Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
52 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 518 (811124)
06-05-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Coyote
06-04-2017 11:25 PM


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, then it makes other contrary evidence irrelevant, such as Old Earth dating.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2017 11:25 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2017 10:38 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 273 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 1:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 662 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 272 of 518 (811127)
06-05-2017 10:38 AM
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, then it makes other contrary evidence irrelevant, such as Old Earth dating.

But the dating has been shown to be accurate, which necessarily shows that the flood geology scenario is incorrect.

I presume this is why creationists do their best to ignore and hand-wave away the dating issue--the dating issue alone disproves both the global flood ca. 4350 years ago and the YEC belief.


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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 273 of 518 (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 yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 274 of 518 (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 responded

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 275 of 518 (811176)
06-05-2017 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:01 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
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, which would be needed to demonstrate the Time Scale, and which is always claimed to be there even though it can't be seen between any of the layers anywhere.

What would you expect the strata to look like if science's old earth time scales were correct?

What are you not seeing that you would expect?

What are you seeing that you would not expect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 518 (811185)
06-05-2017 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2017 2:38 PM


What would I expect?
NCE writes:

Faith writes:

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, which would be needed to demonstrate the Time Scale, and which is always claimed to be there even though it can't be seen between any of the layers anywhere.

What would you expect the strata to look like if science's old earth time scales were correct?

That's a good question and really, the answer is that I wouldn't expect any strata at all to have anything to do with it. Strata fit water deposition, and these humongous strata require water deposition on a grand scale. For time periods over millions of years there is absolutely no reason whatever there should be any strata marking them off from each other. And since most of them span enormous areas of geography nothing could possibly have lived there at that "time" anyway. Cores from the Midwest show continuous layers over a huge span of geography. The fossils in them are supposed to be the evidence of things that lived during a particular time period marked by a particular rock, but if they ever did then they were killed by the sediment that covered it all, and then how would the next batch of living things have arisen? The whole thing is utterly utterly absurd but they have their rationalizations all in order to deny it.

Geology has cobbled together all kinds of rationalizations for the water including a series of six shallow seas. But given the great expanse of the strata across the land they have no way of showing how anything lived then anyway, or stayed living if they ever did. Yes even marine life. All that sediment in the water would kill them too. And did, judging by the fossil contents found in the rocks.

No, the strata must be the result of the worldwide Flood that killed all things that were living on the land at the time, burying them in the sediments where we now find them fossilized. marine life died too of course.

What are you not seeing that you would expect?
What are you seeing that you would not expect?

There shouldn't be a series of any sort at all, there shouldn't be stratified sedimentary rocks at all. At best maybe in one time period perhaps, as a sort of fluke, and then I'd expect it to be part of an extinction event; but a series marking off each time period, no, the idea is ludicrous. The eras should be continuous one from another, not flat and straight but lumpy and hilly and blended together. If creatures really did live earlier in earth's history from which nothing since had yet evolved, perhaps one would expect to find places here and there where they were buried and if fossilized local areas of lakes perhaps where they died, not straight flat sediments stretching for hundreds of thousands of miles.

ABE: There is no way strata make sense at all on the Time Scale theory but at the very least they should not be flat and straight AT ALL, they should show hills and valleys and gorges and canyons and eroded fields between layers, and they don't.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2017 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-06-2017 10:12 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 277 of 518 (811186)
06-05-2017 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by edge
06-05-2017 1:59 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

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?

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, 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. I pointed out the magma dikes that penetrate all the layers and issue in lava flow at the very top of the GS.. Also the fault that cut through the same depth of strata. I also pointed out the curved strata that couldn't be deformed in a block if the layers were millions of years apart. 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.

This was SHOWN. These are FACTS. This is EVIDENCE. You can LOOK at it and follow the reasoning, you don't have to take my word for anything.
/
/

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 1:59 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2017 5:17 PM Faith has responded
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2017 5:20 PM Faith has responded
 Message 282 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 7:50 PM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 662 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 278 of 518 (811187)
06-05-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
06-05-2017 5:04 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
I've described the evidence, the evidence I showed and argued for on previous threads which I'm sure you remember.

But you have consistently had to hand-wave away the evidence from dating. The dating evidence demonstrates conclusively that those layers were not laid down in a short time such as a year, but spanned millions of years.

Dating shows that those layers span 1.84 billion years old to 270 million years old. In other words, those layers span about a third of the age of the earth, but you are forced to (try to) hand-wave that evidence away to fit with your a priori beliefs.

But that evidence is still there; it doesn't go away just because it is inconvenient.


