Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
27 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat) (1 member, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,921 Year: 3,567/14,102 Month: 187/321 Week: 3/44 Day: 3/5 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1051 of 1896 (715754)
01-08-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1048 by Faith
01-08-2014 7:36 PM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
How does ooze lithify by the way, with nothing pressing on it from above?

Several ways. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone and note that to cover all the different kinds of limestone, their compositions and formation process would fill a page.

Then later, like clockwork, hey it occurs to EVERY layer in the stack somehow or other, kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes I'd say, this DIFFERENT sediment, well, in this case it's just another calcareous ooze that's going to form a different limestone but it COULD have been sand dunes, ...

Not quite.

The fact that erosion has occurred is not because of clockwork or any plan, rather erosion occurred because the surface was exposed. For a long time.

And yes the different layers of limestone have different compositions, hence the difference in colors and contents. (again see the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limestone)

Of course it's ONLY in limestone that we see these "riverbeds," ...

It's only in limestone that the evidence has been observed, not because they are limestone, but because that is what was on top when the erosion that is observed occurred.

And it shows up RIGHT ON TIME, too, never too early so that it mingles with the calcareous ooze, ...

Ever heard of the argument from incredulity logical fallacy?

What has happened is what has happened, it was not a predetermined sequence of events.

Except, of course, for the facts I've suggested above. ...

Facts? I must have missed those in the flood of frantic fantasy.

Now of course you CAN get a meandering stream between the layers of limestone, in the real world that is.

Show me.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 7:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 8:11 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1052 of 1896 (715755)
01-08-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Faith
01-08-2014 7:50 PM


Re: dangerous fanatics
the same is said of islam.

but it doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, the gun still shoots.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 7:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 377 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1053 of 1896 (715756)
01-08-2014 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by RAZD
01-08-2014 8:02 PM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
The fact that erosion has occurred is not because of clockwork or any plan, rather erosion occurred because the surface was exposed. For a long time.

I really can hardly believe the nuttiness of what you are saying. There IS no erosion between layers of the strata of the sort that would have occurred on the surface if exposed for a long time. That "riverbed" is NOT erosion, it's some kind of formation that occurs in limestone, no it is not merely incidental, it has something to do with its being limestone, and otherwise the lines between the layers are flat. Erosion does not flatten things. That is NONSENSE.

Oh well. You keep accusing me of unreality but it's you that live there, not I.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2014 8:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2014 8:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1055 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2014 8:50 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1056 by Coyote, posted 01-08-2014 8:54 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1060 by roxrkool, posted 01-09-2014 12:37 AM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 1054 of 1896 (715757)
01-08-2014 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Faith
01-08-2014 8:11 PM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you that according to your own version of events, the top of the Kaibab Plateau was exposed by erosion.

It's no less flat than all the things you keep claiming can't be produced by erosion because they're too flat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 8:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1067 by Faith, posted 01-09-2014 10:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1055 of 1896 (715758)
01-08-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Faith
01-08-2014 8:11 PM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
I really can hardly believe the nuttiness of what you are saying. ...

Cognitive dissonance.

... There IS no erosion between layers of the strata of the sort that would have occurred on the surface if exposed for a long time. ...

Isn't it amazing how much your undereducated opinion is completely unable to alter reality.

quote:
Message 1014: That's erosional unconformities
  1. on the top of the Muav formation
  2. on the top of the Temple Butte formation
  3. on the top of the Redwall formation, and
  4. on the top of the Surprise Canyon formation

But you will deny it and curl up in your armchair and say you can't see it so therefore it doesn't exist.


That's four surface levels that exhibit the effects of erosion in addition to the Great Unconformity.

... That "riverbed" is NOT erosion, it's some kind of formation that occurs in limestone, no it is not merely incidental, it has something to do with its being limestone, and otherwise the lines between the layers are flat. Erosion does not flatten things. That is NONSENSE.

You have yet to show an example of such erosion that meticulously sticks to the boundary between two limestone layers, eroding down into one and not up into the other, layers you claim are level so there would be no grade to the flow ...

This of course is because no such erosion pattern exists.

Oh well. You keep accusing me of unreality but it's you that live there, not I.

