Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 333 of 969 (724502)
04-17-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Percy
04-17-2014 3:41 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
And this process is going to put the newly forming sedimentary layers on top of the continents?
Uplift has already been described in this thread, Faith, and in countless other threads that you've been a part of.
So far all you've talked about is subduction, not uplift, so now you are saying the sea floor will be tilted and raised into mountains and that will be a new continent? I don't get it. Tectonic force buckles continental land and raises mountains, it doesn't make continents. The high mountains that have been raised by tectonic force, Rockies, Himalayas etc., are buckled continental land, not former ocean floor. Oh I see, on YOUR model they were once ocean floor. Sigh. On mine they are simply once-horizontal strata full of fossils that accumulated on the land mass that were then tectonically raised into mountains. They never COULD have been ocean floor, they weren't pushed up from such a depth. Sigh.
It's funny how you can remember things like tectonic forces and uplift when it's convenient for you, like when you make up stories about the flood and the Grand Canyon (e.g., tectonic forces that cause the rotation of buried strata, uplift that causes strata to crack into pieces that the flood carries away), but which you conveniently forget whenever real evidence points to their actual occurrence, like sea shells atop Mount Everest.
Never ever "forgot" Mount Everest, I've always explained those high mountains as formed by tectonic force after the Flood, including the Rockies which were produced by the same tectonic force that created the Grand Canyon with its Great Unconformity and all the rest of the formations in that area.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Percy, posted 04-17-2014 3:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 4:30 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 334 of 969 (724503)
04-17-2014 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Percy
04-17-2014 3:52 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
I'll try to be clearer. I know sediments get deposited in the oceans and elsewhere, and get layered too, but not where the Geo Column was deposited, certainly not building Recent Time periods on top of it, and for the most part nowhere near the same scale, and not to the same depth, and not the same sediments and in other words not like the Geo Column or the Geo Timetable that is imposed on it
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Percy, posted 04-17-2014 3:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2014 5:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 421 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 6:35 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 335 of 969 (724504)
04-17-2014 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Percy
04-17-2014 3:52 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
In some parts of the world, those that are regions of net deposition, the geologic column is still gradually forming.
Adding new layers to the uppermost Recent Time periods with very very modern fossils in them? Kindly show me any such thing.
In other parts of the world, those that are regions of net erosion, the geologic column is gradually disappearing.
This could happen. Funny though that it formed over hundreds of millions of years and THEN and ONLY THEN started to disappear, IF it is really the basis for the Geo Timescale.
Which of course it is not, and that's the real explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Percy, posted 04-17-2014 3:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 422 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 8:37 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 337 of 969 (724508)
04-17-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by JonF
04-17-2014 3:54 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
And this process is going to put the newly forming sedimentary layers on top of the continents? Sounds to me like it's going to bury them under the continents.
Both. Some goes on top, some goes underneath, some of what goes underneath comes back in solid or liquid form.
NONE OF IT GOES ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS. The newly created ocean floor is just part of the MOVEMENT of the continents.
The problem here is that a supposedly continuous accumulation of strata containing a supposedly ever-evolving record of life forms up through those strata, in order to continue to BE that record, has to build ON TOP of the previously accumulated strata plus life forms,
Yes. You just are intellectually incapable of understanding or even remembering modern geological theory. You've seen and read many accurate descriptions of exactly how this happens and you haven't even remembered that it exists. Start with Dr. A's geology thread.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
but this is obviously no longer happening
Oh it is. We measure it. We have, as you have already forgotten, all sorts of evidence including photos of layers on the sea floor, and we know a lot about them.
Sea floor layers cannot possibly be the Geologic Timetable as I've shown over and over.
where it can only accumulate marine life, and where, according to your scenario, it's all getting subducted under the continents and disappearing anyway
You get an occasional non-marine fossil in marine sediments.
The occasional fisherman or oceanographer probably. Wonder which will be regarded as the most or least "evolved" a few million years from now.
Gee that REALLY clinches it, doesn't it. Must be the Geo Timescale continuing then.
But as I wrote above and you obviously don't understand because you haven't a clue about the mainstream geology is, some of it goes on top and some goes below.
NOT ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS.
Of the stuff which goes below, some of it returns in solid or liquid form, it doesn't just disappear. We have images of it happening today. And you are ignoring that some goes on top. There are detailed investigations and scenarios for how this has happened for lots of interesting places. You've been exposed to a few of them, but of course you don't remember and can't learn.
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.
Whatever you're saying it doesn't answer the problem of the discontinuation of the building of the Geologic Timetable.
Ther's no problem to answer. Just a few looney tunes who can't face reality.
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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by JonF, posted 04-17-2014 3:54 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:30 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 339 of 969 (724510)
04-17-2014 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2014 5:41 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
You're so cute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2014 5:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2014 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 340 of 969 (724511)
04-17-2014 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Tanypteryx
04-17-2014 5:57 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-17-2014 5:57 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-17-2014 6:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 343 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2014 6:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 344 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2014 7:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 349 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 12:15 AM Faith has not replied

