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:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 224 (820848)
09-28-2017 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:40 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
quote:
Not happening the way the Stratigraphic Column was built. It was not built in basins or at the bottom of the sea,
Plenty of it was. How can you not know that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 7:34 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 116 of 224 (820851)
09-28-2017 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-28-2017 7:34 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"None
quote:
None of it was, it was all laid down in the Flood, one on top of another one after another.
That's your assumption, but the evidence says otherwise.
quote:
Look at them, they are all identical in form among all the other evidence I've given for the Flood and against the Geo Time Scale.
Maybe you should listen to the people who actually look at them, rather than relying on a few photographs which almost always show only a cross-section and often make it hard to pick out details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 7:34 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 136 of 224 (820895)
09-28-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-28-2017 4:09 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:
The idea that there were describable periods of time (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Triassic etc) with definable identifiable living things in some stage or other of "evolution" between the former and the next, each marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles, is so nonsensical I don't know how you all keep yourselves convinced. It can only be by some kind of strange delusion.
The idea that there were periods of time with identifiable and distinct fauna is clearly true. The strata and the fossils are all the evidence we need.
The idea that these periods are "marked by a slab of rock, a particular kind of sedimentary rock, some covering most of a continent, most at least thousands of square miles" is nonsensical. You just made it up. You certainly didn't get it from us or any mainstream geological source - or even from those Creationsts who know something about geology.
So please explain how you could possibly think that we believed that after all this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 4:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 157 of 224 (820925)
09-29-2017 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:34 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:
And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored but it is the main evidence that the strata were already in place when the GU was formed.
The overlying strata do not follow the tilt of the Supergroup. That is one of the evidences that the tilt occurred before they were deposited.
I assume that you are referring to what you call the "mounding" - but even then the question remains, specially as the "mounding" would be a later event anyway.
quote:
That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time.
It doesn't mean that the monadnocks were pushed up at all. The evidence that should be present if that occurred is completely missing. And even if you assume that it happened you have no connection between it and the "mounding"
quote:
One thing *I* find curious is that the erosion of motley sediments from mountains onto a plain that isn't anywhere near flat like the strata is made to account for the strata. This idea makes me feel like Geology is a big joke you are all playing on us. It's really hard to believe that you believe such an idea. Being subjected to this kind of intellectual deceit doesn't inspire me to care a lot about the debate.
Of course, even if you are correct that would only apply to terrestrial deposits, and not all of those. So, I suggest that you substantiate your accusation. Which strata are held to have been deposited in similar circumstances and are they really too flat ?
And then you can put yourself in our shoes, faced with a constant stream of falsehoods from you - repeated even after they are shown to be false. Being called "stupid" for telling the truth. Being accused of making personal attacks for pointing out the fact that you often avoid contrary evidence. How do you think that makes us feel?
quote:
"Pretty flat" does not describe the strata except after they've been subjected to a few thousand years of settling. Here is a picture of one place where the original flatness of the strata is very apparent:
Of course, distance is important - you won't see small deviations from flatness on that photograph. So is the original environment and you don't mention that either.
Until you actually deal with the relevant facts - the actual flatness, and the expected flatness you don't really have an argument.
quote:
There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out. The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet. Most of the mountains were pushed up by the great tectonic upheaval that separated the continents and played some big role in the receding of the Flood waters.
And so we come back to one of the original arguments for an Old Earth. The quantity of erosion. However, since we have good evidence for the erosion and none for a young Earth your argument fails. You're pretty much begging the question by asssuming you are right at the start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 159 of 224 (820927)
09-29-2017 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
09-29-2017 2:56 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:
The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata olf the Stratigraphic Column could not have been formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain like the one in the picture, and to say it could just makes you one of the deceivers.
The strata of the stratigraphic columns are many and varied. Before accusing me of deception you need to identify which of the strata are said to be "formed from motley sediments falling off a mountain onto a plain" and show that they are not.
quote:
And the amount of erosion we see in the hoodoos and all the formations of the American Southwest counts back a few thousand years, not millions.
Really ? Please substantiate this claim. Note that erosion depends on environmental conditions, as well as the hardness - and form - of the rock. Also, that when Lyell came up with the argument he was hardly looking at the American Southwest.
(Although I personally think that the Grand Canyon is an excellent counter-example)
quote:
Deceivers galore on this subject.
Then you had better substantiate your accusations. Because if you don't we will know that you are the deceiver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:43 AM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 161 of 224 (820935)
09-29-2017 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:43 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
quote:
You just proved the futility of this whole debate, not that it's anything new, it's par for the course and I'm an idiot for continuing in it.
In other words debate is "futile" unless you are allowed to make unsubstantiated accusations against your opponents. Nice coming from someone who continually complains about "personal attacks" whenever any criticism comes their way.
quote:
The strata are NOT different in form,
It's certainly not true that all strata are flat, with no sign of erosion. Consider the monadnocks, or the channel being used as examples.
quote:
the idea that I need to differentiate between particular ones claimed to be produced by sediments falling on the plain from some formed some other way is just more of the same kind of deceit.
Certainly it is not. Strata are composed of differing materials, have differing levels of flatness, greatly differing extents.
quote:
Edge did not identify any particular strata, he just implied that strata can be formed that way, or even on a sea shore, and there are NO strata that could POSSIBLY be formed that way, and yes it's OBVIOUS. If you can't see it you must be blinded by bias.
