Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
139 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (5 members, 134 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,973 Year: 6,085/6,534 Month: 278/650 Week: 48/278 Day: 48/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 755 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 533 (726017)
05-05-2014 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by edge
05-05-2014 7:32 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
No, it was all under water.

How did beaches form with all of the land underwater, then?

You mean the beaches in the model or what? You mean the depositions of sand? I don't know yet, but it wasn't underwater the entire time, there was a transgression phase and a regression phase, which might have included mega-tsunami-sized waves, very high tides or that sort of thing.

Fine, I'll take that into account.

Just pointing out your lack of knowledge in the subject material.

It may be useful information.

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 104 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 7:32 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 107 of 533 (726019)
05-05-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:26 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.

And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know.

It's only a new idea to you. The idea has been around in geology for a couple centuries. You've already wasted a decade's worth of everyone's time pushing ideas you came up with before "working it all through", so could I suggest that for your next decade here you push ideas developed only *after* "working it all through"?

So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land?

Bedrock I suppose.

If some of the sedimentary layers of the geologic column were composed of eroded bedrock then we would find sedimentary layers of eroded bedrock in the geologic column. But we don't. Care to try making something up that makes sense next time?

How can you have a beach with no land masses available?

Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated.

If by this you mean that the sandstone layers of the geologic column are the remains of antediluvian beaches that were not obliterated (and let me guess that once you realize what a stupid idea this is that you'll object that that's not what you meant and that I'm misrepresenting you), then how is it that interspersed between these sandstone layers are shale layers that were scoured off the land, and limestone layers that were scoured off the seafloor? Extensive sandstone layers of the geologic column that can extend for a thousand miles in all directions and that formed from beaches can only occur by slow and gradual sea transgressions and regressions across a continent - there was no time for this in the antediluvian world.

If you want to claim the sedimentary layers of the geologic column formed from natural processes then you have to know how natural processes work. By neglecting to inform yourself of this essential information you keep repeating the same error of proposing solutions that are physically impossible.

How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from?

See above.

See above.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar and clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 108 of 533 (726020)
05-05-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:31 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow,...

And there is so much that you "can't follow" that you're never aware that you're pushing ideas that violate known physical laws.

That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.

Again, this has been known within geology for a couple centuries, it's been described to you here on many occasions, so how can it be that you're only "appreciating the implications" now? The answer is obvious to anyone who has observed you for a short period - you ignore everything you don't understand or that argues against your preconceived notions, which means you end up ignoring a great deal of knowledge.

In any case, if you are truly realizing that you've been profoundly mistaken about how sedimentary layers form (which I doubt) then I hope you remember this in the future so you don't keep repeating this oft-repeated mistake of cementing ideas in your mind before properly informing yourself.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 109 of 533 (726024)
05-05-2014 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:46 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.

Based on what?

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood. You did a hand wave, so allow me to pose the question again: Given that the sea transgressions and regressions are often associated with tectonic activity, and given that the layers of the geologic column are evidence of many sea transgressions and regressions, and given that the unconformities between layers are futher evidence of sea transgressions and regressions, what evidence tells you that there was only tectonic activity at the end of the Flood, or even that there was ever any Flood at all?

Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.

Your history is that you disagree with anything that contradicts your cherished beliefs regardless of the strength of the evidence and usually without understanding it or the implications. Your objections usually only introduce additional problems.

Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.

My God, what crazy ideas are you going to insult us with next? How can you have layers that only form near coastlines being produced by a global flood that by definition has no coastlines?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 533 (726025)
05-05-2014 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
05-05-2014 6:05 PM


ad hoc on ad hoc
...limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself.

What is your evidence that limestone was scoured off the sea floor, and why would limestone come from the sea floor ...

... especially when limestone redissolves in deep water ... ? Per Dr A's excellent thread ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 6:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1417 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 111 of 533 (726026)
05-05-2014 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-05-2014 4:15 PM


Wrong (again)
The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model; the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.

Sorry, you are absolutely wrong (again).

We have a tremendous number of archaeological sites dating to that time period--I've examined probably over a hundred myself. There is no evidence of a large flood anywhere near that time period.

We have a number of great examples of DNA continuity from before that date to after it, with more being produced every week. I even have one from my own personal research, a link from about 5,300 years ago to a living individual in the same area. The mtDNA from Noah's female associates did not replace the older Native American mtDNA. That continuity alone disproves the flood idea at about 4,350 years ago.

