Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 346 of 380 (713134)
12-10-2013 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Dr Adequate
12-09-2013 10:24 PM


Dr. A., your assignment was to view a long segment of the canyon wall from a distance and say what you actually see between the layers. You've found a more close up view of a smaller section. I know you can always find disconformities and that sort of thing, I'm talking about the appearance of the undisturbed parts of the horizontal strata where the contact between the layers is usually absolutely undisturbed and the general appearance is of a great depth of very horizontal layers..
But that's really OK, I understand you will never debate fairly, and you would certainly not want to consider anything that proved the young earth was true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 10:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 2:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 350 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 8:19 AM Faith has replied
 Message 353 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 10:14 AM Faith has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 347 of 380 (713135)
12-10-2013 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:06 AM


Dr. A., your assignment was to view a long segment of the canyon wall from a distance
What possible difference could it make what distance the evidence is viewed from?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:21 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 354 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 10:17 AM NoNukes has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 348 of 380 (713136)
12-10-2013 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Atheos canadensis
12-10-2013 12:34 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Lithification is not problematic where sediments are rapidly buried under tons of other sediments, lithification is problematic where they remain surface over long long long ages, which one would expect on the old earth theory.
So here you're assuming that the old earth theory assumes that no deposition occurs to bury sediments over the course of "long long long ages".
I couldn't possibly assume THAT; that's what OE theory depends on, the idea that deposition is ongoing throughout those ages or at least periodically throughout those supposed millions of years, so that eventually somehow they think they get a very deep stack of horizontal slabs of completely different kinds of rock out of it. The burying has to keep going on their theory but they need TONS of sediment to provide the weight to lithify the sediments, from layer to layer or "time period to time period" up the stack. Unless that accumulates rapidly there are going to be long long periods of unlithified sediments which over such long periods couldn't maintain their flat even horizontality. Millions of years of time are supposedly contained in a layer or a few layers together. If you look at a stack of strata say in the Grand Canyon in the areas where they are most neatly stacked you see that they are wonderfully horizontal, flat, sharply demarcated from each other kind of sediment by what is usually a nearly perfect contact line between them without any kind of disturbance there. This does not suggest slow deposition over millions of years per layer but rapid deposition that allows the weight of the higher strata to contribute to the lithification of the lower.
This is an obvious mischaracterization of the theory. It's easier to pretend a theory is nonsense when you rewrite it until it is, but it's not a real argument.
Fortunately it's no argument I've ever made.
It's ridiculous to call rocks landscapes
I assume by this you mean what you said in other posts, i.e. that the rock record does not contain evidence of any depositional environment. So how can the rock record be evidence for the Deluvian depositional environment?
The term seems to be used in different senses or maybe I'm not using it right. What I mean by landscapes is the idea that each of the layers in a stack of the strata, or some segment of same, is treated as a former time period in which the contents of the rocks, its fossils etc., define what sort of living things inhabited what sort of earth environment in that time period. They get all this out of what is merely a rock, usually composed of one single type of sediment (as if the earth's surface were ever so composed) in which a particular collection of fossils can be found. This becomes a landscape with flora and fauna that supposedly existed for a very long time on Planet Earth. It's a SLAB OF ROCK for pete's sake. I find this ludicrous. You find it sensible?
Again, the appearance of the strata shows that they couldn't possibly represent long periods of time, implied by the different separated sediments and the flat horizontality
You've made 115 posts on this thread, a large proportion of which are about this topic. Yet in all those posts you have not once provided an argument more substantive than the one above. You provide no citations or evidence that what you state is true, nor even an explanation for why the horizontality of the strata prove that they were deposited by the Flood. I guarantee that you can't link a single message here that explains your argument in any more detail than what you've posted here.
I do repeat myself because people change the subject, ignore what I'm saying and then misrepresent it. I do expect this description to be clear enough to cause you to think about how the horizontality and separate sediments of the strata mitigate against long ages. You have to think about it. But if you are in the habit of overlooking the implications of these facts in favor of the idea of earthly landscapes over long ages being found in slabs of rock then you aren't going to be able to simply think about it.
And you are still avoiding responding to my point. You sit on your high horse, telling us we all have our blinders one while you tie on a blindfold. So again, if all strata were deposited by the Flood, why do we find strata that contain all the physical features of aeolian deposits, features that would not be produced by aqueous deposition? I'm sure you've scrubbed these features from your mind so you don't have to deal with them, so I'll reiterate quickly:
But you don't. You find a slab of rock with its grains oriented as grains formed in an aeolian environment would have been. It's a ROCK formed from those grains that had to have been hardened/lithified fairly rapidly for it to have the flat horizontality it has, it's not and never was an Aeolian environment.
Features of aeolian deposits found in rock record:
1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water)
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossils
As you've pointed out, those first two could have been the result of aeolian sediments being redeposited by the Flood. That explanation does not account for the rest of the list. So go ahead and explain how it is logical and honest to conclude that the presence of all these features that are characteristic of aeolian deposition are actually evidence of the Flood. I'm 99% sure you will fail do even try.
THEIR EXISTENCE IN A FLAT HORIZONTAL SLAB OF ROCK OF ONE SINGLE SEDIMENT THAT COVERS THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES, SOMETIMES MULTIPLE THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES. PERIOD.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 12:34 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 9:08 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 349 of 380 (713137)
12-10-2013 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by NoNukes
12-10-2013 2:09 AM


