|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Even a bryozoan would be good. Is there any sensible reason why they would be absent from the Cambrian if Flood geology was true ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Just another example of Faith's anti-scientific attitude. She doesn't want people examining the data so she can maintain the pretence that the fossil record is evidence for the Flood rather than unanswerable evidence against her crazy Flood geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Because the "answers" are grossly inadequate. That should be obvious.
quote: There is no sensible reason for thinking that it would. Especially when you get to the idea of the Flood repeatedly picking up large areas of sea floor and gently stacking them on top of each other.
quote: Most strata are marine. If the proportion is significantly different for older rocks I would appreciate a reference. So far as I am aware it is not the case.
quote: I guess that if you make a habit of rejecting contrary evidence it might seem that way. But in reality that's just a joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: No, you have not.
quote: You haven't even made a good attempt at that, ignoring counter-examples, ignoring the fact that sea beds are expected to be mostly flat and really no evidence other than a handful of photographs which are bound to miss a lot of evidence.
quote: Which seems to be a silly strawman, although you can't explain it well enough to even be sure of that.
quote: Which we know to be false.
quote: And were subsequently eroded, and unbent laters deposited on top...
quote: A more rational evaluation would be that your arguments are to weak to matter much in the face of the fact that you have not even a hint of a valid explanation of the order of the fossil record. And that is before we get into considering all the other evidence better explained by the scientific view. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Certainly as history, suffering the flaws of most ancient sources - and much more so than some. Genesis is especially unreliable in that respect, being composed of retellings of myth and legend.
Naturally if you twist the truth to support the false dogmas you cling to - even unwittingly - your arguments are going to fail. And that is the only reason you think you have "proof"
quote: Because accepting the Bible as it is, rather the way you want it to be is a "fault" ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: At least I wouldn't have to resort to hypocritical lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thank you for proving my point. In fact more than one point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You seem to manage it easily enough. I am happy to take the Bible as it is and treat it as a historian would. There is nothing about it that compels me to take any other approach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: You know that isn't true. All the other evidence doesn't go away just because you want to deny and suppress it. We have the fossil record. We have numerous geological features which speak of long periods of time, or of prolonged dry conditions or of buried landscapes.
quote: By which you mean that we accept the strong evidence of their validity - which has been discussed here, notably in RAZD's thread while you reject that evidence solely because the dating methods all prove you wrong.
quote: You can't do that by ignoring or by attempting to explain away as many actual geological facts as you do. The real evidence shows the opposite of what you claim.
quote: Yes, and it shows that Flood geology is false, and that the Earth's geology formed over a very long period of time. This has been known for 200 years now.
quote: All you have is an attempt to impose a myth onto the evidence - and to do so you have to deny and suppress or desperately "explain away" the evidence. Obviously your beliefs and methods are anti-scientific and false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Oh please, these issues have been thoroughly discussed in previous threads and all the matters referred to have been at least mentioned in this thread
quote: You haven't shown any such thing. Refusing to admit the evidence hardly shows that it doesn't exist and daft attempts to explain it away hardly helps your case.
quote: Because "the laws of physics must have changed so as to affect multiple independent dating methods in the same way, but leaving absolutely no trace" is a rational position. I don't think so.
quote: Which amounts to nothing more than the rejection of all contrary evidence.
quote: And you do so by ignoring or "explaining" away large amounts of evidence for long ages.
quote: If it was reasonable you wouldn't have to deny or "explain" away so much evidence. Angular unconformities, the huge monadnocks buried in the Grand Canyon, a boulder from earlier rock embedded in more recent strata. And so on.
quote: The problem seems to be your unwillingness to admit to the existence of the contrary evidence. That is the whole basis of your argument. Not surprisingly it can't be taken as showing anything about geology.
quote: Because pretending that evidence doesn't exist is "based on observation".
quote: Which can be seen if you look for it.
quote: Which can be seen in many places.
quote: Which is in fact entirely possible. I've seen photographs of fossils deformed by tectonic stress in the same way as the enclosing rock. Slow motion backed by massive force - which is exactly what tectonic stress Is observed to produce - can force rock to flow.
quote: Saying that we don't see things which are there to be seen is not "actual evidence". It is not "in the facts". It is falsehood and nothing more.
quote: When you are so clearly wrong about everything why on earth should we discard evidence which better fits with the real facts ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
When you say that you "answered' the evidence you mean that you "explained" it away. And your explanations are somewhat less than convincing.
quote: Falsehood aren't facts.
quote: In the absence of any such explanation - or even the likelihood of any such explanation that's not exactly something that you should believe, let alone anyone else.
quote: If the "better" interpretation is only "better" because it fits with your views - and is worse by any sensible standard I would call it a refusal. And that is the case here.
quote: Then you are misinterpreting the evidence. Obviously an unfossilised shell would not be soft - it would be brittle and break rather than be deformed. The process of fossilisation can only harden it further, yet if it were somehow much harder then the sediment surrounding it, it would not deform. This is pretty clear evidence that the rock and the fossil were fully lithified when the distortion occurred. And let me point out that it is observed that the Himalayas are still growing. Are they made of your soft sediment or is actual rock being slowly deformed right now ?
quote:If it can't happen with clay then how can it possibly happen with your recently deposited sediments ? It's weird that you think an experiment that resembles your ideas more than those of conventional geology can somehow refute the latter but not the former. And what about the layers that are NOT deformed ? You have yet to offer any reasonable explanation for that. And I have to point out that inventing nonsensical ideas about friction hardly helps your case there.
quote: Of course, we have examples of canyons. Which you explain away. Personally I'd count the monadnocks as "hills and valleys". And how could you identify an "eroded grassy meadow" ? You reject the identification of paleosols, so you can't even find that the surface material was soil. Not to mention that those features are somewhat atypical of the environments that we should expect to see preserved. To point out just one issue, high areas are almost always subject to erosion, not deposition. And that doesn't change the fact that we have evidence of a good deal of erosion occurring which you discount.
quote: Given the amount of bias needed to claim that your "facts" are indeed facts your claim is, I am afraid, sonething of a joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If you actually look at that diagram, Faith, it is easy to find evidence that you are wrong. At the far left the Claron formation is NOT tilted, but sits on top of the tilted strata. Given the exaggeration of the vertical scale I have to say that I am not convinced that the section to the right of the fault was tilted by tectonic forces, either. The slope is so very gentle there.
