Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 11:14 AM
355 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,532 Year: 21,138/21,208 Month: 1,571/2,326 Week: 26/881 Day: 26/119 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
31323334Next
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 880
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 436 of 503 (680996)
11-21-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by RAZD
11-21-2012 2:16 PM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Yeah, try folding unlithified sediment. All you get is a mixing of layers. If you had lime mud in one layer followed by a silt layer followed by a sand layer, any attempted folding of those layers would result in a mixing of those layers which if lithified at a later time, would turn into a dirty limestone or a sandstone with a calcite matrix or a silty limestone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 2:16 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:07 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 437 of 503 (680998)
11-22-2012 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by foreveryoung
11-21-2012 11:35 PM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
foreveryoung writes:

Yeah, try folding unlithified sediment. All you get is a mixing of layers. If you had lime mud in one layer followed by a silt layer followed by a sand layer, any attempted folding of those layers would result in a mixing of those layers which if lithified at a later time, would turn into a dirty limestone or a sandstone with a calcite matrix or a silty limestone.
Yeah, try folding unlithified sediment. All you get is a mixing of layers. If you had lime mud in one layer followed by a silt layer followed by a sand layer, any attempted folding of those layers would result in a mixing of those layers which if lithified at a later time, would turn into a dirty limestone or a sandstone with a calcite matrix or a silty limestone.

Really?

Take one yellow layer of play clay. Put a red layer of play clay on top of that. Put a green layer of play clay on top of that. Put this sequence on a table. Compress gently from the sides. You get beautiful folds and those layers of play clay certainly don't mix.

So, unlithified layers don't necessarily mix when they get folded.....

Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by foreveryoung, posted 11-21-2012 11:35 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2012 12:21 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 442 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-22-2012 1:06 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 444 by Percy, posted 11-22-2012 6:52 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 438 of 503 (681001)
11-22-2012 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Pressie
11-22-2012 12:07 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Take one yellow layer of play clay. Put a red layer of play clay on top of that. Put a green layer of play clay on top of that. Put this sequence on a table. Compress gently from the sides. You get beautiful folds and those layers of play clay certainly don't mix.

So, unlithified layers don't necessarily mix when they get folded.....

Is there play clay in the geological record?

I guess it must have been deposited in the Plasticine Epoch.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:07 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 439 of 503 (681004)
11-22-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2012 12:21 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Dr Adequate, it certainly does illustrate that unlithified sediments can be folded without mixing of the layers. So foreveryoung can't make a blanket statement about everything.

He should have a look at rheology before making blanket statements. It explains how "unlithified sediments" can and do get folded without mixing. In real life, for geology, heat and pressure are some of the most important ingredients.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2012 12:21 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2012 12:53 AM Pressie has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 440 of 503 (681005)
11-22-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Pressie
11-22-2012 12:44 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
I just couldn't resist the pun. I could wait the rest of my life and not get another opportunity like that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:44 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 441 of 503 (681006)
11-22-2012 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2012 12:53 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Yeah, the Plasticine Epoch really, really was funny. I actually spilled my coffee on my keyboard!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2012 12:53 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 442 of 503 (681007)
11-22-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Pressie
11-22-2012 12:07 AM


Folding soft sediments
So, unlithified layers don't necessarily mix when they get folded.....

Well, he was talking folding lime mud, sand, and silt, not clay. That material may indeed just get all mixed up together . He was SORT OF on the right track, but didn't get it totally correct. Or something like that.

But Pressie's point is that there can be soft sediment folding. FEY, see the Wiki article on soft-sediment deformation structures. Especially see the convolute bedding section. This deformation is probably usually (yes, weasel words) pretty small scale. You are not going to find large scale soft sediment folding (other geologists welcome to tell me I'm wrong).

FEY, see what happens when you adopt the mainstream geology orthodoxy? Someone's going to hit you with the exception to the rule.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:07 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 1:21 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply
 Message 445 by foreveryoung, posted 11-22-2012 10:52 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 443 of 503 (681010)
11-22-2012 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Minnemooseus
11-22-2012 1:06 AM


Re: Folding soft sediments
Yip, you're right. I don't know of any large scale soft sedimentary folding (as in deposited now, folded a day or two or a few years later all in one go) in any sedimentary sequence. However, it certainly is possible.

My idea was to indicate to creationists that real scientists have investigated those possibilities and can recognise them in the geological record if they are found.

Those creationists always think that "evolutionists" ignore everything, because it could indicate "The Fluddy" and of all of science is just done to deny their versions of their beliefs..

