Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 1896 (713717)
12-16-2013 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by PaulK
12-16-2013 1:49 AM


Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
From 1:01:40 to 1:08 on thw video Paul Garner is discussing the Great Unconformity. At 1:03 he starts talking about the erosion. At 1:06 you see the quartzite boulder embedded in the lowest part of the Tapeats sandstone. That is what indicates that the sandstone at that level was part of the erosion. The boulder is suspended in the sandstone, it's not lying on the Supergroup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 1:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 2:42 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 212 of 1896 (713718)
12-16-2013 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:35 AM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
Thanks for confirming that the Garner video doesn't support your claim either. A boulder simply suspended in the sandstone indicates that it was deposited with the sediment that became the sandstone. That's not what you need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 10:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(11)
Message 213 of 1896 (713719)
12-16-2013 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:57 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
Please stop suggesting that I came up with these ideas because I NEED them. Do you think that way? Neither do I. It occurred to me as I was studying the diagram as the likely way things ACTUALLY HAPPENED, and it gives a good explanation for the carving of the canyon. Period.
Of course you need them, you wouldn't be remotely interested in either evolution or geology if both of them didn't cause a huge problem for your beliefs.
I didn't bother to remark on it at the time, but this comment of yours in the chalk thread - which you have abandoned before providing any answers at all - stuck in my mind.
Faith writes:
Of course I do not accept that interpretation of the ordering of fossils as proving evolution up some fantasy time scale. There has to be a mechanical principle of sorting that explains it.
You display there your need to find a new and impossible explanation to a well understood process that fits with your pre-conceived ideas. You're not looking for the correct explanation, you're looking for one that doesn't show that your beliefs are wrong. That's not science, it's not even honest.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 10:54 AM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 214 of 1896 (713724)
12-16-2013 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:28 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed, and I've tried to argue from that perspective.
But if you deduced this then I must be wrong when I said you have no evidence. From what evidence did you deduce that the now missing strata above the Claron were all deposited before the Hurricane Fault? There's certainly nothing in the diagram to suggest this.
You've posted a lot and asked a lot and I'm just not going to get to it.
Okay, but realize that you did post five replies to my Message 114. When someone posts me a message I usually reply, so you might want to keep that mind the next time you feel moved to reply over and over again to the same message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 215 of 1896 (713725)
12-16-2013 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:32 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
I have NOT claimed that ALL boundaries are knife-edged. I don't think you could even find a place where I misspoke about that.
Yes, that's true, but what you said back in Message 83 was this:
Faith in Message 83 writes:
...depending on the local situation the fact that completely different sediments are laid one upon another, which defies any slow normal-time explanation, the fact that the interface between the layers, which may be totally different sediments, most often shows a knife-edge close contact, no blurring between them,...
So if some strata have knife-edged boundaries and some don't, how is that evidence that "defies any slow normal-time explanation"?
You continue:
...whatever small degree of erosion that may be seen there being explainable as runoff between the layers;
For strata where there was continuous deposition across the boundary region there will never be any erosion. Erosion will only be apparent at unconformities. The most common cause of an unconformity is uplift followed by erosion of the exposed strata followed by subsidence followed by deposition onto the eroded strata.
And I have to ask again: How do you imagine runoff occurring on a submerged landscape?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 216 of 1896 (713729)
12-16-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:38 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Unless I have a clear understanding of a problem of that sort I just don't deal with it at all Atheos, I've tried to explain that to you. I focus on my own favorite arguments which I think should prove the Flood and the wrongness of the OE, and that being the case all the other problems are secondary or irrelevant, as I've said. There's no point in continuing to badger me.
This might be considered a valid excuse if the points I were presenting were complex, though even then I think it displays a lack of intellectual integrity to say "I don't understand your objections so I refuse to think about them". But the points I am presenting are not complex or difficult to understand in any way. While you clearly don't understand a lot of geology, you are also clearly not stupid, so there is really no excuse for ignoring my points. Let me spell it out again. It is very simple. Here we go:
1. Wet sand is deposited with a 45 degree angle of repose
2. Dry sand is deposited with a 34 degree angle of repose
3. These angles are determined by the laws of physics
4. Therefor unless you can prove the laws of physics were different in the past, the existence of bedding angles of 34 degrees proves that the Flood cannot be responsible for the entire rock record as you claim.
