|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I'm sorry, but the evidence does NOT show that a given layer of the Geological Column was ever constructed by small deposits of sediment one at a time. All eventually creating a deposit of one sediment thousands of square miles in extent and maybe hundreds of feet deep? Don't try to put that one over on me
What evidence, and in what way does it support your claims? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh right, lakes and basins are all filling up with the same sediment at the same rate and will eventually all blend together into a single remarkably (I didn't say perfectly) homogeneous layer of the geological column without there being any evidence remaining of their shorelines, rim lines and so on. Yep, a perfect candidate for continuation of the geological column. Not.
Yes of course sediment is continuing to be deposited on the sea floor. Which is not on the geological column. I refer to the sea level line IN THAT DIAGRAM , which shows the broken off strata above it arranged from left to right instead of as they would have been laid down from bottom to top, and the rest of those same strata arranged beneath the sea level line as we see them on that diagram. That is where they ended up and exist today and that is why I refer to that sea level line. In the Flood, just as in the Grand Canyon, the water would have continued some depth above the horizontal strata as you drew them, and were probably receding as the mountain was rising, making it very much the same kind of situation as I've argued was the case in the Grand Canyon. Sea level ENDED UP where it is and has stayed there ever since. I've made consistent use of the actual facts. This should end the discussion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yes of course sediment is continuing on the sea floor. Which is not on the geological column.
That is one of your claims. Your claims are not evidence for your claims. Also your ignorant incredulity is not evidence for your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: This is just the typical problem between me the YEC and you all the Old Earth ToE defenders. This mischaracterizes one side of the discussion. You accurately characterize yourself as a YEC, and you take a YEC's approach, such as cherry picking facts to support views and declaring yourself the font of all knowledge, but we definitely are not Old Earth ToE defenders. It isn't the actual age of the Earth is or how species came to be that is important to us. We're advocates of the scientific method for gaining knowledge, and naturally we have strong confidence (as well as a lot of facts and rationale) for knowledge achieved using that method. Wherever the facts lead, that's where we'll go. If the facts led to the Flood then we'd accept Flood theory, but the facts don't lead that way, so we don't.
I point out how the geological facts support the Flood,... There are no geological facts that support the Flood. That's why you spend most of your time running from the facts. You've ignored 300 messages in this thread so far, mostly ones full of facts, and of those you've responded to you ignore any points based upon facts.
....and that requires redefining some things,... You're free to invent as much terminology as you like in Flood theory, but you cannot redefine the terms of geology. The terms already have definitions.
...while you all go on insisting on the establishment view,... We promote a science based approach.
...which I believe to be scientifically untenable. You know very little about science and are very poorly equipped to make judgments about what's untenable.
This will just go on and on here as it does on every other debate topic because it is a paradigm clash... You have no paradigm, just a bunch of stuff you made up. Not even other creationists buy what you're selling.
...and you aren't going to bend to what I consider to be the facts that overturn your paradigm and I'm sticking to mine. You have no facts to stick to. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Evidence for that claim is in my description/definitioln of the geological column which is the only rational definition in this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Gosh a whole bunch of the usual personal attacks. Oh well. Having a different paradigm always means "not understanding science," of course, cuz science is defined by the establishment paradigm.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm going to draw my own sequence of events as I see them forming the current geological situation as we see it on that UK diagram, and hope to figure out how to scan them in and post them later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Of course it's been "rebutted." So what else is new? Would you like to repeat the rebuttal so I can point out how utterly untenable it is? I had another post further on that also addressed your "sediments in the wrong location" claim, and you responded to that one. I'll get to it eventually. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Evidence for that claim is in my description/definitioln of the geological column which is the only rational definition in this discussion.
Another unsupported assertion including a gratuitous derogatory adjective. Your determination of reality is highly suspect for many reasons. In this case,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Correction: Nobody HERE agrees with me, OR No OE/ToE believer agrees with me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If I have a stack of coins and I put a new coin on top, do I still have a stack of coins?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you have a stack of thirty silver dollars and you put a dime on top of it -- or even three or four dimes -- are you continuing the same stack of coins?
And if you have a stack of thirty silver dollars on the table and you put a stack of three silver dollars on the floor are you continuing the same stack of coins? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: If you have a stack of thirty silver dollars and you put a dime on top of it -- or even three or four dimes -- are you continuing the same stack of coins? Yes, Faith, yes you are. And in fact that is exactly what is seen in reality; stacks that contain different types of rock.
Faith writes: And if you have a stack of thirty silver dollars on the table and you put a stack of three silver dollars on the floor are you continuing the same stack of coins? Of course not. And in fact that is exactly what is seen in reality; the cores in the geological column from different places will have differing layers of rock. Thank you Faith, you have just agreed that the geological column is still growing and that no two geological columns from different areas will be exactly the same. It really is that simple Faith. The Flood and Young Earth are simply silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes:
Faith, that whole world is the geological column including the sea floor. In fact the majority of the sedimentation is happening on the sea floor. Why don't you think that the sea floor isn't part of the geological column?
Yes of course sediment is continuing to be deposited on the sea floor. Which is not on the geological column.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Ah well I HAVE explained it. Over and over. Really I have. Sigh.
Let me ask this: If the whole world including the sea floor is the geological column how is it that the strata we find on the continents, from Precambrian to Holocene, are not also found on the sea floor? Hm? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024