Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
95 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 92 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 869,795 Year: 1,543/23,288 Month: 1,543/1,851 Week: 183/484 Day: 1/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2208
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 77 of 518 (485092)
10-05-2008 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jason777
10-05-2008 1:23 AM


It's Called Erosion
Jason777 writes:

I'm still waiting for a plausable explanation why there is only a couple thousand years worth of marine growth up there.

Erosion.

The rest of it must have got hot and evaporated might be self reassuring but it does'nt convince any skeptic like me.

Oh well, erosion occurs despite any disbelief on your part.

I'm certainly not unreasonable,but if some of them were destroyed by heat and pressure then they all would have.

As for being unreasonable, I think that is debatable. As for all geologic processes being limited to heat and pressure alone, that is of course false as you also have, ta-da, erosion.

As the mountain raised slowly out of the water more clams would have grown behind them and you would end up with clams stretching halfway to the stratosphere.

This may be news to you but clams find it very difficult to grow outside of water and exposed to the atmosphere 24 hours a day, as in above sea level. {ABE} Once any upper continental shelf was uplifted by plate collision, there would be no appropriate underwater environment for massive amounts of clams to grow behind such predecessors.

It's as if the mountain sat at the bottom of the ocean for 2 thousand years then suddenly rose to 34,000 ft. before any marine growth had a chance to grow and encrust.

Or among the people who actually have studied geology more like sat on the floor (or more accurately on the upper margins of the continental shelf in most cases) for hundreds of millions of years, then gradually rose to thousands of feet and were then eroded by all that water/snow and glacial ice.

If there is evidence of erosion then there is,if there is,then where is it.

There are several indicators of glacial erosion in the Himalayas. Sharp craggy peaks, U shaped valleys, glacial till, moraines, glacial erratics, and so on. The processes can be seen today, and they have been recorded throughout a considerable part of human history.

You can either believe the fundamental, common-sense, basic physics-based principles of geology that have never been remotely subject to a single counterexample under any laboratory or field conditions or in Loki the trickster god (or similar intentionally deceiving deities) and the great conspiracy of essentially all scientists to make us disbelieve in Loki (or similar intentionally deceiving deities).

Clams grow underwater, not above water. All surface geologic formations not currently subject to deposition are eroding, not growing. Glaciers exist above 15,000 feet near the equator and they erode at the beginning and deposit at the end with obvious tell-tale signs.

That is reality, in contrast to any anti-self examined proclamation such as "I'm certainly not unreasonable."

Edited by anglagard, : add subtitle

Edited by anglagard, : Accuracy. Most clams, if any to my knowledge, don't sit at the bottom of the ocean some 20K feet plus deep.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jason777, posted 10-05-2008 1:23 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2208
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 84 of 518 (485391)
10-08-2008 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Architect-426
10-08-2008 12:41 AM


Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
ARCHITECT-426 writes:

Actually, the vast majority of mountains are volcanic, and were formed via volcanic dynamics. The Colorado Rockies for example, all volcanic. Alaska and the Canadian Rockies, volcanic. Appalachians, deep volcanic roots. The Andes, probably the highest concentration of "active" volcanoes in the world (over 2,000 in Chile alone and counting....) Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Iran, France, Italy (yes, even in the Alps there are volcanic dikes and the Dolomites were forced upward via volcanic action). The Himalayas, you bet those suckers blew their lids (no one lived to see it) and were then badly eroded by denudation followed by glaciation. Just north of the mountains is the Tibetan Plateau, a huge volcanic "field". Further north, the Tian-Shan mountains were known to have volcanic activity.

I think you are confusing the term volcanic with the term igneous. While there are most certainly many volcanic rocks that make up a part of the world's mountain ranges, the majority of the rock itself in such mountain ranges is actually made up of intrusive rather than extrusive igneous rock.

From the Igneous Rock article in Wikipedia, which seems generally accurate in this matter:

quote:
The central cores of major mountain ranges consist of intrusive igneous rocks, usually granite. When exposed by erosion, these cores (called batholiths) may occupy huge areas of the Earth's surface.

Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Edited by anglagard, : get rid of extraneous comma


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Architect-426, posted 10-08-2008 12:41 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 10:59 PM anglagard has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2208
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 107 of 518 (486109)
10-16-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 10:59 PM


Re: Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
ARCHITECT-426 writes:

I'm not confused.... Igneous rock = "eruptive" rock...that didn't erupt...i.e. crystallized dried up Magma that originated very deep, and was very, very hot.

Since you are using 'made up definitions' instead of definitions agreed upon by the scientific community of geoscientists, I would certainly argue that either you are confused or you intend to confuse.

Minnemousses, RoxrKool, and I all have a background in the geosciences so I would advise you not to lecture us on the idea that plutonic rocks are considered volcanic in the scientific literature, by professionals in the geoscience fields, or even in the majority of the popular press.

To do otherwise makes any claim of being an authority in these matters look dubious and instead tends to make you appear a laughingstock.

Sometimes the best thing to do when you have clearly made an error is to simply admit that you have rather than cast doubt upon all of your assertions by association.

Edited by anglagard, : remove repetitious phrase


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 10:59 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Architect-426, posted 10-20-2008 11:53 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2208
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 182 of 518 (490146)
12-02-2008 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jazzns
12-02-2008 4:09 PM


One Way to Observe Plate Movement
Jazzns writes:

I would be quite shocked if this was something we could observe in "live" action in the same way that we don't ever really observe plates moving in that way. It just plain happens too slowly.

We can measure things over semi-longer periods of time though such as the elevation of the Rockies and Everest and the distance of the plates with respect to each other. Plotted over time you get your movement.

Back in the late 70s I took a little 1 unit class called geology field trip and one of the exhibits was a set of bleachers in Hollister built directly on the San Andreas fault (the actual boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates) in the late 50s. Well by the late 70s, the bleachers had moved about 18 inches along a diagonal right on through the whole setup, displacing the bench seats.

Now conceivably if one set up a very slow motion camera, say a frame every few days to a week, and one made sure the camera itself did not move in the rather frequent earthquakes, one would be able to directly observe the bleachers being moved on the film when speeded up to the usual 32 frames per second, or thereabouts.

Just a thought. Seems to me that plate movement can be observed, just not on the regular human timescale. It would be like those movies of buildings or bridges being erected, to deny the movement between the plates would be the equivalent of denying the building or bridge exists.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jazzns, posted 12-02-2008 4:09 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Jazzns, posted 12-02-2008 7:20 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020