Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 5:59 AM
20 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
36NextFF
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 16 of 533 (724871)
04-21-2014 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
04-21-2014 11:07 AM


... I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains. Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Sure.
Eroding Land -> (unconformity) -> sandstone -> siliciclastic muds -> carbonate sediments.

Precambrian basement -> great unconformity -> Tapeats Sandstone -> Bright Angle Shale -> Mauv Limestone.

Thank you very much, I'm thrilled by this topic and really want to get further into it if I can. I hope others will find it interesting enough to contribute to it.

Yes, I know... you simply can't believe it.

I have no reason not to believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 04-21-2014 11:07 AM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 533 (724917)
04-22-2014 12:03 PM


sedimentary sequence GC and GS
I was pondering the sequence of sediments in the Grand Canyon through the Grand Staircase, and really don't see an identifiable pattern to the sequence.

The Grand Canyon seems to be more dominated by limestones than the Grand Staircase which seems to be dominated by sandstones.

Grand Canyon:
Tapeats ---Sandstone
Bright Angel ---Shale
Muav ---limestone (shaly limestone)
Temple Butte ---limestone
Redwall Formation--- limestones
Supai Group Watahomigi ---limestone and small amt of mudstone
. ........ Mankacha ---sandy limestone, small amt mudstone
.......... Wescogame ---massive crossbedded sandstone, sandy limestone
...........Esplanade--- sandstone
Hermit ---shale
Coconino ---sandstone
Toroweap formation ---gypsum and shale
Kaibab ---limestone

Grand Staircase:
Moenkopi --- red sandstone
Chinle Formation --- Sandstones, siltstones, shales, conglomerate sandstone
Moenave & Wingate --- siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone
Kayenta--- interbedded sand, silt, conglomerate
Navajo Sandstone
Carmel -Page --- siltstone
Entrada --- sandstone
Morrison --- mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, limestone (dinosaurs)
Dakota --- sandstone, intermittent mudflat sediments
Tropic Shale
Straight Cliffs --- "fluvial (river systems), paralic (swamps and lagoons), and marginal marine (shoreline) siliciclastic strata."
Wahweap --- sandstone and mudstone
Kaiparowits --- "formed from alluvial floodplains of large rivers in coastal southern Laramidia; sandstone beds are the deposit of rivers, and mudstone beds represent floodplain deposits. It is fossiliferous, "
Claron --- limestone

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 18 of 533 (725362)
04-26-2014 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
04-21-2014 1:26 AM


Faith writes:

Another reason I may not reply is because I ignore insulting posts, more and more lately. That includes an awful lot of Percy's recently.

I vary my approach seeking what works best. You ignored so many of my posts in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread that when you hijacked the Why is evolution so controversial? thread to discuss the flood I decided to try a more direct approach. That didn't work either, so the search for your light bulb's on-button continues.

The illustration is clear enough in relation to the previous posts about how strata are laid down although I'm not sure what people think I need to get from this,...

What we all hope you "get from this" is that the sedimentary processes we see taking place today are the same ones that created the sedimentary layers we see in places like the Grand Canyon. We know this because the sedimentary layers of the geologic column are identical in character to sedimentary layers we see being deposited today, except that those of the geologic column have been subjected to great pressure and so have turned to rock.

...and I need to think about it a lot more anyway.

While you think about this it should help you a great deal if you could incorporate into your thinking that your supposedly natural scenarios have to obey the laws of nature. When you claim scenarios that require flood water to sort by isotopic concentration (which you must acknowledge they do whether you accept the dating conclusions or not), or to deposit denser material above less dense material, or to sort fossils by difference from modern forms, or to transport burrows and worm tracks and footprints and egg clutches undamaged, then you're invoking processes that violate the physical laws of the universe.

Surely you know I'm going to apply it to the Flood, which it already suggests to my mind.

We're aware of your flood bias, but to what end are you confessing this bias while claiming to be scientific, where one must remain unbiased and just follow the evidence where it leads. That you can't devise scenarios that don't violate physical laws is telling you something - it's just that you're not listening.

So I am to understand that the layers "farther from the coast" are under water?

Yes, that's correct. As sea transgresses onto land the older deposits become further and further from the coast and, of course, remain submerged. Here's the diagram again (click to enlarge):

This diagram represents what is happening along all coastlines everywhere all around the world. It isn't hypothetical. It derives from observations and research of well over a century. Anyone who has sauntered out far, far from shore at low tide knows that at some point the beach bottom transitions from sand to mud, and if you look at the diagram you can see that sand is deposited close to shore, but further out mud is deposited. The diagram is not made up.

