Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
241 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 237 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,083 Year: 4,195/6,534 Month: 409/900 Week: 115/150 Day: 8/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Long build up of Sediments
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 4979 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 1 of 180 (294054)
03-10-2006 4:11 PM


In the "Global Flood Evidence: A Place for Faith to present some", frequently was brought up the topic of how the long build up of sendiment is "absurd".

Missed was post 262 by Jazzns. This post reads:

quote:
Not all layers are built up in tiny increments over millions of years. It can't be said much simpler then that. All over all of these threads you keep saying this like it is actually something that geologists believe. The more you keep saying this the more you reenforce that you do not understand sedimentation.

There are places in the world where sediment does build up very slowly. These places are always extrodinarily calm such as deep lake or ocean. Other places bulid sediment comparitivly quickly. River deltas, deserts, basins, etc. Mudflows can drop dozens of feet worth of sediment in a matter of minutes which bury trees, houses, critters, etc.

The modern geologic principles that you keep calling absurd are actually only fantasies of your own ignorance. Of course if everywhere sediment only accumulated at millimeters a year there might be a problem for fossilization and/or weathering. But that scenario is only true in the world that exists in your own head.


The impression was that this (the buildup of sendiments) was the only issue Faith wanted to discuss, yet she did not reply to this post. I would like to give her, and everybody else the oppurtunity to reply as the other thread is closed.

Thank you :)

This message has been edited by Alasdair, Mar-10-2006 01:25 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2006 4:57 PM Alasdair has taken no action
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2006 5:25 PM Alasdair has taken no action
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 5:56 PM Alasdair has taken no action
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 6:03 PM Alasdair has taken no action

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 180 (294059)
03-10-2006 4:26 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 3 of 180 (294077)
03-10-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
03-10-2006 4:11 PM


I appreciate that you took note of my post. This issue had been brought up close to when Faith first started and we even had a Great Debate topic on it between the two of us. Unfortunatly some basic concepts never did sink in.

To Faith modern geology means believing that every section of the geologic column represents millions of years and that they are all flat on top of each other except for the ones that have been disturbed by tectonics or the like. With this characture of geology she thinks she can easily be justified in calling OE principles absurd. Unfortunatly for her though there are people on this board who actually have studied geology and can quite easily point out that her understanding is wrong. Her fervent stubborness to even care to grasp basic concepts only continues to show the absolute bankrupcy of the content of her participation on this board.

Even the most ferocious of opponents in a good debate will take the effort to learn about their opposition's position so that they may properly attack it. Nothing Faith has ever post suggests that this is even a fleeting desire. Faith is obviously content to simply sit back and insult the intelligence of anyone who will not immediatly positivly reinforce her fantasies of how obviously absurd OE geology and the TOE actually is.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 03-10-2006 4:11 PM Alasdair has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-10-2006 5:02 PM Jazzns has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 1532 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 4 of 180 (294078)
03-10-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jazzns
03-10-2006 4:57 PM


I know it may seem like it is a call out post, but can we make this a more generalized sedimentation thread? Lets discuss the various ways that sed is put down, The ways that erosion happens, and most importantly...how do we tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2006 4:57 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jazzns, posted 03-10-2006 5:09 PM AdminAsgara has taken no action

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 5 of 180 (294080)
03-10-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminAsgara
03-10-2006 5:02 PM


Thanks Asgara. I realized when I submitted that post that it may have been a little short on OP appropriateness. I am fixing that as we speak.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-10-2006 5:02 PM AdminAsgara has taken no action

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3141 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 180 (294102)
03-10-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
03-10-2006 4:11 PM


Why YECs cant deal with sedimentation
On a more appropriate note, I think it is very important to do what Mallon suggested in that last thread which is explain to YEC's (that even bother to read other people's post) the difference between the old and new ways we think of uniformitarianism.

This has great application for understanding sedimentation because it explains why the geologic column is so dynamic. A thousand years worth of sediment of a given type might be millimeters or meters think depending on the process that created and those processes are ones we can observe creating new sediment today. Uniformitarianism only allows us to reasonably assume that if we see a type of sediment being created today that other similar sediment was probably created a similar way in the past.

YECs are constantly fed disinformation about uniformitarianism and how it relates to sedimentation. Take this site which is the first YEC site you will hit if you do a search for uniformitarianism.

www.allaboutcreation.org/Uniformitarianism.htm

Uniformitarianism is a geological doctrine. It states that current geologic processes, occurring at the same rates
observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth's geological features. Thus, it assumes that geological processes are essentially unchanged today from those of the unobservable past, and that there have been no cataclysmic events in earth's history. As present processes are thought to explain all past events, the Uniformitarian slogan is, "the present is the key to the past."

