Why is evolution so controversial?

That's nothing to what I'd say to someone who insisted that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the sky is green with purple spots. My "religious fanaticism" on such subjects knows no bounds. And yet there is not the least amount of controversy on these issues. Perhaps you should try again, maybe think of an answer which is not completely stupid. Can you do that?

Actually, this reference has a nice cross-section in Fig. 3.2 on page 3-27. It shows evidence that the first sediments to be deposited on the continental margin where the Mississippi Delta is today were in the pre-Cretaceous. I have seen other references that report Triassic or Jurassic for the start of the delta.Civil and Environmental EngineeringEdited by edge, : No reason given.

Fine, I can give it a guess, but you still need to explain how it got there at all if the schist was there first, the spatial problem. How do strata displace schist, or granite?So I'd guess the Supergroup wasn't in the direct path of the hot magma, perhaps because lower layers got fried before that level was reached -- The rock beneath and around the identified rock isn't usually identified itself: more schist and granite?Or because the strata in tilting slid beneath the upper stack which moved some strata into the magma's path and left some out of the magma's path. I have a picture of this in my mind and I haven't said it well, but maybe I'll try later. Some of it got metamorphosed, the rest didn't.In any case, again, I can't see how the strata could have been laid down afterward. The way it got moved and tilted is still my best guess. Of course it's later, but that doesn't necessarily mean a LOT later. How about months later? OK, I'm finding this too hard to follow right now, I'll have to come back to it. Which rocks, and how does this sequence make it possible for the strata to be laid down in neat horizontal sequence afterward? I'm very glad to hear it. I still have the problem of seeing how strata could have been laid down so neatly horizontal and parallel over such a lumpy base. Again I'm going to have to come back to this. Yeah but in my scenario all that sort of thing could be the result of the tectonic and volcanic upheaval that occurred after those strata were laid down, tilting and sliding things, abrading surfaces between each other and so on. If you said it before in a post full of insulting remarks I may not have read it. FYI Which I'm supposing, aren't I? Or perhaps you need to be clearer about what this would look like. I have some idea of what overthrusts are like from various online diagrams. They seem to be a more extreme tectonic folding of the strata than is seen in say angular unconformities where the folding may be more or less vertical, a series of sinuous bends, but the overthrust makes a bigger fold that lies more horizontal. The Great Unconformity is actually unusually horizontally tilted by comparison with other angular unconformities. Just a thought. If you think it relevant, sure.

Well, I'm an unusual YEC in that I try to explain what happened beneath the Tapeats as all the same event with the massive erosion from the Kaibab on up, including the cutting of the canyon and all the rest of it, which I think of as occurring just before the receding of the Flood or shortly afterward. Most YECs accept the idea that the Great Unconformity and everything else beneath the Tapeats was already there before the Flood began, and explain all the rest from there on up by the Flood. I put quite a bit of thought at one time into angular unconformities, starting with Siccar Point, as the buckling and tilting of a lower segment of strata while the upper stack was still in place, and that's still my favorite way of looking at it.So don't blame YECs in general for my own attempts to explain things by the Flood that they know better than to try.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