We know that strata do form on a sea shore and that they include eroded material (sand) so it is hard to see what your objection is.
quote:
The rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known, you can go find it yourself though it's been posted somewhere here too, and the rate is consistent with a few thousand years, certainly not millions
And it doesn't matter. You can't prove a universal from a single example (and it is not clear that you are right - how long did it take for the hoodoos to form in the first place - that is a lot of erosion, how much height has been lost ?)
quote:
Substantiate it yourself. This debate is a sham.
By which you mean that you are losing because this debate is not a sham. If we were to unquestionably believe your every claim, if we have to do the work of supporting your points, this debate would truly be a sham. And yet that is exactly what you seem to be demanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:43 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 163 of 224 (820945)
09-29-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
quote:
The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers
Wrong. There isn't even a "the stratigraphic column" except perhaps as an abstraction combining the findings of many local stratigraphic columns.
I won't address the point about the strata you posted until I have actual information on what they are. Obviously you have to deal with the actual claims about how they were deposited and even you don't seem to know about that.
quote:
And now I'm being challenged on the time it took for the hoodoos to erode to their present condition. I did think the rate of erosion was pretty standard knowledge but now I have to substantiate it.
The current rate of erosion of the hoodoos is known. How to apply that to the erosion forming them without far more information certainly is not. If you want to claim that the present state was arrived it in only a few thousand years then obviously you have to address that, not the current rate at which they are disappearing. This is basic stuff, Faith.
quote:
Sorry, I can't do it, I'm not up to it, and again it's OBVIOUS that that degree of erosion did not take millions of years, or even a hundred thousand
If it took ten thousand years your view is in deep trouble. And as I keep pointing out you can't prove that a few thousand years is enough to account for all erosion just from a single example. It's a ridiculous fallacy.
quote:
The expansion and contraction of the rock with seasonal temperature changes causes grains to fall off, forming the hoodoo shape. The same occurs with all the formations of the American Southwest. That rate of erosion alone shows that the strata of which they are composed was laid down just a few thousand years ago, supporting the Flood, not the Geological Time Scale.
Wrong, by my understanding Bryce Canyon is somewhat special, second you haven't made a valid estimate of the time required for anything, third all you could get from that is the time the erosion of those rocks started. It wouldn't and couldn't prove the Flood at all.
quote:
The actual appearance of the strate of the Stratigraphic Column proves the Flood
You say that, but you haven't even really addressed the topic of this thread yet.
quote:
And I'm sick to death of having to argue with idiotic objections to obvious points.
You know, if all you can come up with is idiotic objections then maybe you should admit defeat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 8:09 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 181 of 224 (820996)
09-30-2017 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
quote:
There are different portions or versions of the Stratigraphic Column in different locations, but there is still only one Stratigraphic Column, to which is attached the Geological Time Scale, illustrated thusly
You mistake a very simplified illustration - which was never intended to accurately depict real geology - for geological fact. And after the many discussions here you really, really ought to see that. Do you think the fact that the live pterodactyl in the diagram is meant to show that pterodactyls are still around today? Hardly a good start.
quote:
And by the way it goes up to the present time and it stops there with every indication that it is completed.
[
So it doesn't include material that will be deposited in the future. That's your argument ? The top level is the Holocene. That is now.
quote:
There are no other layers being added to this stack. Wherever they are being laid down it is not as a continuation of this stack.
That's your opinion, and you have yet to adequately support it. Even your diagram disagrees.
quote:
You will deny this because you must, because if it isn't continuing it proves that it was the result of the Flood. So the debate is over isn't it?
You know the fact that you are foolishly misinterpreting a diagram is a perfectly good reason for disagreeing with you. If you actually had a better case you could present it. Making personal attacks to try to cover your lack of a case is hardly an honest tactic.
quote:
And yes the claim that a stretch of desert could become strata is so ludicrous you should give it up immediately.
Given the fact that there are strata which show evidence of having been deserts it is hardly ludicrous to suggest that the same might happen to existing deserts.
quote:
Strata are FLAT, ALL of them are originally laid down FLAT and the picture I posted is a nice illustration of that.
Real strata are quite often not flat. And the diagram you posted is not intended to show otherwise. Although deserts are pretty flat, and the compression needed to lithify them would tend to flatten them further.
quote:
. It also suggests the absurdity of assigning a time period to such a formation but that also won't be obvious to you because at all costs you must not think such a thing
And another false personal attack to try to cover up the fact that you can't support your silly opinion. Or even really explain what you mean by it.
quote:
I have to argue this stuff because Geology HAS to believe it can cobble strata together out of a desert plain which is impossible. You CAN'T entertain anything else. The debate is over.
And another personal attack to cover up the fact you have no case. Geology looks at the actual rocks in detail and finds correspondences with features of the surface (including sea and lake and river beds). You don't. You just want to throw out all that work without even bothering to look at it. I guess you have to. You know that the evidence shows that you are wrong. You declare the debate over because you know you can't win in any honest way.
quote:
And yes the time it has taken to carve the hoodoos by erosion is the time since the Flood. That you have to deny as well. The debate is over.
And that's just an assumption. Since you can't support it you just issue another personal attack and declare the debate over.
quote:
But all three of those observations support the Flood and kill the Geological Time Scale. Along with all the others I've made over the last ten or so years. But it's all denied and explained away in the most ludicrous fashion.
Says the person who ludicrously misinterprets a diagram and thinks it a good argument. i need say no more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 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