Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2772 of 2887 (832577)
05-05-2018 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2771 by ringo
05-05-2018 1:02 PM


Re: no supergenome
The ark's purpose was to preserve land creatures; sea creatures had to fend for themselves.
That makes no sense. Why would God have such a stupid plan?
It isn't true either. God told Noah to take "every living thing of all flesh", clean and unclean (I'm assuming that trilobites were unclean).
Gen 6:17 writes:
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
All flesh wherein is the breath of life" is taken to refer to animals on the land that breathe the air. Some of those could be saved on the ark. Marine creatures would die on the ark but could live in the Flood water as long as it wasn't too polluted. Why all the trilobites died I don't know. All the dinosaurs also eventually died, but in the new world after the Flood, probably because there wasn't enough vegetation to sustain them, as well as the problem of the ice age that would have killed them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2771 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 1:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2775 by ringo, posted 05-05-2018 1:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2842 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 7:22 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 2774 of 2887 (832579)
05-05-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2773 by Percy
05-05-2018 1:17 PM


Re: trilobite species
The reason your landscape arguments fail is because they're incoherent.
That is probably part of it because it's very hard to get it said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2773 by Percy, posted 05-05-2018 1:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2843 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 7:38 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2777 of 2887 (832582)
05-05-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 2769 by Percy
05-05-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Percy, as I've made clear many times, I reject YOUR posts because of your attitude toward me. I'm not going to spend time on them for that reason, unless something you say is something I feel like answering. If it means I don't get my argument developed more I'm willing to pass up the opportunity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2769 by Percy, posted 05-05-2018 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2779 by JonF, posted 05-05-2018 1:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 2847 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 9:04 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 2778 of 2887 (832583)
05-05-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2776 by Percy
05-05-2018 1:28 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Keep it up and I'll keep on ignoring you. YOUR behavior should have gotten you suspended many times over by now, but you are so self-righteous about it you don't even see your own egregious violation of your own rules. The way I see it is that I am a lone individual who is at the mercy of a punitive autocratic madman.
What I get out of being here is being able to work through some of my own views. I don't much care any more whether I convince anyone here or not.
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 2776 by Percy, posted 05-05-2018 1:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2850 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 9:54 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2780 of 2887 (832585)
05-05-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2779 by JonF
05-05-2018 1:51 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
You can't justify personal attacks on the basis of "truth," that's insane and evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2779 by JonF, posted 05-05-2018 1:51 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2783 by JonF, posted 05-05-2018 2:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2800 of 2887 (832608)
05-05-2018 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2754 by edge
05-05-2018 9:08 AM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
edge writes:
Faith to Moose writes:
How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?
An angular unconformity occurs when the sedimentary layering in the two layers are different. There is nothing in the definition of unconformity that says one must be a flat slab of rock.
From Wikipedia, Unconformity:
An angular unconformity is an unconformity where horizontally parallel strata of sedimentary rock are deposited on tilted and eroded layers, producing an angular discordance with the overlying horizontal layers.
"Overlying horizontal layers."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2754 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:08 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2801 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2802 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-06-2018 6:16 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2819 of 2887 (832649)
05-07-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2815 by Percy
05-06-2018 8:52 PM


Re: no supergenome
I think what happened is that I googled "Jurassic time period map" having in mind finding out about the distribution of the sediments in that period and wondering if that would show up if I just named the time period without mentioning the sedimentary deposits. When I got a whole page of maps in Google Image I concluded, wrongly it turns out, that the time period is normally equated with the sedimentary rocks. As I look at that page now I see that they are maps of the continents during the Pangea era before they were separated, so now I figure that they show that the Jurassic time period occurred when the world looked like that, rather than showing anything about the distribution of the strata. My mistake. I nevertheless think it's important to make the equation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2815 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 8:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2854 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 8:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 2820 of 2887 (832650)
05-07-2018 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2818 by Percy
05-07-2018 8:03 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
I do wish it would be acknowledged that just because my views have been "rebutted" doesn't mean the rebuttal is automatically correct, Good grief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2818 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 8:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2825 by JonF, posted 05-07-2018 11:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 2827 by ringo, posted 05-07-2018 12:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2855 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 8:59 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 2822 of 2887 (832654)
05-07-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2821 by Capt Stormfield
05-07-2018 10:50 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
I thought I answered this idea that the depth would have been the same by saying a lot of the stratified sediment left by the Flood came from the ocean itself, and that I'd assume the enormous amount of vegetation on the land would have contributed to the looseness of the soil there. Big trees have deep roots.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2821 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 10:50 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2862 by Percy, posted 05-09-2018 8:38 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 2824 of 2887 (832656)
05-07-2018 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2823 by Capt Stormfield
05-07-2018 11:14 AM


Re: the strata again
"Fossilized bits" is not what I was talking about, but about a whole lot of "earth" and "soil" supposedly incorporated into the sediment as part of the rock itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2823 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 11:14 AM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2828 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 12:36 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 2829 of 2887 (832664)
05-07-2018 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2826 by Percy
05-07-2018 12:03 PM