But then eventually the water regresses and the layers are now on the land.

Yes.

I'd really like to know what distances we're talking about,...

Distances will be highly variable and dependent upon local conditions, but of course sand is deposited close to the coast (perhaps within a mile), mud is deposited anywhere from a hundred yards from shore to a few miles out, carbonate sediments (limestone) can be deposited in any warm shallow sea regardless of distance from a coast, and coccolith foram ooze means pelagic sediments, i.e., deep ocean sediments, that are high in calcium carbonates.

...and of course what lengths of time,...

Deposition rates can be highly variable. In mid-ocean it's around a few centimeters per thousand years, and that's pretty constant, but closer to shore who knows. It will be widely influenced by a host of factors, including climate, runoff from land, tides, etc.

...and I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains.

You'd like an example of transgression of the sea onto land? How about Alexandria, Egypt. Parts of the ancient city have slipped beneath the waves and are being more and more deeply covered by sand as time goes by. There's also the Roman city of Baiae and many others around the world.

I'd like to see you apply the same skepticism to the flood. Have you ever seen any actual examples of a flood sorting by isotopic concentration or by evolutionary distance? Have you ever seen a flood scoop up burrows and footprints and transport them elsewhere? Have you ever seen a flood deposit a series of different strata? Have you ever seen a flood deposit fine sediment?

The answer to all these questions must be no. Not only has no one ever witnessed events like these, there's no evidence of any of them ever happening, and they all violate various physical laws as we understand them.

Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Edge's answer in Message 15 was a good one, but I'll put it in vertical stratigraphic order:

  • Mauv Limestone
  • Bright Angle Shale
  • Tapeats Sandstone
  • great unconformity
  • Precambrian basement

Off the top of my head the sequence of sediments there doesn't suggest such an orderly progression.

When the sea retreats from the land then the now-exposed layers can be eroded away. If erosion takes the landscape down to a limestone layer and then the sea transgresses again then you can have a sandstone layer deposited upon a limestone layer, but of course the limestone layer was deposited long before. We see this at the Grand Canyon where the Supai Group consisting mainly of sandstone overlies the RedWall Limestone.

I HAVE NO REASON WHATEVER TO OBJECT TO ANY OF THIS AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK SO.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that it appears like you're objecting to almost everything.

Edge keeps putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with my point of view.

It is your consistent objection that people are misrepresenting what you say. I think I can again speak for everyone when I say that it doesn't appear that anyone is misrepresenting you. My own personal observation is that this is the objection you raise when you can think of no response.

The sequences are interesting and could be valuable for the creationist model since after all the Flood was basically the ocean transgressing the land to a great depth and then regressing.

Your flood washed across the landscape in a short period of time and for most of its duration covered all the land and had no coastlines. How did this flood deposit coastal sedimentary layers like sandstone and shale that take eons to form? A coastline has to exist for a considerable period of time to produce all the sand in sandstone layers and all the silt, mud and clay of shale layers. How did this flood deposit miles of very finely grained limestone layers that require warm quiet seas ("quiet" because active waters will keep fine grains suspended in the water rather than depositing them) for eons.

You need answers to these questions that don't violate the laws of nature. You can't just say, "This was a flood like no other and wouldn't behave like normal floods." It wouldn't be acceptable to you if we were to say, "Our planet's geologic record was created from processes that have never before been observed and that appear to violate known physical laws, but we know they happened anyway," so why are you asking us to accept such answers from you?

We understand you're convinced the flood doesn't require magical processes, but the validity of one's ideas is their power to convince others. By this measure your ideas have no validity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-21-2014 1:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:16 AM Percy has responded
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2014 7:36 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 8:57 PM Percy has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5328
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 19 of 533 (725366)
04-26-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
04-26-2014 9:41 AM


the validity of one's ideas is their power to convince others.

