|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Faith writes: but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred. Good grief! If the effects are only seen in certain layers that can only be used as evidence that something happened to only those layers where we see the effects. The lack of any effects in other layers cannot be used to show that the event effected those layers.
Faith writes: Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days. They were not built by the flood. The evidence presented completely refutes your fantasy flood. There was no global flood, ever and the lack of a single "chaos layer" proves it.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When I'm responding to jar, whose posts are usually just a bunch of wild assertions and accusations, I don't usually bother to try to prove anything, so "looks like" is the best he's going to get from me. I'm just countering his assertions with assertions from the other point of view.
Remember that, according to you, the surface was violently stripped of materials during inundation by a flood that has no equal. How did animals survive that to be happily skipping around between waves? It doesn't add up.. I've noticed you like to embellish my concepts with terms like "violent." What I usually say is that forty days and nights of heavy rain everywhere on the earth should have stripped the sediment from the land, and I've often given the example of local floods that collapse hills and bury cars and that sort of thing to give a basis for trying to imagine the same kind of event multiplied a billion times. But it doesn't have to be "ALL" the sediment.
What you are imagining is landscapes being captured like a snap shot of time. And you say that if long periods of time existed we should find these "snap shots" throughout the geological record. But in reality, the type of process that would be required to capture a "snap shot" of time in a landscape is a major, rapid flooding event. But we don't see that. We see the result of slow, gradual processes that work to destroy the current surface and build up new surfaces. What you imagine doesn't line up with reality. \ It's conventional Geology that gives us those "snapshots," by taking the isolated bits and pieces from a rock and constructing a whole scenario based on them.
out the paleosols, termite nests and in situ root systems I presented in Message 993. Those were transported? To the location where apparent ancestral population migrated after the flood? Seems kinda speculative... actually beyond speculative and into nonsense. Of course paleosols were transported, and root systems, no problem with those. Your language conjures up a whole intact termites' nest but all these things are usually just the bits and pieces I'm talking about, not whole anythings. And dinosaur nests too are usually just smashed flattened remnants yet they get described as if they are intact, just the way a fossilized leaf and a fossilized creature become whole exotic landscapes with trees and animals of a particular "time period." But the main evidence of the Flood is in the way the strata were laid down and everything else has to follow from that though they may be hard to explain.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Good grief! If the effects are only seen in certain layers that can only be used as evidence that something happened to only those layers where we see the effects. The lack of any effects in other layers cannot be used to show that the event effected those layers. A tectonic event can produce local effects. Cracks in the Hermit filled with Coconino sand could be due more to the characteristics of those rocks and the level of the tectonic force than the timing..
They were not built by the flood. The evidence presented completely refutes your fantasy flood. There was no global flood, ever and the lack of a single "chaos layer" proves it. Now that's just the fantasy of your side. You have no idea what a worldwide Flood would have done but you don't mind acting as if you do. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Faith writes: Flat and straight refers to the appearance of strata from a distance, has nothing to do with variations in thickness over thousands of square miles. And yet, in the past you have erroneously extrapolated that appearance of flat and straight from a distance to imply those same features over thousands of square miles.
Faith writes: The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers. How does the "appearance of flatness" from a distance defy the idea of millions of years between some layers? Some layers took millions of years to be deposited and some layers were exposed to erosion for millions of years before the next layer was deposited. The flatness is an illusion of distance, but why would flatness be evidence against vast amounts of time? We have shown measurement surveys where the thickness of layers varies greatly, so that shoots down your continued statements "that the flatness defies the the idea of millions of years between layers."What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact. And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness. I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack, and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other. I want to post pictures of these but although Percy says it's easy things have changed on Google Image and I'm unable to figure out how to do it.
It doesn't matter how a given layer was supposedly laid down in what order, remember that all these layers are assigned time values so that one had to have been laid down before the next was whether there were supposedly gaps between depositions or not, but they are all timed in millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period. Conventional Geology is always interpreting this or that event or phenomenon to have occurred during this or that time period,... Radiometric dating is just one of the 20 or 30 issues you're ignoring in this thred.
