Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 767 of 877 (835264)
06-20-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 764 by Faith
06-20-2018 2:08 PM


Re: subjective interpretation
You said the world is wrecked, but quite obviously it is not, aside from man-made damage. You're just saying something absurd and ridiculous to divert attention away from all the other things you've recently said that you cannot support.
Responding to a few things you said in your post:
Faith writes:
Lucky you to have such a view out your window but trees and ferns and vines and flowers are welcome camouflage for what I'm talking about,...
Take away the flora and fauna and you're left with dirt. So you're talking about dirt? What's wrecked about dirt?
Remove the dirt and you're left with rock. What's wrecked about rock?
...the tumble-down broken up desolate look of so much of the world.
Perhaps you could present a few images?
Piles of gravel,...
Granted not a thing of beauty, but wrecked?
...rocks in the surf,...
Some of the most spectacularly beautiful and dramatic photos are of rocks in the surf:
...amorphous shapes,...
You mean like these:
This all hit me about ten years ago or maybe more.
My sympathies.
If you don't see it I'm not going to argue with you.
See what? You haven't presented any images or even described what you're talking about. All we know so far is that you think the world is wrecked and that if we don't see it then that's just tough patooties for us. As I said before, back up your words - show us the view out one of your windows and show us how it's a wrecked world out there.
I know what I'm talking about is my own impression and it's hardly typical.
Yes, it is very much your own impression, but maybe not so untypical. Have you considered that possibly you're depressed?
You replied to only 2 out of my last 7 messages, and of those 2 you barely addressed any of the points made. Basically you've responded to almost nothing. Not addressing points does not make them go away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 768 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 4:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 770 of 877 (835272)
06-20-2018 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 765 by Faith
06-20-2018 3:29 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
Faith writes:
Six of the unconformities in the Paleozoic layers of the Grand Canyon are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible.
Show me one picture. If you don't want to I can live without it.
It isn't that I don't want to. It's that you haven't responded to most of what I've said, not just today but throughout the thread and across all threads where we've discussed anything. Saying that you've ignored whole swathes of evidence and arguments would be understating things by quite a bit. Convince me you're going to discuss any image presented rather than just dismissing it.
I can't keep up with your voluminous posts anyway that have half a zillion weird misrepresentations and other problems I'd need to answer.
What you mean is that you have no answers, but you can't admit that, so you have to invent some problem that casts the blame elsewhere. We should have a list of Faith's best hits, all the most ridiculous reasons you've concocted about why all your shortcomings are someone else's fault. I hope you're enjoying these little off topic diversions you keep introducing.
Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence.
If there isn't any sign of erosion but just a contact line that doesn't disprove continuous deposition;
Of course this is true, but...
First, you didn't quote me from the message you're replying to but from a different message. And second, what you quoted is just a summary of a more detailed argument from just a couple paragraphs earlier in that message (Message 751).
But I bet we can all safely assume that you're not the kind of person who would ignore detailed arguments on purpose, that you're a person of such honesty and integrity that you will go back and find the detailed argument and post a reply to that. Nah, just kidding. But hey, surprise me.
and if there is some sign of erosion there but not a different sediment that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either;
I don't know what you're drinking, but same sediment or not, if there was erosion then there couldn't possibly have been continuous deposition. They're opposites and mutually exclusive. At any given spot if one is taking place then the other definitely is not. While erosion is occurring then deposition definitely is not, so evidence of erosion is also evidence against continuous deposition.
and if there is some portion of a different kind of sediment there that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either.
True.
Look, Faith, the world is a big place with a long history, and every type of erosional and depositional sequence can be found in strata somewhere. In some cases the deposition is continuous across strata (e.g., Tapeats/Bright Angel/Muav, which is the Tonto Group), and in other cases it is not (Supai/Hermit).
Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited.
As I've said umpteen times they are the only exception to that rule. But the fact that they are the ONLY exception rather confirms the rule. And I have an explanation for them that confirms it further.
You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. Once again, from Message 758 that you didn't reply to (if you want shorter messages don't ignore my posts and force me to repeat arguments):
Your claim is that strata deform as a unit, except for angular unconformities. So we have this sequence of strata that form a unit and that has no angular unconformities. In your flood scenario this corresponds to after all the strata have been deposited but before the tectonic deformations have begun. These strata are a unit and must deform together:
  • Kaibab
  • Toroweap
  • Coconino
  • Hermit
  • Supai
  • Redwall
  • Temple Butte
  • Muav
  • Bright Angel
  • Tapeats
  • Sixtymile
  • Chuar
  • Kwagunt
  • Galeros
  • Nankoweap
  • Unkar
  • Cardenas
  • Dox
  • Shinumo
  • Diabase
  • Hakatai
  • Bass
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile down deform by tilting, and the layers above it do not deform. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit. But this is wrong (i.e., this is a proof by contradiction) since we know that strata must deform as a unit. Therefore it's not possible that only the strata from Sixtymile down tilted, and angular unconformities cannot be an exception.
And if you still insist that angular unconformities are an exception to the rule that strata deform as a unit, then by the logic above that's the same as saying, "Strata deform as a unit, except when they don't." That's arbitrary and useless.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 3:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 781 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 783 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:33 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 784 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 771 of 877 (835273)
06-20-2018 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 766 by Faith
06-20-2018 3:40 PM


