Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 2746 of 2887 (832544)
05-05-2018 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2729 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:04 AM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?
All that is required is a covering of later material, sediments or volcanics. The covering material need not be rock, be flat, or be a "slab" (whatever that is).
In northern Minnesota, glacial sediments are on top of the Ely Greenstone and sedimentary rocks (dated 2.7 billion years old) that are at some locations now vertical. The glacial deposits are not lithified, but that early preCambrian/Pleistocene contact is an angular unconformity. And in absolutely no way is that contact a fault.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2729 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2747 of 2887 (832545)
05-05-2018 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2598 by Faith
05-02-2018 3:00 PM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
Faith writes:
Hey I'd much prefer it if you ignored me altogether than give a really good argument that kind of treatment.
If the only person who thinks something is a good idea is the person who came up with the idea, guess what?
I dismiss you, feel free to dismiss me. Please.
The way my participation here has worked out is that when someone posts misinformation or erroneous information or fictional information on a subject that interests me I usually respond to try to correct it, along with explanations about why the information was problematic.
Yes I believe a trilobite is a trilobite and that they had prodigious genetic diversity, different eyes and the works, one genome, lots of variability. Yes.
You believe that trilobites were a single species in the absence of evidence for this idea, and in the presence of evidence that trilobite diversity far exceeded what any single species could include.
Read further where I distinguish between humans and chimps. They are not the same Kind.
Kind is not a word with a definition.
And again, do please dismiss all my posts.
If you post bad information I will respond. If you post good information I will faint.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2598 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2748 of 2887 (832546)
05-05-2018 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2610 by NoNukes
05-02-2018 5:49 PM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
Faith writes:
In short, in trying to be quantitative, we are nitpicking to attack an idea that is complete horse ca-ca from its conception. The idea should be dismissed with as little effort as needed to do the job.
I somewhat share your sentiments but feel a little differently. I think given her level of knowledge (which is maintained at a low level by her information filter system that accepts and rejects information based not on evidence but on its conformance with her prior beliefs, analogous to the way Trump values loyalty over competence (Rudolf Giuliani - I just can't stop shaking my head, and they're probably still drinking toasts to him in Mueller's offices)) that Faith is pursuing a strong argument. The abundance of fossils and where they're found in the strata could, if the data fell her way, provide evidence for the flood. Of course the information completely rebutting her idea is already known, but not by her - she's rejected it.
So I believe that if Faith wants to waste her time with her "abundance of fossils" argument, her approach must be quantitative rather than qualitative. She must establish a threshold of a quantitative measure of abundance, where below that level says no flood, and above that level says flood. She must quantify the fossils period by period from the Quarternary all the way back to the beginning - when she reaches the Torian and before the paucity of calcareous fossils will be like a light bulb going on (it's fun to read that last phrase in Tim Conway's voice as Mr. Tudball).
But she won't do this, of course. She'll continue arguing that the abundance of fossils proves the flood despite not knowing how abundant fossils really are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2610 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2018 5:49 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2749 of 2887 (832547)
05-05-2018 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2620 by jar
05-02-2018 8:43 PM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
jar writes:
True Dat, but in Faith's majic flood stuff doesn't get deposited in the oceans; it gets deposited on the continents.
You didn't quote anything so I can't tell what I said that drew this response, but I think we have the same understanding of Faith's scenario. Heavy rains washed all the land's sediments into the oceans, and then the sediments were redeposited on the land as the ocean flooded across the land in a series of waves.
The major problem with this is that if sediments came from the land and then were returned to the land, then if the depth of sediments after the flood was sufficient to lithify them, then the depth of the sediments before the flood was also sufficient to lithify them. This means the antediluvian land sediments were mostly rock and could not have been washed away into the sea by 40 days of rain, or even 1000 days of rain.
And remember that in Faith's universe it is not just the sediments on land today but all the material above the Vishnu schist.
Again, not sure what I said that drew this response, but if you're thinking of my calculation that sediments on land are only 10% of ocean volume at the time of the flood, then the calculation of sediment volume was performed by using the average height of land above sea level (about a half mile) and multiplying by total land area (about 197 million square miles). The calculation of flood ocean volume was calculated by taking the current ocean volume (320 million cubic miles) and adding to it the volume of five more miles of water (to cover Mount Everest) which is another billion cubic miles. Doing the math, ratio of land sediment volume to ocean volume is 7%, but I rounded up to 10% to make the figures as favorable for Faith as possible.