...but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred. Maybe Edge or HereBeDragons can confirm, but I would expect that dating a fault that goes to the surface would be difficult to date, which appears to be the case for the Bright Angel Fault. I thought I was maybe on to something with the Cataract Creek fault zone, but no luck. Nevertheless let me tell you what I found. A webpage about the Cataract Creek fault zone, some of which is part of the Bright Angel Fault System, has this to say:
quote: As near as I can gather, the Cataract Creek fault zone extends from the Grand Canyon 40 miles south down to the Mogollon Rim. About the southeasternmost faults it says that they have been mapped in detail and that they "do not offset Pliocene volcanic rocks." The Pliocene began about 5 million years ago, so these particular faults of the Cataract Creek fault zone must be at least 5 million years old. But since these faults extend through the Paleozoic layers, they must be younger than 250 million years old. So it seems that we can only date these particular faults to a range between 5 and 250 million years ago, and they definitely did not form while the Paleozoic layers were being deposited. Ah, well.
Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days. There is no evidence in the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase region of sudden deposition by a flood, for a sizable and varied number of reasons that you're ignoring. See Message 1258 for that list of issues. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: THE APPEARANCE AND PLACEMENT OF THE KNIFE-EDGE TIGHT CONTACT ABOVE IT, WHICH IS ELABORATED IN MY BULLETED LIST. SHEESH. I rebutted your bulleted list in the very message you're replying to. Here's the rebuttal again straight from my Message 1329:
This is from the paper Paleozoic stratigraphy of part of northwestern Arizona. I'm unable to get to the paper itself, so I can't get more detail. This quote comes via a Google Scholar search, and without more context a conclusive interpretation isn't possible, but it seems to imply that the contact between the Coconino and the Hermit is made of sandstone, which would make it part of the Coconino Sandstone, not the Hermit Shale:
quote: But
HereBeDragons got access to the paper and provided an excerpt revealing that the above quote is incomplete, but I'll get to that when I reply to HereBeDragons. For now let's just take that quote as I originally found it in my Google Scholar search. The quote says that there is "a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones." Everything pink is below the inch-wide something. Everything gray is from the bottom of the inch-wide something upward into the Coconino. The excerpt HereBeDragons provided also describes the "shale" in Hermit Shale as a misnomer, saying that it is really predominantly sandstone, but in my reply to HereBeDragons I'll point out that that there seems to be other opinions on that.
Well, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, and since the inch-wide something is gray, guess where the line between the Hermit and the Coconino has to be?
You use a lot of pronouns. I can't be sure what "that" and "it" refer to.
Similar to what I said above, if the Hermit is pink and the Coconino is gray, guess what the gray inch-wide something has to be part of?
Bedding planes are incredibly common within layers. What is your rationale for calling it absurd? It's incredibly easy to get the impression that you don't read most of what is posted to you, that you just pick out one thing that catches your eye and reply to that. In this case you replied to my first sentence and apparently never read down to where the rebuttal of your bulleted list appears. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Faith writes: The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact. Obviously, there are flat places and non-flat places. You keep thinking that some flat places represent all places.
Faith writes: And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness. You have an odd definition of flatness. And no, ALL the strata from the Cambrian to the Holocene are not flat. The hermit Formation is Lower Permian and is not flat.
quote: The Navajo Sandstone is Middle Jurassic and is not flat. It varies from less than 300 feet thick to 2200 feet thick. UTAH GEOLOGIC LAYER THICKNESS MAP Faith writes: I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack, and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other. I would like to know how you can look at layers and tell anything about their ages or whether they have been disturbed or not. You have it backwards, the canyons between the mountains and hills were carved out of the whole stack. I don't know how you can look at that and not see that it takes millions of years to erode away all that material.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Tanypteryx in Message 1339 writes: Faith writes: The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers. How does the "appearance of flatness" from a distance defy the idea of millions of years between some layers? The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact. And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness. I think what Tanypteryx meant when he said "from a distance" is that detailed examination often reveals a contact that isn't so flat but has irregularities that can't be discerned from a distance. That doesn't happen to be true of the Coconino/Hermit contact that you describe as "knife-edge tight," but it is true of many other contacts. More generally, contacts between strata come in all varieties, from sharp contacts to regular contacts to transitional to interfingered and probably lots of contact types I'm unaware of. And sediments can be deposited on flat and mostly horizontal surfaces (a common case) but also on sloping and irregular surfaces. Thicknesses of strata can vary greatly across their extent. I think the real focus of Tanyperyx's question was how extensive and flat sedimentary layers rule out millions of years between some layers, in other words, unconformities created by erosion of the underlying layer before sedimentation resumes. As has been shown, erosion flattens landscapes.
