Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
37 online now:
PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,400 Year: 20,436/19,786 Month: 833/2,023 Week: 341/392 Day: 31/41 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread
edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 112 of 155 (752391)
03-11-2015 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
03-10-2015 11:41 PM


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

Yes, according to the Bible.

I thought you didn't reference the Bible in your posts...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:22 AM edge has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 114 of 155 (752393)
03-11-2015 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
03-10-2015 11:46 PM


For a scientist to debate these issues with Faith/faith is useless.
No amount of evidence will change a mind that is rusted shut.

Truer words never spoken here.

I'm pretty sure that she doesn't realize how insulting her posts are. I really don't care to much about what she says about me, but there are a lot of people whose work I respect out there that she just trashes in pedantic rants. With absolutely zero training...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2015 11:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:21 AM edge has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 115 of 155 (752394)
03-11-2015 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tanypteryx
03-11-2015 1:01 AM


You are right, of course. Sometimes I go a little crazy and waste a day. A little break from processing images.

I was remembering something funny today. While my grandson and I were on our way down to the Grand Canyon last summer, I told him quite a bit about Faith and her views about the geology of the Colorado Plateau. When we finally got to the Grand Canyon I kept thinking, "I wish Faith could see it from here."


I'm sure it would still exceed her imagination, but point taken. Everyone should make the trip.

I remember a friend form northern Europe saying that her professor talked about how big the GC is, adding that "everything is bigger in the United States". Yah, well, we do everything to excess here, ... including YEC ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-11-2015 1:01 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-11-2015 1:21 AM edge has responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 117 of 155 (752396)
03-11-2015 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Tanypteryx
03-11-2015 1:21 AM


That is for sure!

Even though you may not be able to educate Faith, I would like to thank you for the effort. I have learned a lot from your posts.


Thanks, and it's good exercise. I most enjoy brainwashing all of the students in this area. Yep, I'm a perpetrator...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-11-2015 1:21 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 132 of 155 (752427)
03-11-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:31 AM


That terrain is seen through the earth, though, right, with some kind of special imaging?

In that case, seismic imaging.

You aren't looking directly at surface but something almost diagrammatic?

No. It's pretty straight forward stuff. If it was different, it would look different.

Do you have an explanation for why it would not be a normal drainage pattern?

You can see outlines of formations and figure out depths or something like that, but you aren't looking at anything like what we see on the surface of the earth.

Why not? What does it look like to you?

So you have to reconstruct what you are seeing.

Well, they are time and distance measurements. We're actually pretty good at that. So, what do you think the patterns actually look like?

I'm talking about how it all looks on that imaging. It looks like rivers and canyons drawn in diagram if I'm thinking of the right imaging sources.

I'm not sure what your problem is. It is a map of seismic measurements.

You're talking about an enormous quantity of sediment to fill in an actual landscape.

And why is that a problem?

What happens to the usual idea of how the strata were deposited layer by layer?

Nothing, they are still deposited in horizontal layers.

Do core samples show you that something else is going on here than the usual deposition of strata?

They show erosion. But I don't know what you mean by 'different'. What would you expect to see?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:58 AM edge has responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 134 of 155 (752429)
03-11-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:42 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The Great Unconformity is like the disturbances that occurred after all the strata were laid down, ...

What disturbances are those?

... it is not like the erosion between the layers.

How is it different? Please explain.

I think it did occur after the strata were laid down, but even if it occurred in the Precambrian time frame as you all think it did, it still leaves big questions about why there was such a huge long interval afterward when no such disturbances were occurring, hundreds of millions of years of placid surface conditions on this earth.

Why is that a problem? What principle do you use to say that any particular area must be disturbed or deformed?

I guess that doesn't bother you, as I keep noting.

I have yet to see a reason why it should bother me. Is there a law that says every place on earth must be disturbed every few thousand years?

