Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 4:47 AM
270 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 267 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,369 Year: 5,192/29,783 Month: 1,124/1,467 Week: 10/311 Day: 10/51 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
126127
128
129130
...
140NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
edge
Member
Posts: 4201
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1906 of 2099 (831307)
04-14-2018 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1903 by Faith
04-14-2018 11:10 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I'm thinking of the maps that show continuous deposition of layers or Systems or even the six "transgressions" (Sauk to Zuni) as blocks, spanning most of the continent with no breaks clearly identifiable with obstacles.

But they don't. Your thinking is inaccurate.

I have just shown you why.

What your diagram depicts is what happened after all the strata had been in place for some time and for originally higher layers to have eroded away (at the end of the Flood), and long enough for the salt layer to sink. In other words that sink wasn't there when the formation was originally deposited so it couldn't have been an obstacle to its extensive straight flat form.

Nonsense. It shows the development of a land mass to the east of the Colorado Plateau during Pennsylvanian time. The Paradox formation was not deposited there, and we see evidence of an eroding landmass in the gravel deposits along the Uncompahgre Uplift.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1903 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 11:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1908 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 12:00 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1907 of 2099 (831310)
04-14-2018 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1904 by edge
04-14-2018 11:12 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I see. And do the Saharan erg, the Brazilian shield, and the Florida/Bahamian Banks lie over respective stacks of similarly extensive flat straight sedimentary layers identifiable with earlier Time Periods as all the layers/Systems of the currently identifiable Geological column do, and if not, why should anyone consider them to have anything to do with the Geological Column and its corresponding Geological Timescale at all, rather than just sand and swampy stuff that could turn to coal and whatever calcareous stuff could possibly turn into limestone, but who knows if any of it really will? If you're going to assert that any of this is related to the Geological Column shouldn't there be more similarity with the Geological Column, in form and location?

Why should they overly anything in particular?

Cuz your theory says that for hundreds of millions of years they overlay layer upon layer of sediments miles deep, that's why.

Please provide your definition of stratum where it must overlie other strata.

Definition? Isn't hundreds of millions of years of accumulated sedimentary layers/rock Systems etc., enough to lead one to expect the pattern to continue, and if it doesn't that it isn't part of the same phenomenon? How can one even have a discussion about such an irrational way of dealing with the physical world? How can you make yourself accept your own stuff?

Why would they not become part of the stratigraphic column if they were buried under future sediments?

Why? All the layers we identify with the Geo Timescale are built on top of earlier layers; so if you claim any new deposition is part of the same geological column you need to explain how it isn't doing the same thing. How can you consider anything part of that stratigraphic column if it's starting all over somewhere else? I really can't fathom your ability to believe such a thing. I guess you think that makes sense, but it certainly doesn't. Hundreds of millions of years of layers upon layers and then all of a sudden no more building on those layers but starting all over from scratch? And you think that makes sense? Wow.

So for hundreds of millions of years we got one rock System on top of another spanning most of North America, and now we're getting no more and we're supposed to believe that the Geological Column just abasndoned North America after all that time?

This is gibberish.

Gibberish is often how the tenets of one paradigm look from the point of view of another paradigm.

First of all, we are getting deposition right now, and who believes that the the geological columh could just 'abandon' anything?

Pardon my penchant for literary flourish.

You are getting all kinds of deposition all over the place no doubt but it is nothing at all like the layers in the geological column, which is recognizsable all over the North American continent to a depth of miles, not in location, not in geographicsl extent, and most likely not in flatness and straightness either. The point is after hundreds of millions of years how can you justify the idea of the reestablishment of the geological column in a new location? It built in the same geographical area for hundreds of millions of years and suddenly stopped altogether and is now starting up somewhere else? No way does that make any sense.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1904 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 11:12 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2070 by Percy, posted 04-21-2018 9:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1908 of 2099 (831311)
04-15-2018 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1906 by edge
04-14-2018 11:15 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Sigh.

I have to come back to this later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1906 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 11:15 PM edge has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1909 of 2099 (831314)
04-15-2018 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:

Look, I'm thinking this through honestly, I don't have anything "religious" in mind as I'm thinking it through, I'm thinking only of layers of rock around the world and time labels assocfiated with them.

