Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 71 of 224 (820739)
09-25-2017 6:47 PM


All Faith's Evidence
Faith continually claims to have described evidence, so here in this message I list every piece of evidence Faith has described in this thread. I'm not talking about claims to have already described evidence someplace else, and I'm not talking about declarations without evidence of what Faith think happened, but evidence actually described in this thread:
  • <nothing>
That's all there is and there ain't no more.
Here's a list of all Faith's claims for having described evidence, or of referencing evidence that she doesn't describe and doesn't say how to find:
  • I think there is evidence that volcanic activity began...
  • ...and whatever the evidence is...
  • I believe I have shown a great deal of evidence for the Young Earth, especially for rapid deposition of the strata, the absence of any actual evidence for the time periods in those strata and in fact the logical impossibility of the whole Old Earth Geological Time Scale.
  • I also believe I've shown evidence for rapid evolution within the Kind that is genetically limited to the Kind.
  • Showing evidence for the Young Earth has been the aim of many of my threads...
  • NO, I ACTUALLY SEE IT, AND I'VE POINTED IT OUT ON MANY CROSS SECTIONS... AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED HOW THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO MY CONCLUSIONS.
  • AND YES I HAVE SEEN AND I HAVE SHOWN THE EVIDENCE.
  • ...my evidence is very good for MY side, conclusive in my opinion.
  • Well, there is plenty of evidence for that scenario that I've shown many times already.
If Faith actually described evidence half as often as she claims she'd be well ahead of the game.
The topic of this thread is how the stratigraphic sequence reflects Walther's Law. Faith has already revealed she hasn't a clue of how Walther's Law works, and I think she should start by trying to understand it. I attempt to describe Walther's Law in detail in Message 67, so that would be one possible place to start.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 73 of 224 (820745)
09-26-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Minnemooseus
09-26-2017 3:45 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Minnemooseus writes:
Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea.
This has a couple fatal problems, but fine, we'll start with this as an assumption.
I'm going to modify this next quote extensively to remove ambiguity:
The ocean levels rose with their loads of sediment and began washing over the land. The sediments were deposited on the land in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence". Then the seas receded, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
Calling this a "grungy version of Walther's Law" is misleading because it isn't Walther's Law at all. Walther's Law requires an environment that stays in place long enough to produce and deposit sediment types unique to that environment. Seacoast environments produce sand, further offshore produce shale, further offshore produce slate, further offshore produce limestone (in warmer climes), further offshore or other climes produce calcareous ooze.
So for example, a particular section of sandstone strata was once a spot that was seacoast for a very long time. It takes seacoast a very long time to produce significant amounts of sand. Sand is produced by the normal slow runoff from the land that is acted upon by the agitated waters of the seacoast, like on beaches and such. Sand isn't on beaches because it's been carried there from somewhere else. Sand is on beaches because beaches are where sand is produced. We know it was produced there (and not carried there) because it is made up of the same particles that run off from the land at that particular location. Hawaii has beaches where the sand is fine volcanic rock. Australia has some beaches made of ground up coral.
A transgression occurs when the coastline slowly moves inland, either because of rising waters or subsiding land or a combination. The movement inland has to be slow because it takes a very long time to produce sand in the quantities seen in sandstone strata. Inches per year would probably be a maximum average rate for coastal waters to move inland while leaving behind deposits that followed Walther's Law.
Walther's Law definitely is *not* flood waters rushing across a landscape and dropping a load of sediment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-26-2017 3:45 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 11:52 AM Percy has replied
 Message 79 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2017 1:51 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 77 of 224 (820760)
09-26-2017 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Phat
09-26-2017 3:02 PM


Re: Topic Focus
Phat writes:
...keep the explanations brief and concise.
Agreed, but that is very challenging with Walther's Law. These key concepts must be all be grasped:
  • Simultaneous but distinct sedimentary environments each at different distances from shore.
  • The entire collection of sedimentary environments move imperceptibly together inland or outland.
  • As it moves each sedimentary environment gradually and laterally extends its carpet of sediments. This is how a sedimentary layer becomes great in extent, by its original sedimentary environment moving gradually across the landscape.
