|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sigh.
I know I'm not being as careful and clear as I should.
I looked and looked for a cartoon I just saw recently of a monkey at a computer with the caption "Genuine Scientific Gibberish Spoken Here." Can't find it anywhere. Oh well.
It appears that Faith has a lot invested in the geological death of the planet. I'm not sure why. But I don't equate the Geological Time Scale with time itself as you apparently do. As I've said many times already, time goes on ("upward" or "onward," who cares, it keeps on going, that's the point. On the models of the Geo Time Scale it goes upward, why make an issue of it?). History goes on, the planet goes on, sedimentation goes on but the Geo Time Scale has stopped. The death of the Time Scale has nothing to do with the life or death of the planet. I know I can't get this across, nothing I could say would get it across. But there is no way that sedimentation in deltas and basins could possibly account for the huge strata in the Geo Column. Sigh. Want to talk about something else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's a change of subject. That's what you guys always do when I'm trying to make a particular point, you just change the subject. So I ignore it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've given the evidence. Nobody has shown anywhere the Geo Column continues to build. Two places where the column is pretty complete, meaning the strata, AND also their corresponding time periods, are Great Britain -- Smith's map -- and the GC-GS area as shown on my favorite cross section. All the strata that represent the majority of the time periods from Precambrian to Holocene are there in both of them, obviously all laid down BEFORE the erosion that exposed them to view in both areas. There may not be any other places on the planet where the strata are so complete and so exposed, I don't know. If you all know I'd really like to have more evidence.
The evidence in those two places at least is that it has stopped. Went on for hundreds of millions of years then erosion took over and it's no longer continuing. You claim it's continuing in other places and you think that makes sense. Oh well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The evidence in those two places at least is that it has stopped. Went on for hundreds of millions of years then erosion took over and it's no longer continuing. You claim it's continuing in other places and you think that makes sense. Oh well. A lot of the layers in the column are volcanic. If a volcano started up it would leave a layer of lava or ash on top of those places where you claim that it has "stopped." And then it would not have stopped at all, now would it?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The Grand Canyon area is not evidence at all. Of course it's suffering net erosion, that's expected. It's simply irrelevant. Choosing that site rather than sites where deposition IS going on is so absurd that it betrays - at best - gross ignorance.
Now if you took a representative sample of sites where deposition is going on, explained why they don't meet your expectations (which are STILL unclear) you might have an argument. As it is, you have a confused and fallacious mess - and you complain that you aren't believed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Edge writes: Faith writes: But we aren't in the Pleistocene and there won't be anything after the Holocene. Well, this is 2014 and there won't be anything after that. I thought about using that sort of analogy, but 2014 has a now defined (known) end and the Holocene does not. But a now unknown does not mean it's never going to end. Faith seems to be operating under some variation of the Holocene having being defined as having ended, or maybe it's "the Holocene is never going to end". I'm not sure which. At least she seems to have defined her interpretation of "geologic column" as being a stratagraphic sequence (aka "the rocks"):
Faith, in message 1097, writes: I'm too used to "Geologic Column" to change to "geologic section" or "the geology of the location". Don't see why there should be a problem. It refers to the physical strata. Faith, in message 1098, writes: Minnemooseus writes: Anyway, what exactly to YOU mean by the term "geologic column"? Is it "geologic time scale" or is it "stratagraphic section"? Are you talking the sum of the time periods of the Earth's history, or are you talking about the rocks? It's the rocks, always the rocks, only the rocks. Specifically the strata on which the Geologic Time Scale was constructed. I guess now we need to expound on how the geologic time scale was constructed. I think she has some sort of mixture or right and wrong in the quote right above this paragraph. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You say I should choose a site where deposition is going on. Please provide one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You don't need to expound on how the Geo Time Scale was constructed. Just look at any diagram of it, and the best are always of the Grand Canyon, sorry just the way it is. Those are ROCKS there, identified as rocks based on different sediments, AND they are identified as Time Periods as well. it doesn't matter how it came about, the Geo Time Scale is clearly constructed ON the Geo Column.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Actually you should pick a representative sample of sites where deposition is going on. And if you can't do that, then really you have no business claiming that you have evidence let alone that your assertions are obviously true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
See, I don't think deposition is going on anywhere like the deposition that produced the Geo Column. I see the whole shebang this way:
Strata laid down, through the entire stack, Precambrian to Holocene in Time terms, basement rock to Claron or higher in strata terms. Not a perfect match but parallel formation of strata and time. I think this is what happened everywhere. Now we just have the disturbances, the disturbed surface and the disturbed strata both, the erosion, the twisted strata, sedimentation or deposition here and there, blah blah blah. So show me this deposition that is going on now that contradicts this scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can't pick them because I don't think there are any that contradict my scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You can't find the evidence because you assume you're right ? Thanks for that great example of creationist "science".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Point is, where would I look? You are so sure you can prove me wrong you're the one who should produce the evidence. I really doubt there is any. Deposition in deltas, deposition in the ocean, what are you going to come up since none of that proves me wrong? And remember the Geo Column covers a lot of geography. You aren't going to find anything anywhere near that extent even if you found something that roughly approximates a Geo Column layer, which you aren't going to find anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
it doesn't matter how it came about, the Geo Time Scale is clearly constructed ON the Geo Column. I don't have time to pursue this much right now, but I must say you're pretty much flat out wrong. For a rather extreme example, in deposits from a transgressing sea, a given formation might be Cambrian in one location, but Ordovician in another. The time scale is not constructed from the rock units. Time to post that wonderful diagram again:
Click on to get the big version. Look at the bottom, where they compare chronostratigraphic correlation to lithostratagraphic correlation. Chronostratigraphic correlation ties into the geologic time scale, lithostratagraphic correlation does not. And in another location, the same time period may be "represented" (and take those quote marks seriously) by entirely different rocks. The time scale is not constructed from the rocks. Well, pursued it further than I planned. That's where the time goes. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Changing your tune again ? I'll simply repeat if you don't know where to look for the evidence then you've got no business claiming that you are obviously right.
quote: Since you won't even state your claim clearly I can't be sure about anything. And again, why should I do your work for you ?
quote: Doesn't it ? How do you know ?
quote: I'll bet that this is another example where you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024