|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Thank you,... Sure thing! And I fixed the Namibia image.
I will follow your instructions for Microsoft Edge next time. You might have an easier time just switching to FireFox or Chrome. Come to think of it, don't switch to Chrome, switch to FireFox. You like to edit your messages a lot and Chrome only lets you edit a message once for security reasons.
Bedding planes make the point I'm after as well as separated strata I think. Why do you think straight flat bedding planes prove the Flood?
But in the photo you have been having so much trouble with... The only trouble I'm having with the inch-wide something is in understanding what it is and whether it belongs to one of the layers that bracket it or is its own layer.
...you don't even have a bedding plane beneath the Mystery Inch,... You don't know that. If the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, or if it is its own layer, then its bottom is a bedding plane.
...and the contact line above it is what should tell you that the Inch belongs to the Hermit. But you also don't know whether the top of the inch-wide something is a contact line between the Coconino and the Hermit, or is a bedding plane between the almost-bottom of the Coconino and the top of the bottom inch of the Coconino. I did say to Moose earlier today that I'm now leaning toward it being part of the Hermit because of the interfingering that is visible at the bottom of the inch-wide something in this image:
But what is the Hermit interfingering with? Looking back through some old messages I see that Edge may have already answered this question way back in his Message 1263:
edge in Message 1263 writes: But it's all really moot since, my understanding is that the Coconino interfingers with the Hermit in some places. And more recently in his Message 1346 he said this:
edge in Message 1346 writes: My current theory is that the base of the Coconino was not completely lithified due to groundwater combined with a lack of cementation,... If Edge is correct then unless there are other factors the inch-wide something is Coconino that interfingers down into the Hermit. Of course, there were additional things that Edge said about things likely being very complex.
But perhaps edge or Moose can make it clearer to you. I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring. For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino. But whatever that inch-wide something truly is, that's not what's truly important. The important issues are:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only trouble I'm having with the inch-wide something is in understanding what it is and whether it belongs to one of the layers that bracket it or is its own layer. I really do not onderstand why this is a problem at all. I can't see it any other way than as the upper edge of the Hermit formation. I originally thought the difference in color was due to the angle that reflected more sunlight; but now I see it is actually a different color. But it's lower edge is very irregular, so it's not a bedding plane, and it isn't a layer unto itself. The color especially at the irregular edge looks like something on the surface, sort of thinned out, like the superficial dust Moose suggested. Or something from the contact line that bleaches it is also a possibility I guess.
You don't know that. If the inch-wide something belongs to the Coconino, or if it is its own layer, then its bottom is a bedding plane. It's too irregular to be a bedding plane. And I don't get how you can even consider it to be part of the Coconino with that obvious contact line between them. Contact lines divide formations so it's Hermit from there down. I have to come back later so if what I've said doesn't help maybe someone else can do better. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
But isn't it obvious that's what I meant? Very little you say is "obvious" as to what you mean.
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. There are vertebrate tracks encased in the Coconino sandstone. Are you now suggesting that everything below that was not stripped bare. If animal tracks were found only in lower levels of sediments, you might have a point. But that's not the case... they are found higher up in the strata. Besides, I was not objecting that there would be no land left after it was stripped bare (which there most certainly wouldn't be since it was a flood - which means all the land was covered by water making it no longer land... ), I was objecting to the assertion that there were animals running around between waves of the flood. At the time of the Coconino being deposited, the flood had already stripped "all" the sediment and deposited ~ 4000 feet of sediment and you think animals were still alive and running around? How could that possibly be?
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. Not even close to being proven. You have made some observations. But you have yet to connect those observations to reality. I have observed some cows on a hill with the letters "MSU" cut into the grass. Can I come to any conclusion I want that seems to explain the observation? No, it must be based in reality. It is the same for your observation of flat pancakes of strata. You observe that and then come to any conclusion you want without it being based on reality.
