Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, jar, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (6 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,810 Year: 18,846/19,786 Month: 1,266/1,705 Week: 72/446 Day: 72/64 Hour: 4/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 155 (752357)
03-10-2015 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
03-10-2015 5:51 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The evidence for what is quite visible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2324
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.5


(2)
Message 92 of 155 (752358)
03-10-2015 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
03-10-2015 6:22 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
Faith writes:

Yes I know you can't see it. I didn't say the disturbance was occurring right now. It occurred after all the strata were in place though. I'm talking as usual about those neat layers you can see in the Grand Canyon that were laid down before the canyon was cut and all that erosion above the canyon to the Grand Staircase. Every time I contemplate it I wonder why nobody sees what I sere in it.

Well, I am glad you agree that disturbance cannot happen to the strata until after they exist. There is ample evidence that erosion and other disturbances have occurred on the surfaces of various layers before more sediment was deposited in the next layer. There is evidence of ancient riverbeds and canyons in ancient layers that are exposed by erosion so they are visible today. The neat layers you talk about are a figment of your imagination. It only appears that way if viewed from a long distance so the scale makes the imperfections invisible.

When did you visit and contemplate the Grand Canyon last? I visited it last Summer and in very few places are the layers nice and neat like you imagine.

I believe this pattern is true across the globe. Wherever there's a salt layer shown in cross section you can see for instance that the layers above it sag right along with the distortion it creates. That shouldn't be so if the layers were supposedly laid down over millions of years.

Why shouldn't it be so? What is your reasoning? How do you explain it then? I think Edge explained this a long time ago in one of the Grand Canyon threads. I think he said that because the salt is less dense than the overlying layers, it is deformed by the weight and pressure of them. We also know that the rock layers are not completely rigid and will sag rather than leave an empty void. It seems obvious that as the deposited sediment builds up over millions of years this would be the result. More and more weight bearing down on the salt.

The more recent layers should have a flat surface. And the salt should have long since dissipated too, through the domes it makes in the layers above, if we're talking millsions upon millions of years. All this seems quite open and shut to me.

What is the mechanism that makes the salt dissipate? Wait a minute.....the salt makes domes AND the layers above sag? I don't understand what you are saying here.

But there are places some point to that they think show disturbance during the laying down of the strata. Some of it's ambiguous, but really, there should be NO place on earth where the strata could have accumulated miles deep for thousands of years without being disturbed on the order of a huge canyon's being cut into them and huge quantities of matter eroded away such as we see at the Kaibab Plateau and the stairs of the Grand Staircase.

I am not sure where you are talking about here. What do you have that supports your idea that Grand Canyons must be eroded all over the planet, all the time. The Grand Canyon and the features of the Colorado Plateau are the result of a pretty unique set of conditions.

there should be NO place on earth where the strata could have accumulated miles deep for thousands of years

This is correct.

No one is saying that there is any place on the planet where strata miles of strata accumulated in thousands of years, except you.

It took many millions of years for strata to accumulate to miles of thickness and it takes millions more for it to erode away.

No one is saying that the strata were deposited all in one continuous sequence, without interruptions between the layers and erosion and other disturbances between periods of deposition, except you.

Faith writes:

It would be nice, though, if somebody would look at it and see what I see.

This is never going to happen, because what you say we should see DOES NOT EXIST. It is not reality.... it is just your imagination because you have never gone to the Grand Canyon and studied the actual strata. You base your whole vision on a few photographs and diagrams.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 6:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:28 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 93 of 155 (752360)
03-10-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-10-2015 5:55 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
I didn't say it has to fit in the Flood, but they do, that's why they are spending all that time on particles.

Who is 'they'? What is 'it'?

This point is unintelligible.

Why absurd. Because nature doesn't sort itself into slabs of rocks containing the entire flora and fauna of an era.

Why not?

What do you mean by 'nature not sorting itself'?

And why wouldn't flora and fauna of an era be found together?

Our era isn't going to be reduced to a particular sedimentary rock either.

Who said it would be?

Every time I look at the walls of the Grand Canyon I wonder how anybody can think those discrete units of rock could actually represent identifiable time periods on earth. I guess all I can say is it's obvious.

I don't see why not.

I'm sure it's obvious to you, but I don't see why. Why can't the rocks represent time periods?

Why do I think it's been missed for so long? Because you are all looking at the trees instead of the forest.

And everyone has done this for over a century?

Sorry not buying that.

Why is what you think right and everyone else wrong? What is your experience with interpreting geology?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 94 of 155 (752361)
03-10-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
03-10-2015 5:51 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
I'd like you to see what I see and acknowledge it.

But I don't see it.

I'm not sure why you demand that everyone see what you see or we all must be crazy.

Please explain.

