Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2018 3:55 AM
272 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 270 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,966 Year: 8,789/29,783 Month: 1,036/1,977 Week: 174/380 Day: 7/51 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9091
92
9394
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1366 of 2886 (829767)
03-13-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1360 by Faith
03-13-2018 10:45 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Faith writes:

Thank you,...

Sure thing! And I fixed the Namibia image.

I will follow your instructions for Microsoft Edge next time.

You might have an easier time just switching to FireFox or Chrome. Come to think of it, don't switch to Chrome, switch to FireFox. You like to edit your messages a lot and Chrome only lets you edit a message once for security reasons.

Bedding planes make the point I'm after as well as separated strata I think.

Why do you think straight flat bedding planes prove the Flood?

But in the photo you have been having so much trouble with...

The only trouble I'm having with the inch-wide something is in understanding what it is and whether it belongs to one of the layers that bracket it or is its own layer.

...you don't even have a bedding plane beneath the Mystery Inch,...

You don't know that. If the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, or if it is its own layer, then its bottom is a bedding plane.

...and the contact line above it is what should tell you that the Inch belongs to the Hermit.

But you also don't know whether the top of the inch-wide something is a contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit, or is a bedding plane between the almost-bottom of the Coconino and the top of the bottom inch of the Coconino. I did say to Moose earlier today that I'm now leaning toward it being part of the Hermit because of the interfingering that is visible at the bottom of the inch-wide something in this image:

But what is the Hermit interfingering with? Looking back through some old messages I see that Edge may have already answered this question way back in his Message 1263:

edge in Message 1263 writes:

But it's all really moot since, my understanding is that the Coconino interfingers with the Hermit in some places.

And more recently in his Message 1346 he said this:

edge in Message 1346 writes:

My current theory is that the base of the Coconino was not completely lithified due to groundwater combined with a lack of cementation,...

If Edge is correct then unless there are other factors the inch-wide something is Coconino that interfingers down into the Hermit.

Of course, there were additional things that Edge said about things likely being very complex.

But perhaps edge or Moose can make it clearer to you.

I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring. For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino.

But whatever that inch-wide something truly is, that's not what's truly important. The important issues are:

  • You're the only one who seems certain. Though you claim to know, you couldn't possibly. Images are not often sufficient to provide certainty.

  • What is the significance of that 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact? It isn't a unique part of the Coconino/Hermit boundary, because I've shown you other images of the same boundary at other locations in the canyon that look exactly the same. And it isn't unique as a sharp contact, because there are miles of sharp contact boundaries between strata in the canyon.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1360 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 10:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1367 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 4:34 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1373 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:50 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28484
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1367 of 2886 (829777)
03-13-2018 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Percy
03-13-2018 1:43 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The only trouble I'm having with the inch-wide something is in understanding what it is and whether it belongs to one of the layers that bracket it or is its own layer.

I really do not onderstand why this is a problem at all. I can't see it any other way than as the upper edge of the Hermit formation. I originally thought the difference in color was due to the angle that reflected more sunlight; but now I see it is actually a different color. But it's lower edge is very irregular, so it's not a bedding plane, and it isn't a layer unto itself. The color especially at the irregular edge looks like something on the surface, sort of thinned out, like the superficial dust Moose suggested. Or something from the contact line that bleaches it is also a possibility I guess.

You don't know that. If the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, or if it is its own layer, then its bottom is a bedding plane.

It's too irregular to be a bedding plane.

And I don't get how you can even consider it to be part of the Coconino with that obvious contact line between them. Contact lines divide formations so it's Hermit from there down.

I have to come back later so if what I've said doesn't help maybe someone else can do better.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1366 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 1:43 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1369 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 7:09 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1459
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1368 of 2886 (829779)
03-13-2018 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1355 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:12 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
But isn't it obvious that's what I meant?

Very little you say is "obvious" as to what you mean.

I was answering your complaint that there couldn't be animal tracks during the Flood because there wouldn't have been any land left after it was stripped bare.

There are vertebrate tracks encased in the Coconino sandstone. Are you now suggesting that everything below that was not stripped bare. If animal tracks were found only in lower levels of sediments, you might have a point. But that's not the case... they are found higher up in the strata.

