Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 976 of 2370 (859920)
08-04-2019 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 972 by Faith
08-04-2019 3:40 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
So your geological column is just the local column in the area around the Grand Canyon. Not the geological column at all, just a geological column.
There are just two problems with that. First it is worthless for any argument against mainstream geology because it is a local column. Interruptions in deposition are normal and expected. Second, you have no way of knowing that deposition will never resume.
I’ll also bet that there is quite a bit of deposition even in some areas on the continent, such as the Everglades in Florida (which is liable to see a major transgression in the foreseeable future, if the sea level keeps rising)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 977 of 2370 (859921)
08-04-2019 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 974 by Percy
08-04-2019 3:53 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Of course it's been "rebutted." So what else is new? Would you like to repeat the rebuttal so I can point out how utterly untenable it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 974 by Percy, posted 08-04-2019 3:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 998 by Percy, posted 08-04-2019 6:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 978 of 2370 (859924)
08-04-2019 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 972 by Faith
08-04-2019 3:40 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
That's it, that's the evidence. The Geological Column is a specific stack. It is no longer being built on. That's it, it's over.
It's not evidence for your claims. That's a description of some layers intermixed with more of the same unjustified assertions.
Nothing is building on top of it but a lakebed here and there, nothing even remotely in the ballpark.
That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.
Relocating it to the sea bed removes it from its well known location.
That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.
Once you remove your infinitely repeated unsupported claims, you have an uncontroversial and unrelated description of some formations.
Your claims are inconsistent with the universal definition of the geological column. You haven't addressed and obviously cannot address that fatal flaw. You are wrong.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 979 of 2370 (859925)
08-04-2019 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 955 by Faith
08-04-2019 2:03 AM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes:
There should be no horizontal strata at the base of the triangle.
Okay, but don't forget that this is a sequence of diagrams intended to show everything that happens. It needs to be step by step. We can't advance forward by multiple steps in the process you're trying to illustrate without confusing people as to what happened. So we start with this:
G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G
F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F
E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E
D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D
C ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B
A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A
And then the granite mountain uplifts into these strata, and I showed it like this:
/|_              _|\
                             / / |__        __| \ \
                            / / / / |__  __| \ \ \ \
                           / / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
                          / / / / / / /  \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                         / / / / / / /    \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                        / / / / / / /      \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                       / / / / / / /        \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                      / / / / / / /          \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                     / / / / / / /            \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                    / / / / / / /              \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                   / / / / / / /                \ \ \ \ \ \ \
                  / / / / / / /  G R A N I T E   \ \ \ \ \ \ \
		 / / / / / / /                    \ \ \ \ \ \ \
		/ / / / / / /                      \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G -------------- / / / / / /                        \ \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------- > G
F ----------------/ / / / /                          \ \ \ \ \------------------------------> F
E -----------------/ / / /                            \ \ \ \-------------------------------> E
D ------------------/ / /                              \ \ \--------------------------------> D
C -------------------/ /                                \ \--------- CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C
B --------------------/                                  \----------------------------------> B
A --------------------                                    ----------------------------------> A
But you don't think those horizontal strata belong there. I can remove them, but if they go away then we need a diagram before this one that shows where the horizontal strata went. They can't just disappear. If you describe the events behind these horizontal strata going away then I'll create a diagram that shows that happening.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 955 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 2:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:21 PM Percy has replied
 Message 997 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:10 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 980 of 2370 (859927)
08-04-2019 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 979 by Percy
08-04-2019 4:12 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
The horizontal strata are what you drew at the top.
The mountain comes up beneath them and breaks the block of strata in two.
The left side goes into the ocean.
The right side falls down and becomes the strata we see beneath the sea level line in that diagram, with their tilted broken off ends arranged along the top of the sea level line.
ABE: There are no other strata in the picture, such as the horizontal strata you've drawn on either side of the mountain.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 979 by Percy, posted 08-04-2019 4:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1010 by Percy, posted 08-05-2019 7:11 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 981 of 2370 (859929)
08-04-2019 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 956 by Faith
08-04-2019 2:16 AM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Faith writes:
The geological column or time scale is a very specific thing. All its strata are stacked one on top of another, originally a few miles deep. Strata now forming on the sea floor are not building on this very specific stack of strata, they are in the wrong location;
Most strata are marine. Marine sedimentary layers were deposited on the sea floor, which you say is the wrong place. Yet continents are full of marine strata that you say is the right place. How do you reconcile the contradiction?
