Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 46 of 100 (20166)
10-18-2002 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tranquility Base
10-17-2002 8:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You can play word games Joe.
If you can't answer the simple question regarding 'spreading' and 'bulging' and 'sea-level rises' without my using some magic words then you have proven your attitude in this discussion.
I have been genuinely interested in this issue for months here and I have sorted out a lot of the answers myself but you prefer to play word games. Have fun by yourself.
JM: Your questions have been answered here repeatedly and links have been given several times. Are we now also supposed to repeat ourselves in the interest of enhancing your short term memory? Look, TB there are NO word games going on here. You marched into the forum, claimed academic credentials (whilst hiding behind a pseudonym) and have since proceeded to post a series of sophomoric 'hypotheses' without conducting the relevant background research. Many here (Randy, wehappy, edge, myself and others) have played your little games, but you simply move on to another topic and ignore anything that was previously discussed. That's poor scholaship on your part and I have sincere doubts now as to the veracity of your stated academic credentials. I know of no scientist who would make so many absurd statements and have such trouble finding the proper references. Basically, if you want scientific discussion on a topic then for gods sake have the intellectual fortitude to formulate your ideas and questions clearly. I will continue to hold you to a higher standard because of your claims. If you are unwilling to live up to a modest level of scientific rigor, then your posts are not worth discussing.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-17-2002 8:54 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:03 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 100 (20212)
10-18-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by JediKnight1985
10-17-2002 4:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by JediKnight1985:
I know I'm a newcomer here, but there's one thing I've noticed. You, Randy, have a propensity to point out the flaws in other people's theories, ...
Well, that IS one method of debating...
quote:
...while ignoring attacks on your own. For example: as you so deftly pointed out many times, sand is transported from one location to another quite readily, by either water or wind. How would sand become hardened if it was not above water, or another layer of sediments?
Is this an attack? I'm not sure you have done anything here but muddled through some distorted logic. This 'attack' cannot be answered.
quote:
Wouldn't it just blow away?
Indeed, much sand does blow away. In fact you need to discuss this with your fellow creationists, because MOST of the time eolian sands blow away. They are a lost part of an already LONG geological record. Nevertheless, not all sand blows away or else we would have NO windblown sand in the geological record. Some is buried and eventually lithified.
quote:
No tracks would remain, if they were made above water!
If you were correct, yes.
quote:
On the other hand, water pressure pressing directly down on sediments the size of sand could compress them in a very short amount of time, leaving tracks.
This is actually a silly statement. It is not the weight of the water that compacts sediments, but the weight of overlying sediments. And what do you mean by a 'short amount of time'? There are sediments in the Mississippi delta that are thousands of years old but hardly lithified.
quote:
There is also something else I would like to point out.
Hope you have better luck with this one.
quote:
When you make a footprint in sand, it looks roughly like a footprint, right? Look at it again when it's exposed to a moderate wind for even a few minutes. It doesn't look anything like it did before, does it?
No, not all the time. Depends on a lot of parameters. You are choosing yours quite carefully.
quote:
Couldn't we be mistaking these footprints of spiders, etc. for tracks of other animals, or even plant fossils? I hate to say it (well, actually, I'm rather enjoying it), but those spider tracks could be nothing more than the tiny imprints left by the sori on the underside of a fern frond!
Okay, next time I see ferns in growing in a whole desert of sand dunes, I'll check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by JediKnight1985, posted 10-17-2002 4:38 PM JediKnight1985 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by JediKnight1985, posted 10-25-2002 3:51 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 100 (20213)
10-18-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tranquility Base
10-17-2002 2:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
So where is the bulging then? (Why not mention it since you obviously know the answer).
Well, I was hoping that you would try to answer and then realize that you do not really understand plate tectonics all on your own. However if you want, I will tell you right up front that you do not have the background to understand the diagrams that you refer to.
quote:
The trenches clearly bulge on either side in all schematics I have ever seen.
Either side of what? Your statements are so vague that we have no idea what to tell you.
quote:
And do you agree that it is via bulging that spreading causes sea-levels to rise?
I would agree that 'bulging' is the best way to get the volumes of material necessary to cause your first order sea level fluctuations. There are other reasons for sea level to rise as well. The point here is that you have not been able to describe this 'bulging' and its location. I think the level of discussion here has risen to somewhat over your depth. I believe you have been completely innundated...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-17-2002 2:57 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Randy, posted 10-19-2002 1:53 PM edge has not replied
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:21 PM edge has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 49 of 100 (20270)
10-19-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
10-18-2002 8:21 PM


