|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
The eruption of Toba in Indonesia put a recognizable layer in Lake Malawi in Africa. To build all the present and extinct volcanoes on the surface of the Earth, disregarding undersea volcanoes, the ocean floor,
and large igneous provinces, would take a minimum of 10,000 times Toba. This would surely leave a discernible and massive layer in the geological record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So, where are the 'crumbles' at the GU? I thought you knew I'm trying to explain the "erosion" at the contact, the pieces of the Supergroup you say are there etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There are no volcanoes or earthquakes in the general description of the Flood and its Timeline. That is correct but they obviously occurred in the world about the time of the Flood, and as I've been putting it together right at the end of the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Percy writes: Faith writes: Minnemooseus writes: Note that I'm considering clastic sediment. Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required. This has never made any sense to me. Limestone is one of the layers illustrated for Walther's Law and it is presented as exactly the same kind of layer -- same size and shape --as the sand and clay and so on. If it has to be created in place why would it look the same as the others? And why in any case can't the ingredients of limestone be transported like the ingredients of sandstone or mudstone or siltstone or any other stone anyway? Percy writes: The calcareous deposits that form limestone occur further from shore in warm shallow seas of possibly great extent, conducive to tiny shelled creatures living in the waters and to shelled creatures like coral and mollusk living on the sea floor. Percy writes: Calcium carbonate, the primary component of the shells of these creatures and of limestone, is soluble, but while Moose implies that limestone forms only by precipitation, the fact is that the contribution of precipitation is variable. Some limestone is full of the fossil shells of these creatures that rained down on the sea floor when they died, with precipitation serving as more of a cement. Some is very fine grained without fossils and probably involved a very great degree of precipitation. And a lot is probably somewhere between the extremes. Percy writes: I don't know why Moose said the limestone deposition rate would be very slow compared to other sediment types. My own feeling is that it is probably highly variable depending upon local conditions. Minnemooseus (again) writes: Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required. That "chemically" would have been best left out, especially since I implied a connection to limestone formation. My understanding is that the vast bulk of limestones are of biochemical origin. And by biochemical, I mean critters forming calcium carbonate shells and such. Even where fossils in limestones are not evident, the limestone is a result of the critter calcium carbonate being reduced to being a calcium carbonate sand/silt/mud. Think of all the other critters chewing up the clams ect., eliminating there preservation as fossils and producing calcium carbonate sediment (proto-limestone). While it is in some fanciful concept conceivable to wash huge amounts of clastic rock fragments (sand, silt, clay) off the continental land mass to be then redeposited in a relatively short amount of time, growing all those clam shells etc. does require a lot more time. I don't think I've much if ever cited radiometric dating as evidence for an old Earth. Radiometric data puts hard age numbers on things, but even if radiometric dating didn't exist, there is still abundant geologic evidence that places the Earth's age as being vastly greater than the YEC frame. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Had reversed the Faith and Minnemooseus quote attributes in the first quote box. Now fixed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, first of all, Faith suggested that maybe fountains of the deep might be volcanoes, but she also says that the volcanism only occurred after the flood and after all of the sediments had been deposited. So I guess we can throw out that idea. I mentioned that some think they were volcanoes. I don't understand the reasoning and haven't accepted it, I'm just reporting it.
And sure, the general treatment of the flood in the Bible does not give details. However, if all of the volcanism we see in the geological record occurred within just a 4ky time-frame that might merit a sentence or two in the Bible, yes? Not if they didn't impinge on Noah's situation. But if most of them occurred underwater, as they would have at the end of the Flood, the water should have had some effect on them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why was the flood killing ocean life? Because of declining salinity because of all the added fresh water? Because of increasing salinity because of all the salt from land sediments washed into the sea (runoff from land is the source of ocean salinity)? Whichever one was the cause, what evidence do you have for how the ocean's original salinity was restored after the flood? And if the ocean became toxic to ocean life during the flood then since presumably Noah didn't take sea life aboard the ark, what evidence do you have for how ocean life was restored after the flood? I've always thought it had to do with the load of sediments carried in the water. Suffocation. They're all buried in the sedimentary strata after all. Not hard to explain how sea life was restored if it was suffocated by the sedimentary load. Only some portion died anyway, and after the sediments all settled down they'd just repopulate the oceans, though judging from the prodigious amount of fossilized marine life my guess is their numbers have never reached to anything close to what they were before.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
...growing all those clam shells etc. does require a lot more time. Why on earth would they have to be "grown?" Why not just killed and carried in the water to be deposited on the land? ABE: By the way you quoted me for you and you for me in your first quote box. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The eruption of Toba in Indonesia put a recognizable layer in Lake Malawi in Africa. To build all the present and extinct volcanoes on the surface of the Earth, disregarding undersea volcanoes, the ocean floor, and large igneous provinces, would take a minimum of 10,000 times Toba. This would surely leave a discernible and massive layer in the geological record. What if most of the volcanism occurred under water, say at the end of the Flood before the water receded? Back somewhere you gave a list of topics the SDA consider impossible. I'd like to raise the one about the heating of the planet from the movement of the plates. It's always asserted that the planet would become too hot for Noah etc. Since the source of the heat would be things like the Atlantic ridge's magma isn't that a rather small source of heat in comparison with the enormous volume of water to be heated? Also, when the water does heat even to a small extent and evaporates more rapidly it would bring on the ice age which would also have a cooling effect on things. Is all this taken into account? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes I know people were thinking in terms of millions of years before radiometric dating, but what makes any of it trustworthy? Hutton looked at Siccar Point and said it must have taken millions of years. That's about the "scientific" level of that stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I thought you knew I'm trying to explain the "erosion" at the contact, the pieces of the Supergroup you say are there etc.
