Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1021 of 1257 (790678)
09-03-2016 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1003 by Faith
09-02-2016 7:52 AM


Re: Moderator Suggestion
Faith writes:
I'm waiting for Stile to finish describing his scenario before coming to any certain conclusions, but the reason for thinking the sediments would have to be eroded away -- WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE SAID MANY TIMES ALREADY IN OTHER CONTEXTS HERE-- is that they are not in the stratigraphic column from which these scenarios originate, they are just plain sediments added to provide for the lithification of the original environment, and not an environment in itself with fossils which is what we find in the column.
Waiting for Stile is fine, but you might want to consider also responding to PaulK's Message 1012.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1003 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 7:52 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1022 of 1257 (790689)
09-03-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1017 by Admin
09-03-2016 8:22 AM


Re: Moderator Comments and Suggestions
I felt that Edge's Message 1007, while not untrue, left the impression that the scenario being pushed by Stile and myself as a way of illustrating why an landscape of net deposition doesn't become uninhabitable can't happen:
edge in Message 1007 writes:
What rock are you talking about? The rock that came before the landscape may have nothing to do with the landscape, and what came afterward may be completely different as well. The landscape, as we are defining it now, could be different from both. You could have a coal bed sitting on granite bedrock and overlain by a transgressive marine sandstone.
"Noting what's in the rock" is not relevant at all.
That was a difficult post. I really didn't know what rocks Faith was talking about and I doubted that they would exist.
As I have said, even in an erosional (say, continental) environment there are basins which have net deposition. That is how we preserve the 'landscapes' that Faith is so interested in and terrestrial fossils. For instance, Lake Uinta in western Colorado and Utah collected sediments for about 5 million years in the Eocene.
At the same time, on a geological scale, all continental rocks above sea level are eventually subject to erosion. Those sediments are now being eroded as this picture shows:
Fortunately, this does not happen because of geotectonics and fluctuating sea level.
That last sentence seemed particularly likely to mislead readers.
Okay, sure. I was referring back to my question about 'what rocks?' in that same post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1017 by Admin, posted 09-03-2016 8:22 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1023 of 1257 (790690)
09-03-2016 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1019 by Admin
09-03-2016 9:02 AM


Re: Moderator Questions and Comments
This from your Message 936 is one example:
edge in Message 936 writes:
The surface environment is not represented by the rocks below it or above it.
It is recorded as an eroded surface in the geological record.
Rephrasing this, you seem to be saying that the surface environment is always an eroded surface. But only an unconformity can be an eroded surface. Any paleosols recorded in a stratigraphic column must have been been net depositional surfaces for considerable periods, else paleosols wouldn't exist.
In this case I think I was referring to the examples of unconformities in some of the diagrams.
[ETA: Either that or I'm just such an old hard-rocker that dirt just doesn't deserve mention ...]
I have a tendency to think of landscape as topography.
Now I understand what you meant by soils accumulating from the top and bottom of the profile. Soil layers grind slowly across underlying strata like glaciers down a mountain range.
The soils creep when on a slope. Most of us have seen the effects, as in tilted trees and fence posts, etc. That means that the soil is moving. If there is no slope there may be no creep.
What puts so much rock and clay into the soil? We were glaciated for a considerable time, maybe a factor?
In brief, chemical weathering of minerals.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by Admin, posted 09-03-2016 9:02 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1024 of 1257 (790691)
09-03-2016 2:14 PM


Admin wants me to answer a post by PaulK. I won't read posts by PaulK, for reasons that I think should be easily understood. Admin doesn't even think a rock I'm talking about exists. This is so absolutely hopeless there is no point in continuing. I don't know what the problem is so there is no hope that I can do anything about it. It's all quite clear to me what I'm trying to do and the incomprehension of others is beyond me. I can't solve this and apparently nobody else can. There is no point in continuing. This thread needs to be shut down. PLEASE.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1025 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-03-2016 2:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(5)
Message 1025 of 1257 (790694)
09-03-2016 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by Faith
09-03-2016 2:14 PM