Besides, I was not objecting that there would be no land left after it was stripped bare (which there most certainly wouldn't be since it was a flood - which means all the land was covered by water making it no longer land... ), I was objecting to the assertion that there were animals running around between waves of the flood. At the time of the Coconino being deposited, the flood had already stripped "all" the sediment and deposited ~ 4000 feet of sediment and you think animals were still alive and running around? How could that possibly be?

I do believe the Flood has been proved by actual physical evidence and that being the case there is no reason to get distracted by questions I can't answer. It will all sort itself out when the main point is recognized.

Not even close to being proven. You have made some observations. But you have yet to connect those observations to reality. I have observed some cows on a hill with the letters "MSU" cut into the grass. Can I come to any conclusion I want that seems to explain the observation? No, it must be based in reality.

It is the same for your observation of flat pancakes of strata. You observe that and then come to any conclusion you want without it being based on reality.

"Floods" don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done, but as far as sorting sediments as seen in the GC, it would depend on what sediments were available to the flood in question since floods DO sort and stack sediments in layers.

Lots of problems with this statement but the two major ones are

1. If "floods don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done" then you have nothing in reality to go from your observation to your conclusion. You can't say "this is what a flood would do so from that we can infer what a worldwide flood would do" and my [ABE (due to premature posting)] conclusions fit reality.

That would be connecting your observations to reality and if you did that your conclusions would be well founded. But you don't have any part of reality that you can draw from since "floods don't do much of anything like a worldwide flood would do." In actuality, this statement is designed to simply allow you to postulate any bizarrio scenario you want and dismiss objections that try to connect observations to reality.

2. You say "floods don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done" and then go on to say what floods do that supports your observation. So which is it? Does the worldwide flood behave like a modern flood only bigger, or are modern, local floods NOT a model for the worldwide flood? You want your cake and eat it too. Again, this is just a statement designed to allow you to postulate any ridiculous conclusion you want. [/ABE]

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1355 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1371 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:27 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1369 of 2886 (829780)
03-13-2018 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1367 by Faith
03-13-2018 4:34 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The nature of the inch-wide something doesn't really bear on the key issues - it's just something I find very interesting. There are a number of truly relevant issues that are not receiving enough, if any, attention. Working backward through recent posts (everyone's, not just mine) to list such issues:

  • From my Message 1366: That 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact isn't unique because images of the same boundary at other locations in the canyon look exactly the same. And it isn't unique as a sharp contact, because there are miles of sharp contact boundaries between strata in the canyon. So what is it about it that you find significant?

  • From PaulK's Message 1365: Using the Coconino as an example, how does the following happen:

    1. The Flood runs inland let's say 100 miles and deposits a meter of sand.
    2. The Flood recedes and animals reoccupy this 100 miles of land that is now covered by sand, leaving tracks.
    3. The Flood runs inland 100 miles again and deposits another meter of sand. The animals retreat to safety.
    4. The Flood recedes again and animals reoccupy the 100 miles of land that is now covered by additional sand, again leaving tracks.
    5. This same process keeps repeating, with the Flood inundating the land and depositing more sand, then receding and animals reoccupying the land and leaving tracks atop the new sand, then inundating the land again, until we have the full depth of the Coconino, which is a couple hundred meters at its thickest point.

    How can animals scamper so far in such a short period of time?

    Why does the Flood keep advancing and retreating? If it's tides, doesn't this require more tides than would happen during the Flood?

    Why, after the Flood deposits all the layers of the Coconino this 100 miles of land, does it advance further to the next hundred miles, which since it hasn't had any sand deposited upon it is now as much as a couple hundred meters lower than the sand just deposited?

  • From my Message 1364: Why do you think "flat and straight and tight" strata are evidence that they're 4500 years old, particularly given the wealth of evidence that they are much older:

    • Radiometric ages of strata range from recent to billions of years old.

    • Fossils in strata increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth at an evolutionary pace consistent with radiometrically established ages.

