|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I take it then, that someday you will continue to defend your position over at T-Web? If you think it was too hot for you over there, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Okay, let's check this one out... Here is one evidence:
quote: That's it? This is your entire explanation of marine fossils in the geological record? And one of your main references is Walt Brown? I'm stunned at the magnitude of your work. You obviously have an advanced degree. Truly, if this is your understanding of marine fossils in the mountains you are going to have a hard time here. Just a guess, of course. Maybe you'll win us all over to your side...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: No, they were actually quite entertaining. Fiction, of course.
quote: Seem like you need to lighten up a bit, Randy. And maybe you could thank us for making you think harder about these things.
quote: Personally, I couldn't be happier than right now. You make evolution look unassailable.
quote: Is that a question or a statement? Actually, I don't care what your conclusions are.
quote: I don't care what you believe. Neither do I know how life began. All I can say for sure is that your understanding of science is pathetic.
quote: Again, thank you for providing the entertainment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Thanks for permission to disagree with you. I feel much better now.
quote: YOU uncovered it? Well, that changes EVERYTHING!
quote: THen why do they mention it in the quotes you reference?
quote: This is YOUR conclusion. And, let's see, how much credibility should we give to someone who claims Velikovsky as an authority?
quote: I do not see this. Where is it?
quote: Not much. I've seen this in modern forests. On the other hand, maybe there is a conspiracy to hide the truth. Did you ever follow up on those black helicopters camouflaged as pterodactyls during the Civil War?
quote: Randy, without having even seen the specimen, I can confidently say that it was NOT white sandstone.
quote: You mean Velikovsky? Not much.
quote: Didn't make sense. If you had some training and experience in geology, you would understand.
quote: Riiight. Bill needs to lighten up! Suuure. RAndy, I have read your next post. I can see that you are angry and frustrated. Face it, you have no credibility.
quote: Randy, are you reading your own posts befer submitting them? This is wishful geology on your part. It makes no sense at all. Do you mean the entire GC sequence?
quote: THe Great Randy sees all and knows all. Did you consult with Jean Dixon on this?
quote: As I said, "hopeful geology". That's all you've got going for you. Your interpretations have been shredded on this board and others and yet you blindly cling to your belief system rather than facts and evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So sorry. Doesn't sound like a global flood. In fact, it appears that the Gulf of Mexico is still flooded. What is your point?
quote: Yes, more evidence that there is still a flood going on... in the Black Sea. So far, you have shown nothing of significance regarding a global flood, Randy. You are wasting our time.
quote: Sounds like evolution to me. What do the authors say? YEC or evolution? Seems like you kind of leave that part out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Very well. Your inability to answer them is noted.
quote: The question is, can you provide ANY actual evidence, so that we do not waste any more time here. The problem is that you have extracted your points from a much larger body of evidence, most of which you completely ignore. You talk about a single 40'tree whereas Lyell discusses 'some trees' of 40' length; and then subscribe to some conspiracy to hide evidence from us. And moreover, you say that the tree must extend through a coal bed, even though there is zero evidence for this. Your essay makes no sense at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Seems like more of the same, Randy.
quote: No explanataion? Why would this indicate transport? To me it just indicates s different mode of sedimentation.
quote: Only if you ignore any possible mechanism for detachement. I can think of a couple.
quote: Meaning exactly what?
quote: Not very convincing, Randy. Many of the soils that these trees grew in were not well developed and often indistinguishable from sediments to the casual observer.
quote: No problem, Randy. Many beds are deposited abruptly in the geological record. We have know this for probably hundreds of years. How did you miss that? Anyway, what does rapid burial have to do with transport? After all, you guys keep telling us how brachipods are buried in life position... Why should this be any different?
quote: And you guys talk about evolutionists having fanciful stories! Somehow, I don't see how your model wouldn't work as well or even better for an in situ tree...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
This is getting silly.
Randy: Note also that Lyell's stump has its base directly over a bed of shale, as opposed to coal. Edge: Meaning exactly what? Randy: If you were to read my paper on the "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia, in Part One I go into this in some detail. I also quote Lyell's assertion that most of the trees at Joggins are "rooted in coal" -- which, from the available evidence, appears to NOT be the case. So where is the problem? Lyell says 'most of the trees.' To me that indicates that some are rooted elsewhere.