This is so absolutely hopeless there is no point in continuing.
So stop.
This thread needs to be shut down. PLEASE.
Many of the rest of us find it very interesting and I (for one) am learning from both questions and answers.
I don't know what the problem is so there is no hope that I can do anything about it. It's all quite clear to me what I'm trying to do and the incomprehension of others is beyond me. I can't solve this and apparently nobody else can.
What is incomprehensible to me is how you can possibly still not see that what you are trying to show as a problem for geology is not a problem. The processes of geology that you have described as problems for geology are not because that is not how it happens.
Almost universally, we understand the descriptions and explanations that have been put forward by edge, PaulK, and others and they make perfect sense. You have muddled everything so badly because you reject the one factor that makes everything obvious, deep time......hundreds of millions of years of deposition, erosion, life and death.
All the rocks, all the strata, all the canyons, all the fossils, all of the evidence shows that these processes have been going on for hundreds of millions of years. There are no chinks in the evidence that refute this conclusion or that supports any hint of the YEC fantasies.
I hope this thread stays open and continues to show that your argument is a muddled pile of gibberish that will never rise to the level science, let alone throw any doubt on the modern understanding of geology.

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 1024 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 2:14 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 1026 of 1257 (790696)
09-03-2016 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1008 by Faith
09-02-2016 11:16 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
The only rock i'm ever talking about here is any rock in a stratigraphic column in which you geologist types think you find clues to an ancient environment of which the rock is the final result and evidence.
Okay, then, you are talking about certain rocks that preserve the terrestrial environment. Is that correct?
In that case, what other evidence is there of the environment that existed at one time?
These rocks are layers in a stack of rocks -- see grand canyon for example --
Actually not. The Grand Canyon does not expose lake sediments or river sediments where your landscape environments would be preserved.
So now you are talking about something else.
... that are flat enough to deserve that term whether you like it or not, and extend enough of a distance, even the terrestrial rocks, to be described as extensive whether you like it or not, ...
Actually, I love the term. It includes virtually all sedimentary rocks.
So, now you are talking about all sedimentary rocks.
... generally contain fossils that you interpret as having lived in the environment you think the rock indicates and so on and so forth.
Where else would they have lived? And if they lived, they must also have died and left remains in that rock.
If you just want me to tear out my hair and disappear maybe that's not a bad idea.
I don't suppose you'd entertain the thought that maybe you should investigate some of our examples, would you?
Faith, you have all of the tools you need to figure this out. You just have to rid yourself of the rigid dogma of YECism. You may be stubborn, but I don't think you are stupid.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 11:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1029 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 4:38 PM edge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1027 of 1257 (790697)
09-03-2016 4:18 PM


The Reality
Finding a fossil imprint of a leaf inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the leaf fell from a tree on a surface environment onto the ground BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.
Finding a tree stump inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the tree grew on a surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.
Finding a fossil critter inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that the critter lived on a surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.
Finding a fossil imprint of tracks inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a critter lived and walked on that surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.
Finding petrified stream ripples inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a stream ran across that surface environment BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.
Finding petrified sand dunes inside a rock is absolute and irrefutable proof that a desert surface environment was there BEFORE the ground turned into a rock.
Ancient environments are as real as an Old Earth and as evidenced as anything happening today.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

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


(1)
Message 1028 of 1257 (790698)
09-03-2016 4:22 PM


One of the issues we keep coming back to here is the straight and flat nature of 'strata' in the usage of Faith. Apparently, to be 'strata' a sedimentary formation needs to have sharp, smooth and planar contacts and be continental in scale. The formations of the Grand Canyon are the prime example of exposed strata.
In that case, I submit that the Coconino does not classify as 'strata'.
From Wikipedia (Coconino Sandstone - Wikipedia):
"It is also present in the Grand Canyon, where it is visible as a prominent white cliff forming layer. The thickness of the formation varies due to regional structural features, in the Grand Canyon area it is only 65 ft thick in the west, thickens to over 600 ft in the middle and then thins to 57 ft in the east". (emphasis added)
The thickness is, therefor, highly variable. How does that happen to a stratum that has flat contacts? It also looks like the Coconino thins out to the extent that it eventually disappears to the east and west.
So, the Coconino cannot be classified as 'strata' by Faith, as near as I can tell.
Furthermore:
"Either the Kaibab Limestone or Toroweap Formation overlies the Coconino Sandstone."
Now that's weird. It looks like the Toroweap isn't a stratum, either since it is not found everywhere in its region.
It's starting to look like the Grand Canyon is not such an exemplar of 'strata'.
Or could it be that Faith's definition of 'stratum' is just plain wrong?
Nah!!
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