    • The evidence left behind by life (burrows, worm holes, termite nest stacks, tracks, coprolites, etc.) indicates that many strata were once living landscapes for considerable periods of time.

    • Modern measurements of sedimentation rates are consistent with the ages of geological strata.

    • Walther's Law is a slow process taking millions of years to build sedimentary layers to significant depths. There's no such thing as a "rapid Walther's Law" because the deposited sediments are fed by erosion from the land, which is a slow process.

    • Unconformities that represent considerable periods of time require uplift or lowering of sea levels to expose sedimentary layers to erosion (millions of years), followed by erosion of sedimentary layers (millions of years), and subsidence or increase of sea levels so that sedimentation resumes (millions of years).

    • Striping on the sea floor is consistent with reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, which occur on average every few hundred thousand years.

    • The rates of sea floor spreading and continental drift are consistent with an ancient age for the continents and most sea floor, where I'll arbitrarily define ancient to mean more than a million years old.

    • The rate of slope retreat at geological structures like the Grand Canyon are consistent with their width and represent ages of millions of years.

  • From Tanypteryx's Message 1363: How do you justify stating that, "Having an open mind is stupid"?

  • From my Message 1359: Since floods only sort by size/density of sediment and do not normally create sharp contacts, what is it about the images you provided that says "flood" to you?

    Why do you think tectonically quiescent periods are unlikely?

  • From HereBeDragons' Message 1354: If the flood first strips the land so that the sea is full of sediment that it can redeposit upon the land, where did all the animals go while the flood was stripping the land so that they could return later and leave tracks?

There's lots more, but I'm being called to dinner.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1367 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 4:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1370 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28484
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1370 of 2886 (829784)
03-14-2018 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1369 by Percy
03-13-2018 7:09 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
From my Message 1366: That 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact isn't unique because images of the same boundary at other locations in the canyon look exactly the same. And it isn't unique as a sharp contact, because there are miles of sharp contact boundaries between strata in the canyon. So what is it about it that you find significant?

Because it's pointed out it seems to be something special, that's all, but perhaps its being more accessible to view is the reason it's pointed out. Its tightness is the reason, because creationists see that as evidence against the millions of years attributed to strata.

As for PaulK's thoughts I stick to the evidence I am sure of and don't, or shouldn't, try to answer every objection somebody raises.

I don't know what Tanypteryx said but it's stupid to have an open mind when you've already established that something is true or false, such as that the Bible is God's word, or that there is evidence for the Flood.

Straight strata say Flood to me, but perhaps more than that they say no millions of years to me.

Why do you think tectonically quiescent periods are unlikely

Unlikely? I believe the evidence shows that all the strata were laid down without any kind of disturbance to them during the laying down and that all the tectonic disturbance clearly evidentially happened afterward. Evidence.

I can only conjecture that some very few animals survived the stripping of the land for some reason, that's all. Otherwise the vast majority died.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1369 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 7:09 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1372 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2018 5:35 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1379 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 1:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1381 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2018 2:29 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28484
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1371 of 2886 (829785)
03-14-2018 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1368 by herebedragons
03-13-2018 7:06 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
It is the same for your observation of flat pancakes of strata. You observe that and then come to any conclusion you want without it being based on reality.

You yourself posted diagrams of the extent of four rocks across North America. Perhaps you are getting all literal about the flatness but the fact that these rocks appear flat where they are vertically exposed certainly means that they are flat in their horizontal extent, which in the cases even you posted is enormous, crossing continents. Not to mention that core samples bring up layer after layer of these flat rocks..

I've never based anything I've said about the Flood on "floods" because I don't need floods for evidence and the effect of a local flood can't possible compare to the inundation of the entire planet. All I said was that local floods can do a lot of damage without anything more than quietly raining on the land for a long period, so since the worldwide Flood started with rain on the entire planet it would have done a lot of damage without being textbook violent.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1368 by herebedragons, posted 03-13-2018 7:06 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1377 by herebedragons, posted 03-14-2018 8:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13995
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1372 of 2886 (829786)
03-14-2018 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1370 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:18 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:

I don't know what Tanypteryx said but it's stupid to have an open mind when you've already established that something is true or false, such as that the Bible is God's word, or that there is evidence for the Flood.