But even at 10% the argument is still completely unfavorable to her. Sediments of only 10% of the total ocean are not going to suffocate sea life, so she has no means of killing off sea life unless she changes to a salinity argument. And dead fish float shortly after death because of gasses inflating the body, decreasing the density, thereby increasing the buoyancy. In Faith's scenario most fish should be found in the topmost layer.
So much of what Faith needs to happen is impossible by natural means that it's inexplicable that, as a believer that God caused the Flood and realizing that her scenarios are not described in Genesis, she doesn't just say that God did whatever she needs done. These divine actions would not be in the Bible either, but that quality only puts this approach on an equal footing with her attempts at naturalistic explanations. But "God did it" has the big drawback of making God a jester or a liar or worse.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2620 by jar, posted 05-02-2018 8:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2751 by jar, posted 05-05-2018 7:50 AM Percy has replied
 Message 2821 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 10:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2750 of 2887 (832548)
05-05-2018 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2621 by Faith
05-02-2018 8:57 PM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
Faith writes:
Since not all the sea life died I believe it was the sediments in the water that killed the ones that did die.
See my previous message, especially the next to last paragraph.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2621 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 8:57 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2751 of 2887 (832549)
05-05-2018 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2749 by Percy
05-05-2018 7:32 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
The concept comes from Faith claiming the geological column does not exist on the ocean floor. As you point out, I believe, that would require all the sediments washed from the land kept in an isolated suspension that then is moved back over the land where it is deposited without it also being deposited over areas that were ocean.
As usual, she never presents the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to do that.
In Faith's scenario the sea critters are killed by the fountains of the deep churning up the sea bed that then also stays in place so it gets deposited back on the sea bed and not on land.
But of course, today we see examples of sea bed being churned up and then very rapidly being repopulated with life even right at the thermal vents.
But best of all, as you say, if the Biblical Flood actually happened then that means the God is Loki or Coyote; a conman trickster and liar.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2749 by Percy, posted 05-05-2018 7:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2818 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 8:03 AM jar has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2752 of 2887 (832550)
05-05-2018 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2723 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:52 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Yes, the amount of salt is something I already mentioned.
And admitted that you had no idea how it could have the effect you want it to. All we know is there is some salt there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2723 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2753 of 2887 (832552)
05-05-2018 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2623 by Faith
05-02-2018 9:12 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
I do not believe in a "supergenome" although I considered that possibility for a while. I now explain the great genetic diversity before the Flood and therefore in the saved creatures on the ark, as due to the much less junk DNA, probably almost none, and therefore a lot more functioning genes.
Can you take us through the thinking process you employed in abandoning the supergenome concept and adopting the reduced junk DNA approach, with particular focus on the evidence that drove this thinking process?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2623 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 9:12 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 2754 of 2887 (832553)
05-05-2018 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2729 by Faith
05-05-2018 2:04 AM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?
Technically, an unconformity is simply a discontinuity between two sedimentary layers. An angular unconformity occurs when the sedimentary layering in the two layers are different. There is nothing in the definition of unconformity that says one must be a flat slab of rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2729 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2800 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 9:44 PM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2755 of 2887 (832554)
05-05-2018 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2625 by Faith
05-02-2018 9:18 PM


Re: the diagram of strata
Here's the diagram again:
Faith writes:
I'm not exactly sure what the salt does but there are quite a few cross sections where the strata sag as a unit when there is a salt layer in the mix. Looks like it percolates down through the sediments when dissolved, rises up through the sediments as domes when some condition is reached, enough of it?
There is no sign of anything like this in the salt layers in the diagram.
But it isn't just the salt that causes the "erosion" I see.
Large salt deposits can cause the formation of salt domes, distortions of strata and faults, but not erosion. Erosion is a surface process. What is it that you think you see in the diagram that you're calling erosion? Each layer is labeled so there should be little problem identifying what in the diagram you're looking at.
There's a lot of limestone and dolomite and other soluble rocks in the stack, all suggesting the "erosion" occurred after deposition.
