Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 421 of 740 (734515)
07-30-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by RAZD
07-30-2014 7:51 AM


Re: Blindness
Indeed, and what it shows is that there were periods of sedimentation after some faults, covering them.
On the right side above the words "Palaeozoic basement" and below the words "Break-up unconformity" are four such faults. Above those faults lie "Late Jurassic shelf edge" sedimentary deposits followed by other sedimentary layers on top of those.
You can track those layers all the way across the formation to the left, RAZD, clearly showing they were all there before the faulting to the right occurred. There is something different about those on the right but they were nevertheless all already there. All those layers were there, and the salt layer was there. The only layer that wasn't already there, or might not have been judging only by the diagram, is the uppermost layer that says "Base tertiary."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2014 7:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2014 4:57 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 422 of 740 (734516)
07-30-2014 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:09 AM


An important admission
quote:
Well, of course YOU wouldn't, because you think the Bible is a myth, but if it ever hit you that it's not, that it is in fact all true, all real, a revelation of truth you couldn't ever guess at, you'd have a whole different perspective on these things. And if the revelation hit you suddenly I'm sure you'd be knocked to the floor by it and take weeks or months, really years, to get back to anything remotely normal
None of which would change the fact that natural explanations work perfectly well - and even better than the Flood. And an honest person would admit that, even if they personally believed in the Flood.
And certainly I hope that if it happened to me that I wouldn't feel the need to claim that things were evidence for the Flood just because I needed to attribute them to the Flood.
It's pretty clear that your assumption that the myths of Genesis are literally true governs your views much more strongly than you care to admit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:05 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 423 of 740 (734517)
07-30-2014 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by PaulK
07-30-2014 8:03 AM


Re: An important admission
I'm not just claiming something because I believe ni the Bible. I think it's just plain glaringly obvious that the strata and the fossils HAVE to be explained by the worldwide Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2014 8:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2014 8:15 AM Faith has replied
 Message 439 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 10:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 441 by Coragyps, posted 07-30-2014 12:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 586 by Percy, posted 08-03-2014 9:52 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 424 of 740 (734518)
07-30-2014 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by herebedragons
07-29-2014 1:12 PM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
I keep finding posts I've missed, but may not be able to spend time on them.
No, you are wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a presupposition, it IS an observation and if it turns out that there is volcanic activity during the Flood that is NOT a big deal, it's just a shift in the timing of things. Volcanism, tectonism etc all seem to have occurred at or near the end of the Flood, but pinning down the actual time has not been possible for me yet
And yes I know volcanism is associated with plate movement, that's why I expect them to occur in the same time frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2014 1:12 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by herebedragons, posted 07-30-2014 9:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 437 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 10:26 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 449 by Taq, posted 07-30-2014 4:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 425 of 740 (734519)
07-30-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:05 AM


Re: An important admission
quote:
I'm not just claiming something because I believe ni the Bible. I think it's just plain glaringly obvious that the strata and the fossils HAVE to be explained by the worldwide Flood.
Which is only true if you start by unquestionably assuming a Young Earth. The Flood isn't a good or even plausible explanation for either - that's why you have to suppress so much of the evidence. It's just the least bad explanation given your dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 426 of 740 (734520)
07-30-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by PaulK
07-30-2014 8:15 AM


Re: An important admission
The Young Earth does have to be assumed because I see no way to get anything else out of the Bible without doing violence to it. But the strata and the fossils apart from everything else HAVE to be explained by the Flood, the other explanations are ridiculous.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2014 8:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2014 8:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 438 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 427 of 740 (734521)
07-30-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:16 AM