Note to RAZD: Can you find a higher resolution image? I couldn't make out any of the text.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 09-26-2017 3:02 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 8:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 81 of 224 (820773)
09-27-2017 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Minnemooseus
09-27-2017 1:51 AM


Re: Stripping the Earth' surface and moving the material to the sea
Minnemooseus writes:
That may be Faith's vision, producing the sediments out of the ocean basins, but my hallucination produces the sediments from the land surfaces exposed to the waterfalls of rain.
I said exactly the same thing you said, only in more words to remove the ambiguity. My modified version did not have the sediments being produced out of the ocean basins. Here's what I said again:
Percy in Message 73 writes:
Minnemooseus writes:
Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock, and send it all washing to the sea.
This has a couple fatal problems, but fine, we'll start with this as an assumption.
I'm going to modify this next quote extensively to remove ambiguity:
The ocean levels rose with their loads of sediment and began washing over the land. The sediments were deposited on the land in some grungy version of what is being called a "Walther's Law sequence". Then the seas receded, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
It's all there, everything you said and describing the exact same process, but with the last part modified to remove ambiguity. The ambiguity issue in your text arose when you said, "There the sediments would be deposited...", and since the antecedent was "sea" your text had the sediments being deposited in the sea. I modified the text so that it was clear that the sediments were being deposited on the land as the ocean levels rose.
My hallucination is the "Walther's Law" sedimentation process in hyperdrive. Massive amount of sediments being washed off the land, into a rapidly rising sea. The results would be similar to the standard non-hyperdrive deposits, except I would expect the sands to be much less mature (meaning that the sands would include much more rock fragments and less chemically and abrasionally resistant minerals, as opposed to a mature sand being more purely quartz).
At first I thought your goal was to help Faith by providing the details of how Walther's Law would work in her accelerated scenario, but then you provide details that make clear that it doesn't work, such as producing "immature sand" that is definitely not what we observe (and in such a short period of time you wouldn't even get "immature sand" or anything that resembled sand, just mud), and the lack of time to produce the limestone strata, and that the beaches I mentioned in Hawaii and Australia would actually be mud.
So after seeing your descriptions of these things that definitely conflict with what is observed I decided that your goal must be to show how Faith's ideas don't work, but in that case it makes no sense to me to call it "Walther's Law in hyperdrive." Nothing in Faith's scenario is a process that is part of Walther's Law. Flood waters moving across a landscape is a flood, not Walther's Law in action, and it leaves behind the kind of evidence that floods leave behind like mud and detritus all mixed up in a disorganized mess, not distinct strata.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2017 1:51 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 82 of 224 (820774)
09-27-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
09-26-2017 11:52 AM


Re: Walther's law images
I found a high quality version of the image and replaced it in your post.
I think you're communicating the information Faith needs, but I also think that each step of the process of cutting up the paper into strips and relabeling them needs to be better described, perhaps showing how the first few layers are constructed one at a time. It might also help to explain that the paper strips are just moving back and forth according to whether the sea has transgressed or regressed. And to mention that the deposits are always found in the same order. And to bring in the relevant information from other messages rather than just linking to them. And probably other things.
Don't get me wrong. What you did is excellent, and once you get it then it's obvious, but the concepts aren't simple, and how the pieces fit together diagramatically in a meaningful way isn't immediately clear. I had to stare at your colored columns for some minutes before it dawned on me what you were doing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2017 11:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2017 10:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 100 of 224 (820818)
09-27-2017 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:20 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Minnemooseus writes:
Faith writes:
You are probably confusing the condition of the Earth at Creation with its condition as a result of the Fall and the Flood, which had to have rearranged things tremendously.
You are invoking a flood of such miraculous powers, that it could mimic producing the results of every known geologic mechanism.
I don't grasp how this is an answer to what I said.
I was responding to your Message 6 where you were saying something about the "created kind" in an unfamiliar context.
Yes, that's true, he's using "created kind" in an unfamiliar context.
That is, the "kinds" in YEC theology are all living things, but you seem to be extending the concept to the physical world.