[I am returning to this part of your post which I left unanswered before] Some observations/questions:1) There had to be sedimentary rock prior to the Vishnu schist, for the schist to form, correct? So why not the strata of the Supergroup?It takes both heat and pressure to form, doesn't it? Or just heat? Wouldn't there also have to be pressure from above for it to form? Heat from the magma from below plus pressure from above? But you have the granite forming afterward, suggesting the magma didn't occur until afterward so where did the heat come from?.The magma intruded into the schist and became granite, meaning of course it intruded after the schist was in place, but couldn't it have intruded before the schist was fully schist, when it was still sedimentary rock, and contributed to its becoming schist?I come around to what I started with: The sedimentary rock from which the schist formed had to be there before the magma eruption which created the schist and the granite. If this sedimentary rock wasn't the strata of the Supergroup, what was it?2) How could the Zoroaster granite form at all if there wasn't pressure from above, such as the strata from the Tapeats on up, to keep it confined? That is, shouldn't it have simply erupted in a lava flow covering the whole area, covering whatever was there before the Great Unconformity and the mountain range that supposedly built from that and so on? You've got the Vishnu there first, but the Vishnu doesn't intervene between the granite and the Tapeats.In other words, the fact that there is granite there looks to me like evidence for the stack above it being already in place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They don't. They were deposited on top of the pre-existing schist and granite, which formed the core of a previous mountain range that had been eroded away.I know. You simply can't believe it. They are in direct contact. If you can put your hand on a hot stove, I'd love to know how you do it... Likely more of the same. If all of these rocks are 'sliding around', then there should be evidence. I suggest you get to work and find it because no one has described any such thing. As I said, you simply can't believe it.Well, I simply can't believe your scenario, but I also have evidence to back mine up. So, it's chance, eh? Unlikely. You would need to emplace the schist, then intrude it by granite, then erode down to the leve of both of them, then deposit the Unkar, then erode the Unkar, and then deposit the Cardenas. And if all of that happened as you would like the appearance of the Cardenas intrusives would be very different because they would likely be intruding wet sediments. The ones under the Great Unconformity. You create a peneplain, like the coastal plain and then fill in the depressions. Could be, but you have no evidence for such tectonism. If it was there, it would have been noted by now. If there were insulting remarks, you probably deserved them. Do you have any idea how insulting your own remarks are? Not to me. I don't really care, but there are people who have spent long careers in the field whose work you simply dismiss. I would expect to see evidence of shearing and deformation. It isn't there.

Why would you do that?Oh, never mind. You need force it all into one year, don't you? Doesn't that stretch your credulity in the least? I'm sure it is. However, you are spared the task of providing evidence for your scenario. That makes it pretty easy.

