|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Evidence is information you gather from the real world.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: The erosion is minuscule, like rubble between layers caused by runoff or perhaps a shifting of the rocks causing abrasion. Why do you say things that are so easily rebutted? Here's a diagram from the Wikipedia article on the Great Unconformity. Note that the erosion of the top of the Muav Limestone is not miniscule:
Here's an image of the Muav Limstone that happens to show a channel (riverbed) eroded into it's surface by the Temple Butte Formation:
Erosion of the sort that we find on the surface would look like canyons and cliffs which did finally occur after, ha ha, "millions of years." Ha ha. And you would be wrong, incredibly, deeply, acutely wrong, ha ha. Some surface erosion looks like the badlands of South Dakota:
But some looks like Kansas:
What we find in the geological strata is a record of what happened. What we do not find is strata following a set of rules invented by Faith.
Sorry about your paradigm blindness. Oh, gratuitous insults. Well, then, sorry about your ignorance, ineptitude, evidence avoidance and pigheadedness.
Sure would be nice if there was anyone on the evo side here who could think straight and had the guts to say what needs to be said. Yet more insults. If you can manage to say anything that is true then no one could deny it. But if you're just going to continue to make things up then your situation is hopeless. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: But they don't understand because they misrepresent it. Particularly Percy No one misrepresents what you say, particularly Percy. We compose detailed rebuttals of your ideas which you then ignore. You just responded to a 300 word message of rebuttal with a one liner. How do you expect to overcome any rebuttals with rubbish like that? You're in essence just letting the rebuttals stand, and then you have the chutzpah to complain about how no one gives your ideas any credence. You have to defend your ideas, not repeat them from scratch over and over again like a parrot. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: Sorry, all edge was doing was repeating the standard explanation with which I disagree. No, that's wrong. You misunderstood what Edge was saying and posted an irrelevant tirade on a different subject.
ALL strat columns everywhere were laid down and THEN erosion, volcanism and all the other disturbances occurred. You're again simply restating your position absent any evidence and as if it hadn't been rebutted dozens of times.
And the volcanism at the bottom of the GC also occurred after the strata were all in place just as the Great Unconformity did. This, too, has been rebutted dozens of times. How can you honestly keep restating your positions from scratch as if there had never been any rebuttals? Naturally the intrusions in the Grand Canyon Supergroup layers occurred after the supergroup strata were all in place, but not after the rest of the strata of the Grand Canyon was in place. And there is not only no evidence that the supergroup rotated after being physically buried, it isn't even physically possible. As I said before, take a pile of plywood and rotate the bottom four sheets upward 30 degrees. What does that get you?
No you don't understand any of it, and you cannot rebut it. All you can do is repeat the idiotic standard interpretation. Well, more insults. You're the one that dropped into one-liner mode. If you're going to do childish things like that how can you expect to be understand? But the fact of the matter is that we understand your positions very well. You have repeated them probably a hundred times over the years - there's no escaping them. And they've been rebutted as often. If the rebuttals are so idiotic then you shouldn't have any trouble responding to them, should you? But you don't. Why is that? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: The Muav channels were clearly formed after the strata were all in place by liquefied limestone running between the layers. This is, once again, a bald declaration with no supporting evidence. What is it that you see in the evidence that makes it "clear" that they were "formed after the strata were all in place"? By the way, liquified limestone is not a naturally occurring geological compound but is something you can buy online:
quote: Actual limestone does not liquify. If you heat it then it "decomposes to atmospheric carbon dioxide and CaO (calcium oxide, or "quick lime," a powder)." See Can limestone become a liquid? What you're probably talking about is limestone in suspension in water. What are you looking at in the evidence that tells you that limestone saturated water caused the topology of the Mauv Limestone? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I think the monadnocks were pushed up into the still-wet layers after they were all laid down,... You've got this all mixed up. Monadnocks are a product of erosion. They couldn't have been pushed up into "still-wet" layers and then been eroded while still covered by these "still-wet layers". Also, pushing the monadnocks up into the Tapeats would have very visibly displaced the material of the Tapeats, something that isn't observed. You're piling impossibilities upon impossibilities.
...as part of the tectonic upheaval that occurred at that point,... There is no evidence of tectonic upheaval around these monadnocks. That's why there are recognizable as monadnocks and not as tectonic upheavals.