And edge and I have been explaining it to you. But you dont seem to like that. I dont really see any honest attempt to understand - you seem to be far more interested in finding excuses - even false excuses - to dismiss the standard view.

In fact this seems to be what is going on. You dont understand, you jump to the conclusion that it must be mainstream geology at fault and you resist explanations *because* they make sense.

Thats not trying to honestly understand.

quote:

After having thought about these things for so long it has become habitual to me to see things as I do and it does make me wonder how intelligent scientists can just take such truly weird contra-natural things for granted.

You see, you cant even consider the possibility that what they really believe is not contra-natural. You cant see that the systems and the periods identified from the systems are our classification system, derived from the ordering of the strata and the differences in the fossils they contain. Theres nothing magic there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2071 by Percy, posted 04-21-2018 10:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1910 of 2099 (831316)
04-15-2018 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:57 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:

Why shou8ld any particular collection of living things be found in a particular layer of rock?

As jar has said fossils will almost always be buried at or relatively close to the surface. How would it happen otherwise ?

quote:

Why aren't fossils found buried willy-nilly instead of in neat rock layer graves?

Because they were buried over very long periods of time and the life on Earth changed over time. We worked that one out long ago. Its only a problem for people like you who insist that they were all buried at about the same time.

quote:

Why aren't they buried at different depths just becaue the earth is usually lumpy with hills and valleys in any time span.

Now you are just getting confused. We are not talking about the actual physical depth at any one location. The Earths surface is not that stable, deposition is uneven and so is erosion.

We are talking about the relationships between the strata, the order of deposition. Where strata from two different periods are both present they will be in the same order - those from one period will always be above the other (in the absence of relatively rare disturbances like thrust faults).

It will not always be the case that strata from both - or even either - period is present. There are regions where the surface rocks are Precambrian (and, therefore, no other periods would be represented at all).

Even if both periods are present then strata from intervening periods may or may not be present and there is no set thickness of rock for any period.

So, physical depth is not very useful in this discussion. It can only really be applied to fossils at the same location and even then all we can say is that one assemblage will be found deeper than the other.

So, what we are really talking about is the relative ordering of the strata produced by correlating the rocks at many different locations. An effort which goes back to the early days of geology, before Darwin.

quote:

I mean even if you insist that they had to be buried at different levels because of evolution, why in identifiable straight rock layers? Representing what looks sort of like a clear order of living things over the taxonomic system?

As I hope I have explained the order of the fossil record is explained as the order in which various species - and larger groups - appeared and flourished and disappeared over the long history of the Earth. This was settled before Darwin came along and was accepted by scientists like Cuvier without any influence from evolutionary theory (even the pre-Darwinian ideas current in Cuviers lifetime).

Evolutionary theory, however places constraints in the order in which species could appear. And in fact these constraints are met by the order of the fossil record. So if you accept that the known processes invoked by geology can produce distinct rock layers (and there is the obvious example of transgressions sequences where it clearly makes sense) there really isnt any problem.

quote:

And it certainly seems that if a creature, say a rabbit, were to be found out of "place" (or "time") it would be over the supposed millions of years assuming earthquake and tectonic displacements.

The effects of earthquakes and tectonic displacements - where even relevant - are detected and accounted for in the cross-correlations of the strata. Geologists and Palaeontologists do take account of things that could affect the order. If remains are found in caves, for instance the question of how they got there is considered.

quote:

This is all way too pat, and, really, unnatural.

Its a simplified view and you seem to be reading far too much into the simplifications.

Edited by PaulK, : Tidy up typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1911 of 2099 (831317)
04-15-2018 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1895 by edge
04-14-2018 10:27 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I can see this version better though it's still hard to read the print.

What does the upper horizontal line represent?

Edited by Admin, : Narrow image width. It's more convenient when the image width allows two browser pages to be placed side by side.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1895 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 10:27 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1912 by edge, posted 04-15-2018 9:47 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4201
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1912 of 2099 (831318)
04-15-2018 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1911 by Faith
04-15-2018 5:11 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
What does the upper horizontal line represent?

Sea level (at the time). The Ancestral Rockies are rising to the right of the diagram.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1911 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 5:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1921 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 10:25 PM edge has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1913 of 2099 (831337)
04-15-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1764 by Faith
04-12-2018 3:00 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Pollux didn't reply to this for some reason, so I will.

