|
Author
|
Topic: Did the Flood really happen?
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
Message 721 of 2370 (859022)
07-27-2019 6:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 701 by Faith
07-26-2019 10:43 AM
|
|
Virus and Scanning Issues
I'm only going to address your virus and scanning issues in this message. It doesn't sound like you have a virus on your computer. Certainly you didn't mention any files being deleted. It sounds like your browser has been hijacked. I don't think your problem is serious, and you don't have to keep your computer shut down. For future occasions when you think your computer has a virus, just shut it down. Don't start unplugging wires, that's not necessary. Plug back in all the wires you unplugged and turn your computer on. Once it's up, open your browser and try to visit Malwarebytes Cybersecurity for Home and Business | Anti-Malware & Antivirus. Click on their free download. When it's downloaded then run it by clicking on the "Scan Now" button (as this is a new installation it might ask some setup questions, I don't remember - answer them as best you can). Once it completes (you may possibly be asked to reboot) see if your browser is working. Please let me know if you need more details for any of these steps. If your browser still doesn't work properly then let me know and we'll go on to the next step. About scanning in your sketches, you said my "schematic system" didn't work for you. I didn't mention any "schematic system". I also thought your computer was down and you couldn't use your scanner. It might be helpful if you clarified what it was you did. About the actual scanning, I just said you should scan your sketches in as images , i.e., as JPEGs, PNGs or GIFs. That's as opposed to PDFs, which is often an option for scanners. Then the images should be uploaded to an image hosting site of your choice. It will give you a URL to use for each image. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 701 by Faith, posted 07-26-2019 10:43 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 727 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 1:01 PM | | Percy has replied | | | Message 729 by JonF, posted 07-27-2019 1:17 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 722 of 2370 (859024)
07-27-2019 8:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 720 by NosyNed
07-27-2019 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: Baffle gab
If you are trying to communicate with Faith you should avoid at least 4 of those words which aren't helping.
Point taken, however, I'm afraid that it is a lot more than 4 words and perhaps I am not attempting to communicate with Faith.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 720 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2019 12:29 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 723 of 2370 (859025)
07-27-2019 9:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 701 by Faith
07-26-2019 10:43 AM
|
|
Re: Strata on Brit Isles
Faith writes: I disagree with everything you said,... The discussion cannot go well if you say wildly exaggerated things like you "disagree with everything" I said. For example, it is not true that you disagree that "sedimentary deposits will follow the contours of any surface they're deposited upon," and we know you don't disagree because I can point you to messages where you agreed with that. Saying that you disagree with everything is not only unhelpful, it gives people no idea what things you do disagree with. Please be specific about what you disagree with and why.
...that's why I repeat things but I'll stop. Repeating what you already said in response to a rebuttal is both unhelpful and a form of passive aggression. Please stop repeating yourself and respond to what was actually said. Imagine what someone would think of Person A in this conversation:
| Person A: | The sky is red.
| | Person B: | Anyone can see the sky is clearly blue.
| | Person A: | The sky is red.
| | Person B: | These other people agree with me that the sky is blue.
| | Person A: | The sky is red.
| | Person B: | This spectrum analyzer says the sky is blue.
| | Person A: | The sky is red.
| | Person B: | The reason the sky is blue is because the atmosphere absorbs other frequencies of light, leaving only blue.
| | Person A: | The sky is red.
| | Person B: | Here are two pieces of glass, one tinted green the other blue. If you look through the green filter you see black because no light cannot get through because none of the light from the sky is red. If you look through the blue filter you can see plenty of light because the light from the sky is blue.
| | Person A: | The sky is red. |
Don't be Person A.
That may mean I have to stop posting altogether on this subject. If you are constitutionally unable to engage in constructive discussion, if all you can do is repeatedly parrot the same words, then that would be a wise decision.
The more I see of the interpretations of Historical Geology the less sense it makes to me. Brainwashed people in cults often say how little sense the world makes. These frequent interjections of what you're feeling are not helpful to the discussion, and I think they distract you from the topic.
