Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 361 of 740 (734440)
07-29-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
07-29-2014 7:29 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:
But my point was that you are missing the forest for the trees.
I think that anyone who has read my posts can see that that is not true. In the case of the strata I'm not even looking at anything more detailed than the evidence you claim to be using. Even when looking at fossils the order of the fossil record - to use just one example - is a pervasive large-scale feature that clearly is not a minor detail that can be so easily dismissed.
quote:
The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
It's obvious to me that they are not. That they are not even weak evidence for a worldwide flood. That they show no sign that a worldwide flood occurred at all.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 362 of 740 (734441)
07-29-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by JonF
07-29-2014 7:39 AM


igneous layers
Let's get something in perspective here. The interspersed layers do not meet the original conditions.
All this stuff about the igneous rocks came up way back when I said they aren't part of the geologic column as I envision it and that when they are seen there it is as intrusives, or dikes and sills. This started a flurry of efforts to prove me wrong, and you know what, in an important sense I don't think any of them have succeeded (except the Cardenas) because none of them are about the geologic column as I envision it. Such as shown in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The thick strata that span continents. I thought I'd been pretty clear about this but maybe not clear enough.
  • So then we get a layer that does look like a layer but turns out to be a sill when I research it. That's way back on the former thread by now. Confirms what I said about sills within the geo column.
  • And we get layers that are layers of all volcanic material rather than a layer between the sedimentary rocks of the Geo Column. Ascension Island, Black Rock escarpment, Siberian Traps, and one of those pictures JonF posted in Message 214 which at first appeared to be a volcanic layer between sedimentary rocks but then was revealed to be between volcanic rocks. These do not fit the requirement to be a layer among the sedimentary layers of the geo column.
  • And we get the effects of volcanic layering on top of the sedimentary rocks which is also not a layer between the rocks. Percy example of Yellowstone I think. (Forgot: I meant to research the Siberian Traps more but didn't get to it, because on something I saw it looks like that enormous amount of volcanic rock is piled on top of sedimentary strata. Well, maybe I'll eventually get beck to it).
  • And we get the sedimentary layers between the igneous layers of the Deccan Traps, which is the closest anyone has come to making the case, but that also is not what I originally described: a volcanic layer among sedimentary layers. It's something entirely different that I would like to think about more when I can get to it.
  • And then there are these examples of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary rock JonF and HBD put up, which are also not the same thing I was asking for but nevertheless do purport to show volcanism during a period I was saying it didn't occur so that also needs to be thought about. But interspersed layers like that are something different from what I originally described too: a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers.
  • That leaves the Cardenas Basalt as the only genuine example of what I said I'd never seen, if edge is right about it. ONE example.
Now everybody keeps saying I've been shown I'm wrong but if you consider my original frame of reference that really is not the case because the examples given don't meet the conditions of the geologic column as I was describing it. Except for the Cardenas layer. This is not moving goalposts, this is simply trying to keep the original context in mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : add link to message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 7:39 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 8:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 365 by edge, posted 07-29-2014 9:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 372 by edge, posted 07-29-2014 1:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 531 by Percy, posted 08-02-2014 9:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 363 of 740 (734442)
07-29-2014 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
07-29-2014 8:10 AM


