|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Done.
Actually, not... You have only made assertions of what you believe to be so. Is see no supporting evidence.
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.
Mmmm, yes, that would be a the definition of a sediment, including beach sands.
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.
So, a swamp was miraculously transported into the middle of a global fludde. I see that as an artifact of psychotropic substances.
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.
So the Temple Butte was deposited and then the channels formed underneath it so that it could fall into place. I'm sure you are correct. I see that happening all the time in my yard.
It doesn't look like anything that would have formed on the surface of the earth,...
I have an idea. It formed on Mars and then the fludde transported it to earth.
... especially since it is filled in perfectly to the same level as the limestone into which the channel was cut,
Sure. Upward truncation of bedding units never happens in the geological record. It seems you are forgetting more geology on a moment by moment basis...
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.
This may make sense to you, but I think your friends from Mars might have better luck with it since most of it happened up there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I only just started thinking ...
I suppose then it's just beginner's luck.
... 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.
Maybe you wouldn't have to struggle so much if you just learned some geology.
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.
Maybe you are trying to say the wrong thing.
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.
You would assume incorrectly.
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.
Do you have a point here?
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.
Go ahead.
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."
The geological time scale includes the Recent which is the present. We don't need mammal fossils for corroboration. In fact, mammal fossils would be terrible index fossils.
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.
It helps.
(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?)
Certain localities, if I understand you.
Oh grant a nongeologist a bit of poetic license, don't go all pedantic on me for no good reason.
YECs rarely grant me the right.
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.
Why should it. I have plenty of time for geotectonics to happen. You do not. And yet, they happened.
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, ...
Why is that? We know that these events happened. Unless you want to invoke God's bulldozer, old ages is the only answer.
... but also now hits me as showing that the whole thing has come to an end.
Why is that? These same things have been going on in the geological record for billions of years. Mountains have risen and then eroded. Many times.
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.
It wouldn't be so difficult if you used punctuation. I think I can argue that the same basins we see today existed in the past. Sometimes in the same places. If you look at the world today, you can see the same types of deposits from the continental shelves, to transgressive beaches, to coral reefs, to intermontane baisins with evaporite deposits, back-arc basins and melanges. There is really no that much difference in the geotectonic settings of the earth going back well into the Precambrian where things get weird.
So it seems to me anyway and I'm still trying to get this conceptualized properly.
I'm sure it makes sense to you that someone was in charge of the geology of the earth and made it so.
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?
Because it's always been that way. We see continental deposits on the continents and oceanic deposits in the seas of all times in the past.
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.
Not really. I can find oceanic sediments of any age that you want. What we see today is just a continuation of that process. Not all of the earth was covered by the Redwall Limestone. If you went out to sea from the Redwall deposits, you would run into deep-sea deposits just like those of today.
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.
Right. That's because it is based on something you wrote. A depocenter is the thickest part of a basin where the thickest sedimentary packages of a certain time occur.
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.
You have chosen a fruitless task. The existing geological column is not just the Paleozoic continental sediments that the original column was based on. It really includes a bunch of other deposits.
But how so? Simply because it's a modern deposition?
No, it's happened throughout the geological record. Volcanic deposits, for instance, have very little lateral continuity. The deposits you are thinking of are continental in scope, but not all deposits are like that.
How is it related geographically even to the local geological column if at all?
Local depositional environments. Just like we have today.
Could be but as I said I'm working on a new concept here.
You are free to do so, but be prepared to answer a lot of questions, particularly when you criticize previous work. I have spent a lot of time here on this post, against my better judgement. Usually, I regret it later on. What will happen this time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Since the only "evidence" YOU have is your unreliable easily disrupted radiometric dating, I wouldn't talk about evidence if I were you
So you didn't read my post, did you? What is your evidence that radiometric dates are universally unreliable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Again YOUR supporting evidence for Geology's utterly ridiculous scenario of erosion of a buckled upended block of strata with some extremely hard rocks in it, is zero anyway, it's just the usual Geo fantasy, the interpretive dance you all do that you call science.
