Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2026 of 2887 (831470)
04-18-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1858 by Faith
04-14-2018 10:33 AM


Re: Permian Age et al
1858 writes:
I wanted evidence from the sciences you listed, and specifically NOT radiometric dating..
First, that's not what you said. Here's the actual exchange exactly as it appeared in your Message 1839. There's no mention of excluding radiometric dating:
Faith in Message 1839 writes:
you've been presented with all thes multiple sources of independent evidence
Just describe one please.
Second, of course you don't want to discuss radiometric dating - because you have no answers for it.
Third, here's a summary of evidence mentioned in Tangle's quote, which is about the age of the Earth. I don't actually know the online source of the quote he used. A version of it appears at Geologic Time: The Age of the Earth, but not divided into paragraphs.
  • Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents.
  • A wide variety of radiometric dating techniques have been used to date these rocks.
  • Zircons as old as 4.3 billion years have been found in western Australia.
  • Meteorites dated as old as 4.4 billion years have been found.
  • The oldest rocks from the moon have dated as old as 4.5 billion years.
  • Dating of ancient lead ores in combination with meteorites results in an age of 4.54 billion years with 1% error.
  • This last one is not from Tangle's quote but from Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth. Radiometric isotopes with half lives shorter than about 80 million years and that don't appear in the decay chain of other isotopes (that is, they aren't currently being produced naturally) are completely absent from the Earth. This could only happen if the Earth were older than at least 4 billion years so that enough time had passed that these isotopes had decayed to the point of undetectability. If the Earth were only 6000 years old then these isotopes would still be present in great abundance. See page 376 of Dalrymple's book and read forward.
A genuine scientific 6000-year paradigm would at a minimum explain why radiometric dating yields an age of the Earth of around 4.5 billion years.
--Percy
PS: While searching for the source of Tangle's quote I found pieces of it at websites and in books, enough to indicate a disturbing amount of plagiarism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1858 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 10:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2027 of 2887 (831472)
04-18-2018 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1867 by Faith
04-14-2018 11:35 AM


Re: Permian Age et al
Faith writes:
In reality the evidence shows a long history of tectonic events.
It's a misinterpretation. Perhaps you could show one to be sure.
Another one-line response.
Why don't you take the initiative on this subtopic and present evidence demonstrating that all the world's tectonic events took place over a relatively brief span of time around 4500 years ago? I'd be particularly interested in the evidence of continents moving miles per day.
I'm also very interested in your evidence showing there was only ever a single supercontinent. Why do you even accept the existence of a supercontinent (I assume Pangaea, but you don't say), since the same type of evidence that established the existence of one supercontinent also established the existence of all the others. If you reject that type of evidence then how do you know there was ever any supercontinent during Earth's history? I'm of course referring to your comment in your Message 1771:
Faith in Message 1771 writes:
The idea of many comings and goings of continents doesn't fit either, but one does: originally there was only one continent and then it broke up. There is clear evidence for that one only.
So tell us about this clear evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1867 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 11:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 2028 of 2887 (831473)
04-18-2018 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1870 by Faith
04-14-2018 1:14 PM


Re: Permian Age et al
There are three other responses to your message that I haven't read yet, but this is all so over the top that I just have to respond.
The Temple Butte channel couldn't possibly be something that had ever been on the surface. That's obvious to me, sorry if you don't see it.
When something is "obvious" to no one but you, guess what? If you really had a clear and valid argument proving HereBeDragons wrong you'd be falling all over yourself to present it.
There are many separate observations that go into my view of the Great Unconformity. I'm too sick of arguing about this right now to want to review all that.
Well of course you're sick of arguing about this, because your description of supposed events doesn't stand up to scrutiny, primarily because they so obviously contradict reality. Buried strata cannot tilt without disturbing the strata above, and without leaving behind any sign of cubic miles of missing expanses of the tilted strata.
I don't get what you or anyone is trying to say about the monadnocks and don't know if it's worth hearing more about it.
Your determination to maintain your ignorance is impressive.
No I have not arrived at the judgment that there was no disturbance to the geo column from presuppositions but from actual evidence. I worked on it a lot back when. I clearly clearly demonstrated what I was seeing in the Grand Canyon.
