Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 376 of 969 (724616)
04-18-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by edge
04-18-2014 1:53 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
The deposition of shells is not the Geologic Timescale.
I never said so. I was describing the very very modern fossils.
I only just started thinking about the Geo Timescale in this vein and I'm sure I have some of the terminology wrong and haven't got it well conceptualized yet so please be patient while I struggle through attempts to get it said.
I know the Timescale and the Column are not quite the same thing but that the Timescale is built on the Column. The diagram I posted of the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area shows the column from the bottom of the GC on the south to the top of the GS on the north. Diagrams that can be found of the strata in the GS often label them according to the Timescale, from Precambrian through Mississippian up to the Permian though the diagram I posted labels them according to their sedimentary names.
As time periods they are associated with particular kinds of fossilized life. Certainly a modern shell should show up in the uppermost layers or Recent Time, but Recent Time is normally characterized by the mammals and other "higher" life forms supposed to have evolved from earlier life forms. A modern shell may belong in the time period but it kind of misses the point of what I'm trying to say. I suppose you are assuming that given another few million years there WOULD be a more complete fossil record of the higher life forms represented in the Recent Time layers. But my problem is that you HAVE all the strata up through Recent Time with the mammals and all ALREADY. You can point to various strata here and there in the world to demonstrate it.
Or let me try again: Here's a rough attempt to say what hit me during this thread: The Geologic Timescale is based on the Geologic Column, but of course not layer for layer, but the column is an actual stack of strata found at least in partial form all over the world. Please correct any wording that doesn't quite fit the situation. It's a sequence of time periods based on a sequence of strata EVEN THOUGH the strata are not identical everywhere. Again please correct the concept as needed. Nevertheless there is enough of it to determine that the fossil order is reliable everywhere so that the theory of evolution seems to be solidly based on it.
Your Recent Time period on that Timescale has mammals and stuff, oh maybe some marine stuff, but it's not the Recent Time period if it only has shells.
In some locations it is.
But then, you would know better...
Please explain how it is part of the Geo Timescale "at some locations."
We are plotting the sequence of evolution up the time periods are we not? And the time periods do stack one on top of another do they not?
I guess. Well, some time periods may not have sediments deposited. Do you have a point?
I'm working on it, I only just started thinking about this. Seems to me you have to have a stack or at least a partial stack of fossil-carrying sediments to relate it to the Geo Timescale.
(The idea that some time periods are not represented by sedimentary deposits is something else to think about later, but at least I'd ask here: some have no such deposits ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD or do you just mean in certain localities?)
That is, they do not decide to continue elsewhere, they build where they are.
True, sediments do not decide anything. They are not sentient.
Oh grant a nongeologist a bit of poetic license, don't go all pedantic on me for no good reason.
Do you think that sediments continue depositing where they are being eroded?
No, but contemplating how the strata built up so neatly parallel to a height/depth of three miles in the GC-GS area before being so dramatically eroded by all that uplifting and canyon-cutting and cliff- forming and faulting and magma intrusions and so on, raises questions in my mind about the whole Geo Timescale claim. All that enormous "erosion" if that is even an adequate term for it, coming after such a long time of (relatively) undisturbed strata formation, raises questions about the whole idea of the billions of years for starters, but also now hits me as showing that the whole thing has come to an end.
And one of the bits of evidence for this is how everybody is now relocating the Timescale away from the usual stacks of strata to new fields, either the bottom of the ocean or newer and much smaller scale basins or whatever, entirely different conditions from those in which the Geo Column has hitherto been built, which to me seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the Timescale in effect no longer exists even though of course that's not how all of you think about it. So it seems to me anyway and I'm still trying to get this conceptualized properly.
How can a Timescale that built on and always depended on the series of strata of the Geo Column that climb from one "time period" to another up its series of layers, which is found in some form all over the world, now be relocated to the bottom of the sea or anywhere else? Since it doesn't seem to bother you I guess I can't expect you to find this a reasonable objection although it seems to me you should. To my mind this totally destroys the whole concept of the Geo Timescale.
Are you saying that as they erode, the new sediments just disappear and never reach a depositional center?
I don't even grasp the question and don't know what a "depositional center" refers to but I think my answer is probably "no.
Now you are getting weird again.
It happens.
Current smallscale sedimentation and deposition of fossils is simply NOT the Geologic Timescale, ...
Of course not. The geological time scale is something else completely.
