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: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 638 of 740 (734963)
08-03-2014 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 626 by Percy
08-03-2014 7:29 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you. I never said waves scour the landscape, I've said the forty days and nights of rain which would bring about something on the order of millions of local scale floods all at once. THAT is what scours the land. Then all the sediments that have been washed down in those countless small floods get mixed into the rising ocean water etc etc etc etc etc. But there you are with your local flood again as if it holds any clues to what a Flood a bazillion times its size would do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 626 by Percy, posted 08-03-2014 7:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 640 of 740 (734975)
08-03-2014 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by edge
08-03-2014 11:41 PM


It's not a premise, I believe that's what the diagram evidences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 11:41 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 641 by edge, posted 08-04-2014 12:08 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 659 of 740 (735033)
08-05-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by JonF
08-04-2014 2:06 PM


Yes that was my theory and I still haven't given it up completely, but there's no real problem if there were volcanoes during the Flood. I used to thinkj that until the Grand Canyon area seemed to show otherwise. So far the evidence is those two tuffs in the Muav from you and a Nevada formation from edge - oh I think that was pillow lava which forms underwater, it's been a few days since I looked it up and I haven't researched others on his list. Pillows and tuffs aren't really a problem. Or sills and dikes. Layers are, though, like the Cardenas.
The thing about faults is there's no way to tell for sure the timing of when they formed so I don't know how anybody can say they prove anything about when the layers were deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by JonF, posted 08-04-2014 2:06 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 8:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 662 by Pressie, posted 08-05-2014 8:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 08-05-2014 8:58 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 661 of 740 (735037)
08-05-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 656 by Percy
08-04-2014 1:05 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you.
I think you're just saying this to provoke a response, instigate a crisis.
I'm completely sincere. It's been a problem for quite a while now.
Faith writes:
I never said waves scour the landscape, I've said the forty days and nights of rain which would bring about something on the order of millions of local scale floods all at once.
Well, then I guess I misinterpreted this from your Message 455:
Faith in Message 455 writes:
Huge waves would have to have occurred somewhere in this process, though, because tides didn't stop and waves don't stop coming up over the land when there is still land for them to come up over. When the water was so heavy with sediments from the scouring, such a wave could have contributed quite a bit of deposition.
Perhaps you did misinterpret that. It's not about scouring the land but about depositing sediments. Mostly I was just taking into account the kinds of behavior we should expect from the ocean such as tides, waves, currents etc. It would have had some effect. And it would have been encroaching from all sides of the continents, or the single continent that was there at that time, which is also interesting to ponder.
So I guess the scouring you mention here isn't from the waves but from the rain. But you say the rain caused "millions of local scale floods", and local scale floods do not scour landscapes. How do you see the landscape being scoured down a depth of miles?
I just posted a news report at my blog on the rain in California that shows cars buried in mud. That was merely one day of very heavy rain and it did a lot of damage. Granted it rained in a fire-devastated area in the mountains which offered little resistance to the water, while in a lush area with heavy foliage, which is the usual understanding of the pre-Flood world, it would presumably take a lot more time to dislodge roots and loosen the soil, but forty days and nights really ought to be sufficient.
I really don't see why you have so much trouble with this concept of such a massive water disaster scouring the land. It would be turning everything to mud that could turn to mud, and the mud would be running down from the high places to the low places. All over the whole land mass. Perhaps it's possible it didn't TOTALLY devastate everything, scour it all down completely, who knows, but it's hard to see how that much destructive water both falling on the land and rising in the ocean flood waters wouldn't have broken up everything. Again I refer you to mudslides in California, but it's really very common for such mudslides to occur in a heavy rain after just a very short time of it.
But there you are with your local flood again as if it holds any clues to what a Flood a bazillion times its size would do.
But it was you who described the great Flood as many local floods growing and combining.
I finally described it that way after all the references to "floods" or "a flood" that don't get anywhere near what the scale of the thing must have been. If you're going to compare it to local floods, think of millions of them happening at once everywhere, that's the idea.
I agree that that makes a lot of sense in a scenario where it begins raining and just never stops, but it isn't going to scour a landscape down by miles, or even feet in most places.
Oh good you agree with something. Hip hip hooray. But I don't know where you get your certainty about how much dirt all that water would have moved. Whole hillsides collapse under heavy rain out here in the west, hillsides with houses on them that slide along with the mud and end up half buried in it, after just a few days of very heavy rain. It shouldn't be too hard to multiply that effect in your head quite a bit beyond "a few feet" for an event characterized by relentless rain on every square inch of real estate for forty days and nights, causing everything to run down as mud everywhere. By which time the flood water should have risen up to meet it and further wash it all down. Miles deep? Who knows, but it certainly seems possible to me.
When a low lying region is already filled with water how are there going to be any scouring flows? How could water be flowing violently into a region already filled with water?
It's the turning of dry land into soggy mud and making innumerable mudslides everywhere that I'm thinking of as the scouring process and that should have happened to a great depth during those first forty days and nights. Very few hills left after all that I would suppose. Given that a day or three of heavy rain can collapse hills intio muddy rivers NOW, I just extrapolate to what would happen to millions of hills. Perhaps there were areas that remained relatively intact, who knows. I just want to get across to people who speak in terms of what they've seen local floods do as their model for THE Flood, that that's WAY out of scale.
Also, the antediluvian landscape would not have been covered by sediments. Land, for the most part, is most often a region of net erosion, not deposition, and even if this were not true, 4300 years is simply too short a time for any significant amount of sediments to have accumulated.
Well, as I keep saying, there is no way to prove unwitnessed events in the past, we're at the mercy of our ability to imagine and interpret. And I always find yours rather smallscale for such an event as a worldwide Flood. But also the antediluvian landscape would have been covered by heavy growth probably everywhere, with strong root systems holding all the soil in place, and there was no rain until the forty days and nights that inaugurated the Flood so there should really have been relatively little erosion. And do you mean 4300 years or one year, because one year is the time period in which the Flood would have laid down the sediments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by herebedragons, posted 08-05-2014 7:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 709 by Percy, posted 08-06-2014 8:10 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 663 of 740 (735040)
08-05-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 662 by Pressie
08-05-2014 8:42 AM


