Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 5:42 AM
39 online now:
(39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 76 of 518 (485086)
10-05-2008 1:23 AM


I'm still waiting for a plausable explanation why there is only a couple thousand years worth of marine growth up there.The rest of it must have got hot and evaporated might be self reassuring but it does'nt convince any skeptic like me.I'm certainly not unreasonable,but if some of them were destroyed by heat and pressure then they all would have.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.

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.

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


Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 10-05-2008 3:56 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Coragyps, posted 10-05-2008 9:10 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 79 by lyx2no, posted 10-05-2008 11:19 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
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

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 78 of 518 (485114)
10-05-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jason777
10-05-2008 1:23 AM


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

There are, as I understand it, a couple of thousand feet of marine fossil remnants on top of Mt Everest. And if we're being very generous, we might get on the order of a foot per century of deposition under favorable conditions.

As the mountain raised slowly out of the water more clams would have grown behind them....

Behind them? Huh? What are you saying here?


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

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2791 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 79 of 518 (485125)
10-05-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jason777
10-05-2008 1:23 AM


Where's the Mountains At?
Are you under the impression that mountains rise from the sea fully formed? Plains rise from the sea. They rise higher and higher, while erosion cuts them back down. The parts that ain't the valleys are the mountains. Kind of like the parts that ain't the chips are the statue.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

When I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel … everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?


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

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 80 of 518 (485171)
10-05-2008 11:44 PM


Sorry coragyps,
Most clams generaly live at a certain water depth,depending on species ofcourse.As the continental shelf rises the clams would move deeper.Does that explain what i'm talking about?
Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by obvious Child, posted 10-06-2008 3:26 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2008 7:50 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 81 of 518 (485181)
10-06-2008 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jason777
10-05-2008 11:44 PM


Why would that change anything? The fossils of the clams would be in the crust of the shelf as it rises.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jason777, posted 10-05-2008 11:44 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 82 of 518 (485188)
10-06-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jason777
10-05-2008 11:44 PM


Hey Jason777,

Most clams generaly live at a certain water depth,depending on species ofcourse.As the continental shelf rises the clams would move deeper.Does that explain what i'm talking about?

They do move -- horizontally. They do this by reproduction and the new clam larva finding bottom at the right depth before growing into clams etc. fixed to the bottom. Thus there is a continual supply of fully mature marine environment at the right depth in the oceans.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jason777, posted 10-05-2008 11:44 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 83 of 518 (485390)
10-08-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by JonF
09-29-2008 6:22 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi JonF, thanks for the link. I am actually surprised to see Geikie on the list, one of my favorite Geologists. He actually taught not to attempt to "look for a beginning", but I guess he threw some calcs in there for good measure.

Another thought, the sun is cooling, someone needs to inform Al.....

It's not water in a form available for flooding.

Actually it is. Magam is formed by water, and when it reaches the atmosphere it gives off water in the form of steam. Also the most powerful "natural" explosion is when magma comes into contact with more subterranean water (phreatomagmatic) then all hell breaks loose, more water released into the atmosphere.

The vast majority of mountains, including the Himalayas, are not volcanic and bear many marks of having taken millions of years to form.

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.

Volcanoes everywhere, did I mention the ones in Texas?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 09-29-2008 6:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2008 1:03 AM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 85 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2008 1:15 AM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 89 by edge, posted 10-12-2008 8:04 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 90 by roxrkool, posted 10-12-2008 11:16 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
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

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3707
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 85 of 518 (485392)
10-08-2008 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Architect-426
10-08-2008 12:41 AM


Way off-topic, and probably very wrong
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.

How about some references for these assertions? My impression is that you are pulling this info out of thin air, or perhaps just misunderstand what is volcanism.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


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 105 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 11:45 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2008 8:01 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3013 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 86 of 518 (485828)
10-12-2008 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
10-02-2008 8:54 PM


Re: NOT about WHEN ...
Your scenarios amount to a False Dichotomy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 8:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 10-12-2008 8:56 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2008 11:36 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 87 of 518 (485839)
10-12-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by IchiBan
10-12-2008 3:03 AM


Re: NOT about WHEN ...
They're not RAZD's scenarios. One is the traditional creationist scenario, the other is Zothar's. But I think you're right that it sets up a false dichotomy to say that either one or the other must be wrong. They could both be wrong. Certainly they cannot both be right, which I think was RAZD's point.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by IchiBan, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 88 of 518 (485848)
10-12-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by IchiBan
10-12-2008 3:03 AM


false dichotomy or not?
Hello IchiBan,

Perhaps I need to make the issue a little clearer for you, and fill in some of the logical basis for my original scenario/s.

