Why is evolution so controversial?

Am I right that you mean "same age as" rather than "same as?" If not, I have to ask "same how?"I'm aware that there is an age discrepancy for my view of all this according to Geology, but I also don't take much of the dating claims seriously. I figure they are open to reinterpretation. Anyway for the Cardenas Basalt, which I assume is what you are talking about, Wikipedia has: Of course this is very interesting to me because it is an admission that there can be problems with radiometric dating, even that "deposition in a marine setting" can "disrupt" the system (and a marine setting is exactly what the Flood would have been). In discussions at EvC one normally finds radiometric dating treated as perfection itself.So now with newer methods they are sure they have it right. Fraid I don't have the same certainty myself. About the basalt or anything else dated by these methods.I also have found it difficult to get a clear idea of just what the Cardenas Basalt is. Sometimes it is presented as a layer in the Supergroup, but in this diagram it's presented as an intrusion through the Supergroup which makes more sense: Of course on my view of the Grand Canyon the magma eruption would have formed all of it in roughly the same time period: the basalt and the granite and the schist. It only needs to have happened over the last 4300 years, from the time of the magma eruption to the time it was recognized as schist. It doesn't need to have happened instantaneously. The pre-existing rock of the schist is probably partly rubble from the tilting and displacement of the Supergroup.

I only just started thinking about the Geo Timescale in this vein and I'm sure I have some of the terminology wrong and haven't got it well conceptualized yet so please be patient while I struggle through attempts to get it said.I know the Timescale and the Column are not quite the same thing but that the Timescale is built on the Column. The diagram I posted of the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area shows the column from the bottom of the GC on the south to the top of the GS on the north. Diagrams that can be found of the strata in the GS often label them according to the Timescale, from Precambrian through Mississippian up to the Permian though the diagram I posted labels them according to their sedimentary names.As time periods they are associated with particular kinds of fossilized life. Certainly a modern shell should show up in the uppermost layers or Recent Time, but Recent Time is normally characterized by the mammals and other "higher" life forms supposed to have evolved from earlier life forms. A modern shell may belong in the time period but it kind of misses the point of what I'm trying to say. I suppose you are assuming that given another few million years there WOULD be a more complete fossil record of the higher life forms represented in the Recent Time layers. But my problem is that you HAVE all the strata up through Recent Time with the mammals and all ALREADY. You can point to various strata here and there in the world to demonstrate it.Or let me try again: Here's a rough attempt to say what hit me during this thread: The Geologic Timescale is based on the Geologic Column, but of course not layer for layer, but the column is an actual stack of strata found at least in partial form all over the world. Please correct any wording that doesn't quite fit the situation. It's a sequence of time periods based on a sequence of strata EVEN THOUGH the strata are not identical everywhere. Again please correct the concept as needed. Nevertheless there is enough of it to determine that the fossil order is reliable everywhere so that the theory of evolution seems to be solidly based on it. Please explain how it is part of the Geo Timescale "at some locations." I'm working on it, I only just started thinking about this. Seems to me you have to have a stack or at least a partial stack of fossil-carrying sediments to relate it to the Geo Timescale.