|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I understand it, those strata are not the same thing as the geologic column, not different sediments for one thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: I don't know why what was really a very simple concept is becoming such a big deal. yes, i frankly don't understand it either.
The context was whether the walls of the canyon would slump, I figure they wouldn't because water would have been pressed out of them. compression is indeed the most common method that causes connate fluids to be expelled in sedimentary lithification. but there are a number of problems beyond the "not slumping" issue. one is that there are two very large angular unconformities in the area, that cut through the grand canyon. these require that the layers below were exposed, turned on an angle, weathered away, and then had more strata piled on top. that's basically impossible to do while the sediment (note: one of those unconformities is partly volcanic) is wet, or you get soft-structure deformation. angular pressure on soft (drying) sediment distorts it. angular pressure on hard rocks sometimes distort them, too, though that distortion looks different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: Seems obvious enough, but what's your point and why are you talking about a river? there's a river in the grand canyon. and if you're arguing that it was cut by rushing water, that's a river.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: As I understand it, those strata are not the same thing as the geologic column, not different sediments for one thing. different sediments, sure. geologic column? well, they are, but it's kind of like arguing whether or not the fire on the candles is part of the birthday cake. it's all the stuff below that really matters. what Dr. A. is saying is that transitional forms would then not be part of the geologic column, and would exist all on top of it, and everything below would necessarily be a pre-noachide-evolutionary-explosion "kind". Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
arachnophilia writes: Percy writes:
uh, percy, expulsion of connate fluids is generally a phase in lithification. water need not evaporate to be expelled from sedimentary rock as it "dries". this, in fact, still happens in deep marine deposition. So when something dries, what do you think happens to the water? I've read ahead and I seen that Faith is expressing mystification about why this is an issue, so let me fill in the details she's leaving out. Over in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread she said that the layers of the Grand Canyon were soft and incompletely lithified when the Grand Canyon was carved, explaining how the canyon was carved so quickly. The layers above the Kaibab were removed at the same time. When it was asked how the layers at the Grand Canyon completed the lithification process after the pressure of the overlying layers was removed, particularly the Kaibab with no overlying layers at all, she said they dried. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The context was whether the walls of the canyon would slump, I figure they wouldn't because water would have been pressed out of them.
compression is indeed the most common method that causes connate fluids to be expelled in sedimentary lithification. but there are a number of problems beyond the "not slumping" issue. one is that there are two very large angular unconformities in the area, that cut through the grand canyon. these require that the layers below were exposed, turned on an angle, weathered away, and then had more strata piled on top. that's basically impossible to do while the sediment (note: one of those unconformities is partly volcanic) is wet, or you get soft-structure deformation. angular pressure on soft (drying) sediment distorts it. angular pressure on hard rocks sometimes distort them, too, though that distortion looks different. Are you talking about the Supergroup / The Great Unconformity or some other angular unconformity as well? Most creationists accept that those rocks were already there before the Flood so that there is no issue about their being wet at all. I've argued that they were formed at the same time the canyon was cut, but in that case they never would have been exposed or weathered at all, but simply have been the lowest part of the whole stack. That low in the stack would mean they were under great pressure from the weight above, and the heat from the volcano beneath would certainly have made them less than wet. If you want to talk about this we should move it to the Flood thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Well, okay, so in keeping with my policy of going with whatever you currently claim you really meant, then we still don't know how, for example, the Kaibab became rock in your scenario. You said that the layers above the Kaibab were eroded away quickly because they were soft and incompletely lithified, and that the Grand Canyon was carved in a very short period of time because the Kaibab and the layers below were also soft and incompletely lithified.
So how did the Kaibab become rock once the pressure of the overlying layers was removed? I thought you had said that they dried, but if that's not your explanation then what is? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Over in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread she said that the layers of the Grand Canyon were soft and incompletely lithified when the Grand Canyon was carved, explaining how the canyon was carved so quickly. The layers above the Kaibab were removed at the same time. When it was asked how the layers at the Grand Canyon completed the lithification process after the pressure of the overlying layers was removed, particularly the Kaibab with no overlying layers at all, she said they dried You are going to have to quote me. I don't trust a thing you say about what you think I said. I don't recall EVER saying the strata were "SOFT," and that's not the same thing as "incompletely lithified." The ones ABOVE the Kaibab would have been softER than those below, though still under enough weight to not be really soft, and the very uppermost the softest of all, so that they should have broken up fairly readily in rushing water. BUT STILL I WOULDN'T CALL ANY OF IT "SOFT." The strata BELOW the Kaibab should have been pretty hard from the weight already. In any case your posts to me have been so irritatingly irrelevant and unrelated to anything I was saying I don't expect anything I say to get across to you anyway. I don't want to have to talk to you at all and I wish you'd just go away. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: Are you talking about the Supergroup / The Great Unconformity or some other angular unconformity as well? Most creationists accept that those rocks were already there before the Flood so that there is no issue about their being wet at all. wait. so the flood doesn't explain all the strata?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You didn't read the whole post. I say they created ALL the strata, most creationists don't. But on my scenario there would have been no exposure of the angular unconformity and no weathering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Kaibab would have been quite hard at that point, even if still damp, and let's assume it had the ingredients for cementation in it too because of the water coming down from the layers above already, so it was already quite hard from compaction, then it dried further and lithified as well from the chemicals already present.
Works for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It isn't necessarily a ruiver at first since it isn't all flowing in the same direction at first but coming in from the sides as well, a waterfall from many sides bringing a lot of broken up strata with it. It becomes a river later in the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: I say they created ALL the strata, most creationists don't. But on my scenario there would have been no exposure of the angular unconformity and no weathering. then how do you explain the angular unconformity and the signs of weathering between some strata (particularly at the unconformity)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I understand it, those strata are not the same thing as the geologic column, not different sediments for one thing.
different sediments, sure. You are talking about the tells, aren't you? Like the many layers of the settlements say at Jericho? The layers in those cases I've understood to have been built up from refuse and debris from the settlements themselves plus airborne dust, and that there is no real stratification of sediments such as are seen in the Grand Canyon with clear lines of demarcation between them and different sediments clearly distinct from each other.
geologic column? well, they are, but it's kind of like arguing whether or not the fire on the candles is part of the birthday cake. it's all the stuff below that really matters. What?
what Dr. A. is saying is that transitional forms would then not be part of the geologic column, and would exist all on top of it, and everything below would necessarily be a pre-noachide-evolutionary-explosion "kind". What? Transitional forms are an issue for evolution, not for the Flood. There is no such thing on the Flood model. There are many varieties of the different Kinds. I think you are mixing the models here, and that's probably what a lot of the confusion in this discussion comes from. What is in the geologic column from a Floodist perspective is many varieties of the different Kinds. There are no post-Flood strata. Living things that microevolved since the ark wouldn't have been fossilized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: It isn't necessarily a ruiver at first since it isn't all flowing in the same direction at first but coming in from the sides as well, a waterfall from many sides bringing a lot of broken up strata with it. It becomes a river later in the process. that would look very different. you'd see signs of erosion from water going vertically, instead of dry crumbling as banks collapse. and there's have to be a good reason for initial fissure (somewhere for the water to go), which would not look like a winding river but a jagged crack.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024