Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 145 of 224 (820910)
09-28-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
09-28-2017 6:42 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"
Faith in reply to Taq writes:
Nothing you've posted even touches on my model.
Of course it touches on your model. Here's the image again:
There's a river channel cut into the layers of the Muav Limestone, later filled in by layers of the Temple Butte Formation. That could not happen in a flood, plus the sediments are not flood sediments but marine sediments, plus all the layers reflect increasing age with increasing depth as indicated by sedimentation rates, radiometric dating and increasing differences of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth, facts you apparently have no answers for. Your only response is to repeat your original position from scratch again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 6:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 147 of 224 (820912)
09-28-2017 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-28-2017 7:34 AM


Re: The geologic "created kind"None
Faith writes:
None of it was, it was all laid down in the Flood, one on top of another one after another. Look at them, they are all identical in form...
Except that the strata are not all identical in form. They differ in mineral type, sedimentary grain size, fossil content, radiometric age, etc.
...among all the other evidence I've given for the Flood and against the Geo Time Scale.
You haven't given any evidence for the flood, nor have you given any evidence against the geologic timescale. You've repeatedly declared your position and repeatedly made erroneous statements. When those statements are corrected you ignore the corrections, sometimes repeating the erroneous statements yet again. You frequently post messages that are non-responses, and you often make up excuses for why you'll not respond, because something is too white or too technical or you just don't feel like debating anymore (though that one was a lie, wasn't it, since here you still are) or you just don't understand.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 224 (820913)
09-28-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
09-28-2017 3:04 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
It's been explained to all here many many times that erosion between the layers would distort them in visible ways that that idiotic excuse of a rebuttal photo does not demonstrate. It's been explained to you all many many times that if the time scale were true there would not be a wall of strata at all, it would at least be riddled with deep cuts and visibly massively irregular contacts, not even the hint of a straight line, but really there shouldn't be even any strata at all. There shouldn't be discrete sediments at all. That's been explained over and over.
You have repeatedly stated your original position many times without once offering a single bit of evidence in support, and you're doing it once again. Your objections make no sense. Why they make no sense has been explained many times, and you've either ignored the explanations or responded with yet another repetition of your original position.
As has been explained many, many times now, irregular regions are typically upland (like mountains and plateaus) where erosion is taking place, not deposition. These regions will never be preserved in the geologic record because no sedimentation is taking place. Sedimentation takes place in low lying regions, typically lake and sea beds and sometimes coastal regions, which are usually flat.
Here's some of the text from Message 119 that you did not reply to that contains a good explanation for why strata tend to preserve flat lowland regions and not irregular upland regions:
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.
Here's some text from Message 102 that you also didn't reply to that makes the same point using different images:
I live in New Hampshire, here's an image from a bit north of my location:
Sedimentation is not happening here. This is a region that is being eroded away. 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.
If you'd read and understand and respond to all the messages you're currently ignoring you would learn a great deal, and then you'd no longer keep repeating arguments that have already been shown ignorant and idiotic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 09-28-2017 3:04 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by edge, posted 09-28-2017 11:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 149 of 224 (820914)
09-28-2017 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-28-2017 4:09 PM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
Water
River water
Sea water
Deposits separated sediments
In layers
That's what the Flood did
That's how the Stratigraphic Column was formed
It did not make a jumble
It made a stack of sediments
This reads better as some odd kind of poetry than as any coherent argument. As near as I can make out it is yet another restatement of your position unaccompanied by even a single piece of evidence.
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.
This isn't even a hint of an argument. All you've done is called the standard geology "nonsensical" and "some kind of strange delusion." Anyone can attach derogatory labels to something, but it takes intelligence and knowledge to compose a coherent argument, something that you've never come close to doing in all your time here.
You keep saying I haven't provided evidence but I've provided it so many times in the past I'm too tired to drum it all up again.
Your modus operandi is so familiar to all of us that it is hard to believe you're trying to pass off this fantasy that you've "provided evidence...so many time in the past." What you actually do is just repeatedly state your position without evidence and then ignore the rebuttals. You're doing it now in this thread. You also have an incredibe lack of understanding of geology. You can't even figure out a simple principle like sedimentation at the top of the stratigraphic column.
If I could easily find all the relevant threads I'd do it but I'm not up to that either.
Wait a minute. If you could "easily" find all the threads, how is it that you're not up to it? How does that make any sense?
I'm SOOOOOOOO tired of arguing these obvious things to the same old answers.
This isn't what is happening. There's not really an argument or discussion taking place. There's just you selectively choosing which messages and issues you'll respond to while ignoring the rest. Fixing this is within your power. Simply start honestly and forthrightly addressing the rebuttals, instead of ignoring them while repeating your original arguments.
