Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 271 of 877 (834282)
06-02-2018 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
06-01-2018 8:52 AM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow still epic fail
Faith writes:
And yet that's exactly what the video shows, a thin sheet of water running across a flat plain.
It shows a five=foot wall of water destroying everything in its path. What planet do you live on?
...
Only on your weird planet.
Since the video I presented was of the 2011 Japanese tsunami, obviously I live on planet Earth. The question is better directed to yourself.
The canyon is already mostly cut by this time... One stream running across a plateau starts forming the meander which eventually connects with the water running through the canyon.
There are meanders east of the canyon, in the canyon, and west of the canyon. If the canyon is "mostly cut by this time," if the course of the river is already incised into the landscape, then it is too late for a stream to form meanders. Simple logic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 8:52 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 272 of 877 (834283)
06-02-2018 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Percy
06-02-2018 11:38 AM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Place names of geography and formation names of geology don't always match up exactly. The name of the Kaibab Plateau seems to apply from the Grand Canyon northward. South of the Grand Canyon the region is called the Coconino Plateau. But as you can see from RAZD's topographic map, the Kaibab Uplift extends a bit south of the Grand Canyon.
The only reason that the Coconino Plateau exists is because the Grand Canyon cuts the Kaibab Uplilft into two parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 11:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 06-03-2018 8:48 AM edge has replied