I have been away and some other have answered JediKnight well but I thought I should answer since the post was addressed to me.
quote:
JediKnight wrote
I know I'm a newcomer here, but there's one thing I've noticed. You, Randy, have a propensity to point out the flaws in other people's theories, while ignoring attacks on your own. For example: as you so deftly pointed out many times, sand is transported from one location to another quite readily, by either water or wind. How would sand become hardened if it was not above water, or another layer of sediments? Wouldn't it just blow away? No tracks would remain, if they were made above water! On the other hand, water pressure pressing directly down on sediments the size of sand could compress them in a very short amount of time, leaving tracks.
So you are new. Did you read the original posts on this thread? The famous flood geologists Snelling and Austin are claiming that the sandstones were laid down by moving water 300 feet deep that was spreading the sand into waves and overwhelmed the animals. How does anything make tracks in that? I have pointed out that their theory is total nonsense because it is total nonsense.
While sand can be transported by water I really don't think it makes sense that 300 foot deep water moving at a walking pace could carry 10,000 cubic miles of sand for 200-300 miles without dumping it and then spread it over 200,000 square miles in waves that just happen to look like wind formed dunes, let alone the impossiblity of animals making tracks that were preserved during this process.
quote:
There is also something else I would like to point out. When you make a footprint in sand, it looks roughly like a footprint, right? Look at it again when it's exposed to a moderate wind for even a few minutes. It doesn't look anything like it did before, does it? Couldn't we be mistaking these footprints of spiders, etc. for tracks of other animals, or even plant fossils? I hate to say it (well, actually, I'm rather enjoying it), but those spider tracks could be nothing more than the tiny imprints left by the sori on the underside of a fern frond!
Not likely. And if you did look at the web site then you should know that it does postulate mechanisms for preserving the tracks. Unlike, the YEC mechanisms they are not impossible.
http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html
Now TB and some other creationists are claiming that the Coconinos were deposited in surges and that the animal tracks which are distributed throughout the lower 2/3 of the formation were made by animals that came in from some high ground somewhere between surges. Maybe you can explain to us where the animals and insects that made the tracks in the Coconino sandstones were hiding out while the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group and the Hermit Shale were deposited and while the 300 foot deep water brought in successive waves of sand to supposedly form the Coconinos. TB has totally failed to do so. Perhaps the task is impossible because the scenario is absurd.
It seems to me that Steve Austin(aka Stewart Nevins) who is one of the authors of the AiG web page wrote a book that claims that the area of the grand canyon was a shallow sea before the thousands of feet of sediment were deposited. So where was the high ground in a shallow sea?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 10-18-2002 8:21 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-21-2002 12:33 AM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 100 (20339)
10-20-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Joe Meert
10-18-2002 10:04 AM


Joe
I'm quite happy to completely drop any pretense of having any original thought on the isuue here and now for the record. I am far more interested in understanding what's going on in these processes than any claim to originality. Hence I hereby wish to be considered a complete ignoramous on geology matters.
So from that perspective I make the following statements based on extensive reading as a layman:
1. The 2nd order sea-level curves were primarily generated tectonically
2. Specifically via sea-floor spreading and subduction processes which varied the volume of ocean basins.
3. The cyclic nature of the 2nd order sea-level curves could be due to variation of sea-floor spreading rates, subduction rates or something more subtle. Obviously mountain building factors in here.
4. I recently read that variable sea-floor spreading is out of vouge as an explantion of the cycles (presumably due to some data) and I wonder to what extent variable subduction rates could be responsible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Joe Meert, posted 10-18-2002 10:04 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 9:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 56 by wj, posted 10-20-2002 9:58 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 100 (20342)
10-20-2002 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
10-18-2002 8:21 PM


Edge
As everyone who has ever studied geology at any level knows there is a bluging on either side of a sea-floor spreading trench and we do not need to get overly technical about it with jagon and flowery words.
Here is a diagram typical of any plate tectonics chapter:
http://www.geo.vu.nl/...ology/2-biogeochem-cycles/plate2.GIF
As is plain to see the trench introduces bulging on both sides of the trench. It is well known and I can't believe you found my writing that ambiguous but I'll leave it as a possibility.
So from my reading on the matter it seems that this bulging is a primary source of raised sea-levels! No need for any accusations of bias, grandstanding, ignorance, misrepresentaiton etc etc etc. No need becasue what I am saying is well known. I simply am trying to bring a clarity to it and get a confirmation form some professional geologists that I have got it right.
EDIT
OK, Edge. I am using the wrong word. I should be talking sea-floor rift valleys or ridges. It seems like 'trench' is the wrong word and could be leading to our missing each other? I was sure the sea-floor spreading happens at 'trenches' (and I've said it many times here without correction). But it's at rift valleys or 'ridges' it seems. So my misuse of jargon may have caused us to miss each other??
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 10-18-2002 8:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-20-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 55 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 9:53 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 52 of 100 (20343)
10-20-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 9:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
4. I recently read that variable sea-floor spreading is out of vouge as an explantion of the cycles (presumably due to some data) and I wonder to what extent variable subduction rates could be responsible.]
First of all, I would be interested in the reference which suggests that the rate is out of style as an explanation. It would seem to me that increased spreading rates and reduced volume of the ocean basins may be related to another effect, rather than directly to each other.
Now, what gives you the idea that subduction rates can be significantly different from spreading rates? Once again, I suggest that both rates are caused by another effect that causes both to rise and fall together. If the rates were significantly different, then the earth must undergo a volume change.
Increased subduction rate alone cannot influence the volume of the ocean basins. That would mean that I could pull on one end of the oceanic plate and cause the whole plate to move. That won't happen.
Please give us some indication where this 'bulging' that your refer to occurs. That way, perhaps we can figure out where your misunderstanding lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:37 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 100 (20344)
10-20-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by edge
10-20-2002 9:29 PM