Except that neither of these things have truly been established. I guess you can nitpick over evidence for the Flood but there isnt anything very good and the evidence against is pretty strong.

On the other hand it has been established that the Flood cannot account for the geological or fossil records. Yet here you are arguing about it all the time. So, according to you, it would be stupid for us to even consider your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1370 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1374 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:55 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28484
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 1373 of 2886 (829787)
03-14-2018 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Percy
03-13-2018 1:43 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring.

There isn't one iota of reasonable doubt that the inch strip in question belongs to the Hermit, none. The location of the contact is the evidence. There is no other possibility.

For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino.

No it wouldn't, Percy, Moose is just speculating on why this part of the hermit, that is clearly part of the Hermit, has the different appearance it has. Dust is a possibility. If dust from the Coconino landed on a squirrel would that make the squirrel part of the Coconino?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1366 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 1:43 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1380 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 2:05 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28484
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1374 of 2886 (829788)
03-14-2018 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1372 by PaulK
03-14-2018 5:35 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
The idea that there is some kind of fossil order is just artificial and subjective. All those animals lived at the same time, not one of them is more or less "evolved" or "modern" than any other.

The Bible is unequivocally God's word and whether you see it or not I believe I've shown many times the evidence that makes the Flood the only possible interpretation against all the fantasies of Evolandia.

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 1372 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2018 5:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1375 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2018 6:08 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1376 by jar, posted 03-14-2018 6:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13995
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1375 of 2886 (829789)
03-14-2018 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1374 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:55 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:

The idea that there is some kind of fossil order is just artificial and subjective. All those animals lived at the same time, not one of them is more or less "evolved" or "modern" than any other.

The fact of the fossil order was discovered by very early geologists working out the relationships between the strata. Evolutionary theory was in part based on the observed order. You are just wrong as usual.

quote:

The Bible is unequivocally God's word and whether you see it or not I believe I've shown many times the evidence that makes the Flood the only possible interpretation against all the fantasies of Evolandia.

Your belief is thoroughly at odds with the facts of this thread. In reality you rely on inventing fantasies to explain away the evidence against your views. Your reason for doing so is that you believe that the Flood is established as true. Which is pretty obviously circular. For the Flood to be established as the cause of the geological and fossil records you would need good answers to the points Percy listed. And if it isnt established as the cause you cant use that as an excuse to dismiss strong evidence to the contrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1374 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30409
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 1376 of 2886 (829790)
03-14-2018 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1374 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:55 AM


The Bible is the word of man and not even a consistent word of man.
Faith writes:

The Bible is unequivocally God's word and whether you see it or not I believe I've shown many times the evidence that makes the Flood the only possible interpretation against all the fantasies of Evolandia.

Yet you have never presented the evidence that explains why God made factual errors and contradictions and could not even keep his story straight and consistent in the Bible or why God could not even decide what material should be included in and excluded from the Bible.

Nor have you ever explained how your imaginary flood could do any of the things found in reality. How can the flood move whole reefs intact, move bedded sand dunes intact, move tree stumps and root systems intact, not effect or even be noticed by cultures that exist before, during and after the flood, sort fossils in the order found.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1374 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1459
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 1377 of 2886 (829791)
03-14-2018 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1371 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:27 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
You are not really reading my messages are you?

You yourself posted diagrams of the extent of four rocks across North America. Perhaps you are getting all literal about the flatness but the fact that these rocks appear flat where they are vertically exposed certainly means that they are flat in their horizontal extent, which in the cases even you posted is enormous, crossing continents. Not to mention that core samples bring up layer after layer of these flat rocks..

"Flat" rocks over huge expanses... That is the observation. What in reality connects that observation to the conclusion that there couldn't be millions of years and the the only explanation is a global flood?

I've never based anything I've said about the Flood on "floods" because I don't need floods for evidence and the effect of a local flood can't possible compare to the inundation of the entire planet.

That is the point... you have absolutely nothing to go on that tells you what a global flood would do; what the results of a global flood would be; or what features you would expect to find as a result of a global flood. All you have is assertion and speculation.