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


Message 273 of 877 (834284)
06-02-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
06-01-2018 9:13 AM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
No one gave you a serious response, so I'll attempt one.
And the top surface of the various sediments are the "landscape" of the time.
Makes zero sense to me, moose, why any landscape, meaning any current surface of the world would be sitting on a unique flat sedimentary deposit. Such as this Permian landscape:
The illustration Moose provided was of a transgressing sea creating a sequence of sand, silt, clay, mud, calcareous ooze and limestone layers. It does not show how the landscape of your Permian illustration became preserved in the stratigraphic record. The Hermit Shale could be such a layer, but it is fossil poor. For fauna there are only occasional fossil amphibian and reptile tracks, but no fossils of skeletal remains (so much for fossil abundance).
A much better candidate is the Wichita Group, terrestrial strata in the Texas Red Beds where Permian fossils of early reptiles like the Dimetrodon are found. Your image looks pretty typically Permian according to what we see in the strata, low lying swampy regions probably also networked with rivers and lakes. The swamps are depositional environments, and the borders of the swamps no doubt migrated about the landscape - Walther's Law in action. The Wichita formation is about a thousand feet feet thick and contains a number of formations (for a list see List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Texas).
My own idea of how the Wichita Group formed (and it would be nice to get feedback from Edge and Moose) is that this extensive swampy region was one of net deposition. As it accumulated sediments their weight caused subsidence, allowing the region to accumulate more sediments. There must have been an eroding mountain range, probably to the west, supplying these sediments.
The Wichita Group is overlain by the Clear Fork Group, which includes a great number of paleosols, which as you recall are lithified soils that you declared impossible. The creatures whose fossils are found in these layers had no trouble surviving a deposition rate that was unlikely to exceed inches per century. If, for example, in a given year the landscape accumulated an average millimeter of sediment and the landscape in general subsides a millimeter, it would not have affected the life living there one bit. But the depositional environments of swamps, rivers and lakes gradually accumulated a buried trove of deceased life that become more and more deeply buried with time.
Then there is the problem of how the landscape went away and left the slab of rock that is found in a stack of other slabs of rock all supposedly representing their own specific landscapes and time period.
This has been answered many times. Why do you keep asking the same questions? The landscape never went away. The surface of the landscape merely accumulated more and more sediments, and life lives on, above and beneath the surface.
Let's say that each day you take a walk down a path through the woods, and that each year that path and the surrounding woods accumulates sediments making it a millimeter higher. Would you ever notice? Say you live 100,000 years (just pretend that's possible) during which the elevation of the woods rises 328 feet but also subsides about 328 feet because of the additional weight of the sediments. Trees would grow and die and new trees would grow and die, but still the woods is there year after year for a hundred thousand years. But 328 feet beneath you the soil you walked on a hundred thousand years before is now under a great weight, and it is being slowly lithified into rock. That's the landscape life once lived on, including yourself.
You say you're bad at math. Are we talking "can't balance a checkbook" bad at math, or is addition, subtraction, multiplication and division okay, along with unit conversions?
And as I usually also point out, nothing could have survived such a transformation if it happened so there wouldn't have been anything living to pass on its genes so evolution would come to a halt at that point anyway.
As has been pointed out to you many times, the very slow accumulation of sediments is not in any way a hindrance to life.
No, they didn't all up and move to some other location.
Of course not. An accumulation of a millimeter of sediments in a year isn't even going to be noticed, let alone make the area uninhabitable.
This is where they're all buried.
The common case for terrestrial fossils is that land creatures become buried in the depositional environments of water, i.e., swamps, rivers, lakes, etc. Land creatures fall or are swept or dropped into the water at the boundaries between land and water. It's also possible for a creature to become buried on land by events like landslides or earthquakes, but falling into water and becoming buried has got to be much more common.
No matter how I look at it the whole thing is just absurd. It didn't happen.
What's absurd is the number of times this has been explained to you. Not only do you obviously not understand it (and as I've said many times now, we're well past expecting you to accept it, we just want you to understand it), you don't even seem to remember it was ever explained, not just from thread to thread, but even from day to day in the same thread. You just keep repeating the same objections over and over again as if introducing them for the first time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 9:13 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by edge, posted 06-02-2018 2:26 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 274 of 877 (834285)
06-02-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:47 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
You and Mod are raising the same objection, so this reply is also to Mod's Message 225.
Faith writes:
I also have no clue about the braided river theory.
Just so we're on the same page, here's a drawing of a simple braided river:
The simplest form of a braided river is a river with an island in the middle. As you add more braids you get more islands.
At its widest portion The Grand Canyon has many "islands" of plateaus, as shown here:
This suggests the region was once crisscrossed by a braided river.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:47 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by edge, posted 06-02-2018 2:34 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 275 of 877 (834286)
06-02-2018 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Percy
06-02-2018 2:09 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
My own idea of how the Wichita Group formed (and it would be nice to get feedback from Edge and Moose) is that this extensive swampy region was one of net deposition. As it accumulated sediments their weight caused subsidence, allowing the region to accumulate more sediments. There must have been an eroding mountain range, probably to the west, supplying these sediments.
Basically correct. However, sometimes, the accumulation of sediment is entirely biological. There are coal beds in Wyoming up to 80 feet thick. And that is after a lot of compaction.
Subsidence is nice, but it is also possible to have a rise in sea level keeping pace with deposition. In the cyclothems of the Appalachians, there are a large number of minor transgressions and regressions that show a long period of time where the interface between marine and terrestrial is unstable, just moving back and forth as the swamps disappear and reappear or moved inland and than back toward the sea.
As you indicate, streams flow across the swampy areas resulting in sand bars and overbank mudstones that add to the diversity of rocks in the section. Once again all of these things are not just observed in the geological record, but in modern environments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 2:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Percy, posted 06-03-2018 8:36 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 276 of 877 (834287)
06-02-2018 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Percy
06-02-2018 2:24 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
This suggests the region was once crisscrossed by a braided river.
Actually, it would be dendritic pattern. That is a pattern similar to the veins in a leaf.
Those 'islands' were probably never islands at all except for the ones that occurred after a meander loop was abandoned. The rough pattern of minor peaks and saddles occurred when minor tributaries and fractures intersected to make a bunch of random culminations.
There is also some evidence of a trellis type of pattern caused by fractures and faults. The Bright Angel Canyon is one of them. It follows a nice straight fault line. Wikipedia gives a bit of an incomplete treatment here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_system_(geomorphology)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link. The system doesn't seem to like having ( in URLs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 2:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Percy, posted 06-03-2018 8:54 AM edge has replied

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


Message 277 of 877 (834288)
06-02-2018 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:38 PM