ETA: It seems that you won't be happy until everyone agrees with you. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. You can continue to be angry but that won't change anything.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 95 of 155 (752362)
03-10-2015 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
03-10-2015 6:22 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
Yes I know you can't see it. I didn't say the disturbance was occurring right now. It occurred after all the strata were in place though. I'm talking as usual about those neat layers you can see in the Grand Canyon that were laid down before the canyon was cut and all that erosion above the canyon to the Grand Staircase. And the known layers of rock that span huge areas of the North American continent. Every time I contemplate it I wonder why nobody sees what I sere in it.

Maybe you are wrong.

Ooops! Sorry, I forgot... that's not possible....

I believe this pattern is true across the globe. Wherever there's a salt layer shown in cross section you can see for instance that the layers above it sag right along with the distortion it creates. That shouldn't be so if the layers were supposedly laid down over millions of years. The more recent layers should have a flat surface. And the salt should have long since dissipated too, through the domes it makes in the layers above, if we're talking millsions upon millions of years. All this seems quite open and shut to me.

Yes: to you...

It isn't that way to many other people. I really wish you could just reject the rest of us, but that isn't how it works.

But there are places some point to that they think show disturbance during the laying down of the strata. Some of it's ambiguous, but really, there should be NO place on earth where the strata could have accumulated miles deep for thousands of square miles over multiple millions of years years without being disturbed on the order of a huge canyon's being cut into them and huge quantities of matter eroded away such as we see at the Kaibab Plateau and the stairs of the Grand Staircase.

But there are such canyons and you have been shown them.

And why can there not be some large areas where we don't see such erosion?

But oh well, I know it's always going to be rationalized away.

It would be nice, though, if somebody would look at it and see what I see.


Are you some kind of utopian or something? We should agree with Faith so everything will be perfect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 6:22 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 8:36 PM edge has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 96 of 155 (752365)
03-10-2015 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
03-10-2015 5:51 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The evidence is quite visible.

Whenever a YEC says something is obvious, I have this tendency to check and make sure I still have my wallet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31505
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 97 of 155 (752367)
03-10-2015 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by edge
03-10-2015 8:00 PM


where rivers used to run
Technology keeps providing even more evidence.

Today we can actually see things like where the ancient rivers ran, rivers that have been buried for tens of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 8:00 PM edge has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 98 of 155 (752374)
03-10-2015 10:31 PM


On Assumptions
I just love it when creationists pick on scientists for their use of "assumptions."

To a creationist an assumption seems to mean "automatically wrong."

But scientists do not use assumptions that are not supported by evidence. What good is an incorrect assumption? That gets you nowhere.

On the other hand, creationists base their entire belief system on an assumption--that the bible is correct. And this is in spite of a massive amount of evidence that the young earth and global flood beliefs are absolutely wrong.

So, scientists use assumptions that are well-supported by evidence and creationists hate it, but then creationists turn around and rely on assumptions that are absolutely contradicted by evidence and think that's just grand.

As Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning..."


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" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


jar
Member
Posts: 31505
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 99 of 155 (752376)
03-10-2015 11:09 PM


What you can see when you open your eyes.
Faith tries dancing but once again it seem she just doesn't know the steps.

Earlier we were discussing evaporite salt beds, ones that are hundreds of feet thick and buried tens of thousands of feet underground.

She tries then to change the subject to "Salt Domes" hoping I guess that no one would notice that she was trying to change the subject. Salt is salt after all.

But it's pretty easy for scientists to tell the difference between a salt bed and a salt dome and they even use two terms so the two are not confused.

The salt bed is laid out over great areas, often really wide areas, often under several states. The beds are horizontal and layered.

Salt Domes (notice it is a different term than salt bed) though are intrusions where salt from a salt bed intrudes into an overlying system, deforming the overlying rocks.

But what is the process, the model, the method, the mechanism involved.

First is the creation of the salt bed. An area is needed where there is an inflow of salt water but a restricted outflow. Water is lost through evaporation until the salt precipitates out. Gradually over time the bed of salt gets thicker. Often, if the salt water inflow is seasonal you get periods when dirt and clay and other minerals blow in on the surface forming the distinctive banding that is seen followed by another cycle of salt formation.

Eventually the bed of salt itself get covered, the inflow get halted, and the whole bed gets covered. We know this because that is what we see. The bed is now buried tens of thousands of feet underground yet for the salt to have formed it must have once been at the surface.

As more and more dirt accumulates over the salt bed it compresses, eventually becoming rock (what type of rock depends on other factors) but is denser than just soil.

Salt though is funny. If you have ever looked at salt under a microscope you know that it forms regular cubes. It is the crystal nature of salt that limits compaction and so it remains less dense than the overlying rock. That means the salt will be more buoyant and will tend to float. The crystal lattice also allows salt to behave as a plastic and to flow. If there is any significant faulting (pretty common, just look at every day's list of earthquakes) the salt can flow vertically as well as horizontally forming intrusions.