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


Message 363 of 969 (724551)
04-18-2014 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by edge
04-18-2014 1:02 AM


I've discussed all that to death on former threads and I'm a bit worn out from this thread at the moment but let me give it a once-over.
First the stack of sediments was all laid down to a depth of three or more miles, some of them extending horizontally all the way across the continent, certainly extending in that immediate vicinity for thousands of square miles.
After they were all laid down we got tectonic disturbance that released magma beneath the area where the GC now is, the force of the tectonic movement and possibly the accumulation of magma as well causing the lower strata to tilt up against the Tapeats. Slippage between the tilting strata and the Tapeats caused it to slide some distance. There is a fifteen-foot quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone above the contact line that was broken off the Shinumo layer about a quarter of a mile away from its current location. That movement accounts for that and all the rest of the broken/eroded stuff we find in the sandstone. The sandstone was no doubt highly compressed by the three miles of sediment stacked above it but not completely lithified at the time.
So the force exerted beneath the canyon lifted the whole stack but it remained more or less horizontal from the Tapeats on up, at least all the stack remained parallel from there up and mostly still horizontal. I figure the contact between the Tapeats and the tilted unconformity is the point where the forces balanced each other out, the tectonic and volcanic forces from beneath and the weight of the stack of sediments above. The stack was uplifted but not distorted from the Tapeats on up.
All this uplifted the whole stack, and the uplifting cracked the uppermost strata which at that time were more than another mile higher than the current rim of the GC. I figure this tectonic disturbance was all part of the period of the end of the Flood when the waters were starting to recede, or somewhere in that time frame, so that there was still a lot of water to rush into those cracks and begin the process of cutting the canyon. An enormous amount of sediment had to be broken up of course, some of which washed into the cracks as an abrasive element that widened the canyon. At the same time there was a magma eruption beneath the north end of what is now the Grand Staircase, and an earthquake forming the Hurricane Fault, to the south of which the land was pushed up while to the north of it the land tilted and dropped. All this shaking up plus the huge quantity of water now looking for passages of exit broke off all those cliffs and denuded the Kaibab plateau etc etc etc.\
I'm sure I've forgotten a bunch of stuff but I need to take a rest from all this. Since you no doubt find all this objectionable I'll probably see you here later or tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:02 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 367 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:42 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 365 of 969 (724553)
04-18-2014 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:21 AM


Oh and the magma is what created the granite and the schist at the bottom of the GC too, taking not nearly as long as Geology requires but Geology does tend to overestimate time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:21 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:58 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 366 of 969 (724554)
04-18-2014 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by edge
04-18-2014 1:25 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
The deposition of shells is not the Geologic Timescale. Your Recent Time period on that Timescale has mammals and stuff, oh maybe some marine stuff, but it's not the Recent Time period if it only has shells. We are plotting the sequence of evolution up the time periods are we not? And the time periods do stack one on top of another do they not? That is, they do not decide to continue elsewhere, they build where they are. Current smallscale sedimentation and deposition of fossils is simply NOT the Geologic Timescale, it's just willy-nilly sedimentation and fossilization.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:25 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by edge, posted 04-18-2014 1:53 AM Faith 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