Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2018 3:33 PM
275 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle (7 members, 268 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,327 Year: 9,150/29,783 Month: 1,397/1,977 Week: 90/445 Day: 36/54 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8990
91
9293
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1351 of 2886 (829739)
03-12-2018 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1349 by edge
03-12-2018 10:18 PM


MORE STRAIGHT STRATA
Once you absolutely know something, having an open mind is stupid.

Yes glaciers too, crossbedding too

One of the main things about these pictures is the evidence that the strata were laid down before any major disturbance occurred, and only after that were the formations sculpted by erosion or twisted by tectonism. Since I'm talking about straightness I haven't included any of the twisted ones, but it's interesting tht all the rest have become hills and mountains through erosion after all the strata were in place. SUCH a quiet planet for hundreds of millions of years, and only then so drastically eroded and disturbed, how remarkable,

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Change links to images into images.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix Namibia image.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1349 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 10:18 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1681
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1352 of 2886 (829740)
03-12-2018 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1350 by Faith
03-12-2018 10:43 PM


Re: THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
Faith writes:

HOW straight flat and tight is irrelevant; they've been there over four thousand years.

Wow! A twofer.....2 correct statements for the first time in this thread.

Flat and tight is irrelevant as evidence supporting your argument.

The layers have been there longer than 4000 years, 50,000 times longer than 4000 years.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1350 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 10:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:24 AM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3652
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1353 of 2886 (829741)
03-12-2018 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1329 by Percy
03-12-2018 12:28 PM


I'm calling it a sharp contact
I don't have the time or enthusiasm to post much here.

Faith says that the contact's nature argues against there being a "millions of years" gap represented there. I don't recall anyone advocating that there is any major time gap represented there. As Edge posted uptread somewhere, even if the Coconino has been tagged with a age "millions of years" younger than the Hermit, that does not mean that the contact represents a "millions of years" time gap.

Yes, of course. That's one of the possible scenarios I described. Let me be more clear about this. These are the possibilities I see (there may be more, but these are the ones I see):

  • The inch-wide something is a transition layer between the Hermit below and the Coconino above. There are two contact lines, one at the top of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Coconino, and another at the bottom of the inch-wide something at the boundary with the Hermit.

  • The inch-wide something is part of the Coconino, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the top of it and the rest the Coconino. There is another contact line at the bottom of the inch-wide something between it and the Hermit.

  • The inch-wide something is part of the Hermit, but it is sufficiently different that there is a bedding plane contact line between the bottom of it and the rest of the Hermit. There is another contact line at the top of the inch-wide something between it and the Coconino.

I'm not arguing for any of these possibilities. I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive.

I thought I saw Percy somewhere advocate that the "1 inch layer" is part of the Coconino , based on it being the same color. I would be very careful about doing such based on just color.

Just looking at the surface texture of the rock face, I would include the 1 inch layer as being part of the Hermit "shale". The base of the "1 inch layer" doesn't seem to always be sharp, and the coloration sometimes appears to cross bedding planes.

I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive.

Having a real geologist look at the rocks directly and report on the observations would probably clear up this real fast. A solid conclusion can not be gotten by looking a a picture (OK, maybe if we had a high resolution close up of that "1 inch unit').

My guess is that the "1 inch layer" is some alteration/bleaching of the Hermit "shale", long after the lithification of all the units. Perhaps there is sometime water seepage at the contact.

The "1 inch layer" might be only superficial dust from the Coconino.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1329 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 12:28 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1356 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:23 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 1361 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 11:24 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1459
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1354 of 2886 (829742)
03-12-2018 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1337 by Faith
03-12-2018 3:34 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
When I'm responding to jar, whose posts are usually just a bunch of wild assertions and accusations, I don't usually bother to try to prove anything, so "looks like" is the best he's going to get from me.

Do you respond to persons other than jar any differently? No, so don't blame jar for your lack of cogency.

I've noticed you like to embellish my concepts with terms like "violent." What I usually say is that forty days and nights of heavy rain everywhere on the earth should have stripped the sediment from the land, and I've often given the example of local floods that collapse hills and bury cars and that sort of thing to give a basis for trying to imagine the same kind of event multiplied a billion times.

The example of local floods that "collapse hills and bury cars" multiplied a billion times... and I "embellish" with a term like violent? Violent doesn't even begin to define what the flood you describe would be like.

