Why is evolution so controversial?

Faith writes: 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,...

Statements like this are why people will continue to tell you that you know nothing about geology, along with barely concealed mumblings about your incredible and incredibly well maintained ignorance.

Please try to follow this simple logic:

• Everywhere sediments are being deposited the geologic column is growing.

• Sediments are being deposited on the ocean floor.

• Therefore the geologic column on the ocean floor is growing.

Because sea floor eventually subducts into the mantle it has a limited lifetime. The oldest sea floor in the world is maybe 200 million years old, so the geologic column of sea floors will always be limited in extent and will never record more than the last 200 million years.

...certainly not building Recent Time periods on top of it,...

You've already won the "most stupid comments this year" award, no need to continue.

The topmost sedimentary layer in all oceans everywhere throughout the world are very recent, today in fact. Sedimentation upon all ocean sea floors everywhere is, to use your words, "building Recent Time periods on top of it."

...and for the most part nowhere near the same scale,...

Faith, are you reading this thread or not? The only way you could make such an incredibly insipid comment is if you're not even reading this thread, because it has already been called to your attention several times that oceans are on a scale greater than the continents. The Pacific all by itself is greater in extent than the world's largest continent, and so its sedimentary layers must be greater in extent than the largest sedimentary layer on any continent.

... and not to the same depth,...

Again, are you even reading this thread? Here's the map of ocean sediment depth I posted back in Message 373:

Click on the image to enlarge it, then note that the thickest oceanic sedimentary layers are 20 kilometers (12.4 miles).

Faith, there's no need to keep repeating incredibly ignorant comments again and again. There's a way you could protect yourself against potential future commissions of stupidity: learn something.

...and not the same sediments...

My God, how do you do it?

Faith, the sedimentary layers we see in oceanic cores are the exact same ones we see in places like the Grand Canyon: sandstone, shale, limestone. Away from continental boundaries deposition is slow due to lack of sedimentary material, but close to the continental margins we see the exact same type of layers, namely sandstone, shale and limestone, that are so familiar at the Grand Canyon.

...and in other words not like the Geo Column or the Geo Timetable that is imposed on it.

Since every argument you used to reach this conclusion was dead wrong, the conclusion is dead wrong, too.

Did you know that as you drill deeper and deeper ocean cores that the sedimentary layers eventually become sedimentary rock? Would you care to explain to us again your belief that there is a final stage of the lithification process that turns partly lithified rock into solid rock by drying? And how this happens beneath the sea floor?

In reality, sedimentary layers become rock due to pressure, not drying. Your refusal to accept this is another reason why it is so apparent that you know so little about geology, and why it is likely to stay that way. You'll just go on rejecting one simple, obvious fact after another.

--Percy

Faith writes: 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.

You've got this unbelievable talent for disbelieving the most obvious of facts. No wonder you don't know anything.

The geologic column includes all the sedimentary layers right up to the present. Anything deposited on top of the geologic column adds to it.

And life becomes buried in sedimentary layers forming today just like it did in the past. It won't turn into fossils for a long time, of course.

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.

You are a very strange person.

As has been described to you many times, and as the layers of the Grand Canyon clearly show, deeply buried sedimentary layers have experienced erosion before today. This is more knowledge that you've rejected, but strangely your displays of idiocy have no impact on the facts.

--Percy

Please try to follow this simple logic: Everywhere sediments are being deposited the geologic column is growing.

It appears that Faith thinks the geological column consists only of those rocks exposed in continental settings.

This is silliness, of course, since every location on earth has its own 'column'. The oceans have their own column, the continents their own and even the exposed shield areas have their own geologic column. And they are all different.

This contrivance that the Grand Canyon has the only valid geological column makes no sense, whatsoever, and if that is her understanding, then it's pretty obvious why she is so confused.

From 400:

Percy writes: Most sedimentary layers are marine, so if the marine layers formed from material washing off of the land mass then most of the material on the land mass must have been marine.

What??? This is so wacked, I don’t know what to say. Or is that some sort of paraphrasing of a Faith statement?

The rest of the content is pretty good, although your writing style seems to have slipped down to my level (OSLT).

From 412:

Percy writes: Of course they were once ocean floor. Since they're composed of the same type of marine sediments we see being deposited today on ocean floors, and since these marine sediments contain marine fossils, of course they were once ocean floor.

Well, ocean floor sedimentation is a subset of marine sedimentation, but there is also other marine sedimentation. Continental shelf deposition is marine, but not ocean floor. Sea transgressions onto the continents deposition (which actually includes the previous) is not ocean floor.

Most sedimentary layers are marine and they contain marine fossils. So please describe your evidence that these marine layers and fossils accumulated on land?

Well, most of them were deposited on the continent (“land”). You think it was deposited in the ocean basin and then somehow “welded” to the continent? That “welding” does happen, but is relatively minor.

