Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 286 of 1896 (713853)
12-17-2013 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2013 6:23 PM


Re: Erosion of Great Unconformity Garner video
That made me laugh. Doesn't happen too often here. I MUST be tired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2013 6:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 1896 (713854)
12-17-2013 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Percy
12-17-2013 7:35 AM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
OK, you've answered the question about Supergroup tilting. I'm going to make a collection of the answers I get.
But I don't see your answer to question #1 anywhere, about what caused the uplift of the whole canyon area.
I'd also ask when they occurred in relation to each other in your scenario, the uplift and the tilting of the Supergroup.
Thanks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 12-17-2013 7:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 288 of 1896 (713855)
12-17-2013 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
12-17-2013 5:04 AM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
a) Did the earthquakes occur before or after the uplifting of the canyon area as a whole?
They occurred before the tops of the supergroup were eroded and before the next layer of sediment was laid over them.
How can you tell? they were roughly sheared off by erosion in a generally horizontal line to form the base for the next layer
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 5:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 6:07 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 289 of 1896 (713856)
12-17-2013 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Percy
12-17-2013 7:28 AM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
I don't know why RAZD answered "Earthquakes." ...
ah the fault is all mine
... causes the stratigraphic layers to break up into blocks along vertical faults. ...
I was just being simplistic ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 12-17-2013 7:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 290 of 1896 (713857)
12-17-2013 8:52 AM


The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
I don't know if I'll get any more answers to my questions in Message 263 but the answers I've got so far prompt me to ask this:
If you look at those cross-sections of the Grand Staircase - Grand Canyon area you can see that the uplift over the GC is in a mounded shape, and that the tilted layers of the Supergroup I've been asking you about occur at the bottom of the canyon area directly under the uppermost height of that mounded area. It looks to me like there is a relation between the uplift and the Supergroup that hasn't been dealt with yet so I would like to get explanations, such as
When did the uplift occur in relation to the tilting/erosion of the Supergroup?
The uplift has been explained as caused by tectonic movement, but Percy has explained the Supergroup in terms of tectonic stretching which is apparently a different thing.
I don't have a clear question beyond this at the moment but I'd like you to think about the mounded uplift and the Supergroup beneath it and explain it however you understand it.
Thanks
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 12-17-2013 9:48 AM Faith has replied
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2013 10:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 301 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2013 1:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 291 of 1896 (713858)
12-17-2013 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
12-17-2013 8:52 AM


Re: The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
Faith writes:
When did the uplift occur in relation to the tilting/erosion of the Supergroup?
The uplift had to have occurred after all the layers visible at the Grand Canyon were deposited because layers are deposited horizontally.
If you look at those cross-sections of the Grand Staircase - Grand Canyon area you can see that the uplift over the GC is in a mounded shape, and that the tilted layers of the Supergroup I've been asking you about occur at the bottom of the canyon area directly under the uppermost height of that mounded area.
The uplift explains the canyon. While the region gradually uplifted, the Colorado eroded through the elevating landscape. That there are a couple of blocks of supergroup below the canyon has no particular meaning. Uplift and subsidence take place all over world and are due to forces originating from deep within the Earth, far deeper than the bottom of the supergroup.
Because it exposes so much of so many geological layers, the Grand Canyon is one of the most studied areas in the world. Perhaps there are no other blocks of supergroup in the area, or perhaps there are and we don't know about them because we've only made intensive studies in the area around the Grand Canyon.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 8:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by petrophysics1, posted 12-17-2013 10:59 AM Percy has replied
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 7:07 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 292 of 1896 (713859)
12-17-2013 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
12-17-2013 8:52 AM


Re: The Supergroup and the Uplift Continued
When did the uplift occur in relation to the tilting/erosion of the Supergroup?
And just to be clear, just because one event happens after another does not mean there is a causal relationship -- they can both be results of the same cause or they can be results of different causes.
Tectonic movements take a number of different forms, but they are generally caused by the movement of plates.
Here are some animated gifs showing plate movements
Plate Tectonics
They play fast, so you may want to download the quicktime version and pause it
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 8:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 293 of 1896 (713861)
12-17-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
12-14-2013 11:28 AM