Sure you did, just as the Flat Earthers have "clearly clearly" demonstrated that the Earth is flat. Presenting evidence to Flat Earthers and explaining why they are wrong has just as much effect on them as it does on you. Unless you are seriously delusional you are purposefully misrepresenting your success in the discussion. Every claim you've ever made has been rebutted with evidence and analysis where the outcome is usually that you run away from the discussion.
But everybody's usual denial is just getting too tiresome.
Could it be that you're already laying the groundwork for abandoning the thread? You've abandoned this thread before. And you're obviously engaging in the contradictory behavior of accusing others of denial while denying evidence left and right.
I wish I'd written it all out somewhere independently of this place where it's so hard to find anything.
Funny, I never have any problem finding what you've said in the past. Which of your wrong claims would you like me to look up?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1870 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 1:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2029 of 2887 (831474)
04-18-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1880 by Faith
04-14-2018 4:42 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
Gee, thanks so muchly for responding to the first 5% of my post.
I intended to get back to your post but due to the subsequent disparaging and discouraging remarks from so many here I don't feel like it now. Who knows, I may feel like it later.
Ah, yes, there it is again, your ever-present excuse that though you have all the evidence and argument you need to slay the twin beasts of evolution and geology, you just haven't been treated right and so you're just not going to respond. And despite posting no response you'll no doubt later again claim you proved the flood. In fact I still have so many messages left to read in this thread that it's likely a safe bet I'll find at least one of your posts making this exact claim.
Comey characterizes Trump as having no external reference points in his life. Ethical people look to religious tradition or cultural tradition or history or logic or philosophy, but Trump looks to what will fill the hole within himself to provide the affirmation he needs. This describes you as well. It explains why you don't care how you treat other people, why you don't care how they feel, why you use your religion to excuse your hateful attitudes and behaviors, and why it's always all about you.
Over the years many people have put a great deal of effort into posts that you have ignored, and then later had the hurt and disappointment compounded when you claimed no one had rebutted your arguments and that you had proved your case. Someone who cared about more than just herself wouldn't do this to people, and especially not for years and years.
Be a true Christian. Treat people right and respond forthrightly to their evidence and arguments by finding your own evidence and arguments instead of making up stories. Don't argue through disparaging labels, don't run away, and don't pretend you're unaware when you offer an argument has already been rebutted many times. I can make no guarantees about how treatment of you might change, but behaving honestly and with integrity couldn't hurt.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 4:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2031 by Faith, posted 04-18-2018 3:35 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 2030 of 2887 (831476)
04-18-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1976 by edge
04-16-2018 11:15 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
It's not a simple topic.
That's OK, I don't need to know what chronostratigraphic means.
But it makes it hard to visualize the physical situation, what the land itself looks like where the line is, if there's anything above it and so on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1976 by edge, posted 04-16-2018 11:15 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2088 by Percy, posted 04-21-2018 6:19 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2031 of 2887 (831479)
04-18-2018 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2029 by Percy
04-18-2018 1:39 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Over the years I have made some really good arguments that NEVER get any recognition whatever. You have no idea what it's like to be treated this way time after time after time after time. So don't tell me I'm the one being unfair. I have nothing more to say to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2029 by Percy, posted 04-18-2018 1:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2032 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2018 3:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2033 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2018 1:49 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 2089 by Percy, posted 04-21-2018 6:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 2032 of 2887 (831480)
04-18-2018 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2031 by Faith
04-18-2018 3:35 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
Over the years I have made some really good arguments that NEVER get any recognition whatever.
No. You haven’t. You really ought to stop telling obvious untruths.
quote:
You have no idea what it's like to be treated this way time after time after time after time
Other people who make ridiculously bad arguments get treated the same way.
quote:
So don't tell me I'm the one being unfair.
Well, you are. I can understand that you don’t like being easily defeated time and time again. But if you make obviously bad arguments that is really your problem. If you were actually good enough at critical thinking to see and correct the flaws in your arguments - or even avoid posting the real stinkers you would find it a bit less unpleasant here.
