|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And how many times do *I* have to tell YOU that the oceans are not building on the geological column? Repeating false statements\assertions\ignorant c mments doesn't make them any truer than their original bald falseness.
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. ... Too small doesn't matter in the slightest. It''s just a matter of time. And you have a major problem with time. (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1). There is no such thing as the wrong place.
... The Geological Column is OVER AND DONE WITH. Says the person who insists on being wrong over and over and over. Now it occurs to me, that you may be confusing the geological column with rocks, not actively deposited sediments that have not yet lithified. Is that possible? Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... the problem with the candidates for continuation of the Geological Colum -- meaninjg those accumulated on the land area ... ... is that you are wrong. The geological column covers ALL dirt/rock/sediment surfaces, on dry land AND UNDER WATER. Dry land is usually a surface with net EROSION, which supplies the sediments being deposited on the geological column in rivers lakes and, yes virginia, oceans. Only a person willingly ignorant of the basics of geology cycles would claim otherwise ...
quote: It's a cycle of erosion ("corrosion"), deposition, lithification, uplift, rinse and repeat. Limiting your discussion to only areas that are net erosion areas means you are only looking at half the cycle. OBVIOUSLY, if you only look at areas of net erosion you will not observe any building of the geological column there. So what happens to all that sediment that has eroded away? It is added to the geological column in the locations where it is deposited as sediments ... by wind or water. A chance to learn ... enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Oh dear, the hubris of wanton ignorance ... so many erroneous assertions ...
Well, it does speak of it as a "stack" while the ocean deposits aren't deep enough to be a stack. ... The "stack" goes down to the bottom of the crust, so it does exist on the sea floor as the sediment there goes down to the crust.
... They are obviously newer than the geological column as we find it on all the continenents, ... ... because they are areas of net deposition, where the geological column is building. In contrast to you narrow vision myopic view of land geological columns that are in areas of net erosion -- part of the geological cycle pr message Message 913. You CAN educate yourself on this rather than try to make it all up.
... the column does not exist on the sea floor, and since they do not build upon that familiar well known geological column that defines all the time periods it's not part of it. It does exist on the sea floor because that is not the bottom of the crust. We can see this clearly from the ...
quote: See that gray layer of marine sediment being deposited on top of the green layer of "ocean crust (Basalt/Grabbro) ~5-7 km" thick? that is the geological column in those areas. Below that is the orange lithosphere mantle ... the top of this mantle layer is the bottom of the geological column in this area. The sedimentary deposits are in the process of forming the layer that will define the "anthropocen age". Time has not ended, it continues, just as the geological processes and cycles continue. Probably most notable for the high levels of radioactive material ...
And may I also point out that since it is new and does not build on the geological column, ... Except that it is built on the geological column/s in the ocean floor/s.
... AND the geologtical column IS found across continents, ... ... AND everywhere on earth, INCLUDING across the Oceans.
... AND the geologtical column IS found across continents, ... ... that were once ocean bottoms in the past.
... this alone is evidence for the deposition of the geological column before the continents split, which is evidence for the RFlood. Nope. It is evidence that the sedimentary deposits occurred when that area was under water, oceans covered much of NA in times past. Plate tectonics explains it, the flood does not.
Ba Da Boom. Or whatever. Only in your dreams. Bada BING. (so much fun) Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well, but I HAVE provided such evidence. Looking only at areas of net erosion does not provide evidence that geological processes have ended. Why? Because you ignore area of net deposition where the geological column is actively growing. In fact the area of net erosion also show that geological processes have not stopped, because they are actively eroding ... and that sediment from the erosion is going somewhere ... Think about it, Faith. All you need to do is really think about that missing sediment ... what is it doing? Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So if it's too small we just imagine that eventually a whole bunch of small deosits of the same sediment will accumulate on the Geo Column hither and yon until eventually we have a new stratum for our time, complete with fossils even. Gosh what faith you all have! it's not faith, Faith, it's what the objective empirical physical geological evidence shows. It's what the evidence from the past shows. It's what the continuing processes of the geological cycle show. The known geological processes explain ALL the evidence, not just cherry picked portions taken out of context to bolster a magical fantasy belief. Believing something else happened by magic (because no evidence for it) is faith, Faith. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The "stack" begins with precambrian rocks and ascends through the sedimentary layerss from Cambrian through Holocene, variations of which is what we find on the continents; it does not exist on the sea floor. What is being laid down on the sea floor is therefore not building on the geological column. The layers of the Precambrian, and the Cambrian through the Holocene were once ocean floor, and that is where they were "built" ... what exists on the sea floor is therefore part of the geological column process where new sediment deposits are building the geological column, and will continue to do so into the future. WHen the sea floor meets the continents and they are pushed up, then these layers become part of the geological column for mountains. The "stack" is whatever lies below any point on the earth. Using a false definition leads to false conclusions. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is no problem with defining the Geo Column as the strata we find in various forms on all the continents from Precambrian to Holocene. ... Except that this strawman definition excludes areas where the geological column is growing.
