Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 751 of 1304 (732249)
07-05-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by Faith
07-05-2014 11:00 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
The rolling "megadunes" are interesting but what's the evidence that they are typical of rushing water everywhere?
They occur in other places with break-up type of flooding. This reference refers to some in Russia.
See Giant current ripples - Wikipedia
"Giant current ripples are active channel topographic forms up to 20 m high, which develop within near-talweg areas of the main outflow valleys created by glacial lake outburst floods. Giant current ripple marks are morphologic and genetic macroanalogues of small current ripples formed in sandy stream sediments.
The giant current ripple marks are important depositional forms in diluvial plain and mountain scablands.[1]
Isn't that area basalt?
The basalt country rock would affect the way that the rocks erode, the giant ripples are a depositional feature.
Is it possible basalt would ripple like that while other sediments might not? Also were layers above that layer also washed away in the same event? This is what I've been guessing for the Monument Valley area and I'm not sure your picture represents that area.
Of course it doesn't. That's the point. Outburst floods are pretty well known and there is no evidence for one in the GC area.
As for the other picture I have no problem believing Missoula existed, and would have left shoreline rings too. But of course I have a question about timing. Have you ever had a stopped up drain that drains slowly and leaves rings as it goes down?
I was giving you that picture as an example of 'evidence'. In other words, part of the theory is that there was a lake which drained catastrophically to form the features of the Palouse area.
In your case, you do not provide evidence for such an impoundment.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 11:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by jar, posted 07-05-2014 12:11 PM edge has replied
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 12:23 PM edge has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 752 of 1304 (732252)
07-05-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by edge
07-05-2014 11:51 AM


Faith still has presented no evidence
In your case, you do not provide evidence for such an impoundment.
Faith can provide evidence of impoundment when impoundment happened. What Faith can not, has not and will not be able to do is provide evidence of any Biblical Flood connected to any impoundment. However there is evidence of glacial action connected to Lake Missoula.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 11:51 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 12:28 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 753 of 1304 (732253)
07-05-2014 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by edge
07-05-2014 11:51 AM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
All the information you are giving, about "outburst" floods, "break-up" type flooding, and your statement that I give no evidence for an "impoundment" in the area of the monuments, is irrelevant since I don't claim that there was an impoundment or that the flooding was of the type of the Missoula flood. The picture I've had in mind is of strata having been laid down to a depth of three miles or more, the Flood water is still covering them, and this is all over the earth but I am focusing on this particular area of Arizona-Utah, then the water begins to recede and as it does it breaks up the higher strata and carries chunks of it away, and when it gets down to a certain level it washes off the surface of whatever layer presents itself, Kaibab for instance in the GC GS area. This really isn't the same kind of flood as the glacial lake floods. It didn't necessarily rush as hard and fast as those floods for one thing.
As for not providing evidence, you apparently want something brand new but I'm working from what I've found out about these things already. It's all the same evidence you have only I try to interpret it in terms of the Flood. Same evidence, different interpretation. I'd very much like to have some brand new evidence but new interpretations ought to be worth something. And anyway, since I'm not claiming an "impoundment" I can't be expected to provide evidence for it.
Evidence for no tectonic activity from Tapeats to Claron is on those diagrams in Message 328, basic evidence for the Flood itself is as usual the strata themselves and the huge number of fossils. Same eivdnece you have, different interpretation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 11:51 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 754 of 1304 (732254)
07-05-2014 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 749 by Faith
07-05-2014 10:52 AM


Re: Evidence?
So?
If the basalt flows of the Cardenas are interbedded with the GC Supergroup then they and the feeder system of basalt dikes are much older than the erosion and the uplift that you claim to be only recent.
Which that dike is
But it is not evidence that all dikes are recent.
Which I guess occurred during that period?
At the base of the Unkar Group sedimentation.
But you also think an exposed Mississippian / Pennsylvanian rock is evidence of whatever happened to that rock during that supposed time period, which is not necessarily the case.
Simple exposure of a rock tells me nothing about it's deposition.
Looks to me like all that sagging and sinking of that formation ....
What sagging?
... the name of which escapes my aging mind at the moment something Indian sounding, anyway all that most likely occurred after the rock above was eroded away, in other words in "recent" time.
This is unclear. What are you talking about?