The thing about your insistence that sedimentary deposits follow unstraight contours is that in the geological columns they are all clearly either straight or originally straight and those in the UK diagram are unusual and were clearly not deposited in their current position. Why are you saying this as if everyone here is arguing that the strata in the UK cross section were originally deposited just as we see them today? No one is arguing for that or has ever argued for that. Multiple people have described multiple times what happened geologically, sometimes briefly, sometimes at greater length. For instance, PaulK recently said, "They have been tilted, obviously. Their extent has likely been reduced by erosion." Edge has enumerated the things that have happened to this strata, as have I.
I use "upright" for vertical, not horizontal, but I'll use "vertical" since there is a problem with "upright." Both "vertical" and "upright" are misleading. If you mean "a stack of horizontal strata" then say that. Saying that strata are upright or vertical is very misleading. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 701 by Faith, posted 07-26-2019 10:43 AM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 768 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2019 5:21 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 724 of 2370 (859027)
07-27-2019 10:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
07-26-2019 10:51 AM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: Percy writes: H ----------------------------------------------
G ----------------------------------------------
F ----------------------------------------------
E ----------------------------------------------
D ----------------------------------------------
C ----------------------------------------------
B ----------------------------------------------
A ---------------------------------------------- And then you tilt them upward on the left and erode the tops off like this:
A B C D E F G H
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Actually that's pretty much what I have been describing,... Okay, good so far.
The tilting as you see it would be enough to cause some of the disturbances we see in the strata that are beneath the island. But you've been looking at a diagram which is exaggerated in the vertical direction. The layers are not at anywhere near so steep an angle. They're closer to this, and even less tilted than this (sorry if this isn't neatly contained in the message pane - the "scale" function makes it difficult to position scaled text):
[b]
A B C D E F G H
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
[/b] So why would you expect to see "disturbances" with this small amount of tilting. As Edge said about Siccar Point, the tilting there is greater than across the part of England represented in that cross section. Here's Siccar Point. Note the small degree of tilting and realize that the tilting in that cross section is even less:
And what you've shown here ought to make it clear that the strata beneath the island got there due to the tilting and were not there originally, as edge seems to be seeing it. I don't know why you're having trouble understanding Edge, but he is saying nothing of the kind, the opposite in fact. Go back and read his messages again.
The tilting would have thrust the righthand side of the strata beneath the sea level line and the upheaval itself would account for a lot of the distortion we see there. I can't make sense out of most of this, but whatever distortion you're looking at, remember that it is greatly exaggerated.
In fact since the tilting would have been caused by the one tectonic upheaval to which I ascribe all the disturbances everywhere, including in the Grand Canyon, it would account for the Great Unconformity everywhere it is found, and for Siccar Point too. There is clearly more than one mountain building event recorded in the strata of the cross section.