You can quibble about dating all you want, but various threads on this site have shown your quibbles are wrong. The dating of those time periods is accurate and all the creationists' "what ifs" have not managed to change that.

As Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning." You're the poster child for that concept.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 755 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 112 of 533 (726029)
05-05-2014 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
05-05-2014 8:12 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
edge writes:

Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.

Faith writes:

And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know.

Percy writes:

It's only a new idea to you. The idea has been around in geology for a couple centuries.

That's what I said, the idea is new to me.

You've already wasted a decade's worth of everyone's time pushing ideas you came up with before "working it all through", so could I suggest that for your next decade here you push ideas developed only *after* "working it all through"?

I've worked through all the ideas I've spent time arguing here. This one, however, as I said, is new to me. And it may have escaped your notice but I didn't initiate this conversation, it was just another of the usual situations where someone lobs a question or an accusation at me so I answer. If I'm wasting anyone's time they've chosen for it to be wasted.

edge writes:

So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land?

Bedrock I suppose.

Percy writes:

If some of the sedimentary layers of the geologic column were composed of eroded bedrock then we would find sedimentary layers of eroded bedrock in the geologic column. But we don't. Care to try making something up that makes sense next time?

Um, Percy, you are completely missing this conversation. "Bedrock" was my answer to explain that some of the land mass was NOT eroded, but is why there was land mass left after everything that could be eroded was eroded. However, farther down edge says that in fact bedrock DOES get eroded. So go chide him for being wrong. In this case I'm not. No eroded bedrock in the geologic column in MY statement.

edge writes:

How can you have a beach with no land masses available?

Faith writes:

Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated.

Percy writes:

If by this you mean that the sandstone layers of the geologic column are the remains of antediluvian beaches that were not obliterated

Weird. No, you really should read the whole discussion through before you get into it. Edge is asking how sand could have been deposited if there was no land to deposit it on. My answer says the entire land wasn't obliterated by the previously mentioned "scouring" so there was indeed a land mass where sand could have been deposited.

(and let me guess that once you realize what a stupid idea this is that you'll object that that's not what you meant and that I'm misrepresenting you),

Well, as usual lately you ARE misrepresenting me, only in this case you're misrepresenting the whole conversation with edge as well.

then how is that interspersed between these sandstone layers are shale layers that were scoured off the land, and limestone layers that were scoured off the seafloor?

I said, by the way, "coughed up by the sea" not "scoured off the seafloor" though perhaps it amounts to the same thing. Just don't impute statements to me I didn't say in those words.

HOW the situation you describe came about, you ask? Well, others have explained how this happens on this model along with other influences. I'll take all that into account when I get to it.

Extensive sandstone layers of the geologic column that can extend for a thousand miles in all directions and that formed from beaches can only occur by slow and gradual sea transgressions across a continent - there was no time for this in the antediluvian world.

Seems to me, as I also suggest in that conversation you are mangling, that high tides and mega tsunamis during the transgression or regression phases might explain it. Such phenomena could cover great distances depositing sediments and wouldn't require mega time.

If you want to claim the sedimentary layers of the geologic column formed from natural processes then you have to know how natural processes work.

Uh huh. Well, that's what I want to do with this transgression-regression model some time. It's a very interesting model and I need to sit and contemplate it a while. It does look like it may be the very natural processes needed to explain what I want to explain.

By neglecting to inform yourself of this essential information you keep repeating the same error of proposing solutions that are physically impossible.

Ah well, Percy, you are so wrong about so many things, including your very odd misreading of this conversation I was having with edge, it's no surprise you keep being wrong about my sense of the physically possible too. You are of course also wrong to say I'm "neglecting to inform" myself of essential information when I started out saying I haven't yet fully digested how this very interesting model works, with all its very interesting implications for the Flood, and when I get to it I'll let you know. Meanwhile if people just stopped accusing me and nagging me and asking me questions maybe I'd get there sooner.

edge writes:

How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from?

Faith writes:

See above.

Percy writes:

See above.

For what, examples of how wrong Percy can be about half a dozen things at once?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 8:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 11:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 115 by edge, posted 05-06-2014 4:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 755 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 533 (726037)
05-05-2014 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
05-05-2014 8:52 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.

edge writes:

Based on what?

