|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Non-marine sediments | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Just a couple of quick comments. First, it is not at all uncommon (and seems logical) that many unconformities plane off the lower beds giving the appearance of evenness, though the deposits may have consisted of large sand dunes. Imagine a coastal plain sliced level by wave action of a receding or advancing sea. Second, it can be said that all bedding planes or laminae represent brief unconformities. Many are so short that there is no erosion or folding, but others, for instance those which often define a set of cross-beds, do give evidence of some erosion and are often planar. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-28-2002] [This message has been edited by edge, 05-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Not sure, but it seems to be part of a regressive sequence, with a gradual transition from marine(?) Redwall to eolian Coconino. See how this fits right in with the presence of an epeiric sea that is in regression? You seem to think that non-marine deposits are completely independent of the marine and have nothing to do with epeiric seas. It isn't so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, but this is non-marine, eolian. Just a little detail that completely demolishes your scenario. Not to mention the detail of an unconformity beween the Hermit and Coconino.
quote: First of all you are probably wrong on that point. But more importantly, we have just talked about how several of the formations are non-marine. Why should the not have plant fossils?
quote: What??? Are you not paying attention again? We just discussed how the Hermit Shale is a swamp deposit, the Coconino Sand is a dune deposit, and the Supai consists of offshore bars and beaches. Why are these not explained by mainstream geology? And your really don't want to be emabarassed by cyclothems again do you? We showed earlier that you really have no idea what they mean. Are you feeling okay? Usually I take it as an extreme case of disrespect when people disregard my posts completely. [This message has been edited by edge, 05-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, reversed in the creationist literature. And really they are not that difficult to discern if one is a well trained sedimentologist. As to the amphibians, so what? How are they going to leave tracks in deep water that is moving so fast as to produce marine dune forms? It simply does not make sense. But you ignore this fact.
quote: First, there are unconformities. In a strict sense, every bedding plane is an unconformity. In fact the Hermit shale was deposited at an unconformity. Why do you feel that this is evidence for a flood? I don't see it. Try to give me evidence rather than just make assertions.
quote: Yes, swamps would do that.
quote: Yes, and if they can have arisen from mainstream mechanisms then they cannot be used as diagnostic evidence for a flood.
quote: I don't remember saying anything like that. And they are misunderstandings. YOu do not have the background to critically analyze what you read in the creationist literature. You misunderstand pravailing current directions. You misunderstand epeiric seas and how they formed. The problem is that you come here with a preconceived notion that basically means all geology prior to Morris is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: You may want to review what happend to one YEC when he became a professional geologist and was confronted with the evidence. Try this link:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm quote: Are you saying that you don't believe in unconformities? How do you explain the obvious unconformity at the base of the Paleozoic section? Do you think no time was required for this discontinuity in deposition? Do you think that subaerial deposits are necessarily continuous in deposition? Do you not think that fluvial environments are partly erosional? We have explained these mechanisms to you a number of times. Why do you simply ignore these explanations?(rhetorical question, I think we know the answer).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Good. Give us some references. Is Stuart Nevins one of them? {added by edit}I meant Steve Austin, but does that really matter? quote: Well, you weren't very clear.
quote: Yes, and just what does this mean to you? Why should there be many unconformities? Maybe there are. Do you understand that the top of virtually every cross bed is an erosional surface?
quote: Good, lets hear a quote or a reference. Not being a sedimentologist myself, I would like to be enlightened.
quote: And? Are you saying that swamp deposits are not presently deposited? Beach sands? Fluviatile deposits?
quote: I think Blatt and other does this. I'll try to track some down tomorrow sometime if no one else does. How about eolian sand deposits? Hmm, now let me think....... [This message has been edited by edge, 06-03-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: LOL! I sure am glad you are here to translate for us. I mistakenly thought that it meant: "... many short periods of time, over some wide areas, but not everywhere, and not all at once..." Just shows you how an education can lead one astray.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, placing epeirogenic seas in the context of a flood would lead to gross misunderstandings and probably a lot of irrelevant preaching.
quote: I believe Gould in the context of what he was talking about, yes.
quote: Umm, TB, a clue: all of these people are still evolutionists. I don't understand what your point is. Oh, are you still picking on the dead guy who had 19th century technology and information? Hardly seems fair. After all, I accept that you think the flood is Cambrian to Creatceous. Or should I point out that Barry Setterfield says that you have a dirtly little secret in your understanding of the flood? See how silly this can get? It's up to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Perhaps you should find the rest of Gould's quote. As I remember, he was basically arguing for PE, not against evolution. This is one of the most common out-of-context quotes used by creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yeah, well... It still is!... Along with catastrophism!
quote: I know what you mean!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The problem is that these are consistent with almost any scenario. Why do you think they point only toward a global flood. Especially when you have non-marine beds through out the section. The point is that there is plenty of evidence that you ignore. That would make you biased.
quote: First of all you have not produced such data. Second, why is it not evidence for mainstream geological thinking?
quote: Correct. Because it isn't!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The point is, what is your evidence for accelerated radioactive decay? Why did it happen? Why did it stop?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: If gross simplification is necessary for you to understand geological history, then please feel free to believe as you wish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: No, I think this was a premise for you and not a conclusion.
quote: For someone who knows as little about the subject as you have demonstrated, that is a very bold assertion. Now, if you want to talk about 'just so' stories, I have a few for you. See there was this flood that deposited the entire geological column even thought there was no source for the sediments; and there were no mountain ranges at the time even though we see mountains in various degrees of erosion today. And I don't have an explanation for why flowering plants don't show up until late in the geological history, but my scenario is better than anything that people who have studied the subject for a hundred years can come up with...
quote: I'm not sure that it would be a good use of your time.
quote: Yes, it is. Among non scientists.
quote: I trust the scriptures to tell me how to live. Not how I came to life. Many scientist believe the same. So far you have not shown number 4. Please get us some data.
quote: I seriously doubt this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Okay, give us whatever you think is the best single piece of evidence that your scenario is correct. Then, tell us how mainstream geology does not explain this facet of the natural evidence. If your positive evidence for your scenario is significantly different from this subject of this thread, please start another thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024