IchiBan writes:

Your scenarios amount to a False Dichotomy.
Message 73About the thread topic.
Now why should myself/we accept your two contradicting propositions, when there could be many more?
Message 67Dates of events or phenomena can get rather squishy the further back we go, and so you accept a consensus to work with for a date of 4350 years ago.
Do you accept or reject the work of biblical scholars, and to what degree, or is it just on a flood date of 4350 years ago?


RAZD writes:

Message 70The topic is about explaining the evidence of marine fossil life on mountain tops.
Message 74Feel free to open a new topic to discuss whatever you want to.

The topic of this thread is explaining the complete picture of the evidence of shells on mountain tops:

msg 1 writes:

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

Your task, should you choose to undertake it, is to explain how this evidence is evidence of a great flood, rather than of normal tectonic processes operating over millennium after millennium.

If this growth occurred during, and therefore is evidence of, a biblical flood, then you are left with two scenarios noted before:

msg 1 writes:

(1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture, or

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

If you think this is a false dichotomy, then feel free to propose a scenario that (a) has a short duration flood in accordance with the published conjecture, and (b) accounts for the layers growing in situ and undisturbed for millions of years, and (c) accounts for the multiple layers of mature marine growth of marine organisms, and (d) accounts for the succession of the types of organisms over those millions of years.

If this growth did not occur during this conjectured flood, then it is not evidence of a world wide, cover everything, flood, but of another process altogether.

Enjoy.

ps - Zothar (see Message 73) just presented the usual creationist argument, based on the most simplistic use of part of the evidence, and did not consider the depths and variety of the evidence that exists. He certainly has not responded here to engage with the full depth of the evidence, and I trust you will attempt to do better.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by IchiBan, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4464
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 89 of 518 (485900)
10-12-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Architect-426
10-08-2008 12:41 AM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Actually it is. Magam is formed by water,...

Please explain. Certainly there is some water in most magmas, but to say that water forms magma is kind of an esoteric argument that I would like to hear your explanation of.

quote:
... and when it reaches the atmosphere it gives off water in the form of steam.

Some do, some don't. Sometimes the water comes off without eruption.

quote:
Also the most powerful "natural" explosion is when magma comes into contact with more subterranean water

Why the quotes?

quote:
... (phreatomagmatic) then all hell breaks loose, more water released into the atmosphere.

And where did most of that water come from?
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 108 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:10 PM edge has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 972 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 90 of 518 (485909)
10-12-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Architect-426
10-08-2008 12:41 AM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
quote:
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.

Actually, volcanism is essentially a near-surface process because much of it happens on or near the surface of the earth. Perhaps you meant plutonism or tectonics rather than volcanic dynamics?

Volcanism is the process that erupts hot material onto the surface of the earth from deep inside the earth, be it molten rock or hot water/steam. Most volcanic systems are found underwater and adjacent to subduction zones.

In addition:

1) the Rockies are certainly not "all" volcanic (see the Maroon Bells or the Flatirons) and were formed via tectonism;

2) the Appalachians are cored by metamorphic rocks, not volcanic, and were formed via tectonism (i.e., continent-continent collision); and

3) neither the Himalayas, Alps, nor the Tibetan Plateau are volcanic systems, but also the result of tectonism.

Is volcanism wide-spread across the globe? Of course. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of mountains across the globe are the result of volcanism.

The vast majority are, in fact, the result of tectonism.

Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Edited by roxrkool, : Better terminology.


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 91 by edge, posted 10-12-2008 11:38 PM roxrkool has not yet responded
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2008 9:34 AM roxrkool has responded
 Message 109 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:13 PM roxrkool has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019