Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 877 (834246)
06-01-2018 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by PaulK
06-01-2018 5:28 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
I’m saying that Geological Periods are long enough that material deposited in the earlier stages could be buried and lithified by the end.
And they'd have to be exposed and cleaned off to become a rock in the stack of rocks known as the geological column, and in becoming the rock, whenever that happens, nothing could live there.
OK, so not just A rock per time period, a whole formation of stacked rocks per time period. Same problem.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 6:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 259 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 10:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 242 of 877 (834247)
06-01-2018 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
06-01-2018 5:27 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Sorry for the phrase "lot of water" but honestly Percy for you to turn that into a tsunami when I was trying to get to a meander is major deceit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 5:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 5:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 243 of 877 (834248)
06-01-2018 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
05-31-2018 11:59 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Faith writes:
By the way is the Kaibab Uplift the same as the Kaibab Plateau?
Kaibab uplift, upwarp, plateau, they're all referring to the same thing. Which one would be preferred depends upon context. When writing about the geological processes that created the region you would probably prefer uplift or upwarp. When writing about the region's geography you would probably call it a plateau.
I realized the plateau rises toward the canyon so I can't have a meander running across it. I have to rethink the meander...
So the story's going to change again. What a surprise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 244 of 877 (834249)
06-01-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
06-01-2018 5:42 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Faith writes:
Sorry for the phrase "lot of water" but honestly Percy for you to turn that into a tsunami when I was trying to get to a meander is major deceit.
What we actually have here is major dishonesty. In the very message you're replying to I listed the issues you skipped, significantly that you trying to get meanders while still describing water with a great deal of energy. Here are the issues again:
  • You keep changing your mind about whether a thin sheet of water flowing across the plateau is necessary or not. What's the final verdict?
  • How does a low energy stream capable of meanders carve through rock to create something like Marble Canyon, which is as much as a half mile deep in places?
  • If this is low energy water, how did it "exit over the sides of the opening canyon"?
  • You said, "A long crack is becoming a canyon." Why do you suddenly introduce this crack? Why aren't there other cracks on the plateau?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 245 of 877 (834250)
06-01-2018 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
06-01-2018 5:38 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
quote:
And they'd have to be exposed and cleaned off to become a rock in the stack of rocks known as the geological column, and in becoming the rock, whenever that happens, nothing could live there.
No they don’t have to be exposed and cleaned off. And there won’t be anything living there when the sediment lithifies because it is deeply buried. That shouldn’t be hard to understand. Yet somehow you keep failing to do that.
quote:
OK, so not just A rock per time period, a whole formation of stacked rocks per time period. Same problem
You’ve yet to come up with a real problem. Again the only way the rocks represent a time period is that they are made of material deposited during that time period (and hence contain evidence about local conditions at that time and place). That’s hardly absurd. It is obviously true for anyone with any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:41 PM PaulK has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 877 (834251)
06-01-2018 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Faith
06-01-2018 4:47 PM


Re: show us how its done
The time period landscapes ARE fiction, they are made-up stories and that IS obvious.
So at every such assertion I'm going to want to know
HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?
WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
I'm being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity, factual knowledge that nobody could possibly have.
I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat me with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and I just have to submit.
I expect just enough information on the evidence so people know something about HOW THE CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT (maybe even how stupid it is) and aren't kept in the dark.
Looked at one of your links, no clue there what you are talking about. Any rivers there that widened their track eighteen miles?
Hells Canyon is 10 miles wide - Snake River
Palo Duro Canyon reaches 20 miles at places - Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River
Other rivers mention carve out canyons several kilometres wide but the Grand Canyon is named as such for a reason - its pretty big.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 4:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:06 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 247 of 877 (834257)
06-01-2018 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
06-01-2018 6:36 PM


Re: show us how its done
YOu can't tell that an illustration of extinct animals purported to be romping in a time period called the Jurassic is a fiction? My evidence is that everybody knows that.
