Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 706 of 2887 (828477)
02-19-2018 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 705 by Faith
02-19-2018 2:04 AM


Re: A Fair Assessment
quote:
Again you absolutely failed to address the actual physical situation I'm talking about, denying essential features and missing the whole point.
In reality I requested that you showed that there was an actual physical situation that matched your claims, since we know for a fact that - to be generous to you - there are things that appear to be buried terrain features and sometimes very large ones. That IS the actual physical situation and you are the one ignoring it.
Now maybe there is a supposedly-terrestrial formation or stratum that is unreasonably flat and of implausibly constant thickness. But I don’t have to deal with things you think might exist. So I asked for examples. This is how debate works. You have to support your claims, not attack your opponent for disagreeing with your unsupported opinions.
quote:
Never mind, I'm done here.
Which just shows that you can’t take a fair and honest assessment of your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 705 by Faith, posted 02-19-2018 2:04 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 707 of 2887 (828489)
02-20-2018 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
02-18-2018 6:23 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
OK. Now do you have an explanation for how the buried landscape that becomes a rock becomes a very flat slab of rock that in many examples in the stratigraphic column are quite horizontal and of a fairly uniform thickness?
This will naturally happen if the landscape is a flood plain, or a playa lake, or a seascape, or an erg. The vast majority of sediment currently being deposited is being deposited very flat.
That is, I would expect a deeply buried landscape that turned to rock to be quite lumpy and irregular, about as far as you could get from a flat slab.
Do we have to start showing you photographs of the geological record again? Or of the Appalachian mountains? You have been supplied with evidence and a lengthy explanation of what geologists do in fact claim.
But are we not wandering from the topic of how we have the fossils and win?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 02-18-2018 6:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 12:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(2)
Message 708 of 2887 (828504)
02-20-2018 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
02-18-2018 6:23 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
You have to account for how a diferent sedimentary rock got laid on top of that deeply buried one but at the moment you've got a deep accumulation of who knows what between them, the lower parts of which must also have turned to rock on top of your original buried landscape, of a dfferent sediment or mix of sediments I would suppose and yet your buried rock has to be straight and flat and look like one of those in the stratigraphic column. And all that material has to erode away down to the straight flat surface of that buried rock in order for the next sedimentary rock to sit on top of it with nothing in between. You really are not thinking at all. The question about the animals had to do with the fact that they couldn't live ON a bare rock and that would have to occur at some time in this process you are describing, it's a phase that can't be escaped and in that phase you can't account for the animal life. You really are not thinking at.all. No fair hearing at all as I said .
I keep reading this and similar descriptions you've posted in the past and have to ask how you view how geologists view geological layers are laid down? From reading this you seem to suggest that a block of sediment gets dumped, not sure how quickly but in the past your comments lead me to think it was all at once. Then this block of sediment was buried, turned to rock and then everything above that buried it (not sure what you view this material to be) is eroded down to the bare, newly formed rock layer where the animals live, waiting for the process to repeat. That is just how I read it, so feel free to correct where I've went wrong.
However, here's an alternative way of looking at it. Think of the laying down of sediment like turning the pages on a book, and as more pages are turned over it puts more weight on the pages below, causing the process of turning sediment to rock to work it's way up from the lowest pages. The top pages are always sediment and this is where animals live and die. The top page is the current environment, for example a river estuary, but as more pages turn over, the environment depicted on the top page may change, such as a sea transgression towards the spine of the book. But when we look at the book today we only see the edges of the pages, so that river estuary may be hundreds of pages sediment which formed sand stone, with hundreds of pages of mudstone on top as the shore regressed, then hundreds of pages of limestone as the page edges were far enough away from the shore that they were not muddied by run off from the land.
Of course lots of other things may have been going on at the same time. Volcanoes erupting or meteorite impacts would drop in material like book marks which can be dated, allowing us to say an upper and lower limit for when those pages were turned over. Each page has the potential for some of the organisms living on those pages to be preserved when they die and leave a fossil. Some of the fossils may only be found between certain bookmarks.
