Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 406 of 1304 (731664)
05-19-2014 4:12 PM


Re: salt basin
Dr A writes:
Well on that basis you could implore us to only look at ostriches while considering your position that no birds can fly.
Using only this image:

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 407 of 1304 (731665)
05-19-2014 6:03 PM


Re: Walther's Law Video
Would appreciate someone explaining the video from 20:00 on, in particular how the counts in the matrix at 26:34 are obtained, and then how to interpret the diagram at 29:37.
Heh, brings back bad memories. It's evidence that sedimentologists don't have enough to keep them occupied. I think it's just trying to tell which transitions are most significant in a given series of sea level fluctuations. Remember how he said that Walther's Law will break down when there are unconformities and when sea level is rapidly fluctuating back and forth? Any statisticians around here?

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 408 of 1304 (731666)
05-20-2014 8:15 AM


Re: salt basin
I would very much like to if a location could be selected that would be appropriate and I'm not sure one exists.
Any location in the world would be appropriate for discussing geological features and their relation to a global flood. I have brought this up before ... if there was a global flood 4300 years ago, and it did do the things you are claiming it did in the GC, then there should be Grand Canyon-like structures everywhere in the world. The fact that another "appropriate location" doesn't exist anywhere else should be a huge red flag.
It rapidly gets too complex and requires an enormous amount of time, which doesn't fit into a debate thread.
It does get complex, yes. Sorry, that's science. People spend their whole careers studying a small piece of the puzzle. It would make discussion much easier if you didn't think those that study the actual rocks were liars and deceivers. (and yes you do think that and it shows when you say "they only interpret it that way to uphold their Old Earth Agenda").
what would be the point of moving on to other locations before I get people to see my argument there in the first place?
I think we all understand what your point is, we disagree that the point is valid. You think that if we just understood it we would agree because the point is so air-tight. But that's not the case and a lot of the reason is because your point doesn't take into account ALL the evidence. However. there is a lot we CAN learn from the Grand Canyon; it is a spectacularly preserved (and exposed) record of earth's. One of the things we can learn is that there WAS NOT a global flood 4300 years ago.
You mentioned that you have never seen the GC. You really should make it a life goal. No picture, internet page or discussion forum can even come close to presenting the enormity of the scale that is the Grand Canyon. I seriously doubt any one has ever stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon and said "Huh, it's much smaller than I imagined." If you have not seen the GC in person, then you have NO IDEA of the scale involved. Get There!!!
He hardly ever gives more than a brief cryptic statement about anything and then if I say it's incomprehensible he accuses me of all kinds of antiscientific perfidy along with uppityness that refuses to curtsey to the Scientist.
It's obvious that edge has significant geological training. It can be difficult for a professional to put complex terminology in a way that makes sense to a lay person.
Who needs it?
Honestly, you do. It seems to me that edge is trying to show you how much you don't know about geology so that you will realize that you are not in a position to overturn 200 years of work with your over simplified, unsupported ideas. I think that's fair.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

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


Message 409 of 1304 (731667)
05-20-2014 9:00 AM


Re: Interesting resource
Thanks for this. I gave it a brief look, things are often busy during the week, and will look at it more carefully when I have more time.
--Percy

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


Message 410 of 1304 (731668)
05-20-2014 9:34 AM


Re: salt basin
Any location in the world would be appropriate for discussing geological features and their relation to a global flood. I have brought this up before ... if there was a global flood 4300 years ago, and it did do the things you are claiming it did in the GC, then there should be Grand Canyon-like structures everywhere in the world. The fact that another "appropriate location" doesn't exist anywhere else should be a huge red flag.
No, that is not the case. The Grand Canyon area has the virtue of being clear enough to demonstrate that nothing tectonic happened between the Cambrian and the Tertiary, which is excellent evidence against the Old Earth and for the Flood. All a more complex location would do is muddy up the evidence. People have presented me with photos supposedly proving that tectonic disturbance did occur during the laying down. The area in the photo may be quite messy, jumbled, collapsed and so on, which proves nothing about their claims and suggests to me exactly what I've been claiming. It all got shook up afterward, but if Geology doesn't agree, too bad for me.
Geology is going to have a whole bunch of stuff supposedly proving events in certain time periods from such messy situations, like that cross section edge just posted, but they don't prove that, the idea merely fits with the Old Earth assumptions.
Edge may know a lot but he's got a lousy attitude and a lousy communication style. I don't understand half of what he says, and that's from his communication problem not my level of knowledge.
I know the Flood occurred, and I'm 90% sure the Grand Canyon shows how.
Nothing more to say on this particular subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 411 of 1304 (731669)
05-20-2014 9:41 AM