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


Message 1029 of 1257 (790700)
09-03-2016 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1026 by edge
09-03-2016 4:00 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
I know it's a lost cause so why am I trying once again to answer you?
The only rock i'm ever talking about here is any rock in a stratigraphic column in which you geologist types think you find clues to an ancient environment of which the rock is the final result and evidence.
Okay, then, you are talking about certain rocks that preserve the terrestrial environment. Is that correct?
There goes another clump of hair.
Why "terrestrial? Aren't there also clues in strata to marine environments, of which rocks in strata are also the final result and evidence?
In that case, what other evidence is there of the environment that existed at one time?
Sigh.
There is no other evidence, but there is also no "environment that existed at one time." The evidence is misleading. I'm trying to show this by tracking the assumption that there is an environment it supposedly points to by starting with the (imaginary) landscape, treating it for the moment as if it DID exist, and working from there to the rock in the strata that represents it.
These rocks are layers in a stack of rocks -- see grand canyon for example --
Actually not. The Grand Canyon does not expose lake sediments or river sediments where your landscape environments would be preserved.
Sigh. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Yes I know the Grand Canyon's strata are mostly marine. I meant it only to be an example of "layers in a stack of rocks" as I said, and nothing more, the reason for giving the example being that you said a stratigraphic column contains ALL rocks, but it clearly does NOT contain rocks that are not LAYERED, such as big fat boulders that tumbled down a mountain. Yikes why is this so difficult?
So now you are talking about something else.
I am ALWAYS talking about the same thing: you are READING something else in place of it.
... that are flat enough to deserve that term whether you like it or not, and extend enough of a distance, even the terrestrial rocks, to be described as extensive whether you like it or not, ...
Actually, I love the term. It includes virtually all sedimentary rocks.
Are you referring to the term "extensive" now? If so, why are you always giving me grief about it when I apply it not only to marine strata but also terrestrial?
So, now you are talking about all sedimentary rocks.
NOW and ALWAYS, and NEVER ANYTHING ELSE.
... generally contain fossils that you interpret as having lived in the environment you think the rock indicates and so on and so forth.
Where else would they have lived? And if they lived, they must also have died and left remains in that rock.
Yes, this is the communication problem right here: You can't NOT think in terms of your time periods. I knew this would be a problem, I know it IS a problem, but I keep underestimating what an impenetrable problem it really is.
Shall I try again? Do I have any hair left that hasn't been pulled out? Are there any terms in the English language I can use that won't be misconstrued?
Well, I'll repeat it for starters:
... generally contain fossils that you interpret as having lived in the environment you think the rock indicates and so on and so forth.
Where else would they have lived? And if they lived, they must also have died and left remains in that rock.
The problem begins with "...having lived in the environment you think the rock indicates..." which you take as fact although to me it is merely conjecture, speculation, imaginary, and so on. At best it's theory. YOU think it's real. You think, as you say, that the environment DID exist, and since it existed of course the fossils HAVE to represent life that actually lived there, and died there and left remains there. I'm trying to give the view that it's not real, it's purely imagined, that the only actual observable reality is the ROCKS of the strata where you get the clues that make you believe it is real, forgetting that it's just something you THINK is real because of the things in the rock you take to be clues. What's not real is the idea that there are these separate TIME PERIODS in which there are separate landscapes or environments all stacked one on top of another. The clues in the rocks are real in the sense that they point to former environments but not in separate time periods at separate levels that become separate layers of rock.
Aaaargh.
If you just want me to tear out my hair and disappear maybe that's not a bad idea.
I don't suppose you'd entertain the thought that maybe you should investigate some of our examples, would you?
Oy. Groan. Is it REALLY as hopeless as this makes it seem? Probably, so why do I keep trying?
Faith, you have all of the tools you need to figure this out. You just have to rid yourself of the rigid dogma of YECism. You may be stubborn, but I don't think you are stupid.
And another thing I guess you won't get is that in this thread I'm not arguing from YECism or the Flood, I'm trying to argue strictly from the facts I glean from YOU GUYS.
No, you won't get it will you?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1026 by edge, posted 09-03-2016 4:00 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1030 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2016 4:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1032 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-03-2016 5:06 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 1030 of 1257 (790701)
09-03-2016 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1029 by Faith
09-03-2016 4:38 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
What's not real is the idea that there are these separate TIME PERIODS in which there are separate landscapes or environments all stacked one on top of another.
Scientific dating methods say you are wrong.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1029 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 4:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1031 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 4:58 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 1031 of 1257 (790702)
09-03-2016 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1030 by Coyote
09-03-2016 4:54 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
Thinking I'm wrong is one thing. The problem here is that nobody even knows what I'm saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2016 4:54 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1033 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2016 5:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1042 by edge, posted 09-03-2016 7:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 1032 of 1257 (790703)
09-03-2016 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1029 by Faith
09-03-2016 4:38 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
And another thing I guess you won't get is that in this thread I'm not arguing from YECism or the Flood, I'm trying to argue strictly from the facts I glean from YOU GUYS.
If this was true then two of the major facts we have repeated over and over: 1) hundreds of millions of years, 2) the same processes operate today that operated in the past, are conspicuously missing from your arguments.
I'm trying to argue strictly from the facts I glean from YOU GUYS.
I would note that you argued differently in Message 984
quote:
I would think I'd said it enough times by now that this isn't about what I think Geologists think. Good grief.