And besides, the kinds of utterly ridiculous rebuttals I get to anything I say is not much of a motivator.
...
And again, I'm not reading some of these posts, particularly those by anyone who has attacked me personally and refuses to apologize.
Got a double standard much? You think you can do things like calling our rebuttals ridiculous, nonsensical and delusional (in just this post alone), but if anyone criticizes you then it's an attack on you personally worthy of an apology. Get over yourself.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 169 of 224 (820975)
09-29-2017 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:34 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
In my scenario most of the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood,...
What evidence are you looking at that tells you that "the mountain ranges were tectonically pushed up at the end of the Flood"? Obviously the mountain ranges could only have been pushed up after the strata were in place, but how do you know it was at the end of the Flood? Isn't that just one more thing that you're making up?
...just as in my scenario the Great Unconformity was also pushed up.
As has been explained to you many times in messages to which you have not replied, it is impossible for the Grand Canyon Supergroup to have been pushed up without affecting the layers above.
And the fact that the strata above follow the contour of the pushed-up Supergroup keeps being ignored...
It's never been ignored. We couldn't possibly be ignoring it because it's in the cross section that keeps getting displayed:
The tectonic forces that uplifted the region affected the entire stratigraphic stack of strata, from Vishnu Schist to Grand Canyon Supergroup to the Grand Staircase. The reason the tectonic forces affected the entire stack is because the entire stack was in place when these particular tectonic forces were active.
The tilt of the Grand Canyon Supergroup is completely absent from the layers above them because the layers above them did not exist when the Grand Canyon Supergroup became tilted. That the upper layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup were at one time exposed at the surface is shown by the eroded surface of the Great Unconformity underlying the Tapeats, which is the first layer deposited upon the supergroup.
...strata were already in place when the GU was formed.
You are simply repeating your unevidenced and impossible assumptions again. It isn't possible for tectonic forces to affect some layers but not others. That's why the region was uplifted as a unit, because all the strata from the schist to the supergroup to the Grand Staircase layers were already in place when the tectonic forces were in play. And that's also why the Grand Canyon Supergroup was tilted all by itself without affecting any of the layers above, because the layers that are above the supergroup now did not exist at the time the supergroup was tilted.
That means the monadnocks pushed up into the strata at the same time.
You're again just baldly repeating your position without an ounce of evidence. Your position has been rebutted many times, and you've been unable to respond to the rebuttals, mostly ignoring all of them. If the monadnocks were pushed up into the Tapeats and in some places even higher into the Bright Angel Shale, where is all the evidence of this event that would have been left behind? The answer is "nowhere," because the evidence for your "story" does not exist. The evidence that we do see shows slow sedimentation around the monadnocks.
It bears occasionally repeating that things that happen leave evidence behind. All the evidence supports the fact that the strata of the stratigraphic columns around the world were deposited by gradual sedimentation over eons, and we can see this very same type of sedimentation going on today.
Things that did not happen do not leave evidence behind, which is why there's no evidence for the Flood.
And all of this of course proves that the Geo Time Scale is false.
Things that are true and that have evidence have the power to prove things true or false, but you haven't said anything true or correct or accurate or even vaguely corresponding to anything in the real world, and you certainly haven't offered any evidence. In fact, you managed to compose yet another paragraph where not a singe sentence contained a true statement.
Then of course if you add the flat flat strata with their tight tight contacts you have evidence of rapid deposition. Flood, not vast ages of time.
A flood would leave undifferentiated mud deposits. A flood would not sort a chaotic mix of sediment load into a sequence of strata of unique compositions. A flood would not sort by radiometric date and difference of fossils from modern forms. A flood would not preserve tracks and burrows. A flood, especially one as short as the great Flood, would not have the time to allow fine sediments to settle.
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.
The plain I showed in Nevada isn't as flat as the strata? It most certainly is. What are you, blind? Here's the image of the Ruby Mountains again with the plain in the foreground:
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.
That's about the limit of your ability to argue this subject, isn't it, making derogatory comments. They only serve to show the intensity of your blindness and lack of discernment. The evidence is staring you right in face with the Ruby Mountain image (it isn't too white so I assume you're not going to be making up excuses that you can't make it out), and that plain is as flat as can be. That plain is just as flat as strata in your image. Click on it to blow it up to large size and you'll see that the boundary between strata only look flat from a distance - up closer you can see the irregularities (your image is of the Desert Mountains, by the way, something you failed to mention):
"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:
No one denies that the strata look very flat from a distance. But when you examine them up close then "pretty flat with irregularities" is the much more accurate description.
The vertical surface has been severely eroded leaving the original strata clearly visible in their pristine horizontality with their very tight contacts.