"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. Lots of problems with this statement but the two major ones are 1. If "floods don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done" then you have nothing in reality to go from your observation to your conclusion. You can't say "this is what a flood would do so from that we can infer what a worldwide flood would do" and my [ABE (due to premature posting)] conclusions fit reality. That would be connecting your observations to reality and if you did that your conclusions would be well founded. But you don't have any part of reality that you can draw from since "floods don't do much of anything like a worldwide flood would do." In actuality, this statement is designed to simply allow you to postulate any bizarrio scenario you want and dismiss objections that try to connect observations to reality. 2. You say "floods don't do much of anything like the worldwide Flood would have done" and then go on to say what floods do that supports your observation. So which is it? Does the worldwide flood behave like a modern flood only bigger, or are modern, local floods NOT a model for the worldwide flood? You want your cake and eat it too. Again, this is just a statement designed to allow you to postulate any ridiculous conclusion you want. [/ABE] HBD Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
The nature of the inch-wide something doesn't really bear on the key issues - it's just something I find very interesting. There are a number of truly relevant issues that are not receiving enough, if any, attention. Working backward through recent posts (everyone's, not just mine) to list such issues:
There's lots more, but I'm being called to dinner. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
From my Message 1366: That 20-foot stretch of Coconino/Hermit contact isn't unique because images of the same boundary at other locations in the canyon look exactly the same. And it isn't unique as a sharp contact, because there are miles of sharp contact boundaries between strata in the canyon. So what is it about it that you find significant? Because it's pointed out it seems to be something special, that's all, but perhaps its being more accessible to view is the reason it's pointed out. Its tightness is the reason, because creationists see that as evidence against the millions of years attributed to strata. As for PaulK's thoughts I stick to the evidence I am sure of and don't, or shouldn't, try to answer every objection somebody raises. I don't know what Tanypteryx said but it's stupid to have an open mind when you've already established that something is true or false, such as that the Bible is God's word, or that there is evidence for the Flood. Straight strata say Flood to me, but perhaps more than that they say no millions of years to me.
Why do you think tectonically quiescent periods are unlikely Unlikely? I believe the evidence shows that all the strata were laid down without any kind of disturbance to them during the laying down and that all the tectonic disturbance clearly evidentially happened afterward. Evidence. I can only conjecture that some very few animals survived the stripping of the land for some reason, that's all. Otherwise the vast majority died. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is the same for your observation of flat pancakes of strata. You observe that and then come to any conclusion you want without it being based on reality. You yourself posted diagrams of the extent of four rocks across North America. Perhaps you are getting all literal about the flatness but the fact that these rocks appear flat where they are vertically exposed certainly means that they are flat in their horizontal extent, which in the cases even you posted is enormous, crossing continents. Not to mention that core samples bring up layer after layer of these flat rocks.. I've never based anything I've said about the Flood on "floods" because I don't need floods for evidence and the effect of a local flood can't possible compare to the inundation of the entire planet. All I said was that local floods can do a lot of damage without anything more than quietly raining on the land for a long period, so since the worldwide Flood started with rain on the entire planet it would have done a lot of damage without being textbook violent. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Except that neither of these things have truly been established. I guess you can nitpick over evidence for the Flood but there isn’t anything very good and the evidence against is pretty strong. On the other hand it has been established that the Flood cannot account for the geological or fossil records. Yet here you are arguing about it all the time. So, according to you, it would be stupid for us to even consider your arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring. There isn't one iota of reasonable doubt that the inch strip in question belongs to the Hermit, none. The location of the contact is the evidence. There is no other possibility.
For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino. No it wouldn't, Percy, Moose is just speculating on why this part of the hermit, that is clearly part of the Hermit, has the different appearance it has. Dust is a possibility. If dust from the Coconino landed on a squirrel would that make the squirrel part of the Coconino?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The idea that there is some kind of fossil order is just artificial and subjective. All those animals lived at the same time, not one of them is more or less "evolved" or "modern" than any other.