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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 7:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 279 of 518 (811188)
06-05-2017 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
06-05-2017 5:04 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 6:13 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 280 of 518 (811193)
06-05-2017 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by PaulK
06-05-2017 5:20 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
The far left formation with the Claron lying horizontally on top of the tilted strata is a perfect example of an angular unconformity in which the lower strata tilted under the upper, in this case the Claron. It's like Siccar Point and dozens of other examples where the layer on top is usually a single layer which I interpret as all that was left of what was originally a higher stack, the one layer being more or less welded to the tilted layers by the friction that occurred in the tilting. Except in that case it seems to be the result of the faulting that occurred with the lifting of the strata to the right of it, which caused the tilting of the section to the left, dragging it and tilting it, though I'd guess it was all part of the same tectonic activity at the end of the Flood that all disturbances appear to be. The whole Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area is lifted to the South, where it rises right over the Grand Canyon, all part of the upheaval that brought about all these phenomena after all the strata were in place. It's also where the strata are clearly seen to be curved as a block which I keep referring to.

The far left unconformity is also like the Great Unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon which you know I've interpreted in the same way, as tilted while all the strata above were in place, in this case confined by the weight of what would have been about three miles of strata above, the tilting forced by the tectonic pressure that produced all the disturbances seen on the cross section, all of them AFTER all the strata were in place. What's remarkable of course is that the main depth of the strata remained roughly horizontal and parallel during all this activity, which is what makes this area such a good place to see such things. That quartzite boulder we've discussed embedded in the Tapeats sandstone moved a quarter of a mile in relation to the tilted strata below the unconformity. That was one HUGE upheaval. Good thing there were only eight people and selected animals around to experience it, and perhaps where they were the effects were minimal anyway. (ABE: In fact, they may not yet have left the Ark.)

And since the Great Unconformity covers a huge distance, well beyond the Grand Canyon area, it looks like when the continents separated there was quite a shaking in the Earth, and in most places, take other angular unconformities for example, it shook off a lot of upper strata as lower were buckled and tilted beneath them, leaving a single layer in many cases.

I'm more and more convinced this had to have occurred simultaneously with the receding of the Flood waters, somehow related to whatever triggered the draining, some kind of sea floor phenomenon all connected with the continental rifting and bucklings.

Flood followed by continental splitting/tectonic shakings is amply evidenced in a lot of what I've presented on various threads.

You and edge should really start recognizing all this and joining us Floodists in renovating Geology.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2017 5:20 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 7:55 PM Faith has responded
 Message 287 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2017 12:24 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 281 of 518 (811195)
06-05-2017 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Coyote
06-05-2017 5:17 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
Coyote writes:

Faith writes:

I've described the evidence, the evidence I showed and argued for on previous threads which I'm sure you remember.

But you have consistently had to hand-wave away the evidence from dating. The dating evidence demonstrates conclusively that those layers were not laid down in a short time such as a year, but spanned millions of years.

I've simply said I don't have a way of answering the dating claims so I've focused on evidences I can present and support more clearly. The point is that if some evidence is as conclusive as I believe what I've shown is, then other evidences against it have to be questioned. Both can't be true, and I believe my case is very clear. I have, however, pointed out that the dating methods lack any kind of independent corroboration which is normally needed in science.

That's the problem with the historical sciences that depend on making inferences from present tense observations into a past where they can't be verified. It seems logical, especially if you assume the uniformitarian principle, but it can't be verified, it can only be hypothesized and assumed. There are creationists who can deal with this stuff a lot better than I can, I just stick to what I understand best and if my case is good then yours comes under doubt.

Dating shows that those layers span 1.84 billion years old to 270 million years old. In other words, those layers span about a third of the age of the earth, but you are forced to (try to) hand-wave that evidence away to fit with your a priori beliefs.

Again, giving strong contrary evidence in favor of a young earth is not "hand-waving," it's defeating the evidence of an old earth, at least calling it seriously into question.

But that evidence is still there; it doesn't go away just because it is inconvenient.

It isn't still there if it's been defeated; all that's still there is your touching adherence to it in the teeth of the contrary evidence that calls it into question.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2017 5:17 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 282 of 518 (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."

(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...ollect-samples)

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 responded

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 283 of 518 (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 responded

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 284 of 518 (811201)
06-05-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by edge
06-05-2017 7:55 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
I seriously doubt that anyone on the planet agrees with you.

About anything at all?

I do think my views differ to some extent from other Floodists' but we share a lot nevertheless. And I also think that my discussion of the evidence should convince many of them of the parts where I differ from them if they spent time considering it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 7:55 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 285 of 518 (811208)
06-05-2017 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by edge
06-05-2017 7:50 PM


So now we're into the Grand Canyon again
edge writes:

Faith writes:

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.

Only of that kind that one has to look hard to see, the kind that could have been caused by runoff between the layers after they were deposited, or by tectonic movement that shifted layers a bit in relation to each other -- after all were in place of course -- not erosion anywhere near the scale that would have to exist if the rock had spent time at the surface for more than a week, let alone millions of years. Of course most of it was under water most of the time, but the rocks higher in the strata where the land animals are buried don't show anything different.

Your argument that they are not erosional but fault surfaces is not supported by any evidence.

What's a "fault surface?" Where have I argued this? You mean the unconformities or what?

edge writes:

Faith writes:

... 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.