You have this very unhealthy obsession with "very tight contacts" as if it were evidence for sudden deposition. Sudden chaotic deposition would leave behind mud with no differentiation of layers. That's what floods do. Nevada isn't that far from Texas, take a drive and see what kind of deposits the hurricane-caused floods left behind. While you're at it look for the denuded landscapes. Allow me to direct you to an article about the floods in Texas (Harvey victims in Texas still recovering as focus shifts to Irma and Florida):
quote:
Residents and leaders across Houston and Southeast Texas are in the midst of a mud-caked recovery from Hurricane Harvey...
See that? "Mud-caked" is what they're dealing with, not differentiated sediments. And let's not have another repeat of your unevidenced assertion that the unprecedented magnitude of the Flood would have produced differentiated sediments, fossils and radiometric ages. When you have evidence for it then you can say it. Until then it will only draw ridicule, not just because it is unevidenced, but because it just isn't something that could ever happen. Active flood waters mix things up, not sort them out, and they certainly don't sort fossils and radiometric materials.
This is a location where the tectonic upheaval didn't twist the strata for some reason, but something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material to leave the mountain there.
Not everything tectonic is a "tectonic upheaval" that leaves behind twisted strata, so it makes no sense that you expressed some expectation for twisted strata. But aside from that, look at the Grand Staircase cross section - it left most of the strata pretty level. There isn't much online information about the Desert Mountains, but you are correct that "something certainly knocked off a humongous amount of material". It's called erosion.
Like waterfalls and volcanoes, mountain ranges are just temporary features on the surface of the earth. This will always be the case until plate tectonics stops and there is no more erosion. It will be a dead planet.
There simply is not enough time for this scenario to play out.
What scientific evidence do you have that time will not continue indefinitely on into the future, leaving there plenty of time for mountain ranges to be eroded away. Indeed, many strata are composed of material from mountain ranges that no longer exist.
The mountains can erode quite a bit but will never erode flat in the time allotted to this planet.
How do you know, based upon evidence, how much time is 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.
How do you know, based upon evidence and given that you have no dating methods, when the mountains were pushed up relative to the separation of the continents (which actually happened more than once) and the fictional Flood?
The amount of erosion that can be seen on some formations such as the hoodoos of the Southwest has to have occurred since their formation in the Flood,...
What evidence do you have that the hoodoos were formed by your fictional Flood?
...and what that amount of erosion shows is a few thousand years' worth.
Everyone knows the hoodoos are very young geologically. They're composed of very soft materials that erode at the rate of several feet per century, about a half inch per year. How is the fact that soft materials erode faster than hard ones helpful to your case?
And that would of course be the amount of erosion that's happened to the Ruby Mountains and all other formations since they all originated either in the Flood or by the tectonic activity afterward.
It never occurred to you that the hoodoos have their unique appearance because of the softness of the material? And that the Ruby Mountains don't have that kind of appearance because they're composed of harder material? The Badlands of South Dakota are cousins to the hoodoos in the sense that they're composed of relatively soft materials that erode at the rate of maybe an inch per year. Many of the layers of the Grand Canyon are made of even harder materials than the Ruby Mountains and so erode at a very slow rate, probably less than a millimeter per year.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 170 of 224 (820977)
09-29-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
09-29-2017 1:37 AM


Re: suggestion
Faith writes:
I wonder if it would be possible to present one argument at a time.
You're not responding to any of the arguments and rebuttals anyway, so why don't you pick an issue where there is actual evidence that you can describe, and that doesn't already have a dozen rebuttals that you're ignoring.
I'll never get to the posts here, and it's still true that I don't feel like even acknowledging the existence of some of the posters,...
Yes, it's all about you, isn't it. You're the queen of crude and rude, you think of yourself as judge and jury of all that is true, and you've told us that you already know what is true anyway, but it's actually everyone else's behavior that is the problem. Yeah, sure.
...but if one argument out of all the different posts could be isolated I could deal with that a lot better than the pile-on here.
That's an interesting theory, but given your history success seems very unlikely. You will still apply all your strategies of repeating your positions ad infinitum, ignoring posts, ignoring evidence, ignoring rebuttals, ignoring simple logic, and declaring your opinions to be the God's honest truth.
Current Faith message response rate: 33%
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 1:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 5:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 224 (820989)
09-29-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
09-29-2017 2:56 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
The degree of flatness is clear to any sane person. The strata of 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.
Now we're insane deceivers? And your only argument is that the sediments are "motley", whatever that means?
