|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
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:
There's lots more, but I'm being called to dinner. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Going through the points one at a time:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I'm not really interested in all the secondary arguments about these things. It is obvious to all that for some reason today you have dropped into full dodge mode. You should be using your messages to respond to the issues that have been raised, such as in my Message 1379, HereBeDragons' Message 1377, PaulK's Message 1385 (to which you posted two replies that addressed none of the issues), and Edges Message 1347 (to which you also posted a non-answer).
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? But if all you can do is declare that you know you're right and that any other view is impossible while avoiding all evidence and rationale, how do you hope to convince anyone of anything but how dogmatic you are? If you can describe evidence that justifies your views then I'd love to hear it. It would also be helpful to see your comments 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. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: 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. Please stop dodging and start addressing the issues people are raising. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
This isn’t a race. Take your time. Research your answers to eliminate the impossible and implausible. Address all the questions. Don’t rely upon revelation for information. Develop reasoning to connect your evidence/observations to you conclusion. Take a day off. Take a few days off.
Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Catching up on this thread...
Minnemooseus writes: 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. BOGUS - From that information there is no way of telling which happened first. It could have been faulted and then tilted, or even faulted and tilted at the same time. Or as Edge commented the next day in his Message 1406:
Edge in Message 1406 writes: We can't say anything for certain about the relative timing of faulting and tilting. However, my prejudice in this case would be that they occurred at the same time because that is common in extensional tectonic settings. In earlier discussions I've said that to me it looks like the kind of stretching and faulting that creates the typical basin and range landscape.
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. Correct. And since Faith thinks the region experienced only a single tectonic episode, the faults between the Supergroup blocks had to occur before the Paleolithic strata were deposited, else erosion (a surface process) would not have cut the faults off before the Tapeats was deposited. The Kaibab Uplift was a later tectonic episode. I wasn't able to understand this:
And one side note concerning the "1 inch layer":
Minnemooseus, message 1353 writes: My guess is that the "1 inch layer" is some alteration/bleaching of the Hermit "shale", long after the lithification of all the units. Perhaps there is sometime water seepage at the contact. The "1 inch layer" might be only superficial dust from the Coconino. I think Faith caught what I meant by "superficial dust" - Something that could be washed off the rock face, not a penetrative coloration. Maybe there is a damp zone at the top of the Hermit, that Coconino dust would stick to. Not likely, but who's to say from just looking at the photos we have available. I'm having trouble formulating intelligent questions, so I'll just pop some out there and see if they enable you to see what I don't understand. How can any dust form and deposit on the layer below if the two layers have already been deposited one atop the other? How can it be "dust" if it was "washed off the rock face" and is wet? If whatever that inch is atop the Hermit originated with the Coconino after both the Hermit and Coconino units were already deposited and lithified, how can it be said to be part of the Hermit? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: What is it, two or three days, I forget, until you can shed your Clark Kent persona, albeit a very domineering Clark Kent, and return as SuperPercy and slap the cuffs on me? What are you going to give me, a month? Indefinite suspension? Just curious. What did you do? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Just a brief report on the 2017 film "Is Genesis History" in which Del Tackett (the Truth Project) interviews creationists about Geology. Haven't read through the thread yet, but in case no one's mentioned this the flim's at Netflix: Is Genesis History. Where are you viewing it? There's also a website: Is Genesis History? - The Documentary Film with Del Tackett. There's a page with links to discussions for each segment of the film if you click on "Seen the film? Dig deeper." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
There were a couple of your points I didn't understand. This is one:
edge writes: First of all, rapid deposition does not create sorted, tabular extensive deposits. If that were so, then the debris from Mount Saint Helens would look like the Coconino sandstone. And this is the other:
And of course we get different methods using different radiometric techniques. Did you mean "different ages"? If so then I can't see how that's true beyond a few percent. Different methods won't yield identical ages, but don't they usually yield ages within the error ranges or at least pretty close? For example, you say:
However, a billion years is not going to turn into 6ky under any circumstance. But different methods won't yield something like a billion years versus 900 million years in most circumstances, either. Unless there are confounding factors, different methods still yield pretty similar ages. For instance, looking at Table 4.1 in Dalrymple's book, the ages of the different methods (3 different methods in some cases) differ by no more than 5%. And Dalrymple's book is nearly 30 years old - techniques have improved and new dating methods have been introduced, and we still have broad agreement across all the dating methods, no matter what is dated. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Thanks for the info, I feel much better now.
edge writes: Sure, I don't think I stated an actual difference, in fact at one point, I said 'slightly different ags'. There might have been another typo in your Message 1437 because what you actually said was, "We are always measuring slightly different things." I wasn't sure what that meant, either, but if you meant "slightly different ages" then I understand now. Thanks. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I'm slowly making my way through the thread, and no one responded to this post, so I'll give it a go.
Faith writes: The point is that sedimentation is taking place on the same scale as your 'strata'.
The point of the comment about the extent of the Coconino sandstone was that sedimentation ON LAND, like the Coconino, is not occurring on that same scale, which is an argument against the OE theory. PaulK used the example of the Sahara Desert, which is fairly extensive, so deserts on large scales *are* occurring today. Climate conditions of all types have likely existed in all periods of Earth's history. But the extent of the Coconino sandstone does not mean it was was a desert of that size all at the same time, since climatic conditions of a desert and the desert's extent vary over time. The Coconino was buried over a period of 5 to 10 million years by a generally transgressing sea, but climate conditions can change in periods of less than a hundred thousand years, and desert boundaries can change. The Sahara goes through wet and dry periods on such a timescale, and the region of the Coconino likely experienced such changes. The sand is formed during dry periods when smaller/lighter dust/dirt particles would be carried away by wind, leaving behind the heavier sand. During wet periods the sand would remain and soil formation would resume as well as the return of vegetation. The sand of the Coconino was buried by a gradually transgressing sea following the processes of Walther's Law. Here are images of deserts at different climatic periods. The deep Sahara is on the left, while the American southwest is on the right. They both have a great deal of sand, but the American Southwest is wetter and has some soil and vegetation. I present these images to illustrate just how different various portions of the Coconino could be, both over geographic extent and over time:
That is not the geologic column on the seafloor. Every point on the solid surface of the Earth, including the seafloor, is the top of a geologic column. Any sediments accumulating at any point on the Earth's solid surface are contributing to the geologic column.
Presumably according to OE theory the geo column formed slowly on land over millions of years, and the model for it is supposed to be today's sedimentation. Doesn't work. But you can't explain in what way it doesn't work. In fact, given how sediment just alternately accumulates and transports until it reaches a lowest point and is buried, it isn't possible that it couldn't work. Erosion and weathering creates sediments, and the sediments are gradually transported to the lowest point where they make a permanent contribution to the geologic column. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024