Randy: It indicates transport precisely because NONE of the surrounding sediments are the same as that of the interior. Therefore, the tree must have been transported. I discuss exactly how this could (and likely did) occur in my paper at: That does not explain the issue. In fact, I'd say it is a better model for in situ trees...
Edge: Many of the soils that these trees grew in were not well developed and often indistinguishable from sediments to the casual observer. Randy: That's because there (almost certainly) were NOT soils at all. And many of the trees we see growing today are not rooted in soils at all. Again, what's the problem?
Randy: Yes, and Many of these "abruptly deposited beds" exibit NO EVIDENCE of Erosion, but rather horizontally "sharp" contacts, -- inducating that there was very little time between the two. Of course not. We are talking about deposition not erosion.
This is also evident from the Many layers that were Bent as a single unit -- thus indicating that NONE of them had become hardened at the time when they were warped. We also see this with coal seams -- where the strata both above and below are bent into all types of curves -- before the sediments had time to become hard. Soft sediment deformation is not a problem either. Happens all the time.
Randy: The two go together like peas in a pod. The fact that so many of the trees are missing their roots is clear evedence that they were uprooted. The fact that they were preserved in the first place is a clear indication that they were buried rapidly -- as trees in the forest normally are NOT preseved after they die, simply because in order to be preserved they need to either become Petrified while standing upright (in a mineral lake), or due to becoming buried. So, you are making two points then. I see.
For example, the 100's of thousand (if not millions) of Buffalo carcasses that once lay on the Great Plains were easily visible to those who traveled across country by train during the 1800's. However, the gradually (over a period of about 40 years) became less and less noticeable, and eventually all rotted away into dust, so that today there is NO TRACE at all that they were ever slaughtered, except from History Books. Interesting though that archeologists can find them in the soil.
quote: Ah, a reference from 1894! Very timely. Interesting scale also, at which to see local incursion, that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Randy: Sorry but if the trees were in situ (or buried in the place where they grew), then the sediments around, and/or above the tree should be the SAME as those inside of it. But since they are both different than the sediments that are inside the trees, then this indicates the the different sediments in the tree (along with the tree itself) must have come from somewhere else -- meaning that the trees must have been "Transported" to this location. That is a silly notion based on a preconceived idea. You have completely disregarded the possibility of depostion at a different time and/or from a different source (which your model seems to show, by the way). If you are going to transport trees by a violent means that would strip the bark and stigmaria, but still containing soft sediment from a different location to their present site, and not somehow disrupt the bedding, you have a lot of explaining to do.
Randy: Yes but if the two contacts were separated by thousands or Millions of years, then we should see evidence of this in the form of Erosion between the layers. Who said they are separated by thousands or millions of years? You've been reading too much Hovindite sources.
I.E. a Jagged contact as opposed to a flat one -- as we in fact do see in about 95% of the strata today. Randy, I wish you guys would get on the same page. On another thread Faith is telling us that the strata 'all over the world' were basically laid down conformably parallel, without interruption for extended periods of geological time. Here you tell us that 95% are unconformable. Why can't you come together a little bit and then you'd be where mainstream geology is. Some processes are rapid, some are slow; some are conformable, some are not... I have virtually no problem with conformable erosional unconformities in the right type of environment. (Regarding the ubiquity of soft-sediment deformation):
Randy: It happened so much in the past precicely because the strata were (virtually) all deposited withing a One year time frame -- as a result of a worldwide flood. But would never happen if the two layers were separted by (say) 80 Million years. See Below excerpt from: ... That does not necessarily follow. It is completely neutral in discriminating between a one year and much longer timeframes. Add to that the fact that all geologists agree that some processes are rapid and other slow, and your whole point becomes totally irrelevant.
Clastic dikes present a problem to the "millions of years" mindset of evolutionary thinking in that "millions of years" older sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger ones while still in a plastic state. This presents a profound and puzzling question: What took these older sediments so long to become hard? See above. Some deposition is rapid, others slow. Lithification likewise: it partly depends on the pace of dewatering the sediments. This is not an issue except for those gullible enough to follow YEC teachings that misrepresent mainstream geology.
One would think that 80--400million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand-laden sediments into sandstone, 9,10,11 yet these were still in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into "younger" sediments. If you have a specific example, this would be a good time to mention it. Making these general assertions don't carry much water on this site.
Such things place serious strain on the evolutionary method of "dating" rock formations. That is why we prefer to have professionals do the geology.