Why do the layers stop?
Just a general question:
Why do all the layers suddenly stop and become a huge mass of granite/schist? (The "Zeraster Granite and Vishnu Schist" area in the diagram below.)
I can think of a few reasons, but I'm wondering which one might be correct:
  • This area isn't what the diagram is attempting to show, so it's details are not included (like graying out Canada and Mexico when showing a map of the US)
  • This is just what happens to any rock-particles that are under such pressure over such a long time... they become granite/schist regardless of what they may have been previously.
  • Excavation to this area is difficult, so it's details are not as well known
  • Something else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 12-14-2013 11:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 12-17-2013 11:06 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 1896 (713866)
12-17-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
12-17-2013 2:57 AM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
1) What caused the uplift to the Grand Canyon area?
2) What caused the TILTING of the Supergroup?
IIRC: 1) The Laramide Orogeny; 2) The Grand Canyon Orogeny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 2:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 1896 (713867)
12-17-2013 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Percy
12-17-2013 9:48 AM


How did you determine this?
Hi Percy,
There isn't any money to be made studying the Grand Canyon unless you are passing a collection plate around. Basins which contain oil and gas have been studied far more than the GC and they have maybe 6X as much sedimentary rock in them.
I have asked Faith three times to explain her procedure for determining depositional environments. She has not answered because I believe she doesn't have one. That's the only way I can see she can be so consistently wrong.
However I've noticed that you are as well telling us what the depositional environments and history are. So what is your procedure for doing that? Are you just repeating something someone else told you?
If I blow up Mt. St. Helens big time, so ash falls all the way to South Dakota, is that layer horizontal? Does it follow the topography? Is it thicker near the volcano than 1000 miles away? If it is, that's not horizontal deposition. You have stated deposition is horizontal, but it is not. I need to know how you did that so your procedure can be corrected.
To be clear, like with Faith, you are out in the field and just have exposed rocks, no information about them. What is your procedure to determine their depositional environment and history?
I don't believe you know what to do. I know Faith doesn't. Let's see how honest you are compared to our YEC, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 12-17-2013 9:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 12-17-2013 11:30 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 299 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-17-2013 11:57 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 296 of 1896 (713869)
12-17-2013 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Stile
12-17-2013 10:33 AM