You are right that a flood of that magnitude would be exponentially more destructive that local floods. But that same principal creates some expectations of what a global flood would do:

  • It would mix sediments not segregate them by type. How could it keep sediment types segregated? or segregate them by color or by degree of weathering, etc. ?
  • It would sort sediments by size and density, with large, dense particles on the bottom and small, light particles at the top. That is how water sorts particles. While there can be exceptions in special cases, there is no reason a global flood would be one of those exceptions.
  • It would NOT sort fossils by how different they are from modern forms, but by the same principals that govern sedimentary particles - size and density.
  • It would NOT transport large intact structures such as nests and reefs but would destroy them. The flood was, uhmmm... strong enough to strip thousands of cubic miles of sediment from the land, it would not also be gentle enough to keep delicate structures intact.
  • It would NOT sort by apparent radiometric age - how could it possibly do that?
  • It would not create sharp contacts between layers because the layer that is being deposited on would not be consolidated and would simply stir up when the next "wave" passed through
  • It would not leave animals alive after the initial inundation. The flood was violent enough to strip the land - thousands of cubic miles of sediment - animals could not survive that type catastrophe.

These things and more are what we expect, based on reality, a global flood would do. To you a global flood can do anything - there is no connection to reality. You don't like the descriptor "violent" attached to the flood... well a more accurate descriptor of your flood is "magical." It can do anything it needs to do in order to make the geological record look like it does.

Observation ----> Conclusion

We are asking for you to justify the arrow. How does your conclusion follow from your observation?

I observe cow on a hill with a message cut into the grass. How do I justify my conclusion that the cows selectively chewed the grass to produce that message? I can't, there is no connection to reality. Now if I say they are magical cows...

You observe "flat" strata that cover large extents. How do you justify the conclusion that it must have been the result of a global flood? None of my expectations for a global flood, that are based on the reality of what floods do, fit that conclusion.

Your claim that a global flood would be nothing like a local flood is somewhat true, but over all it is an empty claim. What you do is make an observation and then make that observation your expectation. So the justification for the conclusion is based on the premise itself. That is circular reasoning. That is why your justification needs to be based in reality, not just matched to the observation.

Well, I'm sure you're not really interesting in reading my posts or even having an honest dsicussion about this, so, I guess I've said enough...

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1371 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1459
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1378 of 2886 (829793)
03-14-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1330 by Percy
03-12-2018 1:19 PM


Noble, Hermit shale?, Whitmore and the Coconino
Thanks for tracking this down.

Yea, access through the university is amazing. Out of hundreds of resources I have looked up, there has only been a handful that I was not able to get access to. If materials are older and not digitized, I can request the library to scan them and email them to me. I have only been to the library to look up resources a half dozen times.

I think the paper relied too much on Noble regarding that the Hermit is mostly sandstone.

Here is how I understand it. Noble described and named the unit at the Bass Trail. This then became the type section. Here is the quote again

quote:
The Hermit "shale" was named by Noble (1922, p. 26) for the red sandstones and siltstones lying between the Coconino sandstone and the Supai formation at Bass Trail. The designation "shale" to the unit is a misnomer, inasmuch as Noble (p. 28) in his description of the type section, used the term sandstone for the compact massive beds and "shale" for the thinly laminated soft beds, which are in reality fine-grained sandstones.

I am not 100% sure how it works in geology, but in biology the type specimen becomes the standard for description of the species. I assume "type section" works in a similar way in geology. So where Noble named it and described it, sandstone was the dominate bedding and siltstone was the minor laminates. But it seems to be lacking the predominance of clay that would define a shale. Whitmore also aluded to that in his description that the Hermit did not have a sufficient amount of clay for the cracks to be desiccation cracks (whether that is true of not, I can't say for sure).

Here is Nobel's description:

quote:
Hermit shale (Permian):
Deep brick-red sandy shale and fine-grained
friable sandstone; characterized in upper
portion by concretionary structure; beds
form slope (pg. 26)

A section of the Paleozoic formations of the Grand Canyon at the Bass Trial

However, on page 28, he describes 24 individual members of the formation and it seems as though shale is the predominant component. Noble's description is worth a read through just to see an actual geological description and how complex a formation can be. Whether "shale" is a misnomer or not, the formation is not just a layer of pure shale (I'm sure you know that, I am saying that for the sake of others).