Karst topography results from the dissolution of the rocks you mention, limestone and dolomite. I suppose that there's a technical sense in which karst processes could be called erosion, but they're not.
I can only guess that you're looking at the Bois Blanc Formation, and a little below that the Raisin river Dolomite, the Put-in Bay Dolomite and the St. Ignace Dolomite. The Garden Island Formation that lies just below the Bois Blanc Formation is mostly dolomite with some limestone, which might explain the funny pattern they used to color it in (yellow with dots which is supposedly for sandstone, but it also has horizontal lines, so they must have accidentally left it out of the key - the Garden Island Formation is definitely not sandstone). You'll notice that the Pointe aux Chenes Shale is also colored in with a pattern that does not appear in the key, dark tan but with the dolomite angled lines, but it is definitely shale.
I again seek Edge/Moose confirmation, but these do look like karst topography. If this is what you mean by erosion then although it is not erosion but is a karst topography, you are correct that it occurred after deposition. By definition karst structures cannot form in a unit until after the unit has been deposited.
The dip of the Sylvania Sandstone through all these layers and even into a bit of the Bush Bay Formation appears to be a stream or river cut.
I'm going to throw myself on the mercy of Edge and Moose for an interpretation of the irregular top and bottom contacts of the Garden Island Formation. If erosion was involved then it occurred while at the surface. If it was karst processes, which seems much more likely, it occurred after burial. There definitely was no erosion of any buried layers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2625 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 9:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2756 of 2887 (832555)
05-05-2018 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2627 by Faith
05-02-2018 9:29 PM


Re: Weird photo of ridges near the ocean
Faith writes:
I copied the picture into a Word document where I could zoom it much larger, and have a better sense of the scale. I couldn't see the ocean in the background before.
On Windows, hitting CTRL-+ (that is, hold down the control key and then hit the plus key) bumps up the size of your browser tab by one increment. Just keep hitting CTRL-+ until the image is big enough. You may have to pan around to see the part of the image you're interested in. To return the browser tab to it's original size hit CTRL-0 (that's a zero, not an "O").
On Mac same thing, except use the CMD key instead of the CTRL key.
I still have absolutely no idea how my "landscapes" are "demolished by transgressing seas." What transgressing sea for starters? And I see nothing getting "demolished" in the picture, just a lot of lumpy ridges, and certainly nothing that could become a flat sedimentary rock of the sort seen in the geo/strat column. Don't see it, no idea what you mean.
And the idea you'd get angular unconformities from what, further deposits of sediment? makes no sense at all. Why wouldn't the sediment just fill in the "valleys."
Edge addressed these issues in Message 2631, but I went into it at greater length in Message 2638 and Message 2708. I see that you've posted replies to them, but I haven't read that far in the thread yet. The thread is still growing faster than I'm reading. A couple days ago I was only 60 messages behind, now I'm 130. Moose must be laughing at me right now because I try to discourage him from doing temporary thread closures.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2627 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 9:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2757 of 2887 (832556)
05-05-2018 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2632 by Faith
05-02-2018 9:50 PM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
Faith writes:
Try imagining something that fits the actual evidence that has creatures buried together. It's easy to pretend something else is probably what happened, suits your bias, but it didn't happen.
I'm not able to see how this addresses what I said in Message 2630 - could you explain? To save you from having to go back to that message, here is the content again:
Faith writes:
In fact that could help account for the distribution, couldn't it? Bigger animals, more bloating and gasses, more buoyancy, would have to affect the distribution somehow.
Bigger animals also have more body tissues and heavier skeletons (the cross sectional area of bones has to grow by the cube of the length to support the additional weight). Ratio of fat to muscle is also a factor. I don't think you can reach any firm conclusions about the effects of body size.
There couldn't possibly be any more randomness to how things were buried if these factors are taken into account than if they were all just dead weight. I doubt these factors explain all the sorting but they certainly have to be taken into account.
I don't know what that first sentence means, but you've never explained how the flood could be responsible for fossil distribution.
Some animals must have been overtaken and buried on the spot, so this would only apply to any that were carried along in the water.
I don't think you can say anything definitive until you know how big is each wave, how far inland does each wave travel, and how much sediment does each wave deposit?