Edge
I'll do some searching for that ref.
See my post to you today.
I agree that on average the spreading and subduciton rates are the same but at any one time both could vary thus leading to changes in sea-level which we empirically know happened. I am imagining that a decreased subduciton rate could lead to increased bulging at the ridges via releasing presusre transmitted through the oceanic plates. This may be baloni but it made sense to me at empirical and mechanistic levels. If we for a second imagine that sea-floor spreading is constant but subduciton gets 'held up'. There will be bulging somewhere right and sea-level increases. All I'm trying to do is get a handle on some essential dynamic possibilities Edge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 9:29 PM edge has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 54 of 100 (20345)
10-20-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 9:21 PM


I don't wish to get into this discussion, especially while in the "Admin" mode, but... It seems that the confussion between Edge and TB is from TB's using the term "trench" when the appropriate term would be the "rift valley" of the mid-ocean ridge. The term "trench" is used for the deep basins found at subduction zones.
Now, the real "Admin" comments:
Are not these plate tectonic discussions rather far off the topic of this thread. Maybe there's a better place for it.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: The page cited by TB is a nice little diagram.
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:21 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 9:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 61 by Randy, posted 10-21-2002 12:37 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 55 of 100 (20347)
10-20-2002 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 9:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
As everyone who has ever studied geology atany level knows there is a bluging on either side of a sea-floor spreading trench and we do not need to get overly technical about it with jagon and flowery words.
Heavens no! We wouldn't want to attract any attention to the details! Actually, I know this. I am TRYING to get you to put it into words where they are so that you can see that they are not due to compression, as (I think) you are trying to say.
quote:
Here is a diagram typical of any plate tectonics chapter:
http://www.geo.vu.nl/...ology/2-biogeochem-cycles/plate2.GIF
Hmm, I see no bulging caused by the trench. I see bulging due to convective upwelling of the mantle at the spreading center. I see bulging related to the magmatic axis. But nothing directly related kinematically to the trench. In fact all I see near the trench is a depression. In fact, at some locations, the depression is so intense that the forearc is submerged. Seems to me that faster I don't suppose you could describe this bulging that you see to me.
quote:
As is plain to see the trench introduces bulging on both sides of the trench. It is well known and I can't believe you found my writing that ambiguous but I'll leave it as a possibility.
Ambiguous would be a generous description.
quote:
So from my reading on the matter it seems that this bulging is a primary source of raised sea-levels!
Yes. If you are talking about the right location and the right mechanics!
quote:
No need for any accusations of bias, grandstanding, ignorance, misrepresentaiton etc etc etc. No need becasue what I am saying is well known.
Your new-found humility is refreshing. Grandstanding is an attitude. In the past, your approach was grandstanding and sometimes insulting.
quote:
I simply am trying to bring a clarity to it and get a confirmation form some professional geologists that I have got it right.
Nonsense. When we tell you that you don't have it right, you simply dismiss us. If you can show that you have an open mind, I will actually put some time into explaining these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:21 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:58 PM edge has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 100 (20349)
10-20-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Tranquility Base
10-20-2002 9:03 PM


TB says: "1. The 2nd order sea-level curves were primarily generated tectonically
2. Specifically via sea-floor spreading and subduction processes which varied the volume of ocean basins.
"
It appears to me that, as the bulges and subduction trenches occur only at the margins of oceanic tectonic plates, the changes in volume of ocean basins because of these factors would be a very small percentage change to the total ocean basin volume. And dramatic, widespread (simultaneous?) spreading and subduction events would be necessary to produce a noticeable change in ocean volume and consequential change in sea levels.
Does TB envisage simultaneous movement of all of the tectonic plates comprising the Pacific Ocean basin to produce a noticeable change in sea level? Surely such a scenario would produce other detectable physical effects - for a start it seems like there would be a lot of heat and chemicals would be released as magma erupts to form the new sea floor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-20-2002 9:03 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 100 (20350)
10-20-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by edge
10-20-2002 9:53 PM