What part of this do you not understand? Tell me and I will do my best to explain it to you. If you refuse it will be proof that lack of understanding is merely an excuse. And I have already quoted a post where you make it clear that physical impossibilities are a major problem for a theory, so calling them irrelevant in the context of your theory is blatantly hypocritical. And badgering you serves the purpose of giving you the uncomfortable reminder that your fantasy relies on physical impossibilities which we both agree are a major problem. I expect you'll ignore this post until I remind you again of the glaring problems with your theory, so expect to hear back from me until you honestly address the issues I present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 1896 (713732)
12-16-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by PaulK
12-16-2013 2:42 AM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
No, Paul, the boulder was clearly broken off the Shinumo quartzite layer in the Supergroup beneath the Tapeats, a quarter mile from where the Tapeats and the Shinumo intersect, there is no other source for it. It didn't just get laid sown with the sandstone, it got violently horizontally transported IN the Tapeats sediment to its present location, which is consistent with the erosion between the Tapeats and the Supergroup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 2:42 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 11:09 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 218 of 1896 (713734)
12-16-2013 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Tangle
12-16-2013 3:12 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
But I don't make them up, I discover them. And the same thing about need could be said about the arguments on the Old Earth side, as quite a lot of ad hoc speculation is used against my arguments, as you would recognize if you would take the time to appreciate that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2013 3:12 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2013 11:13 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 219 of 1896 (713736)
12-16-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
12-16-2013 10:50 AM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
I don't see the disagreement. The point is that the Tapeats was just sediment when the boulder arrived, not rock. So it's not evidence for your ideas about the formation of angular unconformities. So where are these "eroded belts" of yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 10:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:35 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 220 of 1896 (713737)
12-16-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
12-16-2013 10:54 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
But I don't make them up, I discover them.
No Faith, on this occasion you have made no discoveries and are simply saying that there MUST be an explanation. ie you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, therefore there MUST be an explanation for anything that says otherwise.
And the same thing about need could be said about the arguments on the Old Earth side, as quite a lot of ad hoc speculation is used against my arguments, as you would recognize if you would take the time to appreciate that fact.
Ignoring the tu quoque fallacy, this is obviously not true. Up until a few hundred years ago, everyone believed the earth and universe to be young, it took a very long time and a huge amount of undeniable evidence to change the minds of those creationists. You're just a throwback.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:25 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 221 of 1896 (713739)
12-16-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Percy
12-16-2013 9:09 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
I assure you I simply deduced that they ARE that way from what I observed, and I've tried to argue from that perspective.
But if you deduced this then I must be wrong when I said you have no evidence. From what evidence did you deduce that the now missing strata above the Claron were all deposited before the Hurricane Fault? There's certainly nothing in the diagram to suggest this.
From the fact that any layers built above it would have extended over the whole Grand Staircase area, and if the lower stairs had already been eroded away you'd see the new layers on top of the eroded areas, but we don't see that; so it's just another step in the Staircase and had to have been eroded away along with all the other steps that were eroded away at the same time in the same way. Pllus the fact that it is shown on both sides of the Hurricane Fault in its apparently eroded condition.
But you know what, I was just pondering the irregular surface of the "layer" above the Clarion, which is identical on both sides of the fault, and I no longer think there were ever any strata above that. That irregular looking layer is not sediment, it's lava. The whole area is a lava field, from Brian Head across the Markagunt Plateau, where you can see the words "lava flow" in the cross-section. That is where the magma you see in the dike flowed out at the very top of the stack of strata. That's why its upper level is not flat like all the strata. It's not a sediment layer at all. There is no sign of any further deposition above that whatever. Cedar Breaks and Brian Head are all part of that lava field.
And the fact that exactly the same formation is shown above the Clarion layer on the north side of the fault, which at first I took for just another eroded layer but now see is really lava, shows that the lava was already there when the fault occurred, as it divided that field along with everything else.
Okay, but realize that you did post five replies to my Message 114. When someone posts me a message I usually reply, so you might want to keep that mind the next time you feel moved to reply over and over again to the same message.
I don't remember but I thought I was just taking separate parts of your post one at a time.
