|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
The first paragraph may be dealt with by pointing out that the unsubstantiated opinions of someone who regularly says things that really are ridiculous are hardly worth considering.
quote: The creatures found as fossils would generally be dead before they were buried - and it would be a long time after that when the material around them became rock. Long dead animals have no need of anywhere to live. Their descendants - if they had any - would, of course be living on the surface as it was in their time. Really, do you think that modern Egyptians live on the same surface of the Nile flood plain as their ancient ancestors did thousands of years ago ? Or do they live in the modern surface on top of all the sediment deposited by the regular flooding ?
quote: Your assessment, as ever, is hopelessly wrong. As the article says, the Chinle formation (which is a formation, not a single stratum) incorporates an environment consisting of lakes, river plains and wetlands. Interestingly you've pointed me to a refutation of another of your claims, The Wingate Sandstone - one of the formations directly above the Chinle is dated from the late Triassic into the Early Jurassic. So much for the idea that deposition stops at the boundaries between geological periods. The Wikipedia article on the Wingate Sandstone (linked from the Chinle formation article so you have no excuse for not reading it) says:
Wingate layers are typically pale orange to red in color, the remnants of wind-born sand dunes
That's desert, not deep ocean. The other, the Moenave formation is Jurassic, and there was uplift and erosion between the two. Need I point out that uplifting land is hardly likely to put it at the bottom of a deep ocean ? And the Moenave formation was deposited in the same range of environments as the Chinle, so obviously the animals that liked those environments could likely stay there. So, where exactly is this "deep ocean" ? (Of course the whole point would be silly anywhere. Faced with environmental change animals will move, adapt or die. This is not a problem.)
quote: If that is true then there should be many dinosaur fossils found in deep ocean deposits. Which I have no reason to believe. Given that you were hopelessly wrong about the Chinle formation - and you could easily gave found out by reading articles linked from the one you quoted I am not about to trust your unsupported word on this. Evidence please.
quote: We've had enough evidence at this point to say that that is clearly false. If you won't see it, then too bad for you.
quote: Except for the sea creatures found as fossils in the strata which genuinely were deposited on the seabed.
quote: Which is a genuinely ridiculous claim as shown in the original thread. Really why should we reject solid scientific conclusions which you CALL ridiculous when your objections really are ridiculous ? Edited by PaulK, : Fixed a couple of "corrections"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Another version of the Just-So imaginary landscape. I wonder if anyone will ever get around to noticing that when the "landscape" reverts to a new layer of sediment that's going to become a flat rock in a stack of flat rocks, neatly smack up against the rocks above and below, that all living things imagined to have populated that imaginary landscape would be dead.? That's the only thing that could come of such a landscape that builds up on a rock of the strata and then erodes down and disappears into the next rock of the strata. The reality of the actual situation just doesn't get across, does it?
And has anyone commented on the problem of the seas Geology says occurred in the same time periods as the dinosaurs? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The deep ocean and the transgressing-regressing epeiric seas are detailed in the sixth edition of the textbook Historical Geology by two respected professors of Geology named Wicander and Monroe. They seem to have failed to notice that their seas would be a problem for their dinosaurs in the same time periods.
Oh Paul, I don't expect you to EVER accept anything I say; fear not, your delusions are quite safe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The reality includes animal tracks, burrows, etc. How do you suppose they got into those "imaginary" landscapes?
... all living things imagined to have populated that imaginary landscape would be dead....The reality of the actual situation just doesn't get across, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The reality includes animal tracks, burrows, etc. How do you suppose they got into those "imaginary" landscapes? Most likely creatures that survived the first phases of the Flood leaving evidence of their presence in the latest deposit of sediment before being overtaken by the next. You do notice that the sediments were WET, right? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Since you provide absolutely no information to check other than the implication that it directly followed the deposition of the Chinle formation - which turned out to be false - I rather doubt this. Especially coming from someone with a habit of misrepresenting even friendly sources.
quote: If you don't like people noticing you many errors the answer is to take more care to get things right - a lot more. Being nasty about it just encourages retaliation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
No. They're not all wet. Try googling "fossil tracks in aeolian deposits".
You do notice that the sediments were WET, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
the implication that it directly followed the deposition of the Chinle formation What??? Do you know how to read? Where did I say anything about "directly following the deposition of the Chinle formation?" All I said was that the Chinle Formation has a lot of dinosaur fossils, it's a Triassic deposit, and it covers a lot of territory west of the Rockies, which according to the textbook mentioned was under deep ocean during the Mesozoic time periods. I understand there is a later edition of that textbook online if you want to see if it contains the same information. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
PRESERVED tracks in aeolian deposits. OK. Dry sand fills in tracks in dry sand and they get preserved. Wow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
So what are they doing down there mixed in with all of the so-called "Flood" layers?
PRESERVED tracks in aeolian deposits. OK. Dry sand fills in tracks in dry sand and they get preserved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The supposed aeolian deposits weren't. That's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Those fossilized creatures would have had no place to go when that "landscape" eventually disappeared. This is hilarious. The fossilized creatures were dead. And of course we are talking about creatures that are currently extinct, so the fact that they had no place to go when their landscape disappeared would not be a problem. But landscapes are on top of layers. If you see an exposed layer, that means that the landscape has been removed by some process such as erosion or being buried under lava. Still not a problem either way.
Dinosaurs are supposed to have roamed all over that territory during this time period with its dinosaur-friendly imaginary landscape Very few of those dinosaurs ever became fossils. Beyond that, given the descriptions of how strata are formed, it is possible that their could always have been a top layer of sediment and soil during the time when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. The key is that strata form bottom up and not top down. The rock can form regardless of the whether layers above are rock or landscape. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Landscapes occur on top of exposed layers, but never occurred on any layer that is still in the stack. And I don't see what is so hilarious except your determination to garble the point: it is the creatures fossilized in the rock that are supposed to have been alive in the supposed landscape of the supposed time period, in which as I'm pointing out, nothing could have remained alive given the actual situation that you are all ignoring. But anything to obfuscate, right? There is no way any dinosaurs escaped, but that isn't going to stop you all from making up the usual plausible Just-So rationalizations.
The fact of the strata kills the whole claim of the landscapes. But the epeiric seas do an even better job of that. I've got to get out of here. It's become nothing but mean-spirited bickering. I've made my case, it's a good case to anyone willing to understand it fairly, and that's the end of it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words you were being incredibly vague about when this supposed "deep ocean" was present. Why even mention the Chinle formation if this supposed "deep ocean" was in the distant future - millions of years later ? What possible relevance could that have to the dinosaurs living at the time when the Chinle formation was being deposited ? Of course the whole argument has other serious flaws in that it fails to state any real problem. Even if the distant descendants of the dinosaurs list hat had lived in the Chinle formation were wiped out because they had nowhere to go that would not, in itself be a problem. How could it be ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You just admitted they were:
The supposed aeolian deposits weren't. That's all.quote: And those aeolian deposits are sandwiched between layers that you claim were deposited by the same flood. How do you explain a flood layer with and aeolian landscape on top of it and another flood layer on top of that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024