So their simple horizontality and flatness over a huge distance can be appreciated without the interference of focusing on details, or can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees syndrome. But Dr. A defeated the purpose of the experiment anyway by choosing a section where the horizontality and flatness are not evident. Those areas exist all over the GC too, where disturbances after the stack was laid down have shifted and distorted them. I want the undisturbed parts to be in view.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 2:09 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 10:27 AM Faith has replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 350 of 380 (713143)
12-10-2013 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:06 AM


Dr. A., your assignment was to view a long segment of the canyon wall from a distance and say what you actually see between the layers. You've found a more close up view of a smaller section. I know you can always find disconformities and that sort of thing, I'm talking about the appearance of the undisturbed parts of the horizontal strata where the contact between the layers is usually absolutely undisturbed and the general appearance is of a great depth of very horizontal layers.
Does anyone else find it hilarious that Faith is trying to support her position by saying "Look at the evidence...but too closely"? I sure do. Sure, when you look at strata from 50m away they look flat and undisturbed, but when you look up close it is possible to identify unconformities.
I know you can always find disconformities and that sort of thing
I assume you don't know what the word "disconformity' means. It is by definition an indicator of erosion or non-deposition. If you accept the existence of such features then you accept that the stratum above which they occur was exposed for long periods of time. Plus you still have never presented evidence or reasoning that indicates that on the the Flood could have laid down strata horizontally. Dr. A showed you pictures of modern beach strata, several of which were perfectly flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 11:38 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(3)
Message 351 of 380 (713145)
12-10-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:08 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
The burying has to keep going on their theory but they need TONS of sediment to provide the weight to lithify the sediments
You're right, tons of sediment are required. And observation of modern deposition regimes reveals that tons of sediment are being deposited. You did look at the pictures Dr. A posted, right? That was a lot of sand stacked up there, and more is being deposited all the time. Thus the requirement for large amounts of overlying sediment to compress and lithify underlying sediment is met without invoking the Flood.
Unless that accumulates rapidly there are going to be long long periods of unlithified sediments which over such long periods couldn't maintain their flat even horizontality
This is another of those statements that require citations to prove you aren't just making stuff up. You've been shown pictures of modern, horizontally-deposited strata that have been buried flat. And then what about the pictures you've been shown of strata that are very distorted and folded. According to your above reasoning, this means that they were exposed for "long periods" and "couldn't maintain their flat even horizontality". This is wrong of course (there are other processes at work to cause the folding), but it does illustrate the inconsistency of your "logic". Or are you going to argue that the flatness of the strata proves they were deposited by the Flood because if they were the result of slow deposition they would be distorted while simultaneously maintaining that the warped strata also prove the Flood happened?
I do repeat myself because people change the subject, ignore what I'm saying and then misrepresent it. I do expect this description to be clear enough to cause you to think about how the horizontality and separate sediments of the strata mitigate against long ages. You have to think about it. But if you are in the habit of overlooking the implications of these facts in favor of the idea of earthly landscapes over long ages being found in slabs of rock then you aren't going to be able to simply think about it.
Just as I predicted, you were completely unable to produce a post that provided more support for your argument than "Look at how flat the strata are. Must have been the Flood!" You may "expect this description to be clear enough", but that expectation is not a sufficient replacement for providing actual reasoning.
This becomes a landscape with flora and fauna that supposedly existed for a very long time on Planet Earth. It's a SLAB OF ROCK for pete's sake. I find this ludicrous.
You keep asserting (but not supporting) that the rocks can't be an ancient landscape. So how do you explain the existence of an in situ TERRESTRIAL dinosaur sitting on its nest? You've avoided even acknowledging the existence of such a fossil for several posts now. This is obviously because you have no way of explaining it in terms of your imaginary Flood. I guess I'll keep pointing it out until you respond with a real answer.
But you don't. You find a slab of rock with its grains oriented as grains formed in an aeolian environment would have been. It's a ROCK formed from those grains that had to have been hardened/lithified fairly rapidly for it to have the flat horizontality it has, it's not and never was an Aeolian environment.
