|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Finally have a block of free time large enough to respond to your very helpful post. I was rushed for time the first time I read it and thought i would have more questions, but upon a more thoughtful reading I see that you answered most of my questions already. There's one thing I have a question about. Here's the diagram just for reference:
Is the composition of the stratum uniform, because if the "gravels or cobbles or boulder deposits" are what you mean by conglomerates then the conglomerates in this layer do not reside at the base of the stratum.
Correct. When the gravels are detached from their source, they are transported. This required higher energy streams and/or steeper gradients. I think this was about the layer that has three rows of circles at its thicker parts. Wasn't sure what a gradient is in a stream energy context, or how this explains how a stratum could be uniformly conglomerate throughout a substantial thickness. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The "stack" begins with precambrian rocks and ascends through the sedimentary layerss from Cambrian through Holocene, variations of which is what we find on the continents; it does not exist on the sea floor. What is being laid down on the sea floor is therefore not building on the geological column. The layers of the Precambrian, and the Cambrian through the Holocene were once ocean floor, and that is where they were "built" ... what exists on the sea floor is therefore part of the geological column process where new sediment deposits are building the geological column, and will continue to do so into the future. WHen the sea floor meets the continents and they are pushed up, then these layers become part of the geological column for mountains. The "stack" is whatever lies below any point on the earth. Using a false definition leads to false conclusions. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is no problem with defining the Geo Column as the strata we find in various forms on all the continents from Precambrian to Holocene. ... Except that this strawman definition excludes areas where the geological column is growing.
... Nothing else is necessary to the definition ... Except that this strawman definition excludes areas where the geological column is growing.
... and by this definition we have no further growth of the Geological Column. It is OVER AND DONE WITH. Except that this strawman definition excludes areas where the geological column is growing. Strawman Definitions do not make a valid argument. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: And how many times do *I* have to tell YOU that the oceans are not building on the geological column? As you stand in the shallow water at the beach atop a piece of the geological column, peering down and watching sand settle around your toes, atop what, precisely, is that sand settling on if not the geological column?
AS I SAID, your candidates for today's deposition on the geo column are either too small... Can you find any definition of deposition that says how small is too small to count? Does a varve count, or is it too small?
...though in the right place... Can you find any definition of deposition that says where the right places are for the geological column?
...or large enough... Can you find any definition of deposition that says how large is large enough to count?
...but in the wrong place. Can you find any definition of deposition that says where the wrong places are for the geological column?
The Geological Column is OVER AND DONE WITH. Can you find any definition of the geological column that says it is a static entity? Please don't reply if it's only to reassert your unsupported assertions again. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now now now, I never said that "geological processes have ended." I said the Geological COLUMN, ... has ended The "Geological COLUMN" is a result of geological processes. For that to end, those processes must also end. Including erosion, deposition, uplift, etc. and rather obviously those processes have not ended, as we see erosion, deposition and uplift all over the earth.
... otherwise known as the Geological Timescale, .... The geological column is not the timescale, because it is different in different parts of the world.
quote: The time scale is used to date the strata in each geological column anywhere on earth. The geological column does not define the time scale. They are not equivalent. AND obviously the timescale has not ended.
That is, defined in the only way that makes any sense, ... To you and only you.
... there are no processes continuing that are truly the same as those of the geological column, what you are all claiming as its continuation has no resemblance to it. ... In your imagination ... ... ignoring the evidence of ongoing geological processes that are building columns in areas of net deposition. What we see in the geological record around the world is that the earth has undergone substantial change over billions of years of gradual processes that are the same as what we see occurring today.
... It is dead, Razzy, over and done with. ... Nope. Somehow your strawman argument fails to convince me. I wonder why? Perhaps because your definition is incomplete and inadequate?
... Geological processes of all sorts continue, but not the same processes that built the Geo Column, and this is demonstrable just by comparing them. They are not the same processes. Can you show what these differences are? I can't see any. We have compared them, both in type of deposition, and in the time scale rate of deposition needed to accumulate the deposits seen. They are all similar to what we observe today.
The Geological Column is OVER AND DONE WITH. And that is evidence for .... Insanity? Fantasy? Delusion? Did I guess right? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Todays depositions are too small though in the right location, or big enough but in the wrong location to continue the geological column/time scale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Mindless repetition of unsupported claims.. You got nothing but the fantasies in your head.
The geologic column underlies every point on Earth, by definition. Your feeble attempt to change the definition is obvious. There are no wrong places. Anywhere deposition is happening adds to the column, no matter how small. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: The broken off strata is much better Okay, good.
Next, draw the sea level line Okay, I'll make one of the lines of strata also be the current sea level line.
Put the granite rock/mountain on its left The granite rock/mountain is already on the left. This was more evident in an earlier revision where the strata continued to the left and right of the mountain. Arrows were on the right hand side (indicating the island continued onward to the right out of view) and no arrows on the left hand side (indicating that the island ended there). But you had me remove those strata. I do think they should be there. I'll put them back in so it's possible to tell that the mountain is on the left side of the island.
Show the left part of the strata falling into the ocean on that side That would be the next couple of diagrams in the sequence. You didn't think the earlier revision that showed that captured your vision, so I need a few more details. What does "falling into the ocean" look like?
