Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 243 of 519 (810882)
06-02-2017 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
06-02-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table, ...
I don't even know what you mean by this.
The 'time table' (assuming you mean the geological time scale) does not 'explain' the strata in any sense that I know. It provides a temporal framework of relative ages of the rocks, but it cannot tell us anything about a rock.
... that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario, that time periods can't be marked by rocks, ....
And this is exactly what we expect from sediments.
If you core modern lake sediments or just look at the bottom of any body of water, you see flat expanses upon which sediment is being deposited.
No flood is necessary for 'straight and flat' (your meaning) sedimentary contacts.
... that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, ...
Utter nonsense.
We see angular unconformities all over the planet. By analogy, we live on an a modern unconformity. And theoretically, the supposed pre-flood people lived on an unconformity which, amazingly, shows no evidence of human habitation.
... such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances. Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.
Again, demonstrably no.
We see both erosion and deformation within the stratigraphic column of most places on earth. You may deny it, but you have to ignore a lot of solid evidence against you.
Supposedly hundreds of millions of years of undisturbed strata as are seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon a mile deep. The Time Scale can't possibly explain all that.
And why not? Why has no one noticed this but you after centuries of geological research?
Why could a region not be undisturbed tectonically for millions of years?
Your say so?
And you consider that to be evidence?
But in less than a year the Flood could have laid the strata, and while the layers were still malleable the tectonic pressures could have bent them as a unit. Couldn't happen if there were millions of years between layers.
Why not? We know for a fact that under certain conditions rocks are ductile. Those conditions exist within the crust.
And lots more than that.
More than what? you haven't given us anything but personal incredulity.
The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.
Faith, this is silliness on your part. Denial is not evidence and known processes are not miracles.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 1:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:01 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 245 of 519 (810890)
06-02-2017 6:12 PM