Well, I'm TRYING to conceptualize something about the Timescale and depositions that don't build on the existing Geo Column seem to me to have nothing to do with it.
... it's just willy-nilly sedimentation and fossilization.
Of course. But it is part of the local geological column.
But how so? Simply because it's a modern deposition? How is it related geographically even to the local geological column if at all?
Do you think that the geological column is the same everywhere?
No, but I think that there has to be some identifiable [abe: physical, geographical /abe] correlation between it in whatever form it is found and the Geo Timescale.
I think you've forgotten a few more things about geology than you thought you did.
Could be but as I said I'm working on a new concept here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:53 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 8:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 377 of 969 (724619)
04-18-2014 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by edge
04-18-2014 1:42 AM


Back to the Grand Canyon for edge
After they were all laid down we got tectonic disturbance that released magma beneath the area where the GC now is, ...
Tell us about this 'disturbance'. What caused it?
The splitting of the continents from a single land mass. General upheaval connected with the Flood, which included volcanism.
... the force of the tectonic movement and possibly the accumulation of magma as well causing the lower strata to tilt up against the Tapeats. Slippage between the tilting strata and the Tapeats caused it to slide some distance.
Without disturbing the Tapeats. Excellent.
The buckled or tilted strata would have been severely abraded but the sandstone of the horizontal Tapeats, remaining horizontal and being compacted by the weight of strata three miles deep above it, and not being completely lithified, should have been deeply scraped though it wouldn't necessarily appear to have been eroded because it's all one sediment. Shave or grate off some brown sugar from a hardened block of it, it all continues to look like brown sugar. The fact that pieces of the abraded tilted lower strata are embedded in the sandstone ABOVE the contact line suggests that it too WAS eroded, it's just not as visible as the effect on the lower.
So what is the evidence for a dislocation at the base of the Tapeats?
The fact that the quartzite boulder had to have traveled about a quarter of a mile from where it would have been broken off the Shinumo as it came in contact with the Tapeats as well as the fact that the thing is suspended in the sandstone as it were.
There is a fifteen-foot quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone above the contact line that was broken off the Shinumo layer about a quarter of a mile away from its current location.
Hmmm, classic evidence for an erosional unconformity...
By which I suppose you mean this sort of erosion is seen to occur wherever there is an angular unconformity? Or do you mean to include other instances of it? If you mean the former you are of course saying this sort of erosion is what Geology normally interprets as what occurred to the uptilted layers over a long period of time at the surface of the earth. Which I'm of course contradicting, and I contradict it for all angular unconformities which I think formed the same way I'm describing here, starting with Siccar Point, and yes I'm contradicting it motivationally because I'm looking for a young earth explanation but also conceptually just because the usual idea strikes me as bizarre. Geology postulates all sorts of bizarre things to have supposedly occurred over great aeons of time, like tilted strata getting eroded nearly flat and leaving boulders and other chunks for evidence of the erosion, that even get embedded in some subsequent sedimentary deposit above the contact line. (Which is of course just one absurdity I find in OE Geology, other examples being the requirement of encroaching and retreating sea level to account for the different contents of the strata up the column, as if millions of years makes it physically possible for sea to rise to incredibly enormous heights, and not only once but up and down like an elevator to accommodate the different fossil contents. This IS pretty much what Geology affirms is it not?)
I don't suppose you'd consider... nah....
Nah, probably not.
That movement accounts for that and all the rest of the broken/eroded stuff we find in the sandstone.
Sure. Couldn't be erosional.
Well but it IS "erosional" but not in the sense you mean it. It's abraded against the rock above, rather than eroded by exposure at the surface of the earth, which seems to me couldn't possibly have accomplished the effect of what is actually there anyway.
The sandstone was no doubt highly compressed by the three miles of sediment stacked above it but not completely lithified at the time
Right. Sure.
Glad you agree.
So the force exerted beneath the canyon lifted the whole stack but it remained more or less horizontal from the Tapeats on up, at least all the stack remained parallel from there up and mostly still horizontal. I figure the contact between the Tapeats and the tilted unconformity is the point where the forces balanced each other out, the tectonic and volcanic forces from beneath and the weight of the stack of sediments above. The stack was uplifted but not distorted from the Tapeats on up.
Right. And all of this happened during the fludde.
In the rough time frame thereof.
And no doubt, you have evidence.