Same as the exposure of the Kaibab plateau which occurred in "recent" time and not in the Permian in which the limestone was supposedly laid down. Just because any particular phenomenon occurred at a particular location doesn't mean it occurred in the supposed time frame that location is said to represent. But perhaps the Cardenas is an exception. If you would ever bother to condescend to explain the things you say rather than just asserting them maybe I'd read more of your posts.
If you showed an actual open mind and asked questions, I might do that. In general, I avoid making long explanations because I'm pretty convinced that YECs don't really care.
Oh goody, there's something we agree on, since the uplift is associated with tectonic activity ...
Of course, uplift is the main cause of accelerated erosion. The Colorado Plateau was not so eroded because it wasn't uplifted until the early Cenozoic.
... which is associated with all that massive erosion and the fault lines and the magma and so on...
Some of them, yes. But we obviously have older events also.
The formation shown on the diagram is though, and I don't see anything there to suggest a difference in age identified by that fault myself. Same layers on both sides of the fault line, those to the south raised, those to the north much lower and tilted but with the Claron in place looking quite identical to its severed counterpart to the south.
Well, your own words explain it. The Claron was, at least partially, deposited during movement along the Hurricane Fault. The deeper rocks were more deformed because the deformation started before the Claron. Again, we could call this a 'growth fault', one that happens during deposition.
I don't know if the north side dropped or was just tilted by the uplifting of the south side, perhaps you can tell me. But again I see nothing suggesting relative age except of course the fault line itself is younger than everything else, but the layers on both sides should be identical in age.
It's called drag folding, and occurs adjacent to faults in sedimentary rock. When the rocks are curved up against the fault, the other side has moved relatively up.
Not sure exactly what you mean but if you mean it occurred in stages at earlier times in the laying down of the strata, there should be some sign of that in how subsequent layers were deposited and there doesn't seem to be.
Actually, you yourself have cited the evidence in that the Claron is not as deformed as the underlying layers...
That is, the fault shifts the layers relative to each other so that deposition on top of them should be uneven at the fault line. There is of course a problem with the Hurricane Fault since the whole stack is tilted to the north beneath the Claron and I'm not sure what evidence might remain of what you are claiming. Is there any?
That is exactly the evidence. At least some of the deformation/faulting occurred before the Claron was deposited.
What is the significance of the Claron's being deformed and the rocks beneath it also?
Answer provided above.
Your rather cryptic (assertional) way of answering me doesn't convince me of that though. As noted before, you seem to be much more invested in doing a snow job than in communicating anything.
My only real assertion is that you do not provide evidence that is diagnostic of your hypothesis. If you provide actual evidence, which is rare, it does not refute the mainstream version of geology in favor of yours. However, most of what you present is not evidence anyway, it is personal belief.
As I said, I do not like to make detailed explanations to people who don't appreciate it. Most of my explanations are not really for you anyway, because I don't think you either read them or care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 10:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 2:36 PM edge has replied
 Message 767 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 4:21 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 755 of 1304 (732255)
07-05-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by jar
07-05-2014 12:11 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
Faith can provide evidence of impoundment when impoundment happened. What Faith can not, has not and will not be able to do is provide evidence of any Biblical Flood connected to any impoundment. However there is evidence of glacial action connected to Lake Missoula.
One thing I have learned from all of these, largely fruitless discussions, is that Faith, and YECs in general, have no idea what we mean by 'evidence'. Their feelings, myths and wishes are all evidence as far as they are concerned. I don't know if this is a failing of the educational system that we have, or if it is an effect of religious indoctrination, or both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by jar, posted 07-05-2014 12:11 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2014 12:41 PM edge has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 756 of 1304 (732256)
07-05-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 755 by edge
07-05-2014 12:28 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
One thing I have learned from all of these, largely fruitless discussions, is that Faith, and YECs in general, have no idea what we mean by 'evidence'. Their feelings, myths and wishes are all evidence as far as they are concerned. I don't know if this is a failing of the educational system that we have, or if it is an effect of religious indoctrination, or both.
They are so convinced of the TRVTH of their beliefs that they just know the evidence supports those beliefs.
So, anything we bring up as "evidence" that goes against those beliefs just has to be wrong or "misinterpreted." They don't even need to read what we post--its just wrong, so why bother.

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 755 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 12:28 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 12:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 757 of 1304 (732257)
07-05-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by Faith
07-05-2014 12:23 PM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
All the information you are giving, about "outburst" floods, "break-up" type flooding, and your statement that I give no evidence for an "impoundment" in the area of the monuments, is irrelevant since I don't claim that there was an impoundment or that the flooding was of the type of the Missoula flood.