They all describe the Hermit Formation differently, one mentioning sandstone a little, one a lot, another not at all. They all mention siltstone, only one mentions mudstone. Personally, I don't know what to think.

I think that it highlights the fact that geological units are not homogeneous in their composition and the description depends on where the observation is made. And how the author paraphrases the complex set of descriptions. Read Noble's description on pg. 28-29 and paraphrase that into a one sentence description. I bet it is different than the other descriptions.

Whitmore is writing from a YEC perspective.

I am aware of Whitmore's affiliations. The paper seems well written and as far as I can tell, a decent scientific report. It is published by Elsevier, which is a respectable publisher. I don't know anything about the journal, "Sedimentary Geology" but if Elsevier publishes it, it is properly peer-reviewed. Now, I personally am not a suitable peer-reviewer for geological papers, but his premises and conclusions seem legit - at least logically sound.

quote:
The previous interpretation that the sand-filled cracks at the base of
the Coconino are desiccation cracks is problematic. They lack features
common to desiccation and playa cracks, especially in regards to crack
width, crack spacing and crack fill. None of the cracks show horizontal
bedding as would be expected if these cracks filled due to the Coconino
dunes blowing in over the mud cracked Hermit floodplain. Furthermore, it
appears the Hermit Formation lacks the appropriate clay minerals and
clay-sized particles to crack via desiccation. Instead, evidence suggests the
basal Coconino was water saturated and underwent liquefaction during
an ancient seismic episode, perhaps along the Bright Angel Fault. The most
conclusive evidence includes a zoned crack depth distribution; preferred
orientation of the sand-filled cracks; widespread homogenized zones
containing brecciated clasts of bedded Coconino attached to sand-filled
cracks; vertical flow structures within sand-filled cracks; and the
association of the sand-filled cracks with lateral sand bodies near the
top of the Hermit. (pg. 57)

This is the most "Creationist" conclusion I see in the paper:

quote:
A problem with no readily apparent solution is that it appears the basal
Coconino was water saturated and unlithified (or only partially lithified)
at the time of Laramide faulting which we suspect caused dike intrusion. It
is unlikely the Coconino could have remained uncemented in excess of
250 million years. Solutions to this dilemma might include removal of the
basal Coconino cement just prior to Laramide faulting; or sufficient and
previously unknown movement of the Bright Angel Fault shortly after
deposition of the basal Coconino. We welcome further structural analysis
on the Bright Angel Fault, considering the new patterns we have
established, so the timing and orientation of the sand-filled cracks can
be better understood. (pg. 57)

I see that as a legit question to bring up. Of course, Whitmore probable went back to his Creationist conferences and stated that he had evidence of a global flood and that the Coconino was deposited in water. But he didn't say anything like that in the paper.

There is another explanation that Whitmore doesn't mention.

quote:
The sedimentary rocks consist of sandstones and limestones stacked on top of one another that are generally separated by low permeability shales and siltstones. The three largest regional aquifers are the D-, N-, and C-aquifers.

The C-aquifer is the largest and most productive aquifer in the planning area with an areal extent of 21,655 square miles. It is named for its primary water-bearing unit, the Coconino Sandstone. The C-aquifer extends from the Mogollon Rim in the south to an area west of the Little Colorado River and northeast into New Mexico.


Hydrology of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area - Groundwater

So the Hermit shale is impermeable and water is trapped above it in the Coconino. I think that if a sediment is in standing water it will not lithify properly, at least it will slow it down significantly. Maybe Edge or Moose can confirm that... But, perhaps water was trapped very early in the deposition of the Coconino and the sandstone never really lithified until the Bright Angel Fault was reactivated. Then the water drained off and allowed the basal units to lithify and then at a later time, water became trapped again. That would explain the Coconino clasts in the homogenized zone at the base. The higher level portions, that were not saturated, did lithify and when there was siesmic activity, they broke and became embedded in the homogenized areas.

