Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 4:35 PM
25 online now:
dwise1, edge, JonF, PaulK, vimesey (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,801 Year: 11,837/19,786 Month: 1,618/2,641 Week: 127/708 Day: 61/66 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
65NextFF
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18577
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 346 of 969 (724519)
04-17-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Faith
04-17-2014 5:13 PM


Faith writes:

The whole Geologic Column making up the "Geologic Timetable" from Precambrian to Recent Time is represented in that entire three-mile deep stack (with only a displaced dinosaur layer considered to be a disconformity or some such nonsense) and this Erosion absolutely ended its accumulation which will never be resumed.

As long as the region around the Grand Canyon is higher than the surrounding regions, it will experience net erosion.

But we live on a dynamic planet, and when comes a time that the Grand Canyon region is no longer higher than the surrounding regions then it will experience net deposition.

You seem to think that there was a flood era during which the kind of deposition and erosion that could create a Grand Canyon and the geologic column could take place, and now that era is over and so the kind of deposition and erosion that created the geologic column no longer happens.

But in geology the present is the key to the past. The same forces and processes active today were active in the past, and we can project what we see happening today into the past and figure out how the geologic layers and formations we see today were formed. All it takes for net erosion is elevation above the surrounding region, all it takes for net deposition is depression below the surrounding region. There's no such thing as a special kind of era that permits planet shaping erosion and deposition and where with its end such change ceases.

Your flood is a silly, ridiculous idea. Scientifically a world-wide flood could never create the geology of our planet. You look at it and see "Flood" for no other reason than your religion demands it, and then you make up things this "Flood" could do that are scientifically impossible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 5:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:21 AM Percy has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2250
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 347 of 969 (724520)
04-17-2014 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Minnemooseus
04-17-2014 7:29 PM


Re: The Kaibab sediments vs. deep ocean basin sediments
Pretty damn bogus reply.

I can't see AT ALL how the deep ocean basin deposition model really has anything to do with any with the sediment deposition of the Grand Canyon area rocks. At best, MAYBE the bottom-most pre-Cambrian rocks that are now high grade metamorphics MIGHT have some sort of deep ocean origins. MAYBE.

Maybe you are right.

I assumed that the limestones and shales were from an ocean deposition and I thought the sandstones were from deposition closer to continental shelf. Obviously, the crossbedded sanddune deposits were deposited when it was dry land.

Can you tell me what the depositional environment was?

Faith writes:

The accumulations of sediment you can point to here and there are paltry little collections by comparison.

It seems to me that deposition happening in the present in the Pacific cannot be described as here and there or paltry on a timescale of millions of years.

thanks.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-17-2014 7:29 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 348 of 969 (724535)
04-18-2014 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Faith
04-17-2014 3:48 PM


Re: Geo Timescale no longer telling time
As I said, the layering on the ocean floors bears just about zero resemblance to the layering of the Geologic Column.

And the geologic column in Pennsylvania bears almost no resemblance to that of Colorado. And the geological column for Nevada bears almost no resemblance to that of the Canadian Shield.

So the modern sediments are different from those of the Precambrian. And continental shelf sediments are different from the abyssal plain.

Yep, it's a little more complicated than you think.

Certainly, however there are some sediments like the modern deep sea as in the Precambrian of Montana...

How, does that happen? Well, it does.

quote:
Yes I know that water layers sediments, that's how I know the Geo Column was formed by the Flood, and there's no way the layering now accumulating on the sea floor or in newly formed basins elsewhere has anything to do with the continued building of the Geo Timetable.

Well, they do. The may not look like the Grand Canyon sequence but they certainly look like lower plate rocks of Nevada. and the pelagic sediments of of the Belt Supergroup in the Northwest.

As usual, your viewpoint is simplified to the point of uselessness.

quote:
Which has clearly come to an end, kaput, finis.

So, you say that sediments are not being deposited in the Mississippi River delta, or the Andes trench or the Bahamas Banks?

Please tell us more.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 3:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 349 of 969 (724536)
04-18-2014 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
04-17-2014 6:03 PM


Re: Geo Timescale no longer telling time
Na, the fact is that I DISAGREE with some Geology and that's what you don't like. I don't toe the party line so I'm crazy. Oh well.

You are free to agree or disagree. You just look kind of silly to anyone who knows anything about geology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 6:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 350 of 969 (724538)
04-18-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Percy
04-17-2014 8:02 PM


As long as the region around the Grand Canyon is higher than the surrounding regions, it will experience net erosion.

The Kaibab Plateau is bounded on the south by the Grand Canyon and by Colorado tributaries on the east and west. It is higher than all that and yet at some point it was eroded into a plateau. On the north it is bounded by the higher cliffs of the Grand Staircase, so that is a source of water for erosion, but no normal rivers could have denuded that plateau flat as it is. On the flyover videos of that area it appears very flat indeed, and the south side of the canyon also, which is part of the greater Kaibab though not considered to be the Kaibab Plateau specifically. It's over a thousand feet lower than the plateau.