Re: An important admission
quote:
The Young Earth does have to be assumed because I see no way to get anything else out of the Bible without doing violence to it.
Oh, you don't have to do any violence to the Bible at all, just understand it differently. Your unBiblical assumptions about the Bible have far more to do with your attitude than the a Bible itself.
quote:
But the strata and the fossils apart from everything else HAVE to be explained by the Flood, the other explanations are ridiculous.
Mainstream explanations are far less ridiculous than the Flood, that's why they are mainstream - and the Flood isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 428 of 740 (734523)
07-30-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
07-29-2014 11:46 PM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
I don't see this at all. The depth of the strata I consider to be solidly fixed by the standard geological nomenclature, so I don't shift things around at all. There are some places where the stack is deep and places where it isn't and the examples presented here show the one or the other. I certainly expect that geologists can identify the different rocks they are talking about although they represent time to them and just rocks at different depths to me.
But you DO shift things around. Just like you suggest moving the Jurassic lava flows of the Alaskan Range to a post-flood time period. Why? Simply because it would fit your scenario better. That is NOT objective.
The absolute dates of the layers are irrelevant or at least unnecessary to establish a correlation. In fact, much of the geological sequence was worked out before radiometric dating and before Darwin's ToE. It doesn't matter what time frame you assign to geological periods they will yield the same RELATIVE results.
I have been trying to figure out how to get this idea across to you and I think I may have an idea.
Let's say I look at a cross section of the Grand Canyon
And I notice that the Kaibab is at the top of the formation, which is assigned to the Permian.
Then I look at a section in the Grand Staircase
Here I notice that the Claron Formation is at the top of the stack. Therefore, the Claron must also be of Permian age and was deposited at the same time as the Kaibab. Right?
You would say I was daft, would you not? Why? Because you can follow the layers through the GC / GS section and see that the Kaibab layer continues under the area where the Claron is and therefore you know the Claron was laid down much later. It is the RELATIVE order that counts here. You KNOW that the Kaibab and the Claron were NOT deposited at the same time.
Here's the thing. Did you realize that the rock record is continuous from the Grand Canyon to the Alaskan Range? And to the Appalachian Mountains? And to the African continent? etc. So the RELATIVE sequence can be worked out between these geologically distinct areas just like you can work out the relative sequence between the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase.
Of course, you may expect that I present such a cross section between the GC and the Alaskan Range, but I doubt any such composite drawing exists. It would just be too complex, it would do you no good anyway. But don't think for a second that geologists have not worked through those kind of relationships to establish a relative order of things. That's how it works.
Slabs of rock DO NOT represent time periods, as you put it. Layers are assigned to geological time periods based on their RELATIVE position; their position in relation to one another. The clues that geologists use to determine this relative position are varied, but the bottom line is that it is the correlation that really matters. Absolute dating did not establish that the earth was old, it confirmed it!
For example, in drilling for oil or gas, it is not particularly important that a particular rock is 200 million years old or whatever, what IS important is the relative ages of the deposits. Modern geological methods have made this easier by assigning absolute dates to geological periods so that the relative position of a layer can be more easily determined, but there is nothing particularly important about the absolute date. You could convert it in your head to 200 million minutes old for all it matters, as long as the relative ages remain consistent.
Sometimes your answers to me don't make the distinction, so that you seem to be expecting me to take the time period of the Triassic AS a time period for instance and then are surprised when I say what I did above.
You seem to think that geologists go about assigning ages to structures to bolster their presupposition that the earth is old. But you think that because you are thinking like a creationist, because that is a creationist's modus operandi. That is NOT how scientists operate. Scientists work on problems methodically; taking one piece of the puzzle at a time and fitting it into the bigger picture. It is this same systematic, methodical approach that has allow us to work out the structure of DNA, the cell cycle, the atomic theory, cosmology, ect, ect. Piece by piece, building on previous discoveries; working out details, drawing objective conclusions.
I know, I know... Blah, blah, blah.
The thing is, there are lava flows across the world that fall into the RELATIVE stratigraphic position that falsifies the idea that a worldwide flood deposited all the layers of the GC.
I know you believe without a doubt that there was a global flood, and that's perfectly fine. No problem. But your scenario completely fails (I know you don't see that it does, but it does). How about a much simpler task. Show us just one layer that is consistent with flood deposits and that corresponds to the same relative position in the geological column throughout the world. That should prove to be much easier than the course you are taking. But your not much for taking my advice.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 11:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:57 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 429 of 740 (734524)
07-30-2014 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:14 AM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
No, you are wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a presupposition, it IS an observation
Observations are fine. But your observations can't be explained with your ideas.
ABE: It IS a presupposition! From Message 426:
Faith writes:
The Young Earth does have to be assumed because I see no way to get anything else out of the Bible without doing violence to it.
QED
/ABE
if it turns out that there is volcanic activity during the Flood that is NOT a big deal, it's just a shift in the timing of things.
It is a big deal. Lava flows under water make a very distinct type of rock; pillow lava. Subaerial lava flows = no water. The more and more you restrict the flood timing, the more and more geological features you can't explain with the flood. You need the flood to explain rocks than contain hominid fossils in the late Miocene and and rocks that contain trilobites in the early Cambrian.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 430 of 740 (734525)
07-30-2014 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:37 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Huge limestone rocks.
Bazillions of fossils all over the world.
But the rock layers are dated to a span of millions to hundreds of millions of years, not one year.
This dating is generally done by use of the volcanic layers in between the sedimentary rocks. Again, they show a long time frame.
We also get dating by the fossils in the sedimentary rocks, which show many species--indeed whole genera and families--develop and disappear, one after the other. This shows a time frame of millions to hundreds of millions of years, not one year.
In other words, the strata you are relying on as evidence for a global flood shows the exact opposite, and shows an old earth as well.