Faith writes:

One thought: Getting agreement on numbers seems impressive but it may only reflect that the method is consistent though the actual dates it gives may not be trustworthy.

Not method but methods plural:

  1. Toba erupted about 74,000 years as established by 40Ar/39Ar and K/Ar radiometric dating.
  2. Toba ash was found in cores taken from the lakebed of Lake Malawi in Africa at a depth corresponding to about 74,000 years as established by 14C dating to 50,000 years and then extrapolating the additional layers.
  3. Greenland and Antarctic ice cores reveal a match of volcanic gases at about 74,000 years established by counting ice layers.

These are three independent methods, not one. Multiple independent methods is how confidence in scientific findings is established.

Anything IN the fossil record would reflect events DURING the Flood, or possibly sills formed between layers afterward. Of course I'm guessing...

You're not so much guessing as making things up. No evidence points to a global flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1764 by Faith, posted 04-12-2018 3:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 4:08 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1914 of 2099 (831339)
04-15-2018 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1913 by Percy
04-15-2018 4:02 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
You're not so much guessing as making things up. No evidence points to a global flood.

Strata and fossils, strata and fossils, strata and fossils.

Strata miles deep with no erosion between layers, no deformation by tectonism, no magma that begins or ends except at the very bottom and the very top.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1913 by Percy, posted 04-15-2018 4:02 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1915 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2018 4:15 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1919 by edge, posted 04-15-2018 8:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1915 of 2099 (831340)
04-15-2018 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1914 by Faith
04-15-2018 4:08 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:

Strata and fossils, strata and fossils, strata and fossils.

So the Flood is a lie.

quote:

Strata miles deep with no erosion between layers, no magma that begins or ends except at the very bottom and the very top.

Where ? None of these things are true of the Grand Canyon region weve been talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1916 of 2099 (831342)
04-15-2018 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1765 by Faith
04-12-2018 3:07 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Pollux didn't reply to this one either, so I'll reply.

Faith writes:

Faith, you are wonderful!
What the early geologists concluded was a TRIUMPH for science over preconceived ideas. They thought one thing, but the evidence proved them wrong, so they changed their opinion. That is what we all should be prepared to do.

With human productions, yes, absolutely, but not with God's word.

Science is a "human production." We're doing science in this thread, not religion.

And the problem with this change from preconceived ideas to supposed reality and genuine science is that the change wasn't to reality at all, it was just the acceptance of an illusion. When that change took place there was no proof of it at all, either, just a plausibility recognized only by imagination. That's what I keep trying to say. This is not science they changed to.

Making up silly stories is unconstructive. If you have something to say about the evidence that convinced the early geologists the Earth is ancient then this is the thread to say it.

Why conclude that length of exposure explains the difference in amount of erosion between the wall and the hills?

Because Hadrian's Wall was constructed from local limestone taken from the hills.

How about the hardness of the rock,...

Since the rock in the wall and the rock in the hills are the same rock, the hardness is the same.

...the shape of the rock in the wall as resisting erosion compared to that in the hills?

Here's an image of Hadrian's Wall with some local rock right next to it. The top of Hadrian's Wall, being perpendicular to falling rain, seems more exposed to erosion than the rock, which looks like a pretty common rock:

And you give no quantities anyway.

True, Pollux provides no numbers, but obviously the mild hills were once mountains.

And in the millions of years "science" now allots to erosion time the hills would have long since disappeared completely anyway.

As you can see in the image, the hills very nearly have disappeared. Here's a more aerial view:

If you type "Hadrian's Wall" into Google Image you'll see many images of different portions of the wall (it's about 70 miles long), and you'll see that for the most part the hills are pretty mild. Of course Earth is an active planet with tectonic forces constantly push mountains up and erosion constantly tearing them down.

ABE: It's kinda funny that I keep supposing a more rapid rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon than others here want to accept, and they all insist it was a lot slower. But Christian geologists thought the hills were eroding so rapidly they had to have been there a lot longer than the biblical time frame. Just depends on what people want to think doesn't it?