That's my take on it. A bit overly long and overly simplified, and not being a geologist I'm sure someone will point out where my assumptions are wrong, but here's hoping it helps you get an understanding of how others view these processes even if you don't necessarily agree with it.
Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 02-18-2018 6:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 709 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 12:00 PM Meddle has not replied

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


Message 709 of 2887 (828511)
02-20-2018 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by Meddle
02-20-2018 11:29 AM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Thanks for thinking it through. I won't be able to respond much until some later time, but for now I'd just say I start from the appearance of the stratigraphic column as it presents itself, say, in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The separate strata are of different sediments but they are remarkably uniform in being one flat slab of sedimentary rock on top of another clearly divided from each other. The basic form is pretty much identical. And I'm trying to imagine how that could possibly have been the result of the geological explanations that involve time periods of millions of years as we see them identified with particular rocks or groups of rocks in many diagrams, time periods that are often illustrated as landscapes with various kinds of animals in them. Yes, that's the land animals, the lower rocks contain marine life, but all of them despite those differences look remarkably the same: a stack of flat sedimentary rocks. So I'm trying to figure out how the usual explanation could possibly work and I don't see how it could no matter how the information is juggled.
You are assuming a single sediment it seems, and a flatness. Where does that come from if we're talking about the surface of the earth in a given time period?
PaulK started from a landscape that gets deeply buried. How does that landscape possibly become a flat sedimentary rock? Burying it isn't going to make it all one sediment but most of the rocks in the column are identifiable single sediments, not all but most. How could any landscape be composed of a single sediment, or for that matter of any identifiable collection of sediments? That is not what the surface of the earth looks like now. And how could burying it flatten it to the flatness of those stacked in the stratigraphic column? Some of the strata extend for thousands of square miles, all flat as a pancake. And in the scenario PaulK describes, what is it buried under? More areas of single sediment, or something more like the surface of the earth now, which is more likely to be a mixture of sediments and soils and so on. It's all quite impossible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by Meddle, posted 02-20-2018 11:29 AM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 711 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2018 12:37 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 710 of 2887 (828512)
02-20-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2018 1:09 AM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Whatever you've showed me doesn't suffice to answer my questions.
I guess we could start another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2018 1:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2018 11:34 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 711 of 2887 (828515)
02-20-2018 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 709 by Faith
02-20-2018 12:00 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
quote:
PaulK started from a landscape that gets deeply buried. How does that landscape possibly become a flat sedimentary rock? Burying it isn't going to make it all one sediment but most of the rocks in the column are identifiable single sediments, not all but most.
As usual you are jumping the gun and talking in generalities that may well not apply.
Surely it is better to talk about actual examples so we can get the facts right.
quote:
How could any landscape be composed of a single sediment, or for that matter of any identifiable collection of sediments?
Is mud a single sediment ? If not then what do you make of mudstone ?
quote:
And how could burying it flatten it to the flatness of those stacked in the stratigraphic column?
It seems that I have to point out again that not all strata are flat - some of them to a quite dramatic extent. Also that the places that will be buried will tend to be flat, because they are areas of deposition, not erosion.
quote:
Some of the strata extend for thousands of square miles, all flat as a pancake
Again you are being too vague to show any real problem. Are any of these terrestrial deposits at all ? If they aren’t now can they be relevant ?
quote:
And in the scenario PaulK describes, what is it buried under?
Why would that matter ? If it isn’t buried it isn’t going to become rock anyway.
quote:
More areas of single sediment, or something more like the surface of the earth now, which is more likely to be a mixture of sediments and soils and so on
Because obviously we don’t get beaches or deserts or oolitic ooze or swamps etc etc etc on the planet you come from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 1:01 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 712 of 2887 (828516)
02-20-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by PaulK
02-20-2018 12:37 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Please remember the context: drawings of landscapes with animals in them that look like today's earth surface, not a mudflat or a single-sediment situation, just normal earth surface..
And all the strata are flat without exception. Some gently grade to different thickness but they are still flat.