But no, you’d rather boast about being great at critical thinking instead of actually employing it. At all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2031 by Faith, posted 04-18-2018 3:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 2033 of 2887 (831482)
04-19-2018 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2031 by Faith
04-18-2018 3:35 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Over the years I have made some really good arguments that NEVER get any recognition whatever.
You are getting your due recognition for your arguments.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2031 by Faith, posted 04-18-2018 3:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 2034 of 2887 (831483)
04-19-2018 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1985 by Faith
04-17-2018 1:33 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
But that's kind of silly, Tangle. You almost could replace any of those fossils with any other fossils at any level and you'd still have the same kind of "order."
To get back to this part of the order issue. You've now accepted that the fossils are in the geological record in a non-random way and that the rocks themselves are non-randomly organised.
Science also predicts the order that fossils will appear in the rocks in this non-random way. It say that the oldest will be found in the lowest layers and that single celled organisms will appear first, followed by multi-cellular marine invertebrates, followed by fish, followed by amphibians, followed by reptiles, and then birds and mammals. That's because life evolved in that order.
So that's three consistent non-random orders any of which you can disprove by real life observations.
So why has this never been disproven?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1985 by Faith, posted 04-17-2018 1:33 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2035 by jar, posted 04-19-2018 6:57 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 2036 by dwise1, posted 04-19-2018 9:45 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 2040 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2018 2:45 PM Tangle has not replied

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


(1)
Message 2035 of 2887 (831484)
04-19-2018 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2034 by Tangle
04-19-2018 3:19 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
But that's kind of silly, Tangle. You almost could replace any of those fossils with any other fossils at any level and you'd still have the same kind of "order."
What is important about Faith's comment is that in hundreds of years of searching no one has ever found a situation where you could replace any of those fossils with any other fossils at any level and you'd still have the same kind of "order. If we replaced a trilobite fossil with a crab fossil it would be the biggest news ever. If we replaced marine invertebrates with mammals it would truly be news.
BUT a flood would do that. If there had been the flood she markets then we would find an distinctly different and easily identifiable "order".

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2034 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2018 3:19 AM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 2036 of 2887 (831488)
04-19-2018 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2034 by Tangle
04-19-2018 3:19 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
So that's three consistent non-random orders any of which you can disprove by real life observations.
So why has this never been disproven?
I think that raises a far more important question for this discussion: Does Faith even have any clue at all what order we objectively observe the fossils to be in? Or is that just yet another thing of which she keeps herself ignorant?
She keeps making appeals to hydrodynamic sorting. Since that depends on size, shape, and density of the objects (eg, plants and critters) being buried, we know what effect that would have. For example, as I've posted from my notes of Is Genesis History?, that 1-meter thick fossil deposit had all the bones sorted out with large bones at the bottom and small one at top, which is exactly what we would expect from hydrodynamic sorting during a single event. Yet that is not what we observe in the entire fossil record.
If Faith had actually seen the how fossils are distributed, how could she possibly think that hydrodynamic sorting would explain the lack of ordering by size and shape?
She also cites that locality argument, that marine animals would be buried deeper than land animals because they would have been buried first. Yet we have marine fossils deposited in layers above land fossils, not just occasionally but almost everywhere.
If Faith had actually seen the overall distribution of marine and land fossils throughout all the formations, how could she think that the locality excuse could possibly hold any water?
And there's the good old "fleetness of foot" gaff which is always good for a laugh. If the "more advanced" organisms were able to run faster and so got buried later in the upper layers, what about the sloths? I've seen sloths move, so why don't we find them buried in the lower layers? Plus, how is it that the more advanced plants were likewise able to outrun the Flood? Has anybody here ever seen a plant run? (Ents don't count, because they are imaginary)
So the basic problem that we've been overlooking in any discussion of the fossil order is that it is obviously yet another thing that Faith works hard to keep herself ignorant of just so she can continue to make silly false assertions about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2034 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2018 3:19 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2037 by jar, posted 04-19-2018 10:20 AM dwise1 has replied

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


Message 2037 of 2887 (831489)
04-19-2018 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2036 by dwise1
04-19-2018 9:45 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
dwise1 writes:
Has anybody here ever seen a plant run?
