|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
YOu can't tell that an illustration of extinct animals purported to be romping in a time period called the Jurassic is a fiction? My evidence is that everybody knows that. I can see that an illustration is not a photograph. But now you've left me more confused than I started. What are you saying? Is this what you want to persuade me science communicators should be doing? Confusing people with ambiguity? I don't think that's an improvement.
But shouldn't science and scientists be required to produce this sort of information before a mere layperson is nagged to death about it? Yes. The stuff that is presented for the layperson's consumption - at their leisure (hardly being nagged) - generally follows the scientists producing the evidence and the communicators trying to translate that into language a layperson can easily relate to without requiring a degree. I already provided a few papers and more technical descriptions for how the general climate of the Jurassic was inferred based on mineral deposits and the flora and fauna. That stuff comes first. The stuff in the Nat Geo is the stuff that's so well established and has been for so long its utterly uncontroversial. Occasionally a magazine will run a story about a newer, more speculative set of ideas - but a good magazine will indicate its a more tentative position. So - erm - I guess you aren't going to show me an example of it being done right? In history, science, mathematics, flood geology or anything? I can't agree with your thesis if I don't know what your target level of detail actually looks like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Please provide a reference. I'm not sure you got that correctly She did give her reference.
quote: Source: Karl Karlstrom at 13:40 in the video I posted in Message 147 that Faith was referencing when she said 'And I also mentioned in Message 156, a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata. '
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The contacts are too sharp, the lines are too straight and flat, no lakebed is that flat, no it is not, please don't act is if you think it is. What about salt flats, like in Utah?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Even salt flats aren't that flat, Mod, they have low and high points over distances (a few yards?) that would show up in such a contact line They are so flat you can travel 400 mph in a land vehicle across them. Visible ups and downs over a few yards would make this impossible. Is the stratigraphy considerably flatter than this? Do you have measurements? You are engaged in mystification through pontification here. But you tell me - what happens when you squash something? a) it gets flatterb) it gets less flat What would be the effect of piling rock and earth onto something so it squashes it so much it becomes rock? a) it gets flatterb) it gets less flat c) no impact You could take a yardstick to those strata in the picture and the contact line would be just about as straight. OK, even that can't be perfect but NOTHING I can think of in geological nature is that nearly-ruler-straight, that nearly-tabletop-flat EXCEPT water-deposited strata. Is a lakebed or river remnants NOT water deposited strata somehow? Also - does that mean this coal seam was deposited by water? How does that happen?
Well, for that matter even volcano-deposited strata since those at Mt. St. Helens are awfully straight. So water deposited sediments and volcanic...that covers a lot of stratigraphy doesn't it?
In any case most strata are not salt. But we're talking about lakebeds which sometimes dry out to leave a salt flat or alkali flat. Flat is quite common with these in any case - in contrast to your statement that lakebeds aren't all that flat. How many strata are all that flat? May I ask about Valles Marineris? It's a much bigger canyon than the Grand Canyon. Was this caused by a divine flood too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
LOOK AT THE STRATA IN THAT PICTURE. JUST LOOK,. NO LAKE BED, NO SALT FLAT, NO FIELD, NO BEACH, IS THAT FLAT. JUST LOOK. How flat is that flat? Does this apply to lake beds that are squashed by millions of tonnes of material? Just looking only gets us so far, we need to apply reason and reference actual measurements. Salt flats - which are former lakebeds - certainly pass your yardstick challenge for how flat they are. I'm afraid yelling at me isn't persuasive. I thought you were protesting "a flat {haha, a retrospective pun - mod} assertion of what purports to be fact" but here you are making 'pontifical declaration of dogma.' So if it wasn't caused by a large pool of water slowly draining or evaporating away, and then being buried under tonnes of rock - since that would not cause it to be that flat (although you don't seem to want to explain how you know this nor do you seem willing to provide measurements for how flat it is)...what was it that caused it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Where do all the tons come from Mountains, dead animals/plants, volcanoes....
what are they made of Bits of rock, animals/plants and rock.
where do they go when the rock is a layer in that hill? On top.
Which it won't be in any case because edge said those layers are limestone and volcanic ash. So the volcanic ash goes on top of the ground which is the current top layer. Same with the bits of dead organisms.
And yes I don't see how it's going to make anything as flat as the strata in that hill. How flat is the strata in that hill? How much weight is squashing down on it?
And no, I have no evidence. Ah.
And neither do you Hey, I'm just trying to understand things. I'm not pontificating so much as trying to figure out how these straight lines form in your opinion and how that differs from geologists.
or anybody else. I dunno, the geologists seem to have quite a bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes it is considerably flatter, you can see it with your eyes. I can't. I'm going to need some measurements to confirm.
Actually not. You are just doing the usual tit for tat that is so popular here without bothering to understand what I meant when I used those terms. Sorry, I thought you were arguing that points were being made as if they were fact without explaining how the conclusion was reached.
Depends on what's being squashed and what's doing the squashing. FlattER, but not necessarily really flat. Well we're talking wet sediments being squashed by tonnes of other wet sediments. I'm pretty sure I can make wet clay pretty flat with just the pressure from my hands.
Depends on the distribution of weight. It could make depressions and lumps rather than flatness, highly compacted no doubt, quite hard, but not necessarily straight and flat, no.. Not necessarily, but certainly sometimes. And the weight distribution would be even.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, we are talking about that colorfully stratified hill and edge said they were limestone and volcanic ash. I'm responding to your claim about lakebeds. Whether those lakebeds would go on to form limestone rock or whatever seems immaterial to the point.
Most of them. How have you concluded this?
To say the GC was "caused by a divine flood" is to miss everything I've said about it. Wow. OK. The Grand Canyon wasn't caused by the flood. We agree!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024