...and sediments deposited on top o this stack that are very small in extent as well as depth are far from qualifying as part of the column.
You continue to not understand the vast expanse of oceans compared to land. Their extent is enormous. Why do you keep calling marine deposits small in extent?
The depth of sea floor sediments will not approach that of land because it gets recycled back into the mantle through subduction.
The Geo Column is Over and Done with.
You forgot to say amen.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 956 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 2:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 982 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:32 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 982 of 2370 (859930)
08-04-2019 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by Percy
08-04-2019 4:29 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
The sea floor is not on top of the geological column. The geo column is a stack of sediments. If you put sediments somewhere else you are not building on the geo column.
Agaih, the deposits that are on top of the geo column are minuscule and therefore are not building on it.
What else can I possibly say? I've said it a million times already. Your argument makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by Percy, posted 08-04-2019 4:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 983 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2019 4:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 984 by JonF, posted 08-04-2019 4:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1011 by Percy, posted 08-05-2019 7:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 983 of 2370 (859931)
08-04-2019 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 982 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:32 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
The sea floor is not on top of the geological column. The geo column is a stack of sediments. If you put sediments somewhere else you are not building on the geo column
There are many marine deposits in the geological column. The geological column is not just the area around the Grand Canyon. And what are the marine deposits being deposited on if not the local geological column ?
quote:
Agaih, the deposits that are on top of the geo column are minuscule and therefore are not building on it.
The Sahara is not minuscule and even a miniscule deposit would be building on the geological column.
quote:
What else can I possibly say? I've said it a million times already. Your argument makes no sense
You could admit that your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Because it obviously doesn’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 984 of 2370 (859933)
08-04-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 982 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:32 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
The sea floor is not on top of the geological column. The geo column is a stack of sediments. If you put sediments somewhere else you are not building on the geo column.
That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.
Agaih, the deposits that are on top of the geo column are minuscule and therefore are not building on it.
That's one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims.
What else can I possibly say? I've said it a million times already.
You can't say anything else. You can't say "here's a definition that agrees with me". You can't say "here's a quote from someone who knows using it in my sense." Nobody in the world agrees with you. You can't say anything that would support your claims because your claims are wrong and unsupportable.
Saying it is not supporting it.
Your argument makes no sense.
Your inability to understand it is not a valid criterion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:52 PM JonF has replied

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


Message 985 of 2370 (859934)
08-04-2019 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by JonF
08-04-2019 4:43 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
All those who believe in the Old Earth and the ToE will not agree with me because they HAVE to insist the geological column is not what it obviously is or their theory falls apart.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by JonF, posted 08-04-2019 4:43 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 986 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2019 5:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 990 by JonF, posted 08-04-2019 6:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1012 by Percy, posted 08-05-2019 7:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 986 of 2370 (859938)
08-04-2019 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 985 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:52 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
All those who believe in the Old Earth and the ToE will not agree with me because they HAVE to insist the geological column is not what it obviously is or their theory falls apart
By which you mean that we have to insist that it IS what it obviously is. If your assertions were obviously true you could support them. Instead you repeat them and refuse to address the obvious objections.
Again. The Sahara is obviously not minuscule. It is obvious that there is no wrong place on this planet. Any deposition potentially adds to the local column. It is obvious that in places where deposition is occurring there will be more deposition. It is obvious that there are many marine deposits in the geological column. And there are many more objections such as Walther’s Law.
It is obvious that your assertions are without merit. It should be obvious to you that you can’t really support them. Because you don’t. If it isn’t then ask yourself how you could fail to notice that you aren’t providing any real evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:11 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 987 of 2370 (859940)
08-04-2019 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 986 by PaulK
08-04-2019 5:08 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
I assume you all know the geological facts as I've described them. If you don't then I'll try to dig up some pictures and diagrams for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 986 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2019 5:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1008 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2019 11:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1013 by Percy, posted 08-05-2019 7:43 AM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 988 of 2370 (859946)
08-04-2019 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 972 by Faith
08-04-2019 3:40 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
I've supported my position many times.