So, the rocks of the Supergroup are also soft?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Some are. The quartzite had hardened most. But the whole shebang was still under water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
What if most of the volcanism occurred under water, say at the end of the Flood before the water receded?
Probably most volcanism is submarine.
Back somewhere you gave a list of topics the SDA consider impossible. I'd like to raise the one about the heating of the planet from the movement of the plates. It's always asserted that the planet would become too hot for Noah etc. Since the source of the heat would be things like the Atlantic ridge's magma isn't that a rather small source of heat in comparison with the enormous volume of water to be heated?
If you do the calculation of the total heat released by cooling of the oceanic crust along with all of the terrestrial volcanism there is more than enough heat to boil the oceans. But never mind that, just the degassing of all that magma would sterilize the planet first. Releasing that heat over time works nicely.
Also, when the water does heat even to a small extent and evaporates more rapidly it would bring on the ice age which would also have a cooling effect on things. Is all this taken into account?
I'll leave that to the physicists, but what do you think happens when all of that water vapor condenses?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Some are. The quartzite had hardened most. But the whole shebang was still under water.
Then you should explain why there are cobbles of granite and schist and shale, etc. along with the quartzite.
The Tapeats is a massive cliff-forming unit of brown sandstone. Much of the sand is very coarse-grained, often pea-sized or larger, and some grains are beautifully colored--my students call this the M&M conglomerate. The Tapeats Sandstone represents near-shore beach and sand bar deposits.
The base of the Tapeats contains a conglomerate member (part of the Tapeats), called the Hotauta Conglomerate. This was a pebble beach formed as the Tonto Sea encroached and tore up the Vishnu, so the Hotauta contains schist and granite pebbles. Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon So, how do you get rounded pebbles of schist along with quartzite in the conglomerate just above the unconformity? If they were so soft they should be folded instead of forming hard 'river rock' cobbles. What is more, how do you get rounded pebbles and cobbles of granite if the granite was not formed until long after the entire stratigraphic section at the GC? And no, don't even think for a minute that faulting in either soft or hard rock can form hard, rounded pebbles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Yes I know people were thinking in terms of millions of years before radiometric dating, but what makes any of it trustworthy? Hutton looked at Siccar Point and said it must have taken millions of years. That's about the "scientific" level of that stuff.
Make that 'hundreds of millions of years'. And just because they could not quantify the ages does not mean that the work was unscientific. There was reasoning behind each calculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
YOU are the one who keeps saying the rocks are "soft," I've merely said they are wet though highly compacted and probably not yet lithified. They can still be pretty hard, just not hard enough to leave those shearing marks you kept referring to. All of it would have been wet, schist and all. I see no problem with getting chunks and "cobbles" from the abrasion I keep postulating.
I've gotta admit that quoted description just starts my eyeballs rolling until I think they might pop out and roll across the floor.
. The Tapeats Sandstone represents near-shore beach and sand bar deposits. The base of the Tapeats contains a conglomerate member (part of the Tapeats), called the Hotauta Conglomerate. This was a pebble beach formed as the Tonto Sea encroached and tore up the Vishnu, so the Hotauta contains schist and granite pebbles. Error 404 - Not Found A pebble beach ...Tonto Sea... tore up the Vishnu ... causing ...schist and granite pebbles. I'm holding onto my eyes. How do you believe this absurd stuff? Really. Seems to me my abrasion of hard but not totally lithified Supergroup and Vishnu and granite too is a much better explanation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024