Re: subjective interpretation
Faith writes:
pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world.
By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion?
The logic that says the strata and their contents were created by the Flood.
There's no logic in that sentence. That's a bald declaration.
Everything in the strata is evidence of the pre-Flood world.
That's another bald declaration.
We could learn a lot about the original Creation by studying those things in that context. Unfortunately they are absurdly misinterpreted to be evidence of fantastical time periods that didn't exist.
More bald declarations.
We know you've got your little opinions, but you're unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale. And declaring sometime to be logic doesn't make it so.
So once again, by what logic do you conclude that pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world, i.e., are evidence that any such thing as a pre-Flood world ever existed.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 772 of 877 (835274)
06-20-2018 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 768 by Faith
06-20-2018 4:59 PM


Re: wrecked planet
Faith, Message 717 is just your subjective impressions. You say the world is wrecked, but you have not presented any images of where the world is wrecked, nor have you described any places where the world is wrecked. If you claim that for you deserts and badlands and hoodoos and buttes are wrecked landscapes then no one would deny that you feel this way, but these are subjective impressions. I think very few would agree with you, and there's no objectivity in the assessment anyway.
Do you have any place in the world that we can see has been wrecked rather than is just a result of the natural environment? If so, what is it? I agree that places like this are desolate:
But wrecked?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 4:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 7:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 775 of 877 (835280)
06-20-2018 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 773 by Faith
06-20-2018 7:58 PM


Re: wrecked planet
Faith writes:
Yes it's my subjective impression, so what?
So can this be the last we hear about a wrecked world?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 7:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 776 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 777 of 877 (835283)
06-20-2018 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 774 by Faith
06-20-2018 8:09 PM


Re: subjective interpretation
Faith writes:
Yes all the fossils in the strata could possibly show us something about the world before the Flood because the Flood put them there.
That's a bald declaration.
I've given the evidence for the Flood.
That may be your subjective impression, but you really haven't. This is just another of your bad habits, claiming you've already provided evidence when you haven't. If you had evidence you'd be arguing the evidence instead of doing the Faith dodge.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 774 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 779 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:12 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 778 of 877 (835284)
06-20-2018 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 776 by Faith
06-20-2018 8:27 PM


