Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 886 of 2370 (859519)
08-01-2019 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 868 by Faith
07-31-2019 5:52 PM


Re: AgainRe: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 868 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 5:52 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by jar, posted 08-01-2019 9:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 887 of 2370 (859520)
08-01-2019 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 886 by Percy
08-01-2019 7:42 AM


Re: AgainRe: evidence?
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.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 7:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 888 of 2370 (859523)
08-01-2019 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 870 by Faith
07-31-2019 5:57 PM


Re: evidence?
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:
  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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 5:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 889 of 2370 (859529)
08-01-2019 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 869 by Faith
07-31-2019 5:54 PM


Re: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 5:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 890 of 2370 (859530)
08-01-2019 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 873 by Faith
07-31-2019 6:13 PM


Re: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 6:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 891 by Faith, posted 08-01-2019 1:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 891 of 2370 (859560)
08-01-2019 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 890 by Percy
08-01-2019 10:30 AM


Re: evidence?
When I said recent deposits are teensy weensy I MEANT in extent, not depth.
Nonesense to the rest of your nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 890 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 10:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 892 by JonF, posted 08-01-2019 2:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 893 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 2:48 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 892 of 2370 (859568)
08-01-2019 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 891 by Faith
08-01-2019 1:35 PM


Re: evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Faith, posted 08-01-2019 1:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 893 of 2370 (859573)
08-01-2019 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 891 by Faith
08-01-2019 1:35 PM


Re: evidence?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Faith, posted 08-01-2019 1:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 11:46 AM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 894 of 2370 (859615)
08-02-2019 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 885 by NosyNed
07-31-2019 9:49 PM


Re: What? How thick?
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2019 9:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 895 of 2370 (859634)
08-02-2019 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 893 by Percy
08-01-2019 2:48 PM


Re: evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by Percy, posted 08-01-2019 2:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by Stile, posted 08-02-2019 11:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 899 by JonF, posted 08-02-2019 12:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 903 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2019 1:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 908 by jar, posted 08-02-2019 1:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 949 by Percy, posted 08-03-2019 8:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 896 of 2370 (859638)
08-02-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 859 by Percy
07-31-2019 3:28 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 859 by Percy, posted 07-31-2019 3:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 953 by Percy, posted 08-03-2019 6:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 897 of 2370 (859642)
08-02-2019 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 895 by Faith
08-02-2019 11:46 AM


Re: evidence?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 11:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 12:12 PM Stile has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 898 of 2370 (859646)
08-02-2019 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by Stile
08-02-2019 11:59 AM


Re: evidence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by Stile, posted 08-02-2019 11:59 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by JonF, posted 08-02-2019 12:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 901 by Stile, posted 08-02-2019 12:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 913 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2019 1:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 958 by Percy, posted 08-04-2019 7:58 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 899 of 2370 (859654)
08-02-2019 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by Faith
08-02-2019 11:46 AM


Re: evidence?
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:
Remind students that this
term is a compound word. Help students
understand the word parts. Geo- means Earth
and -logos means study of. A column is a
vertical stack and refers to the rock strata. So
the geologic column is the study of the layers of
rock that make up our Earth.
quote:
arrangement of rock layers in which the oldest rocks are at the bottom
quote:
The arrangement of rock units in the proper chronological order from youngest to oldest.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 11:46 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 900 of 2370 (859656)
08-02-2019 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 898 by Faith
08-02-2019 12:12 PM


Re: evidence?
Oceans. QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 12:12 PM 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