Better than Geology has for its bizarre Old Earth scenarios, which is all those wild interpretive scenarios about eroding a variety of rocks flat as a plain over millions of years and about having the sea rise and fall against any physical law I can think of, while I have reasonable conceptualization based on simple observation of some facts and a reasonable grasp of what the physical world is capable of.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:42 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 378 of 969 (724623)
04-18-2014 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by edge
04-18-2014 1:17 AM


Back to the Grand Canyon for edge
But you said there have been previous periods of erosion and uplift in the Grand Canyon area, and I'm wondering where you see the evidence for that on this diagram: ...
On the far right, there are two of them. One clear disconformity and another angular unconformity.
I discuss the Great Unconformity beneath the GC on the right in one of my later posts, and I see the angular unconformity at the far left, but I don't see the disconformity at the far right that you mention, just the Great Unconformity at the base of the GC. Perhaps I accounted for it in my analysis of how I think the area formed. If not, maybe we can take it up later.
Seems to me pretty clear that all the large-scale erosion I was talking about occurred above the Kaibab ...
Oops! Well, there you go! That's another one!
That is of course the Biggie, all of that, and to my mind it includes all the other upheavals including the Great Unconformity.
quote:
... at the same time the GC area was uplifted into that mounded shape and the canyons and cliffs were cut ...
Unlikely. The Kaibab plain was probably formed near sea level during a long period of coastal plain erosion where meandering streams eventually cut into the Kaibab itself and set the general trend of the future Colorado River. Uplift occurred after that.
Uh huh, typical weird piecemeal OE Geology. First, the Kaibab limestone was laid down a mile above the base of the Grand Canyon, assuming the Great Unconformity has already been created and eroded flat and the strata from the Tapeats on up have been laid down and so on and so forth, so you have to have the sea level rise a whole mile to create it, which I guess doesn't bother you, sea level just rising and falling as needed to accommodate the Old Earth, although it freaks everybody out that a Floodist believes it rose and fell just once.
Second, there is no sign that the Kaibab was cut by streams, it's clearly a flat plain that was scoured clean, which suggests great sheets of water to me.
So you must think the stack of sediments three miles deep that was built on top of it was built there AFTER your coastal plain scenario, which I think may require more risings and fallings of the sea but I haven't tracked all that.
So then after all that was in place, hundreds of millions of years after the Tapeats was laid down, according to your OE version, finally we have this grand "erosion" that left only the cliffs of the Grand Staircase and the butte to the south of the Grand Canyon and the Kaibab so neatly scoured. It makes a lot more sense to think of it as having been scoured clean during that massive erosion rather than by streams during some supposed time it spent at the surface of the earth, which should have cut gullies into it anyway rather than leaving such a nice clean plateau.
I'm assuming you agree that the Kaibab was buried by another stack of sediments a mile deep above it before all that grand scale erosion I keep pointing to occurred, right? I mean the canyon cutting, the cliff forming, the magma dike, the Hurricane fault, the angular unconformity to the north of that fault, and so on and so forth. So you agree that all that happened AFTER all the strata were in place even if you think each or some of the layers existed at the surface for millions of years? Funny how neatly parallel they stayed all that time, don't you think, first neatly horizontal of course, and then parallel even over the mounding of the land after all those hundreds of millions of years.
quote:
... and the magma intrusions occurred in the GS area and the faultings too and the Great Unconformity beneath the GC as well. All at one time.
Hunh? You have the Great Unconformity occurring after all of the rocks were deposited?
Now that's plain weird.
Not really. I also explain the Siccar Point angular unconformity the same way and all the others as well. Tectonic bashing of the continent let loose the magma, caused land to rise and fall here and there, buckled strata here and there, broke off chunks of strata to make the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, cracked the strata so that canyons formed in the CS as well as the GC itself, and so on and so forth. All in roughly the same time frame.
Even the Great Unconformity. Yes.
Even that had to occur during the fludde. Yes (well, according to you).
If you consider that all that mega-erosion from the Kaibab on up as shown in that diagram is all related to the lifting of the land both in the GC area and the far north of the GS area, and you factor in the earthquake shown by the fault lines, which all suggests a great shaking formed all those features from the canyons to the stairs, and you see that the Great Unconformity is associated with the mounded area into which the GC was cut, seems to me it is quite reasonable to consider that it was all part of the same mega-event.