There is no point in continuing this discussion with you because you refuse to understand what I'm talking about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2018 12:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2018 1:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 722 by edge, posted 02-21-2018 1:26 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 713 of 2887 (828519)
02-20-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 712 by Faith
02-20-2018 1:01 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
quote:
Please remember the context: drawings of landscapes with animals in them that look like today's earth surface, not a mudflat or a single-sediment situation, just normal earth surface..
And you are going to point at an ancient seabed and demand that I explain how a landscape turned into that when it was never anything of the sort ? No. Real examples please, not unfounded assumptions.
quote:
And all the strata are flat without exception. Some gently grade to different thickness but they are still flat.
I realise now that you have serious mental problems so I shan’t call you a liar. Nevertheless that is certainly not true. Remember that the Shimuno quartzite includes monadnocks up to 240m high. 790 feet in Imperial measures. That is not, by any means flat.
quote:
There is no point in continuing this discussion with you because you refuse to understand what I'm talking about.
By which you mean that you are going to run away because I won’t mindlessly agree with your false assertions. Oh you probably deluded yourself into believing that you aren’t running away because you don’t have a real case and you are going to get crushed again. But that’s what you are doing.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 1:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 6:10 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 714 of 2887 (828537)
02-20-2018 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by PaulK
02-20-2018 1:39 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Monadnocks do not change the basic flatness. There's just no point in talking to someone who brings up objections like that.
Look, I don't accept much of anything Geology says about the strata, what I'm doing is trying to show how it's all wrong. I'm starting with how the stack of strata that make up the stratigraphic column appears, their flatness and straightness and uniformity of basic form, and going from there. I do not accept any "ancient seabed" interpretations or "shallow seas" or any of that. And I'm working from LAND scenarios as depicted in the typical illustrations of what supposedly lived in a particular time period associated with a particular rock or set of rocks, and thinking about the physical problems involved in getting from one slab of rock to the next assuming such a scenario. I'm sorry you seem to be unable to think about it except in the standard terms. That makes conversation with you impossible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2018 1:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 715 by Coragyps, posted 02-20-2018 7:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 719 by PaulK, posted 02-21-2018 12:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 721 by edge, posted 02-21-2018 1:21 AM Faith has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(3)
Message 715 of 2887 (828541)
02-20-2018 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
02-20-2018 6:10 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Faith, my dear: I think the problem may lie on your side of the net. Your refusal to even consider what’s been learned in geology in the last couple of centuries, and to substitute your musings for those realities, just sort of makes it difficult to carry on an actual conversation with you. You are mistaken: our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. And we’ve got fossils, and much more, that show that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 6:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 9:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 716 of 2887 (828543)
02-20-2018 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by Coragyps
02-20-2018 7:58 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Dear Dear Coragyps, there are things Geology may have overlooked, and besides, I'm answering what I've learned, not refusing to learn it. Nobody has addressed my points. But I have no hope that anyone at EvC ever will. You aren't even trying, why is that?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by Coragyps, posted 02-20-2018 7:58 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 717 by jar, posted 02-20-2018 9:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 717 of 2887 (828544)
02-20-2018 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 716 by Faith
02-20-2018 9:20 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Faith writes:
Nobody has addressed my points.
That is simply not true Faith and you know it.
The issue is that all of your points have been addressed, shown to be false and refuted a thousand times. Your points are simply nonsense.
The problem for you is that not only do we have the fossils, we have the geology, we have the order the geology and fossils are sorted and we have the models, methods, mechanisms, processes and procedures that explain the fossils and the geology and sorting.
All you have are stories written by ignorant humans filled with errors and contradictions.
We win!
It really is that simple.
Edited by jar, : left out a ,

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 716 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 9:20 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 718 of 2887 (828546)
02-20-2018 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 710 by Faith
02-20-2018 12:14 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
Whatever you've showed me doesn't suffice to answer my questions.
Well, do you want pictures?
This is the ocean bed. It covers like 70% of the world's surface, and it looks like this.
It really is remarkably flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 12:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by Faith, posted 02-21-2018 4:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 719 of 2887 (828547)
02-21-2018 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
02-20-2018 6:10 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
quote:
Monadnocks do not change the basic flatness. There's just no point in talking to someone who brings up objections like that.