Curiously you are the one denying objective empirical observable evidence, and unable to support your fantasy with evidence.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 8:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1039 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 1056 of 1896 (715759)
01-08-2014 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Faith
01-08-2014 8:11 PM


Nonsense and more nonsense
That "riverbed" is NOT erosion, it's some kind of formation that occurs in limestone,

If it is a riverbed cut into limestone, it is erosion.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 8:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 1057 of 1896 (715762)
01-08-2014 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Faith
01-08-2014 10:13 AM


Re: Sand
Rox just wrote a post I see in which one of her comments is that if the ocean encroached on the sand it would destroy the shape of the grains, so that leaves a totally dry method of forming the sand into a flat rock pancake that stretches for thousands of square miles across the Southwest. Let's see how you explain that.

No. Absolutely not.

The sea would not "destroy the shape of the grains." The action of the waves would destroy the internal CROSS-BEDDED structure of the sand dunes (assuming the dunes were unconsolidated sand) and re-work/re-deposit the dune sand particles.

Although you've already been shown multiple times, cross-bedding looks like this:

However, if the sand dunes were formed 200 feel deep, the transgressing sea may only affect the top 50 feet of the sand dune and not destroy anything below that. Essentially preserving the bottom 150 feet of the dune (including all it's internal cross-bedded structure).

The top of the sand dune would be eroded flat because that is what water/wave action does. For example, flatness ...

.
And what waves do to rocks...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 10:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 1058 of 1896 (715763)
01-08-2014 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 990 by Faith
01-07-2014 7:19 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
The planet can be covered with gigantic areas of desert sands and the oceans with marine sediments, but getting them to stack up as the existing strata obviously did, uh uh.

That's where plate tectonics and eustasy come into play. Once you understand them, this question becomes moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 7:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 1059 of 1896 (715766)
01-09-2014 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 991 by Faith
01-07-2014 8:20 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Redwall limestone?

You're going to have to show this to me. There are units that correlate to other units in other states, but have been given different names due to lack of correlation at the time of mapping.

It would not be impossible to be able to trace one single formation across the continent, but very difficult indeed. However, if you look at these formation in the sense of what formed across the continent at the same time, then you certainly could have a "Redwall Limestone" extend across thousands of miles. These are termed Chronostratigraphic units.

A short excerpt:

quote:
A. Nature of Chronostratigraphic Units

Chronostratigraphic units are bodies of rocks, layered or unlayered, that were formed during a specified interval of geologic time.
The units of geologic time during which chronostratigraphic units were formed are called geochronologic units.
The relation of chronostratigraphic units to other kinds of stratigraphic units is discussed in Chapter 10.

B. Definitions

1. Chronostratigraphy. The element of stratigraphy that deals with the relative time relations and ages of rock bodies.

2. Chronostratigraphic classification. The organization of rocks into units on the basis of their age or time of origin.
The purpose of chronostratigraphic classification is to organize systematically the rocks forming the Earth's crust into named units (chronostratigraphic units) corresponding to intervals of geologic time (geochronologic units) to serve as a basis for time-correlation and a reference system for recording events of geologic history.

3. Chronostratigraphic unit. A body of rocks that includes all rocks formed during a specific interval of geologic time, and only those rocks formed during that time span. Chronostratigraphic units are bounded by synchronous horizons.
The rank and relative magnitude of the units in the chronostratigraphic hierarchy are a function of the length of the time interval that their rocks subtend, rather than of their physical thickness.

4. Chronostratigraphic horizon (Chronohorizon). A stratigraphic surface or interface that is synchronous, everywhere of the same age.


Another good quote (SOURCE):

quote:
E. Incompleteness of the Rock Record

The rock record of any one area is far from continuous or complete. It is commonly interrupted by innumerable diastems, discontinuities, and unconformities.

Short interruptions of the record, in fact, exist in layered rocks at every bedding plane. The evidence which the rocks carry of these missing intervals is in itself a part of stratigraphy and a very important contribution to the understanding of Earth history.



Some informative sites and movies to learn more about how geologists actually study the stratigraphic record:

International Commission on Stratigraphy

SEPMStrata

UGA Stratigraphy Lab

Apparently the ordering of the strata is quite predictable.

If you don't have a coherent model, you cannot predict anything.

problem is with the ideas about their sources which are pure abstract hypothesizing since apparently you have no actual existing source in mind for any of it. And again, don't you have a problem with explaining how all these different kinds of sand from different sources got together in one place and became an identifiable layer of sandstone?

No I don't have the actual source of the sand because I have not done any research on it. If I did, I would provide it. However, when it comes to clastic units, geologists want to know the source of the material and will do the research required to provide an answer. By performing chemical analyses on the mineral grains, particularly igneous-derived minerals, clays, etc., we can determine very specific element ratios, a fingerprint, that can be traced back to the source rocks if they still exist someplace in the stratigraphic record. This is common practice.

