Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 1138 of 2370 (860351)
08-07-2019 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1088 by Faith
08-06-2019 12:17 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1088 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 12:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1139 of 2370 (860352)
08-07-2019 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1090 by Faith
08-06-2019 12:52 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 12:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1143 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 8:21 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1140 of 2370 (860353)
08-07-2019 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1092 by Faith
08-06-2019 1:04 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 1:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1141 of 2370 (860354)
08-07-2019 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1100 by Faith
08-06-2019 10:02 AM


Re: Patchwork Quilt Geological Column/s
Faith writes:
Now you're saying almost all plant and animal life would survive that defacing? Magic water indeed!
Where are you getting this?
He's getting it from your very own words. First back in Message 1072 you said that the whole surface of the land would be defaced, presumably killing everything. You also said that when the rain stopped the deposition of sediments would begin. Thus, everything was dead and presumably on the sea bottom, so all sediments should be atop all dead life, which became fossils.
In Message 1078 you rejected that characterization, asking JonF how he got the idea that all life would be destroyed before sedimentation began, and now here you are reversing yourself yet again and endorsing what you originally said:
...the vast majority must have been killed in the early stages.
Moving on:
And I still can't make sense out of this:
first layer and each subsequent layer would overly all the fossils.
I assume you mean "overlie," but I still don't get it.
He meant "overlay," but "overlie" works too. He means that if all life died before deposition began, why isn't life at the bottom of the geologic column beneath all the strata? Why is it all mixed in to the strata? And not just mixed in, but mixed in in a very specific way. Why is life sorted into specific strata, with no Cambrian life in Cretaceous layers and vice-versa, and also sorted with increasing difference from modern forms with increasing geologic depth?
But we never get answers to these questions. Questions like this are ignored, even though their answers are critical to showing the Flood was a real event.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1100 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 10:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1144 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 8:56 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1146 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 9:01 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1142 of 2370 (860356)
08-07-2019 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1080 by Faith
08-05-2019 5:41 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
It's only right to put in a little effort to understand what people are saying when it isn't immediately clear.
Your history is one of rarely making yourself clear, of frequently reversing yourself, and of never admitting error. People put effort into understanding those who have a history of truth and accuracy. That isn't you. Your usual response to people's rejection of your nonsense is to double down on it, like that the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea (I'm not reintroducing that topic here - it should be discussed over at The Gulf of Mexico is Not a Sea).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by Faith, posted 08-05-2019 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1145 of 2370 (860364)
08-07-2019 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1101 by Faith
08-06-2019 10:07 AM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
I interpret that diagram to show one tectonic disturbance that turned the original horizontal strata on their side and removed them to their current location with part above the sea level line and the rest beneath it.
If you understood geologic diagrams you would understand that this one shows three tectonic sequences:
You give the Old Earth interpretation,...
No, I follow the evidence, which shows three tectonic sequences, and I provided them for you.
...which only shows that you don't get what I'm trying to describe for you to illustrate it,...
Please continue describing your vision. I will draw what you describe. I just have to make sense of it first.
...about how the originally horizontal strata had to fall into their current position,...
Fall into what? What created the empty space into which they fell? Removing the horizontal strata from the diagram does create empty space, but you must describe where the horizontal strata went. They can't just disappear into thin air. It is this that I'm waiting for you to describe.
Just a guess: are you perhaps thinking of a sliding or sloughing off of strata from the slopes of Snowdon?
...which would not have taken hundreds of millions of years.
Sure, falling can happen rapidly. Where do you see evidence of anything having fallen in that diagram. In the meantime, here's the diagram again with the three areas of tectonism/erosion/deposition circled. How does the Flood account for this:











The three circled areas from left to right are shown in these closeups:






How does the Flood explain this?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1101 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 10:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1147 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 9:06 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1169 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 6:47 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1153 of 2370 (860388)
08-07-2019 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1103 by Faith
08-06-2019 10:16 AM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
Leonardo thought the sea floor had been raised,...
Not just Leonardo. From the beginning geologists have believed that sea floor has been raised. Everyone here but you believes sea floor has been raised.
...I do not.
Why not? Please explain how sediments deposited by the flood can be uplifted, but sea floor cannot. How does tectonism within the Earth know which is which? How did your Flood sweep up all life across the entire Earth then put it back in the same sediments it came from, never depositing a giraffe with trilobites or a dimetrodon with whales or a dinosaur with modern mammals?
I think the sea creatures were deposited in the lower strata during the Flood, after which the mountains were raised. NOT on the sea floor but in the lower levels of the strata on the land.
Why do you think this? What evidence is telling you this is so? You have to describe for us the same evidence that convinced you, otherwise it can only be concluded that your views are not based upon evidence. This particular idea of yours is contradicted by the evidence, which has marine strata both above and below strata containing terrestrial forms.
I think the various cross sections show that there was one tectonic upheaval that occurred after the Flood,...
Can you show me what you're talking about? Presenting a cross section and identifying what specifically convinces you there was a single upheaval would be very helpful.
...meaning after all the strata were laid down, and that upheaval distorted strata to different degrees everywhere, knocked them down in the UK,...
But where is the evidence of anything being "knocked down in the UK?" And this is roughly the actual height of Snowdon in the UK, hardly high enough to fall down as you described earlier:


Snowdon                                                                  Harwich
...cut the canyons and cliffs in the Grand Canyon/Grand Staircase area, split the continents, raised the mountains, caused the Great Unconformity, triggered volcanism and so on and so forth. I think these things can all be traced on those various cross sections.
That's great. Please describe how you see the cross sections indicating these things happening. Present the image of the cross section and then be very specific about how the cross section shows that that is what happened. Be sure no laws of physics are broken.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1103 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 10:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1154 of 2370 (860408)
08-07-2019 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1105 by Faith
08-06-2019 10:56 AM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Faith writes:
What's absurd is the idea that the sea floor could be raised into mountains,...
Can you explain why it seems to you that sea floor cannot be uplifted while any other part of the world can? What is it about sea floor that you think prevents uplift?
...especially since we can see that those mountains are built out of sedimentary strata.
The strata in mountains are primarily marine, as are most strata everywhere, mountains or not. Most strata were once marine. Unless you can explain why sea floor cannot be uplifted, it is entirely expected that uplift would build maintains from sea floor.
The only rational explanation is that the strata reflect the Flood, and since, as I just belatedly added to the previous post, the cross sections are evidence that the first tectonic upheaval occurred after the Flood, the mountains would have been raised at that point.
I've shown several times now how great amounts of deposition occurred after uplift in the UK cross section. And obviously the Grand Canyon Supergroup was tilted and eroded before the overlying strata were deposited.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1105 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 10:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1155 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 3:41 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 3:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1171 of 2370 (860487)
08-07-2019 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1114 by Faith
08-06-2019 3:27 PM


