Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 1896 (713770)
12-16-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by PaulK
12-16-2013 2:13 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
That rather suggests that it was transported on the surface, which doesn't support your view at all.
It had to have been broken off the Shinumo layer and the most sensible explanation for that is that abrasion between the layers did it..
I'd say that it was eroded out of a surface formation and moved along the surface, settling onto the sediment as it was deposited.
This is a boulder fifteen feet in diameter. How did it get "eroded" out of its layer under normal conditions? OR "moved along the surface" under normal conditions. No, the force of the abrasion between the layers explains it much better.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 2:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 2:28 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 242 of 1896 (713771)
12-16-2013 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:08 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
No you haven't thought about anhy of it because I've given good arguments on good evidence.
Yes, I have thought about it. Both your arguments and your evidence are bad.
Those forests are not millions of hyars old. And you can actrually SEE coal seams forming between the layers in road cuts in some places in the country. Coal is caused by the compression of vegetation which would have happened at certain layers in the Flood. One thing that does seem to be true is that the same layers occur at the same levels so you only need to know the level, not the age.
But the scientists who can accurately predict where coal will be found use the knowledge that they formed from forests from 100's of millions of years ago to make those predictions.
If they were so incredibly wrong, like they'd have to be for you to be right, then there's no way that their predictions could be so accurate.
But they can make accurate predictions, so therefore they are correct and you are wrong.
Nobody who is trying to find coal uses The Flood in any of their methods for predicting where it will be found.
The people who can accurately predict where coal can be found operate under the impression that it forms over millions of years.
Given that the millions of years approach actually works to yield accurate predictions, and that nobody considers The Flood, its obvious that the scientists are correct and that The Flood has nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 1896 (713772)
12-16-2013 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 2:21 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Since you don't even try to reproduce any of my arguments but just call them "bad" proves you haven't a clue what I've said. If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 2:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 2:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 269 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-16-2013 8:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 9:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 244 of 1896 (713773)
12-16-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:20 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
quote:
It had to have been broken off the Shinumo layer and the most sensible explanation for that is that abrasion between the layers did it..
No, it's not. In case you've forgotten this boulder is your sole "evidence" of this "abrasion". You may like it, but that doesn't make it sensible.
quote:
This is a boulder fifteen feet in diameter. How did it get "eroded" out of its layer under normal conditions? No, the force of the abrasion between the layers explains it much better.
How do boulders normally form ?
And if this abrasion happens under solid rock how did the boulder ever make its way up to the surface to be buried in sand ?
Why would this "abrasion" even form boulders ?
Do try thinking and researching before declaring your personal opinion to be "the only sensible answer".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 245 of 1896 (713775)
12-16-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:23 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Since you don't even try to reproduce any of my arguments but just call them "bad" proves you haven't a clue what I've said. If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all.
False. In Message 224, I reproduced, addressed, and refuted your argument that conclusions about the unwitnessed past are just speculation.
You replied to my refutation by simply asserting that coal formation doesn't require millions of years.
I continued my line of reasoning and further explained how we know they do.
You've now just replied to an insignificant section of my message rather than addressing my argument.
You've failed to address what has been said, so according to yourself, you have no business commenting at all.
But you're wrong on that account as well, so go ahead and actually address my argument with something other than bare assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 1896 (713776)
12-16-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
12-16-2013 2:28 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
This is a boulder fifteen feet in diameter. How did it get "eroded" out of its layer under normal conditions? No, the force of the abrasion between the layers explains it much better.
How do boulders normally form ?
This one was a piece of a layer of quartzite that got broken off.
And if this abrasion happens under solid rock how did the boulder ever make its way up to the surface to be buried in sand ?
The Tapeats wouldn't have been solid rock, it would have been wet compressed sediments. The Shinumo layer was tilted as part of the Supergroup up against the bottom of the Tapeats and the abrasion broke off the piece of layer as a boulder which got moved along within the wet sand, and then the continued sliding between the two layers carried it a quarter of a mile from the point where it broke off.
Why would this "abrasion" even form boulders ?
We're talking ONE boulder here, I doubt it's a normal occurrence. Quartzite is very hard so it broke off as a huge chunk rather than being broken up into small pieces or pulverized into sediment, which is what happened to the Tapeats above.
Do try thinking and researching before declaring your personal opinion to be "the only sensible answer".
I'm giving sensible answers based on considering the facts. You on the other hand are just reaching for any old explanation that might work to confirm your theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 2:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2013 2:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 252 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 4:04 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 247 of 1896 (713777)
12-16-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:57 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Faith writes:
It did. It is deeply eroded. But it was a whole block of tilted layers not "just a few." That is really a very large formation which is indicated on all the cross sections.
I don't think we're saying anything different or talking about two different things. If you look at this diagram again:
You'll see that the Grand Canyon supergroup has four layers, which is just a few, while it is overlain by eleven layers. And I wasn't implying anything about its size.
