|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yes, we see that.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: Which simply means that everyone else is using the standard definition.
quote: 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: 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: 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: What is happening is that your pathetic deception is being rightly rejected as the joke it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: No, it is just a scheme constructed from the many strata.
quote: Obviously, then you count all strata no matter their size or how they were formed.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: The Sahara is not minuscule and even a miniscule deposit would be building on the geological column.
quote: You could admit that your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Because it obviously doesn’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: Or, you know, you could just admit that your argument is ignorant and silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The Precambrian to the Holocene are not strata. What makes you think that strata on the continents never extend into the sea ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024