Show the right part of the strata falling down through the sea level line with the upper broken ends remaining above it and spreading out along that line I need instructions for this part also. The sea level line is a few strata layers below ground level. How are strata to fall through the sea level line if the ground level strata are in the way?
Show the lower part of that block of strata forming what we see below the sea level line on the diagram we'd been discussing Again, there are already strata below the sea level line. What should the diagram look like to show the lower part of that block of strata doing anything below the sea level line when there are already strata there? Here's what it looks like so far. This is the strata as originally deposited:
G ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > G F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> F E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> E D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> D C ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> B A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> A And this is after the granite basement rock has uplifted and pushed up into the strata:
/|_ _|\ / / |__ __| \ \ / / / / |__ __| \ \ \ \ / / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / G R A N I T E \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ G -------------- / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ --------------------------- > G F ----------------/ / / / / \ \ \ \ \------------------------------> F E -----------------/ / / / \ \ \ \-------------------------------> E D ------------------/ / / \ \ \--------------------------------> D C -------------------/ / \ \--------- CURRENT SEA LEVEL -----> C B --------------------/ \----------------------------------> B A -------------------- ----------------------------------> A What should the strata currently on the left and right sides of the granite mountain look like in the next diagram of the sequence? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Oh, look at the desperate attempt at rationalisation. There is no wrong place. The Sahara is quite big enough, and on land too. The extent of many strata is due to transgression and regression. There was never simultaneous deposition over the entire area, instead the area of deposition moved, over time. Small local strata are still part of the geological timescale. Any point in the timescale is an aggregate of many strata. Again. Lake, marine and desert deposits are all parts if the geological column. If ancient deposits count, why not modern deposits ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There should be no horizontal strata at the base of the triangle.
The right side of the broken off strata falls down and forms the strata we see beneath the sea level line. Some of its strata cover the rock or rountain, but the rest lies along the sea level line, Cambrian to Holocene from left to right. These are the broken off upper parts of what is now beneath the sea level line, becoming distorted in the ways we see it now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The geological column or time scale is a very specific thing. All its strata are stacked one on top of another, originally a few miles deep. Strata now forming on the sea floor are not building on this very specific stack of strata, they are in the wrong location; and sediments deposited on top o this stack that are very small in extent as well as depth are far from qualifying as part of the column.
The Geo Column is OVer and Done with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: No, it is just a scheme constructed from the many strata.
quote: Obviously, then you count all strata no matter their size or how they were formed.
quote: There is no specific stack of strata. Marine deposits are included in the geological column. The Sahara is not small in extent. Even if you had measured the depth of current deposits (you haven’t) or compared them with actual individual strata (which we rarely talk about, concentrating on larger collections of strata) you still wouldn’t know what depth they would achieve because they are still being deposited.
quote: Your Geo Column - if it exists at all - might be. So what - and where - is this very specific stack of strata and how do you know there is no deposition on it now, and never will be in the future ? Edited by PaulK, : Minor correction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: No. I've said many times by now that the problem with the candidates for continuation of the Geological Column -- meaning those accumulated on the land area, not in the ocean where the problem is that they are in the wrong location -- is that their extent is too small. The vacuity of this statement has been described many times, yet you keep repeating it. You can say it (over and over ad infinitum) but are unable to explain it. It makes as little sense now as it did the first time you said it. You have to figure out what facts are driving this belief that you have, then explain them to us. But until then, and for the umpteenth time, in a discussion about deposition, why are you bringing up regions of net erosion? And what does extent of a depositional area have to do with anything? And why do you think the geologic column is ended and over? As I asked once before (and that, of course, you did not answer), after the very last particle of sediment of the Flood settled atop the geologic column, when a few minutes later a little particle of sediment emerged from a river and settled right beside it, upon what did it settle if not the geologic column?
Minuscule. In that area the Geological Column covers thousands of square miles. I haven't argued it but the candidates are also too shallow since most of the strata are quite thick, up to hundreds of feet thick. You have this mistaken belief that if it doesn't resemble the Grand Canyon that it isn't part of the geological column. The geological column is worldwide. It is on the land and under the sea. Anywhere you stand on the Earth, either on land or under water, you are standing atop the geologic column. Should a grain of sediment settle beside your foot, it has deposited atop the geologic column. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Good bye. And try to understand what the Geological Column is while you're gone. What needs to happen is for you to involve yourself in a discussion of the geological column so that the facts driving your rather strange definition can be understood. Right now it looks like your criteria for something to be part of the geologic column are:
You deem any deposition not fitting your criteria to not be part of the geologic column. We understand that. Repeating it again and again is unnecessary. What people are asking is the facts behind why you believe this, despite that it is contrary to all the facts and information everyone else has presented. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The geologic column is indeed a very specific thing. It's defined as I have posted so many times. It is not what you claim it is.
Will you ever figure out that intrminably repeating you claims is not evidence for them? What you need is a definition from some reputable authority that agrees with you. Or examples of being used in the liter in your sense. But no such things exist. Since you never can admit err, you're stuck.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024