Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 511 of 740 (734667)
08-01-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 506 by edge
08-01-2014 2:03 AM


Re: whatever
For angular unconformities you don't have any evidence either for how they formed, it's all theory or interpretation, and pretty wild fantastic stuff too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 2:03 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 10:29 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 512 of 740 (734672)
08-01-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-31-2014 9:43 PM


children's stories don't explain geological formations ... or footprints in ash
... I could read the Bible to you where it is so plain and simple and says how the Flood happened ...
As plain and simple as a children's story, complete with mythological snakes that talk ...
Or I could read a geological textbook and pay particular attention to how the geological column grows and what types of deposits contribute to it and what kinds of erosion actions take away layers, how you can tell the difference between deposits made under water and deposits made on dry land.
It would not be plain and simple, but then life isn't plain and simple.
The difference is that I could look at that information and I could apply it to what you actually see in the world. I could test what it says with evidence and confirm that what that textbook says is validated in the objective empirical evidence that surrounds us.
And then there is the constant refrain that I provide no evidence for my assertions. But my assertions are just a way of saying "Look!" Just "look for yourself," the evidence is right there, on the cross sections etc. I point something out, but instead of looking you point something else out.
Curiously, I know I do look, and I know that others look, but they look at ALL the evidence, they look at all the explanations and the consilience of results from multitudes of different branches of science that ALL spell out objective empirical evidence of an old earth.
Hominid footprints in a volcanic ash deposit that was covered by later sedimentary deposits, growing the geological column over those footprints ... we KNOW the volcanic ash was deposited on dry land, we KNOW that the footprints match the foot structure of hominid ancestors to humans and we KNOW that the footprints match the age of the ash and the time of the hominids from other objective empirical evidence: it fits the overall picture.
The overall picture is more compelling, more validated by many different sources of evidence, from the gradually slowing spin rate of the planet to the cause of rainbows.
Enjoy.

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 495 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 9:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 513 of 740 (734673)
08-01-2014 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
07-31-2014 10:28 PM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
Hi Faith,
I'm still slowly reading my way forward through the thread. I've followed the discussion forward from Message 355 where you introduced this image:
RAZD noted that the faults on the left do not extend to the top layers, and in reply you say:
Faith writes:
There is only one layer that could be true of, and that's the layer at the top, the one labeled "base tertiary."
And just that one layer is sufficient to falsify your claim that there was no tectonic activity until after all sedimentary layers were deposited. Further, the leftmost fault extends through less than a third of the layers - there are about three kilometers of layers above the highest extent of that fault.
On the right side of the diagram are four faults that whose vertical extent also stops several kilometers of sedimentary layers short of the seafloor.
All these faults that do not extend to the top layers are strong evidence that the layers above were deposited after the faults occurred.
By the way, the "base tertiary" layer at the top came after the age of the dinosaurs, so it must be less than 65 MYA (Million Years Ago), but it sits atop an Albian layer that would be from around 100 MYA, so there's an uncomformity between the two layers representing at least 35 million years. The faults that end at the top of the Albian layer likely extended into the layers that used to reside above but were eroded away. Later the base tertiary layers were deposited upon the eroded surface of the Albian.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 10:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 10:42 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:41 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 514 of 740 (734675)
08-01-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
07-29-2014 7:20 AM