Edge
Did you read my edit and Moose's comment?
PS - I'm starting a new topic for these discussions.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 9:53 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 100 (20351)
10-20-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Adminnemooseus
10-20-2002 9:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I don't wish to get into this discussion, especially while in the "Admin" mode, but... It seems that the confussion between Edge and TB is from TB's using the term "trench" when the appropriate term would be the "rift valley" of the mid-ocean ridge. The term "trench" is used for the deep basins found at subduction zones.
Egad. You're kidding me.
quote:
Now, the real "Admin" comments:
Are not these plate tectonic discussions rather far off the topic of this thread. Maybe there's a better place for it.
Adminnemooseus
Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-20-2002 9:44 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 10:02 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 59 of 100 (20352)
10-20-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by edge
10-20-2002 9:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
I don't wish to get into this discussion, especially while in the "Admin" mode, but... It seems that the confussion between Edge and TB is from TB's using the term "trench" when the appropriate term would be the "rift valley" of the mid-ocean ridge. The term "trench" is used for the deep basins found at subduction zones.
Egad. You're kidding me.
Added by edit: This is exactly the reason that I was asking so many questions. This could have been resolved pages ago....
quote:
Now, the real "Admin" comments:
Are not these plate tectonic discussions rather far off the topic of this thread. Maybe there's a better place for it.
Adminnemooseus
Agreed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 10-20-2002 9:59 PM edge has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 60 of 100 (20358)
10-21-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Randy
10-19-2002 1:53 PM


I'm making a big exception to my general frowning on the quoting of entire messages. I'm doing such here, because the quoted is the most recent message that is really on topic for this topic string. And note, I did do away with all the "bold" of the text - Adminnemooseus
quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
I have been away and some other have answered JediKnight well but I thought I should answer since the post was addressed to me.
quote:
JediKnight wrote
I know I'm a newcomer here, but there's one thing I've noticed. You, Randy, have a propensity to point out the flaws in other people's theories, while ignoring attacks on your own. For example: as you so deftly pointed out many times, sand is transported from one location to another quite readily, by either water or wind. How would sand become hardened if it was not above water, or another layer of sediments? Wouldn't it just blow away? No tracks would remain, if they were made above water! On the other hand, water pressure pressing directly down on sediments the size of sand could compress them in a very short amount of time, leaving tracks.
So you are new. Did you read the original posts on this thread? The famous flood geologists Snelling and Austin are claiming that the sandstones were laid down by moving water 300 feet deep that was spreading the sand into waves and overwhelmed the animals. How does anything make tracks in that? I have pointed out that their theory is total nonsense because it is total nonsense.
While sand can be transported by water I really don't think it makes sense that 300 foot deep water moving at a walking pace could carry 10,000 cubic miles of sand for 200-300 miles without dumping it and then spread it over 200,000 square miles in waves that just happen to look like wind formed dunes, let alone the impossiblity of animals making tracks that were preserved during this process.
quote:
There is also something else I would like to point out. When you make a footprint in sand, it looks roughly like a footprint, right? Look at it again when it's exposed to a moderate wind for even a few minutes. It doesn't look anything like it did before, does it? Couldn't we be mistaking these footprints of spiders, etc. for tracks of other animals, or even plant fossils? I hate to say it (well, actually, I'm rather enjoying it), but those spider tracks could be nothing more than the tiny imprints left by the sori on the underside of a fern frond!
Not likely. And if you did look at the web site then you should know that it does postulate mechanisms for preserving the tracks. Unlike, the YEC mechanisms they are not impossible.
http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html
Now TB and some other creationists are claiming that the Coconinos were deposited in surges and that the animal tracks which are distributed throughout the lower 2/3 of the formation were made by animals that came in from some high ground somewhere between surges. Maybe you can explain to us where the animals and insects that made the tracks in the Coconino sandstones were hiding out while the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav Limestone, Grand Wash Dolomites, Temple Butte Limestone, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Supai Group and the Hermit Shale were deposited and while the 300 foot deep water brought in successive waves of sand to supposedly form the Coconinos. TB has totally failed to do so. Perhaps the task is impossible because the scenario is absurd.
It seems to me that Steve Austin(aka Stewart Nevins) who is one of the authors of the AiG web page wrote a book that claims that the area of the grand canyon was a shallow sea before the thousands of feet of sediment were deposited. So where was the high ground in a shallow sea?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Randy, posted 10-19-2002 1:53 PM Randy 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