But shouldn't science and scientists be required to produce this sort of information before a mere layperson is nagged to death about it?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 6:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 248 of 877 (834258)
06-01-2018 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
06-01-2018 12:34 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
Faith writes:
I've been trying to figure out exactly where the Kaibab uplift occurred...
Two images have been presented giving a very good idea of where the Kaibab uplift is. You presented one, RAZD presented another, here they are:
Your image shows the Kaibab Plateau. RAZD's image shows the region of greatest elevation due to the Kaibab Uplift, which includes the Kaibab Plateau of your image but also extends a bit south into the Coconino Plateau. It's the darker green area that's almost dead center.
Here's an elevation map of Arizona. You probably won't be able to see it, but in case you can the Kaibab Uplift is the dark brown area near the top of the map. You can even make out the Grand Canyon at the southern end of the uplift:
Tectonic upheaval occurs pushing a lot of rocks around at least three miles below the surface of the water at this point...So now we've got the whole stack being pushed up in this one area and cracks form in the upper layers.
You've never explained how tectonic forces could push around some strata without affecting adjacent strata.
The tectonic movement coincides with the start of the draining of the Flood, maybe because of the sea floor dropping as some have suggested.
Would it be unreasonable if we just want to see the evidence spelled out because your usual presentation makes bald assertions about things you couldn't possibly know about (if this sentence looks familiar its because it's basically the same sentence you wrote at the beginning of your second paragraph in Message 1).
The water level starts going down. But it's a pretty slow process, takes five months or so as I recall to completely drain away.
Yeah, sounds like a really catastrophic receding of the waters capable of etching deep canyons.
As it starts draining the uppermost layers break up.
Five months of draining of, let's say, five miles of water is a lowering of water level of about an inch and a half per minute. Does that really sound like enough to etch canyons to you?
Maybe they are mostly loose sediment at this point.
Sure, maybe, maybe not. You have no idea and no evidence.
At some point the water starts moving laterally toward the deepening sea.
Your scenario has the sea still covering the land to a height of over a mile above sea level (elevation around the Grand Canyon is in the neighborhood of 7500 feet), and water levels are lowering. How could the sea be deepening?
Strata start to be exposed but they are still not compacted enough to hold together very well so they keep breaking up and now start washing with the draining flood water toward the oceans.
Lowering of the water level at a rate of 1.5 inches/minute couldn't carry away loose sand, let alone your compacted-but-not-too-compacted strata.
We're still mostly looking at an expanse of water everywhere though strata to the north in the Grand Staircase area are holding together better though breaking up into cliffs and that should be visible, but overall it's a lot of water still, it's just lower now and it's moving in various directions.
Why do you think lowering water levels of 1.5 inches/minute would create much water flow?
Imagine an above ground swimming pool with yourself standing in the middle. Someone drains the pool at the rate of 1.5 inches/minute. How much force of water flow do you think you're going to feel?
What you need to happen is more like this compilation of catastrophic pool collapses:
But of course this is a lowering of water level of maybe 4 feet in 10 seconds, which is about 24 feet/minute, or 200 times faster than your scenario.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 12:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:31 PM Percy has replied
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 06-02-2018 4:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 249 of 877 (834259)
06-01-2018 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
06-01-2018 9:06 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
You've never explained how tectonic forces could push around some strata without affecting adjacent strata.
I've referred to the example of the tablecloth trick of removing it without disturbing the objects on top of it.
And I also mentioned in Message 156 a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata.
Would it be unreasonable if we just want to see the evidence spelled out because your usual presentation makes bald assertions about things you couldn't possibly know about (if this sentence looks familiar its because it's basically the same sentence you wrote at the beginning of your second paragraph in Message 1).
Well, if it's now acceptable for presentations of supposedly known science to treat things they can't know as fact but remember the point is that they act like they ARE fact and that's the problem Butcertainly it ought to be acceptable for a mere creationist like me to simply describe what seems to me to be the best scenario to account for the Flood and don't yet have what I think of as fact, just hypotheses . That's what I'm trying to do, describe what I think probably happened, I'm not a scientist, I'm not selling a magazine and I'm not in any position to mystify the public.