Re: igneous layers
All this stuff about the igneous rocks came up way back when I said they aren't part of the geologic column as I envision it and that when they are seen there it is as intrusives, or dikes and sills
Tuffs cannot be intrusive.
This started a flurry of efforts to prove me wrong, and you know what, in an important sense I don't think any of them have succeeded (except the Cardenas) because none of them are about the geologic column as I envision it. Such as shown in the walls of the Grand Canyon
We agreed that the geologic column is an abstraction. The Grand Canyon walls are not the geologic column, they are stratigraphy.
The thick strata that span continents. I thought I'd been pretty clear about this but maybe not clear enough.
Oh, we understand it, we just reject your arbitrary and capricious attempt to define the evidence away. Forget the geologic column in this context; that's an abstraction that doesn't tell us anything about what exists in a particular location. Looking at what underlies various places on Earth (AKA stratigraphy) tells us that we often see non-intrusive igneous layers interspersed with sedimentary layers. The areal extent of the layers doesn't matter.
And then there are these examples of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary rock JonF and HBD put up, which are also not the same thing I was asking for but nevertheless do purport to show volcanism during a period I was saying it didn't occur so that also needs to be thought about. But interspersed layers like that are something different from what I originally described too: a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers.
The examples we've provided are clearly nionintrusive layers within a stack sedimentary layers. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Tuffs are produced when a volcano erupts explosively into the air and the material settles (sometimes through water) onto the Earth's surface and consolidates. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Tuffs cannot be intrusive. Asserting without evidence or discussion that they aren't examples of "a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers" is lunacy.
Tell exactly why the examples aren't' "a clear nonintrusive layer within a stack of sedimentary layers".
Of course you won't, you have no idea why they aren't, and in fact they are; you are just sure they aren't because you can't ever be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 12:47 AM JonF has replied

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


Message 364 of 740 (734443)
07-29-2014 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by herebedragons
07-29-2014 7:35 AM


Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
You are missing 90% of what I said that you think you are answering
I am?
Do mean to get back to that to clarify.
You keep drawing arbitrary lines in the sand as to what qualifies as evidence against your idea.
Not arbitrary at all, just haven't kept the original conditions up front. See my last post to JonF.
We are all convinced that there was NO time period EVER where the entire earth was covered by water at the same time. And we show examples of subaerial lava flows bound by sedimentary deposits, which is something you claimed didn't happen, but since your line is so very arbitrary and poorly defined, we find out that any example we bring doesn't qualify for some reason or other.
Because they don't fit the original context in which it first came up, how volcanic layers appear within the geologic column, which isn't just any pile of rock. However, you are right that some of the examples have shown volcanism where I said it didn't occur. You'll probably think this moving the goalposts too, but here's where I question the validity of the Time Scale and suspect all those examples of interspersed layers and volcanic provinces are post-Flood. But this is tentative, don't jump down my throat yet.
The image I presented from Alaska has the time periods on the chart.
I looked and looked, guess I nevertheless managed to miss it.
It is mostly from the Triassic. This period is thought to be the breakup of Pangaea. You can read a bit about it at Central Atlantic magmatic province.
I assume a single continent at the time of the Flood, which would have been Pangaea, which then broke up in connection with the Flood, the timing not all that clear, but somewhere toward the end or afterward, along with volcanism, which of course continues along the Atlantic ridge where N and S America separated from Europe and Africa. Or course I reject the idea that this occurred during a period called the Triassic. What is the supposed evidence for that by the way?
While the Alaskan example is not part of the CAMP, it shows that it was some of the most extensive volcanic episodes in history (the area covered by these lava flows IS the most extensive on earth). Alaska would have been on the other side of the North American Craton and would have been active due to that plate boundary.
Well, if it occurred at the time of the breakup of Pangaea that's right when I'd expect volcanism to occur too. After the Flood though. Not in any supposed Triassic time period.
This event corresponds to the Chocolate Cliffs (the Moenkopi and Chinle formations) in the Grand Staircase area. A place where you were concerned about no tectonic activity occurring.
The entire stack of strata show no tectonic activity until after all the strata were in place, all climbing up to the Claron without a glitch until that point. And I suspect I'm going to have to locate your Alaskan volcanoes after the Flood too.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the continent, the most extensive volcanic providence on earth was being formed. During a flood
But the Triassic isn't a time period on the Flood model, it's just a layer in a stack of layers, completely undisturbed in the GC area, and I would suppose very likely also in Alaska but that would require analyzing the same kind of cross sections for that area. These time-defined interspersed layers I'm pretty sure are going to turn out to be post-Flood phenomenon.
You apparently accept the breakup of Pangeae, but of course think it happened very rapidly, either beginning during the flood or directly afterwards.
Yes, as stated above.
The question is, how do these lava flows correspond with the GC time frame in your reckoning? My guess is that you want to put it at the same time as the lava flows in the GC, after the whole stack is in place. But that correlation is arbitrary based only on the presupposition that there was only volcanic and tectonic activity after the whole stack was in place.
It's not a presupposition, it's an observation from the cross section. And I'm guessing now that if there exists a good cross section of Alaska the same order of events will show up. Because the idea that anything occurred in a period called the Triassic is bogus.
I think you are the one who is missing 90% + of what you think you are answering.
Well I hope to get back to explain what I meant there, but as long as you actually believe in a time period that's nothing but a rock layer you aren't going to get what I'm talking about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2014 7:35 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 10:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 371 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2014 1:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 373 by edge, posted 07-29-2014 1:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 548 by Percy, posted 08-02-2014 3:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 365 of 740 (734445)
07-29-2014 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
07-29-2014 8:10 AM