Emphasis mine. This is obviously total bullshit. No geologist worth half a cent would ever claim that there have been no cataclysmic events in earth's history. Cataclysmic events leave their mark in the rocks all over the earth. We can see mudslides today and what they do. We can also see meters worth of sediment all deposited in a short timeframe in the rocks. That is evidence of a similar event. The problem with this is that the YEC will take this and say, "Look at the fast depoisting sediment! It must have been the Flood!" while they completely ignore the layers above and below which do not display evidence of quick deposition.

In the old GD thread we talked about the Grand Canyon quite a bit and the whole debate boiled down to the flatness of the layers. Faith continually harped on how only the flood could have left such flat layers while totally handwaving away all the layers that were not flat and all the disconformities and show blatantly and inarguably an interruption in sedimentation.

Overall it is called cherry picking. YECs are masters of it and it starts right at the top with YEC sites who spread total misinformation about concepts such as sedimentation and uniformitarianism. Me, I call it lying which is why I really like my new sig.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 03-10-2006 4:11 PM Alasdair has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 180 (294119)
03-10-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
03-10-2006 4:11 PM


The idea that the geo column was built up in slow increments is based on the interpretation that each layer represents millions of years, or a specific time period, in which the life forms that managed to die and get fossilized therein did so one at a time over the designated millions of years for the particular time period. I don't see that it matters if there are some differences in the time allotted to various layers' construction period since what I'm saying does seem to accord with the overall picture of the Geologic Time Table.

{abe: I just realized as I wrote the next post that you could only be talking about differing rates within the layer/time period, but overall it wouldn't make any difference if it accumulated at five inches per year for a while and half an inch per year for another while, the point being that when the whole depth of that particular sediment is completed it has been called by a certain number of millions of years, and that has to be the time it took for it to build}.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 06:15 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 03-10-2006 4:11 PM Alasdair has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 03-10-2006 9:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 168 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-19-2006 2:00 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 180 (294126)
03-10-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Alasdair
03-10-2006 4:11 PM


Let me try to say this more clearly.

If a given layer of rock, a particular sediment that became rock, is called a certain name by geologists that designates a particular time period in the past, and a certain number of millions of years is assigned to that layer of rock, now known as that time period, then the assumption makes sense that it took those millions of years so designated for that layer to form. If during those millions of years its formation was faster or slower in one portion of it than another I have no idea how you would tell that, as the whole thing is a monolith to the naked eye.

In other words, the slow accumulation of sediment is deduced from the total number of millions of years the geologists have assigned to that layer.

This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 06:06 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Alasdair, posted 03-10-2006 4:11 PM Alasdair has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Jazzns, posted 03-11-2006 3:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3957
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 9 of 180 (294139)
03-10-2006 6:20 PM


General comments from Adminnemooseus
I really encourage all to strive for fewer but better quality messages in this topic. I don't want to see this one pegging the activity meter. Read all the messages before you do replies. If the topic is moving too fast for you to read all the messages, then your posting of another message is only contributing to the problem.

Or something like that.

Bottom line - Adminnemooseus has a special affection for this topic, and might be inclined to get cranky if it gets thrashed.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 180 (294147)
03-10-2006 6:58 PM


Questions for an ignoramus
My geology is a little poor, I see this as opportunity. I would be happy if someone would take 'baby steps' with me through some of the finer points of this topic.

To kick start that off a few thoughts and questions. Faith raises an interesting criticism/observation that I thought was very good in that it made me think. When we look into the fossils we find marine fossils in areas that are now very much not marine landscapes. Faith sees this as a confirmation of the Flood hypothesis.

What Faith's idea assumes is that the landscapes we see now are the same as they have always been (give or take tectonic shifting and general erosion etc). That is to say that if we find marine fossils in a desert then instead of the area once being under sea, it is evidence of a flood being there.

So the question is, other than the fossils is there any evidence in the sedimentation type to suggest that the area was marine? Can we tell anything else about the marine environment from the sediment, such as salinity of the water? Is there some way to determine (aside from techniques like radiodating) how long the area was underwater? Finally, rox mentioned that 80% of the column is carbonate, which is problematic for flood theories since deposition is universally gradual. Are there any recommended sites out there that discuss this carbonate deposition rate and how it works?

