|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hello everyone | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Golly gee, they can "CLEARLY IDENTIFY EROSIONAL SURFACES" but as usual you are simply refusing to grasp my simple meaning. They obviously have to work hard to identify those erosional surfaces because they are nothing like the erosion we see on the surface of the earth, all they are seeing is some rivulets between the layers and other minor disturbances that show runoff between them.
THAT IS NOT THE SORT OF EROSION THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAD ANY OF THOSE LAYERS EVER BEEN EXPOSED AS SURFACE FOR ANY LOENGTH OF TIME. STAND BACK FROM THE WALL FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, and consider that the CANYON ITSELF is the ONLY ACTUAL REAL SERIOUS EROSION the strata have undergone since they were laid down. Stop playing your stupid obfuscating games. What I'm saying is OBVIOUS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
For some reason I can only get part of message 268 without any of the buttons needed to reply to it and I don't get messages 269 or 270 at all. Probably due to a problem I've been having with my browser.\
But to answer what I can see of 268, the usual obfuscating idiocy from Dr. A., yes the layers are THE SAME as to form, and that is obvious to the naked eye too. Good grief stop your game playing. They are the same in that they are all horizontal flat layers of rock. They are different in that they are different KINDS of rock with different fossil contents. And unless you really are a blithering idiot you knew that already but your entire style of posting seems to be to make sure you garble up everything I say. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How could that be anything else but the lithified remains of an ancient beach? Well, it's lithified and apparently it looks like some beaches. Beyond that there's no reason to think it's any more ancient than about 4300 years old, and was somehow created in the Flood, probably between waves. Getting it lithified should be a problem on your model, though it's not a problem on mine, since such a pattern could have been created as a wave receded or the tide was out for some period of time, and then it would have been filled in by new sediments brought in on the next wave, which would preserve its structure, and the incredible height to which the strata rose would explain how it was all eventually solidified. You aren't going to get lithification if such a pattern sat on the surface for very long. Go on, show me one of those beaches that exist now with that pattern that has lithified in place or even preserved its pattern over a short period of time. Ha ha. But again, these things are red herrings once it has already been shown that the structure of the strata as a whole couldn't possibly have been produced by long ages. Also, go think about the Grand Canyon being cut into a mile deep stack of them, all remaining so nicely horizontal don't you know, if they are supposed to be a billion years old at that point. What a joke. At the very least that fact absolutely destroys uniformitarianism, but really it destroys the whole OE theory. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith's 'arguments' (about those photos placed in this thread ) remind me about a great post from Dr Adequate some time ago. It explained exactly what ‘uniformatism’ is and how it is used by geologists.
EvC Forum: Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques?? quote: Edited by Pressie, : Spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can't HAVE a lithified sand dune for pete's sake. Every sand dune on the face of this earth is NOT lithified. What you are seeing in the rocks is the grains of sand that form sand dunes all collected in one place which causes them to lie the way they do in dunes because of how the grains got shaped, but there is no such thing as a LITHIFIED SAND DUNE. It is an impossibility. The only lithified beach you could possibly see is one that was rapidly filled in by new sediments to preserve its form. There is no such thing as a lithified beach on the surface of the earth. The footprints are of course footprints, rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood.
But again all this is red herring stuff once you appreciate the fact that the very structure of the stack of strata as I have been describing it, and the cutting of the Grand Canyon after a mile depth of them were laid down with no other disturbance of a sort that would show any of them was ever actually earth's surface, all that proves the Old Earth theory is delusional. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Yes, you can. We see them all over. Seen those photo's provided on this thread? They are lithified beach deposits.
If it looks like a lithified sand dune, it surely is not a chocolate cake from your mommy's kitchen. It is a lithified sand dune. Do you even know what the word lithified means? Let me give you a hint: it doesn't mean 'magic'. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh really, and where did you find this lithified sand dune? Buried in the strata, no? Or once buried in the strata perhaps? Like the Coconino Sandstone layer which gets called a lithified sand dune, but is just a very deep layer of sand grains that solidified into sandstone. It is NOT a lithified sand dune.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
For some reason I can only get part of message 268 without any of the buttons needed to reply to it and I don't get messages 269 or 270 at all. Probably due to a problem I've been having with my browser. I'm having the same difficulty. So it is probably a site problem (evcforum problem), rather than a problem with your browser.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Sure. Lithified sand dunes in the Clarens Formation, Karoo Sequence.
Some of the many, many references ( I just reference two groundbreaking of many, many studies here): Du Toit, A.L. 1918. The zones of the Karoo System and their distribution: Proc. Geol. Soc S. Afr., 21, p xviii-xxxvii Beukes, N.J. 1969. Die sedimentologie van Etage Holkranssandsteen, Sisteem Karoo: M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Orange Free State. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
Something VERY WEIRD is going on with the EvC softeware from my vantage point in Windows 8.1. Dr. A's message #168 in this thread is missing the bottom of it and everything after it is also missing. I've tried several times over a span of a few hours to get past 168, but nothing happens.
Oh well, perhaps I should reboot.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are being of course as vague as possible, but the Karoo system is full of fossils and therefore represents the Flood deposits which would include lithified sediments. As I said, which you apparently ignored, you will not find lithified beaches or dunes on the SURFACE of the earth, only in the strata and wherever lithified sediments with fossil contents are found, that is, where they were rapidly buried so as to become lithified and the buried creatures fossilized. That describes the Karoo.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can't get to the next page, that starts with message 271? NWR and I have been having the same problem but only for part of 268 plus 269 and 270.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
I can get to this page! Yay!
I think Dr. A made a bad link when he creebled the tail end of the url code in message 168. It's supposed to end left bracket-slash-u-r-l-right bracket, but he ended it left bracket-u-r-l-=, so the EvC code is looking for an url within an url! - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes:
You are being of course as vague as possible, but the Karoo system is full of fossils Not being vague at all. Those references are there for you to read. The Karoo Sequence does contain fossils; they are in sequence from the bottom to the top. Both plant and animal fossils. In different members and formations. Those members, formations and groups also have a pattern from bottom to top...
... and therefore represents the Flood deposits which would include lithified sediments. Err, all lithified sediments are lithified sediments.
... As I said, which you apparently ignored, you will not find lithified beaches or dunes on the SURFACE of the earth, .... Not ignored at all. It's obvious that you don't know what the word 'lithified' means.
... only in the strata and wherever lithified sediments with fossil contents are found, that is, where they were rapidly buried so as to become lithified and the buried creatures fossilized. Err. Hope you do know that organic material normally have to get buried for fossilisation to occur.
That describes the Karoo.
Nope. Have you ever seen a Karoo 'rock'? Hope you do know that tens of thousands of geologists have actually studied those rocks, themselves? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Show me a lithified beach please that was never buried, or a lithified sand dune that was never buried.
And stop being so cutesy about the Karoo formation. I know it contains a bazillion fossils so I regard it as a Flood deposit.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024