I was going to sketch the tilting as caused by the raising of the mountain, Snowdon, on the west side of the island, which I see as originally the basement rock beneath the strata above. Its raising would have pushed up the strata there, causing it to tilt to the right. It would also have broken off the strata on the west side which accounts for the broken off tops of those along the surface of the island. Not erosion, breaking. Erosion is happening as we speak. We can see the products of erosion everywhere. There are no signs of pieces of broken off strata anywhere. If you want evidence for the Flood you're going to have to find them. --Perccy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 702 by Faith, posted 07-26-2019 10:51 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 725 of 2370 (859028)
07-27-2019 11:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 703 by Faith
07-26-2019 11:32 AM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: As it rises the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top. Let me try to capture what it sounds like you're describing. I'm pretty sure it isn't what you mean, but then you can correct it so we can see what you're talking it. So my best guess is that you're imagining something like this:
/\
/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ / / /\ \ \ \
/ / / / \ \ \ \
/ / / / /\ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G F E D C B A A B C D E F G The west side falls off into the sea. Now you're saying the west side of this falls off into the sea, so we're left with this:
|\
| \
|\ \
| \ \
|\ \ \
| \ \ \
|\ \ \ \
| \ \ \ \
|\ \ \ \ \
| \ \ \ \ \
|\ \ \ \ \ \
| \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \
A B C D E F G This can't be what you intended, so could you please clarify? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typos.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 703 by Faith, posted 07-26-2019 11:32 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 726 of 2370 (859038)
07-27-2019 12:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 725 by Percy
07-27-2019 11:40 AM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Seems pretty clear to me: "As it (the mountain) rises, the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top." Pretty clear it seems to me that it's the strata that break, not the mountain. The mountain/basement rock, rises after all the strata are in place, those horizontal strata you illustrated back in Message 696. I suggested for purposes of illustration that it should rise beneath the strata about a third of the way from the edge of those strata on the west. (I've been using west for left and east for right but you have west for right. I'm going to continue with my understanding of it but please correct if I'm wrong.) As it rises it pushes up the column of strata and they break as it rises, right over the mountain top, one side of it falling to the west / left, and disappearing into the sea, the other side tilting to the east or right. The east/right side falls down until its broken upper edge forms the short pieces of strata we now see arranged on the sea level line from left/west to right/east, with the rest of the layers now beneath the sea level line where they bend to the right/east and show signs of various disturbances and distortions. I think it's pretty clear those short pieces of strata on the island had to be broken off because they would originally have had very long extensions which wouldn't just erode away. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 725 by Percy, posted 07-27-2019 11:40 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 732 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2019 1:56 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 734 by Percy, posted 07-27-2019 3:17 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 727 of 2370 (859039)
07-27-2019 1:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 721 by Percy
07-27-2019 6:07 AM
|
|
Re: Virus and Scanning Issues
Yesterday on the public computer some weird things happened while I had my yahoo email open, which I thought might be that virus getting into THIS computer too, which is really a scary thought. I immediately tried to get to malwarebytes.com and the computer wouldn't let me go there. I tried a number of times and it wouldn't open the site. That made me worry even more, and suggests that if I did the same on my own computer it wouldn't oopen there either. So do you think I should still do that on my computer? What happened was I wanted to watch a You Tube program. A box appeared blocking a lot of the picture, with the familiar link that ooften appears when an ad is running "skip ad." THAT's what I clicked on but instead of stopping anything it took me to that weird looking orange page. A clue should have been that there was no ad running anyway, it was the program I wanted to watch that was partially blocked by this box with the "skip ad" button in it. When I got back to that video it was the same situation and I stupidly clicked on the button a second time and got the same weird orange page again. That's when I shut off the computer. I am sure this is some kind of malicious thing that got into my computer. I don't know how I'd even know if anything was deleted but I was getting information on sites that doesn't belong there. On this public computer I had trouble turning it off. It brought up more than one shut-down page and it took some time before I figured out how to turn it off. I seem to be able to use EvC OK though. I'm afraid to open my Yahoo email. I don't know if this changes your view of the situation or not. If it doesn't then I'll follow your instructions when I get back to my apartment. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 721 by Percy, posted 07-27-2019 6:07 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 735 by Percy, posted 07-27-2019 3:51 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 771 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2019 5:48 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 728 of 2370 (859040)
07-27-2019 1:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 705 by Faith
07-26-2019 4:55 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
If you want to discuss how geology has things wrong then you should start another thread. This thread is your chance to show that the flood really happened. Even if geologists are all wrong it wouldn't make you right, so your arguing from this standpoint is wrongheaded anyway. That being said, you say many strange things:
Faith writes: Seems to me it's the Old Earth system in which everything should be all jumbled up, not the Flood. What are you imagining would do the jumbling up? Most sedimentary layers are marine, and beneath the sea today is only slow and steady deposition of sediments. Any life buried in today's era will be from today. Any life buried 10,000 years from now will be from that future era, not from today. This is very orderly and organized and not at all jumbled up. Where is your impression of jumbled up coming from?