Re: igneous layers
Now everybody keeps saying I've been shown I'm wrong but if you consider my original frame of reference that really is not the case because the examples given don't meet the conditions of the geologic column as I was describing it. Except for the Cardenas layer. This is not moving goalposts, this is simply trying to keep the original context in mind.
OKay, I've located my Historical Geology textbook with hundreds of summary 'geological columns' and quite a few of them show volcanics interlayered with sedimentary rocks. These include the Valmy Formation in Nevada and the Hazleton Group of British Columbia and many others. I will present a few of these later when I have a little time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 366 of 740 (734446)
07-29-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
07-29-2014 8:48 AM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
Because they don't fit the original context in which it first came up, how volcanic layers appear within the geologic column, which isn't just any pile of rock.
The geologic column is an irrelevant abstraction. The stratigraphy under any particular place on Earth is relevant, and that too isn't just any pile of rock. IN many places it's interspersed non-intrusive igneous layers and sedimentary layers.
However, you are right that some of the examples have shown volcanism where I said it didn't occur. You'll probably think this moving the goalposts too, but here's where I question the validity of the Time Scale and suspect all those examples of interspersed layers and volcanic provinces are post-Flood. But this is tentative, don't jump down my throat yet.
The time scale is irrelevant. You have often said that all sedimentary layers were laid down by the fludde. That's proven false over and over again, and it appears that even you are beginning to realize that it's false.
{ABE} Bet that when edge presents his stratigraphy it'll show pretty much all geology is "post fludde".
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:48 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2014 10:42 AM JonF has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 367 of 740 (734447)
07-29-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by JonF
07-29-2014 10:18 AM


Re: Flood timing
I think that the problem is that, rather than identifying one point in time (e.g., the P-T boundary or the K-T boundary) as the date of the flood, Faith is attributing all sedimentary layers to the flood.
This would explain the need for having the volcanic layers intrusive, or for ignoring them completely.
Typical creation "science:" it ignores or misrepresents all the evidence necessary in order to arrive at the required (biblical) conclusion.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 10:18 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 11:03 AM Coyote has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 368 of 740 (734448)
07-29-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Coyote
07-29-2014 10:42 AM