And doesn't science like "elegant" simple explanations that take a lot of things into account rather than piecemeal Rube-Goldbergish explanations?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:17 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 379 of 969 (724624)
04-18-2014 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Percy
04-18-2014 10:51 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Depends on what you mean by marine sediments but it didn't all have to come off the land, some could have been from the ocean.
And of course the idea of millions of years of sedimentary deposits is a total fiction, they were all laid down within a year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Percy, posted 04-18-2014 10:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 7:50 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 380 of 969 (724628)
04-18-2014 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by edge
04-18-2014 1:10 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Yes, obviously you've missed all the voluminous previous discussions of these things. The material for the strata must have come from the washing off of the land mass in the torrential forty days and nights of rain. It got sorted in the currents and layers of the ocean water and redeposited as strata.
Ah, good. Then you can explain how limestones were deposited in a turbid flow regime environment, and why we see multiple sorting events with sandstones and shales scattered throughout. Just \[b\]where\[b\] did those limestones wash in from and maintain their purity?
They were carried on their own currents or layers of the ocean/Flood waters, and I don't know how "turbid" the deposition was or whether some or all of the strata were laid down by waves or by precipitation out of standing water or how it occurred. But it's really no more of a puzzle than trying to wrap one's mind around the Rube Goldbergish Old Earth scenarios of Geology with its impossible risings and fallings of sea level, and its ridiculous interpretation of the fossil contents of slabs of rock as things that lived on that spot for millions of years.
And then you can let us know how tetrapod tracks were preserved in such a 'washing off' of the continents.
They would have been preserved at some stage in the Flood when the sediment was just deposited and not all the living things had yet died. This suggests deposition by waves rather than precipitation, which is also suggested by the way the strata extend across whole continents.
Oh, and don't forget the burrow fossils. How did they form in the middle of such a catastrophic event?
Same basic circumstance as for the tracks though the poor things could have been buried deeper and trying to find a way out.
And then I'd like to know how you fit in the tilting of the GC Group of sediments followed by their erosion.
You mean the Supergroup I guess. The Great Unconformity. I've already explained that.
Why is there a beach sand in the middle of all this torrent?
Got transported there of course, like all the other sediments with their creature contents. And if you mean the ripples, that also suggests deposition by waves.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:10 AM edge has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 381 of 969 (724629)
04-18-2014 6:35 PM


Faith, how would you explain why no crab fossil has ever been found among trilobite fossils? Or, why has no trilobite fossil been found among crab fossils? Trilobites and crabs both are kind of, you know, seafloor critters. Did they not like each other? Do floods wash them to different places because, maybe, crab claws get caught up by currents?
Why is that?

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:46 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 382 of 969 (724630)
04-18-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by edge
04-18-2014 1:02 AM


More Grand Canyon for edge, such as Temple Butte
I would know it has been said but that the actual reality defies the idea.
Good. Then you can explain the angular unconformities such as the ones at the base of the Grand Canyon Group and the Tapeats Sandstone.
Done.
In fact, why is there a beach sand such as the Tapeats? Doesn't a beach imply land?
If you assume it formed in situ, yes, but I don't assume that, I assume all the sediments were transported to their current location.
And what about the swamps of the Hermit Shale? How do you get swamps in the middle of a global flood?
Again only a problem if you imagine it forming in situ, but if the clay was simply transported from some other location the whole idea of a swamp is just an artifact of Old Earth assumptions.
And then, of course there's the disconformity between the Redwall and the Temple Butte which forms in channels cut in the Tonto Group. I'm glad you can explain these and look forward to your treatment of the geology of the GC.
Took a while of studying that formation but it looks to me now like a clear case of the channels having been formed after the layer was laid down. It doesn't look like anything that would have formed on the surface of the earth, especially since it is filled in perfectly to the same level as the limestone into which the channel was cut,
abe: Something like this perhaps: Surrounding limestone somewhat harder than limestone in the channels, which might have been fairly liquid as a matter of fact, forming that rather neat U shaped channel as it cut through the earlier limestone, after it was all in place including the limestone above it, which again, accounts for its perfectly level upper surface. Again, I'm trying to account for that smooth curved bed and the level upper surface.