Do you remember the Tsunami of 2011? Here is an image of the aftermath of that wave

It hardly stripped any sediment from the land and I would consider that episode to be violent. You propose something a billion times more powerful and I shouldn't call it "violent?"

But it doesn't have to be "ALL" the sediment.

It does have to be ALL the sediment that it is going to redeposited, which in the GC area alone is thousands of feet thick. ALL that sediment had to come from somewhere... It must have stripped it from the land. But by ALL the sediment it doesn't mean there would be no sediments left unscoured, it means all the sediment that was deposited had to come from somewhere. Besides, what sedimentary rock do you think was not laid down by the flood? You even think the GC Supergroup was deposited by the flood. So your criticism of "It doesn't have to be ALL the sediment" is quite senseless.

Oh, and how did sedimentary processes work before the flood? Where did all that sediment come from originally? Did God create the whole Earth as unconsolidated sediment?

It's conventional Geology that gives us those "snapshots," by taking the isolated bits and pieces from a rock and constructing a whole scenario based on them.

That's not what conventional geology does. It is your caricaturization of conventional geology that does that. What conventional geology does is when a fossilized fern is found in a layer, they say "ferns grew when this layer was being deposited." When a dinosaur skeleton is found in a rock, they say "This dinosaur lived during the time when this sediment was being deposited." You add a bunch of those observations up and you can begin to have a idea of what the environment was like at the time those sediments were deposited.

Of course paleosols were transported, and root systems, no problem with those.

Right... How is that no problem for a flood that was a billion times more powerful than the 2011 Tsunami in Japan? A billion times more destructive that the worst mudslides in recorded history? Do those transport intact systems? NO. They destroy and mix everything into a big mess. They don't transport intact nests and root systems and then stack them up, one on top of the other, to look like they have been accumulating over long periods of time. NO.

Your language conjures up a whole intact termites' nest but all these things are usually just the bits and pieces I'm talking about, not whole anythings.

How would you know, you didn't even look at the references I gave you did you. You dismissed them without consideration.

Your method of dealing with evidence is "I know the flood happened, so none of the details matter." and not only is that logic extremely flawed, but you cannot claim to be basing you conclusions on the physical evidence since you don't even consider large portions of the physical evidence. Basically you ignore any evidence that counters your premise.

But the main evidence of the Flood is in the way the strata were laid down and everything else has to follow from that

WRONG! This "everything else" has to SUPPORT the main premise.

Its not enough to make an observation and call it evidence. You have to connect that observation with reality. Remember my example I gave several years ago where I observed cows on the side of a hill and the grass had been cut to spell "MSU?" If my conclusion was that the cows selectively chewed the grass to produce that message, that would be daft. But why? Because it is not enough to make an observation and draw a conclusion from it. You have to connect that observation to reality. Cows don't spell messages in grass.

And floods don't sort sediment into the types of layers we observe in the GC. Floods don't transport intact root systems and reefs and nests. If you disagree, then you need to explain how that could happen. You need to connect those observations to reality, not just assert your conclusion. That is not evidence. For example, looking at that cross section and saying they look so flat that it destroys the idea they could have been deposited over millions of years. That is just an observation; and one that is very similar to thinking that cows cut a message into the grass. But in order for it to be evidence, you need to connect that observation to reality. So far, its a no-go.

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 1337 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1355 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:12 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1355 of 2886 (829743)
03-13-2018 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1354 by herebedragons
03-12-2018 11:42 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
I was responding to jar, who really shouldn't be allowed to post at all.

Violence suggests wind whipped rain, not just the effects of all that water but OK violence will work. There's just no need to add the term to dramatize it.

But by ALL the sediment it doesn't mean there would be no sediments left unscoured,

But isn't it obvious that's what I meant? I was answering your complaint that there couldn't be animal tracks during the Flood because there wouldn't have been any land left after it was stripped bare.

when a fossilized fern is found in a layer, they say "ferns grew when this layer was being deposited." When a dinosaur skeleton is found in a rock, they say "This dinosaur lived during the time when this sediment was being deposited." You add a bunch of those observations up and you can begin to have a idea of what the environment was like at the time those sediments were deposited.

Yes mine was a brief caricature but I don't see any appreciable difference between it and your account above. And again I feel I have to add the reminder that the rock would have been depositing in the same place as those ferns and dinosaurs and displacing their living space. Yes I know there are all kinds of ways you get the sediment buried and lithified but there's no way to get it huge and flat over many thousands of square miles without displacing living space, if its even possible at all without being deposited by the Flood.