Well, sort of. I would say he was drawing an analogy, not extending a concept. He started with creationism's created kinds, where all life exists just as God originally created it living in an ecosystem consisting of weather and landscape and so forth. Then he drew an analogy with the Earth as a created kind, where all minerals and water and so forth also exist just as God created them in an ecosystem consisting of erosion and sedimentation and earthquakes and so forth. The analogy holds no appeal for me so I won't defend it, but that's the analogy he was making.
In any case I answered that you don't seem to be making a distinction between what was originally created, either living things or physical world, and what happened to both as a result of the Fall.
Something happened geologically as a result of the Fall? What, pray tell? It has nothing to do with this thread, but I'm curious.
Since what we see today is the ruined condition of the Creation it's hard to be sure what the original state of things was.
What we see today contains no evidence of a Creation resembling anything in the Bible. We can be pretty sure of the general process of Earth's creation based on the evidence before our very eyes.
I don't happen to believe in the idea of apparent age.
For the average creationist there is the idea of apparent age, while for you there is the denial of even the idea of apparent age. Your refusal to discuss sedimentary processes (one example of this avoidance in this thread is Taq's Message 68 that you haven't replied to) and radiometric dating makes this very clear.
Not sure what it has to do with mineral resources either.
Moose probably meant to refer to minerals in general rather than mineral resources. The phrase "mineral resources" brings to mind veins of valuable ores like copper and tin and iron and silver and gold. I think Moose was just referring to all the types of minerals that exist all across the Earth, many of which require complex and very time consuming processes to create. Minerals represent more evidence of the appearance of great age. If the Earth is actually young then there was no time to create these minerals, so they must have been created by God.
I've wondered what the original condition of those minerals was. Now they are scattered here and there but originally my guess is they had some definable form and location though I can't piece together a clear idea of that.
You are again free-basing on speculation.
Here's where you are clearly not distinguishing between the original Creation and the destruction caused by the Fall, which wrought "thorns and thistles"...
Again, are you implying that there was any geological destruction as a result of the Fall? There's certainly nothing about it in the passages anywhere near that "thorns and thistles" phrase. I'm not trying to bring the Bible into the discussion - I'm just trying to understand the origin of your interpretation of what happened.
...plus the destruction caused by the Flood which rearranged all that "dirt"...
"Dirt" is something else that takes a very long time to produce, and so "dirt" must be included among Moose's minerals as something that must have been part of the original creation.
...plus the tectonic event that split the continents that I believe the GS-GC cross section shows to have occurred...
You believe there's something in the strata of the Grand Staircase that is evidence for the tectonic events that split the continents? Whatever would that be?
...after all the strata were laid down by the Flood waters,...
The strata have the opposite appearance of flood deposits.
...at the time the water receded,...
You reject all dating techniques, so how would you know when the continents split relative to when the fictional Flood waters receded?
...as well as the volcanism, all destructive processes that seem to be connected to the Flood.
More pure fiction on your part. You reject all dating techniques and so have no way of knowing when the volcanism happened (other than it came after the sedimentary layers were deposited), and you have no way of connecting it to your fictional Flood.
That's the basic part of my YEC Model. Nothing miraculous is necessary to it,...
The Flood was an act of God, so of course the miraculous is necessary to it. Your decisions about what happened miraculously and what didn't is just a fantasy world you've constructed. There's not an ounce of evidence for it in the real world, and there certainly isn't anything about it in the Biblical myths, either. You don't have geology or theology or biology or any -ology except Faithology.
...just the unprecedented magnitude of the Flood itself,...
There's nothing unprecedented about the magnitude of the Flood. The world's oceans already cover about 3/4 of the planet.
...but if you put your mind to trying to account for what such a worldwide event might have done...
You haven't put any effort at all into deducing what a worldwide flood would do. This is self-evident in that you invoke none of the processes that we know take place in floods, and you ignore a great many physical laws, too.
...I think it can probably explain what is now taken for complex time-determined events that are partly complex because not seen as connected the way I see them.
Fantasy cannot be used to explain reality.
Faith writes:
It's probably the disorderliness that is being interpreted as "long and complex processes" and the "Rube Goldberg" effect.
Again, you're invoking a flood of miraculous powers, that could mimic...
As I say above I don't see it as miraculous,...
Your opinion doesn't mean much because you simply ignore real world processes and physical laws. For someone who believes in talking snakes and Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt and Moses stretching out his hand to separate the sea, you have a stunning inability to recognize the miraculous in your own extra-Biblical ideas.