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 360 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:02 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 7:52 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 383 of 969 (724631)
04-18-2014 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Coragyps
04-18-2014 6:35 PM


Flood collected things
I don't get why you think this is a problem. Many of the fossils seem to have been collected in groups of their own kind, which really ought to be harder to explain on Old Earth theory than Flood theory, which simply transported things as they normally collected together. Old Earth theory ought to have individuals dying willy nilly here and there among all kinds of other creatures, instead of being collected more or less together in family graves as it were, and of all ages, showing it was whole populations that died at one time rather than normal individual deaths over long periods of time. abe: Nautiloids for instance are found in all sizes/ages through out one layer of the Redwall Limestone for thousands of square miles, clearly having been transported as a whole population along with a lot of limestone-forming creatures or sediments. Dinosaur beds where hundreds of the creatures are all jumbled up together is another example.
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 381 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2014 6:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2014 7:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 393 by Coyote, posted 04-18-2014 11:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 384 of 969 (724633)
04-18-2014 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
04-18-2014 6:46 PM


Re: Flood collected things
The Flood didn't just collect things, it arranged and classified them. If only Noah had thought to make a few glass cases and some labels, the strata would look like a natural history museum. "Oh look," the water would have said to itself, "another one for the Hall of Trilobites. Memo to self: make sure never ever, not one single time, to mix those up with one single crustacean species that's going to survive me, although for some reason I'm gonna mix 'em together with some though not all crustacean species which I'm going to make extinct. Damn, this flooding business is hard work ... so much to think about, and me only a liquid."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 385 of 969 (724634)
04-18-2014 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
04-18-2014 2:49 PM


Re: granite schist and basalt
Am I right that you mean "same age as" rather than "same as?" If not, I have to ask "same how?"
You said 'the' magma and I thought you were talking about the later basalts. If you are talking Cardenas, then it is still younger than the granite/schist. I wrote it all off as confusion on your part.
I'm aware that there is an age discrepancy for my view of all this according to Geology, but I also don't take much of the dating claims seriously. I figure they are open to reinterpretation.
Regardless of age, you have to fit in a lot of events into 6ky.
Of course this is very interesting to me because it is an admission that there can be problems with radiometric dating, ...
To me it is an admission that we have developed new and improved methods for radiometric dating. However, I'm not surprised that a YEC would see this as a disadvantage.
quote:
... even that "deposition in a marine setting" can "disrupt" the system (and a marine setting is exactly what the Flood would have been).
If you have ever seen magma erupted into a water saturated environment you might see the reasoning.
Mmmm, nah, you wouldn't....
In discussions at EvC one normally finds radiometric dating treated as perfection itself.
Yes, in rhetoric we support radiometric dating. In science we always defer to geological evidence first. And no, I do not see it as perfect, however, you have nothing coming close to it in mythology.
So now with newer methods they are sure they have it right.
I'm sure the date could be improved upon.
Fraid I don't have the same certainty myself. About the basalt or anything else dated by these methods.
Actually, certainty is all you will accept. Which is kind of weird, considering what you've got. I'm willing to go with the evidence.
I also have found it difficult to get a clear idea of just what the Cardenas Basalt is. Sometimes it is presented as a layer in the Supergroup, but in this diagram it's presented as an intrusion through the Supergroup which makes more sense:
Yes, the concordant layers would be sills. If you'd had the first course in Geology, you would know that.
Of course on my view of the Grand Canyon the magma eruption would have formed all of it in roughly the same time period: the basalt and the granite and the schist.
What magma eruption? The granite? The Cardenas? or the Vulcan's Throne basalt? Even without radiometric dates, they show very different ages due to cross-cutting relationships.
It only needs to have happened over the last 4300 years, from the time of the magma eruption to the time it was recognized as schist.
The magma will never be recognized as Vishnu Schist, or vice versa.
It appears that you are forgetting more of your geology each day.
It doesn't need to have happened instantaneously. The pre-existing rock of the schist is probably partly rubble from the tilting and displacement of the Supergroup.
Except that the schist is older, so your scenario is impossible.
So you have three distinct magmatic events all different in style and composition and you want to stuff them into 4300 years, including the erosion that brings the granite and the Cardenas closer to the surface.
Pretty fantastic stuff. A geological miracle, in fact.
And, of course, you can back it all up with evidence.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 2:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 8:56 PM edge has not replied
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 8:59 PM edge has not replied
 Message 390 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 9:03 PM edge has not replied
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 9:06 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 386 of 969 (724635)
04-18-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Faith
04-18-2014 6:39 PM


Re: More Grand Canyon for edge, such as Temple Butte
Done.
