Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 3:11 PM
407 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (8 members, 399 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,021 Year: 16,627/21,208 Month: 2,516/3,593 Week: 629/882 Day: 61/86 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
454647
48
4950Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1621
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 706 of 740 (735118)
08-06-2014 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by Faith
08-06-2014 12:02 AM


The Navajo sandstone is shown as one sandstone 'layer' in cross-sections.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 707 of 740 (735125)
08-06-2014 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by herebedragons
08-05-2014 8:12 PM


Internal markers for measuring displacements
Each layer of sediment would have internal layers that can be identified on both sides of the fault, and the displacement from one side to the other can be measured. If the bottom layer is displaced more than the layer over it, and that layer is displaced more than the layer over it, then we observe that this can only happen if the fault is reactivated after each subsequent layer.

Excellent point RAZD. Layers are not as simple as "a thick slab of sandstone."

But these conditions are not visible from a computer screen or a generalized cross section.

Yet curiously, this is one of the things geologists do when they look at the actual rocks.

Similar displacements can be observed with horizontal displacements affecting things like roads and streams, recurring many times.

Enjoy

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by herebedragons, posted 08-05-2014 8:12 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 708 of 740 (735126)
08-06-2014 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by Faith
08-06-2014 12:06 AM


magic transformation?
It STARTS with mud, what happens after that is how it becomes separated sediments. ...

So mud turns into separate layers of limestone, siltstone, sandstone and mudstone?

Fascinating.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 709 of 740 (735129)
08-06-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 661 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:40 AM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Faith writes:

You have a certain genius for getting everything I say so wrong I usually see little point in trying to answer you.
I think you're just saying this to provoke a response, instigate a crisis.

I'm completely sincere. It's been a problem for quite a while now.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the feelings, but you have negative feelings about everyone, and now you're giving voice to them in a way that, intended or not, couldn't be better designed to undermine discussion. I'm just going to keep my focus on the topic.

You're describing mud descending from hillsides and burying valleys. How well does this describe what we see today, and how well does it fit with the scouring you also claim happened?

  • If hill and mountainsides were denuded during the flood, why aren't they denuded today? Where did all the soil we see today on our hills and mountainsides come from? Prominences in a submerged landscape would receive very little sediment. And anyway, hills and mountainsides today are covered with soil, not marine sediment such as found in the geologic column. There are very likely lithified marine layers beneath the soil, but the soil itself is definitely not marine.

  • This descent of mud from hills and mountainsides into valleys could not have happened in flat regions like Kansas where there are few hills and mountains.

  • If all the soil from hills and mountainsides washed into the valleys, then valleys were regions of net sedimentation and were not scoured. But you say it was scoured, so ignoring that contradiction, once the mud from hills and mountainsides slides into the flooded valley, how is water going to violently flow into this already water filled valley and denude its landscape down to bedrock?

  • When mud descends from hills and mountainsides into valleys, it is never discovered that any footprints, nests or burrows have been carried whole and unharmed with them.

  • While some hills and mountains in some regions contain a great deal of soil, those in other regions do not. Mudslides are not uncommon in our far western region, but they almost never happen in the east where the hills and mountains are made of rock.

Here you make an assertion about what falling and rising water can do:

...but it's hard to see how that much destructive water both falling on the land and rising in the ocean flood waters wouldn't have broken up everything.

Three quarters of the world is covered with water today. Water rises and covers the land all the time. Landscapes are never scoured down miles, not even feet except by fast moving water, and even fast moving water erodes rock very, very slowly.

The ocean bottom wasn't scoured, either. We can tell because there's a continuous record of sedimentation on ocean floors going back millions of years. Large storms that flood the land are apparent in the sedimentary record off the coastlines of lakes and oceans because they sweep a huge amount of debris and sediment off the land, and there is no record of a global flood 4300 years ago.

Deeply buried antediluvian layers would have been lithified. How do you imagine them to have been wiped away? Rising waters cannot break up rock, and huges waves crashing onto rocks can't break them up either without the passage of much time. In this video waves are crashing onto rocks with little effect, and even in your young Earth scenario this has been going on for at least 4300 years, yet these rocks haven't been broken up:

Here you admit an unavoidable possibility that until now I thought you had ruled out:

Perhaps it's possible it didn't TOTALLY devastate everything, scour it all down completely, who knows,...

You rhetorically ask how could we know whether the flood didn't completely scour the landscape, and the answer is that we could know by seeking and finding these antediluvian remnants. They should be easy to find because they won't be sedimentary yet they'll contain the sand, mud, clay, limestone, footprints, burrows and nests which provided the raw material for the sedimentary layers left behind by the flood.

About why the antediluvian landscape couldn't have been covered by sedimentary deposits, there are two reasons:

  • Most land is an area of net erosion, not net deposition. In most parts of the antediluvian world the land would have been slowly eroding away.