Nothing in Wikipedia about the Great Unconformity suggests that it is anything more than a local event...
Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the Great Unconformity:
Wikipedia writes:
The "great" unconformities of regional or continental scale (in both geography and chronology) are associated with either global changes in eustatic sea level or the supercontinent cycle, the periodic merger of all the continents into one approximately every 500 million years.
...
Powell's Great Unconformity is part of a continent-wide unconformity that extends across Laurentia, the ancient core of North America.
The Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon is just one of a number of places where this ancient continent-wide unconformity is exposed. Whatever you imagine happened at the Grand Canyon to tilt the layers would have had to have also happened across the entire continent.
But of course that is the standard interpretation which I'm pointedly disputing, saying the erosion was caused by the abrasion between the Supergroup and the Tapeats.
The top layer of the supergroup is the Sixtymile Formation, and so your scenario holds that at one time the Sixtymile Formation was horizontal and underlay the Tapeats. Then tectonic forces tilted the supergroup layers, but somehow had no effect on the Tapeats, which wasn't deformed in any way. The layers above were equally unaffected. There is nothing that would stop the forces acting on the supergoup to suddenly stop at the underside of the Tapeats.
I have to suppose that the abraded material from the Supergroup is under the canyon, out of the picture or maybe part of the unidentified material shown on the cross sections.
The supergroup used to be rectangular in cross section, then it tilted and lost around 40% of its volume. Your scenario requires cubic miles and miles of rock to just disappear into thin air. The abraded material that you imagine would have had no way to move. Were material abraded from the supergroup, it would still be there. The reason it's not still there is because the supergroup was tilted, exposed to the elements at the surface, then eroded away.
I already answered you about layers turning to "rock." They hardened enough to be stable. I assume they are rock by now. Because I reject the idea of millions of years for just about any process.
So if they weren't yet rock when the overlying layers eroded away, then since those overlying layers provided the necessary pressure to turn sedimentary deposits to rock, those layers could never have become rock. Therefore the upper strata could not have been eroded away before the lower strata became rock.
Or consider the Claron layer. Obviously it is solid rock now, but it was once one of the layers above the layers at the Grand Canyon whose weight helped turned those layers to rock. If it needed to be soft in order to be eroded away above the Grand Canyon, then this same layer couldn't be solid as a rock today over at Brian Head.
The upland lake you claim was too small was a superlake like the Missoula and the Lahonton, very high and very large, all lakes which wre most likely water left over from the Flood. The breaking of the dam of the Missoula carved out a river canyon in that area too.
Yes, I knew you were referring to the glacial superlakes. There was nothing particularly high in elevation about them, and they didn't contain sufficient water to erode thousands of square miles of rock column a mile thick, not even close. Also, we already know that Missoula drained through Washington State, not Arizona, and that Lahontan evaporated. The kind of evidence that the glacial lakes left behind when they drained is the same kind of evidence found in Washington State. There is none of that kind of evidence in the region around the Grand Canyon.
The more relevant question is why you feel the need to go through all these machinations. The flood was an act of God and requires no natural explanation. When you look at the tilted supergroup and wonder how it happened and where all the material went, how come the answer isn't, "God."
--Percy

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 249 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 248 of 1896 (713779)
12-16-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
quote:
This one was a piece of a layer of quartzite that got broken off.
And how does that help your case ?
quote:
The Tapeats wouldn't have been solid rock, it would have been wet compressed sediments.
So even in your view, the Tapeats wasn't rock then. Well that's progress.
quote:
The Shinumo layer was tilted as part of the Supergroup up against the bottom of the Tapeats and the abrasion broke off the piece of layer as a boulder which got moved along within the wet sand, and then the continued sliding between the two layers carried it a quarter of a mile from the point where it broke off.
And your evidence for this is ? You can start by offering your evidence that it came from a portion of the Shinumo buried under the Tapeats rather than rising above it:
The Shinumo quartzite pokes through the Tapeats and forms cliffs at the same elevation as the lower part of the Bright Angel shale
Great Unconformity
quote:
We're talking ONE boulder here, I doubt it's a normal occurrence. Quartzite is very hard so it broke off as a huge chunk rather than being broken up into small pieces or pulverized into sediment, which is what happened to the Tapeats above.
Which really doesn't mean that we can rule out the usual explanations without firm reasons.
quote:
I'm giving sensible answers based on considering the facts. You on the other hand are just reaching for any old explanation that might work to confirm your theory.
You really are dedicated to inverting reality.
Try dealing with my post about Siccar Point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 249 of 1896 (713781)
12-16-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Percy
12-16-2013 2:41 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
The Supergroup is actually nine layers but I thought it was more and it doesn't really matter anyway. But this is from Wikipedia:
The ...Grand Canon Supergroup of sedimentary units is composed of nine varied geologic formations... The oldest section of the supergroup is the Unkar Group
You're right about the continent wide Unconformtiy. I'm tired and not reading clearly.