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 1029 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 4:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1034 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 5:19 PM Tanypteryx has replied

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


Message 1033 of 1257 (790704)
09-03-2016 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1031 by Faith
09-03-2016 4:58 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
The problem here is that nobody even knows what I'm saying.
Sure we do. You're trying to make the geological record match the biblical flood, and to do so you have to deny a large part of geology and quite a few related sciences, in particular dating and paleontology.
Your insurmountable problem is that the geological record does not match the biblical flood, so you end up tying yourself in knots trying to twist evidence around--and deny a lot of evidence--in a futile effort to show that it does.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 4:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 5:35 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 1034 of 1257 (790706)
09-03-2016 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1032 by Tanypteryx
09-03-2016 5:06 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
Well here we go again.
And another thing I guess you won't get is that in this thread I'm not arguing from YECism or the Flood, I'm trying to argue strictly from the facts I glean from YOU GUYS.
If this was true then two of the major facts we have repeated over and over: 1) hundreds of millions of years, 2) the same processes operate today that operated in the past, are conspicuously missing from your arguments.
You seem to think I'd have to agree with those things to be arguing strictly from the facts I glean from you guys? That makes no sense. I'm arguing AGAINST those things, but I guess not in a way you can recognize.
I am trying to show that you can't physically get from your imaginary landscape in your imaginary time period to the rock in the strata that represents it. Since it IS all imaginary, however, it may nevertheless be possible to do it, that's what I think Stile might accomplish. But we'll see, because whenever i've tried to track it out I run into major glitches.
It would make a nice proof of the imaginary nature of the time periods and the weird idea of stacks of landscapes/environments if I could do it but if I can't even get it across it's a lost cause for which I'm losing a lot of hair.
As usual you've got your contexts mixed up about what I meant about what Geologists think and don't think but right now my head is spinning so explaining it is going to have to wait.
REALLY, all it would take to make some progress in understanding what I'm trying to say is just to assume I'm not stu*pid and not likely to be contradicting myself in all the glaring ways you impute to me, and I am saying something that would make sense if you'd just put the brakes on your first nonsensical way of misreading me and consider that it's probably wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1032 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-03-2016 5:06 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-03-2016 6:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1038 by jar, posted 09-03-2016 7:08 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 1035 of 1257 (790707)
09-03-2016 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1033 by Coyote
09-03-2016 5:06 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
You are so far out in La La Land it's not funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1033 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2016 5:06 PM Coyote has seen this message but 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