I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack,... By "straightness of strata" in mountains do you mean tilted but straight? If so then this doesn't seem unusual for mountains, particularly for basin and range terrains.
...and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other. How could uplift subsequent to deposition have anything to do with how the layers were originally deposited?
I want to post pictures of these but although Percy says it's easy things have changed on Google Image and I'm unable to figure out how to do it. Yes, Google Image has changed, and as is the rule for software updates these days, not for the better. You're using Internet Explorer, right? Follow these steps in Google Image:
If you've upgraded to Windows 10 and instead are using Microsoft Edge (in essence, that's Internet Explorer for Windows 10) then abandon all hope ye who enter here. Follow these steps:
Chrome is much better and easier because it isn't insane after step 3:
It doesn't matter how a given layer was supposedly laid down in what order, remember that all these layers are assigned time values so that one had to have been laid down before the next was whether there were supposedly gaps between depositions or not, but they are all timed in millions of years. I had trouble parsing this - is maybe the second "was" not supposed to be there? But yes, one layer has to be laid down before the next can be laid atop it, which is Steno's Law of Superposition. I hope that's the Steno law you decided to keep. And yes, a layer is as old as radiometric dating says it is, possibly millions or billions of years old. Of course, sedimentary layers cannot be directly dated. We have to hope for serendipitous volcanic deposits within or at least bracketing a layer, and intrusions can put a lower limit on age. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The Mesozoic and Cenozoic layers look exactly the same and in fact there are lots of very tight contacts there.
To the untrained, yes. There are 'tight' contacts everywhere. What are you saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well, this is different. What would have happened to the top of the Hermit during the seismic events?
Not sure. This is new to me though I've traced some references back to the late 60's. I have seen sandstone dikes cutting into shaley units suggesting that the sandstone is not yet lithified. Never thought too much about it. If the cracks are as geometrically related to the Bright Angel fault as they say (and knowing the source, that's a big 'if') it's pretty compelling evidence for liquefaction and injection.
Does this have anything to do with the inch-wide something?
Probably not.
Do you no longer think the Coconino sand penetrations into the Hermit were mud cracks?
My mind is open. I have some reservations, but realistically it has no effect at all on the age of the rocks.
Also, I looked up the Bright Angel Fault but couldn't find anything about whether there was slippage along the fault during deposition of the Paleozoic layers, something Faith would be interested in since she believes the region completely tectonically quiescent during the period.
My understanding that it is an old fault, possibly going back to the Proterozoic. It is supposedly active now. I have a lot of questions about this whole thing that might only be answered by a field trip to the site. For one thing even Whitmore mentions that fragments of lithified Coconino are present in the area of alleged liquifaction. That argues against the young earth position. It's all very complex and will take some time to digest. I have a very smart friend who did a senior thesis on clastic dikes. I might contact him. My current theory is that the base of the Coconino was not completely lithified due to groundwater combined with a lack of cementation, and temporary seismic over pressures might have resulted in injectites. In fact this is one of the possible reasons that large-scale crossbeds in sandstones are lost ... liquefaction, slumping and bioturbation. By the way a lot of the old literature shows that things are pretty complex. For instance, the other week I saw a layer in the Cutler Formation that looked like little box garden of flat, waterlain sediments with organic material in it... probably a small oasis, if you will. Sand dunes are more complex that one would think But that's one more reason that I don't necessarily trust Whitmore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Of course paleosols were transported, and root systems, no problem with those. Your language conjures up a whole intact termites' nest but all these things are usually just the bits and pieces I'm talking about, not whole anythings. And dinosaur nests too are usually just smashed flattened remnants yet they get described as if they are intact, just the way a fossilized leaf and a fossilized creature become whole exotic landscapes with trees and animals of a particular "time period."
Faith, have you ever see what waves do to soil? Truly? You expect to pick up termite nests and move the along with dinosaur nests and tracks to another location? Sorry, no buying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood. How it happened I don't know and don't care once I know the Flood did it, and I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood. How it happened I don't know and don't care once I know the Flood did it, and I do.
Nothing like having an open mind, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Straight flat strata, tight contacts. These pictures alone are to my mind proof of the Flood over the absurd timescale interpretation. HOW straight flat and tight is irrelevant; they've been there over four thousand years.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Replace links to images and to webpages with images with the images themselves.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024