Re: The dating of speleothems
Quoting Emil:
quote:
Well, I knewand all karstologists knowthat the surface of limestone terrains above caves changes dramatically in short periods of time.
Why does Emil think this is true? Luray Caverns, Mammoth Caves, they're pretty much the same today as a couple hundred years ago.
quote:
The Vancouver Island speleothems have yielded radiometric ages of between 12 and 18 thousand years.3,4 That creates a problem and causes confusion. According to various geological evidences, the island was covered by ice, so the speleothems should not have grown at this time.
Why does Emil think that a hiatus in deposition would affect radiometric dating? And since there is often water beneath the glaciers, why does he think there would be a hiatus anyway?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 278 of 877 (834289)
06-02-2018 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy
Faith writes:
There is no way a sedimentary rock could possibly represent a time period.
As has been explained to you many times now, everyone here, including you, believes that sedimentary deposits occur over spans of time. It's just a question of whether it's hours or eons. We look to the evidence for answers.
Lithostratigraphy versus Chronostratigraphy can't resolve this problem.
Edge did not introduce lithostratigraphy and Chronostratigraphy as solutions to a problem. He noted them as additional topics you don't understand contributing to your confusion.
The strata were simply laid down one after another killing everything that lived on the land. There were never time periods, there was the pre-Flood earth and the post-Flood earth and that's it.
Gee, I think I've heard this before. I wonder if there's any evidence behind it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 279 of 877 (834290)
06-02-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
06-01-2018 5:25 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
I don't think you quite grasped the issue, but I'll respond anyway.
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.
Yes, of course - I referred specifically to the erosive structures of the American southwest:
Percy in Message 237 writes:
But it doesn't seem like uneven erosion of a region could create what we normally think of as mountains. It would create what we normally think of as erosive structures, like the buttes in the American southwest, not mountains.
Your image is of an relatively small erosive structure in the Painted Desert, not a mountain. To give you an idea of just how small these things are, here's a panoramic photo of the Painted Desert. Blow it up then pan around and you'll see what I mean:
These are not mountains. They are badland type structures - look it up. Here's a similar area in South Dakota known as, appropriately enough, The Badlands:
Orogeny (mountain building) is not thought to occur through erosion, so I'm still seeking to understand what Edge meant.
Such nice straight flat layers, such clearly different kinds of sediments, such an unlikely way for a time period to end up... 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...
Gee, this looks familiar, just like the same stuff that has been answered so many times. I don't think this needs to be answered yet again. Go find another sucker.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 5:25 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by edge, posted 06-02-2018 4:11 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 280 of 877 (834291)
06-02-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
06-02-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Orogeny (mountain building) is not thought to occur through erosion, so I'm still seeking to understand what Edge meant.
Just a bit of geophilosophy. I figure that I'm old enough to stir the pot a little bit with some outlandish remarks.
But think of it this way... Is the Colorado Plateau a mountain? Is the Kaibab Uplift a mountain? Well, you have to stretch the definition a bit...
Will they become mountains over time? Most certainly. And why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 3:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 06-02-2018 4:35 PM edge has not replied
 Message 306 by Percy, posted 06-03-2018 9:08 AM edge has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 877 (834292)
06-02-2018 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by edge
06-02-2018 4:11 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Because erections get bigger as they get older?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by edge, posted 06-02-2018 4:11 PM edge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 282 of 877 (834293)
06-02-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Percy
06-01-2018 9:06 PM


Re: Faith's sheet flow to stream flow epic fail
you have an extra f at the end of the arizona map image link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Percy, posted 06-01-2018 9:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 283 of 877 (834294)
06-02-2018 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Percy
06-02-2018 11:38 AM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
That being said, I don't think you need to precisely identify the boundaries of the Kaibab Uplift. The point is that the Colorado River runs directly through the uplift, and through another uplift further west. Since water doesn't run uphill, this needs to be explained. Here's RAZD's image:
Anyway as I picture it the uplift occurs at the end of the Flood when there are two miles worth of sedimentary layers on top of the Kaibab Plateau and the whole canyon area. The uplift creates strain on the upper strata as they are pushed upward, causing cracks that eventually form the canyon. The upper strata break up and wash away, some of it into the cracks which scour out the canyon area.
And the thin black lines on the picture are the actual tectonic fault lines in the area. The open minded observers will note that none parallel the canyon, but most run perpendicular to it. One at the east end drains the Kaibab plateau from the north side (from the "N" at the end of "CANYON") and has formed a canyon, presumable the "model" Faith assumes for the whole canyon. Another at the west end runs NNE-ish and comes near the canyon wall at one point, and up to the canyon at another with no canyon formed.
The total lack of any alignment of the canyon with a tectonic fault line is evidence against this big crack model Faith is espousing.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 06-02-2018 11:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 06-02-2018 5:37 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 284 of 877 (834295)
06-02-2018 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by edge
06-01-2018 9:41 PM