Yes I very rarely look at references for these constantly repeated challenges that don't address the main point.

I do believe the Flood has been proved by actual physical evidence and that being the case there is no reason to get distracted by questions I can't answer. It will all sort itself out when the main point is recognized.

"Floods" don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done, but as far as sorting sediments as seen in the GC, it would depend on what sediments were available to the flood in question since floods DO sort and stack sediments in layers.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1354 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2018 11:42 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1365 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2018 1:16 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1368 by herebedragons, posted 03-13-2018 7:06 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1356 of 2886 (829744)
03-13-2018 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1353 by Minnemooseus
03-12-2018 11:34 PM


Re: I'm calling it a sharp contact
Faith says that the contact's nature argues against there being a "millions of years" gap represented there. ]

I doubt I said "gap" but if I did it isn't what I meant. What I keep trying to say is that it argues against there being millions of years difference in age between the layers no matter how or when they were deposited within their assigned time frame.

Just looking at the surface texture of the rock face, I would include the 1 inch layer as being part of the Hermit "shale". The base of the "1 inch layer" doesn't seem to always be sharp, and the coloration sometimes appears to cross bedding planes.

In other words it is not a contact line. ABE: or a bedding plane /abe

Your interpretations of bleaching or superficial dust to explain the mysterious one-inch area are a lot more reasonable than all Percy's weird stuff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1353 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2018 11:34 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1362 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 11:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1357 of 2886 (829745)
03-13-2018 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1352 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2018 11:10 PM


Re: THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
The pictures show ORIGINALLY flat and straight and tight strata. About 4500 years ago. Yet a lot of them are STILL extremely straight and flat and tight.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1352 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2018 11:10 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1363 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-13-2018 12:08 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1364 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 12:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1358 of 2886 (829746)
03-13-2018 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1346 by edge
03-12-2018 9:42 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
edge writes:

Well, this is different. What would have happened to the top of the Hermit during the seismic events?

Not sure. This is new to me though I've traced some references back to the late 60's. I have seen sandstone dikes cutting into shaley units suggesting that the sandstone is not yet lithified. Never thought too much about it. If the cracks are as geometrically related to the Bright Angel fault as they say (and knowing the source, that's a big 'if') it's pretty compelling evidence for liquefaction and injection.

You say, "If the cracks are as geometrically related to the Bright Angel fault as they say (and knowing the source, that's a big 'if')," by "source" do you mean Whitmore? I only referenced Whitmore for Faith because I thought she might find him credible and he implied that there was "substratal liquefaction" at the base of the Coconino. I don't consider him reliable, and you don't seem to either.

But if some of what you say will be based on Whitmore's paper then maybe it would be a good idea to send me a copy. I can post it to the website so it's available to everyone.

Does this have anything to do with the inch-wide something?

Probably not.

How can there be substratal liquefaction of the Coconino base that has no effect on the Hermit with which it is in direct contact? Don't the diagonal bedding planes in this image argue that the Coconino has not been subjected to substratal liquefaction?

And doesn't the absence of any trace of bedding planes in the inch-wide something argue that if there was any substratal liquefaction that it was there?

Given the source is Whitmore, you're not really giving substratal liquefaction serious consideration, are you? But you mentioned other sources ("I've traced some references back to the late 60's"), so are there other researchers pushing substratal liquefaction?

I'm aware that my belief that it's ambiguous whether the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino or the Hermit is not widely shared (or perhaps is not shared at all). That the inch-wide something is uncommented upon by anything I've read about the Coconino/Hermit boundary says I'm wrong to think it significant, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I've been adjusting my views to align with the evidence when it becomes available - I'm okay with being wrong, but I would like to understand what's up with that one-inch something so I can judge for myself whether it's significant. For example, I cannot be convinced that it is part of the Hermit until I know enough to answer the question, "How do you know that one-inch something is part of the Hermit?" I can't just blindly accept others' opinion. Until I can fill in the ellipsis of, "We know that one-inch something is part of the Hermit because ...," then my answer has to be that I don't really know, and that I don't think anyone else really knows, either.

This answer from the USGS Geology of National Parks: Hermit Shale webpage let's me give voice to my doubts about "official" explanations:

quote:
Sandstone bleaches to yellow-white color in vicinity of breccia pipes throughout map area, and at upper contact with Coconino Sandstone or Toroweap Formation in western half of map area.

