Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


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


Message 786 of 2370 (859172)
07-29-2019 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by Faith
07-29-2019 1:00 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
Well, I do.
I don’t know how you manage that when the strata clearly continue below the sea level line. Some of them seem to be shaded above the line, but even then I can see that they are the same strata above and below (and the fact that the shading ends at the sea level line should be a big hint that it doesn’t indicate a break)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 1:00 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 793 of 2370 (859186)
07-29-2019 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by Faith
07-29-2019 2:28 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
See the straight line under the darker upper part of the diagram, that runs across the whole diagram from left to right? That's what I've been calling the sea level line because that's where sea level is today and was also in William Smith's time.
Yes, we see that.
quote:
Everything above that line is the tilted short, broken-off pieces of strata I'm referring to
So it’s just the ends of the strata poking above the sea level line. They aren’t separate broken-off pieces at all. As I showed back in Message 659. And in your reply you claimed to know that.
quote:
On this diagram they've got the strata draped over them that continue beneath the sea level line.
I cannot make sense of this. Everything draped over them would be above the line and therefore what you call short broken-off pieces of strata.
quote:
What I'm talking about is clearer on William Smith's own drawing.
Smith’s diagram only shows the strata on the surface and doesn’t show what is beneath them. It literally cannot show what you want, because the information isn’t there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 2:28 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 828 of 2370 (859234)
07-30-2019 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 815 by Faith
07-29-2019 7:26 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
I've said dozens of times already that the strata we see on the surface continue below the sea level line...
More accurately you have said dozens of times that they don’t. You call them short, broken off pieces of strata and even say that they rest on the sea level line - clearly you are saying that they are broken off from the parts below the sea level line, especially as many of them are nowhere near short.
(ABE Also, in Message 800 you assert that the strata are not continuous because Smith cut off his diagram at sea level. Even though it’s clear that that is just where Smith chose to end it - and it appears that even that extent was at least partly extrapolated.)
Is this like when you talk about strata on the island proper - when that describes all the strata on the diagram ?
quote:
You do realize they are not in their original position, don't you? They had to have been stacked one on top of another originally, then they fell down into this current arrangement and the rest of the strata went beneath the sea level line.
You do realise that they don’t have to have extended over the entire island, or even much further than they do now ?
Edited by PaulK, : Add reference to Message 800 and a clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 7:26 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 829 of 2370 (859235)
07-30-2019 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 802 by Faith
07-29-2019 6:37 PM


Re: evidence?
quote:
I've analyzed the Grand Canyon in great detail. The volcanic action clearly occurred after all the sedimentary strata were in place.
No. The Cardenas Lave erupted onto the surface while the Dox formation sediments were still being deposited.
And where would lava and cinders in the Shivwits and Uinkaret formation come from, other than volcanic action when they were being laid down?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by Faith, posted 07-29-2019 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 846 of 2370 (859312)
07-30-2019 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Percy
07-30-2019 4:40 PM


Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
I should add that higher regions are less likely to see deposition and more likely to see erosion. While there may well have been additional strata on Snowdon at the time it was uplifted, it is not so likely that later material was deposited and if it did it was probably removed by erosion before it could lithify.
Much of the rock Faith assumes to have broken off - and vanished - may never have existed in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Percy, posted 07-30-2019 4:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 943 of 2370 (859782)
08-03-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 930 by Faith
08-02-2019 5:34 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
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
Other than the fact that we only find it in a few regions. Everywhere else one or more periods are completely missing. And if you insist on only counting those regions you need to show that deposition has ended there. And you haven’t even tried to do that.
quote:
Nothing else is necessary to the definition and by this definition we have no further growth of the Geological Column.
Aside from the fact that you’ve made up an idiosyncratic definition in an attempt to prove your claim - which is a form of deception, and the fact that proving it is useless to you without the deception - there is the fact that you haven’t even tried to prove it.
I will also point out that since numerous marine strata are known, refusing to count strata laid down under the sea would remove much of the geological column.
For the geological column to end by the standard definitions, it must be the case thar no new rock will ever be produced. Given the fact that there are regions of net deposition, this claim is - on the face of it - ridiculous. But that is the one you really want to prove.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 944 of 2370 (859784)
08-03-2019 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 934 by Faith
08-02-2019 6:28 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
Actually I'm the one defining the reality, the actual reality, the real reality, the bona fide physical reality known as the Geological Column.
So you think that you are God.
You aren’t. Your definitions have no authority over human usage let alone a special claim to be reality. Even if the definition is not made up simply to win an argument.
quote:
Everybody else is pretending unrelated stuff is the column.
Which simply means that everyone else is using the standard definition.
quote:
This is an unfortunate deception.
Honesty is not deception. The only deceiver is you with your definition game. You’re just upset it isn’t working. (Although why you would expect it to work beats me. It is just too obvious)
quote:
Time doesn't stop but the Geo Time Scale has indeed stopped.
That would be a different thing from Faith’s idiosyncratic idea of the geological column has stopped growing. And certainly it is not one you can prove. There is no way to show that current sedimentary deposits will never become rock. And the fact that you exclude modern marine, lake or desert deposits while accepting strata formed from ancient marine, lake and desert deposits only reinforces the point.
quote:
Funny how y'all claim that science would be very happy to accept a falsification of its theories, but as a matter of fact when such falsifications are presented scientists rationalize them away.
I guess you must be using idiosyncratic definitions for falsification and rationalise at least. To provide an actual falsification you would need to use the definitions current in science and actually provide evidence on that basis.
quote:
This is what happens in a paradigm clash, and it's happening here, has happened many times here.
What is happening is that your pathetic deception is being rightly rejected as the joke it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Faith, posted 08-02-2019 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 954 of 2370 (859875)
08-04-2019 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 951 by Faith
08-03-2019 5:46 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
Todays depositions are too small though in the right location, or big enough but in the wrong location to continue the geological column/time scale.
Oh, look at the desperate attempt at rationalisation.
There is no wrong place.
The Sahara is quite big enough, and on land too.
The extent of many strata is due to transgression and regression. There was never simultaneous deposition over the entire area, instead the area of deposition moved, over time.
Small local strata are still part of the geological timescale. Any point in the timescale is an aggregate of many strata.
Again. Lake, marine and desert deposits are all parts if the geological column. If ancient deposits count, why not modern deposits ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 951 by Faith, posted 08-03-2019 5:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 956 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 2:16 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 957 of 2370 (859880)
08-04-2019 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 956 by Faith
08-04-2019 2:16 AM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
The geological column or time scale is a very specific thing
No, it is just a scheme constructed from the many strata.
quote:
All its strata are stacked one on top of another, originally a few miles deep
Obviously, then you count all strata no matter their size or how they were formed.
quote:
Strata now forming on the sea floor are not building on this very specific stack of strata, they are in the wrong location; 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.
There is no specific stack of strata. Marine deposits are included in the geological column. The Sahara is not small in extent. Even if you had measured the depth of current deposits (you haven’t) or compared them with actual individual strata (which we rarely talk about, concentrating on larger collections of strata) you still wouldn’t know what depth they would achieve because they are still being deposited.
quote:
The Geo Column is OVer and Done with
Your Geo Column - if it exists at all - might be. So what - and where - is this very specific stack of strata and how do you know there is no deposition on it now, and never will be in the future ?
Edited by PaulK, : Minor correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 956 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 2:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


(1)
Message 1008 of 2370 (859985)
08-04-2019 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 987 by Faith
08-04-2019 5:11 PM


Re: You continuing to repeat nonsense is just repeating nonsense Faith.
quote:
I assume you all know the geological facts as I've described them.
You don’t talk about geological facts. You have never even attempted a real discussion of the geological facts. You have evaded and ignored geological facts, such as the presence of marine, lake and desert deposits in the geological column.
quote:
If you don't then I'll try to dig up some pictures and diagrams for you.
Or, you know, you could just admit that your argument is ignorant and silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 987 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1009 of 2370 (859986)
08-04-2019 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1005 by Faith
08-04-2019 9:41 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
quote:
Let me ask this: If the whole world including the sea floor is the geological column how is it that the strata we find on the continents, from Precambrian to Holocene, are not also found on the sea floor? Hm?
The Precambrian to the Holocene are not strata.
What makes you think that strata on the continents never extend into the sea ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by Faith, posted 08-04-2019 9:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 1051 of 2370 (860077)
08-05-2019 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Faith
08-05-2019 12:08 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
quote:
Uplift, sure, and the raising of mountains, sure, but not sea floor.
Leonardo da Vinci discovered otherwise.
Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams (summary)
He did believe that these were artifacts of formerly living marine organisms, and that their current location suggested geological upheavals of former sea floors into today’s mountains.
And he had evidence:
Since different layers contain different fossils, he concluded that they could not all have been deposited in a single flood. Further, many bivalves could be found with the shells firmly connected, as in life. He astutely noted that transport after death would quickly have disarticulated them; therefore, they must have died where they lived, and could not have been transported up a mountain. In some bedding planes, distinct traces of worm burrows were visible to the careful observer; this is a further indicator that the sediment was not disturbed before it solidified into stone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 1:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024