|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But that is not at all true. You are just assuming that the evidence supports your fantasy even though it’s been shown that it does not. Even though you have to invent bizarre fantasies to explain away the contrary evidence. How can you possibly believe that the evidence supports your idea when you’ve tried and failed to produce that evidence ? When you know Of contrary evidence you have no good explanation for ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no contrary evidence to the fact that there is no sign of disturbance in the strata before it is all laid down. There are claims, there is no actual evidence.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
How can you possibly believe that the evidence supports your idea when you’ve tried and failed to produce that evidence The problem is that Faith truly believes she HAS provided said evidence. She thinks that if you can create a narrative around an observation, that is evidence. But that's just not enough. Technically, anything put forward to support a position is "evidence" but the quality of that "evidence" is highly variable. The important thing is that the jump from observation to conclusion is justified. Faith's conclusions are not justified, all she has is observations. Those observations cannot qualify as evidence of the conclusion she comes to because there is not justification to get from observation to conclusion. Faith is hardly interested in evidence, she has her conclusion and looks for observations that she can create a narrative from. And that's good enough for her. Because of this, I try to focus on philosophy of science type issues with her. Of course, she sees no relavence in that either. HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. The idea that your mystery inch is part of the Coconino is too wacky to consider, Percy, and I don't know why you don't see it. A contact line divides between different formations, it never occurs within a formation. There would have to be a separate contact line beneath your weird Inch to make it a separate formation unto itself to justify what you are saying, and the bottom edge of the inch is so irregular it isn't even a bedding plane let alone a contact. I don't get it but it's too bizarre to take seriously although it does seem you are completely convinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Nonsense. Angular uncomforities exist, and they have evidence of occurring before the layers above were laid down. The very fact that you have to try to explain away the evidence away proves it exists. And that your explanations are so implausible - and lack evidence - hardly helps. And if we consider the Grand Canyon supergroup, the fault that splits it clearly came after the tilt - as shown by the fact that the sections divided by the fault have the same tilt. That the step of the fault is not at all present in the upper layers is evidence that the fault occurred before those layers were present. And, of course, the curve produced by the uplift does not at all follow the tilt of the Supergroup so those didn’t occur at the same time either. You can’t defend your habit of telling obvious falsehoods by telling more obvious falsehoods, Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
herebedragons writes: 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. Looking at the descriptions of all the sublayers of the Hermit Shale on pp 28-29 (A section of the Paleozoic formations of the Grand Canyon at the Bass Trial), a brief but accurate summary does seem challenging. He doesn't mention siltstone, the word doesn't even appear in the paper, so maybe that wasn't a "thing" back then. Interesting that the description of the Coconino was so brief - he saw little variation top to bottom besides grain size and bedding planes. The excerpts from Whitmore are interesting. When he says, "the basal Coconino was water saturated and underwent liquefaction during an ancient seismic episode," then because the Coconino layers just above it are obviously diagonally bedded it seems like he must be referring to that bottom inch. Or maybe he's talking about a different location of the Coconino/Hermit contact, though I haven't found any images where it looks different. Too bad there's no online images of close-ups of the contact.
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. About the Coconino being an aquifer, I posted about that earlier in the thread (Message 885). Doesn't water seem an odd way to prevent proper lithification? Wouldn't water, at least in more than trace amounts, be one of the first things pressure would force out of the interstices? Or maybe grain size has a big impact, with big grains creating very strong interstices in which water remains? But still, would that prevent lithification? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I really don't appreciate your analysis, HBD; are you really my "brother in Christ?". Here's an analysis of what you are doing:
2 Peter 3:5 and 6: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know you like your interpretation better than mine, but I continue to like mine better than yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Why don't you comment on HereBeDragons' excerpts from creationist Whitmore's paper in Message 1378, and on Edge's comment that there is interfingering between some parts of the Coconino and the Hermit in Message 1263.
But the Coconino/Hermit contact is a side issue. I'd really rather you respond to messages like my Message 1379. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: A nice attempt at evasion. However, I like my interpretation because it fits very well with the evidence. You like yours despite the fact that it doesn’t. The evidence, therefore is on my side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let me put it this way: there is no DEFINITIVE UNANSERABLE EVIDENCE on your side. I've given a plausible answer to it that happens to be consistent with the easily demonstrated fact that the strata were laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred in most places. Everywhere as a matter of fact. It's most telling in the GC/GS area but it's everywhere, and it requires something like my explanation of the Great unconformity to maintain the consistency.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not really interested in all the secondary arguments about these things. I'm unfortunately particularly interested in your view of the Mystery Inch because it confirms what I've known for some time: that you don't know how to read the physical world, while you are always accusing me of that. Why would I want to get entangled in more discussion with you in that case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: There is a huge difference between us having no evidence and the evidence strongly favouring our position. Thanks for admitting that you got it badly wrong.
quote: Then demonstrate it. Demonstrate that the tilt of the Grand Canyon Supergroup occurred after all the strata were laid down. Just remember that making up wild stories demonstrates nothing more than your imagination.
quote: No, that’s just another obvious falsehood. Faith, why do you think that saying these things is a good idea at all? This is how you create your nightmare. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I believe what I say. I've lost interest in trying to prove any of it to you or anyone at EvC, I merely give my view in answer to the usual accusations and leave it at that. Proving it, no, not worth it here..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: I know you like your interpretation better than mine, but I continue to like mine better than yours. This is a dodge and a waste of a message. Messages should be used to describe the evidence and rationale supporting one's conclusions. PaulK raises some issues that deserve answers:
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024