  • There was not sufficient time between creation and 4300 years ago to deposit sediments in depth of any significance. Only a few meters of sediments at most could accumulate in a couple thousand years, and only in low lying areas like lakes, oceans, and a few terrestrial regions.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 713 by Coragyps, posted 08-06-2014 8:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1328
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 710 of 740 (735131)
08-06-2014 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 703 by Faith
08-06-2014 12:02 AM


I am not sure what your point is. A layer is called "limestone" because limestone is the predominant sediment, not because it is necessarily pure limestone or there is no cross bedding or other internal features.

Edwin Dinwiddie (yes that his real name) McKee wrote a 700+ page book in 1969 on the Redwall Limestone alone. The book is hard to find but you can view a preview a Google Books Histroy of the Redwall Limestone Norther Arizona

But I'm sure I don't need to explain all this to you.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : typo - left out word


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 711 of 740 (735132)
08-06-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:52 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:

The Plio Pleistocene follows the contour of the deformed strata beneath showing it's been there some time and isn't a recent deposit.

Here's the image again:

The Plio-Pleistocene extends from about 5 million years ago to the present. This means the bottom of the Plio-Pleistocene is is not a recent deposit, just as you say. It is the top of the Plio-Pleistocene that is a recent deposit. The top most particles on this layer are from today.

I have no problem with deposition continuing by the way, I just don't see it on the diagram.

That's correct, there's nowhere on the diagram showing the sedimentation that is taking place today. Does this mean you doubt there's sedimentation taking place there today? If so then rest assured that since this cross section runs across the mouth of the Mississippi River that there is sedimentation taking place there today.

By the way, since you say you have no problem with deposition continuing, and since it's continuing atop a geologic column, can we now agree that the geologic column is still growing in regions of net sedimentation?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1328
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 712 of 740 (735134)
08-06-2014 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by Faith
08-06-2014 12:06 AM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Faith, your description of what the flood would do based on observing severe rainfall and subsequent mudslides, etc., was the best, most realistic idea of what the flood would have done that you have ever presented. I bet if you presented a scenario like that people would agree that it would be a good representation of what the great flood would do. I believe Moose presented something very similar.

It STARTS with mud, what happens after that is how it becomes separated sediments.

We've been down this road before. How does water separate mud into distinct layers that settle out in random order (i.e. not from coarse to fine)?

Besides, you have never mentioned mud becoming these separate layers before. Your idea required large areas of landscapes to be transported intact (remember footprints and burrows in Coconino sandstone?). The problem is you can't keep track of what explanation you have used since they are simply made up and not based on actual evidence.

That's underhanded and it's stupid. And there is a distinction between the sciences of the unwitnessed past and the real sciences

This is just your hiding place you retreat to when you have nothing else to argue.

anyone with an IQ of 80 ought to be able to figure out

Well, my IQ is only 79, so you are going to need to do a much better job of explaining it.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 713 of 740 (735135)
08-06-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 709 by Percy
08-06-2014 8:10 AM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Let me add bullet point #6 to your top five bullets, Percy:

* Sliding cataracts of mud tend to deposit sediments that look like landslide of mud. Turbidites, I believe. With chaotic internal structure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 709 by Percy, posted 08-06-2014 8:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25282
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 714 of 740 (735154)
08-06-2014 9:57 AM


As I read through the latest posts I marvel that I ever had the patience to actually try to answer such a mad collection of misreadings and accusations and bizarre "corrections" of my supposed errors as never ever fails to follow on anything I say here. Oh, once in a while I get to pursue a line of thought and even enjoy it for a while, but it doesn't last long.

Yes, Percy, in a way I suppose my eruption at all of you is designed to end discussion, if discussion was ever the word for what goes on here. I'm trying to exit this place. Hard to explain why it's so hard to leave this little corner of Hell. I must still have illusions of getting someone to see my point of view. How I can maintain that illusion through all the blatant evidence that it's never going to happen I don't know. How so many people can be so consistently wrong about absolutely anything I post is really very hard to fathom. Jump on the weirdest misreading possible, then insist on it against any attempt I make to clarify, forget everything I ever said about the same thing in past years, this is a bruising experience to go through day by day by day. Oh but I don't DARE ever say such a thing: that's just playing martyr and is sure to bring me worse bruises too.

You all even have the gall to believe you know my motives. Almost every post here includes some imputation of sleazy reasons for anything I say. You all think my eruption into namecalling is such a terrible thing but you are blind to the insults each of you slings at me in just about every single post here. How I took it for so long is the mystery, not that ever blow up in response. Can I really think anybody would ever see what is REALLY going on at EvC? I'd better give it up if so.

Is it so strange that I'm at odds with the whole crowd here really? It's so rare that anybody ever agrees with me or says anything positive to anything I say and yet you think I should be friendlier to this pack of wolves?

May God help me to leave this place now.


Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Percy, posted 08-06-2014 10:24 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 717 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 10:46 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 718 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-06-2014 11:02 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 720 by edge, posted 08-06-2014 5:07 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 721 by ringo, posted 08-07-2014 2:08 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 722 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 4:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 715 of 740 (735156)
08-06-2014 10:10 AM


A Thermodynamic Argument Against the Flood
In Faith's Flood scenario, water somehow pulverizes miles of whatever it was covering the antediluvian landscape down to bedrock. Any material with a mile or more of material above is going to be lithified. Pulverizing lithified material requires a great deal of energy. Here's a video of large and very powerful equipment crushing rock:

Obviously it takes a great deal of energy to crush rock. How could water crush rock? If a high pressure fire hose had been fired at a large rock it would have done nothing. Even after days and days. Here's a video of two guys walking through a blasting fire hose. It blasts them but doesn't hurt them, and it's blasting across grass that somehow doesn't get stripped away. Fire hoses are used to disperse crowds without hurting them:

If a fire hose with all its energy doesn't do much damage to people it's hard to imagine how it could do much damage to rock, so how would a flood have sufficient energy to pulverize rock? It would have to have a great deal of energy and very focused, more like a water jet drill, which fires water filled with abrasive material at up to 100,000 psi:

This is impressive, but very energy intensive and far more than a flood could deliver.

But if a flood somehow did manage to crush millions of cubic miles of rock all around the world in a brief period of days, then it would have required enough energy to melt the world several times over. I'm not even going to bother doing the math, it should be self-evident.

But if anyone doubts this then I'll look up some figures and do the math. I'll find out how much diesel fuel a rock crusher consumes per hour, find the energy content of diesel fuel, find how much volume of rock a rock crusher crushes per hour, estimate how many cubic miles of rock are in the worldwide geologic column, come up with a figure in joules, then calculate the temperature of the now molten Earth.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(4)
Message 716 of 740 (735158)
08-06-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:57 AM


Hi Faith,

I feel sympathy and empathy for you as a human being, but your ideas about the flood, and about most things, suck as science. You don't want us to agree with you just to avoid hurting your feelings, right? And you do realize you have arrogant and stubborn streaks combined with a tendency to lash out that create problems for you, right? So your problems here, and probably all throughout your life wherever you encounter opposing views, should come as no surprise to you.

Scientific ideas are examined and analyzed all the time. That's all we're doing here, examining and analyzing your views to see how they measure up as science.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1328
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 717 of 740 (735160)
08-06-2014 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:57 AM


Its just funny how NOTHING, no part of this is your fault. You take absolutely NO responsibility for the quality of discussion here. Everything is our fault because we are so evil and you are so righteous. Makes me sick. I have worked really hard to have a productive discussion with you. I tried really, really hard to be objective and to do the best I can to understand what your objections actually are and to consider them in a fair manner. But all it meets with is denial, accusations and derision from you.

The only thing I have ever expected from you in having these discussions is that you would acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons why I (we) accept that the earth is old, that evolution is a fact, and that the Bible is not always literally true. If you are not convinced, that's fine. If you don't accept evidence that is obvious to me, that's fine. But for me, just like petrophysicist said, I have looked at the evidence and it has forced me to draw certain conclusions.

You expect us to focus on one tiny piece and draw conclusions about the entire puzzle. Yes, Faith, we all agree that the cross section of the Grand Canyon / Grand Staircase show that the whole stack was laid down before there was major tectonic disturbance. We agree with that. It was said many times by most everyone involved. We get it already!

The problem comes when you try to extrapolate that to the entire geological system. When you make statements like "there was no tectonic activity until the entire geological column was deposited." To which we respond "No, that's not the case, look at all these other places in the world where there was tectonic activity during that time." To which you claim that we are misrepresenting you and twisting your words. Take some responsibility for your own actions! Actually address our concerns, not just start the name calling and evasion.

Why do you come here as opposed to a place like EFF, where everyone will agree with you? You said you are not interested in preaching to the choir, but then you retreat to your blog and simple regurgitate your arguments that you presented here as if they weren't soundly refuted. So why do you come here? Do you really think you will convert anyone with your diatribe?

If you want to convince people that the Bible is true, then you should do so with your actions not your words; how you treat people is more important than your "scientific" arguments.

Well, best wishes to you.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by JonF, posted 08-06-2014 2:03 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 718 of 740 (735161)
08-06-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:57 AM


I must still have illusions of getting someone to see my point of view.

We've seen your view. We understand your view. There's just one problem:

Your view is undeniably wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3648
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 719 of 740 (735169)
08-06-2014 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by herebedragons
08-06-2014 10:46 AM


Why do you come here as opposed to a place like EFF, where everyone will agree with you?

I doubt that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would have a lot of people that agree with her. Evolution Fairy Tale, OTOH, might.

;-)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 10:46 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3884
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 720 of 740 (735184)
08-06-2014 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 714 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:57 AM


Is it so strange that I'm at odds with the whole crowd here really?

Not at all. There are a lot of people in the world who think that everyone else is wrong or crazy.

It's so rare that anybody ever agrees with me or says anything positive to anything I say and yet you think

Well, I'm surprised if it ever happens. Admit it, Faith. There are times when you disagree with us out of pure stubbornness. Even when it's not necessary, you disagree. It seems like some kind of automatic response on your part.

I should be friendlier to this pack of wolves?

Friendliness is not a problem. Being respectful would be a step in the right direction.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
454647
48
4950Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017