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 410 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 431 of 740 (734526)
07-30-2014 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
07-29-2014 11:46 PM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
HBD writes:
It is more like you are asking us to show you a square circle.
Then I think you must be misunderstanding me in some way I can't figure out yet.
Faith's definition of the geological column: A continuous series of sedimentary layers unbroken by tectonic or volcanic disturbance.
Now, provide an example of a volcanic layer within the geological column as I describe it.
i.e. a square circle.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 11:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 432 of 740 (734529)
07-30-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Faith
07-30-2014 2:16 AM


Re: igneous layers
If the tuffs are one of your examples then they are not examples of what I was talking about within the context given, as I SAID. The tuffs do NOT occur within what I've been calling The Geo Column, and what I've been calling the Geo Column IS the context. The Cardenas Basalt, again, remains the ONLY example that DOES fit my definition.
Well, they were not one of my examples, but they certainly should qualify. Why do you say that they don't?
And simply defining them out of the discussion is not a good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 433 of 740 (734530)
07-30-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:21 AM


Re: igneous layers
Volcanic ash does that to wood. What's that got to do with my definition of the geologic Column?
I thought you said that the tuffs were intrusive.
My definition may be wrong but the context in which I said there's only intrusive magma in The Geo Column was that definition and if you stay within the definition as I gave it then there are no tuffs there. And again the only example of a real volcanic layer within the Geo Column as I defined it, is the Cardenas.
Why should we discuss a wrong definition?
Look, this is a simple logical point concerning the context. This argument is Nitpickery to the Max. I still have to go on and think about the tuffs too, which is hard to do with everybody insisting they are part of my definition of the Geo Column which they are not.
Maybe you shouldn't make outlandish comments until you've thought about them a little bit more.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 434 of 740 (734531)
07-30-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:37 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Huge limestone rocks.
Bazillions of fossils all over the world.
Yes, mainstream geology...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 435 of 740 (734532)
07-30-2014 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:09 AM


Re: Nope, not a myth
Well, of course YOU wouldn't, because you think the Bible is a myth, but if it ever hit you that it's not, that it is in fact all true, all real, a revelation of truth you couldn't ever guess at, you'd have a whole different perspective on these things. And if the revelation hit you suddenly I'm sure you'd be knocked to the floor by it and take weeks or months, really years, to get back to anything remotely normal. What it would do to your geological thinking would be interesting to see. Maybe not much at first, but if you really truly recognized the Bible as true as written it would have to affect it eventually. My whole world was turned upside down by my discovery of the God of the Bible, or really I'd say it was turned right side up, having been upside down all my life up to then. I think if it doesn't lay you out flat on the floor (so to speak) you haven't really grasped it. Some of the theistic evolutionists and Genesis allegorizers and others who refuse to take it at face value but bend it to their own worldly opinions don't know what they are missing. But atheists who think it's all a myth certainly don't either.
So, you are basically saying that your primary Geology text is the Bible. Why should I take it the same as you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024