I'm not interested in continuing at EvC so you don't need to worry, I'm just doing a mop up operation and I'll be gone.
As for faults, I see no reason why they couldn't form underground without reaching the surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by Pressie, posted 08-05-2014 8:42 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 8:53 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 664 of 740 (735041)
08-05-2014 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by Percy
08-04-2014 11:33 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
The Plio Pleistocene follows the contour of the deformed strata beneath showing it's been there some time and uisn't a recent deposit. I have no problem with deposition continuing by the way, I just don't see it on the diagram.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 11:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 711 by Percy, posted 08-06-2014 8:41 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 666 of 740 (735044)
08-05-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by Taq
08-04-2014 1:05 PM


No I am not saying that layers would be horizontal NOW, only when they were deposited, after which faulting, in this case, deformed them. The point was that NEW deposition on top of old deformed layers would deposit with a horizontal flat surface and even if that was subsequently also deformed it wouldn't conform to the shape of the previously deformed strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Taq, posted 08-04-2014 1:05 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by Taq, posted 08-05-2014 1:37 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 669 of 740 (735047)
08-05-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by JonF
08-05-2014 8:53 AM


Well I hadn't yet got to that post but now I feel no need whatsoever. Percy's ability to speculate is not very impressive and I think I'll just leave it at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 8:53 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:36 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 670 of 740 (735048)
08-05-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 668 by RAZD
08-05-2014 8:59 AM


That is in fact the sort of reasoning I have brought to my own ponderings of the ages of the faults. I'll continue my thoughts elsewhere though, probably at my blog. The company here has become noxious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2014 8:59 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 672 of 740 (735050)
08-05-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 667 by Percy
08-05-2014 8:58 AM


Oh yes, I did forget an important point: the formations made up of interspersed layers of volcanic and sedimentary layers that many posted appear to be volcanic in origin, the whole formation, that is why I don't include them in my view of the basically sedimentary Geologic Column. I still have to research this stuff, but I won't be reporting on it here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Percy, posted 08-05-2014 8:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:39 AM Faith has replied
 Message 680 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:41 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 673 of 740 (735052)
08-05-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 671 by PaulK
08-05-2014 9:03 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Well it does and it doesn't, but I was making a general point as I recall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:16 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 675 of 740 (735056)
08-05-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by PaulK
08-05-2014 9:16 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
You need the Base tertiary to show some sign of original horizontality, especially since it isn't faulted, which it doesn't, and you also have to take the salt dome into account that pushes it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 9:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 677 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:35 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 682 of 740 (735070)
08-05-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by edge
08-05-2014 11:35 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 11:35 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 690 by PaulK, posted 08-05-2014 12:27 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 683 of 740 (735071)
08-05-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by JonF
08-05-2014 11:51 AM


Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:51 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 12:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 686 of 740 (735075)
08-05-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 679 by JonF
08-05-2014 11:39 AM


I have hardly even begun to think about this stuff and I certainly have no interest in discussing it with people whose whole M.O. is debunkery and ridicule of anything I say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by JonF, posted 08-05-2014 11:39 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by edge, posted 08-05-2014 12:20 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