The top layer of the supergroup is the Sixtymile Formation, and so your scenario holds that at one time the Sixtymile Formation was horizontal and underlay the Tapeats. Then tectonic forces tilted the supergroup layers, but somehow had no effect on the Tapeats, which wasn't deformed in any way. The layers above were equally unaffected. There is nothing that would stop the forces acting on the supergoup to suddenly stop at the underside of the Tapeats.
Look at the contact line between the Tapeats and the Supergroup: sure looks to me like the Tapeats was affected or the line would be straight. Also the boulder embedded in the Tapeats that PaulK and I are again arguing about is evidence for disruption of the Tapeats.
Yes, the weight of two miles of strata above would be the resistance that happened to stop at the Tapeats
Edited by Admin, : Fix close quote dBCode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 12-16-2013 2:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Percy, posted 12-16-2013 9:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 250 of 1896 (713782)
12-16-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of th eproblem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Old Earth doesn't work.
There's plenty of Faith's (and others) unsupported assertions that Old Earth doesn't work. Evidence for those claims, however, is lacking or invalidated many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 251 of 1896 (713783)
12-16-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
"what kind of environment causes coal" doesn't require any idea about millions of years.
It does if you want a correct answer. As does "Where are we likely to find coal?"
I've SHOWN that the layers wree not laid down over millions of yeaers. You just have to THINK about the evidence given.
I have thought about the very little evidence you have proffered and it doesn't support your claims, all of which were refuted decades ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 252 of 1896 (713791)
12-16-2013 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
The Tapeats wouldn't have been solid rock, it would have been wet compressed sediments. The Shinumo layer was tilted as part of the Supergroup up against the bottom of the Tapeats and the abrasion broke off the piece of layer as a boulder
What happened to the rest of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 253 of 1896 (713795)
12-16-2013 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:38 AM


Why is understanding the Old Earth information 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.
There are two basic things that can interfere with clear understanding of a problem, one is a working knowledge of the field of science involved, including knowledge, use and understanding of the proper terminology. This can be achieved via education.
The second is cognitive dissonance -- if a problem creates severe dissonance for a person it becomes difficult to wade through any description of the problem because your mind keeps rejecting things as 'just not possible' -- and frankly I don't know how to overcome this difficulty ... so condolences for anyone suffering this aspect, and I hope you find some reasonable resolution that allows for new information rather than blanket rejection.
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 206 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 5:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 1896 (713803)
12-16-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by RAZD
12-16-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information 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.
There are two basic things that can interfere with clear understanding of a problem, one is a working knowledge of the field of science involved, including knowledge, use and understanding of the proper terminology. This can be achieved via education.
The second is cognitive dissonance -- if a problem creates severe dissonance for a person it becomes difficult to wade through any description of the problem because your mind keeps rejecting things as 'just not possible' -- and frankly I don't know how to overcome this difficulty ... so condolences for anyone suffering this aspect, and I hope you find some reasonable resolution that allows for new information rather than blanket rejection.
I don't have the interest or the time or to get the thorough education you are talking about, not to mention I don't have the energy or low enough blood pressure to battle the establishment point of view at every turn. And I do think OE theory is impossible, there's no cognitive dissonance about it. Cognitive dissonance involves believing and trying to juggle two contradictory things at once; I don't believe OE theory, there's nothing to juggle. I think it's so unbelievably silly I don't know how anybody ever entertained it for a minute.
But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. I feel sort of sorry for Atheos because he started this thread and he really wants to prove to me that his sand grains make the Flood impossible because he thinks they do. But I'd have the job then of learning all about them, plus researching possible other contexts he wouldn't have thought of in order to find out how they don't prove what he says they do. That's too much to ask of me right now, and it just doesn't interest me, I have my own way of thinking about all this and don't want to get sidetracked into all those secondary issues like sand and speleothems. Because I believe in the Flood with absolute certainty. Not necessarily all my own notions about how it might have occurred but certainly the timing of it which makes all Old Earth thinking false, AND the more I look at the strata the more I see that OE theory doesn't account for them, but a worldwide Flood certainly would. So he's got sand grains in the strata that supposedly couldn't have been deposited in water. That's just WAY too much to ask me to think about right now. Once I know that the strata had to have been laid down rapidly in water, I know his sand grains are going to have to be reinterpreted. He isn't going to do it, you aren't going to do it; that leaves me, and right now I don't want the job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2013 4:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2013 7:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 265 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-16-2013 8:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 255 of 1896 (713804)
12-16-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2013 4:04 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
A fair amount of it should be in the erosion itself. The rest is under the strata somewhere. Look under the deepest parts of the strata column, look in the areas that are never defined in the diagrams, under the strata. Look on the other side of the Supergroup. What's there? That's a BIG area we're talking about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 4:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 6:23 PM Faith 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