Faith writes:

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

Percy writes:

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood.

Yes, I gave him the short-short answer. This has already been discussed many times.

You did a hand wave, so allow me to pose the question again: Given that the sea transgressions and regressions are often associated with tectonic activity, and given that the layers of the geologic column are evidence of many sea transgressions and regressions, and given that the unconformities between layers are futher evidence of sea transgressions and regressions, what evidence tells you that there was only tectonic activity at the end of the Flood, or even that there was ever any Flood at all?

The cross section of the GC-GS area that shows NO tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and the cutting of the canyon but even beyond that the whole Grand Staircase stack. I explain the Great Unconformity as occurring at the same time as the rest. I can go into detail about any of this but it's been argued to death already so let's not.

As for your scenario I'd only suggest that the "many" sea transgressions and regressions most likely reflect mega-tsunami depositions in the transgressing and regressing phases of the Flood, but remember I haven't had a chance to think this through. But since I've already thought along these lines with respect to how the layers were deposited I just have to get it coordinated with the model. So the "many" events of your scenario come down to one extended event with the oscillations of tidal waves and high and low tides in my scenario, and the associated tectonic activity also gets collapsed into a shorter time frame.

Faith writes:

Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.

Percy writes:

Your history is that you disagree with anything that contradicts your cherished beliefs regardless of the strength of the evidence and usually without understanding it or the implications. Your objections usually only introduce additional problems.

I couldn't possibly stick with this with such tenacity if I weren't convinced of the basic argument.

Faith writes:

Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.

Percy writes:

My God, what crazy ideas are you going to insult us with next?

Well, I'm quite sure they won't be as crazy as your misreadings of them are sure to be.

How can you have layers that only form near coastlines being produced by a global flood that by definition has no coastlines?

It would have a moving coastline as it transgresses and again as it regresses. Maybe over as long as five months each way.

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 109 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 8:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 05-06-2014 1:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 118 by Percy, posted 05-06-2014 2:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 119 by edge, posted 05-09-2014 1:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 114 of 533 (726044)
05-05-2014 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:17 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

That's what I said, the idea is new to me.

Yes, that's what you said, and I was expressing amazement that an idea that has been around in geology for over a couple centuries is new to you, despite that it's been explained to you many times.

If I'm wasting anyone's time they've chosen for it to be wasted.

Well, this is certainly true. Anyone who's been here for any time should know that trying to explain most things to you is very likely a fool's errand.

Um, Percy, you are completely missing this conversation. "Bedrock" was my answer to explain that some of the land mass was NOT eroded, but is why there was land mass left after everything that could be eroded was eroded. However, farther down edge says that in fact bedrock DOES get eroded. So go chide him for being wrong. In this case I'm not. No eroded bedrock in the geologic column in MY statement.

As Edge said recently, your meaning is frequently unclear because you leave so much unexplained. I now interpret you as trying to say that the flood scoured land masses down to bedrock, and that this scouring continued for some number of days after the flood covered the land. I think Edge was trying fruitlessly to figure out what you meant.

But Edge was certainly not wrong to say that bedrock can be eroded. Of course it can be eroded. It's rock and exposed rock erodes. How can you flip-flop so easily from accepting Edge's statement that bedrock erodes to accepting what you thought was me stating that bedrock doesn't erode? Do you have no ability to assess the truth or falsity of anything based on evidence and reasoning? This is telling you that you have no talent for figuring anything out about geology. Or much else, apparently.

In any case, no sedimentary layers include eroded bedrock as a significant component (although one could argue that bedrock is the ultimate source of much of the non-biological material of all sedimentary layers).

Weird. No, you really should read the whole discussion through before you get into it. Edge is asking how sand could have been deposited if there was no land to deposit it on. My answer says the entire land wasn't obliterated by the previously mentioned "scouring" so there was indeed a land mass where sand could have been deposited.

Well, I did read the whole discussion, but the problem is that it involved trying to make sense of your half-baked and poorly described ideas. I never even considered the possibility that you meant that a global flood that covered even the highest mountains had coastlines, which is what I think Edge thought you meant. Was he correct? If so then that's obviously impossible, but I won't put in the time to explain until you confirm that's what you meant.

But I still think you meant something else. Are you saying that there was still solid material ("land") beneath the flood waters upon which the flood could deposit sand? But this is incredibly obvious, since no flood could scour the earth's surface all the way down to its molten core, so why would you say that?