...raising it along with the whole stack. The monadnocks didn't rise abvoe the Tapeats into the layers above, so they didn't raise "the whole stack." The Tapeats deposited around the monadnocks. This is obvious from simple observation, and is described in this excerpt from Cambrian history of the Grand Canyon region, Parts 1-2 on page 119:
quote: The evidence is the curve in the Tapeats over those blocks of the GU, and in fact the curve of the entire stack,... The curve of the entire stack, including the Grand Canyon layers and the Grand Canyon Supergroup is evidence that they were all affected by the same tectonic forces that uplifted the entire region. Note that the layers of the Tapeat are deposited around the single monadnock shown in this diagram that extends into the Tapeats from the Grand Canyon Supergroup:
This whole upheaval also put strain on the uppermost strata a mile or more above the Kaibab, which is what began the formation of the canyon by creating cracks in them. The rocks were still wet and easily bendable, but they developed cracks? And rocks do not form by drying. They form by the process of lithification, which requires great pressure.
That uppermost strata broke up, the Flood waters were receding at this point, in fact probably began to receded as part of this upheaval, poured into the cracks, widening and deepening them, taking chunks of strata with it, and so the canyon was formed. There is no evidence that the "uppermost strata broke up." If this is what had happened then this is the evidence we would observe. Instead all we see is evidence of gradual deposition as indicated by a variety of evidence that you never address, such as radiometric dating, interspersed layers of different densities, increasing difference of fossils with increasing depth, and animal tracks and burrows.
Yes of course I'm repeating myself, it's what I think happened. You're forcing repeats of the rebuttals, which you never address.
And the reason the faults in the GU stop at the Tapeats is because they were forming at the same time the whole block was being pushed up and sliding under the Tapeats. There is no evidence that the Grand Canyon Supergroup slid around beneath the Tapeats. Such a fault would have left copious evidence behind. The reason the faults stop at the Tapeats is because the Tapeats wasn't there when they formed.
There was no continuous contact for them to continue upward due to the slippage between the layers. This would be the slippage for which not an iota of evidence exists.
And all this also occurred in conjunction with the volcanism which became the Cardenas layer... The law of superposition says that the "volcanism which became the Cardenas layer" definitely did not not occur in conjunction with anything happening in the Tapeats. Radiometric dating confirms that the Cardenas predates the Tapeats by at least half a billion years.
...as well as the flow in the canyon itself, which formed both the granite and the schist beneath the Tapeats. The Vishnu Schist is about a billion years older than the Tapeats. The Zoroaster Granite about a billion years older, too, and is thought to be the top of an ancient mountain range.
In fact I've come to think of this as a worldwide event, accounting for all the angular unconformities, all the tectonic stress in all the strata everywhere, all the twisting and upending of the rocks etc., as the continents split apart. All happening as the Flood began to recede, all connected with this tectonic movement of the continents. So the Siccar Point angular unconformity would have occurred at this time too. This is all a product of your imagination. There is no evidence for it, a great deal of evidence against it, and much of it violates known physical laws.
It all works. You won't accept it but it does all work. It has been explained over and over again how none of it works. If you think it works then start addressing the rebuttals. Start with how it could be that level sediments surround the monadnocks if they were somehow pushed up into the overlying layer, and how there is no evidence of displacement of material as the monadnocks were pushed up. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: See Wikipedia article on "Karst"
Karst topography is a landscape formed from the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves.[1] It has also been documented for more weathering-resistant rocks, such as quartzite, given the right conditions. As Wikipedia says, "It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves." Do you see any "underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves" in the Tapeats? Or in any layers of the Grand Canyon? Since nothing like these structures occur in this region, your rationale of karst as an explanation fails. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Acidic water if I recall correctly.ABE: Yes. From the same Wikipedia article: The development of karst occurs whenever acidic water starts to break down the surface of bedrock near its cracks, or bedding planes. As the bedrock (typically limestone or dolostone) continues to degrade, its cracks tend to get bigger. As time goes on, these fractures will become wider, and eventually a drainage system of some sort may start to form underneath. If this underground drainage system does form, it will speed up the development of karst formations there because more water will be able to flow through the region, giving it more erosive power Again, nothing like "cracks tending to get bigger" and "fractures becoming wider" and "an underground drainage system" were observed in the Tapeats or any of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Karst formations have a unique appearance and are easily recognizable, they couldn't be missed if they were there. Your karst explanation fails. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Yeah, well that's the way it is. I see what I see. Accusing me of foul motives is pretty cheap debate form. But you're not telling it the way you see it because you have nothing to see. There is no evidence supporting your position. That you are are making it up is simply an observation of the obvious.