Re: Bible
Faith writes:
So you wish to persist in the idea that the RC Church is just one of the denominations? Well, it's not, I don't include it among those many denominations, it's the False Church. The Reformation made that quite clear to those who are paying attention. Which isn't many, most are fogged out on the subject, but the facts are there for those who want to know.
This fits into the "I can call them names and say bad and nasty things about them, so I must be right" kind of thinking, and they can do the same to you. This is meaningless rhetoric.
Organized religions can be notoriously fickle and so I find no comfort in the Roman Catholic Church's endorsement of evolution, an ancient Earth, and modern science in general, but it does represent a substantial other religion whose views on science differ significantly from your own. The Methodists are another. You can't all lay claim to God's endorsement of your scientific beliefs, and why would you want to anyway. What possible relevance could it have to the eternal salvation of the soul?
And may I ask what wars you could possibly be talking about? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The American Civil War? The Napoleonic Wars? The Bolshevik Revolution?
I think he's referring to wars like the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War. You know, religious wars.
You just don't like the facts I focus on but I've pointed to plenty of facts.
I have to agree that you do provide a great many facts, but you tie them together in impossible ways, and when the impossible is pointed out to you then you continue to insist on the impossibilities anyway, so when you say something like this about evaporites forming during the Flood:
I've given you my provisional hypothesis a few times already.
All this means is that you've described some crazy ideas that have already been rebutted but that you refuse to give up.
Would have thought it obvious in the context of this side trip on this thread, that wherever you or any scientist interprets the evidence in terms of billions of years of Earth history, and when you interpret the strata and the fossils to exclude the obvious explanation of the Flood, you are misinterpreting.
You keep saying this but have never been able to support it.
Can you read, edge? We're ALL fallen, naturally geared to contradicting God, as you just quoted me saying, that's why God gave us the Bible, so we don't have to go on staggering blindly in the dark. I trust the Bible as God's word and try to follow where it leads because God's truth is the only cure for my fallenness. Of course if you prefer your fallen condition and ignore the Bible there's no remedy.
If you're truly determined to explain the Flood in scientific terms then you cannot construct hypotheses upon a foundation of faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:20 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 515 of 740 (734682)
08-01-2014 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
08-01-2014 6:59 AM


Re: whatever
For angular unconformities you don't have any evidence either for how they formed, it's all theory or interpretation, and pretty wild fantastic stuff too.
This is just one more bizarre statement from you. You do realize, don't you, that we can see an angular unconformity forming today? We have a pretty good idea how they form and what they look like in the geological record.
Your statement is very much like saying we don't actually know how tracks were made in the mud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 6:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2014 10:56 AM edge has not replied
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 4:52 AM edge has replied

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


(2)
Message 516 of 740 (734684)
08-01-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Percy
08-01-2014 9:07 AM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
On the right side of the diagram are four faults that whose vertical extent also stops several kilometers of sedimentary layers short of the seafloor.
All these faults that do not extend to the top layers are strong evidence that the layers above were deposited after the faults occurred.
In fact, there is a whole family of faults that controlled the boundaries of an evaporite basin. Those faults had to be there to create a closed basin in which salt could be deposited.
The diagram also shows folding in the Paleozoic basement that does not extend into the overlying Mesozoic and Tertiray rocks; so they were deformed before the Mesozoic.
The jagged lines are erosional surfaces, i.e. unconformities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Percy, posted 08-01-2014 9:07 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 517 of 740 (734687)
08-01-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by edge
08-01-2014 10:29 AM


Re: whatever
Your statement is very much like saying we don't actually know how tracks were made in the mud.
A claim that Faith has actually made in this thread...
Faith writes:
The difference, an enormous one, is that the paleontologist has never seen the creature that made the footprint whereas the forensic criminologist has seen millions and has a huge database just in his own experience to work from in solving the crime.
Completely refusing to face the fact that it is the mere presence of the footprints in question that is problematic.
Faith stopped debating and started exclusively preaching and making excuses about two days ago. Will we ever get any of that evidence and explanation that was promised to come later?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 10:29 AM edge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 518 of 740 (734702)
08-01-2014 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-31-2014 9:43 PM