The surface of the earth NOW is all jumbled up isn't it? In what way is the surface of the Earth jumbled up? We see neither strata nor fossils jumbled up on the Earth's surface. All jumbled up is what we would expect of the Flood.
Animals die willy-nilly on the surface, they don't get nicely buried in nice neat specific sediments,... On the contrary, any animals that die and happen to become buried will become buried in today's sediments, not sediments from some previous era. Fossilization is less likely in land than in water, though, because land usually experiences net erosion rather than deposition. A common way for land animals to become buried and fossilized is to die and be swept into a body of water by a river or a storm. This is why we have far more fossils of coastal than of upland creatures, since upland creatures would be much less likely to be swept into a body of water. And of course the most likely creatures to be buried in sea sediments are sea creatures.
Why should any previous time period, let alone, what, dozens? hundreds? of "time periods" be marked by such nice neat sedimentary strata with specific collections of fossils buried in them? Why are you asking this question? It's been answered at least a hundred times. Reject the explanation if you like, but after nearly 20 years you still don't even seem to know the explanation. Is this just an act? Anyway, as mentioned above, most sedimentary layers are marine. Examining coastlines first, if you look at coasts today (or anytime in the past) you'll see sand. Only sand is large and heavy enough to fall out of suspension in the active water along many coasts. Any creatures living at or near the coast (like crabs, clams and tortoises as well as coastal land life) that happen to die and become buried will be from today. Assuming a transgressing sea (a fairly safe bet these days given global warming) the coastline will inch gradually inland, leaving a layer of sand behind. Now imagine the passage of time, maybe a hundred years. Our transgressing sea has advanced well inland, maybe a mile or two or more, and the coastline has advanced with it. Where once was coastline is now off-coast waters. What was once very active coastal water is now further offshore with much quieter water, and it begins accumulating a different kind of sediment, one where the larger grains have already fallen out of suspension leaving behind smaller particles of clay and mud that slowly fall to the sea floor in the quieter waters. It is a different kind of sediment that if buried deeply enough might later become shale or mudstone or slate, and it accumulates atop the sand sediments deposited when the area was coastline. Any life that happens to die and become buried will be from that period a hundred years in the future, but we can expect, given the slow pace of evolution, that it will be very much like life today. As the sea transgresses further inland taking this off-coast region with it, it leaves a layer of mud and clay above the sand. As more time passes and if the sea continues transgressing inland then this off-coast area will become further and further from the coast, and if the sea is shallow and conditions are warm and right then it might encourage the kind of sea life that results in the deposition of limestone sediments, actually the carbonate shells of tiny creatures, and it will be deposited atop the shale/mudstone layer created when the area was closer to the coast. Life that dies and become buried will be from that time. This is how Walther's Law works, with different depositional environments moving back and forth across a landmass, transgressing and regressing with rising and falling land and sea, paving broad highways of sandstone, shale and limestone as flat and horizontal as the sea floors are today.
...it makes no sense at all that such periods of time should be marked out by flat neat sedimentary rocks of different kinds of sediment for every few million years, and the effort to rationalize it has to involve extreme mental contortionism. Since most layers are marine, and since most marine regions are flat, like the sea floor, and since even land cannot become an area of net deposition until low and fairly flat, and given that if other factors are ignored that all layers will be deposited flat and horizontal, and given that the present is the key to the past, and given the size of the seas, why does it surprise you that geology expects to see many flat sedimentary layers of great extent?