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-22-2012 1:06 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 444 of 503 (681028)
11-22-2012 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Pressie
11-22-2012 12:07 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Aren't layers of rock on the scale of miles roughly just as plastic as clay on the scale of inches? In other words, aren't your clay layers more representative of lithified rock layers? Wouldn't you need to construct your layers out of something like very fine sand in order to have an accurate model of unlithified layers?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Pressie, posted 11-22-2012 12:07 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 880
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 445 of 503 (681075)
11-22-2012 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Minnemooseus
11-22-2012 1:06 AM


Re: Folding soft sediments
minnemooseus writes:

Well, he was talking folding lime mud, sand, and silt, not clay. That material may indeed just get all mixed up together . He was SORT OF on the right track, but didn't get it totally correct. Or something like that.

But Pressie's point is that there can be soft sediment folding. FEY, see the Wiki article on soft-sediment deformation structures. Especially see the convolute bedding section. This deformation is probably usually (yes, weasel words) pretty small scale. You are not going to find large scale soft sediment folding (other geologists welcome to tell me I'm wrong).

FEY, see what happens when you adopt the mainstream geology orthodoxy? Someone's going to hit you with the exception to the rule.

Well, the stiffness of modeling clay isn't what I had in mind when I made my claim. I was imagining something very wet still. Even with modeling clay, you get a mixing of the layers if you continue to squeeze it and roll it around in your hands. I remember getting gray colored balls as a result when I was a kid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-22-2012 1:06 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Percy, posted 11-22-2012 11:17 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 446 of 503 (681079)
11-22-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by foreveryoung
11-22-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Folding soft sediments
foreveryoung writes:

Well, the stiffness of modeling clay isn't what I had in mind when I made my claim.

Yes, exactly, that was my point, too. Independent of Moose and Pressie's point about how poorly unlithified layers might mix, modelling clay is a much better analog for lithified layers.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by foreveryoung, posted 11-22-2012 10:52 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2302
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 447 of 503 (681094)
11-22-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 2:26 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Hi mindspawn,

How about {whales} hiding in a landlocked sea?

How about you quit making stuff up as you go along?

Think about what you're proposing. You are suggesting that whales "hid" in a landlocked sea. Then the Flood came and flooded the entire world. The whales would have been free to spread across an entire planet of water, but instead they stayed where they where... for no discernible reason. Then the waters went down, with all of the whales still in their sea and none of them in the wider oceans or marooned on the land. Then, they waited about two-hundred million years. Then, without the benefit of any flood, they suddenly proliferated throughout the world.

That's just silly.

On the other hand, I am proposing that there are no whale fossils beyond about fifty million years ago because there were no whales. Have you heard of the concept of parsimony? I'm going to ask you to consider; which of our two explanations do you think is the most parsimonious?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:26 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by mindspawn, posted 01-15-2013 7:46 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 448 of 503 (687655)
01-15-2013 6:26 AM


Apology to All
Sorry guys to disappear so suddenly, enjoying the discussion but my life just got so busy. Courting a beautiful lady of note, starting a new business, entertaining clients, and of course celebrating the birth of Jesus. I'm back!
  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 449 of 503 (687656)
01-15-2013 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Dr Adequate
11-21-2012 3:23 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
For some reason those ichthyopterygians least adapted to a marine lifestyle managed to spread and flourish before the true ichthyosaurs, which were still hiding in this elusive large sea until the Jurassic. Some of them waited 'til the Cretaceous. Meanwhile, as the later forms turned up, the earlier forms were driven out ... apparently they could all co-exist in a single sea, but the whole of the oceans didn't have enough niches for them. (Maybe you should postulate more large seas that no-one's managed to find yet, in which they were originally segregated.)

If this is what you would call a "logical progression", I wonder what you would find bizarre and counter-intuitive

Did they have separate radiometric data for each of those fossils? Or does the layering always show the so-called earlier ones below the so-called later ones. If so can you show proof of that please.

If you do not have such data, the assumption that there is a "progression" could be just that, an assumption.

Edited by mindspawn, : learning quotes again

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 3:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-15-2013 8:53 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 450 of 503 (687657)
01-15-2013 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 428 by JonF
11-21-2012 9:42 AM


Unclean animals
Yup, pigs are unclean. That's why I chose them. Maximum four alleles, in "reality" fewer. Unless, of course, there were extra stowaway pigs scuttling around unnoticed and hiding in mouseholes with the mice.

The Hebrew word for the unclean animals on the ark means "not pure" (tahowr), and is different to the Hebrew word (tame') which means defiled >1000 years later, they are not necessarily the same group of animals. Because the flood wording does not describe the animals in detail like the Leviticus wording >1000 years later, we do not know which ark animals were unclean and which not, and therefore have to for the sake of argument assume 7 pairs of animals, which is actually 14 animals with 2 alleles each, which is actually 28 alleles as a basis for argument.

Edited by mindspawn, : being specific

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by JonF, posted 11-21-2012 9:42 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
31323334Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017