Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8886 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-22-2019 6:17 PM
267 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, ooh-child, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, WookieeB (6 members, 261 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 846,179 Year: 1,216/19,786 Month: 1,216/1,731 Week: 196/377 Day: 67/70 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Switching Over to Cloud Server


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
157158
159
160161
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 2371 of 2887 (832032)
04-29-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2364 by Faith
04-28-2018 9:35 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2364 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 9:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14645
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2372 of 2887 (832033)
04-29-2018 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2360 by Faith
04-28-2018 8:44 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:

It's a ROCK in a STACK OF ROCKS, it's not a "time period.

Nobody says that the rocks ARE time periods Faith. Thats just something you made up.

quote:

If there is evidence of an earthquake in those rocks it did not occur in that "time period" because there is NO Jurassic time period.

In your opinion. And your opinion is worthless. As you demonstrated in the very first sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2360 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 8:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2376 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 3:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3689
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 2373 of 2887 (832034)
04-29-2018 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2320 by Faith
04-28-2018 2:46 AM


Can't... keep... the... snark... restrained
Faith, I really do try to be nice to you, but...

In the company of nongeologists you really shouldn't use such terms as "slickensides" or "thrust faults" or "shear fabric" etc.

If you look at faults that occurred recently between dry lithified rocks you might see the shearing you keep missing at the Great Unconformity and that might be because wet rocks wouldn't behave in quite the same way. You'd have more unimpeded abrasion between dry rocks, more likelihood of producing a rubble-free sign of scraping between them.

While it's nice to try to keep the technical jargon to a minimum, I am shocked that a fault expert of your magnitude doesn't know the meaning of "slickensides" (or the other terms). Google away.

That second above quoted doesn't quite make sense to me, but the "rubble-free sign of scraping" comes pretty close to defining "slickensides".

Your conversations with Edge reminds me of a musician conversion I once heard on MTV. Singer Jon Bon Jovi was chatting with a guitarist that was guesting on his recording session, and Jon was in the process of telling the guitarist how he wanted something played. Part way through a sentence, Jon stopped and said "Here I am telling Jeff Beck how to play the guitar".
.
.
.
.
.

From the Jeff Beck wikipedia page:

quote:
He was ranked fifth in Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" and the magazine, upon whose cover Beck has appeared three times, has described him as "one of the most influential lead guitarists in rock".[4] He is often called a "guitarist's guitarist".

Moose

ps - The great unconformity is not a fault. In faulting there is something called the fault plane. It is the planar surface where one rock unit moves relative to the other rock unit. The great unconformity is not remotely a planar surface.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2320 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 2:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2374 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 3:07 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 2383 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2374 of 2887 (832039)
04-29-2018 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2373 by Minnemooseus
04-29-2018 12:46 AM


Re: Can't... keep... the... snark... restrained
Gotta rewrite this

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 2373 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-29-2018 12:46 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2375 of 2887 (832040)
04-29-2018 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2370 by edge
04-28-2018 11:59 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
I do need an explanation, and it's hard to read that chart I'm afraid. Too much white.

But Percy (and others too), describes an ordinary land surface with animals on it, the kind we all see every day, and then acts like that lumpy variegated surface, to some depth of course, could just turn into a flat sedimentary rock if only enough dirt got piled on it. This hits me as utterly impossible, and I don't see how your chart addresses this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2370 by edge, posted 04-28-2018 11:59 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2468 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 11:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2376 of 2887 (832041)
04-29-2018 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2372 by PaulK
04-29-2018 12:36 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
Nobody says that the rocks ARE time periods Faith. Thats just something you made up.

Of course nobody thinks of them that way. I'm the one saying that's what's really going on here. I get the impression nobody has thought about it at all because if anyone did think about it I don't see how it could be avoided and the absurdity should become apparent.