Consistent with observations should be considered. By that measure her ideas have no validity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-26-2014 9:41 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 04-26-2014 10:33 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 20 of 533 (725370)
04-26-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
04-26-2014 10:16 AM


As Steven Novella likes to say, a theory is not considered true because it is accepted. Rather, it is accepted because it is likely true. It becomes accepted by, if I can paraphrase what you said, consistency with each scientists own personal observations, whether they be firsthand through attempts at replication or at greater distance by review of the literature.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:16 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3749
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 21 of 533 (725495)
04-27-2014 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
04-26-2014 9:41 AM


Some limestone thoughts
Distances will be highly variable and dependent upon local conditions, but of course sand is deposited close to the coast (perhaps within a mile), mud is deposited anywhere from a hundred yards from shore to a few miles out, carbonate sediments (limestone) can be deposited in any warm shallow sea regardless of distance from a coast, and coccolith foram ooze means pelagic sediments, i.e., deep ocean sediments, that are high in calcium carbonates.

The old geologic cliche that I heard was "You get limestone because nothing was happening".

Basically, you get limestone deposition because no clastic sediments are making it there. As we have been saying, that's because it's a long way from shore. Another aspect, however, is whether there has been any area tectonic activity raising land areas. If so, then you have more hills and mountains, and more weathering and erosion to supply clastic sediments. No hills and mountains, then you get a reduced supply of clastics.

Per "deep ocean sediments" - Yes, what you say is true, to a point. But I remind all of the carbonate compensation depth concept:

quote:
Calcite compensation depth (CCD) is the depth in the oceans below which the rate of supply of calcite (calcium carbonate) lags behind the rate of solvation, such that no calcite is preserved. Aragonite compensation depth (hence ACD) describes the same behaviour in reference to aragonitic carbonates. Aragonite is more soluble than calcite, so the aragonite compensation depth is generally shallower than the calcite compensation depth.

For the non-mineralogists, both Aragonite and Calcite are CaCO3, only with different crystal structures.

The CCD is because of the odd(?) characteristic of CaCO3, in that it is more soluble in colder water (there are also other factors; See the above link for more), as opposed to most substances being less soluble in colder water. The bottom line is, in the deepest ocean depths, you don't get carbonate deposition. But that is irrelevant to shallow continental sea deposition.

quote:
Calcium carbonate is essentially insoluble in sea surface waters today.

I point out that the bulk of limestone deposition is thought to be from biogenic actions - The limestone is seashells etc., much of which is degraded into lime sand, silt, and mud. So, in a sense, even limestones are clastic rocks.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-26-2014 9:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 533 (725511)
04-27-2014 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
04-26-2014 9:41 AM


So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Another reason I may not reply is because I ignore insulting posts, more and more lately. That includes an awful lot of Percy's recently.

I vary my approach seeking what works best. You ignored so many of my posts in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread that when you hijacked the Why is evolution so controversial? thread to discuss the flood I decided to try a more direct approach. That didn't work either, so the search for your light bulb's on-button continues.

I wish you success in your worthy endeavor.

The illustration is clear enough in relation to the previous posts about how strata are laid down although I'm not sure what people think I need to get from this,...

What we all hope you "get from this" is that the sedimentary processes we see taking place today are the same ones that created the sedimentary layers we see in places like the Grand Canyon.

Although you seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that I wouldn't like this idea, in fact I like it very much and hope I will be able to recognize it. So far I haven't seen the pattern.

We know this because the sedimentary layers of the geologic column are identical in character to sedimentary layers we see being deposited today, except that those of the geologic column have been subjected to great pressure and so have turned to rock.

I'm sorry but I'm completely unable to understand this paragraph. Identical how, and what does turning to rock have to do with it?

...and I need to think about it a lot more anyway.

While you think about this it should help you a great deal if you could incorporate into your thinking that your supposedly natural scenarios have to obey the laws of nature. When you claim scenarios that require flood water to sort by isotopic concentration (which you must acknowledge they do whether you accept the dating conclusions or not), or to deposit denser material above less dense material, or to sort fossils by difference from modern forms, or to transport burrows and worm tracks and footprints and egg clutches undamaged, then you're invoking processes that violate the physical laws of the universe.

Well, somehow all of that was accomplished due to the Flood, the question only remains how. I've given some reasonable ideas whether you like it or not, some of which come from some eminent Creationists, but perhaps this model of deposition being pursued in this thread will prove clarifying.

Surely you know I'm going to apply it to the Flood, which it already suggests to my mind.

We're aware of your flood bias, but to what end are you confessing this bias while claiming to be scientific, where one must remain unbiased and just follow the evidence where it leads.

I have tons of evidence which I've been pursuing, so sorry you are blind to it, apparently willfully so. One does not "remain unbiased" when one HAS knowledge, or even a reasonable theory. And since all you have is a theory, not even a reasonable one, you might speak to yourself about keeping an open mind.

