years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: If core samples over the extent of the Midwest show the familiar geological column there is no other evidence needed. I'm not sure what you mean by core samples across the Midwest showing "the familiar geological column." The geologic column is conceptual and is the same the world over. It will always be the familiar geologic column. Perhaps you mean geologic column in another sense. Perhaps you're using one of the definitions from JonF, maybe one of these two:
quote: If you mean one of these definitions then the sequence of rock formations will differ from place to place and will not be the "familiar geological column" everywhere. Some formations such as at the Colorado Plateau are great in extent, and some are not. Whatever the extent, these local geologic columns exist the world over, both under sea and on land. As the undersea cores presented to you indicate, the undersea geologic columns cover the same time periods and contain layers of strata just like cores from land. One significant difference between the strata from beneath the ocean and the strata from land is that land strata are very likely to reflect Walther's Law, while strata that have consistently been under the ocean for millennia and have not experienced transgressing and regressing seas will consist mainly of pelagic ooze whose nature varies only according to changes in local conditions, such as what types of sediments currents bring in, what life lives in the overlying water column, and so forth.
If the same layers cover thousands of square miles in the area of the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, no other evidence is needed. You're too narrowly focused on the Grand Staircase region. That is an area of stratigraphic layers of great lateral extent, but that is not true of the entire world. Some regions of the world are similar in this way to the Grand Staircase region, many are not. If the Grand Canyon were instead in California and if you again erroneously extrapolated one region to the entire world, in this case a region of twisted strata of small extent, you would have concocted a completely different flood theory than the one you have now. You can't base your ideas on just one region of the world. World geology is far more varied than that, and even the Grand Staircase region is far more varied then you've convinced yourself to believe.
Those two facts demonstrate what I've been talking about. Your first fact was incorrect, and your second fact doesn't even bear on your claim that the geologic column doesn't exist under the sea. This is a core from under the sea. Strata exist under the sea. Sediments are being deposited atop these strata and are adding to the geologic column (as defined as a sequence of formations) in those locations. Here's a long deep core from the Mediterranean. It's a single core split into many shorter pieces displayed side by side. This is visual evidence of the geologic column beneath the sea:
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." The accumulation of sediments at the lower elevations, most often lake and sea beds, will continue contributing to the geologic column regardless. The contradiction in your position should be obvious to you. In your Flood scenario sediments were deposited in a marine environment, contributed to the geologic column, and turned to rock except at the upper levels where the weight was insufficient. In the world at present sediments are being deposited in a marine environment, contributing to the geologic column, and turning to rock except at the upper levels where the weight is insufficient. They're exactly the same, and your claim that they are not is obvious nonsense. From your Message 872:
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. Aha. Then if we agree on that, surely we can agree that the geological column is over and done with, absolutely kaput. I don't think you bothered to grasp the sentence you responded to. The amount of sediments deposited in 4500 years will of course be minuscule when compared to the amount deposited over billions of years. Billions is a million times bigger than thousands, so sediment deposited over billions of years instead of just thousands will of course be a million times deeper. Simple math. But the sea floor will never be billions of years old because it resides on a conveyor belt transporting the accumulated sediments from oceanic ridges to subduction zones, where it disappears into the bowels of the Earth. The oldest sea floor is probably only a couple hundred million years old. Ancient sea floor only becomes preserved for longer periods of time when it somehow becomes attached to a continent. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: No, but there are places where it is so extensive there is no doubting that its overall extent far exceeds anything being deposited today. What do you mean by "extent"? If you mean lateral extent, then no, you couldn't be more wrong. The lateral extent of the oceans upon whose seabeds sediments are accumulating is far greater than the land strata with the greatest lateral extent in the world. This is just an obvious fact because the oceans cover 71% of the Earth. But if by extent you mean depth, then of course the depth of sediments laid down over millions of years exceeds the depth of those laid down over just the last few thousand years. Assuming roughly similar sedimentation rates, that couldn't help but be true. So by either interpretation, what you said is false. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: By "extent" I mean "extent," geographic extent, surface area. One does not use the term for depth. Good to know you're using standard definitions in this case.
JonF is doing the usual rationalization of teeny weeny little sedimentary deposits as the continuation of the geological column. Recent deposits from the past few thousand years are teensy weensy in *depth*, not extent. You do seem to be confusing depth with extent, especially when combined with what you say next:
When its paltry geographical extent, or its area, is pointed out,... You're both ignorant of world geography and are not reading or are ignoring most of the messages to you. The oceans could in no way be described as having "paltry geographical extent." They are 71% of the Earth's surface. Here's the Pacific hemisphere. Look at the thing compared to the continents. It's huge:
...this should disqualify any claim to being part of the geological column. Information that is 100% wrong does not disqualify any claim. You need to reach a better understanding of the extent of the world's oceans.