Faith, it is the evidence that decides scientific issues. Where do you think the sediments eroded off mountains go? There is nowhere to go but down, driven by gravity and carried by wind and water. Sediments seek the lowest point. That's how the plain in the foreground of this image formed:
If this region should somehow sink beneath the waves then this plain could become preserved in the geologic record. It only takes the application of natural processes for this to happen. That's not to say that that will ever happen to this plain, but whatever happens to it will be a result of the same natural processes we observe going on around us everyday and that have been described for you many times. How you remain so ignorant and so in denial of so much that are just simple facts of the world is a mystery.
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.
The hoodoos are not that old is because they're composed of relatively soft material that erodes at a rapid rate, feet per century. The hoodoos won't be around much longer, geologically speaking. As I mentioned before, the badlands of South Dakota are also composed of relatively soft material. Most strata are composed of harder material and take much longer to erode.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 2:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 176 of 224 (820990)
09-29-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:43 AM


Re: the Stratigraphic Column is NOT continuing
Faith writes:
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.
The futility of the debate is very one-sided, to the betterment of the side with the evidence from the real world and to the detriment of the side arguing for 2000-year old religious myths. And yes, you're an idiot for making a whole series of absurd assumptions, such as that people become convinced by the number of times you repeat yourself without change, that discussions are won by ignoring evidence and arguments, that the real world must yield to your religious beliefs, that the Bible is literally inerrant, that your interpretations of the Bible are inerrant, and worst of all, that you yourself are inerrant.
The strata are NOT different in form,...
It remains a mystery why you post nonsense like this. Of course the strata are different in form. Here's your own image showing how different the various strata can be:
Besides these visual differences in appearance at a distance, the strata are composed of different minerals, the grain sizes are different, the fossil content are different, the radiometric ages are different, etc.
...so 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.
Don't be insipid.
...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.
There you go, declaring your position yet again without an ounce of any evidence or argument. With all the evidence weighing on just one side, anyone who balances out the scales can only do so with a ton of bias. Religious bias, in this case.
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.
The hoodoo formations themselves are relatively young geologically. The strata making up the hoodoos, depending upon which ones you're referring to, can be millions to hundreds of millions of years old.
Same with all the formations of the American Southwest, which can be judged by the erosion at their base. Since the original size of the hoodoos can also be easily calculated there is also that to confirm the time factor.
The rate of erosion is a function of the hardness of the strata. Hoodoos have their unique appearance because of the softness of the material. I have no idea what you mean by "all the formations of the American Southwest" because that runs the full gamut, but the rate of erosion will vary by the hardness of the strata. This has been explained to you by multiple people multiple times. You obviously are not reading the messages posted to you.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 177 of 224 (820991)
09-29-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
09-29-2017 5:52 PM


Re: suggestion
Faith writes:
Your personal comments in this post just guarantee I'm not dealing with your arguments at all.
You're already not dealing with my arguments (or anyone else's, for that matter), so how is this a change?
If you had any valid arguments you'd make them, but you don't, so you instead use repeated empty declarations of your original position and evidence avoidance and argument avoidance and lies and bluster and insults and absurd declarations of infallibility. If it angers you to have your behavior called to your attention then there's a simple fix: stop doing it. Behave like a human being for a change.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 5:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 179 of 224 (820993)
09-29-2017 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Minnemooseus
09-29-2017 9:36 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
Minnemooseus writes:
TO ALL - NOW - WHAT WAS AND IT MY INTENT FOR THIS TOPIC:
"The Flood" deposits as a sea transgressive/regressive sequence ("Walther's Law")
I apologist for not making topic theme clearer. I should have done something beyond just using that sentence as the topic title. God knows, no one ever looks at what the topic title is.
Since no one is currently serving as moderator in this thread, we are but slaves to what Faith deigns to reply to. Faith stopped responding to discussion about Walther's Law a number of messages back.
The accepted practice for a participant to take on a moderator role is to recuse themselves from participation in the thread for a couple days first. One of us could do that, but I don't think it would be helpful on this particular topic because Walther's Law probably lies beyond Faith's horizon of comprehension (the multiple zones of different types of sedimentation taking place simultaneously combined with the sediments being produced by particular environments seem to be the main problems), or Faith will exhibit her displeasure at moderation by ceasing participation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-29-2017 9:36 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 186 of 224 (821007)
09-30-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-29-2017 8:09 AM


The Geologic Column
Faith writes:
The Stratigraphic Column is a very particular stack of sedimentary rocks, it is not just any sedimentary layers.
I don't know why you feel the need to say this (poorly). Everyone here already understands that a stratigraphic column (not "the stratigraphic column") exists at every location around the world, each consisting of a unique and specific sequence of strata.
Those forming now are not connected to the Stratigraphic Column in any way...