...and since I believe the Flood caused most of what you interpret as those "long and complex processes," as described above, it's the Old Earth explanations that are being imposed on the Flood facts, not the other way around.
Except that the Flood doesn't have any facts. If it had facts you'd be talking about them, instead of putting your ignorance of science on full display.
Look, your flood is a marine transgression and regression onto and off of the continents. Your 40 days and nights of (world wide?) intensive rains would strip the Earths surface of anything that wasn't solid rock,
Thank you for recognizing that since others sometimes deny it.
I think, or at least I hope, that Moose was simply summarizing your view, not endorsing it as something he himself accepts.
Not sure why "grungy" but I do have a less than textbook version of Walther's Law in mind for the Flood.
You don't have any version of Walther's Law in mind, textbook or otherwise.
Just the fact that rising sea level deposits sediments HAS to apply to the Flood transgression and regression too.
A flood moving across a landscape is not Walther's Law or anything close, and it deposits mud, not stratified layers.
I don't know why Percy felt he had to picture the deposits the length of the shoreline...
By definition Walther's Law must apply across the length of the coastline. Sediments seek the lowest point, and there is no lower point on a landscape than a coastline. Come on, Faith, just use some common sense and logic at least once in a while.
Sediments from both the scoured off land and the deep parts of the sea are in the strata and surely there is enough going on in a worldwide Flood to account for both.
Except that there's no evidence of scoured off land on a world-wide scale. The strata we see reflect the depositional environments where the sediments came to rest.
What ought to be much harder to account for is the idea that any of those huge sedimentary deposits occurred incrementally over millions of years,...
What would be much harder to explain would be a process that we can observe today going on before our very eyes, namely sediments being deposited at all the lowest points around the globe (mostly lake and sea bottom), and that appears identical to the strata we observe, but that wasn't the process that created those strata. Existing strata are consistent with current sedimentary processes in that they seem to have occurred at the same rate, one that is consistent with the radiometric dates, and that is also consistent with the changing fossil types with increasing depth.
...or even in periodic "shallow" transgressions and regressions.
Do you mean "shallow" as opposed to the depth of the Flood? A sea or lake may be shallow or deep or somewhere in between, but nothing can change the fact that the depositional environments will becoming increasingly different with increasing distance from shore, with sand forming at coastlines, slate and shale further out, limestone further out yet, and pelagic deposits in the regions furthest from shore. The thickness of sedimentary deposits is a function of how slowly or quickly the transgression or regression (i.e., the longer a depositional environment spends in a single location the deeper will be the deposits). These are the important concepts. There's not really any such thing as "shallow" transgressions and regressions.
Then the seas would recede, leaving behind a single "Walther's Law sequence".
Why?
I of course believe Moose shouldn't be using the term Walther's Law in a Flood context, but the reason he's saying this is because the Flood could only transgress once and regress once. It's in the Bible, check it out.
...is all that the "mother of all unconformities" you have in mind?
I think that what Moose means by the "mother of all unconformities" is where the Flood stripped all the land off the continents. The first layer of strata deposited upon the denuded landscape would represent a world-wide unconformity.
It's even possible isn't it that the surface on which the sediments BEGAN to be deposited isn't even visible anywhere?
You're again arguing for a point of view that by your own admission has no evidence.
Not quite sure what you are picturing here but given the originally extremely fertile condition of the pre-Flood world...
There is no geologic or fossil evidence for an "extremely fertile condition" in the world, pre-Flood or any other time, nor is such a state mentioned in the Bible. This is your own fantasy.
...plus the extraordinary vitality of pre-Flood living things seeds should have germinated pretty rapidly in whatever surface presented itself in a given location still wet from the Flood. This level of vitality would be vitiated over the ensuing decades and centuries (as human longevity also decreased over the next few denturies) but it should have provided a good start to the reseeding of the post-Flood environment.
This is just more of your fantasy.
Unfortunately I've lost interest in debating anything,...
Oh, what a surprise, you don't want to debate anymore. Well, actually, maybe not so much a surprise. I suppose most of us have little interest in debating things where our ignorance would be so profoundly displayed.