I don't know if this is a legitimate scenario, but it is definitely a better guess than "flood did it."

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1330 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 1:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1386 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 3:06 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1379 of 2886 (829799)
03-14-2018 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1370 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:18 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Going through the points one at a time:

  • About the Coconino/Hermit contact:

    Faith writes:

    From my Message 1366: That 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact isn't unique because images of the same boundary at other locations in the canyon look exactly the same. And it isn't unique as a sharp contact, because there are miles of sharp contact boundaries between strata in the canyon. So what is it about it that you find significant?

    Because it's pointed out it seems to be something special, that's all, but perhaps it's being more accessible to view is the reason it's pointed out. Its tightness is the reason, because creationists see that as evidence against the millions of years attributed to strata.

    So it isn't just that 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact that is special. It's sharp contact between any two strata that are special, of which there are miles and miles in the Grand Canyon. Why do you think that?

    Baumgardner certainly makes no mention of sharp contact being evidence against an age of millions of years for strata in the article where that image appears, Noahs Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History:

    quote:
    Why is there so little erosional channeling at formation boundaries within the thick layer-cake like succession of layers, as illustrated in Figure 15 (Snelling 2009, 591-592)? These features of the record are sufficient by themselves to falsify the claim that the present is the key to the past as far as the sediment record is concerned. Nowhere on earth is there currently such a sequence of layers, mostly of marine affinity, with such vast lateral extent being deposited within continent interiors.


    Figure 15. View of the contact between the Coconino Sandstone (above) and the Hermit Shale (below) in the Grand Canyon along the Bright Angel Trail. Note the lack of erosional channeling along this contact. This is not uncommon for contacts between successive formations across the geological record. (From Austin 1994, 49)

    So why do you think sharp contacts between strata layers rule out ages of millions of years?

  • About responding to objections:

    As for PaulK's thoughts I stick to the evidence I am sure of and don't, or shouldn't, try to answer every objection somebody raises.

    But only objections that prove your ideas untenable have been described in this thread, and PaulK's is one of those. Only by describing how the evidence does not support the untenable nature of your ideas can your ideas be shown to be potentially valid.

    Fossil tracks representing both vertebrae and non-vertebrae animals are found in all levels of the Coconino sandstone from the bottom to the top. This means that fossil tracks are found in the bottommost meter of the Coconino, and in the meter above that, and yet more in the meter above that, and so forth right up to the very top of the Coconino which is marked by a disconformity. The thickness of the Coconino ranges from around 20 meters to over 200 meters. How did the fossil tracks come to be at distributed throughout all levels of the Coconino?

    Your idea is that the Coconino was deposited by an inundation upon the land of the flood which then receded, allowing animals to return and leave behind tracks. But the Coconino can be as much as 200 meters thick, each meter of depth possessing tracks, so this could only happen if the flood first inundated the land and deposited Coconino sand to a depth of one meter. The water then receded and the animals returned, leaving behind tracks. Then the flood again inundated the land and deposited another meter of Coconino sand. The water then again receded and the animals again returned, leaving behind tracks. This process of inundations and recessions and animals returning to leave behind tracks would have had to repeat at least 200 times in order to leave tracks behind through every meter of the Coconino.

    This seems impossible, for a number of reasons:

    • During each inundation does the flood deposit a meter of Coconino sand throughout its entire current extent, or only part of its current extent. If the former, then how do animals make the repeated journeys of hundreds of miles into and out of the inundated region? If the latter then the animals need make shorter journeys, but they must make them many more times, and there must be many more inundations. Neither alternative seems possible.

    • At the far end of the range of the inundated region the Coconino will be deposited higher and higher. That is, after the first inundation the Coconino sand at the far end of the inundated region will be a meter higher than the landscape beyond, presumably a Hermit Shale surface. After the second inundation it will be two meters higher. After the third inundation it will be three meters higher. And so on. How is it possible for the flood waters inundating the region to stop at a point that becomes progressively higher?

    • Why aren't boundaries between one repeatedly inundated region and adjacent repeatedly inundated regions present in the geological record?