Well, I guess no Faith post is complete without at least one completely boneheaded comment. Plus this has been explained before and not responded to, so you're obviously still not reading or not understanding or just ignoring a great deal of what is being written to you. If it's the last possibility, that you're just ignoring them, then I'd like to know why you think this kind of immature display of ire and anger has any power to convince anyone of anything
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Flood *was* the driving force that created all the stratigraphic columns we see around the world. The surface of the Earth at each location around the world is the top of that particular stratigraphic column at that location. Erosion is ongoing, and the sedimentary particles from this erosion are being deposited wherever they happen to be carried by wind and water, but gravity means their long term tendency is to end up at the lowest elevations, wherever those may happen to be, but usually lake and sea beds.
Anyway, let's take the example of a little square foot of Earth somewhere in your front yard. That little square foot of Earth represents the top of the stratigraphic column at that location. A tiny particle of sediment comes to rest on this square foot of Earth. By what logic do you conclude that this sedimentary particle is not connected to the stratigraphic column that it now lies atop?
Perhaps you'll next argue that when you sprinkle fertilizer on your lawn or flower bed that the fertilizer isn't connected to the ground it lies on top of.
...and I do consider it some kind of deceit...
Ah, calling people names again for simply disagreeing with you, I see. You can't argue issues on the merits, you instead have to descend to name-calling. What a marvelous example of a Christian hater you are.
...to try to claim they are when they do not occur in the right places,...
There is no right place for a sedimentary particle to come to rest. Wherever it comes to rest it will be atop the stratigraphic column at that location. This is true by definition. It couldn't be any other way.
...they are not large enough,...
The size of a sedimentary deposit can vary greatly. Some sedimentary deposits are small. Some sedimentary deposits are transitory, merely temporarily coming to rest before being carried onward to an even lower spot. That's likely the case for the sedimentary particle that we had come to rest on that square foot of Earth in your front yard.
But some sedimentary deposits are huge. The sedimentary layers being deposited on lake and sea beds today are enormous, thousands and thousands of miles in extent in some cases (think Pacific Ocean).
...they are nothing like those in the Stratigraphic Column.
Since what is being deposited atop the current stratigraphic columns (in locations where net sedimentation is taking place) are tiny particles of sediment, and since the layers of the stratigraphic columns consist of tiny particles of sediment, the new sedimentary particles are precisely like those of the stratigraphic columns. Oh, they may be of a different mineral or of a different size, but as for being sedimentary particles being deposited atop a stratigraphic column, of that there can be no doubt.
I'm sick of arguing this.
That's strange that your sick of arguing this, because you haven't been arguing this at all. You've only been repeating mind-numbingly absurd statements supported by not a lick of evidence or rational thinking or even just a layman's casual understanding of the real world.
Yes it IS obvious and I've utterly lost patience with the ridiculous tall tales being palmed off as evidence of the column's continuation.
I think your loss of patience has more to do with your failure to browbeat the other participants in this thread into agreement with you. You're using the wrong approach. Browbeating people with nonsense and fantasy will get you nowhere. Find some facts that support you, and argue them using logic and rational thinking.
For anyone to look at the picture of the stratified mountainside I posted and think those strata could possibly have been formed by slow sedimentation on a plain like the one in the picture of the Ruby Mountains, or on a sloping seashore either, is another case of deceit, perhaps self-deception but the idea is so OBVIOUSLY absurd there is no point in wasting my time producing some kind of proof...To be honestly convinced of such ideas would mean being so self-deceived there is no point in talking to such a person.
Well, there you go, calling us other participants deceitful and self-deceived again, despite the fact that the sum total of your argument is that our position is "OBVIOUSLY absurd."
The debate is a sham.
Well, yes, the debate *is* a sham, but that's due to you once more collapsing into a contentious black hole from which no evidence ever emerges, while at the same time descending into calling people names. You're not actually discussing anything. So far in this your latest message your arguments have been that we're deceitful and self-deceived, and our evidence and argument are "OBVIOUSLY absurd." In other words, so far your post has been content-free, pretty much par for the course for you.
And now I'm being challenged on the time it took for the hoodoos to erode to their present condition.
You keep bringing up the hoodoos. In a nod to Moose I'll remind you that the topic is Walther's Law, but about the hoodoos you seem to be confusing two different things. On the one hand there's the time it took for the strata to form that make up the hoodoos, which is obviously at least millions of years. And on the other hand there's the time it took for the strata making up the hoodoos, once exposed at the surface, to be eroded away, which is obviously on a scale of only thousands and tens of thousands of years.
I did think the rate of erosion was pretty standard knowledge but now I have to substantiate it.
Yes, the rate of erosion of the hoodoos is pretty standard knowledge, and no there is no need for you to have to substantiate it. But you're addressing the wrong point.
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.
You've just made yet another non-sensical statement. The rate at which strata are deposited is not related to the rate that they are eroded once exposed. Those two rates are dependent upon two different sets of completely different data.