The Kaibab plateau is the surface of the limestone layer that forms the rim of the Grand Canyon and is identified with the Permian time period. Before it was eroded there was a stack of layers more than a mile deep stacked on top of it, of which only the cliffs of the Grand Staircase to the north and a small butte to the south of the GC remain. ALL THAT SEDIMENT WAS ERODED AWAY, about fifteen hundred square miles of sediment over a mile deep, leaving the Kaibab Plateau completely denuded and flat, not to mention the entire Kaibab area to the south of Grand Canyon as well which is an even larger area over which that same mile-deep stack of layers also once existed and was also eroded away. It was all washed clean and flat. This is not the work of normal everyday erosive conditions over millions of years.

But we live on a dynamic planet, and when comes a time that the Grand Canyon region is no longer higher than the surrounding regions then it will experience net deposition.

Your planet is very dynamic indeed, risings and fallings of seas and land areas galore, and yet you all accept your ridiculous version of geology and scorn mine. Lot of theory there, not much reality. No reason whatever to expect the Kaibab plateau to sink or the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase. Clearly the layers were all laid down one after another to a great depth, some three miles or so, before any of the large scale erosion occurred, the canyon cutting, the cliff formation, the denuding of the Kaibab etc etc etc.

You seem to think that there was a flood era during which the kind of deposition and erosion that could create a Grand Canyon and the geologic column could take place, and now that era is over and so the kind of deposition and erosion that created the geologic column no longer happens.

But I didn't mention any of that at all on this thread. I merely observed that the formation of the strata, which is the basis for the Geologic Timetable, has clearly come to a halt. It is not continuing to form above the Grand Staircase which is where it should continue to lay down more and more Recent Time layers, and this is certainly not because the Recent Time layer in that area is lower and being eroded because in fact it is the highest point in the area. What's left of it. Of course that is a silly way to put it but if it were actually continuing it would in fact be deposited onto all the cliffs and in the canyons too.

And since it has come to a halt, not only in that area but everywhere the Geo Column exists (you say not but I'm sure you're wrong) this is why you've removed the strata-building processes to newer and much much smaller-scale basins and the ocean floor. Where what is actually seen isn't comparable in scale or sedimentary structure and composition to the Geo Column anyway.

But in geology the present is the key to the past. The same forces and processes active today were active in the past, and we can project what we see happening today into the past and figure out how the geologic layers and formations we see today were formed.

Which is of course a statement of the principle of Uniformitarianism, which of course is why I'm always butting heads with it.

All it takes for net erosion is elevation above the surrounding region,

Well what we've got is a totally denuded Kaibab limestone surface that was once buried under a mile-deep stack of sediments that are now represented only by the cliffs of the Grand Staircase and a small butte to the south of the Grand Canyon. You are claiming that all that was just slowly eroded away over millions of years, and I'm saying no it had to have been washed away cataclysmically over a much shorter period of time. Just as the same depth of stacked sediments had to have been washed away from all the monuments of the Southwest, also leaving a flat denuded plain.

all it takes for net deposition is depression below the surrounding region.

That's your theory. No evidence for it of course, just pure theory based on the principle of uniformitarianism. I think my explanation is far far more realistic.

There's no such thing as a special kind of era that permits planet shaping erosion and deposition and where with its end such change ceases.

Again, I OBSERVED that the building of the strata HAS ceased. It's an observed FACT, not the product of theory. And you all tacitly acknowledge this fact by relocating the continued strata-building to the ocean floor and newer small-scale basins.

Your flood is a silly, ridiculous idea. Scientifically a world-wide flood could never create the geology of our planet. You look at it and see "Flood" for no other reason than your religion demands it, and then you make up things this "Flood" could do that are scientifically impossible.

Seems to me that once you understand that the Flood did in fact occur then it takes a peculiar blindness NOT to see its effects, exactly where science is making up the scientifically impossible silly and ridiculous fantastic stuff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Percy, posted 04-17-2014 8:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:42 AM Faith has responded
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 04-18-2014 9:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 351 of 969 (724539)
04-18-2014 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
04-17-2014 5:55 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
NONE OF IT GOES ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS. The newly created ocean floor is just part of the MOVEMENT of the continents.

I'm wondering how you know this.

But since you are so knowledgeable, perhaps you could explain ophiolite sequences to us in your own words. But first, maybe this little article might be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiolite

Have no idea what you are talking about.

I"m sure.

Sea floor layers cannot possibly be the Geologic Timetable as I've shown over and over.

So you say. Why not?

quote:
NOT ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS.

Why not? Or are just trying to reinforce a lie?

In that case have pity on me and explain what on earth you are talking about. I've never seen anything about continents being built out of ocean floor. Volcanic islands is It.

Then maybe you can explain the Fransiscan Formation of California.

No, just me. I just hit on this in this thread. Suddenly realized how clear it is that the Geo Column and therefore Timescale has absolutely stopped forming and how absolutely stupid the idea of it continuing on the ocean floor is.