They also provide us with very strong evidence that massive amounts of sediments were laid down rapidly, ... Yes! Indeed! Some deposition is very fast. Particularly on the geological time scale. We have known this for hundreds of years.
...and suggest that the Earth isn't very old at all. No, that is not a logical conclusion. You and others may assert so all you wish, but there is other evidence that you choose to ignore. What if there are millions of such events separated by many years at a time? YOu have completely disregarded this likelyhood and, as such, have brought the scientific integrity of your entire essay into serious question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Edgea: "What if there are millions of such events separated by many years at a time?" Randy: What if they were NOT separated by "years" but rather only minutes or hours? Well, then, show that they ARE only separated by seconds or minutes. Something that tells us this would be called 'evidence.' I'm sure you've heard of it.
Since they could -- at the time of their formation -- virtually all be bent over and twisted like slices of swiss cheese, then it is also quite logical to conclude that they were NOT separated my much time at all. This is not rocket science. Correct. It is geology. Now, the point is that mainstream geologists have been saying that some processes are rapid, and others are slow (am I repeating myself here?). We have know this for hundreds of years why can you not follow this argument?
Edge: "You have... brought the scientific integrity of your entire essay into serious question. Randy: My paper is well documented, ... LOL! I cann document holocaust denial as well. The point is that you don't have the background to critically analyze what your sources tell you.
...and makes a LOT more sense than the oft-repeated evolutionary "dogma" being forced upon the past 5 generations of geologists -- who are, just now (in recent times) beginning to see it for what it is: I.E. A bankrupt theory that is based more on fanciful imaginations and wild speculation than on hard facts. There is also a ZERO chance that life (or anything close to it) could have "evolved" without the AID and DIRECTION of a CREATOR /GOD. Ah, so that's why you have this vendetta against geology. I never would have guessed. Kind of slipping off topic, however. What particular dogma are you talking about by the way? That some geological processes are rapid while others are slow? That has been my only real point in this entire thread. Only to a YEC would that seem dogmatic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I know it is a lot of work for very little gain but I don't think I've seen your critical analysis of the references that you were given Edge. Perhaps this needs to slow down and have more detailed analysis. Actually not true. Randy's main reference is his website of which I have done a short critical analysis of some of the contained comments. Most of the following posts devolved from that. Basically, he follows the old YEC operating procedure of exclusively using YEC sites, except to quote-mine a few mainstream geologists, seemingly with the objective of ridiculing them. I think we all know what his most recent list of references will say. This has been hashed over on this board several times in the recent past. However, perhaps I shall look into some of them, but I was hoping that he accurately portrayed their contents. This message has been edited by edge, 02-21-2005 22:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Okay, here is one of Randy's references:
(Adde by edit: This is an ICR reference,
www.icr.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen... Experiments in stratification directed by Guy Berthault and conducted in the hydraulics laboratory of the State University of Colorado... First of all they can't even get this right. It is 'Colorado State University'...
...have shown that the principles of statigraphy, such as superposition and continuity, do not apply when there is a water current. As most sedimentary rock strata were originally formed in oceans subject to variable currents, the principles could not have applied to any significant degree. The original seventeenth century authors of these stratigraphic principles believed them to have a global application. In consequence they were used to establish the geological column and the geological time-scale. The experiments shown in this video, confirmed by observations of sedimentologists in the field, demonstrate that the principles apply only locally and in calm waters. Where there is a current, which is generally the case, strata do not form successively but laterally and vertically at the same time. The geological time-scale is shown, therefore, to have been constructed on invalid data. In consequence, the principles must be abandoned as a general law because they only apply under specific and very limited condtions. Using a wide range of film and animated graphics, the video explains how this fundamental error in calculating geological time was discovered. Okay, anyone want to pick on this one? For starters: First of all, the tract does not tell us that all of these experiments were conducted on uniform, sand-sized particles in a flume. They have nothing to do with variable sedimentary sequences or finer-grained deposits occuring below base level. Second, the phenomena produced by Berthault is known as cross-bedding which has been explained by geologists for at least a hundred years. The question Berthault should be asking is how long does it take for a set of cross-beds to form, and be preserved. The experiment does not tell us this. Third, in every case, any vertical sample through the section will be explained accurately by the principle of superposition. If one wants to compare different sites along the bed, that would not be normal geological reasoning. Fourth, as I have presented to Randy, there is NOTHING in geology that is against rapid processes, including some sedimentary ones. Cross-bedding is KNOWN to occur rapidly. The question, as indicated above, is how long does it take to deposit the Navajo Sandstone, not one of its cross-laminations. This message has been edited by edge, 02-21-2005 22:56 AM
shortened url to fix page width - the Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-21-2005 22:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Edge: Fourth, as I have presented to Randy, there is NOTHING in geology that is against rapid processes, including some sedimentary ones. RB: That should be "including virtually ALL sedimentary ones" -- as the best evidence seems to indicate that You have not posted any such evidence. If you have, please explain. The Berthault 'experiment' is completly bogus. I have explained why, but you have very conveniently ignored it. Randy, when most of the sedimentary section is made of sediments of finer grain-size than sand and deposited in open waters, why would we model the entire sedimentary record with sand flowing down a flume? This is not a rhetorical question.