You never lived in the South. Kudzu runs and climbs and jumps and is damn fast too.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2036 by dwise1, posted 04-19-2018 9:45 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2038 by Phat, posted 04-19-2018 11:43 AM jar has not replied
 Message 2041 by dwise1, posted 04-19-2018 3:59 PM jar has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2038 of 2887 (831491)
04-19-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2037 by jar
04-19-2018 10:20 AM


Kudzu

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2037 by jar, posted 04-19-2018 10:20 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2043 by edge, posted 04-19-2018 10:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2039 of 2887 (831500)
04-19-2018 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
I do thank you for the attempt to help incorrigible me with my "confusion" and especially for being more specific than one usually encounters on this subject. Especially since you expect your offering to be rebuffed as I always have to expect mine to be. It's not fun, though being on the "right" side with lots of buddies ought to help soothe the pain from one lone stupid creationist's insults. Be that as it may...
You and I may be in the same boat when it comes to geology. I am not fluent in geological terminology. I find visualizing some geological scenarios difficult. Some diagrams can be very challenging to interpret. Because Edge is so fluent in these things I think he's unaware when his explanations are not clear to laypeople.
So here I'll offer my interpretations of Edge's answers. Edge will hopefully correct me where I go astray. I'll be quoting from Edge's answers in Message 1884. I can't know which of Edge's answers you understood and which you didn't, so I'll comment on all of them. I'll get some good benefit from working out what Edge means, and I hope you will too, assuming you haven't abandoned the thread (I'm still 150 messages from having read to the end of the thread, but noticing that the post count in the banner at the top of the page is low today and was low yesterday and the day before it seems likely that you're no longer here).
edge writes:
There is no single Devonian stratigraphy. There are many, and the word System could refer to rocks of that age anywhere on the planet. In other words, the Navajo Sandstone is considered to be part of the Jurassic System deposited during the Jurassic time span, and the Old Red Sandstone is part of the Devonian System deposited during the Devonian Period.
If there are "many" stratigraphies per time period, they still are all contained within the same rock layer or band of layers found around the world, right?
No.
I don't know why Edge didn't comment on your use of the term "band of layers." I'm not sure what you mean by it, and I don't see how Edge could know, either. For that reason I could be incorrect about what Edge is saying "no" to.
By stratigraphy I think Edge means a sequence of strata, and I believe Edge is saying "no" to where you say there are many stratigraphies per time period contained within the same rock layer. That may not even make any sense, since this seems to translate to "there are many sequences of rock layers contained within the same rock layer."
When Edge says there are many Devonian stratigraphies he means that different locations around the world would each have their own unique Devonian stratigraphy. There could be one Devonian stratigraphy in Michigan, a different one in France, none in England, a different one in Iraq, a different one in Rwanda, and so forth.
I didn't actually look up where around the world Devonian strata are present and where they are not, but hopefully you get the idea. Conditions during the Devonian differed all around the world, so the strata deposited differed, too. That's why there are many different Devonian stratigraphies around the world. There are also no doubt many parts of the world where only a subset of the Devonian is represented, and many where none is represented. In fact, since the Devonian was much more than 200 million years ago, and since almost no sea floor is older than 200 million years, there is probably little to no Devonian stratigraphy beneath the seas.
Or however that should be said. Just different collections of sediment in different places, but all in the same band of rock or same level in the column, right?
I'm not sure why Edge let this go by without commenting on it, because it seems impossible to know exactly what you mean. Rather than speculate I'll just refer you to my previous paragraph, which hopefully explains it pretty clearly.
And all containing the same fossils.
They happen to contain similar fossils, yes. But they are not in the same band of rocks.
Edge seems to be sure what you mean by "band of rocks", since he uses the term himself. If "band of rocks" means "sequence of strata", which is my only guess, then I'm unable to interpret what he says.
What I can say is that strata from the exact same time period but from different parts of the world might well contain similar fossils, but it would depend. Perhaps trilobites from layers of the same age and type would be fairly similar around the world, perhaps not. And trilobites from layers of different types, say sandstone versus limestone which represent very different environments, would be unlikely to be similar, even when the layers are in close proximity geographically.