Ah, I was waiting for that clarification.
So, the flood waters simply receded catastrophically. All over the world.
This could be a testable hypothesis. Why don't you go out and find actual evidence that this has happened.
It would be nice to know why we don't have such flooding features everywhere in the world. It would also be nice to know where the water all went so suddenly.
These kind of questions should lead to tests and ultimately to evidence which you could provide to us.
The picture I've had in mind is of strata having been laid down to a depth of three miles or more, the Flood water is still covering them, and this is all over the earth but I am focusing on this particular area of Arizona-Utah, then the water begins to recede and as it does it breaks up the higher strata and carries chunks of it away, and when it gets down to a certain level it washes off the surface of whatever layer presents itself, Kaibab for instance in the GC GS area. This really isn't the same kind of flood as the glacial lake floods.
Wait, wait, wait...
First of all, where did these sediments come from. I'm particularly interested in the limestones and the coarse gravels and evaporites, etc. How do you get three miles of these rock types when the don't even form in a global flood that has no source rocks.
You are putting the cart before the horse here.
It didn't necessarily rush as hard and fast as those floods for one thing.
But obviously it cut the Grand Canyon, steep walls and all. How do you manage to maintain clif-like inclinations on the canyon walls?
As for not providing evidence, you apparently want something brand new but I'm working from what I've found out about these things already. It's all the same evidence you have only I try to interpret it in terms of the Flood. Same evidence, different interpretation.
Okay, how about the evidence for Vishnu stream boulders in the Unkar Group? How about radiometric ages? How do you handle those pieces of evidence since you use all the same evidence as we do?
I'd very much like to have some brand new evidence but new interpretations ought to be worth something. And anyway, since I'm not claiming an "impoundment" I can't be expected to provide evidence for it.
Well, then you've got your work cut out for you. Oh, wait! That would require YECs to go out and do real research!
Silly me!
Evidence for no tectonic activity from Tapeats to Claron ...
But you have shown us evidence that there was some pre-Claron deformation. Are you no denying that?
... is on those diagrams in Message 328, basic evidence for the Flood itself is as usual the strata themselves and the huge number of fossils.
Which is also evidence for the mainstream interpretation. Do you think that no one ever noticed these things before?
Same eivdnece you have, different interpretation.
Quite wrong. You have ignored evidence of abundant tectonism and deformation going on elsewhere in the world during that period of time that you say nothing happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 12:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 758 of 1304 (732258)
07-05-2014 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by Coyote
07-05-2014 12:41 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
They are so convinced of the TRVTH of their beliefs that they just know the evidence supports those beliefs.
So, anything we bring up as "evidence" that goes against those beliefs just has to be wrong or "misinterpreted." They don't even need to read what we post--its just wrong, so why bother.
That is why, for many YECs, discussion is fruitless. On the other hand, I find many of the facts surrounding the discussion to be fascinating. The other day, learned that the Amazon River supplies fully 20% of all fresh water reaching the ocean by river flows. And yet, it carries less than a tenth of the sediment load of the Mississippi. This has some huge implications.
Isn't science great?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2014 12:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 759 by jar, posted 07-05-2014 12:50 PM edge has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 759 of 1304 (732259)
07-05-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by edge
07-05-2014 12:45 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
The other day, learned that the Amazon River supplies fully 20% of all fresh water reaching the ocean by river flows. And yet, it carries less than a tenth of the sediment load of the Mississippi. This has some huge implications.
I wonder if that would be true if we allowed the Mississippi back into its floodplain.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 12:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 2:31 PM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 760 of 1304 (732261)
07-05-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 759 by jar
07-05-2014 12:50 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
That would probably change things. I guess to keep this semi-on topic, though, this just points out how irregular erosion and deposition can be; what happens to mountain ranges in deep time, and where does sediment come from.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by jar, posted 07-05-2014 12:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by jar, posted 07-05-2014 3:04 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 761 of 1304 (732262)
07-05-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 754 by edge
07-05-2014 12:24 PM


Re: Evidence?
If you showed an actual open mind and asked questions, I might do that. In general, I avoid making long explanations because I'm pretty convinced that YECs don't really care.