Not only the whole 14,000 foot sequence at Joggins, but also that of the Grand Canyon itself, ... This requires currents (such as in the flume exercize of Brethault), that cannot deposit shales, to deposit the entire Palezoic section in a matter of days. And yet we see numerous shale units such as the Bright Angel and the Hermit along with limestones such as the Mauv, Temple Butte, Redwall and Kaibab to be deposited by Brethault's mechanism for sandstones. And that is only the Paleozoic section, omitting the entire Precambrian, Mesozoic and Tertiary rock sequences, which also include numerous depositional environments which include swamps, fluvial and deserts. This is getting to be a very interesting flood? Add to this complexity, the presence of several unconfomities, one of which is a distinct angular unconformity and we are fast running out of the flood timeframe. Here are a couple of websites regarding the Grand Canyon that I have found interesting over the years: Origin of the Grand Canyon - Index Page This one describes how the actual carving of the canyon probably occurred.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/ This one is more of a geophysical look at the Grand Canyon area.
...was laid down -- and eroded quite rapidly, ... I don't think you want to go here, Randy. How did these rocks not only become deposited, but also lithify so that a canyon could actually form? If the rocks were soft, as many YECs claim, then the walls of this canyon would be impossible to hold.
...just as the WHOLE (as least) 30 mile wide Valley at Monument Valley (North East of the Grand Canyon) was as well - leaving behing the large sandstone pillars, as Monuments to the MASSIVE Amount of water that poured through that area in a ... Yes there was a lot of water here. However, there was also dry land. How do you explain eolian sands and fluvial deposits in the middle of a global flood. Not to mention the terrestrial trace fossils? Check out the Coconino Sandstone section at this site along with descriptions of the tracks: http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm " . . . we should state clearly that the evidence for flooding is nonexistent. The protomammal tracks [in the Coconino - ed] are often found in association with with countless trackways of spiders, scorpions, and other desert arthropods that could not have been walking around underwater" (p. 69). (Lockley et al. (1994). The Distribution of Sauropod Tracks and Trackmakers. Gaia, v. 10., December, and Lockley, M., and Hunt, A. (1996). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States.)
...(almost certainly) a VERY short time period,... Why? You do not make this clear. What evidence do you have that explicitly states very short periods of time as opposed to longer periods that most people accept? What will you use to convince us?
... and very likely eroding the whole Grand Canyon area as well (at the same time) as the Water rushed rapidly off of the Continent. Where is the evidence for such a phenomenon? Do you have an analogy? Why are there meanders in the Colorado River channel if the waters 'rushed off'? Check out my first reference above.
Edge: Cross-bedding is KNOWN to occur rapidly. The question, as indicated above, is how long does it take to deposit the Navajo Sandstone, not one of its cross-laminations. I point out a 7 foot thick layer of homogeneous sandstone (i.e. one "layer" that is 7 feet thick) in my paper on the Nova Scotia "Fossil Forests" -- in which a 15 foot upright tree is seen crossing this layer -- thus indicating that the layer was (very likely) deposted rapidly (in my opinion less than a day). Otherwise, if it were over many year, or even months, it would be laminated. And the fact that an upright tree is crossing it tells us that it definitely wasn't deposited over long period of time. As I have said, repeatedly, this is not unrecognized by geologists. Some processes are rapid, some are slow. And individual bed can be deposited during a single storm. I really think you are disregarding my posts, please try reading them.