Faith, stories are not evidence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 6:20 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 261 of 519 (810994)
06-03-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:01 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Yes I meant Time Scale. I'm thinking of old threads particularly about the Grand Canyon where I showed that the strata are continuous up through the Grand Staircase without any of the kind of erosion that would show time at the surface of the earth, ...
Okay, we'll leave it at that. This is blatantly false. No need to go any further, though I've read you post several times. In fact virtually every sentence you write is nothing but baseless assertion, wishful thinking and out outright ignorance.
Statements are not evidence. Stories are not evidence. Your personal incredulity is not evidence.
Sometimes I think you say these things just to be disagreeable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 273 of 519 (811173)
06-05-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
06-05-2017 10:32 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
If the evidence shows continuous rapid deposition of the strata and refutes the idea of millions of years per time period, which it does, ...
What is it about the strata that tells you there was 'continuous, rapid deposition'?
... then it makes other contrary evidence irrelevant, such as Old Earth dating.
Sounds to me like an excuse for avoiding evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 10:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 274 of 519 (811174)
06-05-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
I've answered the evidence, not ignored it. Rapid deposition of the strata is evidenced in what I've said and that means that the millions of years per time period is wrong.
But what have you said?
Only that 'it is so'.
Are we supposed to just take your word for it?
Don't worry, you are not the only YEC that does this ... make pronouncements and assertions.
But those are not facts.
I believe it's clearly shown in the facts I've given.
But you have not given us any such facts.
I also believe the monadnocks and the boulder are easily explained in terms of rapid deposition followed by tectonic disturbance.
Of course you believe this. You really have no choice.
Actually, monadnocks are erosional features, by the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 5:04 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 282 of 519 (811198)
06-05-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
06-05-2017 5:04 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
This is false. I've described the evidence, the evidence I showed and argued for on previous threads which I'm sure you remember. The cross section of the Grand Staircase/Grand Canyon area was a major part of my argument. I pointed to the flat layers with no indication of the sort of erosion one would expect from time at the surface, ...
But actually, the diagram shows evidence of erosion. In fact, we have given you multiple other observations that show erosion between the layers.
Your argument that they are not erosional but fault surfaces is not supported by any evidence.
... I pointed to the straightness and flatness of the strata through the entire depth from the bottom of the GC to the top of the GS.
And we have pointed out that this is exactly what we would expect from a mainstream perspective. Your denials are baseless opinion.
What is the diagnostic evidence that supports your interpretation over ours? There is no such evidence.
I pointed out the magma dikes that penetrate all the layers and issue in lava flow at the very top of the GS..
But the diagram shows you to be wrong. There are dikes and lava flows in the GC Supergroup that do not penetrate the overlying Phanerozoic rocks. In fact the old granites are eroded prior to the GC Supergroup.
There is no evidence to support your inference.
Also the fault that cut through the same depth of strata.
Irrelevant. We expect some faults to cut through the entire sequence.
However some do not, including those that tilt the GC Supergroup. This is shown clearly on the diagram.
Where is your evidence to support the faults are all young?
I also pointed out the curved strata that couldn't be deformed in a block if the layers were millions of years apart.
But why not? Please show us your reasoning. Otherwise you are just making an evidence-free assertion.
There is no evidence to say that any particular block of rocks must be deformed at any give time.
All this is evidence of complete deposition of all the strata before any kind of disturbance occurred, tectonic, volcanic, any of it. Continuous rapid deposition, no time periods.
Again, the diagram shows you to be wrong. The GC Supergroup has been faulted prior to the Tapeats deposition. The Vishnu Schist is definitely deformed, practically by definition. And the Great Unconformity is clearly not planar but irregular, based on resistance to erosion. Your evidence evaporates.
This was SHOWN. These are FACTS.
Only some of them.
And all of those have no evidence that they are any refutation from the mainstream geological history.
This is EVIDENCE.
Not really. Some are evidence for standard geological interpretation. Others are your wishful thinking.
You can LOOK at it and follow the reasoning, you don't have to take my word for anything.
This is nonsense. Some of the things you say are outright wrong and the rest are not evidence in your favor.
Faith, in your world, possibly, these things are evidence for your personal scenario. But these do not hold up in the real world of geology. Your scenario is an assault on the senses and an insult to all of the scientist who have studied the Grand Canyon.
Here is a quote from a reviewer of Andrew Snelling's proposal to do research in the Grand Canyon from a YEC perspective:
"His description of how to distinguish soft sediment from hard rock structures it not well written, up-to-date, or well referenced," Karl Karlstrom, a geologist at the University of New Mexico who co-authored a 2014 paper on the age of the Grand Canyon, wrote in his review of the proposal for NPS. "My overall conclusion is that Dr. Snelling has no scientific track record and no scientific affiliation since 1982."
(Server Error)
So, this is the current state of YEC research into Grand Canyon geology: out-of-date, poorly written, badly documented, no research track record, and a dubious understanding of the current knowledge of deformation.
And Snelling has a PhD in geology. So, the obsession of YECists with the Grand Canyon continues to embarrass them and you continue a long tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 5:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 9:37 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 283 of 519 (811199)
06-05-2017 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
06-05-2017 6:13 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
You and edge should really start recognizing all this and joining us Floodists in renovating Geology.
Who is 'us'?
I seriously doubt that anyone on the planet agrees with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 6:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 8:05 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 286 of 519 (811219)
06-05-2017 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
06-05-2017 9:37 PM


Re: So now we're into the Grand Canyon again
I'm not going to respond to your fantasy post except for one paragraph.
Sigh. Not all. Steve Austin has studied it and come to conclusions contrary to standard Geology's. The British creationist group I've mentioned have been studying it for years and do not accept standard Geology's views.
So, you cite Stuart Nevins (er, Steve Austin ...) the known prevaricator as support for your odd scenarios?
Sorry, but even Austin would not sign on for the complete absence of unconformities, or the fault interpretation of the Great Unconformity, and not even the post-flood tectonism/magmatism theory of yours.
What I've given is actual evidence, simple stuff I admit, compared to Austin's or other creationists', but still good evidence, and I'm sorry you feel insulted but all your insults of me in return are just the result of your hurt ego and not a fair assessment, because the evidence IS there. As I've said before the problem is paradigm hardening (on top of ego wounds) and sometimes it takes a generation or two before the establishment can afford to admit it's wrong about some things.
And no, it takes more than that to bother me. What YECs say never surprises me any more, it's just a matter of degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 12:42 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 294 of 519 (811252)
06-06-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
06-06-2017 12:42 AM


Re: So now we're into the Grand Canyon again
Using a pseudonym as a creationist in the current scientific environment should hardly brand one a "prevaricator."
But he didn't have to say what he did. That was an outright lie designed to deceived people like you.
If you like that, fine.
Austin has done a lot of good geological work, and put together a good book on the Grand Canyon too, where his own study of the nautiloid layer I find very convincing.
Of course you would find it convincing.
But no, Austin is not known for his research.
Probably not, but some ideas are my own and I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with them right off the bat. I've been doing a pretty good job, if I do say so myself, of evidencing my peculiar views nevertheless.
I'm only putting it out there to show how far from the mother ship you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 12:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 1:22 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 295 of 519 (811253)
06-06-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by RAZD
06-06-2017 7:38 AM