Re: the strata again
If it's land you were thinking about when you asked this question, most land does not become strata. Land that does become strata is most often near coastal.
I just lost a fairly long post I was composing and am not up to reconstructing it right now but I remember all its parts so may come back to it later.
This idea that "flat" land of the sort you are always showing photos could ever become a rock like those in the geo/strat columns needs to be answered but I don't think any answer will do it for you. I don't know how anyone could possibly be convinced of such an idea but of course you'll remind me that incredulity is not an argument. Too bad, it really should be in a case as obvious as this.
There is no landscape of the sort you illustrate with photos that is anywhere near the extent of the rock formations you think could come from such land. I got descriptions of the Navajo formation and the formations above it, and they all cover from four to six or seven BIG current states of the USA. I also found one photo showing the straightness and flatness with knife-edge contact and was about to track down the others when I moved to another page without saving the post and lost it. None of your "flat" landscapes could ever form a knife-edge straight contact with another, let alone cover even a hundredth of the territory the rocks actually cover. If you can't see it I despair of ever getting anything across at all.
Perhaps this description will help get across my problem with your argument. If not I hope to get a second wind and come back to redo the post although I know only too well that nothing I do is going to suffice for you.
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 2826 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 12:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2838 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 12:37 AM Faith has replied
 Message 2877 by Percy, posted 05-09-2018 6:47 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2832 of 2887 (832670)
05-07-2018 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2828 by Capt Stormfield
05-07-2018 12:36 PM


Re: the strata again
What, precisely, do you think "earth" is composed of?
A mixture of different sediments, different sized pieces of stone, not sorted but mixed, different kinds of soils, salts and so on.
What, precisely, do you imagine it would look like after being compressed under a few billion tons?
Not neat and flat but probably quite hard and lumpy. It wouldn't take billions of years to get a layer of hardpan a foot beneath the surface, not neat and flat but hard and lumpy. Then more hard and lumpy and unsorted variegated stuff would be above it, and in fact impossible to differentiate from it. You aren't going to get neat layers of clearly different sediments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2828 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 12:36 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2835 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 9:38 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2833 of 2887 (832674)
05-07-2018 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2826 by Percy
05-07-2018 12:03 PM


Strata: Straightness, flatness, homogeneity, extensiveness etc
Where on earth did I say "paleosols can't happen????"
Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia, Geological Formations, that is about the connection between the strata and the time periods.
Usefulness of formations[edit]
...Formations were at first described as the essential geologic time markers, based on their relative ages and the law of superposition. The divisions of the geological time scale were described and put in chronological order by the geologists and stratigraphers of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Without the strata there would be no Geological Time Scale. How convenient that each time period has at least one such rock.
The following are descriptions and some photos of some of the formations in the Colorado Plateau, from top to bottom, to show, first, how extensive they are, covering far more area than any pseudo"flat" landscape you can come up with, and certainly making it impossible for the dinosaurs to live there at that time; second, how recognizably different they are from each other, which is really the point of my calling them "single sediment." They don't have to be literally single sediments to be homogeneous enough to be recognizable, unlike your ordinary earth surface mixtures. And third, examples of very straight flat layers such as the Entrada formation with tight contact between Entrada and Curtis formations; and the Navajo as straight, flat and tight as I could find it with the Entrada above it etc. The clear differences between all of these formations in color and composition certainly don't suggest any normal earth surface landscape to me, but I know you'll pretend it is.
The Entrada Sandstone is a formation in the San Rafael Group that is found in the U.S. states of Wyoming, Colorado, northwest New Mexico, northeast Arizona and southeast Utah. Part of the Colorado Plateau, this formation was deposited during the Jurassic period sometime between 180 and 140 million years ago in various environments, including tidal mudflats, beaches and sand dunes. The Middle Jurassic San Rafael Group was dominantly deposited as ergs (sand seas) in a desert environment around the shallow Sundance Sea.[1]
Of course I don't buy any of the "depositional environments" stuff about tidal mudflats, beaches and sand dunes etc.
Picture of Entrada beneath Curtis formation, showing straightness/flatness and tight contact:
The Carmel Formation is a geologic formation in the San Rafael Group that is spread across the U.S. states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, north east Arizona and New Mexico. Part of the Colorado Plateau, this formation was laid down in the Middle Jurassic during the late Bajocian, through the Bathonian and into the early Callovian stages.
Picture below: Carmel formation shows nice straight layers eroded into monuments in Goblin Valley. Different layers have their own character easily distinguished from each other. Not mixed like ordinary earth surfaces.
Navajo Sandstone is a geological formation in the Glen Canyon Group that is spread across the U.S. states of southern Nevada, northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, and Utah as part of the Colorado Plateau province of the United States. The Navajo Sandstone is particularly prominent in southern Utah, where it forms the main attractions of a number of national parks and monuments including Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,[3] Zion National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and Canyonlands National Park. ...Navajo Sandstone often appears as massive rounded domes and bluffs that are generally white in color.
The Navajo often appears in those swirly forms like the Wave, but here's a picture of the Navajo beneath the Entrada in straight horizontal form:
The Kayenta Formation is a geologic layer in the Glen Canyon Group that is spread across the Colorado Plateau province of the United States, including northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, Nevada, and Utah...the Kayenta is easily recognized. Even at a distance it appears as a dark-red, maroon, or lavender band of thin-bedded material between two thick, massive, cross bedded strata of buff, tan, or light-red color. Its position is also generally marked by a topographic break. Its weak beds form a bench or platform developed by stripping the Navajo sandstone back from the face of the Wingate cliffs. The Kayenta is made up of beds of sandstone, shale, and limestone, all lenticular, uneven at their tops, and discontinuous within short distances. They suggest deposits made by shifting streams of fluctuating volume.
The Wingate Sandstone is a geologic formation in the Glen Canyon Group of the Colorado Plateau province of the United States which crops out in northern Arizona, northwest Colorado, Nevada, and Utah.
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 2826 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 12:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2837 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 12:17 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 2836 of 2887 (832679)
05-07-2018 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2834 by Percy
05-07-2018 9:20 PM