Moose

It's not the geo column that interests me so much as the GEOLOGIC TIMETABLE for pete's sake, although the idea that any kind of layers that occur anywhere ARE the geologic column makes no sense whatever. As for the Grand Canyon I simply like it because it's such an excellent exposure of so many layers AND supposed "time periods" in one place, but of course that is getting garbled into me supposedly thinking that's the only geo column/timetable on the planet. This topic is now so confused and crazy there hardly seems any point in trying to sort things out.

...the GEOLOGIC TIMETABLE...

It's a timeline from the origin of the Earth, to the present. Anything geological is tied to the timeline. New geology? The timeline has extended.

Moose

If descent with modification were not true then nested hierarchies would not form, and instead there must be some other pattern formed.

That is not correct. There is simply no indirect, after the fact evidence that could not be produced by magical finger snapping or last Thursday type creation processes. God may just have like keeping his creation well organized.

But while God could have made the universe look evolved, evolution could not reasonably have done somethings God might have done.

The short answer is that you seem to be claiming that the inverse of a correct premise must also be a correct premise. I'm sure there is a formal name for such reasoning, but I don't remember it, and I am not going to look it up.

Okay. It is Denying the antecedent. P => Q does not require that not P => not Q.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The fact that the basalt is intrusive through the Supergroup does not mean it didn't also flow aerially and since I said nothing of the sort you must be hallucinating.

I also said nothing to imply that schist is an intrusive rock. It's there at the bottom of the GC, sedimentary rock metamorphosed into schist and I said nothing to imply any different, unless of course you are again hallucinating.

If you can guess then I can guess. If it isn't clear what the sedimentary source of the Vishnu schist is, my guess it's remnants of the Supergroup that got displaced by the tectonic and volcanic forces.

You haven't showed me to be wrong about anything. You haven't even understood what I've said or been trying to say.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you RAZD. I suppose I should have been able to guess that. In any case I get it, it's basically the principles of microevolution which are never in dispute, to which has been added observations of completely different kinds/species based on some collection of similarities that seem to make them fit right in. Their own microevolution into breeds and races then continues the format, and then again you have to piece them together with some other kind that is subjectively determined to have enough similar characteristics to be ancestor or descendant. So of course I would have to question the artificial connections between kinds but to do so would mean having a much more detailed description of just what characteristics are being invoked to create the supposed continuation from microevolution to macro at each level. Probably too much for me to take on at this point. But I do thank you for going to that trouble to spell it out.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Many people would be wrong because you have quoted me out of context, and that's the same as lying,.

The fact that the basalt is intrusive through the Supergroup does not mean it didn't also flow aerially and since I said nothing of the sort you must be hallucinating.

I've said that the bulk of the Cardenas is a lava flow at least twice now.

But just to straighten things out a bit, it is intrusive into only the Chuar Group.

I also said nothing to imply that schist is an intrusive rock.

Well I'll give you that, but this statement of yours is kind of confusing:

Oh and the magma is what created the granite and the schist at the bottom of the GC too...

It's there at the bottom of the GC, sedimentary rock metamorphosed into schist and I said nothing to imply any different, unless of course you are again hallucinating.

Okay, then I'll just assume that your previous statement was garbled.

If you can guess then I can guess. If it isn't clear what the sedimentary source of the Vishnu schist is, my guess it's remnants of the Supergroup that got displaced by the tectonic and volcanic forces.

Not possible. The Vishnu is older than the GC Supergroup, so it cannot be derived from the GCSg.

You haven't showed me to be wrong about anything.

Actually, I've shown you to be wrong a couple of times in this post.

You haven't even understood what I've said or been trying to say.

Well, I'll admit that I don't understand your posts much of the time. I speak several languages, but do not translate gibberish very well.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

duplicate

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Y9ou guys dobn't seem to know the differ4ence between when I'm struggling to get an observatyion into words which I've said over and over is my intention here, and the idea that I don't know any geology. I'm saying something DIFFERENT than what geology says for crying out loud. What I know or don't know is irrelevant if I'm making an o4riginal observation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

WHEN I AM TALKING ABOUT SMALLER SCALE I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE OCEANS AND I'VE MADE THAT CLEAR ENOUGH TIMES FORF YOUR OBJECTION TO BE RIDICULOUSZ.

It's a timeline from the origin of the Earth, to the present. Anything geological is tied to the timeline. New geology? The timeline has extended.

Yes, dear Moosie, that is the PARTY LINE. Good grief. I've been trying to get some PHYSICAL FACTS into focus that I think CONTRADICT the party line. A couple of these are the enormous extent of the strata called the geologic column actoss entire continents as compared with small scale depositions ON THE LAND SURFACES NOW, as well as the idea that the ocean floor is now where it is continuing rather than above the existing column; in sum the idea that the geo column doesn't need to add to the existing geo column to BE the geo column.

But that's OK, I do need to realize that the brains here are ossified around the party line and take my thoughts elsewhere.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.