When I say the initial breaking up of the uppermost strata were probably loose sediment I expect a person of minimal intelligence to recognize it as logical and likely since there couldn't possibly be any evidence for such an event. You are free to say why you don't think so. You are nitpicking here to no good purpose except to try and wear me out.
I have no idea what made the draining of the Flood possible so I mentioned what I think some creationists have argued, that the sea floor dropped, on the idea that water had been released from beneath the floor in the "fountains of the deep" to cover the earth, and when it drops into the vacuum left, the water has room to fill up the oceans.
The water level starts going down. But it's a pretty slow process, takes five months or so as I recall to completely drain away.
Yeah, sounds like a really catastrophic receding of the waters capable of etching deep canyons.
As it starts draining the uppermost layers break up.
Five months of draining of, let's say, five miles of water is a lowering of water level of about an inch and a half per minute. Does that really sound like enough to etch canyons to you?
The water acquires force when it has obstacles in its path and lower levels that open up as it recedes. If you follow the scenario you will come to the point where water is pouring into the cracks and then into the canyon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 9:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 9:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 264 by jar, posted 06-02-2018 1:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 7:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 877 (834260)
06-01-2018 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by PaulK
06-01-2018 6:02 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
No they don’t have to be exposed and cleaned off. And there won’t be anything living there when the sediment lithifies because it is deeply buried. That shouldn’t be hard to understand. Yet somehow you keep failing to do that.
To become a rock in the geo column it's going to have to be cleaned off because so many of those contacts are clean and tight.
If things are living way above this lithifying rock, on what I would assume would be normal soil with normal plants and normal hills and valleys and other normal features of an actual landscape, there is no way it will ever become a rock in the geo column, but it has to become a rock in the geo column because that's what we actually see that supposedly points to the landscape. You can't leave it buried with animals romping on it, or in the case of sea creatures swimming over it. somehow you've got to have an actual rock with other rocks on top of it, and that can't possibly happen while anything is living in any of those "time periods."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by PaulK, posted 06-01-2018 6:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 9:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2018 2:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 9:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 251 of 877 (834261)
06-01-2018 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
06-01-2018 5:25 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Here's a mountain that was formed by erosion from a huge flat plain covering a great depth of stacked strata. There are lots of these mountains in the western US.
Such nice straight flat layers, ...
Yes, flat lake and seafloors are pretty common.
... such clearly different kinds of sediments, ...
Actually, I would't say there is a lot of variety here. You can possibly see some darker, harder layers of fresh-water limestone and maybe a little organic layer, but the rest is mostly water-lain volcanic ash, that happens to have varying degrees of oxidation at the time of deposition.
such an unlikely way for a time period to end up...
These are rocks (though not very lithified), not time periods.
Sure they were deposited at different times, but they, themselves are not time periods.
And what a weird thought that the whole geologic column got stacked up like this with a flat top to it BEFORE the erosion turned it all into mountains and canyons and cliffs and hoodoos and monuments and arches and other interesting shapes...
Yes, that would be weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:47 PM edge has replied
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 06-02-2018 5:09 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 252 of 877 (834262)
06-01-2018 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:41 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
To become a rock in the geo column it's going to have to be cleaned off because so many of those contacts are clean and tight.
Why would they have to be 'cleaned off'? It's just an ocean bottom.
If things are living way above this lithifying rock, on what I would assume would be normal soil with normal plants and normal hills and valleys and other normal features of an actual landscape, there is no way it will ever become a rock in the geo column, but it has to become a rock in the geo column because that's what we actually see that supposedly points to the landscape.
You don't see a lancscape here because it's the bottom of a body of water. What do you expect?
You can't leave it buried with animals romping on it, or in the case of sea creatures swimming over it.
Why not? Sea creatures don't occur everywhere, particularly in a lake that is inundated by volcanic ash from time to time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 877 (834263)
06-01-2018 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by edge
06-01-2018 9:41 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
So do you at least agree that this mountain was eroded out of a large area of stacked flat sediments just like those it is made of?
