|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Every valid dating method shows that the Earth is older than YEC says.
Even some non-valid methods show the earth to be older than YEC tells us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I don't know if you missed my Message 2320 or just don't consider it worth answering, but this is in case you missed it and want to answer it.
Pretty much the latter. I wrote the post late, for me, and couldn't figure out a way to word it better for the layman. I actually tried. When I saw that you didn't get my point, I just blew it off. There isn't much point in continuing a conversation with someone who is in such deep denial. If there is one thing I know, it's structural geology, and continuing to argue it with someone who basically has no conscience is fruitless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Anything on the surface inhabited by life would have been lumpy and irregular and composed of all kinds of mixed sediments and gravel of all sizes and organic matter, and if buried would never turn into a flat slab of sedimentary rock and find itself neatly stacked among other such slabs of rock.
Ask and you shall receive. Here is a strat column of the Lower Peninsula, taken from a Michigan State class.
Unless you believe in the Good Fairy who turns puppets into boys and could probably turn this lump of shapeless stuff into a slab of flat single-sediment rock if necessary.
No need. Strata do not have to conform to your definition. Just ask if you need an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
My views are based on observation of the physical world, including the view that there was no Jurassic time period or any other time period. The physical realities deducible from the the Geological Column say so, not Genesis.
You have not seen 'the physical world'. You have seen a schematic cross-section of the Colorado Plateau.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
From WALTHER'S LAW AND VERTICAL FACIES CHANGES (colors and italics are from the original):
I think we are seeing why first-year students have a hard time wrapping their heads around Walther's Law. In fact, after reading this exchange, I think I'm confused as well. And, thinking back on it, probably most professors don't really introduce the topic properly. (direct quote snipped for brevity) Take particular notice of these parts: "...different sedimentary environments over time..."...changes in sea level, or changes in subsidence and sedimentation rates." As laterally-adjacent sedimentary environments shift back and forth through time... Given enough time... ...laterally adjacent sedimentary environments migrating over one another through time. So I think we can dispense with the notion of Walther's Law not involving time. It would seem that Walther's Law is easier to understand that it is to describe. Yes, it is an explanation of geometry, but a process and time for it to act are necessary elements. However, the point I'd like to make is that if Walther's Law is a law, it should tell us what WILL happen under certain conditions. Basically, he says that if there are laterally adjacent depositional environments, one will always be found above the other nearby (assuming, of course, no major discontinuities such as an unconformity). And really, there isn't any choice. That is because the different environments are migrating due to changes in sea level which occur over time and the sedimentary succession is growing. Once we add the time element in the process of transgression, it makes sense. As I have said before, time is the main thing that Faith does not have, and that makes the whole data set incomprehensible. Consequently, unknown processes and jinns become necessary to complete the Faith model. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I was trying to say why movement between wet rocks might not produce "slickensides."
Okay, then, there would be soft-sediment deformation features everywhere along the unconformity.
Sometimes I get the impression edge likes to try to trip me up by using terms or concepts he knows I wouldn't know, but apparently in this case he did try to find other terms and wasn't able to, so I feel bad about making an issue of it.
Put a simply as possible, geology has complexities that are hard to explain without using some jargon, especially when edge is tired after a long day.
As for the other statements I had just figured out that the fact that the rocks were still soaked might make a difference in how a geologist would think of movement between them.
It is hard to see how rock buried under two miles of younger sediment could have much water in it and wouldn't be to some degree lithified. And besides, soft-sediments also show deformation.
I'm always hoping to find an explanation for an idea I like in a way a geologists isn't just going to dismiss. The basic scenario I keep describing of movement at the GU keeps getting dismissed as not having the marks of shearing which are apparently absolutely necessary if my scenario is correct. Well, I've been growing fonder and fonder of my scenario over time so I'm trying to find a way it could have occurred without leaving those marks. It just hit me yesterday that he may not be taking into account the idea that the rocks were just formed and still saturated with water though highly compacted. I'm picturing a block of clay that's wet but has all the excess moisture squeezed out of it so it's as solid as it can get in that condition.
All the more reason it should show deformation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
All I care about concerning Walther's Law is that it shows that rising sea water forms layers.
And subsiding seas also. In multiple regional events.
Moose said it should occur in my scenario as well as the OE scenario. I guess you disagree.
Probably. I would classify your 'flood' as a discontinuity in sedimentation which means that it would not apply exactly. As a slow transgression I can see it, but as a raging torrent careening across the continent, there is no time for the sediments to sort out. The entire Tapeats would be deposited and then the entire Bright Angel, followed by the entire Muav. That isn't Walther's Law in action which says that the depositional environments are laterally adjacent. On the other hand, various dating methods show us that time as passed and that at any given time the Tapeats is contemporaneous with the Bright Angel deposition. Once again, you lack the time factor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Perhaps it was "to some degree lithified" then, but if it was formed in the Flood it would only have been at most a few months before the sediment had all accumulated on top of it, and I am still putting the time of the tectonic upheaval while the Flood was at its height, the movement being the cause of the water's receding, so would you expect it to be completely dry?
Your equivocation belies the unviability of your model. Even soft sediments have some internal structure that can be deformed. I'm going to assume that they weren't soft enough to be deformed, but instead the abrasion produced crumbles and chunks. Your requirement for kind'a, sort'a, just-a-little, maybe slightly hard sediment is not helping your argument. "Crumbling" is not what soft sediments do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
This is one of the kinds of things people say that is totally irrelevant and a waste of time. The Bible describes the Flood in general terms and mostly from the point of view of Noah's relationship with God. The specifics of how the Flood occurred are not relevant in that context, but there's nothing against trying to reconcile what little information is there with the observable physical facts today. The Bible is a guideline to many kinds of knowledge it doesn't spell out.
Oh, that's nice. It means that you can make up whatever you want. Must be nice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
In comparison with millions of years I suppose the rising of the sea over forty days and nights would seem like a raging torrent, but although I'm sure there were phases of violence during the Flood I also have no reason to believe it was "raging" all the time.
More equivocation. Just more evidence that the flood does whatever YECs seem to want at the time. And I find it impossible that a current or wave or tsunami to carry sand and gravel half-way across the continent without leaving behind any evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Crumbling is definitely what very hard damp clay would do when abraded.
Please demonstrate in a valid context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
No I can't make up just anything, it has to fit with the general description of the Flood and its timeline, and I'm doing my best to find a way to fit it with the physical world as well, even in the teeth of hostile remarks by geologists.
That's hardly a constraint. It's like saying, "Well, the flood must have happened on earth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The waves didn't reach all the way from the original coastline, edge, they only had to travel from whatever level the water had risen to.
Then, indeed, Walther's Law has nothing to do with your scenario.
But of course since nobody was there all anyone can do is speculate and try to fit all the parts together into some kind of coherent whole.
This has been and is being done by modern, mainstream geology. There is evidence out there. You should look for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So, where are the 'crumbles' at the GU?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
There are no volcanoes or earthquakes in the general description of the Flood and its Timeline.
Well, first of all, Faith suggested that maybe fountains of the deep might be volcanoes, but she also says that the volcanism only occurred after the flood and after all of the sediments had been deposited. So I guess we can throw out that idea. And sure, the general treatment of the flood in the Bible does not give details. However, if all of the volcanism we see in the geological record occurred within just a 4ky time-frame that might merit a sentence or two in the Bible, yes?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024