More unsupported assertions laced with obligatory insults. I can see that I wasted my time on you.
quote:So, where is the evidence for detachment between the Toroweap and all underlying rocks? Oh, wait! You didn't support that, did you? quote:Heh, heh... Righteous indignation based on ignorance. I love it. You have become a caricature of the ignorant YEC. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Now here comes the EvC Trademark childish avalanche of tit for tat, more snark and mindless putdowns. I hope I can sleep through it.
Well, I wouldn't want you to lose sleep.
No interest in answering the rest of your snarky post.
Like that's news? Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Your diagram is for a specific spot in the Grand Canyon. Do you see the Vulcan's Throne Basalts layer in your diagram? ...
Now that I look at it, this diagram is a bit of an unfortunate choice for Faith to present. There are at least 4 distinct unconformities present, and that doesn't count the modern one. The Cardenas depiction is a bit confusing since it doesn't actually show the main occurrence of basalt, but even then this diagram is a clear indictment of the YEC viewpoint of the Grand Canyon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
pit nick
The diagram is confusing. It does indeed show the Cardenas as being perpendicular to bedding, but most of the RW Cardenas is a flat lying basalt flow.
... the Cardenas Basalts intrusion that I've drawn a red square around also formed a layer, this one parallel to the Unkar Group. ...Don't you mean perpendicular?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
Well, most of the Cardenas is actually a subaerial lava flow which kind of goes against your scenario.
quote:Well, kind of. However, your post appeared to indicate that it is an intrusive rock. quote:Heh, heh... YECs attack me all the time for 'guessing'. Why should you be immune? quote:Life is tough when you are wrong most of the time. I think your problem is that I showed you to be wrong. I've been a lot snarkier in the past. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Please try to follow this simple logic:
It appears that Faith thinks the geological column consists only of those rocks exposed in continental settings. Everywhere sediments are being deposited the geologic column is growing. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Aside from what your dating methods say is possible or not, is there no OBSERVATIONAL fact about the Vishnu schist to determine its original sedimentary content?
Probably, but it's not really relevant. The point is that your statement is/was wrong. You cannot derive the Vishnu from a formation that did not yet exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Why is evolution so controversial?
And what do these quotes have to do with religious fanatacism?
Personally, I think it has to do with the religious fanaticism of its adherents: ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
It feels to me like I'm expressing this clearly, but if not then let me know how I can improve it. I certainly don't want to further Faith's confusion.
Well, theoretically, the sediments are marine when they are deposited in a marine environment, regardless of where they came from. However. we can say that the sediments are terrigenous in that they came from the land. The point here is that there must have been a whole lot of land mass exposed right up to the end of the fludde (and, logically, after, since terrigenous deposits have been continuously forming since the beginning of the geological record up to the present). Certainly, the Mississippi Delta has been accumulating for much more than 6ky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
AGAIN let me point out the alternative view of the formation of the strata by Establishment Geology: that if there is a layer containing marine fossils, or even a limestone layer, they postulate, no they assume, no they call it a fact, that that layer was formed right there on that spot in a marine environment.
Not necessarily. We know what lacustrine limestones look like. We also know what hot-springs carbonate deposits look like, it really isn't to much of an assumption that most limestones are marine. As to them being formed on that exact spot, no. That is not an assumption in the age of modern plate tectonics theory.
quote:Actually, we see this in modern environments like Florida and we can be pretty certain what's going on. quote:No, we know from various types of data, that the crust can actually subside to accommodate very thick sediments. We can discuss this further if you want. quote:And they are. The other effect of plate tectonics is the formation of huge foldbelts and uplifts of the mountains. We have a pretty good idea that this happens. quote:There is no evidence that such a flood happened. quote:Why would you have 'land layers' in the middle of a global flood? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
... But if the layering in the oceans is supposed to represent more recent time periods, especially more recent than any found on land, I can't make any sense out of that at all.
I'm not sure why this is so hard. If the land is uplifted, sedimenation there stops, but continues in low areas filled with water.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024