|
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: You’ve made a lot of claims - many of them utterly ridiculous, but when it comes to producing real evidence you haven’t exactly come up with a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
300 million-ish.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Why don't you stop being so blind and realize that I have given plenty of evidence?
You have no clue what evidence is. Such as your insistence that the definition of "the" geologic column shared by everyone but you is wrong. For example: "My definition is the only rational one" includes no evidence. "My definition is correct because the esteemed sedimentologist Professor Milo Minderbinder agrees with me" is better but weak because you may have misinterpreted him. "My definition is correct because the esteemed sedimentologist Professor Milo Minderbinder wrote, in Principles of Sedimentology second edition, 'the geologic column consists only of sedimentary layers above the basement rocks on land." contains significant evidence. Of course this was a waste of time. You are incapable of understanding the concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: THE Flood DID produce layers and DID sort thngs as we see them. This is just a baseless assertion. You will next claim that you've already presented the evidence, but you haven't. You've said ridiculous things like that the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea, but you haven't said anything true or even relevant.
"Floods" are something else entirely. So the Flood would do things that floods would not. And you know this how?
Where did I say all life would be destroyed before any layers were laid down? I can't have said that, I don't think it's true. You said, "The whole surface of the land would be so defaced just from the forty days and nights of rain it would be unrecognizable and then the strata piled on top of it would further erase any recognizable remains." How long were you imagining that life was treading water during the 40 days and 40 nights of rain, after which the deposition of strata began (that's what your words that I just quoted say)? Where is your evidence that anything like this ever happened? Surely there should be defaced surfaces somewhere that have been exposed or that our core drilling has reached.
Is WHAT "what we see?" I don't know what you mean. JonF is asking if what we observe in the geological strata looks like the result of a flood, referring indirectly to, for example, the way the different types of strata are ordered with sandstone overlain by shale overlain by limestone overlain by more sandstone then more limestone and so forth. Or for another example, the way the fossils are sorted into strata, and also sorted by increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth. Or for another example, why are land fossils never found in limestone strata? If the Flood really happened then you should have evidence and explanations for these things that make sense, more sense than almost deranged declarations like "The Gulf of Mexico is not a sea" (whose discussion please take to the The Gulf of Mexico is Not a Sea thread). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: The Gulf was formed after the strata were deposited. It is not sea floor. Please take discussion about the Gulf of Mexico to the The Gulf of Mexico is Not a Sea thread. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I was specifically asking if the fossil record looks as if essentially all life was killed in the 40 days of rain and the first layer covered them up.
But obviously the fludde picked up all those remains and stored them away somewhere in individual bins for later distribution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: I'm trying to explain how the strata that had to have started out horizontal, stacked vertically from Cambrian to Holocene, got turned on their side so that they are now soread along the island from left to right and the other part of their strata lie beneath the island in the same arrangement. If you have a better explanation for how that happened, lay it out. I gave you the explanation hundreds of messages ago in Message 696, here's the explanation again: If you take these sedimentary layers A (on the bottom) through H (at the top):
H ---------------------------------------------- G ---------------------------------------------- F ---------------------------------------------- E ---------------------------------------------- D ---------------------------------------------- C ---------------------------------------------- B ---------------------------------------------- A ---------------------------------------------- And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this:
A B C D E F G H \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Then the formerly vertical ordering will, at the surface, appear to be left to right. That's all you're seeing is tilt followed by erosion. But let's get back to your conception of how the UK cross section happened and see if we can complete the diagrams so that it can be easily visualized. You said that you believed that the uplift at Snowdon would a) crack the rocks; b) uplift the entire stack from Snowdon to Harwish; c) cause the horizontal strata to go away; and d) cause the strata to fall away. I know what a would look like, but I don't understand b and c, so I need you to provide more detail about them. I also still don't understand d, but let's address b and c first. It will help if you remember the exaggeration of the vertical scale in the UK diagram. This is a more realistic representation of the height of Snowdon relative to the distance to Harwich:
Snowdon Harwich I just need to understand how that tiny bit of elevation at Snowdon could cause all the effects you've described. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
This topic is plastered with thoughts about "the" geologic(al) column that I don't like.
If a geologist refers to "the" geologic column, he is either referring to "a" specific individual geologic column at a specific location OR he is referring to the geologic time scale, which is independent of any specific location of the Earth. Which one would be apparent from the discussion context. I strongly encourage the going to the Geologic Column topic started by NosyNed back in 2003 (16+ years ago!). Edge did a nice message 3 there. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You call this an explanation:
H ---------------------------------------------- G ---------------------------------------------- F ---------------------------------------------- E ---------------------------------------------- D ---------------------------------------------- C ---------------------------------------------- B ---------------------------------------------- A ---------------------------------------------- And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this: A B C D E F G H \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ But it's no explanation at all. It's what needs to BE explained. For all those hundreds of posts I've been trying to explain how we get from the horizontal layers to the tilted layers. That's what YOU haven't explained, and I have a feeling you don't have an explanation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is a very odd thing to say. You are asking for an explanation of the mechanism. But you haven’t even tried to offer one, instead all you are doing is adding extra complexities which don’t seem to make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I explained how the rock rising up into the strata would break them in two and cause the two parts to fall to the right and left which would tilt them. I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you since very little does.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The rise is all you need to cause the tilt, and you haven’t explained how that happened at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: Jurassic through Holocene are not marine. PaulK already responded to this, but it deserves further comment. The Jurassic, the Holocene and all those in between are time periods, not strata (well the Holocene is an epoch, but why bring up picayune facts in the face of such immense error). There isn't a single time period in this history of the planet that did not have marine environments. Your messages seem to reflect a declining knowledge of geology over time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Doesn't matter to me, you know, since they were all the result of the Flood. Understanding basic concepts of geology such as that time periods are not strata should prove crucial to showing the Flood really happened, so it should matter to you. Correct use of terminology will make your ideas much more clear. I encourage you to care much more about getting things right. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Point is that whether or not those strata are marine does not affect my theory. It's not about being accurate or not, in this case, it just makes no difference. Gross inaccuracy (and often pure nonsense) make your task of proving the Flood much more difficult, so it is something you should be trying hard to avoid. The degree of truth in what you say makes a great deal of difference when engaged in persuasion. If you were saying these things to people in normal conversation where people are generally much more reserved about confronting error you'd get blankly nodding heads thinking inside, "This person really doesn't know what she's talking about." That's not what you want. It's like you have the analog of a death wish for your ideas, sending factually vacuous notions out to the slaughter. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024