All the different sources did not come together and form a homogenous mixture across a thousand miles. Different parts of the formation will have different colors, different chemistries, different mineral compositions, and so on. So if you collect a variety of samples from different locations, say 300 miles apart, and you perform various geological studies on them, you will very likely get different results. On something like the vast sand dunes.

If you did so on marine-derived formations, you might be able to see homogeneous nature across a large areal extent. Continental rocks are formed from a variety of sources, but marine rocks can be fairly uniform. For obvious reasons.

Or in my language, what to you is "the same point in time" is to me simply the same layer: they are identifiable as one layer despite the different sediments found composing it in different places.

Not quite. If you stand on a beach looking out into the ocean, the beach is depositing beach sands, further out, the ocean is depositing shale, further out, the same waters are depositing carbonate (the chemistry, water temperature, light condition, clastic input, etc. have changed), further out a reef, further out siliceous ooze, further out, diatoms are settling out. If you turn around and look at the land, you'll see dunes, swamps, lakes, alluvial fans, rivers, plains, and so on. ALL of these processes are in the process of depositing something AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME.

Now turn back around and walk into the ocean. First you step on beach sands, then your feet sink into muds (that will form shale), then you'll sink into a soft carbonate mud full of tiny little fossils, and so on.

So if you followed the Redwall Limestone, or any unit in the GC, far enough out, you would find yourself in a different rock type. Somewhere, the Redwall limestone might become shaley, or sandy, or cherty.

All these rocks, sand, shale, carbonate are being deposited TODAY. There are contemporary analogs for many of the rocks we find in the geologic record.

And to my mind this interfingering of different sediments is VERY easy to explain if it was all deposited by Flood waters, NOT so easy to explain on your time model.

Then please do so. Explain how the flood precipitates carbonate, then switches to sand, then back to carbonate, then to shale, then to chert. In fact, no flood since Noah's time, apparently, have precipitated carbonate. If you have evidence to refute this, I'd say this is a good time to present it.

For one thing you always lack a source from which they are BEING deposited, you just have to make one up, in fact you have to make up a whole bunch of them when you have such different sediments.

I lack a source because I have not taken the time to properly research all these things. However, I have a PROCESS that adequately explains why my rocks are where they are, why they possess the chemistry they do, why they possess the internal structures, fabric, and textures that they do. I know why shale exists versus limestone versus conglomerate versus sandstone.

Where are your explanations for all these things?

There is no such problem with the Flood, which simply carried whatever got scraped off the land mass and broken down in the water.

But you can't tell me why one rock forms in place of another. I can.

OK here you are giving the source as geology presents it. Seems to me these sources are awfully small scale and fragmented compared to the actual extent of the strata in existence.

I don't know how you could possibly make that conclusion as we are not discussing any particular formation. You are making a sweeping generalization about nothing.

Mountains are a large source of sediment on the continents. And if they rise for millions of years, there is a continuous source of sediment. That sounds like an awful lot of sediment.

Way back there HBD (herebedragons) put up a few diagrams of layers that extend for huge distances across North America. Nothing you've said is going on in the world now even begins to approach the extent of those layers. But the Flood could easily account for them.

I didn't see that post so I cannot comment. But it's also possible these immense units are actually different formations that were deposited at the same time, but in different basins or along a continental shelf. The west and east coasts of North America are pretty darn extensive and they are all depositing sand, carbonate at the same time. Ten million years from now, they would be linked geologically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 991 by Faith, posted 01-07-2014 8:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2014 7:58 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 1060 of 1896 (715768)
01-09-2014 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Faith
01-08-2014 8:11 PM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
Erosion does not flatten things. That is NONSENSE.

Of course it does.

Rivers carve when base level is below the elevation of the water system/body. Rivers, streams, creeks, will carve the mountains and hills; but once that river/stream/creek hits the flats, it starts meandering and depositing its suspended load.

Where there is no water system or body, then the weather (through physical and chemical processes), wind, and glaciers will erode the rocks, and these elements affect the highest points more than the lowest points. No different that the process of rounding quartz grains.

Just how flat can rocks gets:

That's pretty damn flat and that's due to erosion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 8:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1125 by Faith, posted 01-10-2014 10:30 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1061 of 1896 (715778)
01-09-2014 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1059 by roxrkool
01-09-2014 12:24 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
Way back there HBD (herebedragons) put up a few diagrams of layers that extend for huge distances across North America. Nothing you've said is going on in the world now even begins to approach the extent of those layers. But the Flood could easily account for them.