I've never heard such a thing before, but from your description it seems these "Christian geologists" were reaching a conclusion at odds with their erroneous assumption of rapid erosion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1765 by Faith, posted 04-12-2018 3:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1917 of 2099 (831343)
04-15-2018 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1782 by Faith
04-13-2018 5:56 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

I can't find the posts but IIRC my calculations had the speed of continental drift starting at ten miles a day (maybe it was twenty, ten on each side of the Atlantic Ridge) and slowing down over the 4500 years to its present fraction of an inch per year.

Current rates of sea floor spreading range from around an inch per year (Atlantic sea floor) to around 5 inches per year (East Pacific Rise).

Columbus would have had a shorter trip in 1492 than he would have today.

Yes, by around 70 feet.

The Vikings would have had an even shorter trip in their day.

Yes, the Vikings around 1000 AD would have had a shorter trip than Columbus, again by around 70 feet.

Even the Mediterranean Sea would have been narrower at some interesting times in history.

Well, not really. Sea levels in the Mediterranean have varied over time which of course would have affected its size. Evidence tells us that around six million years ago the Mediterranean dried up when it was closed off from the Atlantic at the current opening at the Rock of Gibraltar. This caused huge salt deposits on the sea floor. How did the Flood deposit salt, by the way? The same way it did all the other magical things?

There's a subduction zone in the northern Mediterranean that extends roughly from Italy to Lebanon, and there's a ridge beginning to open at the eastern end of the Mediterranean (it extends down into Africa where it's created a structure known as the Great Rift Valley), but these don't affect the size of the sea.

But to your point, there's no mid-sea ridge in the Mediterranean to cause sea floor spreading that would increase the distance between its coasts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1782 by Faith, posted 04-13-2018 5:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1918 of 2099 (831344)
04-15-2018 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1785 by Faith
04-13-2018 7:03 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Pollux didn't reply to this, so I will:

Faith writes:

There would have been massive earthquakes associated with the splitting of the continents,...

Where is your evidence that this happened only 4500 years ago?

...that whole tectonic upheaval that inaugurated mountain building,...

Where is your evidence that any mountain range anywhere in the world is only 4500 years old?

...twisted strata in many places,...

Where is your evidence that any strata were twisted in the last 4500 years?

...was associated with the receding of the Flood waters...

Where is your evidence that there was ever a global Flood responsible for all the geology of the planet we see today?

...and the cutting of the Grand Canyon...

Where is your evidence that the Grand Canyon is 4500 years old? How do receding flood waters create a massive flow at a high point? How do massive flows create meanders? Wouldn't massive flows occur where water gathers at low points?

...and washing away of huge amounts of sediment in that area and so on and so forth.

What evidence tells you this took place 4500 years ago?

But only Noah and family were alive at that time and they were parked in the Middle East which might have been the least affected area on the planet.

Why might the Middle East "have been the least affected area on the planet," especially given that a huge rift is opening up there? It's responsible for the Dead Sea.

They no doubt felt the shakings too however.

If there were "shakings" they undoubtedly felt them, but where is your evidence that there were any shakings? The sole basis for your fictional account is a few chapters from a book written by ancient nomads.

But all that upheaval would have settled down over the next century or so, and by the time the population had grown enough to start spreading out across the world no doubt much quieter.

About that spreading population from just a few, there is no evidence of a genetic bottleneck of all species 4500 years ago.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1785 by Faith, posted 04-13-2018 7:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1920 by Pollux, posted 04-15-2018 10:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4201
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 1919 of 2099 (831345)
04-15-2018 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1914 by Faith
04-15-2018 4:08 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Strata and fossils, strata and fossils, strata and fossils.

Yes. The point being?

Strata miles deep with no erosion between layers, ...

Except when there is erosion between the layers.

And the fact that erosion was occurring elsewhere from the Colorado Plateau.

... no deformation by tectonism, ...

Except when there was tectonism outside of the Colorado Plateau.

... no magma that begins or ends except at the very bottom and the very top.

Ah, so you admit that there were more than one magmatic event?

And you also omit the fact the there was magmatism elsewhere while the alleged 'flood rocks' were being deposited, such as the Deccan Traps.

Got anything else to be wrong on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1914 by Faith, posted 04-15-2018 4:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 11-13-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1920 of 2099 (831346)
04-15-2018 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1918 by Percy
04-15-2018 7:00 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Thanks Percy.
Better answers than I would have given.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1918 by Percy, posted 04-15-2018 7:00 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
126127
128
129130
...
140NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018