I also have (in my possession) a drawing of a (as I seem to recall) 48 (or thereabouts) foot inclined tree that was found to cross (diagonally) about ten different lamina (each from about 1-3 feet in thickness). Again, this is not outside of mainstream geology. I have seen trees tilted by mudflows and volcanic flows and still remain in position for the next event. Besides, this is excellent evidence for an in situ origin. Do you really think that a tree with its roots abraided away and settled into a soft sediment will stay upright when these rapidly developing currents and sand deposits occur? I don't think so.
The only logical explanation for this is that it was buried while it was floating in a partially upright (inclined) position. No, it could be tilted from an in situ position. In fact, this is more likely.
This would only occur under extremely rapid sedimentation circumstances. But remember, Brethault tells you that this happens under higher flow regimes. How does the tree settle much less become planted in the bottom of the river?
This is also what occurred with the 25 meter tree (that's 80 feet long) that was documented by Fairholm. It is? You KNOW this? Were you there? Don't you think you are being a bit dogmatic here?
See Part 1 of my paper on Polystrate Fossils -- for a link with more details. Sorry, been there, done that. Some of it several times. It makes no sense (as I have explained before, and you have apparently ignored before).
I shortened yet another long url to fix the page width. I know some of you have been here long enough to know about this issue. Please look in Peek to see how I fixed this. - The Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-22-2005 21:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Also, I am sorry to inform you (and Bill) but Rivers simply DON"T deposit continous Strata over 45 km wide areas -- at least not ANY rivers that we have today on plantet Earth. See previous post, or my Fossil Forest paper. Interesting comment. How then, do you rationalize these statements from you website? Quoting Calder:
"Apart from the marine fauna of the Visean, virtually all other aquatic fauna of the Carboniferous in Nova Scotia historically have been described as nonmarine, which... is a too restrictive generalization. The term 'nonmarine' fails to describe the spectrum from marine to inland aquatic ommunities. " Pray tell, then, just what an inland aquatic community is if it does not include rivers and lakes which both imply emergent land? Have you ever read anything about the Supai Group in the GC? And from the Nova Scotia DNR website where you are arguing for rapid flooding:
"It is probable that rapid subsidence in the Cumberland Basin, with an abundant sediment supply, allowed sedimentation to be virtually continuous. Under these conditions, major hiatuses that would be represented by valley fills or mature paleosols would not be generated. Such a style of basinal filling through a thick succession is unusual, and forms an interesting contrast to the better known Exxon model."(highlights mine) My first question is, "what is the source of abundant sediments"? My second question is, "if this model is 'unusual' then why do you wish to indiscriminantly apply it to the entire Phanerozoic section of North America"? You NEED to explain this. It seems to me that you have given a perfect mainstream explanation for the Joggins rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Now how it was that they caught on fire if they were floating on the surface of the Ocean: The answer is that just because there were floating on ths surface of the ocean in the form of huge log mats, does not mean that they would be immune to volcanic ash reiging down on them and causing their upper (dry) portions to burn. Oh sure. We see this all the time. The upper parts of logs being dry while floating on the ocean.... Especially in a violent flood, 'the big one' as you like to say. And burning, too. Sure. By the way, what do you suppose happened to that ark when volcanic ash fell on it? I guess Noah was just lucky, eh?
However, they may also have been burned before they were uprooted, or before such "Floating Forests" (if this was indeed the case) were broken up. You're not really touting the 'floating forest' business are you?
Bill Continues: "Also, these papers document clear examples of polystrate trees being firmly rooted in unmistakable fossil soils (paleosols) and soundly refute ...that these trees were washed in and buried by a Noachian... Flood." Randy: Believe what you wish Bill, but my paper also documents "clear examples" of Polystrates that were very likely NOT "rooted" in any sort of "unmitakable fossil soil"... And guess what... We see trees not firmly rooted in soil laying around in forests today! Did a flood deposit them also? And just how do you explain the soils, anyway?
... -- as is evident by the drawings themselves. And the very fact that Dawson (briefly) discusses various portions of the Joggins strata contain "drift logs" is further evidence that (very likely) NONE of these trees were in their original positions of growth. Randy, a brief logic class is in order. You are saying that because some logs in channel deposits are 'drift logs' that all logs are 'drift logs'? Sorry, it doesn't follow. We can find 'drift' logs along many rivers today with standing, in situ trees nearby. If drift logs are related to a flood, then... where's the flood?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024