One comment I will make is that you seem to be imagining an extremely heavy sediment load if you're imagining it possible that a wave of this sediment could sweep across, say, a fleeing zebra and bury it all at once. Seems something more like mud than water. Given that we now know that all current land sediments are only 10% of ocean volume at the time of the flood (I calculated and posted this a day or two ago) such a heavy sediment load seems very unlikely. And the problem of keeping all the sediments in their proper layers in the oceans only grows worse. And the likelihood that these sediments would be thick enough to suffocate any sea life also becomes very unlikely.
I still think habitat, and something about how ocean water itself sorts things because of its own propensity to divide into layers according to temperature, and its separate currents and so on, all need to be considered all together.
How do you plan to take account of the effects of temperature on ocean currents, sediment, and corpse distribution? There's also the effect of accelerated drifting continents on ocean currents. And ocean salinity also affects currents. For example, increased fresh water from melting Greenland glaciers decreases the salinity of the North Atlantic. Normally the water flowing into the North Atlantic from the Gulf Stream cools and sinks (because cooler water is denser) and flows back down south along the sea floor. But fresh water is less dense than salt water, so the decreased salinity reduces the ability of the North Atlantic's waters to sink. This could, eventually, have an impact on the Gulf Stream and affect the climate of Europe. The Gulf Stream is what gives Europe a moderate climate. For example, London is way further north than Quebec, but it has a climate more like Washington, D.C.
Sorting wouldn't be from the very bottom to the very top of the geologic/stratigraphic column because it was laid down in layers, so some layers or groups of layers would be sorted according to whatever principles apply.
Couldn't decipher this.
But if thinking in terms of sorting by weight through the whole geo column, then there would be no reason for the bigger animals to be at the bottom according to sorting by size and weight.
I couldn't decipher this, either, but I agree with the part about there being no reason for larger animals to be at the bottom. To me it seems like serendipity governs. Any corpse not immediately buried by sediments would sink at a later time dependent upon whether its lungs filled with water, and if so how long that took, and how long gases took to float the corpse, and how long it took the gases to release and for the corpse to sink. That's a lot of different things that could happen. There would be a lot of different outcomes.
Imagine this scenario: Two zebras are running side by side fleeing an oncoming wave that washes over them. One of the zebras is immediately entombed, the other is not but is drowned and is carried along by the water. It's lungs do not fill with water and so it floats. When the wave recedes the zebra is carried back out to sea. How does it end up in the correct strata with the other zebra?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2632 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 2758 of 2887 (832557)
05-05-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2740 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:09 AM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
OK I get your point but my point is that you can't prove the ROCK represents a LANDSCAPE in a time period so you don't have a landscape to put your animals into which to my mind blows the whole Geologic Timescale idea to bits.
I can't prove this to you that's true, but to all other sentient lifeforms it's blindingly bloody obvious, for many reasons that have been explained to you over and over not excluding the obvious one which is that we see the process happening today.
Organisms live on and above the sediment - sea bottom, soil, beach, desert - the die on it and some get buried by more sediment and are preserved. We see it today. Have you never wondered why archaeologists have to dig? Their sites are even called digs. It's because everything on the land gets buried with time.
In the UK we have a lot of Roman remains - mostly buried. It didn't happen because we dumped a pile of earth on them, it accumulates naturally. In my back garden the path is now 2 inches lower than the earth it was laid on. If I left it it would be buried in another 10 years.
Here: Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth. This is where dinosaur fossils have been found buried, over all that huge territory. It may be represented by different sedimentary rocks in different places but it IS represented by sedimentary rocks. Over all that territory.
The current time period is labelled the Halocene and started just 11,500 years ago when humans first started one of the earth's great extinction events. Bless us. How big an area do you think the Halocene covers? That's correct, it covers the entire earth. In fact the view is that it ought to be called the Anthropocene epoc because we need to find a rock signature that would identify it in 100,000 years time. One idea is the radioactivity created by the first atomic bombs. Just like the rocks in different epochs, it won't be at the same level everywhere and in some places it won't be detectable at all, but in all the places it will be in the same time period shown in the rocks. It is part of the stratigraphic column being built right now ontop of the earth and sea bed.
