Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 211 of 824 (718939)
02-09-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 6:13 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
As I understand it, those strata are not the same thing as the geologic column, not different sediments for one thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:24 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 212 of 824 (718941)
02-09-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
02-09-2014 6:09 PM


Re: geology
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 213 of 824 (718942)
02-09-2014 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
02-09-2014 6:13 PM


Re: geology
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 7:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 214 of 824 (718943)
02-09-2014 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
02-09-2014 6:14 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 7:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 215 of 824 (718944)
02-09-2014 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 5:43 PM


Re: geology
arachnophilia writes:
Percy writes:
So when something dries, what do you think happens to the water?
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 5:43 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 216 of 824 (718946)
02-09-2014 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 6:20 PM


Re: geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:55 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 217 of 824 (718947)
02-09-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
02-09-2014 5:58 PM


Re: geology
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 5:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 7:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 218 of 824 (718948)
02-09-2014 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
02-09-2014 6:40 PM


Re: geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 6:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 8:00 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 219 of 824 (718949)
02-09-2014 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
02-09-2014 6:44 PM


Re: geology
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?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:57 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 8:10 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 824 (718950)
02-09-2014 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 6:55 PM


Re: geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 7:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 221 of 824 (718951)
02-09-2014 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
02-09-2014 6:50 PM


Re: geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 6:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 222 of 824 (718952)
02-09-2014 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 6:22 PM


Re: geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 7:15 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 223 of 824 (718954)
02-09-2014 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
02-09-2014 6:57 PM


Re: geology
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)?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 6:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 7:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 224 of 824 (718955)
02-09-2014 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 6:24 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 6:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 7:26 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 225 of 824 (718956)
02-09-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
02-09-2014 7:07 PM


Re: geology
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 7:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 7:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024