Why should there be a rock System associated with a particular time period anyway? Ever?
For convenience. It is often necessary to talk about rocks of the same age.
If you were expressing skepticism about the need for the term "system" then I think I might agree with you. If the period and system names are identical (e.g., Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian), i.e., if there's always a one-to-one correspondence, then what's the point? There does seem to be some subtle conceptual idea that "system" is trying to communicate, but by and large I don't get it. About "system" Wikipedia says:
quote:
A system in stratigraphy is a unit of rock layers that were laid down together within the same corresponding geological period.
And geology.com says:
quote:
A stratigraphic unit of major significance which was deposited during a specific time period, and which can be correlated worldwide on the basis of its fossil content.
I could definitely use some help understanding the definition of system and why the term is useful.
And one per time period -- it is only one because although there are different rocks in different places they all occur at the same physical level and all contain the same fossilized creatures, yes?
Not one layer.
Edge let your comment "And one per time period" stand without remark, so this must mean that there is indeed a one-to-one correspondence between period and system, and that there is only one system worldwide for each period. Still seems like a weirdly unnecessary term to me.
I don't understand Edge's "Not one layer" answer.
I also don't understand why Edge let your "same physical level" comment stand. I interpret "same physical level" to mean same elevation above or below sea level. If that is what you meant then the same system would definitely be at different elevations at different places around the world. And in some places the system would only be partially present, and in others completely absent.
Why should EVERY "time period" have such a sedimentary representative, a System, at all? Isn't there something a bit contra Nature about such an occurrence?
If sedimentation were continuous, yes. However, that is not what happened.
Expanding on Edge's answer, because sedimentation is not continuous (net sedimentation only occurs at low points, generally lake and sea beds and coastal areas), and because of erosion of exposed parts of a system, and because of subduction of sea floor, I'll bet that no system is completely represented everywhere throughout the globe.
I understand that it would be hard to question something so utterly taken for granted, and which does in fact bear the label of the time period in all the representations of the geologic column, but I would think that someone might step back some time and ask why such a correspondence should exist at all, let alone so consistently.
Why wouldn't it?
Because you think so? These are all based on normal geological processes that we see going on today.
I understood you to be asking a different question than the one Edge appeared to answer. I can't be sure, but it seemed like you were still questioning the need for the term system.
Why should there be a recognizable sedimentary System, set of layers or whatever, in any stack called the Geologic Column anywhere?
Because depositional environments change through time.
Expanding on Edge's answer, exploring the world today we can observe the conditions necessary for depositing the different kinds of sediments. Sand is deposited along and near coastlines, silt and mud is deposited further from shore or in swamps and lagoons, calcareous sediments are deposited in warm shallow seas, pelagic sediments are deposited in deep ocean. We can see the lithified state of these sediments where strata are exposed in road cuts, mountains, canyons, outcrops, etc.. We recognize that sandstone represents ancient coastlines, that shale and slate represent ancient offshore areas or swamps and lagoons, that limestone represents ancient warm shallow seas.
We see a sequence of strata of different types because the world is dynamic. Sea levels rise and fall. Land surfaces rise and fall. Mountains are pushed up and then eroded away. The most common cause of changing depositional environments is transgressing and regressing seas over millions of years following Walther's Law. With a transgressing sea a place that was coastline and is receiving sand deposits will eventually become offshore and receive mud and silt deposits, which bury the sand below them. As the transgression continues this place might become far enough from shore to become a warm shallow sea where calcareous sediments are deposited, burying the mud and silt deposits beneath them. This is how one commonly observed sequence of strata comes to be.
One rock System per time period, and no time period without one.
Except where there was no deposition or where it has been removed.
This answer is pretty clear and is the same as what I explained above at greater length.
Is there a principle anywhere else in Nature that makes sense of this?
Make sense of your strawman? No.
It isn't clear to me what Edge thinks is your strawman, but I'm also unable to make sense of your question. While the need for the term system may not be clear, certainly there's nothing nonsensical about a one-to-one correspondence between period and system, so you must be referring to something else. Can you be more explicit about what it is that doesn't make sense to you?