Ha! So your best explanation for why we find structures characteristic of aeolian deposits is that we don't find such structures. Brilliant. Unfortunately for you, just wishing the evidence didn't exist won't make it disappear. You may disagree that the strata actually do represent an aeolian depositional environment, but you can't reasonably disagree that the features of that environment are found in the rock record because they have been observed and well-documented! You need to explain why such features were produced by the Flood instead telling yourself they don't exist. This:
You find a slab of rock with its grains oriented as grains formed in an aeolian environment would have been.
Is barely coherent, let alone an explanation. I think you're trying to say that the shape of aeolian grains causes them to settle in the shapes associated with aeolian depositional environments even though they were really deposited by the flood. This is a convenient fantasy, but not something that is actually supported by physics. The shape of sand does not noticeably affect the pattern in which it is deposited. I'm going to post the aeolian characteristics again for you to respond to. This time see if you can produce something a smidge less laughable than a caps locked statement that the rocks are flat that doesn't address any of the points.
1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water).
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossils
Note that saying "The rocks are flat!" does not address these points. Your claim is that all strata were deposited by the Flood. Therefore you need to specifically address evidence that indicates that they weren't deposited in an aqueous environment. Explain why aeolian bedforms formed in an aequous environment. Explain how the laws of physics took a break and allowed wet sand to be deposited at the 34 degree angle of repose characteristic of dry sand as opposed to the 45 degree angle of wet sand. Explain the coarsening upwards pattern. And again, explain the presence of an in situ, terrestrial dinosaur sitting on its nest. Go on. Give it a try. I'm guessing however that you'll stick to keeping your eyes closed and repeating that "The rocks are flat so I'm right!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:08 AM Faith has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4501
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 352 of 380 (713149)
12-10-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
12-09-2013 6:25 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
In order to do that you'd have to have thought about the descriptions I gave in OTHER posts; this one was just a sketch.
I said you have to understand what I'm saying. You don't show the slightest understanding of what I've been saying about the strata. For one thing you have to be looking at the strata, which are best appreciated in a wall of the Grand Canyon, for some period of time from a distance because the strata are so deep and visible there. You don't describe doing that. You don't describe your thoughts about what you saw anyway, whatever it was you saw in the formations of the Southwest, concerning how you arrived at the determination that it is all old. Clearly you didn't consider what I asked you to consider.
Faith, I thought about you quite a bit while I was travelling. And just because I didn't write about all my observations and all my thoughts doesn't mean I didn't make them or think about them. I visited parts of the Grand Canyon and spent a couple days there photographing and waiting for thunderstorms to develop. I saw the walls on the opposite side of the canyon. In some places the layers were stacked neatly with level, horizontal boundaries.
In many other places along the wall the layers were not stacked so neatly. They were slanted or warped or disappeared or got fatter.
This is a part of the Grand Canyon called Marble Canyon and Vermillion Cliffs.
These are the Vermillion Cliffs.
Your argument is not that hard to understand, but it does not describe what I saw. There are lots of places where the layers are not all neat like you want them to be. No one but an idiot would look at the Grand Canyon and think that all those layers were deposited at the same time.
Appreciating this fact should suggest to you that they couldn't have been laid down over long ages, because of their undisturbed horizontality and the undisturbed flatness between layers, and that they are separated different sediments (which don't just normally succeed one another in normal time), and the way the fossils are collected within them which certainly suggests catastrophic burial...
You are wrong! That is only how they look in some places where erosion has cut through the layers and they were flat and horizontal. But there are just as many places where that just is NOT true.
Have you ever visited the Grand Canyon? You do not seem to be describing reality, reality that anyone can go there and see.
...and particularly the fact that no formations, canyons, monuments, hoodoos, stairs or anything else, were cut into them until after the entire stack was in place. You need to stop and think HARD about this, while looking at the intact strata.
You are right.....in some places you do not see those features, but you can only see the edges of the layers that have been exposed by erosion. There is no way to tell when you are standing there what feature lay still hidden within the layers. In other sections you can clearly see that erosion happend to a layer before the next one way deposited.
I didn't look at your pictures at the link but now that you have them up it is clear they don't apply to this experiment, which is about the STRATA.
You are right, they don't fit into your "thought" experiment, because they show that your experiment is a fantasy.
They show STRATA that was clearly disturbed before the next layers of STRATA were deposited.