Re: Flood timing
I think that the problem is that, rather than identifying one point in time (e.g., the P-T boundary or the K-T boundary) as the date of the flood, Faith is attributing all sedimentary layers to the flood.
Oh, yes. Definitely. But she's coming close (but will never get there) to acknowledging that at least some sedimentary layers are post-fludde:
quote:
And then there are these examples of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary rock JonF and HBD put up, which are also not the same thing I was asking for but nevertheless do purport to show volcanism during a period I was saying it didn't occur so that also needs to be thought about.
But as I said I bet that a large sample of stratigraphic diagrams will demonstrate that pretty much all sedimentary layers are above non-intrusive igneous layers. Then we get to wacth Faith's gyrations to avoid the reality of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2014 10:42 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 369 of 740 (734449)
07-29-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
07-27-2014 11:26 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
And one thing that's different is the scale, those thick thick rocks that span whole continents, and originally piled three miles deep as well. That's why I said there will never be another Redwall Limestone or Coconino Sandstone, could add never another Dover Cliffs or that gigantic wall of rock somebody posted from South America a while back, sorry don't remember the name of it.
There are layers on the same scale forming today. Here's a diagram of sedimentary layers that begin on land near the Texas/Lousiana coastline and then extend out into the Gulf of Mexico. These layers are kilometers thick, and they are still being added to today:
Also note the faults that extend only partway through the layers. For example, look at the fault roughly in the image's center that extends from just above the top of the basement rock all the way up to the bottom of the Milocene layer, meaning the fault occurred around 20 million years ago. Sediments continued to accumulate after the fault occurred to a depth of an additional 5 kilometers.
ABE: Looking for that picture of the South American formation, found "tepui" and Mt. Roraima which may be what I'm remembering but the picture that was posted here didn't show up. This one is maybe the closest:
Such enormous slabs of rock that originally had to have been strata suggest the Flood to my mind, and certainly not slow deposition over millions of years.
As has been pointed out to you countless times, the strata we see the world over bear no resemblance to flood layers. Those particular strata will have the same characteristics as all other layers indicating slow deposition over millions of year, including fine-grained sediments, different compositions of different layers, increasing differences of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth, the presence of footprints, burrows and nests, increasing levels of radiometric decay products with increasing depth, and unconformities.
And besides such gigantic flat slabs of rock there are all kinds of strange/ weird/ bizarre geological formations all over the world that I can't see ever getting reproduced on the Old Earth model, that all suggest the Flood to me.
Everything suggests the Flood to you. Your problem is that no evidence suggests the Flood.
Well, there's no point in arguing this out for the zillionth time but in a sense BOTH sides are making things up because that's pretty much all you can do with the prehistoric past.
No, both sides are not making things up. Only you are making things up and making assumptions. The only assumptions of science are that the same physical laws we observe in the universe today have been at work throughout its history. We know how those physical laws affect the Earth because we can see those forces and what they do on the Earth today. The present is the key to the past, and we can find the same types of structures that are forming today buried within sedimentary layers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-27-2014 11:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 7:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 370 of 740 (734450)
07-29-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
07-29-2014 7:29 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
But my point was that you are missing the forest for the trees. The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
What features do those strata have that requires a worldwide flood, and a recent one at that? Why couldn't partial flooding of the world, in the form of oceans and lakes, produce those features?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 371 of 740 (734451)
07-29-2014 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
07-29-2014 8:48 AM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
You'll probably think this moving the goalposts too, but here's where I question the validity of the Time Scale and suspect all those examples of interspersed layers and volcanic provinces are post-Flood. But this is tentative, don't jump down my throat yet.
No problem. BUT in order to (re)assign examples to a post-flood time period you need a way to determine where these stratigraphic sections fit that is NOT arbitrary. You can't just say "Well there was not tectonic or volcanic disturbances until after the flood so these must be post flood. There I have support for the flood model." You need a method of correlating geological features that is systematic, that I or anyone else can apply and come to the same conclusion. And that can also be applied to other geological features and get consistent results.
And I suspect I'm going to have to locate your Alaskan volcanoes after the Flood too.
Of course, otherwise... no flood. But that is an arbitrary assignment. What would be the justification for that?
It's not a presupposition, it's an observation from the cross section.
It is a presupposition. If there is indeed tremendous volcanic activity occurring in other parts of the world during the time when the Grand Canyon was "quiet," it ruins your whole premise. You start with the premise and work to make the data fit your premise - that is presupposition.
Because the idea that anything occurred in a period called the Triassic is bogus.
Case in point!
And I'm guessing now that if there exists a good cross section of Alaska the same order of events will show up.
Something you need to realize here is that volcanos occur at or near plate boundaries. These are areas of enormous stress and pressures. Usually these area are lifting up over the surrounding terrain because they are located above a subduction zone.
There is no reason to expect net sedimentation in these areas.
Conversely, sediments occur in low areas where energy levels and disturbances are relatively low which allows sediment to accumulate. If energy levels where as high, like in a volcanic area, sediment could not accumulate efficiently and would forced out into areas of lower energy.
You can think of them as basically opposite systems.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:14 AM herebedragons has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 372 of 740 (734452)
07-29-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
07-29-2014 8:10 AM