No problem. It is hard to keep up with this but if I can I will and if I can't I can't.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Percy, posted 12-16-2013 9:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 222 of 1896 (713741)
12-16-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Tangle
12-16-2013 11:13 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Those minds were changed on false evidence, not that their earlier speculations were any better really, they weren't, and that's one thing Darwin showed about creationist understandings of biology in his day, they had a lot of things wrong. As I've argued many times, anything about the unwitnessed past is nothing but speculation. That's all we're doing now. It's all the Old Earth is based on too. I'm trying to show that the Old Earth speculations do not account for the facts, but because they ARE speculations it's not hard to adapt them to suit the prevailing bias.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2013 11:13 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 12:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 1896 (713742)
12-16-2013 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
12-16-2013 11:09 AM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
I don't see the disagreement. The point is that the Tapeats was just sediment when the boulder arrived, not rock. So it's not evidence for your ideas about the formation of angular unconformities. So where are these "eroded belts" of yours?
The idea is that that IS the eroded belt, the lower part of the Tapeats in which the boulder is embedded along with the eroded area at the top of the Supergroup. The fact that a part of the Supergroup, i.e., the boulder, is embedded in the upper layer, the Tapeats, is evidence that the lower part of the Tapeats was also involved in the erosion. Garner says the sandstone is a "matrix" in which elements of the lower layers are found although all we can see in the picture is the boulder. But that's enough to show that the lower layer got mixed into the upper, so the Tapeats had to have already been there when the erosion occurred, rather than laid down on top of the eroded surface of the Supergroup many millions of years later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 11:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 12:17 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 224 of 1896 (713745)
12-16-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
12-16-2013 11:25 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
As I've argued many times, anything about the unwitnessed past is nothing but speculation.
That argument is wrong. I explained earlier, but the thread got closed, so here it is:
quote:
The INTERPRETATION of empirical evidence needs CORROBORATION from SOMEWHERE or you're just castlebuilding.
Yeah, we're in the present. Stuff is happening.
We can gather evidence from the past, and test it against what is happening in the present to figure all kinds of stuff out.
Companies don't just blindly poke around for coal to burn, they ask scientists who have studied how coal forms. Those scientists used evidence from the past, and applied how things are happening in the present, to determine where coal can be found.
Now, if you were correct, then the scientists would have a poor track record and nobody would think they know what they are talking about. But, in actuality, the scientists can determine where coal can be found. And that proves that you're wrong. Science works. Even on things that happened in the past.
Lab science can replicate its empirical findings to corroborate them. One time events in the past have nothing whatever to corroborate whatever interpretation you decide to lay on them UNLESS you have witnesses from that past.
False. Heck, you don't even have to be on the same planet:
NASA Curiosity rover discovers evidence of freshwater Mars lake
The mars rover found some interesting rocks:
Those rocks formed in the past. Scientists compared them to processes that happen today that form rocks like that. They concluded that water was included in the process.
So therefore, in the past, there must have been water on mars. It isn't there today.
So there you have it, using physical evidence from the past to make conclusions about things that must have happened even though there were no witnesses to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 225 of 1896 (713746)
12-16-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
12-16-2013 11:35 AM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
quote:
The idea is that that IS the eroded belt, the lower part of the Tapeats in which the boulder is embedded along with the eroded area at the top of the Supergroup.
So where's the evidence for that?
quote:
The fact that a part of the Supergroup, i.e., the boulder, is embedded in the upper layer, the Tapeats, is evidence that the lower part of the Tapeats was also involved in the erosion
It's evidence that the Tapeats sediment was just sediment when the boulder arrived, and much of it was deposited later. That really doesn't help your ideas because it's entirely consistent with the mainstream view.
quote:
Garner says the sandstone is a "matrix" in which elements of the lower layers are found although all we can see in the picture is the boulder. But that's enough to show that the lower layer got mixed into the upper, so the Tapeats had to have already been there when the erosion occurred, rather than laid down on top of the eroded surface of the Supergroup many millions of years later.
Rocks may be eroded out of older strata and embedded in newer strata. It happens all the time. Since the boulder is embedded in the Tapeats it seems that is what happened - with much of it arriving after the boulder. Only the part of the Tapeats beneath the boulder can be known to be present when the boulder arrived, and I don't see any way to tell how long it was before that, that the boulder was eroded out if the Shinumo Quartzite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024