But can you understand why this specificity doesn't really change my perspective?
I didn't expect it to change your perspective. My intent was to help others understand your confusion, since the conversation never really goes anywhere. I might add that, contrary to known processes that we see in the geological record, you essentially see all rocks deposited in one year and hence are the same age. That is the basic reason why you are so adamant against the mainstream reality.
I agree with Edge that you often seem adamantly opposed to reality. Your most bizarre belief is that you don't think sediments are contributing to stratigraphic columns any more. Everyone understands that while standing in their front yard they stand atop a stratigraphic column, and that if they scatter some sand on their yard then they are contributing to that stratigraphic column, and that if they remove a shovelful of dirt then they are subtracting from that stratigraphic column, but you reject that. Everyone understands that sediments accumulating on sea floors everywhere around the world are contributing to stratigraphic columns, but you reject that. It's the weirdest thing that you can so determinedly reject realities that are undeniable, yet your verbiage opposing reality goes on for pages.
They all occur at exactly the same level around the world, and they all contain the same fossils.
What level are you talking about, stratigraphic or structural level?
Edge is picking up on your use of the word level that I commented on before when you said "physical level". I assumed that by level you meant physical level because that's what you said earlier, but maybe not.
Also, you're using pronouns again, making it unclear what you're referring to. By "they" do you mean systems? Strata within systems? I'll assume you mean strata within systems. So if by same level you mean strata that appear in the same place within a system, then yes, strata that correspond to the same level within a system could be present at multiple places around the world.
But they won't contain the same fossils. Different environments support different life, and different locations will have different species populations even if the environments are the similar. The best that can be said is that similar strata in the same place within a system will possibly have similar fossils.
If by level you meant physical level then no, they do not occur at exactly the same level around the world. The elevations above and below sea level will vary widely.
Isn't that how it was recognized in the first place that there is something systematic going on here? There is no time period without its rock System and no rock System without its time period.
Right, but the concepts are different. You seem to equate them.
I'm having the same problem you are in conflating system and period. As I said earlier, more explanation from Edge about the need for the two terms would be helpful.
Things are more complex that you think and geology is not something that you can teach yourself.
I disagree somewhat with this in a couple of ways. One is that I do think that there's a lot about geology that one can teach oneself, but that there's also a lot that can only be learned in the field. The other is that I don't think your problems understanding geology are of the subtle nature of things that can best be learned in the field. A lot of what you refuse to understand about geology is simple reality and common sense.
I can't see anything else anywhere in Nature that justifies such an idea.
I'm sorry it doesn't follow the logic that you prefer. But it works.
You're again objecting to system and period, and I'm still with you on this and hoping to better understand the need for both these terms.
Yes here and there a particular rock System fails to show up, but the amazing thing is that it's just here and there while the rule is that each time period has its pet rock System all around the world.
I don't see the problem here.
This is about system and period again, and that you call it amazing that every period has a system indicates that maybe I'm wrong that we're looking at this the same way. It can't be amazing because its just the definition of the words. A system is the rock layers around the world that correspond to a period. Why do you find that amazing? As I said several times already, the need for the word system (and the other terms at higher and lower levels of classification) is not clear to me, but the definition does make perfect sense.
Are you sure you mean this? That a sequence of particular sedimentary rocks can belong to both the Devonian and the Silurian perhaps, or the Triassic and the Jurassic perhaps? But then they'd have to contain different fossils wouldn't they? Is this what you are saying?
Let me be more general and say that, as Walther's law predicts, stratigraphic units are not restricted to a given time or Period. As transgression occurs, the age of a seashore deposit become younger as the shoreline moves across the continent.
Though Edge chose to reexpress it more generally, what you said up to the part about fossils is correct. What you said about fossils isn't exactly wrong but misunderstands the point Edge was making.
Making the point another way, the world is a messy place that doesn't provide neat boundaries, but despite that we humans have defined time periods with clear start points and end points. The Triassic ends and the Jurassic begins at 201.3 million years ago, but the processes that actually deposited the sediments 201.3 million years ago didn't know that humans would one day define that as a boundary between periods. Reality is just blind physical processes doing what they do and that take no account of the definitions humans will create millions of years later for their own convenience.