That you can't devise scenarios that don't violate physical laws is telling you something - it's just that you're not listening.

I don't listen to false accusations and if this keeps up I'm not going to bother with any more of your post. Nothing I've said violates physical laws, but plenty you have said has done so as I've pointed out before. Listen up yourself.

So I am to understand that the layers "farther from the coast" are under water?

Yes, that's correct. As sea transgresses onto land the older deposits become further and further from the coast and, of course, remain submerged. Here's the diagram again (click to enlarge):

O jolly good. I rather like that diagram.

Much of the rest is clear enough so I'll skip to


...and I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains.

You'd like an example of transgression of the sea onto land?

No, examples of the order of deposition wherever that has occurred.

...I'd like to see you apply the same skepticism to the flood.

Believe it or not, it's not skepticism, I just want to get a grip on this phenomenon, which would involve seeing it played out. And especially in the Grand Canyon.

Have you ever seen any actual examples of a flood sorting by isotopic concentration or by evolutionary distance?

I've never used the term "isotopic concentration" and have no idea what you are talking about. I've never claimed to understand HOW the Flood sorted its cargo, only that it did and suggested a few facts that apply. Henry Morris had some theories about it, various experiments show that under some circumstances water sorts sediments, and apparently rivers sort them into layers as well. I've figured that for the Flood it has something to do with the currents and layers and tides and breaking waves of oceans, and I am of course aware that oceans do sort things, since they are so consistent about depositing sand sand sand on beaches, and your own model right here in this thread purports to show how they sort sediments. This is of course why I'm interested in it.

Have you ever seen a flood scoop up burrows and footprints and transport them elsewhere?

You are making up the usual straw man nonsense now. All I've suggested about burrows is that creatures got buried and sought a way out, and footprints show a similar attempt to flee rising water. Never said a word about transporting them, Percy, and your misrepresenting me is a HUGE reason I don't respond to your posts.

Have you ever seen a flood deposit a series of different strata? Have you ever seen a flood deposit fine sediment?

Rivers deposit layers, your own model here shows that rising ocean water deposits layers. As for fine sediment I've said over and over and over and over and over again that THE Flood is not to be compared to ordinary floods, this was a rising of the ocean to cover all the land mass in the world with sediments from all over the world. Get a clue Percy, stop this nonsensical stuff you've been doing. Clearly you aren't interested in the topic under discussion, only in confusing my arguments with your absurd straw men.

The answer to all these questions must be no. Not only has no one ever witnessed events like these, there's no evidence of any of them ever happening, and they all violate various physical laws as we understand them.

Well, you don't have a terrific record of understanding physical laws. Would it be possible to get back to the topic?


Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Edge's answer in Message 15 was a good one, but I'll put it in vertical stratigraphic order:

Edge's answer was fine for the few lowest layers. After that the pattern doesn't seem to hold up.

•Mauv Limestone

•Bright Angle Shale

•Tapeats Sandstone

•great unconformity

•Precambrian basement

Uh, yeah, that's as far as he got.

Off the top of my head the sequence of sediments there doesn't suggest such an orderly progression.

When the sea retreats from the land then the now-exposed layers can be eroded away. If erosion takes the landscape down to a limestone layer and then the sea transgresses again then you can have a sandstone layer deposited upon a limestone layer, but of course the limestone layer was deposited long before. We see this at the Grand Canyon where the Supai Group consisting mainly of sandstone overlies the RedWall Limestone.

Um, this sure sounds like galloping ad hoccism to me. And it must wreak havoc with the handydandy Geologic Timescale that they all represent. And anyway, you'd have to be specific about each of those layers, showing the risings and fallings and the erosions and all of that. Otherwise this is just a meaningless wild guess. And besides, this ISN'T the terms in which the deposition of the GC layers is normally discussed.

Skipping some more irrelevant nonsense in here, the usual misrepresentations, misreadings, accusations and general nonsense, not to mention evasion of the topic, let us proceed to:

The sequences are interesting and could be valuable for the creationist model since after all the Flood was basically the ocean transgressing the land to a great depth and then regressing.

Your flood washed across the landscape in a short period of time and for most of its duration covered all the land and had no coastlines.

It had coastlines in transit, in transgression and then in regression. But the fact of the water's standing for so long could explain why the strata in the GC DON'T fit the model as well as you're claiming, requiring all that made-up adhoccing about retreats and erosion and all that. Where's your evidence, Percy? Na, just a lot of ad hoc blather.