You all keep putting up utterly inadequate candidates for that role, either sediments on a paltry scale by comparison though in the right place, or sediments on an enormous scale in the wrong place. There is no such thing as sediments in the wrong place, if by that you mean not on the geologic column. The geologic column is world wide. There is no place that sediments could be deposited that is not atop the geologic column.
None of it works. The Geological Column is Over and Done With. What makes you think so? Upon what are sediments being deposited today if not atop the geologic column?
This is obvious in many places, including the Grand Staircase where it comes to a very decided end at the very top in the Claron formation. You're very confused. The subject is deposition atop the geologic column, and your example is a region of strong erosion.
And these facts I'm discussing now are more evidence of its having ended, which is evidence that it was a singular event that laid down all the strata, an event that has long since ended, which is evidence for the Flood. A message that gets nearly everything wrong has no likelihood of showing evidence of anything. First get your facts right, then start organizing your arguments. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When I said recent deposits are teensy weensy I MEANT in extent, not depth.
Nonesense to the rest of your nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
When I said recent deposits are teensy weensy I MEANT in extent, not depth
And you were wrong. Oceans.
Nonesense to the rest of your nonsense.
And we are back to derogatory assertions with no analysis or discussion. You are pathetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Congratulations on a 21 word response to a 227 word message. Way to get into the details.
Faith writes: When I said recent deposits are teensy weensy I MEANT in extent, not depth. Are you daft? How many times do we have to tell you (and it must be way beyond 10 by now) that sedimentation is occurring at this very moment throughout the oceans, and that the oceans are immense in extent.
Nonsense to the rest of your nonsense. I explained why what you said was nonsense. You can't do the same because your position is nonsense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 831 we see 35 meters deposited over 42,000 years at Lake Suigetsu. That's 0.8333 mm per year, and over a million years that would result in sediment 833.33 km thick. We know this time because of the annual layers of the diatom/clay varves, confirmed by 14C dating calibrations. 35 meters in 42,00o years is 0.833 mm per year fine. But 1 million times that is only 833,300 mm which is 833 meters not kms. 0.833 mm per year is 833 mm per thousand years, 833,333 mm per million years, 833 m per million years. That's 2,734 feet, or ~1/2 mile. Still significant, imho. Thanks Edited by RAZD, : correct late night math.by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And how many times do *I* have to tell YOU that the oceans are not building on the geological column?
AS I SAID, your candidates for today's deposition on the geo column are either too small though in the right place or large enough but in the wrong place. The Geological Column is OVER AND DONE WITH. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The broken off strata is much better
Next, draw the sea level line Put the granite rock/mountain on its left Show the left part of the strata falling into the ocean on that side Show the right part of the strata falling down through the sea level line with the upper broken ends remaining above it and spreading out along that line Show the lower part of that block of strata forming what we see below the sea level line on the diagram we'd been discussinbg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Faith writes: And how many times do *I* have to tell YOU that the oceans are not building on the geological column? If I went to the Grand Canyon - right on top of the geological columns, and dumped a wheel-barrel of dirt on it and stamped it down - would this be "building on the geological column?" -Granted, it is 'artificially' building (done directly by humans) as opposed to 'naturally building' (done with no direct human involvement)... but you do accept this as "building the geological column" no? If I did the same thing 1 foot away - is this still building the geological column?If I did it 10 feet away? If I did it 1 mile away? If I dd it 10 miles away? If I did it 100 miles away?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No. I've said many times by now that the problem with the candidates for continuation of the Geological Colum -- meaninjg those accumulated on the land area, not in the coean where the problem is that they are in the wrong location -- is that their extent is too small. Minuscule. In that area the Geological Column covers thousands of square miles. I haven't argued it but the candidates are also too shallow since most of the strata are quite thick, up to hundreds of feet thick.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And how many times do *I* have to tell YOU that the oceans are not building on the geological column?
128,785,965,708,984 times. And it still will be wrong. As is your peculiar definition of the geologic column. There is no wrong place. Every point on Earth is on top of the geologic column, including sea floors. Your argument is founded on a pathetic attempt to redefine a standard term. That is, you have no rgument. Repeating your ludicrous claims isn't going to make them true. It's telling that you have not addressed the definitions I have posted, and that you've made no attempt to provide any support for your fantasy. As usual. Here's a few more definitions which refute your claims:
quote: quote: quote: Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Oceans. QED.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024