ou haven't described even considering any of that, anything I've pointed out about it.
Since you didn't even consider what I asked you to do, let alone do it, you did not do this experiment honestly as you claim.
You are right, I did not describe all my thoughts about your experiment and my observations. My observations show that your fantasies are wrong, so I am not going to describe every nuance of thought I had about someone who is so idiotic as to look at a few photographs and never actually visit a place in person and who has the inflated ego to tell hundreds of thousands of geologists and other scientists who actually visited the place, that they are all wrong.
FEELING honest is far from BEING honest.
I still recommend the experiment to others. Perhaps those who can grasp my description better, or can be more honest about doing what I ask.
My My, aren't you sanctimonious. If there was ever anyone who would know that FEELING honest is far from BEING honest
it would be you.
I should have known better than to try and engage you. True to form, you tell us that we don't understand your argument whenever we disagree with you.
Your arguments are easy to understand, they are simple minded and they are wrong.
This could go on and on, but it will not, because there is no point in engaging you any further.
Cheers

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 6:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:31 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 353 of 380 (713152)
12-10-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:06 AM


Dr. A., your assignment was to view a long segment of the canyon wall from a distance and say what you actually see between the layers. You've found a more close up view of a smaller section.
The Redwall formation varies in thickness from 240 meters to 150 meters. So that is not a close-up photograph.
But that's really OK, I understand you will never debate fairly ...
You asked a question, I gave a completely accurate answer. I guess in creationism land, telling the truth may be considered unfair, but where I come from it's thought of as a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 354 of 380 (713153)
12-10-2013 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by NoNukes
12-10-2013 2:09 AM


What possible difference could it make what distance the evidence is viewed from?
It's harder to see what the rocks look like if you look at them from further away; hence easier to entertain dumb creationist fantasies about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 2:09 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-10-2013 10:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4501
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 355 of 380 (713154)
12-10-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Dr Adequate
12-10-2013 10:17 AM


It's harder to see what the rocks look like if you look at them from further away; hence easier to entertain dumb creationist fantasies about them.
In Faith's case she has been looking at them from a lot further away....in her living room, the capitol of Creationist Fantasyland.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 10:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 356 of 380 (713156)
12-10-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:21 AM


But Dr. A defeated the purpose of the experiment anyway by choosing a section where the horizontality and flatness are not evident.
Yeah, 'cos of all the obvious surface erosion, the valleys and the karst landscape cut into the limestone. Which doesn't just defeat "the experiement", but the whole of "flood geology".
I want the undisturbed parts to be in view.
Sure, there are also bits that have not been eroded. Real geology does not predict that everything should be eroded. That would involve, y'know, denying the existence of rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 493 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 357 of 380 (713162)
12-10-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
12-09-2013 1:10 PM


Faith writes:
I believe anybody could verify what I'm saying but you have to get your Old Earth glasses off and you have to be honest about it.
And yet nobody does verify your claims. Maybe you're the one who needs to put your glasses on and throw your white cane away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:10 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 358 of 380 (713167)
12-10-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Atheos canadensis
12-10-2013 8:19 AM


