|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| WookieeB | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member  Posts: 18255 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.9 |
But Arizona, the Grand Canyon, and the Grand Staircase, are in the purple area. --Percy
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RAZD Member  Posts: 19732 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
And "It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled." (Often attributed to Mark Twain)
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JonF Member Posts: 4467 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
herebedragons Member  Posts: 1493 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Yea. I suppose I should clarify that a little better. The purple area represents portions of the stable continental core that has been deformed WITHIN the last 600 my. It is thought that the major deformation of the Grand Canyon area was during the Laramide orogeny which began about 80 mya. But between 600 mya and 80 mya, the area was part of the stable continental core. If 100 mya was the cutoff for coloring the purple area, the Grand Canyon would be included within the brown area. Faith's argument is that there should not have been hundreds of millions of years WITHOUT a major tectonic event. The brown area shows this is not correct; there are large areas of continental crust that have not undergone tectonic disturbance for long, long periods of time. As kind of a side note, I ran across this interesting animation of the Laramide orogeny showing all active faults during that time and heave rates.
Also note that according to the animation, faulting activity in the GC ceased about 30 mya. I hope that clarifies my point somewhat. HBD Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
Please keep in mind that this is what I thought conventional GEOLOGISTS believe. The usual presentation is of a very active planet, which would seem to imply a lot of ongoing movement. Way back there Rox even agreed that this is what she would expect. But then all she came up with was activity in the Supergroup area, which supposedly occurred BEFORE that long long period of apparently NO activity. So perhaps now they are all happy with the idea that nothing at all happened for hundreds of millions of years?
Does "faulting activity" refer only to the formation of faults? Not to the slippage of existing fault lines? See I would include earthquakes caused by fault movement in the sort of tectonic activity one should expect over hundreds of millions of years. ABE: Actually the following suggests "faulting activity" in the GS a lot more recently than 30 mya: /ABE National Parks Service on Cedar Breaks:
As I keep pointing out on that cross section, there was this long long period in which the GC strata stayed quite neat and parallel for those hundreds of milliions of years (reckoning with OE time estimates, of course) AFTER which a lot of tectonic activity obviously occurred: the uplift in the GC area, the cutting of the GC and Zion Canyon as well, and all the cliffs of the GS and the Hurricane fault and the dropping of the strata to the north of it, and the magma dike which spilled over at the very very top of the GS, which I thought was supposed to have been formed in recent time, Holocene? which would make it a lot younger than 30 mya, but perhaps all that has been adjusted to fit with other information? And if you're all content with hundreds of millions of years of no activity at all FOLLOWED by a LOT of activity as described above, I'll leave you with that. Now, would you mind reviewing the claims about erosion between the layers? Thank you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
The time periods are dated from the ROCKS, right? Who cares about the exact time frame DURING that period in which they MIGHT have been deposited? The point is that the WHOLE period is dated from the ROCKS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 894 days)  Posts: 397 Joined:
|
quote: http://www.creationism.ws/what_if_flood.htm
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 894 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
quote: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 894 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
What should be expected from someone who starts off the thread with evidence against the global flood and sees in it an argument for a global flood? Message 6
See the first item on the list. Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 894 days) Posts: 397 Joined:
|
For those who are interested, a poll will soon be provided, so you can express your enthusiasm to have Faith added to the godhead creating a quadrinity from the older outdated trinity which fails to answer so many scientific puzzles and enigmas of our modern era. Remember the guru's example and follow her wise lead. When presented with an uncomfortable fact or piece of evidence simply stretch forth your arms making a cross with the index fingers and with voluminous discharge from the lungs pronounce it to be OFF TOPIC, in the holy name of Jesus, amen.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
Typical anti-creationist crap. There are different kinds of mountains with different kinds of exposed surfaces in different kinds of climates, there is no reason to expect erosion to be identical from one to another. Mountains formed of upthrust tilted strata would erode differently from mountains formed from folded strata for instance, and certainly from mountains formed from igneous rock.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Inactive Member |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member  Posts: 4451 From: Colorado, USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
quote: Okay, so if erosion is so dependent upon climate, why do the Andes look so similar over thousands of miles of extent through different climatic zones? I would think that parts of it should look like the Appalachians, and other parts like the Canadian Shield. According to you, that is... quote: What do you think 'upthrust strata' are but folded sequences? quote: You mean like the igneous rock under the Andes which are similar to the more eroded Sierra Nevada?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member Posts: 4451 From: Colorado, USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
quote: How what is against the global flood? Please be specific.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