Re: whatever
You guys make me laugh. And cry. I could read the Bible to you where it is so plain and simple and says how the Flood happened and you'd twist it into something else. I could quote a dozen high profile Bible believer teachers who teach what I believe and you'd just prefer some guy who interprets the Bible by making it mean whatever he wants it to mean and accuse me of being the one doing the twisting. I guess there is no cure for this.
Agreeing on what the Bible asserts says nothing about its accuracy. You seem to be confusing the two.
How do we determine whether or not a recent global flood occurred? Just read the Bible over and over until we are convinced? Does the geologic evidence not matter?
And then there is the constant refrain that I provide no evidence for my assertions. But my assertions are just a way of saying "Look!" Just "look for yourself," the evidence is right there, on the cross sections etc. I point something out, but instead of looking you point something else out.
We point to all of it. We don't cherry pick like you do. Pointing to one flood deposit does not make the lack of flood deposits in another formation go away.
I have allowed myself to hope that maybe somebody here, just one person, one of the posters or a lurker, doesn't matter, would just recognize the truth in what I'm saying, just "get it" but that isn't going to happen is it? Good thing I can laugh at it at least some of the time.
Actually, we get you just fine. There is no evidence that will ever change your mind. You have already decided that there was a recent global flood before you even looked at these geologic formations, and no charatcteristic or feature in any geologic formation is going to budge you from your current position.
Don't worry, we get you.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 9:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 519 of 740 (734724)
08-01-2014 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Faith
07-31-2014 10:28 PM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
There is only one layer that could be true of, and that's the layer at the top, the one labeled "base tertiary." ...
Now I also notice that this "base tertiary" layer ends before the right side of the diagram with what looks like several small layers that formed as if on a slope, and I am reminded of the Walther's Law for progression of layers relative to the edge of a water basin (sea or lake).
As Percy notes there is a significant delay in time between this layer and the one below, and the fissures that end at this boundary would indicate that it was not covered when those fissures were active.
... All the layers below that -- or let's say most because there are some that don't -- extend completely across from left to right. ...
So no, it is not "All the layers" rather it is some of the layers extend from one side to the other. Somehow I do not fine the argument that some of the evidence fits your belief to be a compelling argument in any way, especially when standard geology explains ALL the evidence.
But what I want you to look at and mull over are the fault lines that are the 2nd, 3rd, fourth, and fifth from the right end of the diagram ...
... those faults that do not extend above the "break-up unconformity" squiggly line ...
Curiously I see absolutely no difference in basic characteristics of the sedimentary layers over those cut-off faults and the similar layer identified as "Base tertiary" where it lies over the other cut-off faults (as noted by Percy): this is the same kind of interface that Percy identified, it shows a line of erosion that occurred after those faults were active and it was covered by sedimentation after those faults stopped being active.
We also have another time difference in this location\depth, between the "Palaeozoic basement" and the "Late Jurassic shelf edge" sedimentary layers ...
Paleozoic - Wikipedia
quote:
The Paleozoic (or Palaeozoic) Era (/ˌpliɵˈzoʊɪk/ or /ˌpeɪliɵˈzoʊɪk/; from the Greek palaios (παλαιός), "old" and zoe (ζωή), "life", meaning "ancient life"[1]) is the earliest of three geologic eras of the Phanerozoic Eon, spanning from roughly 541 to 252.17 million years ago (ICS, 2004). ...
Jurassic - Wikipedia
quote:
The Jurassic (/dʒuːˈrsɪk/; from Jura Mountains of the Alps) is a geologic period and system that extends from 201.3 0.6 Ma (million years ago) to 145 4 Ma; from the end of the Triassic to the beginning of the Cretaceous. ...
So that is a gap of ~50 million years ... plenty of time for a lot of erosion, similar to what Percy noted for the upper unconformity.
More important for this discussion is that the "Alban" sedimentary layers were all deposited well after the tectonic activity that caused these particular faults had ceased. Put this together with the top layer being deposited after all the other faults except the one at the extreme right had ceased activity, and you have two different periods when there was sedimentary deposition after tectonic activity and occurring with a large gap in time between them.
An open-eyed open-minded look at this diagram show layers of sedimentary deposit followed by some tectonic activity followed by newer layers of sedimentary deposit, followed by some newer tectonic activity followed by even newer layers of sedimentary deposit, ... a cyclic pattern of deposition alternating with tectonic activity.
Enjoy.

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 498 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 10:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by JonF, posted 08-01-2014 4:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 521 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 4:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 526 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 4:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 520 of 740 (734728)
08-01-2014 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by RAZD
08-01-2014 3:32 PM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
Dare I point out the remarkable lack of flatness and parallelism in that diagram?
Now, who is it that's always going on about the extraordinary flatness and parallelism in the venerated Geologic Column? Slipped my mind...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2014 3:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:45 AM JonF has not replied