Re: Video on the formation of the Grand Canyon
Such nice straight flat layers, ...
Yes, flat lake and seafloors are pretty common.
Not that straight and flat. I'm not trying to be difficult I just really can't see it as you see it. Those lines are really really really straight and flat and the contacts are very tight which doesn't seem to me to describe lake bottoms and sea floors, really. Is there anything about any of these layers that says "lake bottom" or "sea floor" to you besides the flat straight contacts?
Here's the mountain for reference:
These are rocks (though not very lithified), not time periods.
Sure they were deposited at different times, but they, themselves are not time periods.
But surely they belong to a time period so I wonder which one. Mesozoic era perhaps?
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.
But I think true nevertheless, and in fact probably the main evidence that the geological column is over and done with. I know you have other explanations, this is one of my view that gets answered over and over again as I'm often reminded, but I still see it this way and hope eventually to find the smoking gun evidence. Though I think there's pretty good evidence for it already, just not complete. That is, we've got all kinds of interestingly stratified geological objects out there from mountains to buttes to hoodoos to the Grand Canyon, all carved by erosion out of what was originally a great expanse of stacked sediments, and it just seems that the layers are mostly all neat and parallel and tight and eroded ONLY, carved ONLY, shaped ONLY after they were all laid down originally horizontally.
Yes I know there are many partial stacks in many places, that my favorite Grand Canyon / Grand Staircase is really the only area I know of where they are ALL there, and yes I know the stacks are local and that the geo column is conceptual because it doesn't exist exactly the same in any one place, but nevertheless they are always (with the one exception of angular unconformities) found in these straight or at least parallel tight layers whether stacked horizontally or tilted or twisted into a pretzel, layers obviously originally stacked up one on top of another before being eroded into shapes or twisted into pretzels. This is all evidence that the strata were all there before being disturbed in any way, which is evidence for rapid deposition, for the Flood, and against the Time Scale. Even where partial they must all originally have represented the whole Geological Time Scale but lost a lot of upper strata in the Big Continent-splitting Tectonic Bash. Yes I know you explain this differently and my evidence is lacking because of the incomplete columns in spite of the complete ones. Smith's cross section of England is one comlete one, the entire column all laid down and then tilted. I know you explain all this differently but to me it's all evidence that the geo column couldn't possibly be explained by time periods of millions of years..... But anyway....
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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Percy, posted 06-03-2018 1:26 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 285 of 877 (834297)
06-02-2018 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
06-01-2018 2:38 PM


Re: The dating of speleothems
Article by Emil Silvestru at Creation website:Caves and Age
Another handwaving creationist, doesn't explain the different ages of uranium with the layers formed, with most decayed (oldest) trapped in the inner layers, covered by successively younger (less decayed uranium) layers.
In other words it says nothing about the actual empirical objective evidence.
It appears we have a conflict between common sense and radiometric dating here.
Only if you ignore the actual evidence. As usual. See Radiometric Dating - Christian Perspective for a better source of information on this dating technique.
Not a problem for the Hopi Lake spillover theory
Except that there is no relationship to the Grand Canyon speleothems.
There's more at the web page
Which is a lot of speculation around one area, and it lacks any good reference to actual published science articles: the only recent paper (ref 4) actually contradicts what he says:
quote:
a b s t r a c t A combination of d 13 C and d 18 O analyses with U—Th disequilibrium dating on a stalagmite and groundwater from the deep and extensive Arch Cave network on northeastern Vancouver Island has produced a preliminary 12,200 y paleoclimatic profile. Speleothem depositional rates vary from 6 to 41 mm/ka and are consistent with the ''Hendy'' test for speleothem deposition under high-humidity equilibrium conditions. Relative to present day conditions, warmer periods are indicated at the end of the Younger Dryas, during the Holocene maximum, a possible Medieval Warming event, with the warmest period represented by a narrow peak at 8000 y BP. Relatively cooler periods are recorded at 3500, 8200, 9300 and 11,500 y BP with indications of minor cooling during the Little Ice Age and indi-cations of relatively dry conditions during the earlier part of the Younger Dryas followed by warmer wetter conditions. The profile shows excellent agreement with other paleoclimatic indicators locally, most notably some partial speleothem records from Vancouver Island and Oregon, and some high-resolution global records such as the Greenland ice cores and speleothems from the Hulu Cave, China.
Preliminary paleoclimate reconstruction based on a 12,500.... Available from: Just a moment... [accessed Jun 02 2018].
BOLD added. Seems to validate the age derived rather than question it, in spades.
The only other non-creationist pseudo-reference is a 1987 article ... again, the practice of creationists using old information ...
The site is junk-science for the gullible wanna-believers, not valid science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024