The bottom line is that when you propose incompletely described scenarios where all the interpretations are impossible, all one can do is attempt to select the interpretation that is least impossible.

Well, as usual lately you ARE misrepresenting me, only in this case you're misrepresenting the whole conversation with edge as well.

Ah, I love being right!

I said, by the way, "coughed up by the sea" not "scoured off the seafloor" though perhaps it amounts to the same thing. Just don't impute statements to me I didn't say in those words.

When I use quotes around something you didn't say then you get to complain. I didn't use quotes, I don't have to use the same words you used, so quit your bitching. Besides, I didn't want to say "coughed up by the sea" because besides sounding incredibly inane it's also incredibly vague, and I like people to understand my meaning, something that seems anathema to you.

Seems to me, as I also suggest in that conversation you are mangling, that high tides and mega tsunamis during the transgression or regression phases might explain it. Such phenomena could cover great distances depositing sediments and wouldn't require mega time.

It isn't the great distances and amount of sediment involved that renders your ideas physically impossible. It's that each portion of the layer forms slowly, and so it takes a very long time to deposit that much material over so great a range. It doesn't help you to posit "high tides and mega tsunamis" (note the quotation marks - if I quoted you incorrectly then this is where you're well within your rights to complain) because it isn't high energy you need but long time spans. You can no more deposit sedimentary layers in a month than you could age a fine wine in an hour.

Ah well, Percy, you are so wrong about so many things,...

But I'm not wrong Faith. And when I said you were wrong I also explained how you were wrong, something you're unable to do.

...it's no surprise you keep being wrong about my sense of the physically possible too.

But I'm not wrong about your poor understanding of science. It's glaringly obvious to anyone who reads anything you write. The only one unaware of your ignorance is you.

You are of course also wrong to say I'm "neglecting to inform" myself of essential information...

Except that I was precisely right that you form your opinions in the absence of "essential information", else you wouldn't be going off to revise your opinions now in light of the "essential information" that was previously absent. You know, people can read the thread. You can't hide the reality that you didn't know about sea transgressions and regressions and now you're conceding that you have to go off and revise the views that you previously said represented the TRUTH.

Meanwhile if people just stopped accusing me and nagging me and asking me questions maybe I'd get there sooner.

Maybe if you engaged in some study before putting mouth in gear you wouldn't make so many obvious mistakes.

For what, examples of how wrong Percy can be about half a dozen things at once?

Ah, Faith, you're stating an untruth again, and everyone knows it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:17 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 05-06-2014 9:23 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 169 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 4:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1017 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 115 of 533 (726052)
05-06-2014 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:17 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Um, Percy, you are completely missing this conversation. "Bedrock" was my answer to explain that some of the land mass was NOT eroded, ...

Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I meant about your language not being clear.

But no. Bedrock can be eroded. If it couldn't then mountains would never erode away and we would not have such things as talus.

... but is why there was land mass left after everything that could be eroded was eroded. However, farther down edge says that in fact bedrock DOES get eroded. So go chide him for being wrong. In this case I'm not. No eroded bedrock in the geologic column in MY statement.

Wow...

Where to do you think cobbles and boulders come from?

Once again, your statements are not statements of geology, but of some bizarre fantasy. What do you think of the mesas in Monument Valley and the talus at the base of those cliffs? What do you think of rock falls in the Grand Canyon?

What are you really trying to say?

Weird. No, you really should read the whole discussion through before you get into it. Edge is asking how sand could have been deposited if there was no land to deposit it on. My answer says the entire land wasn't obliterated by the previously mentioned "scouring" so there was indeed a land mass where sand could have been deposited.

Yes. And we would call that 'land'. Why was there land in the middle of your global fludde?

Previously, you said there was no such land mass. So, which is it?

Seems to me, as I also suggest in that conversation you are mangling, that high tides and mega tsunamis during the transgression or regression phases might explain it.

And I presume you have evidence of such tsunamis?

How can you just say this stuff and not admit that you are just making it up?

Such phenomena could cover great distances depositing sediments and wouldn't require mega time.

Ummm, you do understand, don't you, that tsunamis have little effect except for where there is land, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-09-2014 4:47 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1017 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 116 of 533 (726059)
05-06-2014 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
05-05-2014 11:51 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
But Edge was certainly not wrong to say that bedrock can be eroded. Of course it can be eroded. It's rock and exposed rock erodes.

