Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3416 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 1151 of 1304 (733099)
07-14-2014 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
07-11-2014 4:44 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Faith writes:
But the way things are today IS that we have extremely thick deposits of strata in many places and the clear indication that those existed in other places too but were eroded down to much less. Some of the strata span entire continents in very thick slabs. I don't get what you mean about not having enough. And we don't know how much sediment made up the original land mass, all we can do is extrapolate from what we have now anyway. If a depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents, and a great deal of that washed into the sea, that should be enough sediment for my scenario.
Faith, if a "depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents" how could "a great deal of that strata" have been washed down into the sea since your flood scenario requires that sedimentary layers lithify under pressure within the space of a year or less? How much sediment would have to have been "loose" at the time of the flood in order to be transported and compose the layers we see today and which you insist were all laid down in your flood? Wasn't there 1,500 years or so between the creation and the flood? Plenty of time for the strata to become solid enough to avoid being carried away by flood waters, no matter how turbulent.
I have been lurking in this thread for quite some time and have just recently caught up, so I apologize if anyone feels that the conversation has moved on from here, but I don't think this question has been answered as of yet.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 4:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 07-14-2014 10:04 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3416 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 1153 of 1304 (733102)
07-14-2014 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1018 by Faith
07-12-2014 1:53 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
/
Faith writes:
Meanwhile if sediments are collecting somewhere else entirely such as at the bottom of the ocean far from the stack in question, they are clearly not and never will be part of the Geological Time Scale OR the Geological Column.
Yes, those depositions at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico or the Amazon Basin will never be on top of the geologic column as represented by your pet site at the Grand Canyon, but they are certainly on top of other layers that are within the geologic column you think has ended based on diagrams. You seem to think that the Grand Canyon represents the end-all-be all of time and you are trying to make it fit into your small world. However, there are layers underneath the topmost layer in river deltas, at the bottom of the ocean, low-lying prairies, deserts, and swamps, etc. The topmost layers of the uplifted regions we currently see will eventually erode and become low lying regions with more deposition, but the current basins will continue the geologic column because they are accumulating new layers which can be added to the layers we see today and some will eventually be uplifted again. If we were not here to arrange them into neat little diagrams which can be misrepresented by small minds that haven't even seen them in person, they would still go on.
Faith writes:
The kind you can see, yes, but not the kind you imagine, the ones you call "gaps" where you assume a layer used to be but got eroded away before the next deposited. No, those I do not believe exist.
How could a layer of exposed, lithified sediment exist without layers that used to exist on top of it (since it is lithified and all)? If the flood can arrange fossils and sediments, why do some strata columns represent more "complete" timelines, while others seem to skip time creating those "gaps?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 1:53 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1160 by edge, posted 07-14-2014 10:41 AM Jaderis 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