Clear to you and your baseless assertions. Sedimentation occurs presently all over the world, mainly in the oceans, but also in lakes and rivers similar to those we see in the geological record.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 5:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:34 AM edge has responded
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:40 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 352 of 969 (724540)
04-18-2014 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by edge
04-18-2014 12:30 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Sure sedimentation occurs all over the world, but it isn't occurring on the scale it occurred when it laid down the strata that form the Geologic Column on which the Geologic Timetable is built, very deep disparate sediments that extend across the entire continent of North America for instance.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:30 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:57 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 353 of 969 (724541)
04-18-2014 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by edge
04-18-2014 12:30 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
So you count the ophiolites as Geo Column / Timetable or what?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:30 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 354 of 969 (724542)
04-18-2014 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:21 AM


The Kaibab Plateau is bounded on the south by the Grand Canyon and by Colorado tributaries on the east and west. It is higher than all that and yet at some point it was eroded into a plateau. On the north it is bounded by the higher cliffs of the Grand Staircase, so that is a source of water for erosion, but no normal rivers could have denuded that plateau flat as it is. On the flyover videos of that area it appears very flat indeed, ...

Yes, flat and featureless, similar to a coastal plain with meandering streams...

Your planet is very dynamic indeed, risings and fallings of seas and land areas galore, and yet you all accept your ridiculous version of geology and scorn mine.

Well, considering your lack of references and any hint of training in geology, you are well-deserving of scorn.

quote:
Lot of theory there, not much reality. No reason whatever to expect the Kaibab plateau to sink or the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase. Clearly the layers were all laid down one after another to a great depth, some three miles or so, before any of the large scale erosion occurred, the canyon cutting, the cliff formation, the denuding of the Kaibab etc etc etc.

Untrue. There were several periods of erosion before the recent uplift and subsequent erosion. But you wouldn't know that, would you?

But I didn't mention any of that at all on this thread. I merely observed that the formation of the strata, which is the basis for the Geologic Timetable, has clearly come to a halt.

Yes, that is what would normally happen when an area is eroded. But at the same time, we know that marine deposition continues elsewhere.

Again, I OBSERVED that the building of the strata HAS ceased.

This is a joke, right? You are saying that sedimentation should continue during a period of erosion at the same place?

quote:
It's an observed FACT, not the product of theory. And you all tacitly acknowledge this fact by relocating the continued strata-building to the ocean floor and newer small-scale basins.

Somehow, I don't see the Pacific Ocean as a small-scale basin...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:45 AM edge has responded
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:57 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 355 of 969 (724543)
04-18-2014 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:40 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Why would they not be part of the geological column for some areas? Are you under the impression that the geo column is the same every where?

That's crazy.

But then, you would know better, of course.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 356 of 969 (724544)
04-18-2014 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by edge
04-18-2014 12:42 AM


There were several periods of erosion before the recent uplift and subsequent erosion. But you wouldn't know that, would you?

I would know it has been said but that the actual reality defies the idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:42 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:02 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 357 of 969 (724545)
04-18-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:34 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Sure sedimentation occurs all over the world, but it isn't occurring on the scale it occurred when it laid down the strata that form the Geologic Column on which the Geologic Timetable is built, very deep disparate sediments that extend across the entire continent of North America for instance.

Just one little question...

If this was a global flood, where did all of the sediment come from to create all of those sediments? Where was the erosion occurring?

And I'm not even going to get into the evaporite deposits, the dinosaur footprints, the raindrop impressions and the termite nests...

And you were asking about our silly models for sedimentation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:34 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:01 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 358 of 969 (724546)
04-18-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by edge
04-18-2014 12:42 AM


I never said sedimentation had stopped, nor did I call the ocean floor a small-scale basin.

But you said there have been previous periods of erosion and uplift in the Grand Canyon area, and I'm wondering where you see the evidence for that on this diagram:

Seems to me pretty clear that all the large-scale erosion I was talking about occurred above the Kaibab at the same time the GC area was uplifted into that mounded shape and the canyons and cliffs were cut and the magma intrusions occurred in the GS area and the faultings too and the Great Unconformity beneath the GC as well. All at one time. Even the Great Unconformity. Yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:42 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:17 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 359 of 969 (724547)
04-18-2014 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by edge
04-18-2014 12:57 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Yes, obviously you've missed all the voluminous previous discussions of these things. The material for the strata must have come from the washing off of the land mass in the forty days and nights of torrential rain. It got sorted in the currents and layers of the ocean water and redeposited as strata.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:57 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:10 AM Faith has responded
 Message 374 by Percy, posted 04-18-2014 10:51 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4635
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 360 of 969 (724548)
04-18-2014 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:45 AM


I would know it has been said but that the actual reality defies the idea.

Good. Then you can explain the angular unconformities such as the ones at the base of the Grand Canyon Group and the Tapeats Sandstone.

In fact, why is there a beach sand such as the Tapeats? Doesn't a beach imply land?

And what about the swamps of the Hermit Shale? How do you get swamps in the middle of a global flood?

And then, of course there's the disconformity between the Redwall and the Temple Butte which forms in channels cut in the Tonto Group. I'm glad you can explain these and look forward to your treatment of the geology of the GC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:21 AM edge has responded
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:39 PM edge has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
65NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019