At the far right the faulted angular unconformity (just to the left of the canyon) is even worse for your case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: That is a perfect example of the disparate rationalisations you invent to try to explain away contrary evidence. And let us note that you do not offer any reason why that did not happen to the Claron formation to the right of the fault. (Aside from the obvious lunacy of the idea). I suppose that you will insist that I am just being biased - because you can't believe that something you made up could be wrong. Yes, you did make up the claim that there was no tectonic movement before all the strata were deposited - you certainly didn't base it on viewing the actual evidence. And the idea that all such disturbances "appear" to be caused by the same event is also a ridiculous falsehood. The ideas you impose on the data despite the actual appearances is just another example of putting your inventions before the evidence.
quote: That IS the Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon. And we still see no reason to suppose that the upper strata were in place when the original tilting occurred. The fact that they were not affected is not amazing at all - just solid evidence that they were not there. They were, after all, affected by the later faulting as can easily be seen. As I said it is a good place to see that you are wrong.
quote: The Great Unconformity generally refers to the hiatus in deposition, not the tilting, which is far more local.
quote: Of course that is how you often react to contrary evidence - by clinging more strongly to the original belief.
quote: There is no way that I am going to accept obvious falsehoods. No way that I am going to put a crazy fantasy before the evidence. And no reason why I should.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The contrary view is the obvious one. That the lower, tilted layers were tilted first, then eroded and then the material that makes up the Claron formation was deposited on top. If you come to any other conclusion, I'd have to ask what evidence there is for it. That scenario is even more obvious in the angular unconformity on the right. And, if you remember a more detailed look at the unconformity at Siccar Point only confirmed the standard scenario.
quote: Obviously there should be an explanation of why the situation is so different on each side of the fault. Why is it "obvious" that the tilt occurred when the Claron formation was present ? It seems obvious to me that it happened first (the fact that the Claron formation seems to be completely unaffected - and the flatness of the surface it rests on point to that). And since the contact surfaces should be the same, your ideas about friction obviously don't explain the difference at all.
quote: In other words you only looked at one small corner of the planet (which is certainly inadequate) and even there you have to overlook clear evidence to the contrary. I think that is quite sufficient to prove my point. As to your longer argument I will point out that you cannot prove a universal by cherry-picking evidence. The very fact of doing so is grounds for suspecting deception. To make the obvious point there is no reason why things could not occur after all the (currently present) strata were in place - so pointing to things that did is hardly good evidence for your claim. More we know that you are making false claims. The meanders in the Grand Canyon provide strong evidence that it was formed by the river - evidence for which you have yet to offer a coherent answer. Also:
quote: Is only a subjective personal impression and one very much at odds with what we see. The fact that the tilting did not affect the upper strata, while the fault did is one obvious piece of evidence that the fault was a later event - and reinforces the conclusion that the tilt occurred before the other strata were in place. And to top it all the chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion is absent.
quote: For that to even be possibly true you need actual evidence that - despite the obvious appearance to the contrary - all the angular unconformities we have looked at really did happen underground. Because quite frankly it looks exactly like a desperate excuse invented to explain away evidence that demolishes your assertion.
quote: I would really like to see the evidence that the tilt at the Great Unconformity happened after the other strata were in p,ace. The evidence that it happened before is very, very clear. What do you have to overcome that evidence ? Edited by PaulK, : Tidied up quote, removing excess material
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Quick comments:
1) the fact that some tectonic events happened after all the strata were in place is not even evidence that all of them did. In particular the fact that the fault split the Claron formation is not evidence that the layers underneath were tilted at the same time. 2) if you have no evidence favouring your alternative "explanation" over the obvious conclusion that the tilted strata in angular unconformities were tilted before the later strata were deposited your argument collapses. 3) when you do try to make a case for the tilting happening later, it doesn't make sense:
quote: The raising obviously follows the faulting, but not the tilting. This is evidence against your view. As I asked, how does it make sense for the fault to affect the upper strata, but not the tilting of the Supergroup if they happened at the same time? As for the Cardenas, here is some actual geology:
A thin, discontinuous basalt flow is preserved in the Ochoa Point Member several meters below the Dox/Cardenas contact. The lithology of the uppermost Dox suggests a tidal flat environment and that the region was at or near sea level during the onset of the repetitive eruptions extruding the Cardenas basalts. Local features and mixing at the contact suggest that the basalt overflowed wet, unconsolidated Dox sand and sediments. The Cardenas is characterized by recurring horizons and discontinuous lenses of interbedded sandstone similar to Dox lithology, which suggests the erosion and transport ongoing during Dox time continued to operate and contribute sediments that accumulated throughout the Cardenas during intervals between the eruptions and flows extruding the igneous layers.
In short, the Cardenas lava was breaking through to the surface at the same time as the Dox sandstone was being deposited.
Rockhounds I don't understand how you relate the Cardenas basalt to the flows on top of the staircase - even without the evidence cited above it is rather clear that the Supergroup rocks were eroded before the strata above them were deposited. And that includes the igneous rocks I take to be the Cardenas.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024