How did this flood deposit coastal sedimentary layers like sandstone and shale that take eons to form?

Have you ever seen these things form over aeons? Of course not. Then don't ask me what I've seen. Pure theoretical hooha there. But there were stages to the rising of the Flood waters, most likely deposition as they rose, then as they stood, then as they regressed.

A coastline has to exist for a considerable period of time to produce all the sand in sandstone layers and all the silt, mud and clay of shale layers. How did this flood deposit miles of very finely grained limestone layers that require warm quiet seas ("quiet" because active waters will keep fine grains suspended in the water rather than depositing them) for eons.

I was asking how you explain the layering of the Grand Canyon by your model, Percy. Obviously you don't have a real answer, just your silly adhoccism. You'd much rather blather on about nonsense trying to discredit a Flood theory of deposition I haven't even thought about yet. You erect your own straw man Flood and shoot down your straw man. As usual.

Who knows how "active" the water was when it was standing? You don't. And how can you possibly explain such enormous depths of sediments on any OTHER model than something on the scale of the worldwide Flood? And again, you haven't a clue about how many "aeons" any of this should take.

You need answers to these questions that don't violate the laws of nature. You can't just say, "This was a flood like no other and wouldn't behave like normal floods." It wouldn't be acceptable to you if we were to say, "Our planet's geologic record was created from processes that have never before been observed and that appear to violate known physical laws, but we know they happened anyway," so why are you asking us to accept such answers from you?

Well, a worldwide Flood WOULD be like no other. Duh.

Why are you carrying on about these things instead of trying to show how your model fits the Grand Canyon or any other depth of strata?

We understand you're convinced the flood doesn't require magical processes, but the validity of one's ideas is their power to convince others. By this measure your ideas have no validity.

Tell that to all the scientists in history who had the devil of a time getting their ideas accepted. Boy was that a ridiculous comment, Percy.

Besides, the furious prejudice against creationists here would block many from even considering anything I have to say, and most of what I've said HAS been misrepresented too. Don't tell me how easy it should be to convince anybody here of anything. The way you garble my arguments makes this a hideous joke for starters. AND AGAIN, considering the fact that all this is "HISTORICAL SCIENCE" which is almost entirely a matter of persuasion and is not amenable to the testing methods of experimental science, you've got to be kidding that for a creationist to be right means convincing the denizens of EvC.

Would it be possible for anybody to return to the topic and try to make a case for how Walther's Law applies to the Grand Canyon area strata?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 04-26-2014 9:41 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 04-27-2014 10:42 PM Faith has responded
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-03-2014 7:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 23 of 533 (725517)
04-27-2014 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
04-27-2014 8:57 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Edge's answer was fine for the few lowest layers. After that the pattern doesn't seem to hold up.

I was simply showing an example of a lengthy marine transgressive sequence, as per your request. Beyond that it's variation on a theme. If you can't see it, then there is little to talk about.

Would it be possible for anybody to return to the topic and try to make a case for how Walther's Law applies to the Grand Canyon area strata?

That has been done and I doubt that anyone is going to bother going on with the explanation because your mind is obviously closed.

You'd much rather blather on about nonsense trying to discredit a Flood theory of deposition I haven't even thought about yet. You erect your own straw man Flood and shoot down your straw man. As usual.

Well, if you haven't even thought about it yet, what do you expect us to do? The more you conceal the more we have to guess what you really think.

Well, a worldwide Flood WOULD be like no other. Duh.

Well, since you are such an expert, please tell us what the Flood was like.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 8:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 10:56 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 10:57 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 533 (725518)
04-27-2014 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
04-27-2014 10:42 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
duplicate

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 04-27-2014 10:42 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 25 of 533 (725519)
04-27-2014 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
04-27-2014 10:42 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Good grief, man, I listed all the sediments for you. I don't see a pattern there, the one Percy suggested sounds off the wall to me, I am VERY open to finding such a pattern, would really like to, so your bitter complaint that my mind is closed is out of order, and if YOU see a pattern in that list I'll first be amazed, but second, grateful.