ABE: Do you happen to recognize the mountain or the area? Would you happen to know just how much area the stacked sediments would have covered out of which the pretty mountain was eroded?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 9:41 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 10:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 298 by Percy, posted 06-03-2018 8:11 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 254 of 877 (834264)
06-01-2018 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:31 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
I've referred to the example of the tablecloth trick of removing it without disturbing the objects on top of it.
The problem is that an advancing sea does disturb the surface before depositing sediments.
And I also mentioned in Message 156 a real bona fide official certified geologist's comment that the Laramide Orogeny lifted the land without tilting the strata.
Please provide a reference. I'm not sure you got that correctly. Besides the Colorado Plateau is an exceptional case of crustal rigidity. This has something to do with a dual crust structure. We can see it in seismic data.
Well, if it's now acceptable for presentations of supposedly known science to treat things they can't know as fact but remember the point is that they act like they ARE fact and that's the problem Butcertainly it ought to be acceptable for a mere creationist like me to simply describe what seems to me to be the best scenario to account for the Flood and don't yet have what I think of as fact, just hypotheses . That's what I'm trying to do, describe what I think probably happened, I'm not a scientist, I'm not selling a magazine and I'm not in any position to mystify the public.
Try as you might, this forum is no about you. You are welcome to have any opinion you want and you can express it here as you wish. However, the point of being here is to debate issues. Perhaps you could find some Christian forum where everyone would sit around and nod their heads as you pontificate.
When I say the initial breaking up of the uppermost strata were probably loose sediment I expect a person of minimal intelligence to recognize it as logical and likely since there couldn't possibly be any evidence for such an event. You are free to say why you don't think so. You are nitpicking here to no good purpose except to try and wear me out.
I have no idea what made the draining of the Flood possible so I mentioned what I think some creationists have argued, that the sea floor dropped, on the idea that water had been released from beneath the floor in the "fountains of the deep" to cover the earth, and when it drops into the vacuum left, the water has room to fill up the oceans.
In that case your timing is bad and there is no evidence for collapse of the sea floor.
Why are you being so stupid? Or is it just that you didn't read anything I wrote? The water acquires force when it has obstacles in its path and lower levels that open up as it recedes. If you follow the scenario you will come to the point where water is pouring into the cracks and then into the canyon.
Again, your timing is bad. It would seem that the canyon was cut in hard rock and it would take the strongest flows to cut the canyon. You are talking about a waning system that simply doesn't have the time to create meanders and then downcut for a mile depth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2018 10:28 PM edge has replied
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 10:36 PM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 255 of 877 (834265)
06-01-2018 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
06-01-2018 1:17 AM


Re: Still as weirded out by historical science as ever
Faith writes:
But the fact remains that you've got a huge flat slab of rock covering a huge area where you think there used to be an ancient landscape with ancient forms of living things, and that is impossible.
You continue to misunderstand this. The processes of Walther's Law that we usually discuss involving slow transgressions of seas onto land do not often preserve terrestrial landscapes. Rather they grind them up and separate the resulting sediments into sand, silt, mud and clay. The sequence of Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone formed this way. We will never know what was on the land that the sea transgressed across. That landscape is gone, transformed into seascapes that did get preserved in the stratigraphic record.
But terrestrial landscapes *can* be preserved. It just doesn't happen anywhere near as often as for marine strata. They tend to be associated with coastal, swamp, lagoon, lacustrine, river and stream environments. The Claron was a bunch of plains, lakes and streams, as was the Morrison Formation where dinosaur fossils are common.
Walther's Law does apply to these terrestrial environments. Rather than the transgressing and regressing seas we usually discuss, on land it is changing river and stream courses and changing lake, swamp and lagoon boundaries that represent migrating depositional environments. And of course it is depositional environments where life can become buried and preserved, such as dinosaurs living in the surrounding landscape. Some dinosaurs undoubtedly spent time in the water.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarified first and last paragraph. Edge had already replied in Message 258 when I did this, and he quoted the original form of the first paragraph, which included the error where I misspoke and implied that Walther's Law doesn't occur on terrestrial landscapes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 1:17 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 06-01-2018 10:20 PM Percy 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