I wish I could say it clearer about the salt layers. All the cross sections show sedimentary layers above the salt in perfectly typical arrangements as the strata normally form, except that all of them follow the sag of the salt layer. The way I would interpret this, of course, is that they were all laid down in the Flood, perfectly horizontal as usual, and then the salt got wet and started rising and the whole stack deformed along with it.

So, how do you deposit these salt layers in the middle of a global flood?

But on the theory of deposition over millions of years I have to suppose that the salt didn't start rising until all those other layers were in place above it. Is that the accepted timing?

Could be. However, the salt is probably still rising in some areas even though there is active sedimentation in the Gulf..

There is no other way to account for their all following the contour of the sag, ....

That's not the point, however. No one says this did not happen.

... except that one does have to wonder how completely solidified rock could deform in such a plastic-looking way, one would think it would break.

They do. However, under the proper conditions of temperature, confining pressure and rate of deformation, all rocks are plastic.

But then if the salt began deforming and rising at any point before all those upper layers were in place, the usual timing of that process being many millions of years, then only those already in place would deform along with it and any layers deposited above that would fill in the sag and have the flat horizontal surface they always have.

If the rise stops that is what we would see.

I'm probably not getting this said clearly enough. Your answers really didn't address anything I had in mind.

What we are asking is how the salt was deposited in the middle of a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:33 PM edge has responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 136 of 155 (752433)
03-11-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:58 AM


Something other than the mere shape of the terrain. Tree stumps perhaps, something to suggest the actual surface of the earth.

Do you have any evidence that the images do not show actual terrain?

Rivers run underground too so I would expect them to look like rivers on seismic imaging, but really nothing more than a channel that water flows through which could just as well be underground as above.

Actually, underground rivers (which is a misnomer, by the way), would not be seen by this method, partly because they do not reflect sound waves in the same way and they are too small. They do nor form wide valleys such as what we see. I also seriously doubt that they would form dendritic patterns such as the one in the picture that you've seen. They tend to follow rock structure.

The absurdity of it all blows me away, sorry. Wish I could get it across better.

I've noticed that you are easily blown away.

ETA: This is all an artifact of arguing from ignorance. You don't know much at all about your flood, or what it would produce or its effects, do you?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:58 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:36 PM edge has responded
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:38 PM edge has responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 142 of 155 (752449)
03-11-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
03-11-2015 12:33 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
You really don't ever read in context, do you? What's the point of talking to you if you can't follow the discussion?

Well, the way that you have of jumping around, it is kind of hard to follow.

The Grand Canyon itself for the main one, the scouring off of the Kaibab Plateau, the cutting of the stairs of the Grand Staircase, Zion Canyon too, all that sort of thing that occurred after hundreds of millions of years of nice neat horizontal layering.

So what does that have to do with the Great Unconformity?

You are not making much sense here.

The erosion is an itty bitty bit of displaced sediment seen here and there, hardly visible from a distance, or even close up in many cases, and having no effect on the horizontality of the strata. The disturbances I'm talking about that came after the strata were in place displaced a lot of stuff, built mountains, carved out the canyons, moved tons of sediment, and in the case of the Great Unconformity tilted a whole slab of layers.

How does the erosion of the canyon have anything to do with tilting the Precambrian rocks? Why did the younger rocks not become tilted also?

1. Common sense.
2. The appearance of the surface of the earth now.

Those are not principles or laws.

How about may be some evidence?

Considering the immense scale of the disturbances I'm talking about it's absolutely amazing nothing like them ever occurred during hundreds of millions of years of horizontal stacking of sediments. Mountains building, canyons cutting, so on and so forth. Sure you can rationalize it all away. You can and you do. But it's absurd. Just about NO activity for all those hundreds of millions of years, except a little dribbly bit of "erosion" here and there between layers, and then this massive massive amount of tectonic disturbance. Oh, just a big nothing, no problem.

So, it's all based on the principle of personal amazement by Faith.

I'm sure that will pass peer review...

I don't know. I've suggested perhaps the salt leached out of sedimentary layers after they were laid down. But that's changing the subject. The problem I'm presenting here is a problem for YOUR scenario.