Re: igneous layers
Now everybody keeps saying I've been shown I'm wrong but if you consider my original frame of reference that really is not the case because the examples given don't meet the conditions of the geologic column as I was describing it. Except for the Cardenas layer. This is not moving goalposts, this is simply trying to keep the original context in mind.
Well, I'm not sure how many examples you need. It would seem that one would refute your argument, but since you want to move the goal posts, I will show a few other examples of volcanic rocks deposited in sequence with sedimentary units.
How about the Paterson Volcanics of NSW, upper Carboniferous rhyolites underlain by the Mount Johnstone Formation sandstones and conglomerates and overlain by the Seaham Formation conglomerates?
Or maybe you would prefer the Nikolai Greenstone, Permian/Triassic andesites and basalts overlain by various limestone units such as the Chitistone in southern Alaska.
And then there is one of our favorites, the Ordovician Valmy Formation in Nevada which is described here (Valmy) in part:
"A tectonically higher sheet of the older section consists of 1,000 feet of chert and interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and chert pebble conglomerate, overlain by greenstone breccia which grades laterally into pillow lavas containing pockets of limestone ... "
And,
100 feet of chert and cherty shale overlain by about 500 feet of pillow lavas, followed by 500 feet of interbedded sandstone, shale, and thin chert beds about 600 feet thick, ...
And then, more recently, the Sonoma Volcanics north of San Francisco where they are overlain by Pliocene-Pleistocene lake/river sediments.
Here is an example of a volcanic rock (Talkeetna Formation) that was emplaced, then eroded to form cobbles in the sedimentary Naknek Formation in southern Alaska.
Talkeetna Formation volcanic rocks exposed along the northern basin margin are dominated by mafic lava flows that are petrographically similar to basalt, andesite, and greenstone clasts contained in Naknek Formation conglomerate. (http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/jtrop/Naknek%20Preprint.pdf)
How many of these examples do you need?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:27 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 373 of 740 (734453)
07-29-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
07-29-2014 8:48 AM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
But the Triassic isn't a time period on the Flood model, ...
Irrelevant. You said that volcanism only occurred after the entire stratigraphic section in the world was deposited. As we have shown, this is not that case. There are numerous examples of volcanism being followed by continued sedimentation in rocks that date well within your flood time frame.
To deny the time scale here is not relevant to the discussion but only serves to divert the argument.
... it's just a layer in a stack of layers, ....
Yes, one that occurs within the time frame you are discussing.
... completely undisturbed in the GC area, ...
Yes, in the Grand Canyon.
Let's just leave the rest of the world out of it, right? If you are only going to talk about local rocks, we should be also talking about a local flood.
... and I would suppose very likely also in Alaska but that would require analyzing the same kind of cross sections for that area.
That's been done. And, frankly, I've done some of it...
These time-defined interspersed layers I'm pretty sure are going to turn out to be post-Flood phenomenon.
Don't equivocate, you are not 'pretty sure', you are 'certain'. That is the nature of dogma.
Your post is so loaded with errors that it boggles the mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 10:02 PM edge has not replied
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 6:15 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 374 of 740 (734460)
07-29-2014 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by JonF
07-29-2014 7:43 AM


fallible
She has started several times that her reading of the Bible is infallible.
Never said any such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 7:43 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by JonF, posted 07-30-2014 11:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 549 by Percy, posted 08-02-2014 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 375 of 740 (734461)
07-29-2014 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by edge
07-29-2014 1:59 PM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
These time-defined interspersed layers I'm pretty sure are going to turn out to be post-Flood phenomenon.
Don't equivocate, you are not 'pretty sure', you are 'certain'. That is the nature of dogma.
No, I am not, and cannot be, certain about any of the scientific questions we are talking about, and I also said that being fallen I also need help to read the Bible. The only dogma I've acknowledged is the Bible itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by edge, posted 07-29-2014 1:59 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Percy, posted 08-02-2014 4:03 PM Faith 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