The "others" who determined that the channels were stream beds couldn't see it any other way because they assume that it was originally on the surface because of their belief in OE theory. Paradigm influence. They don't assume it was on the surface. They know it was on the surface because it is a stream bed, and stream beds form on the surface. If there is a paradigm influence going on here it's that gathering facts can tell us what happened in the past. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I REFERRED TO KARST FORMATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF LIMESTONE, WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE CHANNEL OF TEMPLE BUTTE LIMESTONE WAS FLOWING THROUGH, NOT FORMING KARSTS. Oh, I see we're back to all caps again. Can one-liner responses be far behind? You know, if you're going to behave like a six-year old throwing a temper tantrum in a department store, don't you think it's going to negatively impact your credibility and how seriously you're taken? The way you're acting seems to reflect an attitude of, "I can't muster any effective arguments, so I'll just be as annoying as possible." You make all these complaints about how you're treated, but you bring it all on yourself. The Temple Butte limestone are sedimentary deposits, not anything that resulted from limestone saturated waters.
HOWEVER, YES THERE ARE KARSTS IN THE GRAND CANYON. We're not talking about the layers next to the Colorado, which of course are influenced by water. We're talking about how the layers formed before the Colorado even existed. Flowing limestone saturated water and karsts were not a factor in the formation of any of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Layers not adjacent to the canyon do not have caves or karsts.
ALSO, IF YOU LOOK UP MUAV FORMATION AND TEMPLE BUTTE FORMATION YOU'LL SEE AREAS THAT LOOK LIKE CAVE FORMATION IN BOTH, NOT EXTENSIVE BUT THERE. Yes, of course, in caves formed by the Colorado. Now, in strata not adjacent to the Colorado would you like to explain how you could possibly be correct given that all the strata are sedimentary and do not contain caves and karsts? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: OH GOOD GRIEF. Oh boy, a one-liner response, did I call it or what. If history is any guide can threats to abandon the thread be far behind? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: OH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO WHAT. I SHOULDN'T BE HERE AT ALL. I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR THIS NONSENSE. OMIGOD, my next prediction, threats to leave, am I hot or what!
I THINK YOU'VE MIXED UP MY GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT HOW THE EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CAUSED BY RUNOFF, WITH THE LIMESTONE DISSOLUTION EXPLANATION FOR TEMPLE BUTTE. The Temple Butte streambed is filled with sedimentary layers. "Limestone dissolution" somehow filling the streambed would leave completely different evidence.
I NEED TO GET OUT OF THIS MADHOUSE. There's nothing unique about EvC Forum. It's just a normal discussion board. The same problems you experience here would follow you to any other discussion board. Even at a discussion board that shared your viewpoint you would find ways to argue with everyone. The only reason you stay at this discussion board is because the dark background is easier on your eyes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: The strata were all laid down in the Flood We know the strata were not deposited by the Biblical Flood because floods don't sort layers by material, fossil order and radiometric age. We know they can't intersperse layers of dense material with layers of lighter material. We know they can't intersperse land layers with marine layers. We know they can't deposit layers with tracks and burrows. We know they cannot deposit layers with unconformities.
The Flood was a lot of water. The sediments were all wet when laid down. There was plenty of opportunity acidic water to cut a channel through which liquid limestone could run after the Flood water receded. As mentioned just before, the layers in the stream channels are sedimentary, not material that condensed out of limestone saturated water, which wouldn't exist in the volumes necessary anyway.
A channel rather than a layer certainly suggests liquid running through it. Of course liquid ran through it. Water ran through it when it was a river on the surface.
Flat upper surface suggests it occurred between the layers after the Redwall and the Muav were already there. Channel was cut through the Muav. It was filled up with Temple Butte in liquid form. Again, the layers are sedimentary, precisely the same in composition, density, texture, etc., as the rest of the layers of the Temple Butte formation. Limestone saturated water would have left deposits of a completely different nature.
The caves one can see in the Muav and the Temple Butte are not near the river. Of course they're near the river. If they weren't near the river in the walls of the Grand Canyon then we wouldn't even know they exist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: It's a channel. It was filled with liquid limestone. It's a streambed. It's filled with the exact same kind of sediments as the rest of the layer. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024