Many have clearly said they picture the whole time period landscape on the site of the rock itself; others come along and deny it though how they could avoid that idea I can't fathom, and in any case what they think they think is not at all clear. But on a rock that covers most of North America, for instance, thinking it through back to the supposed time period has a flat thick layer of wet sediment where the rock now is, and even if it supposedly took aeons of time to form, the thing is ONLY a flat wet layer of sediment that nothing could live on and that displaces any possible living surface. If such a surface existed anywhere during any of that period it doesn't show up in the massive thick single-sediment rock that now represents it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2372 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 12:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2377 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 3:59 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14645
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 2377 of 2887 (832043)
04-29-2018 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2376 by Faith
04-29-2018 3:38 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:

Of course nobody thinks of them that way. I'm the one saying that's what's really going on here

Nobody else is saying it because it is literally insane.

quote:

I get the impression nobody has thought about it at all because if anyone did think about it I don't see how it could be avoided and the absurdity should become apparent.

I get the impression that you made up some crazy nonsense and wont admit that its idiotically wrong. The fact that you run away from explaining it is rather strong evidence in favour of my view and against yours.

quote:

Many have clearly said they picture the whole time period landscape on the site of the rock itself; others come along and deny it though how they could avoid that idea I can't fathom, and in any case what they think they think is not at all clear.

That is neither true nor relevant. Changing the subject rather than supporting your claim is proof that even you know it isnt obvious.

There are areas where we find the remains of landscapes but nobody thinks that was the landscape for an entire geological period. Nobody thinks that the erosion happened instantly - even to say that what we find is a snapshot of the surface as it was when deposition restarted would likely be an oversimplification, even if the processes leading to lithification are not considered.

Even you admit that the surfaces where footprints are found were surfaces at one point and that animals were there.

quote:

But on a rock that covers most of North America, for instance, thinking it through back to the supposed time period has a flat thick layer of wet sediment where the rock now is, and even if it supposedly took aeons of time to form, the thing is ONLY a flat wet layer of sediment that nothing could live on and that displaces any possible living surface.

Do you really think that the Sahara desert is a slab of wet sediment on which nothing could possibly live? How about the Nile delta? The Florida Everglades ?

quote:

If such a surface existed anywhere during any of that period it doesn't show up in the massive thick single-sediment rock that now represents it.

Youre the only one that thinks that such a surface existed. So if the evidence says it doesnt, youre the one who is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2376 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 3:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2378 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 4:31 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2378 of 2887 (832050)
04-29-2018 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2377 by PaulK
04-29-2018 3:59 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
Nobody else is saying it because it is literally insane.

I agree. Sad to say but this centerpiece of historical geology is indeed literally insane, and yes I'm sure that's why people avoid noticing it. It's like the idea that God invented fossils as "sports," that is it's an example of that old style pre-scientific way of thinking that still rules in the historical sciences.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2377 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 3:59 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2379 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2018 4:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14645
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2379 of 2887 (832052)
04-29-2018 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2378 by Faith
04-29-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:

I agree

You agree that you invented a crazy straw man ?

quote:

Sad to say but this centerpiece of historical geology is indeed literally insane, and yes I'm sure that's why people avoid noticing it.

The idea that rocks are time periods is not a part of geology. Its just stupid nonsense you made up. We dont avoid noticing it any more than we avoid noticing that you are the AntiChrist. Even if you think you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2378 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 4:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18136
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2380 of 2887 (832056)
04-29-2018 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2303 by Faith
04-27-2018 6:28 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
Faith writes:

You don't have evidence,...Facts are facts and we share those...

If we don't have evidence then how can we have facts, which are evidence?

And how can we share facts when you dismiss most facts, such as radiometric dating, and sedimentation still adding to the geologic column, and the geologic column extending to the present, and life living on, above and within Earth's surface in the past just like it does today, and so on.

...that's the point I keep making, you have a lot of imaginative conjurings. Apparently you all don't know the difference.

And apparently you can't explain how our evidence is "imaginative conjurings." You either engage in name-calling or make up fantasies.

...but the Old Earth interpretations are not scientifically valid, just one speculative guess on top of another called science, big big shuck.