Re: wrecked planet
Faith writes:
I don't know. "Subjective" doesn't mean "false" you know. Perhaps others will see it as I see it.
This is a science thread. Objectivity, evidence and rational arguments. If you want to argue the world is wrecked then give wrecked a clear definition so that we assess the real-world evidence and determine if the world is really wrecked. If you can't manage objective arguments based upon evidence and well defined terms then you should drop it.
What else you should do is address all the counters to your views that have been made recently. Ignoring posts or clicking the reply button and typing a few words is pitiful.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 8:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 793 of 877 (835305)
06-21-2018 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 779 by Faith
06-21-2018 12:12 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
Faith writes:
I've argued the evidence on many threads, including this one.
You've never been able to connect the evidence to your arguments in any thread, including this one. Most of your effort is spent distracting attention from your arguments. Like now. Let's just list a few issues of evidence you're currently intent on ignoring, obfuscating or misconstruing, i.e., evidence you're not arguing:
  • How do you define wrecked in the sense that you're using it, that we're living amidst the wreckage wrought by the Flood and a brief period of post-Flood tectonism that rearranged the continents and produced all geologic deformation.
  • How are pollen and fossils evidence that there was such a thing as the pre-Flood world?
  • Why did you argue that erosion at strata contacts is invisible?
  • How can erosion at a contact between strata not represent a cessation of deposition?
  • Do you want images of erosion at contacts between strata or not? If you do then you're going to have to convince me that you'll actually discuss rather than dismiss them.
  • Concerning the descriptions of erosional contacts between strata that appear at the USGS website, on what evidence are you basing your conclusion that those descriptions are "theoretical and not real"?
  • How are piles of gravel, rocks in the surf and amorphous shapes evidence of a wrecked world?
  • How are flora and fauna camouflage for a wrecked world?
  • Do you now understand that the East African Rift is not something that happened but is something that is ongoing from rougly 20 Ma to the present?
  • What makes you think Pacific Plate subduction beneath the North American Continent, a process ongoing for millions of years, could be linked to erosion caused by receding flood waters.
  • Why do you think that sedimentation recently ceased, especially since erosion is still producing sediment worldwide and, well, it has to go somewhere.
  • In your Flood scenario there has been continuous deposition right up to "Recent time" (whatever that is). Why do you believe that is evidence for when Pangaea broke up?
  • And in contradiction to your previous position (in other words, you evidently believe two contradictory things at the same time), why do you believe no strata have been deposited since the breakup of Pangaea?
  • Why do you think the strata in the Smith diagram follow the same pattern as "all the rest" of the strata (whatever that is)? And what, exactly, is that pattern? Are you referring to tilted strata? They're fairly common.
  • What evidence leads you to conclude that all tilted strata around the world occurred during a brief period of worldwide tectonism that occurred as the Flood waters receded.
  • What is your evidence that buried strata can tilt without disturbing overlying strata in the column?
  • Why do you believe the geology around the Colorado Plateau, which has been geologically quiet for an extended period, is indicative of geology around the world, especially since the immediately adjacent regions have been quite tectonically active?
  • How do you respond to the observation that you're drawing all your data from the Grand Staircase region not because it is representative of world geology but because that is where strata are most easily observed?
  • Given the the Appalachians exist in both North America and Ireland and so were obviously present during the breakup of Pangaea, how can you argue that their formation coincided with the Pangaea breakup?
  • What does "erosion as a unit" mean?
  • What does "in place" mean, as in "...all the strata were in place...", and if it means what everyone thought it meant then why were you repeatedly making claims about it as if it represented something that wasn't self-evident and incredibly obvious?
I again predict no reply, or replies of one or two sentences per point. I guess another possibility is an off-topic reply about some made-up complaint.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar and a typo in last point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 795 of 877 (835307)
06-21-2018 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 781 by Faith
06-21-2018 12:19 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
Instead of just sticking to the topic you make more complaints.
Faith writes:
Percy, there are many reasons I can't deal with your posts, one being their sheer volume...
I don't think you really meant so say "sheer volume" regarding my posts. In that I can't hold a candle to you. You've posted 288 messages to this thread, me only 158.
I think you meant to refer to the length of my posts. This is your doing because I have to repeat everything you've ignored.
-- your debate method of burying your opponent alive --
The more you ignore and/or misunderstand and/or misconstrue arguments, naturally the longer and more detailed the evidence and explanations will become. Make an effort so that we can begin checking off settled issues.
...but also that you just don't get anything I say.
In not getting anything you say, how am I any different from anyone else here? Except that perhaps I take on more of your nonsense than other people.
You say I don't make sense on this or that point though I know it does make sense...
Name someone here who thinks you're making sense? When you're the only one who thinks you're making sense, guess what?
...but it's just futile to argue with you about those things.
If your goal is success in debate without evidence or rationale, then I agree that it is futile for you.
And here you are saying something utterly nonsensical:
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile down deform by tilting, and the layers above it do not deform. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit
The tilting forms an angular unconformity which is an example of the exception I'm talking about.
And I continued on to explain why that's nonsense, which you've completely ignored. Forcing me to repeat my explanation. Making my post longer. Which you then complain about, even though you're responsible for it.
Though I must comment that it's odd to find you describing the order of events I argue for rather than the establishment sequence of tilting, mountain building, erosion, deposition of Phanerozoic strata.
Clearly you don't read what is posted to you. Of course I described things from your point of view. I set the context to your point of view by saying things like "Your claim is that..." and "In your flood scenario..."
I see that just one response to my message wasn't enough for you, that you posted 2 more.
Responding to your Message 783:
Faith in Message 783 writes:
I don't know what you're drinking, but same sediment or not, if there was erosion then there couldn't possibly have been continuous deposition. They're opposites and mutually exclusive.
Erosion occurs between strata.
This is a bald declaration and is self-evidently impossible, as has been explained before, for example in thread Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. in Message 885. You ignored the explanation in your response. Please respond here to what that message says about erosion occurring between strata, otherwise we'll consider this issue closed. Erosion does not occur between strata. Erosion occurs to exposed surfaces. And whatever happened to "strata erode as a unit"? You still haven't explained what that means.
Responding to your Message 784:
Faith in Message 784 writes:
You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true.
My eyeballs are fit to jump out of their sockets they're rolling so hard.
All you quoted was my introductory sentence, not my explanation. If you're not going to respond to my explanation then I'm going to have to repeat it, making my message...you guessed it...longer.
You SHOULD be arguing that angular unconformities aren't the ONLY exception, not that they aren't an exception. Oh my aching head.
Well, yes, of course your head aches, you're filling it with nonsense. Why would I argue for additional exceptions to the self-evident fact that, as you've expressed it, strata deform as a unit. What this really means is that tectonic forces are distributed to all the strata in a column, dissipating into tension or compression or faulting over distance. There are no exceptions to the transmission of tectonic forces through solid rock.
Tilting is just one of the shapes that deformation takes. Let's look at your favorite diagram of the Grand Staircase again:
In the center of the diagram the Kaibab is roughly level, then as we trace to the right it bends gradually upward, then it's in an upward tilt to the right, then it bends to roughly level again. If the tilting is an exception to your rule that strata deform as a unit, then the bending must also be an exception, since it's all part of the same deformation. In the end your rule becomes that strata deform as a unit with the exception of deformation, making your rule completely useless.
You actually fault me for not answering your pages and pages of such absurdities?
I guess those with nothing of substance to argue have no alternative but to engage in meaningless name calling. Sad.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 796 of 877 (835308)
06-21-2018 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by Faith
06-21-2018 12:47 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
Faith writes:
No the strata full of dead things are major wreckage.
There you go again. This is, by your own admission, your subjective impression. It isn't an argument for anything.
If you want to attempt a real argument then define wreckage including specific criteria so that we can assess the accuracy of your claim against real world evidence. If you can do this whereby we can objectively determine that the world is indeed in a wrecked state then that would be evidence supporting your view that this is a result of a calamitous global flood and intense tectonism of short duration.
But short of that all you have is subjective impressions that don't belong in a science thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 797 of 877 (835309)
06-21-2018 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 787 by Faith
06-21-2018 1:06 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
Until you're able to offer evidence that the world is in a wrecked state rather than just being the result of natural forces and processes, you should drop this argument, because it's nothing more than you making stuff up again. There are many, many points that you have failed to address, and I've enumerated the ones that I've made. You should be addressing everyone's points that you've ignored.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 804 of 877 (835402)
06-23-2018 10:19 AM