What kind of bleaching action produces an inch-wide something that stretches for miles and miles? How can it be the result of bleaching action when the above image shows some rather obvious interfingering? Is the bleaching action a surface thing, or does it extend back into the rock face? Presumably the Hermit is red because of the presence of iron oxide, so it would only turn red where exposed. If you broke off a piece of Hermit Shale, wouldn't it be light-colored behind the surface?

Also, for me that the Hermit Formation is described in such a variety of ways lends further uncertainty as to what it really is.

So I'm still looking for something that makes sense to me.

It's all very complex and will take some time to digest. I have a very smart friend who did a senior thesis on clastic dikes. I might contact him.

I'm not sure how clastic dikes fit into the picture, but more information would be good.

My current theory is that the base of the Coconino was not completely lithified due to groundwater combined with a lack of cementation, and temporary seismic over pressures might have resulted in injectites. In fact this is one of the possible reasons that large-scale crossbeds in sandstones are lost ... liquefaction, slumping and bioturbation.

But don't the diagonal lines in the above image represent crossbedding? Suggesting there could have been no liquefaction at this part of the basal Coconino?

By the way a lot of the old literature shows that things are pretty complex. For instance, the other week I saw a layer in the Cutler Formation that looked like little box garden of flat, waterlain sediments with organic material in it... probably a small oasis, if you will. Sand dunes are more complex that one would think But that's one more reason that I don't necessarily trust Whitmore.

Well, there seems good reason not to trust Whitmore. He's starting with conclusions unsupported by evidence and working backwards.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1346 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:42 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1359 of 2886 (829753)
03-13-2018 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1348 by Faith
03-12-2018 9:56 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
Responding to several of your messages...

Replying to your Message 1348 to Edge:

Faith in Message 1348 writes:

Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result...

But you don't know that the Flood happened, don't even have any evidence for it. And the sedimentary layers are neither flood deposits nor the same age.

I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood.

Here's a list of things found in the sedimentary layers that could not have been deposited by the Flood:

  • Increasing radiometric age with increasing depth.
  • Increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth.
  • Burrows, worm holes, termite nests, coral reefs.
  • Strata of large heavy sediments above strata of small light sediments.

For a more complete list of issues see Message 1258.

How it happened I don't know...

If you don't know how it happened then how do you know a flood was responsible?

...and don't care...

If you don't care then how will you ever learn how it happened?

...once I know the Flood did it, and I do.

Amen. You may all be seated.

Replying to your Message 1350:

I fixed your message so that the images reside within the message instead of just being links.

Faith in Message 1350 writes:

Straight flat strata, tight contacts. These pictures alone are to my mind proof of the Flood over the absurd timescale interpretation. HOW straight flat and tight is irrelevant; they've been there over four thousand years.

I think many of the layers that you think are strata may actually be bedding planes, some of them even just layers of volcanic ash. Perhaps one of the geologists can comment.

Since floods only sort by size/density of sediment and do not normally create sharp contacts, what is it about these images that says "flood" to you?

Replying to your Message 1351 to Edge:

Faith in Message 1351 writes:

Once you absolutely know something, having an open mind is stupid.

The shameless and unembarrassed way in which you declare this speaks volumes.

You again didn't place the images in your message, just provided links. I fixed this again. Since there were multiple images at the Namibia link I just left it as a link. Is there any particular image you wanted presented from the Namibia link? If you let me know which one or ones I'll add it/them to your message.

I did send you detailed instructions for how to insert images into messages in my Message 1344. Do you need additional help? Do you have any questions I can answer?

One of the main things about these pictures is the evidence that the strata were laid down before any major disturbance occurred,...

There is no requirement that tectonic events occur on a timetable. What "major disturbances" are you referring to in the images?

...and only after that were the formations sculpted by erosion or twisted by tectonism.

Most layers are marine, so uplift (tectonism) is required before erosion is possible.

Since I'm talking about straightness I haven't included any of the twisted ones, but it's interesting that all the rest have become hills and mountains through erosion after all the strata were in place. SUCH a quiet planet for hundreds of millions of years, and only then so drastically eroded and disturbed, how remarkable,

Most of the planet is quiet seafloor, sedimentation is a slow and gradual process the vast majority of the time, and erosion of rock is a very slow and very gradual process (though, again, I think some of your images may be of volcanic ash beds). There isn't much unusual about it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1348 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 9:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1360 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 10:45 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 28588
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1360 of 2886 (829754)
03-13-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1359 by Percy
03-13-2018 10:19 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
I fixed your message so that the images reside within the message instead of just being links.