And please try to follow what I'm saying. I didn't say I hadn't thought about the FLood, what I haven't thought about is how this model might or might not apply to it, and that is because I have not yet seen any pattern beyond the first few layers you demonstrated for the GC. I would like to see this model in action wherever it applies, not just the GC. ABE: AND I haven't quite absorbed the model itself anyway yet /ABE

ABE: All I can say about how this relates to the Flood is that I absolutely do not believe there were any significant risings and fallings of sea level except for the one great rise and fall of the Flood. So since this model obviously has something to do with a rising and falling it would be very interesting to see if the stages of the Flood could somehow be taken into account by it. /ABE

However, your bitter frame of mind doesn't bode well for any sort of discussion as usual. So perhaps someone else will come along who isn't as sensitive about OE Geology being criticized by a creationist.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 04-27-2014 10:42 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 04-28-2014 12:46 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 26 of 533 (725523)
04-28-2014 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
04-27-2014 10:57 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
So perhaps someone else will come along who isn't as sensitive about OE Geology being criticized by a creationist.

You mean someone who is not so sensitive that she is offended by counterarguments, complains about insults, being dismissed, and not taken seriously? Someone who is eternally misunderstood?

Like that person?

Good grief, man, I listed all the sediments for you.

We know the sediments. Why do you need to list them?

I don't see a pattern there, the one Percy suggested sounds off the wall to me, ...

Of course it sounds that way to you. Are you able to entertain any notions contrary to your own?

I am VERY open to finding such a pattern, would really like to, ...

Is that why you said this, "I absolutely do not believe... "? Because you are open-minded?

... so your bitter complaint that my mind is closed is out of order, ...

Why is that 'bitter'? It's a simple observation, verified repeatedly by your own words. Do you confuse me with someone who cares what you think?

... and if YOU see a pattern in that list I'll first be amazed, but second, grateful.

But you "... absolutely do not believe...", so why should I waste my time?

Really, try it for yourself. Why would that be so hard?

Well, maybe someone YEC will come along who can think a little bit outside their religious box and use a few intellectual tools. Do you think we will be amazed and grateful?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 10:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 12:49 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 533 (725524)
04-28-2014 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
04-28-2014 12:46 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Right, you're way too jaundiced to even begin to have a discussion. Go take a nap or something.

ABE: So you know all the sediments and you see that pattern of deposition shown in that model in them?

Here, I even reversed the order so it will read from top down:

Grand Staircase:
Claron --- limestone
Kaiparowits --- "formed from alluvial floodplains of large rivers in coastal southern Laramidia; sandstone beds are the deposit of rivers, and mudstone beds represent floodplain deposits. It is fossiliferous, "
Wahweap --- sandstone and mudstone
Straight Cliffs --- "fluvial (river systems), paralic (swamps and lagoons), and marginal marine (shoreline) siliciclastic strata."
Tropic Shale
Dakota --- sandstone, intermittent mudflat sediments
Morrison --- mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, limestone (dinosaurs)
Entrada --- sandstone
Carmel -Page --- siltstone
Navajo Sandstone
Kayenta--- interbedded sand, silt, conglomerate
Moenave & Wingate --- siltstone, mudstone, fine sandstone
Chinle Formation --- Sandstones, siltstones, shales, conglomerate sandstone
Moenkopi --- red sandstone

Grand Canyon:
Kaibab ---limestone
Toroweap formation ---gypsum and shale
Coconino ---sandstone
Hermit ---shale
Supai Group:
......Esplanade--- sandstone
......Wescogame ---massive crossbedded sandstone, sandy limestone
......Mankacha ---sandy limestone, small amt mudstone
......Watahomigi ---limestone and small amt of mudstone
Redwall Formation--- limestones
Temple Butte ---limestone
Muav ---limestone (shaly limestone)
Bright Angel ---Shale
Tapeats ---Sandstone
Vishnu, Zoroaster, Great Unconformity etc.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 04-28-2014 12:46 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 04-28-2014 9:30 AM Faith has responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2014 9:55 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 28 of 533 (725542)
04-28-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
04-28-2014 12:49 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Here, I even reversed the order so it will read from top down:
...

So, why can't the record go from sandstone to siltstone and back to sandstone and stay in the same model?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 12:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 1:57 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 533 (725561)
04-28-2014 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by edge
04-28-2014 9:30 AM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
So, why can't the record go from sandstone to siltstone and back to sandstone and stay in the same model?

Well, if you don't see a problem with that I guess I'll have to ponder it more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 04-28-2014 9:30 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 04-28-2014 2:01 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 30 of 533 (725562)
04-28-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
04-28-2014 1:57 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Well, if you don't see a problem with that I guess I'll have to ponder it more.

Why would that be a problem? Are you some kind of hyper-uniformitarianist?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 2:05 PM edge has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
36NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019