Re: trilobite species
I switched to using Kind in this discussion where I sometimes used to use species because I realized species has meanings I don't intend. Kind is meant to define a creature that may vary greatly but only within its own genome. Where you use "species" I would probably usually use "subspecies."
I usually don't try to define Kind at all because it seems futile but in some cases it seems clear enough to define it for a particular creature. Hence what I've said about dogs and cats and trilobites, attempting to define them by their "basic shape." It doesn't seem ambiguous to me. No other mammal has the same skeleton as the dog, or the cat. I included wolves with coyotes with dogs as a Kind for that reason, that their skeletons are so similar; and defined trilobites as sharing the three-lobed structure with the side lobes made up of spines that can be lengthened or shortened etc. which includes an enormous variety, many of which are different enough to be hard to recognize. I have one consistent idea in my mind about all these things so I'm not sure how I've given you the impression I have different definitions.
This attempt to define a few Kinds by their morphology is a different subject from my argument that "evolution defeats evolution" by "using up" genetic diversity.
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 2834 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 9:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2878 by Percy, posted 05-09-2018 7:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2839 of 2887 (832689)
05-08-2018 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2837 by edge
05-08-2018 12:17 AM


Re: Strata: Straightness, flatness, homogeneity, extensiveness etc
Yes, I noticed the "at first, but didn't see anything that contradicted it. I guess I should have commented on it.
Here's the Wikipedia article for reference:
GEOLOGICAL FORMATION
Okay so why is the Navajo not as extensive as the Tapeats?
The Flood was running out of sand by then? Well, I think it's a real possibility since there's a lot of the Navajo that is found in odd pieces, lumps and whirls and so on, rather than in layers.
However, many of the strata are continued under other names and sometimes by other sediments too, but the articles I was reading didn't comment on that.
Why do the Navajo Sandstone and the underlying Kayenta 'interfinger' at their contact if the contacts are sharp and "single sediment"?
There is no problem on the Flood explanation with any sediments interfingering; that really ought to be a problem for the time scale interpretation.
I didn't claim in this post that ALL the contacts are sharp or that the layers are single sediment either (rather that they are recognizably homogeneous in contrast with normal earth surface.
Most sedimentary rocks are mixtures of various sediment types.
But not anywhere to the degree of ordinary earth surface, and also they are layered and sorted unlike ordinary earth surface.
[Lost your quote about flatness, but here's my answer:]
When I use the term "flatness" I'm not talking about thickness. I'm talking about the appearance of... flatness. Tabularity as you call it. As opposed to lumpiness or irregular surface. I suppose I need another term.
the Temple Butte Formation not found everywhere in the Grand Canyon?
Not enough of those particular limestone ingredients I would suppose.
What makes you think that the depositional environment of the Navajo Formation was the same as, say, the Grand River Formation of Michigan?
No idea what you are talking about. I don't think the concept of depositional environment describes anything real at all, I think it's a total fabrication.
Why should marine deposits have a "landscape"?
None of these are marine. But the point is that there was never any environment of any kind in which anything lived at the "time" designated by the strata of the geo column/strat column. and the marine "time periods" have the same kinds of rocks representing them as the land periods, flat straight extensive sedimentary rocks. Why is that?
And third, examples of very straight flat layers such as the Entrada formation with tight contact between Entrada and Curtis formations; and the Navajo as straight, flat and tight as I could find it with the Entrada above it etc. The clear differences between all of these formations in color and composition certainly don't suggest any normal earth surface landscape to me, but I know you'll pretend it is.
I'm not sure why this is a problem. This is an issue that does not exist. There is clearly some discontinuity of deposition reflected in source material, or other environment of deposition.
The normal earth surfaces I've seen and tried to create a garden in are jumbled and lumpy, with many sized stones and so on, and there is no normal earth surface that is as straight and flat as the contact between the layers in the top picture or the Carmel Goblin valley picture. And it still makes absolutely no sense that there should be layers of recognizably different stuff, each homogeneous in its own composition, so clearly distinguishable from each other, on any normal natural everyday basis of deposition I can think of.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2837 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 12:17 AM edge 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