When Percy, or anybody, discounts the Flood as just a "religious idea" it's clear there's no fighting the prevailing perspective.
Don't blame it on me. The fault lies with you, for arguing a position completely unsupported by any evidence and in fact completely contradicted by the evidence.
I may go through and pick out statements here and there I want to answer but I realize that is frustrating to people who are here to try to destroy the whole idea of the worldwide Flood that I KNOW happened about 4500 years ago.
You know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago the same way you know snakes can talk.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:00 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 102 of 224 (820822)
09-27-2017 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
09-27-2017 3:38 PM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
The straightness and flatness of the original (not tectonically deformed) strata and the tight contacts between many of them are evidence of rapid deposition.
This argument might for some reason make sense to you, but not to anyone else. Not anyone else anywhere. The vast majority of (the very slow) sedimentation around the world today is taking place on flat surfaces, and the contact points of one piece of sediment with those around it is tight.
The fact that the Geologic (Stratigraphic) Column has in fact come to a stopping point despite strained efforts to pretend it is still ongoing, is evidence of its being pretty recent.
I can't believe you are repeating yet again one of the most stupid and ignorant things you could say. All around the world there is rain and wind and flowing water causing erosion and weathering, and all the tiny particles of that erosion and weathering are ending up somewhere, usually eventually the mostly flat bottoms of seas and lakes, and that's what we call sedimentation. And it's occurring right at the top of the current stratigraphic column. And when the deposits become deeply buried enough then the pressure (and also sometimes heat) causes a process called lithification that turns the deposits to rock. Which is how all the strata formed that you see in the walls of the Grand Canyon.
This is why you can't convince anyone of anything. Even a blind creationist understands that sedimentation atop the stratigraphic column has to still be occurring today. There is no possible way it couldn't be happening. Erosion and weathering did not stop after the flood, there is no possible force that could stop it, and so sedimentation continues.
ENORMOUS amounts of distorting erosion between layers, that often cuts deeply into lower layers, the sort of thing that would have occurred during millions of years at the surface of the earth.
But a landscape that is uneven is one that is still subject to erosion, not sedimentation. Sedimentation happens at the lowest, flatest levels (think sea and lake beds).
I live in New Hampshire, here's an image from a bit north of my location:
Sedimentation is not happening here. This landscape is never going to be preserved in the geological record. Now here's an image from a bit east of me by the seacoast:
See how flat? This is where sedimentation is likely to be occurring. Of course the sediments also continue on into the sea, but low flat regions like this is where sedimentation occurs, and that is why most of the strata we find in the geologic record are flat.
Some signs of former vegetation BETWEEN the layers too, maybe petrified downed trees; distortions in a single layer here and there because of such obstacles, instead of the remarkably conformed flatness of sediment upon sediment.
Sometimes the vegetation *is* preserved. Sometimes so much of it is preserved (and transformed by heat and pressure) that we expend a lot of effort pumping it out of the ground so we can burn it in our cars.
More variety in the sediments, not any of the clear demarcation between say a limestone and a sandstone. Why should that occur on the surface of the earth ever?
Well, if you'd been reading posts instead of ignoring you would have seen this explained dozens of times, including a few times in this very thread. It's called Walther's Law, something you have yet to understand.
What exists is evidence of massive water deposition, ALL the strata following the same pattern of flatness and straightness.
We've been over this (at least I think we have - I posted it, but that doesn't mean you read it). Let me repeat the list of items from Message 65 that the Flood did not do
  • Sorts material into different strata.
  • Sorts strata out of order regarding density.
  • Sorts fossils out of order regarding fossil size/density.
  • Sorts fossils by order of increasing difference from modern forms with increasing depth.
  • Sorts strata by increasing radiometric age with increasing depth.
  • Maintains tracks and burrows.
  • Creates unconformities.
  • Creates angular unconformities (don't forget to include where all the missing material went)
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 119 of 224 (820858)
09-28-2017 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:30 PM


Re: OE assumptions
Faith writes:
Actually, the main thing is that there isn't a sane reason at all for there even to BE any strata to "evidence long periods of deposition." Why should there be ANY flat straight sedimentary rocks at all, let alone neatly stacked miles deep as we see for instance in the Grand Canyon?