The actual appearance of the strate of the Stratigraphic Column proves the Flood. And I'm sick to death of having to argue with idiotic objections to obvious points. So suspend me already, it would be a blessing.
There's no one moderating this thread, so no one's going to suspend you, though you could do the honorable thing and cease participating as long as your only contributions are going to be calling people names, making ridiculous statements, and repeating multiply rebutted bald declarations that have no evidence. Like this message you just posted.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 188 of 224 (821016)
09-30-2017 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-29-2017 6:10 PM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
Faith writes:
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:
As has already been pointed out innumerable times, you are making a mistake of nomenclature. Each location in the world has a unique stratigraphic column - there are literally billions of stratigraphic columns. There's no formalized definition of how big a stratigraphic column is. We know it descends into the Earth as deeply as there are strata, but how long and wide is it? Is is a foot square? A foot circular? A yard? A furlong? Who knows? Who cares? It doesn't matter. The important fact is that a stratigraphic column is a column of strata at a particular point on the Earth, and how big each is will depend upon the needs and interests of the geologists studying them.
What you're really talking about is the geologic column, also known as the geologic time scale, and also explained to you innumerable times. Of course, this explanation doesn't count since you're not reading it, but it's your loss because it will just cause you to repeat the same stupid statements so that we can make more fun of you.
So, ignoring useful and accurate information, how's that strategy working out for you?
And by the way it goes up to the present time and it stops there with every indication that it is completed.
The geologic column is complete in the same way that you're diary is complete. Think about it. Your diary won't end until your life ends. In the same way, the geologic column won't end until the Earth ends.
Other people have explained this to you in other ways, all perfectly and easily understandable. You have no excuse for not getting this.
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.
Since the current deposition of sedimentary layers is atop the current stratigraphic columns, how could it not be a continuation of them? Come on, Faith, explain your logic here. Sure, we're all deceivers and victims of our own self-deception and naturally everything we say is false just because you say so and despite all the evidence and rationale we provide and that you just ignore, but surely you can explain your position at least once. Explaining it no times by writing many words but saying nothing is not getting you anywhere.
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?
Boy are you ever confused.
First, there's nothing you said that we can deny because you haven't actually said anything beyond, "You're wrong." That's basically your entire argument.
And we know sedimentation is continuing atop existing stratigraphic columns because, a) we see it happening; and b) the products of erosion have to go somewhere, and no matter where they go they're going to end up at the top of a stratigraphic column somewhere.
It has nothing to do with proving whether or not there was a Flood. As has been explained before by myself and others (though there's so far no indication that you've read or understood them), even had the Flood been a real event, sedimentation would be still be occurring atop the stratigraphic columns the Flood created.
And yes the claim that a stretch of desert could become strata is so ludicrous you should give it up immediately.
What kind of insanity is driving you to believe that calling something "ludicrous" is an argument of any value?
Strata are FLAT, ALL of them are originally laid down FLAT and the picture I posted is a nice illustration of that.
As has been pointed out multiple times, blowing up your image reveals that the strata are only mostly flat with irregularities. Here's the image, click on it and you'll see what I mean. Oh, wait a minute, you're not reading this, so I guess I should change my instructions to don't click on it and continue wallowing in your ignorance:
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. 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.
Summarizing your arguments, we can't consider the possibilities you've offered because you have no evidence, no rational, and not even anything that makes sense. Deserts cannot become strata because it's impossible, for reasons you don't reveal because you don't have any reasons. And the debate is over because you're God and you said so.
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.
The strata comprising the hoodoos at Bryce Canyon are 40-60 million years old. Here's some information about how the hoodoos themselves form from Hoodoos at Bryce Canyon. Don't read this either, you wouldn't want to learn anything:
quote:
Unfortunately hoodoos don't last very long. The same processes that create hoodoos are equally aggressive and intent on their destruction. The average rate of erosion is calculated at 2-4 feet (.6-1.3 m) every 100 years. So it is that Bryce Canyon, as we know it, will not always be here. As the canyon continues to erode to the west it will eventually capture (perhaps 3 million years from now) the watershed of the East Fork of the Sevier River. Once this river flows through the Bryce Amphitheater it will dominate the erosional pattern, replacing hoodoos with a "V" shaped canyon and steep cliff walls typical of the weathering and erosional patterns created by flowing water. Indeed a foreshadowing of this fate can be observed in Water Canyon while hiking the Mossy Cave Trail. For over 100 years a diversion canal has been taking a portion of the East Fork of the Sevier River through this section of the park and already it's easy to see the changes the flowing water has created.