It is the intrusions that are termed "Salt Domes" to distinguish the two processes, models, method and procedures.

So science has examined the evidence and has found detailed models, processes, methods and procedures that will produce what is seen in reality.

But they all take time. Not just six thousand years but rather millions or billions of years.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:40 PM jar has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33330
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 100 of 155 (752377)
03-10-2015 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2015 7:42 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The erosion between layers you all like to make into evidence for surface exposure, is minuscule, itty bitty barely visible erosion if you're looking at the walls of the Grand Canyon for instance, and that is what you are comparing with the surface of the earth now with its hills and mountains and valleys and cliffs and canyons. But that doesn't create any dissonance for you. Amazing but true.

I believe this pattern is true across the globe. Wherever there's a salt layer shown in cross section you can see for instance that the layers above it sag right along with the distortion it creates. That shouldn't be so if the layers were supposedly laid down over millions of years.
Why shouldn't it be so? What is your reasoning? How do you explain it then? I think Edge explained this a long time ago in one of the Grand Canyon threads. I think he said that because the salt is less dense than the overlying layers, it is deformed by the weight and pressure of them. We also know that the rock layers are not completely rigid and will sag rather than leave an empty void. It seems obvious that as the deposited sediment builds up over millions of years this would be the result. More and more weight bearing down on the salt./qs\ What is the mechanism that makes the salt dissipate? Wait a minute.....the salt makes domes AND the layers above sag? I don't understand what you are saying here.

I believe the sagging is caused by the loss of salt as it rises up through the layers above forming domes that eventually reach the surface. By dissipate I just mean some point must come when all the salt has risen to the top, but every cross section shows it in process. Should this take millions of years? Apparently they move and change fast enough to cause a hazard in some places. Sounds like they move a lot faster than millions of years.

I meant to say thousands of square miles, not years, but the phone rang and I didn't get it finished. Did go back and correct it.

About Grand Canyons everywhere, no, but the erosion between layers is tiny compared to the surface of the earth, and why should the earth's surface have been so different hundreds of millions of years ago than it is today, with our hills and valleys and so on?

Never mind, I KNOW you can rationalize it all away, as can edge and anybody else here. Itty bitty erosion proves it was at the surface of the earth and it isn't surprising at all that no gigantic disturbances like the Grand Canyon occurred for hundreds of millions of years, and it makes perfect sense that one era should be characterized by limestone and another by sandstone, and that each era has just those creatures that are found buried in those particular sediments and no others. Earth time isn't ongoing, it occurs in sharply demarcated time periods with sharply demarcated collections of life forms.

To me this is absurd in the extreme, but to Geology it makes perfect sense.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2015 7:42 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:53 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33330
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 101 of 155 (752378)
03-10-2015 11:34 PM


Yes, ancient rivers, buried rivers, buried canyons. Sigh. It's all just the effects of underground water running between the layers after the Flood. There are still underground rivers. It's all quite consistent with the Flood. Oh but we must have it all to be former landscapes. Sigh.

How is it that layers built on top of former "landscapes" with such nice straight horizontal lines?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:57 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33330
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 102 of 155 (752379)
03-10-2015 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
03-10-2015 11:09 PM


Re: What you can see when you open your eyes.
Yeah well once you've assumed the millions of years anything's possible. However, what is NOT possible is that layers that are deposited on top of a sagging layer over millions of years would follow the contour of that layer. They would fill in the sag and their surface would be horizontal.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 11:09 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 11:41 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31505
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 103 of 155 (752380)
03-10-2015 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
03-10-2015 3:51 PM


the Flood don't fit in.
Faith writes:

There's no point in pondering the details of a process if you don't have the slightest clue how it fits into the Flood.

Yet Faith, folk have pondered. Unfortunately for you, in over two hundred years of pondering what has been discovered is that the flood does not fit with ANY evidence that has been found from any branch of science using any technology.

The honest truth is that none of the Biblical Floods ever happened.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:41 PM jar has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33330
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 104 of 155 (752381)
03-10-2015 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
03-10-2015 11:40 PM


Re: the Flood don't fit in.
There was one Biblical Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 11:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 11:43 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 112 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:58 AM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31505
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 105 of 155 (752382)
03-10-2015 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
03-10-2015 11:40 PM


Re: What you can see when you open your eyes.
Faith writes:

Yeah well once you've assumed the millions of years anything's possible. However, what is NOT possible is that layers that are deposited on top of a sagging layer over millions of years would follow the contour of that layer.

But again Faith, what we see today is that layers being laid down DO follow the contour of the layers laid down yesterday.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:43 PM jar has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019