This is another good example of you calling things names instead of examining the evidence and explaining what it really means in an interpretive framework based upon reality.

You're mistaking general acceptance for genuine science.

It's called consensus. And we don't believe something true because there's a consensus. Rather, we think a consensus tends to develop around those things that are likely true, because of the supporting evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2303 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 6:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18136
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2381 of 2887 (832058)
04-29-2018 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2306 by Minnemooseus
04-27-2018 8:27 PM


Re: Walther's Law aside (again)
Minnemooseus writes:

My impression is that Faith is misusing Walther's Law less than Percy is misusing Walther's Law.

Hey, it's about time Faith had some help. Good for you!

Walther's Law states the geometric relationship between vertical and horizontal sedimentary sequences from migrating depositional environments. Walther's Law is NOT really a depositional model (despite often being used as such at evcforum.net), and time (long or short) is not part of Walther's Law, despite Percy's repeated insistence that it is.

Since motion is time, and since Walther's Law describes what happens when a depositional environment moves across a landscape, time is an inherent component of Walther's Law. That's not a particularly significant thing to say, since time is always a factor in geological change. Change takes time (and it happens at a particular point in time, though that aspect is not inherent in Walther's Law). From the Wikipedia paragraph on Walther's Law:

quote:
Walther's Law of Facies, or simply Walther's Law, named after the geologist Johannes Walther (1860-1937), states that the vertical succession of facies reflects lateral changes in environment. Conversely, it states that when a depositional environment "migrates" laterally, sediments of one depositional environment come to lie on top of another.

Note the part about the depositional environment migrating laterally. That occurs over time.

From WALTHER'S LAW AND VERTICAL FACIES CHANGES (colors and italics are from the original):

quote:
The sedimentary sequence seen in outcrops is the result of different types of sediment being deposited in different sedimentary environments over time, producing a vertical sequence of different facies. Lateral changes in facies are relatively easy to understand. Vertical facies changes may initially be somewhat puzzling. How does one layer of sedimentary rock come to overlie another? The vertical relationships between facies are explained by changes in sea level, or changes in subsidence and sedimentation rates.

As laterally-adjacent sedimentary environments shift back and forth through time, as a result of sea level change, facies boundaries also shift back and forth. Given enough time, facies which were once laterally adjacent will shift so that the deposits of one environment come to overlie those of an adjacent environment. In fact, this is how many (if not most) vertical sequences of sedimentary rocks were formed. This concept was first stated by Johannes Walther in 1894, and is called Walther's Law. Basically, in a conformable sedimentary sequence (i.e., one without unconformities), sedimentary units which lie in vertical succession represent the deposits of laterally adjacent sedimentary environments migrating over one another through time.


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.

Walther's Law was originally formulated to describe the sediment geometries resulting from migrating stream. It also applies to transgressive and regressive sea deposits, which is the relevant thing in the here "flood" discussion.

Why did you say that bit about time if you knew you were next going to talk about migrating streams (occurs over time) and transgressions and regressions (occur over time)?

Essentially, Walther's Law states (related to changing sea levels) that if you find a clastic sedimentary stratigraphy (stratigraphic column) at a given location and it is getting progressively finer in the upward direction, you are seeing deposits of a transgressing (rising) sea. If you find that it is getting progressively coarser in the upward direction, you are seeing deposits of a regressive (falling) sea. How fast the sea is rising or falling is not relevant.

This entire paragraph is describing things that occur over time.

In the old Earth model, new clasitic sediment is slowly being added as the sea rises over a long time period (thousands to millions of years). Over this long time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.

There's time poking in its ugly nose again. You're making better arguments that time is part of Walther's Law than I was. I don't think I misunderstand you when you said, "Time (long or short) is not part of Walther's Law, despite Percy's repeated insistence that it is," but nothing you've said since supports that view, so why did you say it?

In the young Earth model (aka Faith flood model), new clastic sediment is quickly being added as the sea rises over a short time period (a year or less?). Over this short time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.