The Bible is unequivocally God's word and whether you see it or not I believe I've shown many times the evidence that makes the Flood the only possible interpretation against all the fantasies of Evolandia. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The fact of the fossil order was discovered by very early geologists working out the relationships between the strata. Evolutionary theory was in part based on the observed order. You are just wrong as usual.
quote: Your belief is thoroughly at odds with the facts of this thread. In reality you rely on inventing fantasies to explain away the evidence against your views. Your reason for doing so is that you believe that the Flood is established as true. Which is pretty obviously circular. For the Flood to be established as the cause of the geological and fossil records you would need good answers to the points Percy listed. And if it isn’t established as the cause you can’t use that as an excuse to dismiss strong evidence to the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: The Bible is unequivocally God's word and whether you see it or not I believe I've shown many times the evidence that makes the Flood the only possible interpretation against all the fantasies of Evolandia. Yet you have never presented the evidence that explains why God made factual errors and contradictions and could not even keep his story straight and consistent in the Bible or why God could not even decide what material should be included in and excluded from the Bible. Nor have you ever explained how your imaginary flood could do any of the things found in reality. How can the flood move whole reefs intact, move bedded sand dunes intact, move tree stumps and root systems intact, not effect or even be noticed by cultures that exist before, during and after the flood, sort fossils in the order found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
You are not really reading my messages are you?
You yourself posted diagrams of the extent of four rocks across North America. Perhaps you are getting all literal about the flatness but the fact that these rocks appear flat where they are vertically exposed certainly means that they are flat in their horizontal extent, which in the cases even you posted is enormous, crossing continents. Not to mention that core samples bring up layer after layer of these flat rocks.. "Flat" rocks over huge expanses... That is the observation. What in reality connects that observation to the conclusion that there couldn't be millions of years and the the only explanation is a global flood?
I've never based anything I've said about the Flood on "floods" because I don't need floods for evidence and the effect of a local flood can't possible compare to the inundation of the entire planet. That is the point... you have absolutely nothing to go on that tells you what a global flood would do; what the results of a global flood would be; or what features you would expect to find as a result of a global flood. All you have is assertion and speculation. You are right that a flood of that magnitude would be exponentially more destructive that local floods. But that same principal creates some expectations of what a global flood would do:
These things and more are what we expect, based on reality, a global flood would do. To you a global flood can do anything - there is no connection to reality. You don't like the descriptor "violent" attached to the flood... well a more accurate descriptor of your flood is "magical." It can do anything it needs to do in order to make the geological record look like it does. Observation ----> Conclusion We are asking for you to justify the arrow. How does your conclusion follow from your observation? I observe cow on a hill with a message cut into the grass. How do I justify my conclusion that the cows selectively chewed the grass to produce that message? I can't, there is no connection to reality. Now if I say they are magical cows... You observe "flat" strata that cover large extents. How do you justify the conclusion that it must have been the result of a global flood? None of my expectations for a global flood, that are based on the reality of what floods do, fit that conclusion. Your claim that a global flood would be nothing like a local flood is somewhat true, but over all it is an empty claim. What you do is make an observation and then make that observation your expectation. So the justification for the conclusion is based on the premise itself. That is circular reasoning. That is why your justification needs to be based in reality, not just matched to the observation. Well, I'm sure you're not really interesting in reading my posts or even having an honest dsicussion about this, so, I guess I've said enough... HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 858 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Thanks for tracking this down. Yea, access through the university is amazing. Out of hundreds of resources I have looked up, there has only been a handful that I was not able to get access to. If materials are older and not digitized, I can request the library to scan them and email them to me. I have only been to the library to look up resources a half dozen times.