Re: Why do the layers stop?
The granite and schist that underlies the strata in the Grand Canyon region are ancient metamorphic and igneous rock. Metamorphic rock has been subjected to extreme heat and pressure. Igneous rock is magma that has cooled sufficiently to become solid.
I think they represent these basement rocks as gray not because they're all uniformly the same, and not because we don't know anything about them, but because they can't be represented as neatly layered strata. They have a much more complex structure.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Stile, posted 12-17-2013 10:33 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 297 of 1896 (713873)
12-17-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
12-17-2013 5:47 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Sigh again. You are right that I haven't given any thought to the problems you are posing to me. But unlike those I have been complaining about I have not commented on them either, only to say I'd have to find a way to reinterpret them. But the others here are making judgments about my arguments apparently without having thought about them. OK?
Not sure why you're addressing this post to me when you're clearly trying to convince yourself. You're complaining about people saying "Your theory is wrong" without, according to you, taking the time to understand it. But somehow when you say "Your theory is wrong but I can't be bothered to understand it" it is perfectly reasonable. Quit making excuses, Faith. You don't have a response because such a response would entail disproving the laws of physics. I know you've declared it irrelevant, but that serves only to give yourself the excuse to ignore it.
Cognitive dissonance involves believing and trying to juggle two contradictory things at once
Though I usually leave the discussion of cognitive dissonance to RAZD, your response to my points is what he's talking about. You believe the Flood laid down all strata. You believe you are a reasonable person who rationally considers the evidence. I have presented evidence that proves your belief in the Flood wrong and for which you have no explanation in the context of that belief. To preserve the above two beliefs in the face of the evidence I present, you have come to the conclusion that the evidence I present is wrong/boring/irrelevant. That way you still get to believe in the Flood despite the evidence I and others present and also believe that you rationally consider the available evidence despite refusing to rationally consider the available evidence. This may suffice to resolve your dissonance but nothing else. That's the last I'll say about dissonance, but the example was too glaring to refrain from remarking upon.
I don't have the interest or the time or to get the thorough education you are talking about
Well at least you're honest enough to state explicitly that you are unwilling to expose yourself to the knowledge that will invalidate your theory. We already knew that, but it's nice that you know it too.
But since EVERYTHING is interpreted in terms of OE theory it puts an enormous burden on a creationist to show how it's wrong. I feel sort of sorry for Atheos because he started this thread and he really wants to prove to me that his sand grains make the Flood impossible because he thinks they do. But I'd have the job then of learning all about them, plus researching possible other contexts he wouldn't have thought of in order to find out how they don't prove what he says they do.
Of course you won't see it this way, but the problem you complain about should be a red flag for you about your beliefs. We can easily point to piles of studies from the scientific literature that support what we're saying. That is because very clever people working over hundreds of years have consistently found the evidence to support the Old Earth theory, including those working before OE theory was mainstream. You complain that you have to do a lot of work to find alternative explanations and this is because there is really no Creationist research to support you. This is because there is no evidence to support the conclusions a YEC "scientist" desires.
In the context of the evidence of aeolian deposition, you're clearly telling yourself that if you could be bothered to investigate you would find that you were right all along. But of course many geologists have gone to great lengths to determine whether or not a stratum or formation is aeolian or aqueous in origin. Without any interest in disproving the Flood (to forestall any accusations of conspiracy) many formations have been shown to be aeolian in origin. Because these people are doing real science and are interested in getting to the truth, debates have been waged and all the evidence and alternative explanations you can't be bothered to investigate have been considered. I know you won't accept the fact that people who are infinitely more qualified than you to be discussing depositional environments have actually looked at both sides of any given aeolian vs aqueous question and in many cases found that the evidence supports the aeolian conclusion, but your personal incredulity has no value in an evidence-based debate.
I'm not going to get into the old "who feels sorry for who" nonsense, because it's obvious that you're very satisfied with your carefully cultivated and rationalized ignorance. But if you're feeling sorry for the people whose points you have ignored because you can't deal with them, then you should be spreading your pity around this thread pretty liberally. The bedding angle of the strata is only one of several points I have made and one of many more that others here have made that show the Flood never happened. You've actually convinced yourself that being ignorant is a reasonable excuse for ignoring the evidence, which is interesting. It doesn't take an great learning to see that it doesn't make sense for a dinosaur to be preserved sitting on its nest to have been preserved thusly by a catastrophic flood. While your willful ignorance may seem like a convenient and comforting excuse to you, it only reinforces the disdain the rest of us feel for proponents of young earth fantasies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 5:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 298 of 1896 (713874)
12-17-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by petrophysics1
12-17-2013 10:59 AM


Re: How did you determine this?
Hi Petro,
I think you exploring the depth of the foundations of my geological knowledge would be a bit off-topic. If you'd like to offer corrections to anything I've explained then please go ahead.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by petrophysics1, posted 12-17-2013 10:59 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 299 of 1896 (713876)
12-17-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by petrophysics1
12-17-2013 10:59 AM


Re: How did you determine this?
I have asked Faith three times to explain her procedure for determining depositional environments. She has not answered because I believe she doesn't have one.
Nonsense. She totally has an answer. And a really, really good one too. Or she would if she could be bothered to think about it just now when she's so busy and tired and did I mention busy? I'm sure when she eventually gets around to addressing your question at some nebulous, potentially non-existent time in the future she will have a really well thought out and comprehensive answer. *Urp* Sorry, just a bit of excess snark coming up I'm afraid.
However I've noticed that you are as well telling us what the depositional environments and history are. So what is your procedure for doing that? Are you just repeating something someone else told you?
While I agree that it is a good idea to have a personal understanding of the things one says and I'm curious to see how Percy answers, I think it should be pointed out that Percy, if he is merely regurgitating, is repeating information from people like you, i.e. qualified people with geological training. Faith is repeating information from unqualified creationist sources or more usually citing her own imagination. If pressed, Percy can easily find well-evidenced explanations for the interpretations of depositional environments he talks about whereas Faith both can't and won't. Thus, while I agree that one should be cognizant of and honest about one's limitations, Percy and Faith's situations are not exactly equivalent. Which you might not have been suggesting anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by petrophysics1, posted 12-17-2013 10:59 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 1896 (713882)
12-17-2013 12:49 PM


G.C.S.
Another interesting view of the Grand Canyon Supergroup.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024