... Nothing else is necessary to the definition ... Except that this strawman definition excludes areas where the geological column is growing.
... and by this definition we have no further growth of the Geological Column. It is OVER AND DONE WITH. Except that this strawman definition excludes areas where the geological column is growing. Strawman Definitions do not make a valid argument. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now now now, I never said that "geological processes have ended." I said the Geological COLUMN, ... has ended The "Geological COLUMN" is a result of geological processes. For that to end, those processes must also end. Including erosion, deposition, uplift, etc. and rather obviously those processes have not ended, as we see erosion, deposition and uplift all over the earth.
... otherwise known as the Geological Timescale, .... The geological column is not the timescale, because it is different in different parts of the world.
quote: The time scale is used to date the strata in each geological column anywhere on earth. The geological column does not define the time scale. They are not equivalent. AND obviously the timescale has not ended.
That is, defined in the only way that makes any sense, ... To you and only you.
... there are no processes continuing that are truly the same as those of the geological column, what you are all claiming as its continuation has no resemblance to it. ... In your imagination ... ... ignoring the evidence of ongoing geological processes that are building columns in areas of net deposition. What we see in the geological record around the world is that the earth has undergone substantial change over billions of years of gradual processes that are the same as what we see occurring today.
... It is dead, Razzy, over and done with. ... Nope. Somehow your strawman argument fails to convince me. I wonder why? Perhaps because your definition is incomplete and inadequate?
... Geological processes of all sorts continue, but not the same processes that built the Geo Column, and this is demonstrable just by comparing them. They are not the same processes. Can you show what these differences are? I can't see any. We have compared them, both in type of deposition, and in the time scale rate of deposition needed to accumulate the deposits seen. They are all similar to what we observe today.
The Geological Column is OVER AND DONE WITH. And that is evidence for .... Insanity? Fantasy? Delusion? Did I guess right? Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Todays depositions are too small though in the right location, ... to continue the geological column/time scale. How big would they need to be for you to say they "continue the geological column/time?" Just trying to get an idea of the scale.
... or big enough but in the wrong location to continue the geological column/time scale. What location would they have to be in? How extensive? You're model, IIRC, is that the flood encompassed the earth, with large waves laying down sediment in alternating layers, yes? Why don't we see those layers at the bottom of the ocean? Is this why you discount ocean floors as part of the geolgical column? Just curious ... ... next,
quote: Yet it is curiously absent from the Grand Canyon ... how do you explain this absence? How do you explain the very thin varve layers, "mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm," of alternating light and dark layers of very fine sediment (and we have talked about how long it takes to deposit very fine material from suspension in water)? Curious indeed. Continuing ...
quote: How do you explain these different rock types and particularly the layers of volcanic ash within the varve layers? How do you explain the layers of evaporite minerals within the varve layers? It seems to me that these pesky details sure seem to contradict your claims for the geological formations in this area. How do you explain them? Continuing further ...
quote: Note the correspondence with of layer times with radiometric dates. How do you explain this? Note that the areas of deposition shifted over the time period of deposition in a way that corresponds with astrochronological dates. How do you explain this? And finally ...
quote: This formation/layer of the geological column in this area is from the Eocene Lagersttte period, so it fits within your "geological column/time scale" - yes? It is also adjacent to the Grand Canyon in location, on the land so it can't be in the wrong location nor is it small in area. You might remember that Notharctus is the genera at the top of the Pelycodus fossil chart:
This all ties in with the spacial/temporal matrix of geology, geography and time that science has developed from the evidence. This all left a "continuous record of six million years" of evolution in this area ... how did the fossils get sorted by radiometric age? How did the radiometric isotopes get sorted with depth in the formation? The overall deposition was so gentle (" ... The limestone matrix is so fine-grained that fossils include rare soft parts of complete insects and fallen leaves in spectacular detail ...") that these fossils were not torn up. How does this mesh with your model for the formation of the "geological column/time scale" in this area? These are facts. Facts that need to be explained. Otherwise they destroy your model. Bada BOOM Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm sorry, but the evidence does NOT show that a given layer of the Geological Column was ever constructed by small deposits of sediment one at a time. All eventually creating a deposit of one sediment thousands of square miles in extent and maybe hundreds of feet deep? Don't try to put that one over on me. Denial of evidence is not how it is refuted. All you have here is opinion, and willful ignorance. The facts show otherwise. See Message 1017 for greater detail. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It would probably be fair to say that "geological column" has more than one definition, and one of those is as a conceptual and worldwide geologic timescale that can be superimposed upon any columnar sequence of rock formations. Wikipedia's definition of the geologic column is very detailed. There's also a Wikibook called Historical Geology/Geological column that puts the geologic column in historical perspective. JonF provided a number of other definitions of geologic column, and you're using one of those, where each plot of ground has its own geologic column that is a partial representation of the conceptual geologic column of time periods. Indeed. The whole world wide pattern could be integrated into a single model of geological deposition over time with an absolute timescale -- in effect the spacial/temporal matrix -- that covers the whole earth. Some strata would be seen in some areas but not others, and no single strata covers the whole earth in a single layer. The iridium layer comes closest, but it too is absent in some locations. This absence of different layers in different locations is, IMHO, one of the major problems with Faith's assertions. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That definition of the Geological Column is, in my opinion, invented for the purpose of getting around the obvious fact that it's over and done with and that supports the Flood. ... What you should have said:
My definition of the Geological Column is, in my opinion, invented for the purpose of getting around the obvious fact that it's not over and done with, in order to support my Flood model. ... Although I can't see any rationale for excluding deposition at observed rates and locations from occurring, as that should not interfere with your model ... can you explain this?