Re: the Great Unconformity scenario
edge gave you some more technical reasons why this doesn't work in Message 392, but I'll try to come at this from a more layperson's perspective.
If you are proposing that the Great Unconformity is a slip fault, I thought this was your idea and I gave this some thought the other day. Another thing that made me consider this idea was the similarity between the Lewis Overthrust and the Grand Staircase section.
Notice on the left side of both diagrams the strata is bend upwards in a very similar manner. In the Lewis Overthrust, the entire block above the red line was pushed over the rocks below. Could this have happened in the GC?
First, note that the Supergroup blocks are tilted the wrong way for the GC-GS block to have slid left to right. Also notice that the fault in the middle of the diagram (Servier fault, I believe) has slipped in the opposite direction one would expect if the block was pushed left to right. And finally, the Unkar group intrudes (probably not a geologically correct term here) into the Tapeats and even into the Tonto group. Had this block been shoved, it would shear off this 'intrusion.'
Your scenario seems to suggest that it was the rock below the Great Unconformity that was compressed. First, what reason would you have to think this was still "soft" and not metamorphosed?
Here is another cross section of the area with more detail of the Supergroup faulting.
Where are the folds? What indicates that this was compression from the side? Again, the slip surfaces of the faults are in the wrong direction for being pushed from the side. If the lateral force came from left to right, the fist wedge on the left side that would be forced up. Its dropping instead.
This is thought to be a product of rifting, not compression.
Red arrows indicate direction of forces. These would be the mountain range of the Supergroup that was eroded down prior to the laying down of the Tapeats etc...
Read more about it Here
another note: Here is an example of why it is important to consider ALL of the evidence - on a global perspective. (from the blogpost referenced above)
quote:
THE UNKAR GROUP
During the Middle Proterozoic from about 1,255 to 1,100 million years ago, the largely-mudrock of the Unkar Group (red arrow) is thought to have been deposited intracratonically in an environment of extensional tectonism and sedimentation. Its deposition was in tectonic response to plate-margin deformation and crustal shortening during the Grenville Orogen (yellow). The Grenville was the final, protracted mountain-building and crust-forming event in the formation of Rodinia. Deposits within the Grenville Province are found worldwide (yellow).
This is quickly becoming too complicated
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

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


Message 412 of 1304 (731670)
05-20-2014 9:54 AM


pick a site
My job is to construct some idea of how the Flood happened although I'm not a geologist and have to rely on the internet for information. For my purposes the clearest situations are best. I'm not going to give up no matter what nonsense I get thrown at me.
I know the Flood happened and the GC shows the ridiculousness of Old Earth explanations. All other locations would also be products of the Flood but it would be harder answering all the Geology objections. It's hard enough in the Grand Canyon where the evidence is really very good but besides the natural problem of trying to get across a model that is entirely different from theirs, the objections range from the sublime to the ridiculous, even a long utterly insane exchange about the meaning of the word "parallel."
Right, so you pick the other location you want to discuss, OK?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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


Message 413 of 1304 (731671)
05-20-2014 9:58 AM


Re: the Great Unconformity scenario
I don't use the term "slip fault" Your post is useless to me, just an aping of edge. Not reading it. Go away.

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 414 of 1304 (731672)
05-20-2014 10:07 AM


Re: salt basin
No, that is not the case. The Grand Canyon area has the virtue of being clear enough to demonstrate that nothing tectonic happened between the Cambrian and the Tertiary, which is excellent evidence against the Old Earth and for the Flood.
Please explain. I'm not getting how continuous sedimentation in one small part of the earth means that there was a global flood. I'm also not seeing how a lack of major tectonism for a period of time in one small area supports the idea that the earth is young.
All a more complex location would do is muddy up the evidence.
It would also provide more data, maybe even about times where the GC area was quiet. More complex means more data, Faith.
People have presented me with photos supposedly proving that tectonic disturbance did occur during the laying down.
Well, I'd say that it's pretty clear that while one part of the continent may be tectonically quiescent, other areas may be active.
The area in the photo may be quite messy, jumbled, collapsed and so on, which proves nothing about their claims and suggests to me exactly what I've been claiming.
I am sorry that reality is too messy for you. Nature is often like that.
It all got shook up afterward, but if Geology doesn't agree, too bad for me.
That could mean something, ya think?
Geology is going to have a whole bunch of stuff supposedly proving events in certain time periods from such messy situations, like that cross section edge just posted, but they don't prove that, the idea merely fits with the Old Earth assumptions.
We are glad to entertain alternative solutions, however, what you have presented to us fails to explain the Paradox Basin.
Edge may know a lot but he's got a lousy attitude and a lousy communication style.
I don't understand half of what he says, and that's from his communication problem not my level of knowledge.
Heh, heh... Did you listen to that lecture linked on the previous page? Heck, I didn't understand half of it, but I'm not complaining, nor am I insulting him for doing godless geology.
I know the Flood occurred, ...
I'm sure you do.
... and I'm 90% sure the Grand Canyon shows how.
I'm sure you are.
But you cannot support your viewpoint and all of science is against you.
The normal conclusion would be that you are wrong.
Nothing more to say on this particular subject.
I'm not so sure about that.