Why is that? Because you say so? How can you say that based on "I don't know"?

Sedimentation wouldn't stop it.

Who said it did?

But that sedimentation in the Gulf is also not depositing horizontally as it should, but following the slope of the sag of the salt layer as usual, which suggests that something else is going on. How long does it take for the salt to rise? Because of a disaster or near-disaster with a growing salt dome in Texas that I heard about a while back I suspect it doesn't take anything like millions of years.

Sure weathering and erosion can occur rapidly. What did that have to do with rise of the diapir and how long it took? Actually sedimentation does occur horizontally at the macro-scale. What happens afterward is not sedimentation.

That what did not happen? Do you have any clue to what I'm talking about?

Actually, I'm not sure. You seem to bounce around a lot.

Easy I'm sure to assume the proper conditions pertain wherever you see such plasticity in rocks.

If the evidence supports it, yes.

It has nothing to do with the rise, this is about the timing of the laying down of the layers.

Well, if the diapirs do not rise, then there are no relative depressions for sediments to fill in. What are you talking about?

No, that is not the question.

How did I know you were going to say that?

The question is how the standard sedimentary strata could deposit over a sagging surface over millions of years and follow the sag contours rather than filling it in and presenting the usual horizontal flat surface.

Maybe it wasn't sagging at first...

And why do you say this isn't/hasn't happened?..

If there is one thing I'd like for people to know it is that things are usually not as simple as we would like them to be.

In any case, I'm not seeing the relevance of this part of the discussion. Please explain.

Since this isn't happening on any cross section I've seen I conclude no millions of years are involved at all, that this proves that the time frame for the deposition of the layers was much much shorter and probably occurred only a few thousand years ago.

Why does it have to be a short period? You do realize that most cross sections have some simplification in them, especially when rendered at a very gross scale such as the ones I've seen you post here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 143 of 155 (752450)
03-11-2015 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
03-11-2015 12:38 PM


BIG underground rivers then. Sheesh.

Please provide an example. Especially one that shows dendritic drainage patterns and deep erosion that would form valleys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 145 of 155 (752452)
03-11-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
03-11-2015 12:36 PM


I know a lot more about it than the debunkers do.

I'm sure.

And as for arguing from ignorance, no doubt, but you are arguing from entrenched bias that can't see reality.

If you say so, Faith.

As always happens in discussions with you I find you obnoxious, unclear and unwilling to communicate. Apparently you are very touchy about being insulted.

Oh, not at all. I've been insulted by pros on this and other boards. I just don't like it when you defame generations of people who dedicated their lives to learning the truth. And you, without even a basic college course in earth science.

I'm sorry about that, but I get very tired of trying to talk to someone who has your attitude.

I think I have been quite patient with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 146 of 155 (752453)
03-11-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by herebedragons
03-11-2015 1:15 PM


Here's an easy assignment for you. Look up "underground rivers" and get a good sense of how they form and the shape their caverns take. There is plenty of underground rivers that have been thoroughly mapped.

Then look up "buried canyons" - there is not as much information about buried canyons as there is on underground rivers, but you should be able to find a couple.

Then put the two images side by side and make a comparison.


There is a basic geometry problem here. By definition, an underground river would be closed at the top. In other words, it has a vertical limitation. Otherwise, it would not be underground.

On the other hand the visuals shown indicate that the river valleys open up wider in the upward direction. This would be true of all canyons that don't have vertical walls.

I'm sure that you don't need an explanation of this, but it appears that someone in this forum needs some basic instruction.

After you come to a conclusions as to whether the two images could represent the same process, then get back to us and tells us what you found out.

I'm not sure that you want to see the aftermath of such a comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2015 1:15 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 155 (752463)
03-11-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
03-11-2015 1:36 PM


I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.

But you have no support for an alternative, right?

So, how else would a river valley form at depth within the geological record?

I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done. If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.

That isn't the point. The point is that if you come here and make statements it is expected that you will support your statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 1:36 PM Faith has not yet 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