(The idea that some time periods are not represented by sedimentary deposits is something else to think about later, but at least I'd ask here: some have no such deposits ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD or do you just mean in certain localities?) Oh grant a nongeologist a bit of poetic license, don't go all pedantic on me for no good reason. No, but contemplating how the strata built up so neatly parallel to a height/depth of three miles in the GC-GS area before being so dramatically eroded by all that uplifting and canyon-cutting and cliff- forming and faulting and magma intrusions and so on, raises questions in my mind about the whole Geo Timescale claim. All that enormous "erosion" if that is even an adequate term for it, coming after such a long time of (relatively) undisturbed strata formation, raises questions about the whole idea of the billions of years for starters, but also now hits me as showing that the whole thing has come to an end.And one of the bits of evidence for this is how everybody is now relocating the Timescale away from the usual stacks of strata to new fields, either the bottom of the ocean or newer and much smaller scale basins or whatever, entirely different conditions from those in which the Geo Column has hitherto been built, which to me seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the Timescale in effect no longer exists even though of course that's not how all of you think about it. So it seems to me anyway and I'm still trying to get this conceptualized properly.How can a Timescale that built on and always depended on the series of strata of the Geo Column that climb from one "time period" to another up its series of layers, which is found in some form all over the world, now be relocated to the bottom of the sea or anywhere else? Since it doesn't seem to bother you I guess I can't expect you to find this a reasonable objection although it seems to me you should. To my mind this totally destroys the whole concept of the Geo Timescale. I don't even grasp the question and don't know what a "depositional center" refers to but I think my answer is probably "no. It happens. Well, I'm TRYING to conceptualize something about the Timescale and depositions that don't build on the existing Geo Column seem to me to have nothing to do with it. But how so? Simply because it's a modern deposition? How is it related geographically even to the local geological column if at all? No, but I think that there has to be some identifiable [abe: physical, geographical /abe] correlation between it in whatever form it is found and the Geo Timescale. Could be but as I said I'm working on a new concept here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The splitting of the continents from a single land mass. General upheaval connected with the Flood, which included volcanism. The buckled or tilted strata would have been severely abraded but the sandstone of the horizontal Tapeats, remaining horizontal and being compacted by the weight of strata three miles deep above it, and not being completely lithified, should have been deeply scraped though it wouldn't necessarily appear to have been eroded because it's all one sediment. Shave or grate off some brown sugar from a hardened block of it, it all continues to look like brown sugar. The fact that pieces of the abraded tilted lower strata are embedded in the sandstone ABOVE the contact line suggests that it too WAS eroded, it's just not as visible as the effect on the lower. The fact that the quartzite boulder had to have traveled about a quarter of a mile from where it would have been broken off the Shinumo as it came in contact with the Tapeats as well as the fact that the thing is suspended in the sandstone as it were. By which I suppose you mean this sort of erosion is seen to occur wherever there is an angular unconformity? Or do you mean to include other instances of it? If you mean the former you are of course saying this sort of erosion is what Geology normally interprets as what occurred to the uptilted layers over a long period of time at the surface of the earth. Which I'm of course contradicting, and I contradict it for all angular unconformities which I think formed the same way I'm describing here, starting with Siccar Point, and yes I'm contradicting it motivationally because I'm looking for a young earth explanation but also conceptually just because the usual idea strikes me as bizarre. Geology postulates all sorts of bizarre things to have supposedly occurred over great aeons of time, like tilted strata getting eroded nearly flat and leaving boulders and other chunks for evidence of the erosion, that even get embedded in some subsequent sedimentary deposit above the contact line. (Which is of course just one absurdity I find in OE Geology, other examples being the requirement of encroaching and retreating sea level to account for the different contents of the strata up the column, as if millions of years makes it physically possible for sea to rise to incredibly enormous heights, and not only once but up and down like an elevator to accommodate the different fossil contents. This IS pretty much what Geology affirms is it not?) Nah, probably not. Well but it IS "erosional" but not in the sense you mean it. It's abraded against the rock above, rather than eroded by exposure at the surface of the earth, which seems to me couldn't possibly have accomplished the effect of what is actually there anyway. Glad you agree. In the rough time frame thereof. Better than Geology has for its bizarre Old Earth scenarios, which is all those wild interpretive scenarios about eroding a variety of rocks flat as a plain over millions of years and about having the sea rise and fall against any physical law I can think of, while I have reasonable conceptualization based on simple observation of some facts and a reasonable grasp of what the physical world is capable of.