An interesting idea, and I've seen it happen elsewhere, but there was a major regional fault between the sedimentary and metamorphic members.But not likely here. The Vishnu is mostly oceanic, whereas the Unkar is pretty much continental with conglomerates, dolomites, and quartzites; and there is an erosional unconformity between them. The same place it comes from today. Most likely the upper mantle. In this case, the heat could have been the same thermal event, but carried out over a very long time. I don't know, offhand, the absolute ages of the Vishnu compared to the Zoroaster. Depends on textural relationships. It's not all that important, anyway. The rocks had to cool and be eroded before the Unkar was deposited. This probably took on the order of hundreds of millions of years.I know... you simply can't believe it. An earlier ocean basin. Consider that the heat flows were probably higher at that time and also that there is an unknown amount of rock eroded form above the Zoroaster pluton. Possible, but all eroded away now. I see no evidence that the Zoroaster reached the surface, but by comparison with younger plutons, it probably did. In fact, there are more oceanic intrusions associated with the Vishnu that indicate even earlier extrusive volcanism. No it doesn't. Only if you ignore the erosional unconformtity between them. Then you have to ignore the Unkar Group and the Chuar Group and the erosional unconformities between them. And then there's the Cardenas event...And, you will notice that I haven't even discussed the absolute (radiometric) ages...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I'm not getting the picture here. The fault made it possible for the sedimentary rock to be metamorphosed? So the Vishnu couldn't have been formed from the Unkar, part of the Supergroup, because of something to do with their content which you ascribe to different origins, although there they are cheek by jowl? In other words you have to make up a source for which there is no clear evidence, whereas what I suggested has a clear source in the magma which is clearly present beneath these formations, which DOES come from the mantle anyway. Actually it's always easier to believe in huge spans of time, that seems to cover just about any contingency imaginable, but yes, I'd guess there is no need for that much time to cool the rocks. A totally fictitious ocean basin for which there is no evidence whatever is the supposed source of sedimentary rock which metamorphosed into the Vishnu schist.This idea plus the heat from the mantle answer above are clearly the product of Old Earth assumptions and not actual evidence. More fiction, edge, more speculation based on your Old Earth assumption and not on evidence. Heat flows were "probably" higher at that time, you don't know but it seems probable on OE assumptions, and an "unknown," i.e., purely fictitious made-up, amount of rock must be postulated to have existed, for which there remains not a shred of actual evidence.So this creates the necessary pressure to keep the magma confined so that it can form granite? Must have been a LOT of rock. Maybe on the order of the two mile depth of the strata from the Tapeats up? Interesting how the granite seems sort of to press up against it too, kind of flattened out at the top there. Magma doesn't always incinerate everything in its path it seems, judging by the dikes and sills one sees penetrating through the strata here and there, even when they go all the way up through to the very top as at the north end of the Grand Staircase where they then flow out into a lava field.A side thought occurs: that there is a magma dike associated with Siccar Point too, quite exposed at the front of the formation. Just something to wonder about in connection with angular unconformities in general. Another completely made-up happening: if it was there it's now gone. But of course I don't think that happened, I think the magma was confined beneath the Tapeats because of the great weight of strata above it and I don't see that you have accounted for the necessary pressure. Nor do I. What is an "oceanic intrusion?" Sounds like something that might fit well with a worldwide Flood scenario. I have no intention of ignoring anything, I'm simply addressing one aspect of the situation at a time. I already suggested an explanation for the erosion. You don't need to, your Old Earth assumptions supply all the justification you need for your fictional scenario.I suppose I'll deal with your other posts next but as usual the situation is only too clear. Your fictions are going to trump anything I might suggest, because that's the way it goes with a science that deals with the prehistoric past, which is built out of speculations and interpretations. I do keep being astonished at the agility of such purely fictional explanations. Comes down to Whoever has the power wins.And of course I "deserve" to be treated to extreme personal insults because I question the thinking of geologists, just their theories, not their persons. So that's the way it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Assumptions based on evidence. Well, the truth is hard to overcome, but I'm sure you can manage. In the meantime, if this dismissal is your response to the effort I have put into my posts, then we don't have much to talk about. I have tried to explain the mainstream position, but all you can come up with is 'fiction!', 'made-up!'. I have also explained this: I respond to insult with facts.It is a fact that you maintain a willful ignorance of the topics you discuss. Your mind is closed. In all of our discussion, you have not offered a single reference or document that actually supports your position and you have repeatedly admitted that you are not up to speed on many subjects.And you accuse me of 'making stuff up?' Your behavior here has opened you up to insults, though I hardly consider these as 'extreme'.Heh, heh... A typical YEC. I think we are done here. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Don't see any evidence for your assumptions, they're just the usual Old Earth assumptions, conjured out of thin air. You have about half a dozen purely fictitious speculations in that post for which there is no evidence whatever, based on your own wording, ALL OF WHICH I POINTED OUT IN MY RESPONSE, given in answer to my speculations based on what is actually present. You've certainly provided no source of the pressure needed to form the granite, though there is ample pressure from the weight of the strata in my scenario.But whatever, yes we're done here, done to a crisp I'd say. Though I may yet come back to earlier posts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for your detailed in-depth analysis of where edge has gone wrong. The scales have fallen from my eyes. When you said without a shred of evidence that statements you didn't even specify were "purely fictitious", I rushed out and burned my geology textbooks. Praise Jesus!

Another thread about evolution that Faith drug completely off topic into a retarded discussion about The Flud.

And what evidence do you have for a young earth?? Or do you just assume its young, cause it fits your biblical world view.Dendrochronology the study of tree rings can push the date of the earth back to a little over 11000 years.European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) has an ice core that goes back 740 000 years, 3270 meters of layered ice (light ice dark ice, ie winter summer).But you don't care because you assume the bible is the word of god, And if you count how long the people lived and add it up it was 6000 years ago when Adam was talked in to eating an apple by a talking (also walking at the time) snake. And you have the nerve to claim we are making unbased assumptions.

yep, can't even get a bump trying to get back on topic.