But that would be absolute nonsense, especially since it can't be hard to find statements affirming tectonic and volcanic activity during all those supposed hundreds of millions of years, which are absolutely absent from the cross section. How stupid could the artist be who put that together?

Your denials are baseless opinion.

The denials and empty assertions seem mostly to be coming from you, such as this one for instance, since I've offered quite a bit of discussion of actual evidence.

What is the diagnostic evidence that supports your interpretation over ours? There is no such evidence.

Does the addition of the word "diagnostic" mean anything or is it just there to sound cool? Let me put it this way: I've given evidence after evidence after evidence, all of which is illustrated on that cross section or the actual rocks of the canyon itself. It is you who are denying all that evidence I've given. I'm not even denying yours, I'm just showing that it's wrong -- there is no way any layer of the strata was ever the scene of a "time period" in which creatures lived for millions of years.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

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.

True, not on this cross section anyway, but the Cardenas flow emerges in the far eastern end of he canyon where those lower rocks are exposed. After those above it were eroded away. That still puts the flow after they were all in place, following the erosion.

There is still the question how to explain the layer of magma in the Supergroup. If it occurred after all the strata were in place, it would have penetrated between the layers somehow, layers still thoroughly wet from the Flood and probably just tilted by the same tectonic force that released the magma. I know there are questions to be resolved, but that doesn't change the fact that the overall facts I've described fit the Flood and not the Time Scale.

In fact the old granites are eroded prior to the GC Supergroup.

Can't be. Clearly the granite was the result of the same event that tilted the Supergroup and released the volcanism beneath.

There is no evidence to support your inference.

Tons of it. A lot of it the same evidence you use, just interpreted differently.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Also the fault that cut through the same depth of strata.

Irrelevant. We expect some faults to cut through the entire sequence.

But in this case it cut through an otherwise completely undisturbed depth of strata, just one of the many evidences that the strata were already all there before any kind of disturbance occurred. The fault in this case divided the northern strata at the far left of the diagram from the southern strata that are raised up to its right. The dike issuing in the lava flow at the top is surely all part of the same event -- the uplift of the land to the south, the fault and the tilting of the strata to the north of it beneath the Claron which remained horizontal, and in fact the forming of all the steps of the Grand Staircase as the land was pushed upward toward the Grand Canyon area, AND the formation of the Grand Canyon itself. Same time the Cardenas flow occurred is what I would assume. It got trapped beneath the canyon area by the movement that tilted the Supergroup and slid the whole shebang about a quarter of a mile, which is how that quartzite boulder got embedded in the Tapeats sandstone a quarter mile from its origin. Upper layers were shaken and eroded away and the Cardenas flowed over the remaining rocks far to the east.

However some do not, including those that tilt the GC Supergroup. This is shown clearly on the diagram.

Those faults would have been part of all the activity I've just described that went on beneath the canyon after the strata were in place. '

Where is your evidence to support the faults are all young?

All the evidence I've mentioned that puts all that activity beneath the canyon after the strata were in place.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

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.

Gosh I have to give evidence that rock millions of years old would be hard and stiff compared to sediments not yet fully dried? I did give the example of trying to shape as a unit a stack of strips of clay when some have first been allowed to dry completely and others are still damp.
There is n

There is no evidence to say that any particular block of rocks must be deformed at any give time.

Except all the evidence I've been giving that show all the disturbances to have occurred after the strata were all in place.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

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.

I believe the evidence shows that all the activity beneath the canyon occurred after the strata were in place, from the tilting of the Supergroup to the raising of the canyon itself, shown on the cross section as rising from north to south, which would of course include the faulting of the Supergroup. The appearance that it all occurred before the Tapeats deposition is caused by the massive sliding that occurred between the Supergroup and the Tapeats with all the strata above it, cutting off the faulting that occurred at the same time; all partly evidenced by the fact that the fifteen-foot quartzite boulder (seen in the video of the British creationist group which I've posted many times and can dig up again) is a quarter mile from its origin in the Shinumo quartzite deposit.

edge writes:

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.

How does deformed Vishnu schist or irregular GU prove anything against what I'm saying?

edge writes:

Faith writes:

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.

That can only be because you refuse to really think about it and must at all costs defend the geological status quo.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

This is EVIDENCE.

Not really. Some are evidence for standard geological interpretation. Others are your wishful thinking.

I've shown it all on the cross section many times. And of course I know standard Geology has its own interpretation of these things, that's what I'm answering.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

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.

Bald assertion there.

edge writes:

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.

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. 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.

edge writes:

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."

(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...ollect-samples)

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.

Reviewed by a hostile opponent of YEC though. Scientists aren't above ego games or biased judgments.

edge writes:

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.

The cost of going against the establishment, scientific establishment or any other, is always at least embarrassment, sometimes much worse if you are a scientist, a member of that establishment. I have nothing to lose in that regard of course but I admire those who do and have the courage to stick their necks out anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 7:50 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 11:25 PM Faith 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 © 2020