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I discuss the Great Unconformity beneath the GC on the right in one of my later posts, and I see the angular unconformity at the far left, but I don't see the disconformity at the far right that you mention, just the Great Unconformity at the base of the GC. Perhaps I accounted for it in my analysis of how I think the area formed. If not, maybe we can take it up later. That is of course the Biggie, all of that, and to my mind it includes all the other upheavals including the Great Unconformity. Uh huh, typical weird piecemeal OE Geology. First, the Kaibab limestone was laid down a mile above the base of the Grand Canyon, assuming the Great Unconformity has already been created and eroded flat and the strata from the Tapeats on up have been laid down and so on and so forth, so you have to have the sea level rise a whole mile to create it, which I guess doesn't bother you, sea level just rising and falling as needed to accommodate the Old Earth, although it freaks everybody out that a Floodist believes it rose and fell just once.Second, there is no sign that the Kaibab was cut by streams, it's clearly a flat plain that was scoured clean, which suggests great sheets of water to me.So you must think the stack of sediments three miles deep that was built on top of it was built there AFTER your coastal plain scenario, which I think may require more risings and fallings of the sea but I haven't tracked all that.So then after all that was in place, hundreds of millions of years after the Tapeats was laid down, according to your OE version, finally we have this grand "erosion" that left only the cliffs of the Grand Staircase and the butte to the south of the Grand Canyon and the Kaibab so neatly scoured. It makes a lot more sense to think of it as having been scoured clean during that massive erosion rather than by streams during some supposed time it spent at the surface of the earth, which should have cut gullies into it anyway rather than leaving such a nice clean plateau.I'm assuming you agree that the Kaibab was buried by another stack of sediments a mile deep above it before all that grand scale erosion I keep pointing to occurred, right? I mean the canyon cutting, the cliff forming, the magma dike, the Hurricane fault, the angular unconformity to the north of that fault, and so on and so forth. So you agree that all that happened AFTER all the strata were in place even if you think each or some of the layers existed at the surface for millions of years? Funny how neatly parallel they stayed all that time, don't you think, first neatly horizontal of course, and then parallel even over the mounding of the land after all those hundreds of millions of years. Not really. I also explain the Siccar Point angular unconformity the same way and all the others as well. Tectonic bashing of the continent let loose the magma, caused land to rise and fall here and there, buckled strata here and there, broke off chunks of strata to make the cliffs of the Grand Staircase, cracked the strata so that canyons formed in the CS as well as the GC itself, and so on and so forth. All in roughly the same time frame. If you consider that all that mega-erosion from the Kaibab on up as shown in that diagram is all related to the lifting of the land both in the GC area and the far north of the GS area, and you factor in the earthquake shown by the fault lines, which all suggests a great shaking formed all those features from the canyons to the stairs, and you see that the Great Unconformity is associated with the mounded area into which the GC was cut, seems to me it is quite reasonable to consider that it was all part of the same mega-event.And doesn't science like "elegant" simple explanations that take a lot of things into account rather than piecemeal Rube-Goldbergish explanations?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Depends on what you mean by marine sediments but it didn't all have to come off the land, some could have been from the ocean.And of course the idea of millions of years of sedimentary deposits is a total fiction, they were all laid down within a year.