So your idea of flatness allows for hills 790 feet high. Perhaps then you can explain the difficulty that your flatness supposedly poses. I mean, your objection really sounds like you find that there is no point in talking to anyone who knows that you are wrong.
quote:
Look, I don't accept much of anything Geology says about the strata, what I'm doing is trying to show how it's all wrong
But your arguments have to start with the physical reality. If you deny that then you are just talking about your own fantasies. And that can’t show that geology is wrong.
quote:
I'm starting with how the stack of strata that make up the stratigraphic column appears, their flatness and straightness and uniformity of basic form, and going from there.
Your error then is in taking a generalisation as a universal. If you ignore the exceptions - if your argument relies on denying that they even exist then you lose. Demanding that I explain something that you only imagine - as you have done - is hardly fair or reasonable. And if you refuse to provide any real examples it raises a justified suspicion that the problem exists only in your imagination.
quote:
I do not accept any "ancient seabed" interpretations or "shallow seas" or any of that. And I'm working from LAND scenarios as depicted in the typical illustrations of what supposedly lived in a particular time period associated with a particular rock or set of rocks, and thinking about the physical problems involved in getting from one slab of rock to the next assuming such a scenario.
You don’t have to accept that a stratum was an ancient seabed. But if you want to argue honestly against geology you DO have to accept that geology identifies it as an ancient seabed. If geology identifies a stratum as an ancient seabed then you can’t disprove geology by arguing that it wasn’t land.
quote:
I'm sorry you seem to be unable to think about it except in the standard terms. That makes conversation with you impossible.
Of course the problem is yours. You have a bizarre and unexplained idea of flatness that you have only mentioned just now - and which seems to actually undermine your argument. You can’t tell the difference between denying the interpretations of geology and misrepresenting those interpretations for the convenience of your argument. Rather than discuss the actual physical reality you want your generalisations taken as facts.
If you find it impossible to live up to the requirements of honest rational debate - and all three examples are gross failures - then the problem is yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 02-20-2018 6:10 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 720 of 2887 (828549)
02-21-2018 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
02-18-2018 6:23 PM


Re: A Fair Assessment
OK. Now do you have an explanation for how the buried landscape that becomes a rock becomes a very flat slab of rock that in many examples in the stratigraphic column are quite horizontal and of a fairly uniform thickness?
Actually, this does not always happen. In fact, the Tapeats (which you refer to below) thins out against the 'monadnocks' of Shinumo Quartzite in the the Grand Canyon, and the Bright Angle Shale directly overlies the Shinumo. That would be buried topography.
That is, I would expect a deeply buried landscape that turned to rock to be quite lumpy and irregular, about as far as you could get from a flat slab.
Which is what we see.
I have to wonder how it could acquire flat surfaces top and bottom.
When the pre-existing topograph is buried, you can then have continuous, tabular sheets. This is not rocket science.
Surely all the buried material is turning to rock above and below it as well, so how does this one particular landscape become so identifiable as we see the sediments of the stratigraphic column are. Those strata are often of very particular sediment too, say all sandstone like the Tapeats for instance.
Not really. If you look at the contact between the Kayenta and Navajo for instance you see "Navajo Sandstone frequently overlies and interfingers with the Kayenta Formation of the Glen Canyon Group." (Navajo Sandstone - Wikipedia). This is a situation where the depositional environment wavered back and forth between desert and river/swamp lowland. This is called a transitional contact.
How would such a layer become so clearly differentiated from layers above and below it, which are often of some completely different sedimentary rock, say limestone, separated by what is often a very straight flat surface between them.
Obviously this is not the case. Most of the time a contact has to be defined as something like "the first sandstone bed at the top of the shale formation", or something like that.
Burial might harden sediment into rock I suppose, but not with the peculiar shape and composition of those in the stratigraphic column.
The compositions are locked in by the depositional environments and the original bedforms are preserved during lithification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 02-18-2018 6:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024