Thank you, I did my best to get the picture onto a page of its own but that didn't work with some of them, and even when I got it the best I could do it reverted to the whole page anyway. The one you didn't fix was the third on the top line. I will follow your instructions for Microsoft Edge next time.

Bedding planes make the point I'm after as well as separated strata I think.

But in the photo you have been having so much trouble with you don't even have a bedding plane beneath the Mystery Inch, and the contact line above it is what should tell you that the Inch belongs to the Hermit. But perhaps edge or Moose can make it clearer to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1359 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 10:19 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1366 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 1:43 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1361 of 2886 (829755)
03-13-2018 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1353 by Minnemooseus
03-12-2018 11:34 PM


Re: I'm calling it a sharp contact
Minnemooseus writes:

Faith says that the contact's nature argues against there being a "millions of years" gap represented there. I don't recall anyone advocating that there is any major time gap represented there.

If you go back through my messages you'll see that I've referenced online sources saying everything from no gap to millions of years of gap. Google Scholar hasn't been much help as the past decade has seen significant decreases in what is available for free from geology journals.

As Edge posted uptread somewhere, even if the Coconino has been tagged with a age "millions of years" younger than the Hermit, that does not mean that the contact represents a "millions of years" time gap.

Right. A transgression that takes millions of years is going to leave behind sedimentary layers whose age not only differs significantly from top to bottom, but also from southwest to northeast (to use the transgression that created the Tapeats as an example).

I thought I saw Percy somewhere advocate that the "1 inch layer" is part of the Coconino,...

I reget it if I ever expressed it with such certainty, but my views have certainly evolved as more evidence has been presented. As I said in my Message 1330 that immediately followed the one you replied to:

Percy in Message 1330 writes:

I'm starting to lean this way myself [that the inch-wide something is part of the Hermit] because this image that I provided earlier does seem to show some interfingering of red Hermit into the inch-wide something:

Back to your message:

...based on it being the same color. I would be very careful about doing such based on just color.

Not that I disagree, but...

I can't even find anything online (again, Google Scholar has left the room, so online resources are limited) that acknowledges that that inch-wide something exists. I can't guarantee I've been meticulously tentative in my expression in every message, but on the other hand Faith ignores more than half my messages forcing me to repeat points, and I probably become more rushed and brief with each repetition.

Just looking at the surface texture of the rock face, I would include the 1 inch layer as being part of the Hermit "shale". The base of the "1 inch layer" doesn't seem to always be sharp, and the coloration sometimes appears to cross bedding planes.

Yes, this is the interfingering I mentioned earlier. But you say at the end of your message:

The "1 inch layer" might be only superficial dust from the Coconino.

Wouldn't that make it part of the Coconino?

I'm just arguing that anyone who says they know for sure which it is needs to offer more evidence than just the images, because the images are inconclusive.

Having a real geologist look at the rocks directly and report on the observations would probably clear up this real fast. A solid conclusion can not be gotten by looking a a picture (OK, maybe if we had a high resolution close up of that "1 inch unit').

Agreed.

My guess is that the "1 inch layer" is some alteration/bleaching of the Hermit "shale", long after the lithification of all the units. Perhaps there is sometime water seepage at the contact.

I commented on bleaching earlier today when replying to Edge in my Message 1358:

Percy in Message 1358 writes:

What kind of bleaching action produces an inch-wide something that stretches for miles and miles? How can it be the result of bleaching action when the above image shows some rather obvious interfingering? Is the bleaching action a surface thing, or does it extend back into the rock face? Presumably the Hermit is red because of the presence of iron oxide, so it would only turn red where exposed. If you broke off a piece of Hermit Shale, wouldn't it be light-colored behind the surface?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1353 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-12-2018 11:34 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1362 of 2886 (829757)
03-13-2018 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1356 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:23 AM


Re: I'm calling it a sharp contact
Faith writes:

I doubt I said "gap" but if I did it isn't what I meant. What I keep trying to say is that it argues against there being millions of years difference in age between the layers no matter how or when they were deposited within their assigned time frame.

What I hear you saying is, "Look at how flat and straight the strata are. This rules out millions of years between the end of deposition of one layer and the beginning of deposition of the next." So far you haven't been able to explain why you think this.