They were carried on their own currents or layers of the ocean/Flood waters, and I don't know how "turbid" the deposition was or whether some or all of the strata were laid down by waves or by precipitation out of standing water or how it occurred. But it's really no more of a puzzle than trying to wrap one's mind around the Rube Goldbergish Old Earth scenarios of Geology with its impossible risings and fallings of sea level, and its ridiculous interpretation of the fossil contents of slabs of rock as things that lived on that spot for millions of years. They would have been preserved at some stage in the Flood when the sediment was just deposited and not all the living things had yet died. This suggests deposition by waves rather than precipitation, which is also suggested by the way the strata extend across whole continents. Same basic circumstance as for the tracks though the poor things could have been buried deeper and trying to find a way out. You mean the Supergroup I guess. The Great Unconformity. I've already explained that. Got transported there of course, like all the other sediments with their creature contents. And if you mean the ripples, that also suggests deposition by waves.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Done. If you assume it formed in situ, yes, but I don't assume that, I assume all the sediments were transported to their current location. Again only a problem if you imagine it forming in situ, but if the clay was simply transported from some other location the whole idea of a swamp is just an artifact of Old Earth assumptions. Took a while of studying that formation but it looks to me now like a clear case of the channels having been formed after the layer was laid down. It doesn't look like anything that would have formed on the surface of the earth, especially since it is filled in perfectly to the same level as the limestone into which the channel was cut,abe: Something like this perhaps: Surrounding limestone somewhat harder than limestone in the channels, which might have been fairly liquid as a matter of fact, forming that rather neat U shaped channel as it cut through the earlier limestone, after it was all in place including the limestone above it, which again, accounts for its perfectly level upper surface. Again, I'm trying to account for that smooth curved bed and the level upper surface. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't get why you think this is a problem. Many of the fossils seem to have been collected in groups of their own kind, which really ought to be harder to explain on Old Earth theory than Flood theory, which simply transported things as they normally collected together. Old Earth theory ought to have individuals dying willy nilly here and there among all kinds of other creatures, instead of being collected more or less together in family graves as it were, and of all ages, showing it was whole populations that died at one time rather than normal individual deaths over long periods of time. abe: Nautiloids for instance are found in all sizes/ages through out one layer of the Redwall Limestone for thousands of square miles, clearly having been transported as a whole population along with a lot of limestone-forming creatures or sediments. Dinosaur beds where hundreds of the creatures are all jumbled up together is another example.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

duplicate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know what a sill is, I've read a ton of Geology on the internet over the years and I DID read Dr. A's course in Geology and I DID find I was already familiar with most of it. Take it or leave it.And that only about 20% of it involved the Old Earth nonsense.. Anyway, the illustrations I'm talking about don't look like sills they look likie layers of the same dimensions as the other layers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which I guess is why you speak of them separately. I of course am talking about THE magma that made all of them, at least at that location, but there are other volcanoes beneath the GC aren't there?

Since the only "evidence" YOU have is your unreliable easily disrupted radiometric dating, I wouldn't talk about evidence if I were you. There is no reason whatever to assume different magma eruptions for those three different magma products.Sorry I'm doing this in so many separate posts, I could tell by your tone there's no point in talking to you much more so I just answered briefly, but I'll try to do more at once from now on.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have never argued here "God did it," that's a lie.So is any reference to "magic water" or "magic" anything from me. If there is any argument based on magic it's the establishment claim that the sea could rise to enormous depths and fall and rise again, all based on a few fossils in rocks, the depth of which seems to be of no consequence in this magical scenario. Nobody ever treats that as magic but it is physically impossible. And as I also argued, the idea that the Great Unconformity is the root of a mountain chain that was thrust up and then eroded down to enough flatness for the strata of the GC from the Tapeats up to build up from there, is insanely impossible. And of course there is no real evidence for such a thing. But that doesn't stop Geology. Geology can say anything it wants, but a YEC is ridiculed for ideas that are more reasonable than theirs.Oh and the question about marine sediments has to do with the fact that I dispute that the strata represent landscapes that formed in place, so unless you are specific I don't know if you are talking about something that looks like it must have had a marine origin or something you KNOW had a marine origin.But my experience of your arguments is that you have no sense whatever of physical reality, from your bizarre misreading of that photo of the Great Unconformity months ago, to your bizarre straw man arguments with me about the Grand Canyon also months ago. But that's OK because you are the boss here and nobody is going to take you on.Some complain that I believe what I post and don't give in. What a weird idea. I haven't noticed anybody here ever acknowledging anything I say or giving in on their views, some of which are really stupid, but if I'm sure of what I say that's a big no-no.I posted that same diagram, Percy, I am aware of the Cardenas basalt illustration, which I posted because it's the only one I found that shows it as intrusive into the Supergroup. How any of that proves anything I've said wrong I have no clue.Schist is a metamorphic rock that has transformed what it is made of, but if you know what it is made of why don't you say instead of attacking me for guessing.Edge's snark got to be beyond tolerable. I'm sick of the snark and the lies at EvC. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is not one true representation in your post of anything I've said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.