Not that anyone has noticed. We've seen you claim to have supported your position many times, but actually supported it? No.
The geological column, let's take the North American continent, covers thousands of square miles. Its layers have been identified to be the same as those in say the Grand Canyon area by core samples all over the Midwest.
It is not true that all layers of the North American continent are the same as at the Grand Canyon. How could core samples from even the entire Midwest verify the geology of the entire continent?
The same layers, the same stack, the same Geological Column, miles deep.
Still wrong.
Nothing is building on top of it but a lakebed here and there, nothing even remotely in the ballpark.
There are literally millions of lakes on the North American continent, mostly in Canada and Alaska, and most would be areas of net deposition. Basins are other areas of net deposition. A basin with no outlet to the ocean is known as an endorheic basin. There are numerous small endorheic basins in North America. The largest is the Great Basin which..wait for it...encompasses almost the entire state of Nevada where you live. How about that! Practically your entire state is a region of net deposition where the local column is growing:
The conceptual worldwide geological column is of course always growing at the rate of one second per second:
Relocating it to the sea bed removes it from its well known location.
Local columns do not get relocated. They may get submerged and later reemerge, even multiple times, but they do not get relocated. That's ludicrous.
I could point to the state of Tennessee which has a wonderful example of the Geo column from Cambrian to Holocene all lying down the same way the strata do on top of the sea level line in the UK diagrams.
Sea level again? When will you understand that sea levels were not the same when strata were deposited as they are today. That's even true in your Flood scenario.
The geologic time scale is in Tennessee and everywhere else throughout the world (both terrestrial and marine). The local columns across Tennessee only represent subsets of the geologic timescale.
The "time periods" are all there, the column was built and then it was tectonically disturbed.
That's interesting if you're correct that Tennessee has a continuous geologic column from Cambrian to Holocene, but if there's nothing before the Cambrian then that isn't all time periods, plus you might want to check your facts about that continuous column somewhere in the state. A quick poke around the Internet makes this seem unlikely. It doesn't bear on the discussion whether it really exists or not, but I am saying that you might want to check your facts.
I didn't see much of anything in the geology of Tennessee that resembles the UK. What specifically did you find similar about them?
AFTERWARD. Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, Tennessee, UK. It's over and done with.
That's it, that's the evidence. The Geological Column is a specific stack. It is no longer being built on. That's it, it's over.
You said almost nothing that was true. And even if it were all true, your conclusions do not follow from your supposed evidence. Basically you just said some random things and then stated some equally random conclusions.
Since you think it is about time and not about the stack...
I never said anything like this. The geologic timescale is conceptual and worldwide, and local columns all fit within its framework.
...you will continue to disagree and claim its continuing on the sea floor until we've used up hundreds of pages.
Of course sedimentation is continuing on the sea floor. That can't be denied. RAZD even presented a diagram showing how sedimentation depth increases with distance (age) from the mid oceanic ridge:
There's no point. I've given my reasons why it's over and done with and I don't see any point in continuing further. We disagree. End of subject.
This isn't a disagreement over facts. This is a disagreement with you about the importance of facts, and about how you're unable to bring any facts to the discussion, and that you're ability to build informed opinions is severely hampered by a god complex that leads you to think you personally define the facts.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 972 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 992 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 6:03 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 989 of 2370 (859947)
08-04-2019 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 945 by RAZD
08-03-2019 8:34 AM


Re: evidence? Objective Empirical Physical Geological Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2019 8:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 991 by JonF, posted 08-04-2019 6:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1014 by Percy, posted 08-05-2019 8:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1019 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2019 9:41 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 990 of 2370 (859949)
08-04-2019 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 985 by Faith
08-04-2019 4:52 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
Not even YECs agree with you. One of the definitions I posted and which agreed with the mainstream definition came from Answers in Genesis. Another came from Conservapedia (Conservative Wikipedia). Both are very strongly creationist. AIG is one of the largest and best known YEC organizations.
NOBODY agrees with you, no matter their religion or opinion on the age of the Earth and life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 4:52 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