Actually, not...
You have only made assertions of what you believe to be so. Is see no supporting evidence.
If you assume it formed in situ, yes, but I don't assume that, I assume all the sediments were transported to their current location.
Mmmm, yes, that would be a the definition of a sediment, including beach sands.
Again only a problem if you imagine it forming in situ, but if the clay was simply transported from some other location the whole idea of a swamp is just an artifact of Old Earth assumptions.
So, a swamp was miraculously transported into the middle of a global fludde. I see that as an artifact of psychotropic substances.
Took a while of studying that formation but it looks to me now like a clear case of the channels having been formed after the layer was laid down.
So the Temple Butte was deposited and then the channels formed underneath it so that it could fall into place.
I'm sure you are correct. I see that happening all the time in my yard.
It doesn't look like anything that would have formed on the surface of the earth,...
I have an idea. It formed on Mars and then the fludde transported it to earth.
... especially since it is filled in perfectly to the same level as the limestone into which the channel was cut,
Sure. Upward truncation of bedding units never happens in the geological record.
It seems you are forgetting more geology on a moment by moment basis...
abe: Something like this perhaps: Surrounding limestone somewhat harder than limestone in the channels, which might have been fairly liquid as a matter of fact, forming that rather neat U shaped channel as it cut through the earlier limestone, after it was all in place including the limestone above it, which again, accounts for its perfectly level upper surface. Again, I'm trying to account for that smooth curved bed and the level upper surface.
This may make sense to you, but I think your friends from Mars might have better luck with it since most of it happened up there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 9:10 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 387 of 969 (724636)
04-18-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
04-18-2014 4:05 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
I only just started thinking ...
I suppose then it's just beginner's luck.
... about the Geo Timescale in this vein and I'm sure I have some of the terminology wrong and haven't got it well conceptualized yet so please be patient while I struggle through attempts to get it said.
Maybe you wouldn't have to struggle so much if you just learned some geology.
I know the Timescale and the Column are not quite the same thing but that the Timescale is built on the Column. The diagram I posted of the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area shows the column from the bottom of the GC on the south to the top of the GS on the north. Diagrams that can be found of the strata in the GS often label them according to the Timescale, from Precambrian through Mississippian up to the Permian though the diagram I posted labels them according to their sedimentary names.
As time periods they are associated with particular kinds of fossilized life. Certainly a modern shell should show up in the uppermost layers or Recent Time, but Recent Time is normally characterized by the mammals and other "higher" life forms supposed to have evolved from earlier life forms. A modern shell may belong in the time period but it kind of misses the point of what I'm trying to say.
Maybe you are trying to say the wrong thing.
I suppose you are assuming that given another few million years there WOULD be a more complete fossil record of the higher life forms represented in the Recent Time layers.
You would assume incorrectly.
But my problem is that you HAVE all the strata up through Recent Time with the mammals and all ALREADY. You can point to various strata here and there in the world to demonstrate it.
Do you have a point here?
Or let me try again: Here's a rough attempt to say what hit me during this thread: The Geologic Timescale is based on the Geologic Column, but of course not layer for layer, but the column is an actual stack of strata found at least in partial form all over the world.
Please correct any wording that doesn't quite fit the situation. It's a sequence of time periods based on a sequence of strata EVEN THOUGH the strata are not identical everywhere. Again please correct the concept as needed. Nevertheless there is enough of it to determine that the fossil order is reliable everywhere so that the theory of evolution seems to be solidly based on it.
Go ahead.
Please explain how it is part of the Geo Timescale "at some locations."
The geological time scale includes the Recent which is the present. We don't need mammal fossils for corroboration. In fact, mammal fossils would be terrible index fossils.
I'm working on it, I only just started thinking about this. Seems to me you have to have a stack or at least a partial stack of fossil-carrying sediments to relate it to the Geo Timescale.
It helps.
(The idea that some time periods are not represented by sedimentary deposits is something else to think about later, but at least I'd ask here: some have no such deposits ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD or do you just mean in certain localities?)
Certain localities, if I understand you.
Oh grant a nongeologist a bit of poetic license, don't go all pedantic on me for no good reason.
YECs rarely grant me the right.
No, but contemplating how the strata built up so neatly parallel to a height/depth of three miles in the GC-GS area before being so dramatically eroded by all that uplifting and canyon-cutting and cliff- forming and faulting and magma intrusions and so on, raises questions in my mind about the whole Geo Timescale claim.