This isn't the Faith model. The Faith Model, in brief and leaving fossil objects out of it, works like this:

  • Rains denude the landscape and wash all land sediments into the sea where they are held in suspension
  • Fountains of the deep stir up sea floor sediments where they are also held in suspension.
  • The sediments of various types that are held in suspension in the seas are maintained in a certain order and never mix so that they can be delivered to the land by waves in a certain order.
  • Rising sea levels flood the land in a series of waves, each wave depositing a layer of sediment of a certain depth. The size and extent of the waves is not provided.
  • Eventually the entire Earth is flooded and the seas have deposited all their sediments on land.
  • Receding flood waters cause a great deal of erosion, removing many layers of just-deposited sediments and carving the occasional giant canyon.

Do you really see a proper application of Walther's Law in there?

Either model could result in the same or similar clastic sediment geometry.

Were Faith's model not physically impossible (e.g., the maintenance in the seas of separation of sediment types often held in orders opposite to their size/density, such as sand above slit) then sure, either model works. But there's that little problem of Faith's model being physically impossible. And definitely not an application of Walther's Law. Flood waters spreading across a landscape is not Walther's Law.

You never explained how I'm misusing Walther's Law. Was it just the time thing?

Sorry if I bungled any explanations or left a bunch of typos, I'm up against a schedule, gotta go.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2306 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2018 8:27 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2382 by edge, posted 04-29-2018 11:38 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2382 of 2887 (832060)
04-29-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2381 by Percy
04-29-2018 8:29 AM


Re: Walther's Law aside (again)
From WALTHER'S LAW AND VERTICAL FACIES CHANGES (colors and italics are from the original):

(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.


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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2381 by Percy, posted 04-29-2018 8:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2385 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 11:58 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2383 of 2887 (832061)
04-29-2018 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2373 by Minnemooseus
04-29-2018 12:46 AM


Re: Can't... keep... the... snark... restrained
moose writes:

Faith to edge writes:

In the company of nongeologists you really shouldn't use such terms as "slickensides" or "thrust faults" or "shear fabric" etc...

If you look at faults that occurred recently between dry lithified rocks you might see the shearing you keep missing at the Great Unconformity and that might be because wet rocks wouldn't behave in quite the same way. You'd have more unimpeded abrasion between dry rocks, more likelihood of producing a rubble-free sign of scraping between them.

While it's nice to try to keep the technical jargon to a minimum, I am shocked that a fault expert of your magnitude doesn't know the meaning of "slickensides" (or the other terms). Google away.
That second above quoted doesn't quite make sense to me, but the "rubble-free sign of scraping" comes pretty close to defining "slickensides".

I was trying to say why movement between wet rocks might not produce "slickensides."

Of all the things I say that you could call snark I'm surprised to find these included. I did look up slickensides and even used it later, but thrust fault and shear fabric seemed too much. I haven't spent any time thinking about faults and didn't even think of the Great Unconformity as a fault in my scenario, but I suppose I have to start. Anyway the terminology related to faults hasn't yet become part of my argument.

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.

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. 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. I tjem si

===================
ABE...drat I posted this without noticing I must have typo'd a bracket by mistake so I lost at least half of what I'd written. I'm not up to trying to repeat it right now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2373 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-29-2018 12:46 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2384 by edge, posted 04-29-2018 11:53 AM Faith has responded
 Message 2469 by Percy, posted 04-30-2018 12:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2384 of 2887 (832063)
04-29-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2383 by Faith
04-29-2018 11:41 AM


Re: Can't... keep... the... snark... restrained
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2383 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 11:41 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2386 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 12:05 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2385 of 2887 (832064)
04-29-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2382 by edge
04-29-2018 11:38 AM


Re: Walther's Law aside (again)
All I care about concerning Walther's Law is that it shows that rising sea water forms layers.

Moose said it should occur in my scenario as well as the OE scenario. I guess you disagree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2382 by edge, posted 04-29-2018 11:38 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2390 by edge, posted 04-29-2018 2:09 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
157158
159
160161
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019