A transgression could have taken place from 205 million years ago until 195 million years ago, spanning the Triassic/Jurassic boundary at 201.3 million years. The transgression would leave behind sandstone, siltstone and limestone layers of ages that span the 201.3 million year boundary. As you move laterally across a specific strata that spans this time boundary you will find that the fossils slightly older than 201.3 million years are fairly similar if not identical to fossils slightly younger than 201.3 million years.
Edge mentioned Walther's Law, and you still don't understand how it works. It is a very slow and gradual process that is best understood by considering what takes place during transgressions and regressions that are caused by changes in sea level or land elevation or both. Floods cannot follow Walther's Law - they happen far too quickly. I've often cited to you the example of the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami. The tsunami's incursion miles inland did not leave behind sorted sedimentary layers, or perform sorting of any type other than the normal settling out of sediments by size/density anywhere that standing water resulted.
edge writes:
As I have said, the rocks are just like a 'recording' of sedimentary layers deposited on the 'tape' of the geological timescale.
Now this is not at all clear. Could you find a different analogy to make it clearer?
To you, I doubt it.
I don't have a better analogy, but I can explain the one Edge used. The tape is the geological timescale, but each location around the world would have its own tape. It's a vertical tape. The sedimentary layers at each location are recorded on the tape at that location from the bottom to the top (Law of Superposition). Erasures can happen, with sedimentary layers being removed from the tape by erosion, and the recording of more sedimentary layers can later resume. Or not.
Look, I'm thinking this through honestly, I don't have anything "religious" in mind as I'm thinking it through, I'm thinking only of layers of rock around the world and time labels assocfiated with them.
This has been established by convention long before you came upon the scene.
I assume that by convention Edge is referring to the terminology, the labels given the various periods, and the time bounds of those periods. A flood interpretation should have time periods, too, i.e., this layer was deposited on day 1, this layer on days 2 and 3, etc., though of course no evidence supports such time periods.
I'm basing it all on conclusions I've come to about the physical situation over the last couple of decades. I'd really really appreciate it if even if you think me crazy or stupid or just wrong you'd allow that I'm honestly thinking about the physical world and raising honest issues.
Your thinking is inadequate. You ignore evidence and known processes. You prefer mysticism over science and learning. You strategy consists of denial and adherence to a religious myth.
In other words, Edge is skeptical of your expression of leaving aside your religious beliefs to objectively consider the evidence from the natural world. Your seventeen years of history here suggests his skepticism is warranted.
I and others have enumerated your errors elsewhere.
In other words and in more detail, the same things have been explained to you over and over and over again in thread after thread after thread, and it doesn't make any difference. You still maintain that the Bible is the final word, that your interpretation is correct no matter what the evidence says, that you'll ignore any evidence you don't like, that you'll call ideas and people names, make up stories that have no evidence, ignore posts, repeat already rebutted arguments as if the rebuttals had never happened, abandon discussion, etc. and so forth and so on.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:06 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2042 by edge, posted 04-19-2018 10:12 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2040 of 2887 (831510)
04-19-2018 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2034 by Tangle
04-19-2018 3:19 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
It say that the oldest will be found in the lowest layers and that single celled organisms will appear first, followed by multi-cellular marine invertebrates, followed by fish, followed by amphibians, followed by reptiles, and then birds and mammals.
Let's tie this bow up completely. When you say, "oldest", and use other relative timings like "appear first", we mean to use time as reflected not subjectively, but using any and all of the scientific means for establishing dates.
Now those times and dates may be disputed based on one or more creationist arguments, but that does not make the objective dates or the observations illusions. If, in fact, the dates are wrong, the correlations with fossils and the observed order still require an explanation of how the dates can be wrong but the correlations are still present. Creationists cannot do that. In fact, the most plausible explanation is that the dates are not wrong.
Viewed in that way, anyone can see that Faith's denials are beside the point. Unfortunately, we don't have "scientific creationists" that visit this place anymore. We just have Faith.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2034 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2018 3:19 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024