Why should it. I have plenty of time for geotectonics to happen. You do not. And yet, they happened.
All that enormous "erosion" if that is even an adequate term for it, coming after such a long time of (relatively) undisturbed strata formation, raises questions about the whole idea of the billions of years for starters, ...
Why is that? We know that these events happened. Unless you want to invoke God's bulldozer, old ages is the only answer.
... but also now hits me as showing that the whole thing has come to an end.
Why is that? These same things have been going on in the geological record for billions of years. Mountains have risen and then eroded. Many times.
And one of the bits of evidence for this is how everybody is now relocating the Timescale away from the usual stacks of strata to new fields, either the bottom of the ocean or newer and much smaller scale basins or whatever, entirely different conditions from those in which the Geo Column has hitherto been built, which to me seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the Timescale in effect no longer exists even though of course that's not how all of you think about it.
It wouldn't be so difficult if you used punctuation. I think I can argue that the same basins we see today existed in the past. Sometimes in the same places. If you look at the world today, you can see the same types of deposits from the continental shelves, to transgressive beaches, to coral reefs, to intermontane baisins with evaporite deposits, back-arc basins and melanges.
There is really no that much difference in the geotectonic settings of the earth going back well into the Precambrian where things get weird.
So it seems to me anyway and I'm still trying to get this conceptualized properly.
I'm sure it makes sense to you that someone was in charge of the geology of the earth and made it so.
How can a Timescale that built on and always depended on the series of strata of the Geo Column that climb from one "time period" to another up its series of layers, which is found in some form all over the world, now be relocated to the bottom of the sea or anywhere else?
Because it's always been that way. We see continental deposits on the continents and oceanic deposits in the seas of all times in the past.
Since it doesn't seem to bother you I guess I can't expect you to find this a reasonable objection although it seems to me you should. To my mind this totally destroys the whole concept of the Geo Timescale.
Not really. I can find oceanic sediments of any age that you want. What we see today is just a continuation of that process. Not all of the earth was covered by the Redwall Limestone. If you went out to sea from the Redwall deposits, you would run into deep-sea deposits just like those of today.
I don't even grasp the question and don't know what a "depositional center" refers to but I think my answer is probably "no.
Right. That's because it is based on something you wrote. A depocenter is the thickest part of a basin where the thickest sedimentary packages of a certain time occur.
Well, I'm TRYING to conceptualize something about the Timescale and depositions that don't build on the existing Geo Column seem to me to have nothing to do with it.
You have chosen a fruitless task. The existing geological column is not just the Paleozoic continental sediments that the original column was based on. It really includes a bunch of other deposits.
But how so? Simply because it's a modern deposition?
No, it's happened throughout the geological record. Volcanic deposits, for instance, have very little lateral continuity. The deposits you are thinking of are continental in scope, but not all deposits are like that.
How is it related geographically even to the local geological column if at all?
Local depositional environments. Just like we have today.
Could be but as I said I'm working on a new concept here.
You are free to do so, but be prepared to answer a lot of questions, particularly when you criticize previous work.
I have spent a lot of time here on this post, against my better judgement. Usually, I regret it later on. What will happen this time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 4:05 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 388 of 969 (724637)
04-18-2014 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by edge
04-18-2014 7:38 PM


Re: granite schist and basalt
duplicate.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 7:38 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 389 of 969 (724638)
04-18-2014 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by edge
04-18-2014 7:38 PM


Re: granite schist and basalt
Yes, the concordant layers would be sills. If you'd had the first course in Geology, you would know that.
I know what a sill is, I've read a ton of Geology on the internet over the years and I DID read Dr. A's course in Geology and I DID find I was already familiar with most of it. Take it or leave it.
And that only about 20% of it involved the Old Earth nonsense.. Anyway, the illustrations I'm talking about don't look like sills they look likie layers of the same dimensions as the other layers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 7:38 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 390 of 969 (724640)
04-18-2014 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by edge
04-18-2014 7:38 PM


Re: granite schist and basalt
What magma eruption? The granite? The Cardenas? or the Vulcan's Throne basalt? Even without radiometric dates, they show very different ages due to cross-cutting relationships.
Which I guess is why you speak of them separately. I of course am talking about THE magma that made all of them, at least at that location, but there are other volcanoes beneath the GC aren't there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 7:38 PM 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