I didn't see that post so I cannot comment. But it's also possible these immense units are actually different formations that were deposited at the same time, but in different basins or along a continental shelf. The west and east coasts of North America are pretty darn extensive and they are all depositing sand, carbonate at the same time. Ten million years from now, they would be linked geologically.

Message 448

What the maps show is deposits of the same age, not necessarily the same rock formation as Faith has misinterpreted it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by roxrkool, posted 01-09-2014 12:24 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by herebedragons, posted 01-09-2014 10:08 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1066 by Faith, posted 01-09-2014 10:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20116
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1062 of 1896 (715781)
01-09-2014 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1039 by Faith
01-08-2014 6:23 PM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
Faith writes:

I see I was wrong about the shape of riverbeds, so thanks for that. Nevertheless there is something really strange about this "riverbed" being filled with limestone instead of pebbles and the usual river bottom debris.

This is the second time you've said this. Maybe someone addresses this later on, but anyway...

Fast moving streams will have pebbles and rocky bottoms. A mountain brook is the most obvious example.

Slow moving streams are incapable of moving pebbles. Their riverbeds will accumulate muck whose makeup is a function of the sediment carried by the stream, which is in turn a function of run-off upstream and the material in the landscape the river flows through. There should be a few pebbles and rocks in the sediments of the streambed that fall in from the riverbanks over time, but the vast majority of the bottom of slow moving streams should be a fine muck.

Mountain brooks with their pebbly, rocky bottoms will never be preserved in the stratographic record because they exist in regions of net erosion. Only low lying streams in flat landscapes of net deposition will be preserved.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by Faith, posted 01-08-2014 6:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1063 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2014 9:23 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1063 of 1896 (715782)
01-09-2014 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1062 by Percy
01-09-2014 8:55 AM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
Slow moving streams are incapable of moving pebbles. Their riverbeds will accumulate muck whose makeup is a function of the sediment carried by the stream, which is in turn a function of run-off upstream and the material in the landscape the river flows through. There should be a few pebbles and rocks in the sediments of the streambed that fall in from the riverbanks over time, but the vast majority of the bottom of slow moving streams should be a fine muck.

And when spring floods occur, the water over the flood plain will be slowing down and depositing fine material as well. This is why flood plains are such good places for agricultural use -- they have good soil because of this process.

The larger stones will be deposited near the baseline of the river where it exits the erosion area (mountains) in an alluvial fan. Finer sediments get carried further.

One need only look at the muck deposited in and around buildings during floods to see that this consists of fine deposits rather than gravels and sand.

Floating organic debris is also carried by flood waters to the flood plains.

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by Percy, posted 01-09-2014 8:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1065 by herebedragons, posted 01-09-2014 10:12 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1127 by Faith, posted 01-10-2014 10:42 AM RAZD has responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 665 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1064 of 1896 (715792)
01-09-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1061 by RAZD
01-09-2014 7:58 AM


Re: Back to Basics: The Strata Speak but you aint listening
What the maps show is deposits of the same age, not necessarily the same rock formation

Exactly. Although more specifically they are maps of sedimentary rocks of the same geological age. They may even be exclusively marine deposits, but I am not sure about that. He does infer that the marked areas are seas.

Since Faith has an issue with deep geological time, I tried to point out to her that there is no need to assign any time frame to the geological units to arrive at this pattern. So fine, assign ages based on the flood time frame. I even found this image that does just that

So with that, any objection to vast ages is irrelevant, because the relative order of the strata is determined independently from the age of the layers. Now the critical challenge is to explain how a single flood event could have laid down these layers with such high consilience that the strata are formed in this same relative order throughout the world with no mixing of the layers.

Another thing Faith objects to is missing layers, but the fact is they are only missing from a local, which is very much problematic for a single flood event. Those maps show the layers do exist, but are distributed in a particular way. A flood mechanism needs to not only explain the relative order of the layers but also the pattern that the individual layers assume.

To me that's really the main issue: how could a single flood have deposited all these layers??? That's the question a floodist needs to answer. But of course, there is no way to get that across to her.

Now, did the great flood carve the canyon itself? I think that is a separate issue, one you brought up at If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS?.

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. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2014 7:58 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2014 11:03 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 1071 by Faith, posted 01-09-2014 11:24 AM herebedragons has responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 665 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 1065 of 1896 (715793)
01-09-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1063 by RAZD
01-09-2014 9:23 AM


Re: Flood Limestone Romance
Floating organic debris is also carried by flood waters to the flood plains.

Do you consider a car to be "floating organic debris"?

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. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2014 9:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021