Re: What is a sea anyway?
Faith writes:
I think that she thinks that, since all the strata were laid down by the fludde, the Gulf didn't exist when the strata were laid down.
Flood or no Flood it's very clear that the Gulf wasn't there when the strata were laid down because the strata accumulate flat and horizontal and they aren't going to do that in a gulf.
Can you explain your rationale? What prevents sediments from accumulating flat and horizontal in a gulf? Even if we postulate that the gulf bottom was not originally flat and horizontal, accumulating sediments will gradually tend that way.
Also, salt domes do not take hundreds of millions of years to rise.
This is the first time you or anyone has mentioned salt domes in this thread, so no one has made any claims about how long salt domes take to form. I don't know what your point is, but I took a look at the Formation section of the Wikipedia article on Salt Domes. A salt layer won't even begin to form a dome until the density of the strata above is greater than the salt layer, which requires a great deal of overburden in order to compact the above strata to be denser than the salt layer, which can take millions of years. Salt apparently resists compaction because of its crystalline structure. Once the salt layer possesses sufficient buoyancy it can take more millions of years to form domes. The time it takes to form is a function of the strength of the overlying strata. Faulting can assist the process. Once a dome has begun to form it can push up through strata that are less dense than itself because of the buoyancy of the main salt layer pushing up from below, and overburden pressure on the salt layer (like squeezing a tube), all this focused onto the dome because of salt's inherent plasticity.
Those have probably been rising since the Flood, though some rise in a matter of hundreds of years or even less.
This seems unlikely in the extreme. Why do you think this?
This is evidence for the timing of a Young Earth but it's just flatly denied by the Old Earthers, of course.
You typing something like, "Salt domes have probably been rising since the Flood," is not evidence. I don't think you know what evidence is.
Then magic created the Gulf.
Not sure how it formed, but probably formed at the end of the Flood. The strata are hammock shaped, thin at the edges, thicker in the middle. the result of being in water as the salt rises.
It can often be hard to decipher your meaning, but please tell me you're not saying that the Gulf strata being thicker in the middle than at the margins is due to being submerged while salt domes form.
Irrelevant to the fact that deposition and strata formation are happening in the Gulf, of course.
And of course, whatever sediment is falling on top of the strata there is not how the geological column formed.
Deep sea cores all around the world show fine sediment at the top and all the way down. It becomes more compacted with depth, but those cores have no boundary with something else that could be interpreted as some original geologic column.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1175 of 2370 (860504)
08-08-2019 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1119 by Faith
08-06-2019 4:08 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
The earth is SIX thousand years old according to the most common way of reading the Bible, and it's been roughly 4300 years since the Flood. Does this change your view?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up the bus there, honey. This is a science thread. If you think the Flood really happened then don't cite your religious book. Provide scientific evidence.
I know your answer is going to be something like, "I've provided a lot of scientific evidence, but you Old Earth defenders just ignore it." That is false. A lot of effort is expended dissecting the stories you make up. Your stories are devoid of evidence and violate the laws of physics and of geology. You baselessly declare explanations of your errors wrong, then repeat your stories and claim that they are too evidence. But the truth is that you only think the Flood was real because you assume your religious book is true, not because of any evidence.
You need to stop telling stories that you wish were true and start following the evidence where it leads.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1119 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 4:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1180 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 11:28 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1177 of 2370 (860506)
08-08-2019 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1121 by Faith
08-06-2019 4:10 PM


Re: Patchwork Quilt Geological Column/s
Faith writes:
Please read in context. I didn't say it couldn't be imagined, what I said is that LOCAL FLOODS don't provide a basis for imagining it.
So then tell us: what is your basis in observed natural phenomena for imagining the Flood?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1121 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1178 of 2370 (860507)
08-08-2019 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1124 by Faith
08-06-2019 4:29 PM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
Why don't you stop being so blind and realize that I have given plenty of evidence?
Why don't you stop your misrepresentations? Try honesty for a change.
The truth is that you a) assume the Flood because of a religious book while participating in a science thread; b) make up impossible stories; c) declare yourself the definer of reality; d) ignore most responses; and e) work hard at keeping yourself uninformed.
Your few cursory encounters with evidence are rife with incomprehension, such as the UK cross section.
I again suggest you don't make claims about yourself because while there are rules against becoming personal participants can of course address and rebut and offer their views on any claims you make. You are not the topic. If you have Flood evidence that is stronger than the evidence of geology then it will win out. Muster your evidence and organize it into coherent arguments. Stop making ill thought out claims off the top of your head, like that the Gulf of Mexico is not a sea (again, not to reintroduce that topic into this thread - that topic should be discussed over at The Gulf of Mexico is Not a Sea).
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1124 by Faith, posted 08-06-2019 4:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1179 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 11:25 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1184 of 2370 (860526)
08-08-2019 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1134 by Faith
08-07-2019 12:05 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
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.
Thisis the same as the uplift of the Colorado plateau from our familiar cross section. It has the same tilt as the UK cross section:
Here's a closeup of the tilted portion. It's tilted just like the strata in the UK diagram:


Now imagine that this tilted portion of the Colorado Plateau had experienced erosion similar to the UK. It would look like this, though the terrain would be more irregular - I can only draw a straight line since I'm using div blocks and character graphics:




Bright Tapeats
Angel |
Temple Muav | |
Butte | | |
Redwall | | | |
Supai | | | | |
Hermit | | | | | |
Coconino | | | | | | |
Toroweap | | | | | | | |
Kaibab | | | | | | | | |
Moenkopi | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v


If the tilt being in the opposite direction to the UK cross section makes it difficult to make a visual comparison, here's the same thing turned 180°:




Tapeats Bright
| Angel
| | Mauv Temple
| | | Butte
| | | | Redwall
| | | | | Supai
| | | | | | Hermit
| | | | | | | Coconino
| | | | | | | | Toroweap
| | | | | | | | | Kaibab
| | | | | | | | | | Moenkopi
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
v v v v v v v v v v v


And here's the UK cross section for comparison. It's the same thing, with tilted layers eroded down to produce a horizontal sequence on the surface:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 12:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1185 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 12:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1186 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 12:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1188 of 2370 (860541)
08-08-2019 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1136 by Faith
08-07-2019 12:15 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
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.
Please direct your comments to the topic and moving discussion forward.
We know you explained how the strata would be pushed up, break in two, then fall to the right and left. This makes sense to no one, so you and I are working together to create a series of diagrams so that everyone can visualize what you're trying to describe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1136 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 12:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1189 by Faith, posted 08-08-2019 12:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1190 of 2370 (860558)
08-08-2019 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1143 by Faith
08-07-2019 8:21 AM


Re: Geological Column/ Time Scale is Over and Done With
Faith writes:
You don't get it and every post of yours this morning is a gigantic headache to me because you don't get it.
Hey, again, leave me out of it. I didn't make any claims about myself. I was responding to claims you had made about *yourself*. You introduced yourself as a topic of discussion, not me.
It is not a matter of my "getting things right," or a matter of learning the "correct" terminology:
Pretty much it is. The majority of what you write is factually incorrect and terminologically confusing.
I HAVE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW, and the time periods ARE strata.
No, time periods are not strata. Each stratum was deposited during a specific period of time. Those time periods are collected into a conceptual framework known as the geologic time scale with which all local columns conform, because the time scale was constructed from them.
There is no such thing as a time period in my view.
You just finished saying "time periods ARE strata," and now you're saying, "There is no such thing as a time period," completely reversing yourself from one sentence to the next. This is a good example of your level of clarity and comprehension.
PLEASE STOP INSISTING THAT YOUR OWN PARADIGM IS "GETTING THINGS RIGHT"...
You are misrepresenting what has been said, which is that current views within geology are very strongly supported by the evidence, which has been described in many messages here.
...and trying to force me to accept it.
Engaging in persuasion by the presentation of evidence in a discussion in which you are freely participating can not be represented as an exercise of force.
There are always going to be problems with communication between people who hold different paradigms.
You don't have a paradigm. You have an assumption that your religious book's story about a flood really happened. You have not the slightest evidence, just a bunch of cockamamie stories bearing no resemblance to reality that you clutch desperately to.
It would be better if you'd address my Message 1134 instead of lecturing me on how I have to use the establishment point of view.
I respond to messages in the order they appear in the thread, and I respond to every one of your messages addressed to me, so of course I have already responded to your Message 1134. You, on the other hand, have only responded to 74 of my 171 messages to you. You've ignored 97.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1143 by Faith, posted 08-07-2019 8:21 AM 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