Re: a bit off topic now -- redirection
the topic is Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Not the grand canyon, not any fantasies about flood sediment layers but whether shells and marine deposits are evidence of a flood.
Unfortunately, YECs seem to have a fixation on the Grand Canyon. But you are correct. It would be best to remain focused rather than get into a morass of YEC claims about the GC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2017 7:38 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 297 of 519 (811255)
06-06-2017 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by PaulK
06-06-2017 5:11 AM


Re: Just the Usual Crazy Flood Scenario
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.
Good point.
I'm having a hard time visualizing a tectonic event that includes both a normal fault cutting the Claron, and deforming rocks below the Great Unconformity while leaving the Paleozoic section intact. I wonder what the dynamics were behind that...
Getting back more on topic, wouldn't it be more reasonable to interpret the situation as multiple mountain-building events?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2017 5:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 303 of 519 (811275)
06-06-2017 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Faith
06-06-2017 1:22 PM


Re: So now we're into the Grand Canyon again
Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.
It's pretty common knowledge hereabouts that, even though Austin said that evidence from the Mount St. Helens eruption caused him to become a young earther, he had already published YEC articles under his pseudonym for years.
Most people would call that deceptive. Is that really how you want YECism to be known?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 1:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 310 of 519 (811297)
06-06-2017 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
06-06-2017 4:25 PM


Re: The dating issue -- again
Trilobites show up in a great number of layers spanning supposedly hundreds of millions of years without evolving beyond the usual variations within the Kind.
And all that time, their morphology evolved.
They are just cousins of each other that got buried in separate strata.
What a miracle. How do you imaging this type of detailed sorting happened?
They and the coelecanths mentioned on another thread, which also show up in a great number of layers/"time periods," don't change from layer to layer or "time period" to "time period" beyond the usual changes attributable to microevolution within the Kind.
Actually, trilobites changed quite a bit.
Since these are as far as I know the only two creatures to appear in so many "time periods" their nonevolution is evidence against macroevolution in general and against the whole Old Earth dating system.
Oh, really? Since you are the expert, how long should it take for a fossil to evolve? And what do you mean by 'so many time periods'?
AFAIK, coelacanth only shows up in two time periods.
It's the ones that show up in only one or two "time periods' that are claimed to have evolved so dramatically based on absolutely no evidence that they did. When we have real evidence, in the case of the trilobites and coelecanths we can see that there is no such thing as macroevolution in the fossil record. And therefore the dating methods are again shown to be false.
Okay then, where are the Devonian coelacanths? Or the Cretaceous trilobites?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Faith, posted 06-06-2017 10:27 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 316 of 519 (811334)
06-07-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by KyleConno
06-07-2017 8:25 AM


There's actually a hole that scientists dug up in Russia that's 7.5 miles deep. They found water deposits as deep as 5 miles. They say it 's an evidence of water from the great flood.
Please document.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by KyleConno, posted 06-07-2017 8:25 AM KyleConno has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by JonF, posted 06-07-2017 10:23 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 329 of 519 (811435)
06-07-2017 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Faith
06-07-2017 6:15 PM


Re: What would I expect?
I just don't see strata figuring in the normal span of time on earth no matter how long it is.
That would be personal incredulity. Just because you can't see it does not mean that it is impossible. It is remotely possible that you are wrong.
Why should there be sedimentary layers at all, ...
Because sedimentary environments change.
... why should there be periodic inundations of the land?
Plate tectonics, climate change, need more?
These are incorporated into the scenarios of time periods because they are there and that's the prevailing theory, but they contradict each other.
How is that?
The flat sedimentary layers span enormous expanses as well as depths, shown by bore holes at hundreds of locations, utterly incompatible with life on the surface of the earth at any given depth. But completely compatible with the worldwide Flood.
Why so? We see trace fossils throughout the geological record.
What there should be if the prevailing theory is right? Just the usual surface of the earth at every depth, no separated sediments, perhaps local areas where former living things did manage to get fossilized despite the rarity of conditions for fossilization.
What is the "usual surface of the earth"? What are "separated sediments"?
Why can't they be because of changing sedimentary environments?
The Flood would have supplied those conditions for all the strata, but normally it's very rare. Evidence of former time periods if thy existed would be rare.
We have a record of alternating sedimentary environments at most locations. Why is that not a record of time passing?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Faith, posted 06-07-2017 6:15 PM Faith 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