While we can't stop this inevitable fate, humans can help to preserve the Park's existing hoodoos by keeping to the park trail system. Believe it or not, just walking up to the base of a hoodoo will shorten its life span as your tracks weaken the clay slopes that protect the hoodoo's foundations. Staying on established trails ensures that erosion will not prematurely destroy the hoodoos that millions of people come from all over the world to see.
But all three of those observations support the Flood...
What observations that support the Flood? You've written a lot of words, most of them in sentences that are wrong, but you haven't mentioned any observations that support the Flood. All you've done is what I said before, said, "You're wrong." Not much of an argument.
...and kill the Geological Time Scale.
Well, there's an extravagant claim. Why don't you complete your devastation of the geologic time scale by explaining the radiometric dating and the fossil sorting?
Along with all the others I've made over the last ten or so years.
Assuming we're talking about evidence and rational argument, over the past ten or so years you've actually managed to say the same thing you just said in this message, nothing.
But it's all denied and explained away in the most ludicrous fashion.
Wow, two uses of the word "ludicrous" in a single post. I guess that makes your arguments twice as convincing. Let's see, what's twice zero?
The debate is over.
The truth is that you've withdrawn from debate while still typing lots of words. You've got no evidence, no rational thinking, nothing that makes sense, and you do not very often make it through a single sentence without making an error or casting an insult or just being completely and utterly insane by thinking that the power to declare when debates are over lies within yourself. I think you've got some kind of God complex.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-29-2017 6:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 189 of 224 (821021)
09-30-2017 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
09-30-2017 2:53 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
Faith writes:
All that interests me is the stack of sediments, wherever they are found, however many of them are found in a given location, that either actually climb from the Cambrian to the Holocene or fit into that sequence, the stack of strata on which the Geological Time Scale is built.
THAT stack of sediments is over and done with, there is nothing building on it since the so-called "Holocene."
What on earth could you possible mean by "since the so-called 'Holocene'"? It certainly isn't "so-called" because that is definitely its name, the Holocene, the current era. And saying there's "nothing building since the Holocene" makes as much sense as saying there's "nothing building since now." And there certainly is much more than "nothing building" because sediments are still being created and deposited, and they're being deposited atop the existing stratigraphic columns.
The hoodoos were formed in the very uppermost layer of the Grand Staircase. The Holocene perhaps?
In the Bryce Canyon region, the strata comprising the hoodoos formed 40-60 million years ago. Erosion down to that level is relatively recent, and the hoodoo structures themselves are thousands to hundreds of thousands of years old - you are correct that they were mostly formed in the Holocene, but the erosion that removed the layers above Bryce Canyon to expose them took a very long time and most certainly precedes the Holocene. It is their cap of relatively hard dolomite that makes the structures possible.
It's the last one, the uppermost one, and nothing could possibly build upon it.
This is all we ever get from you, isn't it, just bald declarations with no evidence or explanation or justification or rationale or anything. You may as well be relating religious myths.
Bryce Canyon is at a relatively high elevation, so it is without doubt a region of net erosion. The material eroded off the hoodoos is initially deposited locally at Bryce Canyon, but gradually over time these sediments descend to lower and lower elevations through the forces of gravity, wind and water. They eventually find themselves on flat plains.
The entire area was subjected to extreme erosion obviously at the end of the building of the strata, or in other words the end of the Flood,...
What facts are you looking at that make this obvious to you? What *is* obvious is that the strata that once overlay Bryce Canyon must have had considerable depth and been there for a considerable time, else there would have been insufficient time and pressure for lithification, particularly of the dolomite.
...brought about by the receding water of the Flood, which carved the staircase and Zion canyon and the Grand Canyon too.
Receding floods do not cause widespread erosion. For the most part they leave mud and debris behind. If you doubt this you might want to reread the recent news articles about hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. If you for some reason feel moved to repeat your completely unevidenced claim that a flood of a magnitude of the Biblical Flood would possess different qualities from the kinds of floods we actually observe, please provide evidence.
Should we wonder why there isn't a hint of any hoodoos forming in any lower layers of the strata in that area?
So much ignorance, so little time. Hoodoos have their particular structure because of an accident of geology that isn't uncommon. A cap of hard rock overlies softer rock. The hard rock at the top protects the softer underlying rock from erosive forces, creating structures like hoodoos.
There was plenty of time of course, millions of years so y'all say. But no hoodoos. No canyons, no staircases, no erosion at all to speak of.
You have a unique talent for cramming many errors into a small space. Hoodoos aren't expected where the conditions that produce them don't exist. I'm not sure what you mean by no canyons, but canyons are not expected where the conditions for them don't exist, such as a river with cutback, or a river in a gradually uplifting region such as the Grand Canyon. I have no idea why you said "no staircases" - this is the region of the Grand Staircase. And where you say "no erosion at all to speak of," well, that's just plain wrong. All exposed areas of the world are subject to erosion, and this is certainly true of Bryce Canyon and all the lower elevations nearby.