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


(2)
Message 521 of 740 (734730)
08-01-2014 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by RAZD
08-01-2014 3:32 PM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
An open-eyed open-minded look at this diagram show layers of sedimentary deposit followed by some tectonic activity followed by newer layers of sedimentary deposit, followed by some newer tectonic activity followed by even newer layers of sedimentary deposit, ... a cyclic pattern of deposition alternating with tectonic activity.
This is the only really viable explanation.
One thing to keep in mind, and it used to always boggle my mind, is that a 50 million year gap does not mean that there was erosion for that length of time, only that the rock record for that period is missing.
Good analysis. Should make sense to lay people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2014 3:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 522 of 740 (734738)
08-01-2014 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
07-29-2014 7:29 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Faith writes:
The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
We can only wonder why you keep making assertions you cannot support. As I said before, someone else could claim "that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence," but for aliens instead of a worldwide Flood, and they'd have as much actual evidence and rationale as you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 3:43 AM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 523 of 740 (734773)
08-02-2014 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Percy
08-01-2014 9:07 AM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
RAZD noted that the faults on the left do not extend to the top layers, and in reply you say:
Faith writes:
There is only one layer that could be true of, and that's the layer at the top, the one labeled "base tertiary."
And just that one layer is sufficient to falsify your claim that there was no tectonic activity until after all sedimentary layers were deposited.
Sure, if you really believe the faults had to go to the top of whatever layer was the topmost at the supposed time they occurred. I can't prove otherwise of course, but there's no necessary reason to believe that. For this example, though, it looks that way. I just wouldn't be dogmatic about it if I were you.
Further, the leftmost fault extends through less than a third of the layers - there are about three kilometers of layers above the highest extent of that fault.
And there are faults to the right of that one that go all the way from the bottom to the top, that is to the Base Tertiary, which shows that all the layers were in place when those faults occurred, and there's nothing there to show that the one you mention was earlier except its shortness, which probably doesn't mean that.
On the right side of the diagram are four faults that whose vertical extent also stops several kilometers of sedimentary layers short of the seafloor.
All these faults that do not extend to the top layers are strong evidence that the layers above were deposited after the faults occurred.
Not at all, not when you can see the same layers those faults cut through continuing on across the formation where other faults cut through not only those layers but all those above, which would of course have to have happened after the faulting on the right as you are thinking of it, but there is really nothing to prove that was the order of things. The fault just to the left of that section of strata that lies beneath the Late Jurassic Shelf Edge, occurred with the pushing up of that whole section, leaving the very same strata on the left lower in the stack. That's all that happened there. All the strata were already in place at that time. Probably also the Base tertiary but of course that can't be proved based on the fault lines.
By the way, the "base tertiary" layer at the top came after the age of the dinosaurs, so it must be less than 65 MYA (Million Years Ago), but it sits atop an Albian layer that would be from around 100 MYA, so there's an uncomformity between the two layers representing at least 35 million years. The faults that end at the top of the Albian layer likely extended into the layers that used to reside above but were eroded away. Later the base tertiary layers were deposited upon the eroded surface of the Albian.
Well you're good at the OE fairy tale, I'll give you that. Of course there were no millions of years, no eroded layers of an imaginary unconformity, just all the strata laid down in sequence and faulted and deformed according to whatever forces acted upon various parts of it.
A NOTE ON INTERPRETIVE VERSUS PRACTICAL GEOLOGY
Now, all this is a perfect example of what I'd been calling "historical Geology" that is all nothing but unprovable untestable interpretations. I'm calling it Old Earthism now because that other term apparently includes more than I want to include. But the principle is quite clear. You've got the whole OE interpretive system going there without any way to verify it. Using the very same data I just answer with my own interpretive system which I think is a lot more plausible. For the purposes of Practical Geology none of this should matter, just the positions of the rocks relative to each other. If the Base tertiary was laid down before the faulting or after doesn't matter, all that matters for practical purposes is where the rocks are now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Percy, posted 08-01-2014 9:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 10:09 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 646 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 10:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 524 of 740 (734774)
08-02-2014 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by Percy
08-01-2014 8:18 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
This is all interpretive stuff. You have no more support than I do for your interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Percy, posted 08-01-2014 8:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by edge, posted 08-02-2014 9:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 647 by Percy, posted 08-04-2014 10:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 525 of 740 (734775)
08-02-2014 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by JonF
08-01-2014 4:22 PM


Re: cross section shows all layers were in place except top one
All the strata were originally flat and horizontal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by JonF, posted 08-01-2014 4:22 PM JonF 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