Or just denial. Keep your focus on the topic. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 705 by Faith, posted 07-26-2019 4:55 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 753 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 8:42 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 729 of 2370 (859041)
07-27-2019 1:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 721 by Percy
07-27-2019 6:07 AM
|
|
Re: Virus and Scanning Issues
Malwarebytes is a good program. It does activate a trial of the paid version and when that runs out it will nag you unless you uninstall it or can find where to turn that off in settings. F-Secure has a good tool that you download and run and leaves nothing behind. Free online virus scan | F-Secure Online Scanner | F-Secure Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 721 by Percy, posted 07-27-2019 6:07 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 730 of 2370 (859042)
07-27-2019 1:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 718 by edge
07-26-2019 7:59 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
Where do we find the purest sand deposits today? Where do we find the purest lime deposits today? Where do we find the purest muds today? Are those places in flood deposits? Are they on land? Are they in 'collapsed' sediments? In tsunami deposits? No, they are in marine settings in areas where the same processes have been occurring for ages. They are in places like beaches which are winnowed of fine silt and soft minerals leaving behind pure sand. They are in carbonate banks and coral reefs which have been building for thousands of years without contamination by mud and silt. They are in the deep sea where there is no source of sand or silt, and carbonates dissolve away leaving behind pelagic oozes. On the other hand we can look at rapidly deposited sediments such as turbidites where silt, sand and carbonates are deposited in the same formation. We can look at terrestrial stream deposits where channel sands cut through silty layers. We can see debris flows that dump every type of suspended sediment at once. Yes, we find the purest deposits with the largest lateral extents and the most distinct beds in areas where geological processes have been occurring for the longest times. Not in floods The weird thing is that ALL the strata of the geological colulmn wherever we find it are stacked one on top of another, while the current situations that are always being used as proof the whole thing continues occur in no geographic relation to that column. And I can see with my own eyes on many illustrations that the rocks ARE associated with the time periods so please stop saying they aren't. AND all the strata, the marine AND the terristrial, LOOK THE SAME, they all occur in the same FORM, laid down horizontally and stacked on top of those beneath them. This is what the Flood would have done. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 718 by edge, posted 07-26-2019 7:59 PM | | edge has not replied |
|
JonF
Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 06-23-2003
|
|
|
Message 731 of 2370 (859043)
07-27-2019 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 730 by Faith
07-27-2019 1:21 PM
|
|
Re: evidence?
while the current situations that are always being used as proof the whole thing continues occur in no geographic relation to that column.
As Percy just explained, there is a geographic relation in that newer layers are deposited directly on top of older layers, just under different conditions. You can't get more of a geographic relation than "in the same place".
This is what the Flood would have done.
That's what no flood has ever done and there's no reason to believe even a global fludde would be different. Yes, we can make reasonable evaluations of an alleged global fludde made up of ordinary water under the influence of ordinary gravity and subject to ordinary laws of physics. No, flume experiments are not relevant.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 730 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 1:21 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 851 by Faith, posted 07-31-2019 2:08 PM | | JonF has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17825 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 732 of 2370 (859044)
07-27-2019 1:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 726 by Faith
07-27-2019 12:50 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
quote:
As it rises it pushes up the column of strata and they break as it rises, right over the mountain top, one side of it falling to the west / left, and disappearing into the sea, the other side tilting to the east or right. The east/right side falls down until its broken upper edge forms the short pieces of strata we now see arranged on the sea level line from left/west to right/east, with the rest of the layers now beneath the sea level line where they bend to the right/east and show signs of various disturbances and distortions.
This does not make a lot of sense. Especially as you have admitted that the short pieces of strata are not short pieces of strata at all - just the upper and Western ends of strata extending down to the East Message 662. I don’t know why you insist on this intentional falsehood. Nor do I know why you think that the sea level line is anything more than an illustrative line on the diagram.
quote:
I think it's pretty clear those short pieces of strata on the island had to be broken off because they would originally have had very long extensions which wouldn't just erode away.