Which is why I've been short-shrifting you too. There's no point in talking to someone who treats creationists as you do. Asking questions sometimes sets me up for insults. Sorry, I get enough of that already. I really don't enjoy it so I stop having the open mind you want. However, it's also true that since I am a YEC I'm always looking for any way to interpret information in support of the Flood so if you want a different kind of open mind you aren't going to get it. I don't like being the target of insults and I also don't like being an endless frustration to a geologist, but when it's clear there's no other option I'd rather not have a discussion at all.
No, that one dike is not evidence that all dikes are recent, it's just evidence along with all the other evidence on that diagram that all those phenomena I pointed out occurred in the same time frame after all the strata (from the Tapeats) were laid down. I'm well aware that the Precambrian rocks don't fit the idea that all such activity occurred in "recent" time which is why I stick to what I can prove and leave that for later. Many creationists assume all that was already there before the Flood occurred; I just keep thinking it has to be included in the Flood period somehow. I'd certainly like to find evidence for my theory that the volcanism must have happened at the end of the Flood along with all the other activity. Yes I KNOW you think you have evidence that couldn't have happened. All that means to me is that I have to keep looking and thinking about it.
I can't remember the name of that formation northeast of the Grand Canyon that you keep referring to. But let's forget about it for now.
Have to take a break, answer the rest later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 12:24 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 3:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 762 of 1304 (732263)
07-05-2014 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by edge
07-05-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
I think it is important for several reasons.
The Amazon is a great example of how floods behave. We can look at what happens when there is a major flood event and see just where sediments come from and go. We can also look at the Mississippi to see how mankind changed what is natural.
Then we take that data and look for similar signs of flooding in other areas.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 2:31 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 3:12 PM jar has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 763 of 1304 (732264)
07-05-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by jar
07-05-2014 3:04 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
I think it is important for several reasons.
The Amazon is a great example of how floods behave. We can look at what happens when there is a major flood event and see just where sediments come from and go. We can also look at the Mississippi to see how mankind changed what is natural.
I think that the Amazon Basin is the largest flood plain in the world and it is apparently depositional since we can be pretty sure that the Andes are eroding. Not exactly what Faith has in mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by jar, posted 07-05-2014 3:04 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 3:33 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 764 of 1304 (732265)
07-05-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by Faith
07-05-2014 2:36 PM


Re: Evidence?
Which is why I've been short-shrifting you too. There's no point in talking to someone who treats creationists as you do. Asking questions sometimes sets me up for insults. Sorry, I get enough of that already. I really don't enjoy it so I stop having the open mind you want. However, it's also true that since I am a YEC I'm always looking for any way to interpret information in support of the Flood so if you want a different kind of open mind you aren't going to get it. I don't like being the target of insults and I also don't like being an endless frustration to a geologist, but when it's clear there's no other option I'd rather not have a discussion at all.
Heh, heh...
If you think that you are treated poorly, you should see how scientists treat one of their own when they make a mistake. The world is full of ideas and some of the can swim. Others, not so much. Yours aren't doing very well, but you get a pass because we are not doing science here.
Besides that I'm not frustrated with the conversations in this forum because there are others who seem interested.
No, that one dike is not evidence that all dikes are recent, it's just evidence along with all the other evidence on that diagram that all those phenomena I pointed out occurred in the same time frame after all the strata (from the Tapeats) were laid down.
No, it's just shows that some of the events are later. It also only shows what was going on in only that area.
I'm well aware that the Precambrian rocks don't fit the idea that all such activity occurred in "recent" time which is why I stick to what I can prove and leave that for later.
Then don't say, "... all those phenomena ..." are recent.
Many creationists assume all that was already there before the Flood occurred; I just keep thinking it has to be included in the Flood period somehow. I'd certainly like to find evidence for my theory that the volcanism must have happened at the end of the Flood along with all the other activity. Yes I KNOW you think you have evidence that couldn't have happened. All that means to me is that I have to keep looking and thinking about it.
Let us know how that works out for you. And remember there is another intrusive event evidenced by the Zoroaster Granite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 765 of 1304 (732266)
07-05-2014 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by edge
07-05-2014 3:12 PM


Re: Faith still has presented no evidence
I think that the Amazon Basin is the largest flood plain in the world and it is apparently depositional since we can be pretty sure that the Andes are eroding. Not exactly what Faith has in mind.
And why wouldn't I expect the Andes to erode for pete's sake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 3:12 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by edge, posted 07-05-2014 3:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024