Most of the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon are marine. They are flat and straight because lake and sea beds tend to be flat and straight, and a continual rain of sediments evens out any irregularities.
If you have continual deposition say from eroding mountains why should it be of any identifiable sediment rather than the tumble-down lumpy surface we see around us today?
You live in Nevada. Here's an image of the Ruby Mountain Range viewed from the plains surrounding it:
The mountains in the distance will never be preserved in the geological record. That's because mountains are regions of net erosion, not deposition. The mountains are being gradually eroded away into fine particles that are eventually deposited on the very flat plains you see in the foreground. The only elements in this image that have even a prayer of being preserved in the geological record (i.e., buried) are the flat plains. Lake and sea bottoms, also mostly flat, have an even better chance of being buried and preserved in the geological record. That's why the strata you see are mostly flat.
The idea that there is eventually going to be another layer to commemorate today's "time period" with appropriate fossils is absurd,...
No, it isn't absurd. It is precisely what one would expect given how natural processes work, which we understand very well since we can observe these natural processes taking place today before our very eyes. The appropriate adjective here is not "absurd" but other adjectives like "ignorance", "obtuseness" and "incomprehension". How strata deposit in the real world has been explained to you many, many times, including in this thread, and yet you continue arguing as if you hadn't read or understood a single word.
For the Geological Time Scale to be true, there should not be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL.
Given that the present is the key to the past, and given that in the present sediments continue to deposit at the lowest points the world over, columns of strata is exactly what we should expect to find, along with increasing radiometric age with increasing depth, and increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth.
What we would expect from a flood is undifferentiated mud and debris.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 123 of 224 (820868)
09-28-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:31 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
Taq writes:
We observe straight and flat deposits being made right now without any global flood without any rapid deposition. Your model has been falsified.
You do not see anything at all being deposited on the scale and in the form of the Stratigraphic Column.
3/4 of the world lies beneath the waves and are regions of net deposition. That most of the world is marine, and that marine regions are almost always the lowest point (the lowest point being where sediments eventually end up) is why most layers in stratigraphic columns are marine.
How can you continue to be ignorant of this? How can you continually restate your original points as if completely oblivious to the fact that they've been rebutted dozens of times? Are you not reading what is written to you? Are you not understanding what is written to you? Have you just got so much invested in your point of view that you can't give it up no matter how stupid and ignorant it makes you look? I don't say this lightly. That sedimentation has been an ongoing process right up through the present is a basic concept that even a devoutly creationist 6th grader could easily understand. What is your problem that you don't get this?
Faith writes:
Taq writes:
Here is the feature that falsifies your model:
And your photo is pathetic compared to what should be seen of the erosion I'm talking about.
This is how you debate? How productive would it be if we just responded in kind, "No, you're rebuttal is pathetic," (which, ironically, even though I'm just reflecting your invalid criticism back at you, is accurate)?
It has been explained to you many times that sediments seek the lowest points, which are lake and sea coasts and then onward to lake and sea bottoms. These locations are low and flat. What we see in that photograph are deposits of limestone that were once at the surface and had a river flowing across them that eroded a channel. At that time the area was a region of net erosion. Later when the layers became lower in elevation relative to the sea then the region again became one of net deposition.
These scenarios are constructed from very obvious facts, and if you hope to rebut them then you have to stop repeating your original arguments from scratch and begin constructing meaningful responses, and that means going beyond mere name calling like "pathetic" and actually delivering arguments that address all the serious problems in your views, particularly that they ignore facts and evidence and physical laws.
This whole argument is pathetically stupid, that anyone would try to justify such absolute nonsense.
This is a content-free sentence of criticism that actually does communicate useful information, which is that you are woefully ignorant of the topic, and that you haven't any meaningful responses to the rebuttals.
The Stratigraphic Column is over and done with, there is no erosion consistent with millions of years of "time periods" and there shouldn't be a Stratigraphic Column AT ALL if the whole Geological Time Scale was true.
Again (I'm repeating this again because I can never know which of what I write you might read, if any - certainly the paucity of knowledge and understanding in your posts say you either don't read or don't understand most of what people write to you), sediments gather at the lowest points, which tend to be flat.
I can't take the stress of this stupidity.