Just looking at the surface texture of the rock face, I would include the 1 inch layer as being part of the Hermit "shale". The base of the "1 inch layer" doesn't seem to always be sharp, and the coloration sometimes appears to cross bedding planes.

In other words it is not a contact line. ABE: or a bedding plane /abe

As I said in my Message 1330:

Percy in Message 1330 writes:

I'm starting to lean this way myself [that the inch-wide something is part of the Hermit] because this image that I provided earlier does seem to show some interfingering of red Hermit into the inch-wide something:

Back to your message:

Your interpretations of bleaching or superficial dust to explain the mysterious one-inch area are a lot more reasonable than all Percy's weird stuff.

You never posted a meaningful reply to my Message 1329 (nor any at all to my Message 1342 where I repeated the rebuttal of your bulleted arguments). If you think it weird then it's incumbent upon you to explain why, and if you can't support the arguments I rebutted then you should stop making them. Why do think bleaching or Coconino dust are reasonable explanations?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1356 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1681
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1363 of 2886 (829760)
03-13-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1357 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:24 AM


Re: THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
Faith writes:

The pictures show ORIGINALLY flat and straight and tight strata. About 4500 years ago. Yet a lot of them are STILL extremely straight and flat and tight.

Not so much. No photos from 4500 years ago. Not so much.

Faith in message 1348 writes:

Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood. How it happened I don't know and don't care once I know the Flood did it, and I do.

Faith in message 1351 writes:

Once you absolutely know something, having an open mind is stupid.

I'm through taking anything you say seriously. Your defense of your argument is increasingly incoherent and chaotic. And now we see that you are stuck and will never improve your mindset to see the glaring inconsistencies your fantasy creates.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17361
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1364 of 2886 (829761)
03-13-2018 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1357 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:24 AM


Re: THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
Faith writes:

The pictures show ORIGINALLY flat and straight and tight strata. About 4500 years ago. Yet a lot of them are STILL extremely straight and flat and tight.

Why do you think "flat and straight and tight" strata are evidence that they're 4500 years old, particularly given the wealth of evidence that they are much older:

  • Radiometric ages of strata range from recent to billions of years old.

  • Fossils in strata increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth at an evolutionary pace consistent with radiometrically established ages.

  • The evidence left behind by life (burrows, worm holes, termite nest stacks, tracks, coprolites, etc.) indicates that many strata were once living landscapes for considerable periods of time.

  • Modern measurements of sedimentation rates are consistent with the ages of geological strata.

  • Walther's Law is a slow process taking millions of years to build sedimentary layers to significant depths. There's no such thing as a "rapid Walther's Law" because the deposited sediments are fed by erosion from the land, which is a slow process.

  • Unconformities that represent considerable periods of time require uplift or lowering of sea levels to expose sedimentary layers to erosion (millions of years), followed by erosion of sedimentary layers (millions of years), and subsidence or increase of sea levels so that sedimentation resumes (millions of years).

  • Striping on the sea floor is consistent with reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, which occur on average every few hundred thousand years.

  • The rates of sea floor spreading and continental drift are consistent with an ancient age for the continents and most sea floor, where I'll arbitrarily define ancient to mean more than a million years old.

  • The rate of slope retreat at geological structures like the Grand Canyon are consistent with their width and represent ages of millions of years.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14022
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 1365 of 2886 (829764)
03-13-2018 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1355 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:12 AM


Faiths Flood makes no sense.
And I say Faiths Flood because very little of it is in the Bible.

In the Bible, the Flood doesnt scour the land down to bedrock. The rising waters eventually cover the mountains or high hills (depending on the translation). Air-breathing life is wiped out within 40 days. (Genesis 7 18-23)

In Faiths Flood huge amounts of sediment are washed off the land, sorted, rapidly transported and deposited. Faith insists that this mustnt be called violent - not because it would be an understatement but because it makes it obviously implausible that life could survive. And yet according to Faith it did, all over the world. And came out and left tracks when - in the middle of the Flood - the water somehow drained away from a region. Another thing not mentioned in the Bible, and not exactly something that would be expected. On top of this, when the Flood came back, it managed not to erase the tracks.

Even if there were not massive amounts of other evidence against the Flood this alone should be enough to call it into question for anyone but the most fanatically dogmatic believer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1355 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8990
91
9293
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018