Your idea that they would have had long extensions is just your opinion. And if they did have long extensions which somehow broke off and could not have been removed by erosion, where are they ? It seems pretty clear to me that your idea can’t be true. Edited by PaulK, : Added link to post
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 726 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 12:50 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 733 of 2370 (859046)
07-27-2019 2:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 706 by Faith
07-26-2019 5:05 PM
|
|
Re: So now it's been proved that the strata were relocated
Faith writes: Thank you, you saved me from having to sketch it all out and figure out how to scan and post it. But what your schematic sketch shows, as would mine, is that the strata beneath the sea level line were not originally laid down there,... Why are you again calling attention to current sea level when so many people have pointed out how it has no relevance to the strata for either geology or the Flood. Sea level was not at the current level when those strata were deposited, not in the view of geology, and not in the view of the Flood. If you still do not accept this then please respond to this point and we can all discuss it, otherwise please stop raising it. Keep in mind that the diagram is not for illustrating the views of geology but to reflect your views of the Flood.
...and that the most probable explanation for all the disturbances found there... Disturbances found where? Below sea level? Irrelevant.
...is that they occurred due to the tectonic upheaval which caused them to be moved from their original straight flat condition on the island proper,... I don't think anyone doubts that tectonic forces were responsible for the uneven uplift of the region, but the diagram appears to show around three tectonic and probably orogeny-related episodes. No one knows what "the island proper" is. Please stop using the term.
...above the sea level line,... Again, if you think current sea level has some relevant significance, please tell us what you think it is so we can discuss it.
...to their current location beneath the island. I can only guess why you care here about sea level. Sedimentary rock is immensely denser than water (at least two and a half times). It has negative buoyancy. Most sedimentary rock can absorb very little water, maybe a few percent by weight at most. It is so immensely dense with very low porosity that it has almost no absorbency for water. Absorbing a little water does not significantly affect its strength. Rocks like granite are probably at most 1% water. If you're ever at the beach, go into the water and pull out a small 1" or 2" rock that's likely been submerged forever. Put it on a concrete surface, like in your garage or basement, and bang it a few times with a hammer until it splits. The interior will be bone dry. Some types of sandstone can absorb quite a bit of water because of large pores, but it still feels dry (I have some of this type of sandstone, it's pretty neat). See my Message 636 in the Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) thread for more details.
They were clearly originally as you illustrate them, stacked vertically, and clearly fell down... Fell down? Fell down into what? Do you mean the right end experienced subsidence?
...into their current position with their upper broken-off ends now arranged horizontally across the island,... The tilt is greatly exaggerated, it's actually very mild. How many times does that have to be said? And the strata are not arranged "horizontally." They're only tilted. And you need evidence that the "ends" broke off. Where is the broken off material?
...giving ample opportunity for all kinds of disturbance and distortion to those strata on their way to their current position. As has been said before, the diagram shows multiple episodes of tectonism, likely mountain building. Your must explain how your Flood could do everything shown on the cross section in a single episode of tectonism. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 706 by Faith, posted 07-26-2019 5:05 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 734 of 2370 (859047)
07-27-2019 3:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 726 by Faith
07-27-2019 12:50 PM
|
|
Re: once again now: the strata would originally NOT have been where the diagram has them
Faith writes: Seems pretty clear to me: "As it (the mountain) rises, the strata above tilt both to the west and to the east, breaking right over the mountain's top." Pretty clear it seems to me that it's the strata that break, not the mountain. Could I suggest that responding to a request for clarification by repeating yourself word for word and declaring that it is too clear is not helpful.
The mountain/basement rock, rises after all the strata are in place, those horizontal strata you illustrated back in Message 696. I can only guess that you're trying to say that basement rock began being pushed up tectonically. Realize that if your mountain is composed of basement rock that that is unlike the UK cross section where Snowdon is comprised of sedimentary strata, not basement rock. The granite in the Smith diagram is intrusions. But let me assume you meant what you just said, that a mountain of basement rock has pushed these layers up into this inverted "V". Please also realize that the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated, that the tilt is actually within 10° of horizontal.