... You have to incorporate all kinds of phenomena that are so utterly different from the Geological Column as we know it and as it is presented all over the internet ... Again, what you should have said:
... I have to exclude all kinds of phenomena that are so utterly different from the Geological Column as I know it ... How much area does your Geological Column cover? Can you show it on a map? Doesn't it extend to the area of the Green River Formation (see Message 1017)?
... ...I'm trying to avoid an insulting word but no good alternative is coming to me. Duplicity, self-deception, etc. The whole world is involved in self-deception but you? Wowsers. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Problem is the silver dollar analogy doesn't reflect the reality that on the ocean floor the accumulating sediments have nothing to do with the geological column as we know it, say, in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area. What about the Green River Formation -- Varves, Fossils, Time and Geological Columns?
This notion of sea floor being raised onto continents or becoming continents is a really untenable idea, and pure theory since there is no indication whatever that such a thing has ever occurred or could occur. We can measure the uplift in many places, from the Grand Canyon to Mt Everest, and we find that the rate of uplift is consistent with the rise of mountains. Plate Tectonics explains this process in great detail, as well as earthquakes and volcanoes, things like the Hawaiian Islands and the ages of the different islands. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Uplift, sure, and the raising of mountains, sure, but not sea floor. ... Why not? Be specific. What stops the sea floor from being uplifted? There is evidence of uplift and depression along sea coasts, raising and lowering the land relative to the sea level. When uplifted, what was underwater becomes land.
... It has appeared to me from many cross sections that all the tectonic processes began after all the strata were laid down, ... Some yes, some no. They have been ongoing since the formation of the earth 4.5+ billion years ago. The Baja peninsula is in the process of separating from the mainland:
quote: This movement has been measured. The movement is a fact. It is a geological process that is ongoing today.
... Evidence is that it's the whole stack that is affected all at once and in the same way, not separate layers independently of one another. ... You should have said:
Evidence is that it's the whole stack that is affected all at once -- at the time of the event -- and in the same way, not separate layers independently of one another. Because there is evidence of earthquake fault zones being buried by later deposition of sediments, so those fault lines do not extend to the full height of the modern day "stack" ... There is also evidence of volcanic ash layers between some layers, which also needs to be explained.
... Magma can be seen to rise all the way from beneath the Precambrian rocks to the top of a given sedimentary stack, etc. And only rising through some of the layers before spreading out into large horizontal fields, not affecting layers above that (except at the contact zone of course). Now I noticed that you avoided the part of my message regarding:
Problem is the silver dollar analogy doesn't reflect the reality that on the ocean floor the accumulating sediments have nothing to do with the geological column as we know it, say, in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area. What about the Green River Formation -- Varves, Fossils, Time and Geological Columns? This is a question you need to answer. Is the Green River Formation area also part of your geological column or are you going to restrict your definition even further? Here's the map again:
The Green River is a Tributary to the Colorado River, and this area is adjacent to the "Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area" and there is no barrier I can see to exclude it from your "stack" concept. If it is, then you have several problems that are detailed in Message 1017 ... If it isn't then your stack only covers a small portion of North America, and then obviously it isn't representative of other areas of the US, so lack of deposition (growth of the "stack") in this restricted area does not mean that it is not ongoing elsewhere in the world. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I know the geological column is only partial in any given location, that is a mistake I do not make, it's irrelevant to anything I've said. So your massive world wide flood dances across the surface of the earth leaving one kind of deposit here, another kind there, some parts bare, several times around to make layer after layer after layer ... and yet they all seem to stack up in vertical layers in each area without being distributed helter-skelter around the world. Fascinating. and totally unworkable. Enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024