I guess you guys really do believe all this utter nonsense.
Well, there's some irony for you - reciting an entire paragraph of error before calling nonsense the perspective that actually has evidence and doesn't violate natural physical laws.
The obvious falseness of it...
The only things that are obviously false are almost everything you say.
...and the obvious evidence for the Flood...
You haven't provided any evidence at all for the Flood. Every time you do claim to provide evidence it turns out to be an empty declaration of opinion or a misconception or an error or a claim that you already provided the evidence somewhere sometime or something that is made up.
Oh well the evidence is all here at EvC scattered all over the place but it's here if anybody cares to track it down.
There is no Faith Flood evidence to track down at EvC because you haven't offered any.
If they don't, I don't care either.
Well, there's another lie. If you didn't care you wouldn't be here.
This whole debate is a miserable sham.
Well, yes, this debate is a "miserable sham," because you refuse to engage in any actual debate.
Old Earth Geology is a delusion, and so is the ToE but I guess nobody is going to figure that out until the Very End.
If geology and evolution are wrong then it will be demonstrated by evidence and rationale, not by the farce you're engaged in.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 09-30-2017 2:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 190 of 224 (821022)
09-30-2017 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
09-30-2017 6:25 AM


Re: Yes the Stratigraphic Column is OVER WITH
Faith writes:
Yes I get it already about the Holocene, I got it long ago already. I just need a way to describe the FINISHED stack that DOES have a Holocene at the very top although it is finished.
Given that the Holocene is the current era starting about 10,000 years ago and continuing from now on into the future, and given that sedimentation is still occurring in the Holocene, how could it possibly be "finished"?
It is clearly finished and I've shown why many times.
Sedimentation in the Holocene clearly isn't "finished", and why on earth do you keep lying about having shown things that are, to anyone of any intelligence at all, self-evidently impossible.
I don't care whether Walther's Law can account for all the strata seen in the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase, but I know the Flood accounts for all of it.
Well, yes, we know that you know the Flood explains all of world geology, in the same way you know snakes talk and women turn to pillars of salt and bushes burn without being consumed and seas part with a wave of the hand.
I've argued this a lot better in the past...
Not that anyone has noticed.
...and no longer have the energy to keep arguing it, so I'm stopping.
Thank God. Come back when you have some evidence.
Or is this declaration of stopping another lie?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 09-30-2017 6:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 203 of 224 (821461)
10-08-2017 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by edge
10-07-2017 9:46 PM


Re: The Faith pattern repeats?
edge writes:
It's kind of too bad because there is a lot of potentially interesting stuff here. For instance, Moose's tangent on deltas and their effect on the idealized Walther's Law sequence could be really fascinating.
Those aren't conversations we could have had while Faith was here. They're conversations we can only have now that Faith is gone. Walther's Law isn't something Faith understands. She also doesn't understand that sedimentation atop the stratigraphic columns around the world continues today. She also thinks massive enough floods denude the landscape and sort sediments by material, fossil content and radiometric age. And somehow the denuding of the landscape maintains eggs with nests, tracks, burrows, etc. Faith's ridiculously arguing issues she was self-evidently wrong about made impossible discussion of issues actually rooted in reality, like what Walther's Law might do in a delta context.
Worse, and I'm reluctant to be so critical but will anyway, I think Walther's Law may be something that many participating in this thread do not understand. I reached this conclusion from the many, many times Faith said that the Flood moving across the landscape would leave behind sedimentary layers just like Walther's Law says it should, and there was almost always no rebuttal to this claim.
Walther's Law isn't a process that takes place as a flood moves across a landscape. Maybe the concepts of transgressing and regressing seas are confusing the issue. Maybe some people think a transgressing sea is like a flood moving across a landscape. It isn't. Transgressions and regressions are slow - very slow. For Walther's Law to be a factor the transgress into the landscape must be really, really slow, inches per year on average at most is my guess. It *has* to be very slow in order for there to be enough time to leave a significant deposit of sand or mud or limestone at a given location, because these types of the sediments are *produced* by precisely that type of environment, whether the environment be at the coast, or just offshore, or way offshore, or in mid-ocean. The juncture between land and sea must remain at pretty much the same location for a very, very long time, hundreds of years at least, just like we observe about most coastlines around the world, in order for the sedimentary deposits making up the strata we see in the geologic record to happen.
So if we want to have discussions like what Walther's Law might look like in a delta, now, while Faith is gone, is the time to have them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by edge, posted 10-07-2017 9:46 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by edge, posted 10-08-2017 8:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2017 10:02 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024