The stupidity causing you stress is your own.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 3:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 129 of 224 (820883)
09-28-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
09-27-2017 4:51 PM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:
Oh all the picayune irrelevant PRATTs you are coming up with.
No one is making points that have been rebutted a thousand times, because rebuttal isn't something you usually do. Ignoring points, posts and entire threads is more your style.
Sometimes you do attempt rebuttal, as you do here, but do realize that your rebuttal has already been rebutted, not by just one person but by many, and not just in this thread, but in many prior threads. And you have somehow managed to cram at least one error into every sentence. Let's go through it, shall we?
Also where there is tectonic deformation, with the one exception of angular unconformities, the strata are deformed in a whole block of them at once. Twisted, upended, buckled, whatever, always a block of them at once.
Yes, of course "the strata are deformed in a whole block of them at once." All the strata that are present when the tectonic forces are applied are affected. Nothing else could possibly be true. The tectonic forces, whether bending or shearing, are transmitted through all the strata of a stratigraphic column.
You can prove this to yourself with a simple experiment. Place a baseball on the floor. Now place a stack of 10 floor mats on the floor centered on top of the baseball. The lump of the baseball will be transmitted from the bottommost floor mat all the way up to the one at the top. Hence when you go on to say:
One would think that tectonic disturbances would have upended a layer here, and then distorted another there, bent one higher up, etc, if normal events happened over millions of years.
This couldn't be more wrongheaded. Think about it in terms of the stack of floor mats. How are you going to exert a force from the bottom that affects only some of the floor mats in the stack? You can't. It isn't possible.
The same is true of a stack of strata. When tectonic forces exert pressures from below, it affects the entire stack of strata.
Deformation in blocks means ONE TECTONIC EVENT after all the strata in the block were already in place, and still malleable too, because still damp from the Flood that laid them down.
As you've been told many times, rock strata on a scale of miles are easily bendable by tectonic forces. It is well past time for you to take the discussion to the next step instead of repeating your old arguments ad infinitum as if they hadn't already been rebutted. You should have continued, "Now I know it's been pointed out that strata are bendable, but...(continue with the next argument that you make up)..."
The implication of all of this is obvious to any objective observation.
A paragraph of nonsense carries with it no implications, or at least no implications that aren't about the paragraph's author.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 09-27-2017 4:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 131 of 224 (820886)
09-28-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
09-28-2017 5:55 AM


Re: The geologic "created (rock) kind" and evidence that is a little squirrely
Faith writes:
No, you see nothing like what I'm describing, you see no massive erosion between any layers, and there should be a lot between all of them if the standard interpretation is true.
You're still repeating this argument as if it hadn't already been rebutted many times. Continuing to repeat the argument will get you nowhere until you somehow come up with a response to the rebuttal.
Once again, the reason this isn't true is because uneven upland regions are still subject to net erosion, not net deposition. Regions of net erosion are not going to be preserved in the geologic record. Only regions of net sedimentation will be preserved in the geologic record. The vast majority of regions of net sedimentation are low and flat, mostly lake and sea bed. That's why most of the layers in stratigraphic columns are marine layers or from coastal regions.
That doesn't exist but without it there is nothing at all to suggest there was ever such a thing as a time period of millions of years anywhere in those layers.
You are again repeating an already rebutted argument to which you have never responded. We know the strata are ancient because we understand sedimentation rates, we have radiometric dating, and the fossils become increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth.
Sorry about the Kaibab squirrel. I can't find a map of the geographic extent of the Kaibab limestone, but I found this description at Wikipedia for "Kaibab Limestone":
RAZD has responded with all the information you could ever need about the Kaibab Limestone, see Message 117 and Message 118. I see you haven't responded to them yet. The question is, if you do actually reply will it be because you actually read them and understood them, or will you just post another of your empty replies?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 5:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 224 (820888)
09-28-2017 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:00 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
OMIGOD, a reply from Faith. Apparently all it takes is posting a very lengthy and detailed message, and then you'll get back five sentences that don't even address the issues they purport to address.
Faith writes:
You reject all dating techniques, so how would you know when the continents split relative to when the fictional Flood waters receded?
By the order of events shown on the cross section of the GS-GC for starters.