I suggested for purposes of illustration that it should rise beneath the strata about a third of the way from the edge of those strata on the west. I understand. We both know where the rise is. Do the rest of the strata away from both sides of the rise remain flat?
As it rises it pushes up the column of strata and they break as it rises, right over the mountain top, one side of it falling to the west / left, and disappearing into the sea, the other side tilting to the east or right. The east/right side falls down until its broken upper edge forms the short pieces of strata we now see arranged on the sea level line from left/west to right/east, with the rest of the layers now beneath the sea level line where they bend to the right/east and show signs of various disturbances and distortions. About the "sea level line" again. Why do you keep thinking it has any significance? Please explain. I will present the sequence again from scratch. We start with this: G -------------------------------------------------------------------
F -------------------------------------------------------------------
E -------------------------------------------------------------------
D -------------------------------------------------------------------
C -------------------------------------------------------------------
B -------------------------------------------------------------------
A -------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's a mountain of basement rock that pushes up, yielding this:
/\
/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ / / /\ \ \ \
/ / / / \ \ \ \
/ / / / /\ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
/ / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \
G F E D C B A A B C D E F G Then both sides fall away to the left and right. This shows them in the middle of falling away, indicated by the arrows:
|\ /|
<============ | |\ /| | ============>
| | |\ /| | |
| | | |\ /| | | |
| | | | |\ /| | | | |
| | | | | |\ /| | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<====== | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ======>
| | | | | | | /\ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | |
<== | | | | | | | / \ | | | | | | | ==>
| | | | | | |/ \| | | | | | |
F E D E C B A A B C D E F G And when they've finished falling away then we're left with this, with nothing on the left (it having all fallen into the sea), the mountain in the middle, and the broken ends of strata sticking up on the right:
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \ |
/ \ | | |
_____________/ \| | | | | | |
F E D E C B A A B C D E F G Do I have this right now? Please let me know, because when the diagrams are correct I have some questions.
I think it's pretty clear those short pieces of strata on the island had to be broken off because they would originally have had very long extensions which wouldn't just erode away. What do you mean when you say "they would originally have had very long extensions?" When during the process would these extensions have appeared (in other words, how do I add them to the diagrams) and what happened to them? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 726 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 12:50 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 744 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 7:58 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 760 by Faith, posted 07-28-2019 12:48 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 735 of 2370 (859049)
07-27-2019 3:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 727 by Faith
07-27-2019 1:01 PM
|
|
Re: Virus and Scanning Issues
Some viruses will block your access to antimalware websites, in which case you might be seriously wedged, but on the other hand your local IT group might have installed some security software that keeps residents from downloading software onto the public computer. Let me ask you some things.
I immediately tried to get to malwarebytes.com and the computer wouldn't let me go there. I tried a number of times and it wouldn't open the site. What is displayed in the browser window when you try to visit malwarebytes.com?
What happened was I wanted to watch a You Tube program. A box appeared blocking a lot of the picture, with the familiar link that often appears when an ad is running "skip ad." THAT's what I clicked on but instead of stopping anything it took me to that weird looking orange page. A clue should have been that there was no ad running anyway, it was the program I wanted to watch that was partially blocked by this box with the "skip ad" button in it. Now you're describing what happened on your computer, right? It sounds like you're saying that you saw a "skip ad" link and clicked on it, but now you suspect that it was a fake "skip ad" link. That's possible, I suppose, but I don't use YouTube much. What was on the orange page?
When I got back to that video it was the same situation and I stupidly clicked on the button a second time and got the same weird orange page again. You make the orange page sound like a terrible thing, but you were somehow able to get around it and return to the YouTube video, which is a good sign, but you also said that now your browser is taking you to websites other than the ones you request, which is a bad sign. I suggest you boot up your computer and try to get to MalwareBytes. If you can't get there with Internet Explorer then try FireFox. I'll let you know if I find any of the information you find helpful. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 727 by Faith, posted 07-27-2019 1:01 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 736 by JonF, posted 07-27-2019 4:20 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