    • Since the Hermit Formation also contains animal tracks, it must have been deposited in the same way as the Coconino, a little at a time by repeated inundations. If tides are driving the necessary repeated inundations that deposit a meter of sandstone/siltstone at a time, then with a thickness of 100 meters the Hermit Formation would have required 100 tides. Adding this to the Coconino would have required 200 tides, for a total of 300. Given the number of strata both above and below the Coconino, aren't there insufficient tides during the year of the flood.

    • Some strata contain no animal tracks. Is it your position that such strata were deposited in a single inundation? If so, why were some strata deposited a little at a time with repeated inundations, while other strata were deposited all at one time in a single inundation? If not, if each layer of strata were deposited by multiple inundations that deposited only a little at a time, then there is not enough time for all the tides needed for all strata.

    You also said:

    I can only conjecture that some very few animals survived the stripping of the land for some reason, that's all. Otherwise the vast majority died.

    This has its own set of objections:

    • Why do you think "very few animals" could have created all the tracks in all the layers across 500 million square miles of land (total world land area)?

    • How is it that animals leaving tracks in the Tapeats were different from the animals leaving tracks in the Coconino, which are both sand environments?

    • How did worms that left behind worm holes make these repeated journeys into regions between inundations?

  • About an open mind being stupid:

    I don't know what Tanypteryx said but it's stupid to have an open mind when you've already established that something is true or false, such as that the Bible is God's word, or that there is evidence for the Flood.

    Tanypteryx only commented about you saying, "Having an open mind is stupid." You actually said it in your Message 1351 in reply to Edge. The conversation went like this:

    Tanypteryx in Message 1363 writes:

    Faith in Message 1351 writes:

    edge in Message 1349 writes:

    Faith in Message 1348 writes:

    edge in Message 1347 writes:

    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.

    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?

    Once you absolutely know something, having an open mind is stupid.

    I'm through taking anything you say seriously. Your defense of your argument is increasingly incoherent and chaotic. And now we see that you are stuck and will never improve your mindset to see the glaring inconsistencies your fantasy creates.

    It isn't a discussion if your position is, in effect, "I know I'm right." Nor is it valid in any way as a response, objection or rebuttal. If you know that something is so then you are obligated to explain how you know, usually by providing the evidence and rationale that supports your position.

  • About the meaning of straight strata:

    Straight strata say Flood to me, but perhaps more than that they say no millions of years to me.

    Yes, we know straight strata say flood to you and rule out millions of years to you. You've said this many, many times.

    Can you explain the evidence and rationale for your position?

  • About tectonically quiescent periods:

    Why do you think tectonically quiescent periods are unlikely

    Unlikely? I believe the evidence shows that all the strata were laid down without any kind of disturbance to them during the laying down and that all the tectonic disturbance clearly evidentially happened afterward. Evidence.

    But why do you think tectonically quiescent periods unlikely, for example, during the deposition of the Paleozoic layers in the Grand Canyon region?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1370 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17328
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1380 of 2886 (829800)
03-14-2018 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1373 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:50 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Faith writes:

I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring.

There isn't one iota of reasonable doubt that the inch strip in question belongs to the Hermit, none. The location of the contact is the evidence. There is no other possibility.

You're ignoring most of what I said in Message 1366 and just declaring your position again without any evidence, rationale or discussion.

For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino.

No it wouldn't, Percy, Moose is just speculating on why this part of the hermit, that is clearly part of the Hermit, has the different appearance it has. Dust is a possibility. If dust from the Coconino landed on a squirrel would that make the squirrel part of the Coconino?

The Coconino lies atop the Hermit. If the bottom inch of Coconino somehow turned to dust and then relithified, that would not make it part of the Hermit.

You're ignoring the interfingering. What is the interfingering of the top of the Hermit interfingered with? Did you miss where Edge said, "My understanding is that the Coconino interfingers with the Hermit in some places"? Also see HereBeDragons' Message 1378 where he has more discussion of creationist Whitmore's paper and substratal liquefaction.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1373 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1384 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 3:03 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9091
92
9394
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018