This is a non-answer. What events are you referring to in this diagram:
And how are you connecting these events to the splitting of the continents?
And then how are connecting these events to the time period when the fictional Flood waters receded?
You know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago the same way you know snakes can talk.
Y'all just have to lie about that don't you?
Except that I'm not lying about it, am I. In fact, you confirm I'm telling the truth by your next statement:
Yes I know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago because apparently God said so. He also said that on one occasion a snake talked. On another occasion a donkey talked. Something neither normally does.
So it's exactly the way I said it was, isn't it, that you know the Flood occurred 4500 years ago and you know snakes talk, and the Bible is the source of your information for both.
So when you call me a liar it isn't because I told a lie about you, it's because I told the truth. Apparently calling people liars who tell the truth about you just happens to be the type of person you are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 142 of 224 (820907)
09-28-2017 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:29 AM


Re: the evidence against the Geo Time Scale and for the Flood is overwhelming
Faith writes:
I'm so sorry, but I disagree with you.
Well, what do know, another content-free one-liner from Faith.
We know you disagree. What we don't know, and it appears to be because you don't know either, is what evidence and arguments you can muster to defend your position. As Edge says in Message 120 (and to which you haven't replied), he sees "at least two tectonic events prior to the Paleozoic." So here's that cross section again:
Why don't you respond to Edge's Message 120 and explain why there's only one tectonic event represented in the cross section, and he can reply by explaining why he thinks he sees at least two. Besides moving the discussion productively forward, you'll no longer be posting imbecilic "Sorry, I disagree" messages that make clear you got nothing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 143 of 224 (820908)
09-28-2017 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:34 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
Oh I may hope but I don't really expect anybody to take anything I say seriously now because your heads are all wrapped up in the established errors of current Geology,...
Says the person who can barely write a single sentence without making a serious error, which is the real reason no one takes anything you say seriously. And we explain to you how you're wrong, in many cases wrong in very basic ways, making it very clear why you're someone not to be taken seriously about geology. Plus your immature, childish and infantile behavior makes it even more difficult to take you seriously.
...but if the world continues for a while, and who knows, eventually I would think the truth might win out.
And how do you propose that the truth will win out? Is God going to ride in on a chariot and declare the truth? Or will the truth win out by arguments and models built around evidence, in other words, science?
Hopefully your answer is that scientific evidence will show us the truth (since this is a science thread), an approach you haven't yet attempted. So far all you've done is declared your position multiple times, made innumerable erroneous statements, then ignored the corrections or simply redeclared your original position again.
Actually I don't get most of what you are saying in that post anyway, it doesn't make sense.
So you didn't understand Edge's post, so the possibility exists that if you understood it that you might find it persuasive, but you're instead going to issue insults. Good show. Why don't you instead post some questions to Edge so he can clarify for you so you can understand what he was saying. But you won't do that, will you, because understanding geology is what you're actually trying to avoid.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 144 of 224 (820909)
09-28-2017 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:40 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith writes:
Taq writes:
70% of the Earth is currently seeing this type of deposition.
Not happening the way the Stratigraphic Column was built. It was not built in basins or at the bottom of the sea, the strata were laid out flat and horizontal, and that is not happening now. The Stratigraphic Column is over and done with. It was all laid down in the Single event of the Flood, one layer after another over a period of about a year, it's done.
This is just a redeclaration of your position with no evidence or argument. You haven't actually listed any evidence for your position yet, and you're avoiding the point. It is understandably to your advantage to avoid having an actual discussion of the evidence at all costs, since none of the evidence supports your position, but it isn't like it isn't manifestly obvious that topic avoidance is what you're doing.
As Taq said, and as I and others have said, not just in this thread but in other threads, sediments are being deposited across most of the Earth's surface. I said 75%, Taq said 70%, but whatever the exact figure a pretty high percentage of the Earth's surface is experiencing sedimentation. It is impossible for this to be false because the products of erosion are being carried from the highest points, like mountains and plateaus and so forth, to the lowest points, like lake and sea bottoms, which make up most of the Earth's surface. And those sediments are being deposited atop and adding to the stratigraphic column. Nothing else is possible. To deny it is to be dotardly.
--Percy

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