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 415 of 1304 (731673)
05-20-2014 10:14 AM


Re: pick a site
My job is to construct some idea of how the Flood happened ...
Well, then, we are actually helping you.
... although I'm not a geologist and have to rely on the internet for information.
Why then is it your job? Why not leave it to the creation scientists who have abandoned you? And where do you get your information?
For my purposes the clearest situations are best.
Your clearest situation seems to involve ignoring a whole lot of data. That would be about as clear as you can get, I suppose.
I'm not going to give up no matter what nonsense I get thrown at me.
I'm sure you will not.
I know the Flood happened and the GC shows the ridiculousness of Old Earth explanations.
Ages ago, we knew that gods required human sacrifice...
(snip)

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 416 of 1304 (731674)
05-20-2014 10:20 AM


Re: the Great Unconformity scenario
I don't use the term "slip fault"
But that is what you are describing. You must have detachment along the Great Unconformity in order to get different degrees of deformation.
Your post is useless to me, just an aping of edge.
If providing an even-handed analysis is aping me, then I'm pleased.
Not reading it. Go away.
This appears to demonstrate your attitude toward evidence. Thank you for clearing that up.

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


Message 417 of 1304 (731675)
05-20-2014 10:39 AM


Hey you've won, go celebrate or something. You've chased the creationist away with your jargon and your rank-pulling and your namecalling. You've made this discussion as odious as it could possibly be and as useless. Have a good time. I'll take up my argument elsewhere.

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 418 of 1304 (731676)
05-20-2014 10:41 AM


Re: salt basin
The Grand Canyon area has the virtue of being clear enough to demonstrate that nothing tectonic happened between the Cambrian and the Tertiary
"nothing tectonic happened" in the Grand Canyon. Those other "more complex" locations show that there was plenty of tectonic activity in other locations.
Geology is going to have a whole bunch of stuff supposedly proving events in certain time periods from such messy situations
You still miss the whole point of science. Its not about "proving" past events. Why do we believe that a particular area was covered by a calm sea? Because the area has limestone deposits and we know that limestone is deposited in calm seas. There is nothing "proved." Our understanding of the past is based on our understanding of the present. If someone discovered that limestone is formed when calcium carbonate rains from the sky, it would totally change our idea of the history of an area that had limestone deposits.
I don't understand half of what he says, and that's from his communication problem not my level of knowledge.
You know, I don't understand half of what he says either. But why is it his fault that I don't know the terms and processes he is talking about? If I really want to understand, I either look it up or ask "What do you mean by ***? Could you explain *** a little more? I don't understand."
This is not how to do science. Science asks "What does the evidence tell us?" Geology does not start with the premise that the earth is old and then set out to prove it. It takes the evidence and tries to paint a picture of the past using interpretations of that evidence.
And don't think interpretation is something sinister. Here is the evidence:
Interpretation: Rifting, not compression is what caused faulting in the Supergroup.
I know the Flood occurred, and I'm 90% sure the Grand Canyon shows how.
I am 99.9999% sure the GC does not support a global flood 4300 years ago (.0001% because I am open to being wrong). Just go there and see the scale of it and then try to imagine all that sediment being laid down in one year. And that canyon being cut in a few hundred years. No way.
Nothing more to say on this particular subject.
What subject do you have nothing more to say on?

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

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


Message 419 of 1304 (731677)
05-20-2014 10:45 AM


Re: salt basin
There was no tectonic activity in other locations during the laying down of the strata. No you have not shown that.

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


Message 420 of 1304 (731678)
05-20-2014 10:54 AM


Re: salt basin
Go celebrate with edge. You've won the debate.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024