Avoiding the Experiment a-one and a-two and ...
Yes I do get confused about the difference between unconformities, nonconformities, disconformities and so on (Dr. A's segment of the GC has a lot of disturbed features) and the very idea that there could have been a nondeposition at all is really laughable, as it is completely based on theory, not observation, and you are expecting such a gap to have somehow managed to occur between the flat surfaces of other depositions so that to the naked eye there is no difference to be detected between that layer-to-layer contact and any other where you DON'T fantasize a missing period of time. You guys really don't make sense. If any of you would honestly pursue the experiment I have proposed you could at least see the situation as a debunker of the Old Earth fantasy sees it, but apparently nobody is going to do anything proposed by a -- gasp -- creationist.
The point of seeing it from a distance is to avoid the stupid idea that the minuscule amounts of erosion that can SOMETIMES, not always, be seen at the contact lines between layers, could possibly be evidence of a former exposure at the surface of the earth. If you can point to that bitsy bit of erosion you'll make that crazy claim, but that degree of erosion is best understood as caused by runoff between the layers.
The sort of erosion that occurs at the surface of the earth would cut deep gullies and even collapse whole layers which would be visible from way across the canyon. Gosh, it could EVEN cut a gigantic canyon like the one that DID get cut after all the layers over a billion years were already in place.
Which is, again, HIGHLY suggestive of the interpretation that the whole stack was laid down in a very short period of time and THEN subjected to a gigantic tectonic disturbance that for some reason on your model didn't happen until then, a billion years after the layers got started being slowly deposited, abruptly changing sediments from time to time, a very loooonnng "time to time" and so on.
Somehow such blatant facts don't disturb the continuing microscopic level investigation of the grains in the rocks or the bits of erosion between them on the ASSUMPTION that you're dealing with ancient time periods.
Actually I think at least one of Dr. A's beach pictures has very interesting implications for the young earth, the depth of the sand showing the ripples. I didn't catch it at first but it certainly shows that the successive waves of the Flood could have laid down such rippled sand.
Anyway, such beach pictures, or any ongoing deposition of any sediment in the present, don't even begin to explain the huge depositions that created some of the rock strata. I believe the Coconino sandstone that is found near the top of the Grand Canyon covers the area of five or six Southwest states, in some places to a great depth. I think it is the redwall limestone of the GC that spans the entire continent of the US and is even found in the UK (which would show that the continents began to separate after the strata were in place, but that's another subject). And although I think it was the redwall it might be a different one of the layers, I'd have to go back and listen to a particular video to find out.
Anyway, no beach being deposited now covers anything like such a huge breadth of territory. But the Flood very likely DID involve such huge waves that would have made successive deposits of the same sediment over huge swaths of the land mass.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 8:19 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2013 12:34 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 359 of 380 (713169)
12-10-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Dr Adequate
12-10-2013 10:27 AM


Sure, there are also bits that have not been eroded. Real geology does not predict that everything should be eroded. That would involve, y'know, denying the existence of rocks.
The point of viewing a very long segment of neatly and deeply stacked UNeroded lithified sediments, is to contemplate the fact that the original deposition of those sediments was continuous and could not possibly have involved exposure at the surface of the earth of any layer or part of the stack at any time during its formation.
It is also strongly suggestive of the whole thing's having been laid down by water, the WHOLE thing, not just sometimes to suit a particular theory about a particular layer. The flat horizontality of ALL the layers of the WHOLE stack STRONGLY suggests that.
The SHARPLY separated different kinds of sediments just make no sense at all on any theory of normal deposition in normal time, but they DO make sense on the theory of deposition by moving water in a relatively SHORT time frame.
The disturbed parts of the strata can be shown to have undergone the disturbance after the entire stack was in place. What the undisturbed areas demonstrate is the ORIGINAL condition of the deposition of the strata before they became rock.
ABE: I just put the above paragraph in larger print to answer all the complaints that I don't know about the other formations than the undisturbed areas of the canyon. The idea that I wouldn't is just the usual low opinion of creationists of course, but I DO have a point and I've stated it above. The undisturbed parts reflect the ORIGINAL deposition of the strata and that CAN be defended by showing that the disturbances to the other parts occurred AFTER the whole stack was in place. I'd begin with the CANYON ITSELF for crying out loud. It cut through a mile deep stack of UNDISTURBED strata for crying out loud, strata that are usually interpreted to represent time periods of millions of years for crying out loud. But everybody has to change the subject, bring in other issues etc etc etc. NO. deal with the experiment as proposed,.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 10:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 2:46 PM Faith has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 360 of 380 (713173)
12-10-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Faith
12-10-2013 11:38 AM


Re: Avoiding the Experiment a-one and a-two and ...
Let me get this straight.
You're saying that if you look at the Grand Canyon from afar, say like this:
If that one doesn't load, you can find it here: http://fireflyforest.net/...November/aerial-grand-canyon.jpg
And you take your "Old-Earth Glasses" off, then it will look like the layers were laid down during one flood?
Is that right?
Now, let's zoom out a bit:
Does it still look like it came from one flood?
How about even further:
All that land was covered by water in one huge flood? I don't need Old-Earth Glasses to see how that's wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024