Probably too many questions there, and I could google some of them, but I thought informed answers in this thread might be useful for the community, hence why I'm posting. Once I get a bit more information, I'll be googling away to learn more, so that perhaps I might develop more questions and better understanding of this subject.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 7:14 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 16 by edge, posted 03-10-2006 9:27 PM Modulous has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 180 (294152)
03-10-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
03-10-2006 6:58 PM


Re: Questions for an ignoramus
To kick start that off a few thoughts and questions. Faith raises an interesting criticism/observation that I thought was very good in that it made me think. When we look into the fossils we find marine fossils in areas that are now very much not marine landscapes. Faith sees this as a confirmation of the Flood hypothesis.

What Faith's idea assumes is that the landscapes we see now are the same as they have always been (give or take tectonic shifting and general erosion etc). That is to say that if we find marine fossils in a desert then instead of the area once being under sea, it is evidence of a flood being there.

This may be an academic point in this context, but I don't have the idea that "the landscapes we see now are the same as they have always been." Or maybe I just imagine bigger tectonic shifts than you are thinking of. My reasoning is very simple: It just seems to me that the conjuring that has to go into explaining how marine fossils got into the strata of the deserts and the mountains is a lot more complicated (less "parsimonious," or less "elegant") on the geo timescale assumption than the Flood assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2006 6:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2006 7:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 180 (294153)
03-10-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
03-10-2006 7:14 PM


Re: Questions for an ignoramus
This may be an academic point in this context, but I don't have the idea that "the landscapes we see now are the same as they have always been."

I realize what I said sounded more extreme than your actual beliefs, to qualify a little: What I mean t say is that it seems you were saying that a desert of today has always been above ground (assuming there is only one layer of marine fossils) so the marine fossils got there by way of the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 7:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 7:51 PM Modulous has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 674 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 180 (294159)
03-10-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
03-10-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Questions for an ignoramus
I realize what I said sounded more extreme than your actual beliefs, to qualify a little: What I mean t say is that it seems you were saying that a desert of today has always been above ground (assuming there is only one layer of marine fossils) so the marine fossils got there by way of the flood.

I think maybe what you said was LESS extreme than my beliefs but maybe I'm not understanding you.

I take the geological column to be found to some depth under the deserts as well as anywhere else, and the fossil contents to be within the strata as usual, so the flood scenario explains all that quite nicely to my mind. I understand that there are an amazing number of marine fossils to be found out in the wildest parts of the Nevada desert -- I've never been there but been told. Clearly the area had to once have been under water.

But the geo timetable explanation requires us to believe that every desert and every mountain where marine fossils are found must have its own localized explanation involving some past immersion in water. This is no doubt because there are some indications of a nonmarine environment here and there too, but to my mind the whole shebang is better explained by the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 03-10-2006 7:24 PM Modulous has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 03-10-2006 9:09 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 936 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 180 (294166)
03-10-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
03-10-2006 5:56 PM


The idea that the geo column was built up in slow increments is based on the interpretation that each layer represents millions of years,...

No. This is not a blanket interpretation by mainstream geology. Some layers are deposited rapidly, others slowly. With training, it is relatively easy to tell the difference... a difference that YECs fail to consider.

In fact, I am of the opinion that most geologic time is spent during periods of non-deposition. Just look at coral reefs, for instance. One can go back to the same location year after year and see little change in the 'landscape'. And yet, in the geologic record, we see coral reef upon coral reef, with numerous interruptions of the sequence by other rock types. How does the flood explain this?

I don't see that it matters if there are some differences in the time allotted to various layers' construction period since what I'm saying does seem to accord with the overall picture of the Geologic Time Table.

Yep, it's just one of those nasty details, isn't it? Actually, in some cases, we may only see a few years of deposition out of millions. This is not surprising to geologists at all. And then, of course, you have all of the radiometric data that basically confirms the stratigraphic information. HOw does YEC explain this convergence of evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 5:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 9:50 PM edge has replied
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 03-11-2006 7:44 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 936 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 180 (294168)
03-10-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
03-10-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Questions for an ignoramus
I take the geological column to be found to some depth under the deserts as well as anywhere else, and the fossil contents to be within the strata as usual, so the flood scenario explains all that quite nicely to my mind.

Really? HOw does it explain the progression of fossils through time?

I understand that there are an amazing number of marine fossils to be found out in the wildest parts of the Nevada desert -- I've never been there but been told. Clearly the area had to once have been under water.

This is readily explained by mainstream geology. Fossils deposited below base level, are MUCH more likely to be preserved rather than exposed to erosion and destroyed. On the other hand, a flood model should thoroughly mix all types of fossils including terrestrial with the marine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-10-2006 7:51 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022