All true, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Faith does not really understand what bedrock is. I have a feeling that her understanding is something along the same lines as a 'bedrock principle', something permanent and unchanging.

This only reinforces the fact of scientific illiteracy and unclear language.

But in reality, erosion is the primary agent of geomorphology on the planet. Most places owe their landforms to erosion acting on some particular geological setting. The Grand Canyon is a primary example, and within it, we see erosional unconformities between formations, and on an even finer scale, we see cross-beds being truncated by currents of water or air. I think we underestimate the effects of erosion, and YECs do so even more.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the situation is more complex than most people, including most scientists understand. Faith is hopelessly behind the curve on this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 05-05-2014 11:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 117 of 533 (726089)
05-06-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:44 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Hi Faith,

I'm going to post two responses to your Message 113. In this first one I'm just going to call attention again to your inverted way of posting quotes, namely this:

quote:
Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.

edge writes:

Based on what?

Faith writes:

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

Percy writes:

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood.


But if properly quoted what actually appeared in the original message, my Message 109, was this (I've added additional names for clarity, just as you did):

quote:
Percy writes:

Faith writes:

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.


Based on what?

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood.


It would be much easier to follow your quotes if they followed the same formatting as in the original message where quoted excerpts are indented more than replies, plus you avoid a great deal of tedious editing. Just click on Peek Mode in the message you're cut-n-pasting from, then cut-n-paste away.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20948
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 118 of 533 (726107)
05-06-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:44 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Yes, I gave him the short-short answer. This has already been discussed many times.

Well, yes, this *has* been discussed many times, but you've only provided non-answers, like this:

The cross section of the GC-GS area that shows NO tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and the cutting of the canyon but even beyond that the whole Grand Staircase stack.

The consistent response to this claim is to ask for the evidence supporting your argument that tectonic activity sufficient to cause significant faulting cannot be absent for hundreds of millions of years. You've never provided an answer, not even a "short-short" one.

As for your scenario I'd only suggest that the "many" sea transgressions and regressions most likely reflect mega-tsunami depositions in the transgressing and regressing phases of the Flood,...

Edge and I are still amazed at what you appear to be saying. Are you saying that flood levels repeatedly rose and fell so that the flood waters repeatedly transgressed onto and regressed from the land?

Sand isn't deposited by a "mega-tsunami" where it is most active, which is where it strikes the land. Active water keeps material in suspension and does not deposit it. Suspended material won't be deposited until the "mega-tsunami" runs out of energy and begins to retreat, and it won't deposit that much. This is from Distinguishing Tsunami from Storm Deposits in the Geologic Record

Tsunami deposits are generally less than 25 cm thick, extend hundreds of meters inland from the beach, and have an overall tendency to drape the preexisting landscape. They commonly consist of a single, homogeneous bed that grades from coarser grained at the bottom to finer grained at the top, or a bed with only a few thin layers. Mud clasts or thin layers of mud within the deposit are strong evidence of tsunami origin. Twig orientation or other indicators of return (seaward) flow during deposition of the sediment are also diagnostic of tsunami deposits. Tsunami deposits thicken and then thin landward, with a maximum deposit thickness typically more than 50 m inland from the beach because a zone of erosion commonly is present near the beach.

So, Faith, can you describe for us any evidence of "mega-tsunamis" in the geologic record? Or are these magic "mega-tsunamis"?

Note also that the material deposited by tsunamis is swept from the area nearest the beach or coastline, so if you're proposing that tsunamis deposited all the layers of the geologic column then most of the material should be what is typically found along coastlines or on land.

...but remember I haven't had a chance to think this through.

Clearly, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

I couldn't possibly stick with this with such tenacity if I weren't convinced of the basic argument.

Oh, we're familiar with the strength of your belief that your right. The important question is how much better is your evidence for the flood than a crazy person's evidence that he's Napoleon. The answer is that your evidence is no better than his: you both have no evidence.

It would have a moving coastline as it transgresses and again as it regresses. Maybe over as long as five months each way.

Yeah, sure. And your evidence is?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1017 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 533 (726438)
05-09-2014 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:44 PM


Re: complexity of geology
The cross section of the GC-GS area that shows NO tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and the cutting of the canyon but even beyond that the whole Grand Staircase stack.