Of course dinosaurs can't live on rocks, and of course it will be explained that the rock wasn't there for the entire time period
The rock wasn't there at all. IT WAS EARTH. Soil, exactly like today. The dinosaur's soil sat ontop of earlier rock. It became rock thousands of years later along with everything that died there. Just like it is happening today.
but only a small part of it, so presumably the dinosaurs roamed in the area when it was covered with lots of vegetation, which they needed to survive.
There is no other way it could possibly have been could it?
So they would not only have lived but also died
yes
and NOT been fossilized in that long long period of time which would have been the main part of the millions of years assigned to the Jurassic.
You were doing so well, then thud, you walked right into your self-erected wall of delusion. They died in that period, where buried in that period and some were fossilised in that period that's why they turn up in the rocks of that period. There is no other way the organisms could get into the rock, other than be there when the rock was forming. Except by magic.
The kiwi fruit can't get into the strawberry layer unless your mother cheats and pushes one through from the layer above. In which case you'd see the evidence of that. Just like we do in the rock when volcanoes erupt through it.
Supposedly sediments kept piling on top, and they had to be the seidments associated with the next time period up the Geo Timescale wouldn't they?
yes
And then you keep burying it and burying it without an explanation for how all this material could ever become the simple stack of sedimentary leayers seen in the geo/strat columns everywhere. You have to end up with those particular rocks so they have to be originally the sediments from which those rocks were formed.
Thud. You've had the process of rock formation explained to you endless times.
What animal could live on a flat expanse of one sediment?
Thud. Look out of your window.
There isn't one iota of evidence that their surface was ever lushly covered with vegetation; these are all bare flat rocks.[
Look out of your window. If you're in a city, drive out of it and look around.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2740 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2760 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:00 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 2788 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2018 4:11 PM Tangle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2759 of 2887 (832561)
05-05-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2710 by Faith
05-04-2018 6:14 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
Yes that is a change, but it's a normal change due to microevolution, which would produce junk DNA over many generations.
But you don't have near enough generations for a generic "cat kind" to differentiate into so many different species. (And bear in mind that we have descriptions of cats exactly like modern cats going back about as far as the supposed Flood.)
Faith writes:
I've wondered myself why all the trilobites died out. But I did see somewhere that there is a land-adapted species of trilobite living today.
There are a lot of species that superficially resemble trilobites but they're not trilobites.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2710 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2761 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:21 PM ringo has replied
 Message 2762 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:27 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2760 of 2887 (832562)
05-05-2018 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2758 by Tangle
05-05-2018 10:27 AM


the strata again
Oh well, this is futile. You seem to think "earth" could become a sedimentary rock.
The rock wasn't there at all. IT WAS EARTH. Soil, exactly like today.
"Earth" can't become a sedimentary rock; "soil" can't become a sedimentary rock. Earth is made up of lots of things besides the simple separated ssediment that form the rocks in the geo/strata columns. Earth can't become one of those rocks. You can't turn earth into sedimentary rock so how are you going to get the next rock in your supposed stack of rocks? You aren't. Sigh.
You say to look out my window for evidence of, what? Out my window there are trees and other green things. In the strata there are only bare flat rocks with some fossilized green things here and there inside them. Nothing that flat exists on the earth's surface normally, and no single-sediment either. It takes special conditions to get those characteristics. The surface of the earth is made up of lots of different sediments and organic matter, the rock layers are not. The surface of the earth is variegated in many ways, the strata are amazingly flat and uniform in character. Whatever kind of rock it is. It's in layers, not mixed together, but the earth is all mixed together. The only place the green things are abundant in the strata is the coal beds.
At some point in the "time period" the rocks that supposedly represent it had to have covered the whole area they now cover within the stack of strata. When that happened nothing could live there. Even if it was only a short period in the millions of years everything would have to die. if it was a wet sediment nothing could live there, and when it became rock nothing could live there, but the point is it HAS to become exposed sediment or rock to become a layer in the geo/stratigraphic column.
Sigh. I know this is futile for most here, but maybe someone will get it.
Sigh. The Holocene "covers the entire Earth." Sigh. And you expect the Holocene to end up as a flat slab of rock? Have you ever looked at the surface of this Earth?
The stuff you've supposedly "explained" to me does not make any sense whatever.
Oh well.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2758 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 10:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2782 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 2:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2786 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2018 4:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2795 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 8:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2823 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-07-2018 11:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 2826 by Percy, posted 05-07-2018 12:03 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024