I think the paper relied too much on Noble regarding that the Hermit is mostly sandstone. Here is how I understand it. Noble described and named the unit at the Bass Trail. This then became the type section. Here is the quote again
quote: I am not 100% sure how it works in geology, but in biology the type specimen becomes the standard for description of the species. I assume "type section" works in a similar way in geology. So where Noble named it and described it, sandstone was the dominate bedding and siltstone was the minor laminates. But it seems to be lacking the predominance of clay that would define a shale. Whitmore also aluded to that in his description that the Hermit did not have a sufficient amount of clay for the cracks to be desiccation cracks (whether that is true of not, I can't say for sure). Here is Nobel's description:
quote: A section of the Paleozoic formations of the Grand Canyon at the Bass Trial However, on page 28, he describes 24 individual members of the formation and it seems as though shale is the predominant component. Noble's description is worth a read through just to see an actual geological description and how complex a formation can be. Whether "shale" is a misnomer or not, the formation is not just a layer of pure shale (I'm sure you know that, I am saying that for the sake of others).
They all describe the Hermit Formation differently, one mentioning sandstone a little, one a lot, another not at all. They all mention siltstone, only one mentions mudstone. Personally, I don't know what to think. I think that it highlights the fact that geological units are not homogeneous in their composition and the description depends on where the observation is made. And how the author paraphrases the complex set of descriptions. Read Noble's description on pg. 28-29 and paraphrase that into a one sentence description. I bet it is different than the other descriptions.
Whitmore is writing from a YEC perspective. I am aware of Whitmore's affiliations. The paper seems well written and as far as I can tell, a decent scientific report. It is published by Elsevier, which is a respectable publisher. I don't know anything about the journal, "Sedimentary Geology" but if Elsevier publishes it, it is properly peer-reviewed. Now, I personally am not a suitable peer-reviewer for geological papers, but his premises and conclusions seem legit - at least logically sound.
quote: This is the most "Creationist" conclusion I see in the paper:
quote: I see that as a legit question to bring up. Of course, Whitmore probable went back to his Creationist conferences and stated that he had evidence of a global flood and that the Coconino was deposited in water. But he didn't say anything like that in the paper. There is another explanation that Whitmore doesn't mention.
quote: Hydrology of the Eastern Plateau Planning Area - Groundwater So the Hermit shale is impermeable and water is trapped above it in the Coconino. I think that if a sediment is in standing water it will not lithify properly, at least it will slow it down significantly. Maybe Edge or Moose can confirm that... But, perhaps water was trapped very early in the deposition of the Coconino and the sandstone never really lithified until the Bright Angel Fault was reactivated. Then the water drained off and allowed the basal units to lithify and then at a later time, water became trapped again. That would explain the Coconino clasts in the homogenized zone at the base. The higher level portions, that were not saturated, did lithify and when there was siesmic activity, they broke and became embedded in the homogenized areas. I don't know if this is a legitimate scenario, but it is definitely a better guess than "flood did it." HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Going through the points one at a time:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: I think what is most notable of those trying to explain the inch-wide something is the degree of tentativity they express or the additional explanations they provide, something you're ignoring.
There isn't one iota of reasonable doubt that the inch strip in question belongs to the Hermit, none. The location of the contact is the evidence. There is no other possibility. You're ignoring most of what I said in Message 1366 and just declaring your position again without any evidence, rationale or discussion.
For example, at the bottom of his Message 1353 Moose says, "The '1 inch layer' might be only superficial dust from the Coconino," which again would make it part of the Coconino. No it wouldn't, Percy, Moose is just speculating on why this part of the hermit, that is clearly part of the Hermit, has the different appearance it has. Dust is a possibility. If dust from the Coconino landed on a squirrel would that make the squirrel part of the Coconino? The Coconino lies atop the Hermit. If the bottom inch of Coconino somehow turned to dust and then relithified, that would not make it part of the Hermit. You're ignoring the interfingering. What is the interfingering of the top of the Hermit interfingered with? Did you miss where Edge said, "My understanding is that the Coconino interfingers with the Hermit in some places"? Also see HereBeDragons' Message 1378 where he has more discussion of creationist Whitmore's paper and substratal liquefaction. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024