First of all, the cross-section is grossly simplified. But in addition to that, the region underwent a series of uplifts throughout the Paleozoic and Tertiary times. The fact that the region acted as a block does not mean that it was not affected by tectonism.

Note the Bright Angel Fault. It is a break in brittle rocks of all Paleozoic rocks, which has been exploited by erosion during canyon formation. This means that it preceded the canyon, but also occurred well after the Great Unconformity. This refutes your statement.

I explain the Great Unconformity as occurring at the same time as the rest.

The rest of what?

I can go into detail about any of this but it's been argued to death already so let's not.

Well, noting your past failures to explain it, I can understand why you would want to avoid the topic.

As for your scenario I'd only suggest that the "many" sea transgressions and regressions most likely reflect mega-tsunami depositions in the transgressing and regressing phases of the Flood, ...

The problem being developing tsunamis (for which there is no evidence of) in a sea without coastlines.

... but remember I haven't had a chance to think this through.

Clearly you haven't thought it through.

But since I've already thought along these lines with respect to how the layers were deposited I just have to get it coordinated with the model.

I'm sure that thinking about things will solve all of the problems you have.

So the "many" events of your scenario come down to one extended event with the oscillations of tidal waves and high and low tides in my scenario, and the associated tectonic activity also gets collapsed into a shorter time frame.

They do?

So, the long regressive phases that resulted in the coal deposits of Utah were simple low-tides or tsunamis? Then you should explain to us how we see plant accumulations with rooted trees and stream sediments running through the coal fields with volcanic ash deposits and grass roots showing in the sediments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-09-2014 5:20 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 755 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 533 (726449)
05-09-2014 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by edge
05-06-2014 4:02 AM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I meant about your language not being clear.

But no. Bedrock can be eroded. If it couldn't then mountains would never erode away and we would not have such things as talus.

You already corrected me about this which is what I was pointing out to Percy. Percy wasn't following the conversation and thought I was the one who said bedrock could be eroded, to which he objected, so it was your point he was objecting to, not mine.

However, just curious, would you say that the amount of talus tends to be rather similar from mountain to mountain, you know, Rockies to Alps to Himalayas? Are there some mountians you can point to where the talus is really enormous, almost having eroded the whole mountain away? I'm just curious, it could be, though pictures do tend to show rather similar amounts it seems to me. And in that case it suggests they've all been eroding for about the same period of time. Of course different kinds of mountains would probably erode at different rates. Still, there don't seem to be huge differences from mountain range to mountain range. Of course the question then arises just how long would you suppose erosion had been going on and forming the talus here or there?


... but is why there was land mass left after everything that could be eroded was eroded. However, farther down edge says that in fact bedrock DOES get eroded. So go chide him for being wrong. In this case I'm not. No eroded bedrock in the geologic column in MY statement.

Wow...
Where to do you think cobbles and boulders come from?

Again, you already corrected me about this, it's Percy who is now insisting that bedrock doesn't get eroded. Perhaps he can tell you where cobbles and boulders come from.

However, I think there probably is a problem here about what exactly bedrock is. Perhaps you can enlighten us about that too.

You go on to ask what I was really trying to say when all I was doing was pointing out the miscommunication to Percy and not saying anything at all about bedrock.


Weird. No, you really should read the whole discussion through before you get into it. Edge is asking how sand could have been deposited if there was no land to deposit it on. My answer says the entire land wasn't obliterated by the previously mentioned "scouring" so there was indeed a land mass where sand could have been deposited.

Yes. And we would call that 'land'. Why was there land in the middle of your global fludde?

As I think I've already said here, there would have been a long period during which the water was transgressing and another long period where it was regressing, five months regression, the transgression is a little harder to calculate. There would have been high and low tides, as well as huge tsunami type waves that could account for depositions that span great distances, even across continents, during transgression and regression, when the land was exposed.

Long waves have seemed to me to be the explanation for such enormous deposits, but it took the posting of this model of the effect of rising and falling sea to show how that might have occurred.

Evidence of such tsunamis? Enormous lengths of sediment deposition seems to require something like that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by edge, posted 05-06-2014 4:02 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 05-09-2014 8:29 AM Faith has replied
 Message 137 by edge, posted 05-09-2014 10:19 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022