Time for Summary Mode?
Discussion has ceased in this thread because Faith is not replying to anyone. She stops discussing with each participant who eventually boxes her into a corner, and at this point that seems to include everyone. Specifically, she has failed to reply to the last post from all these participants:
If Faith still hasn't replied to anyone after a couple more days then Summary Mode might be appropriate.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by Phat, posted 06-23-2018 11:39 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 808 by Faith, posted 06-23-2018 11:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22679
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 875 of 877 (835548)
06-24-2018 4:58 PM


My Summation
For this topic Faith invented a problem that doesn't exist: that scientists are hiding their lack of supporting evidence and rationale from the public by not publishing it in the popular press. Never mind that such articles are written by journalists at a level appropriate to the audience.
It is so fitting that in her summary to her own thread in Message 871 that Faith didn't manage to touch on the topic, but she did manage to touch on a couple other issues that don't belong in a summary, but now that she's said them they do deserve a response. First about PaulK she says:
Faith in Message 871 writes:
I think it's way past time that PaulK be smacked down for his way of dealing with me, calling everything I say a lie. I say what I think to be true.
Members do not get "smacked down" by moderators here, and this thread was unmoderated except for a single comment by Adminnemooseus to stress content and stay on topic. If Faith had any moderation issues then she should have raised them in Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0.
I'm not going to go through PaulK's messages one by one to see how often he characterized what Faith said as lies.
In my moderator role I would prefer forms of the term "lie" be used sparingly and appropriately, preferring instead use of terms like mistaken, false, untrue, erroneous, etc. But the brazenness and frequency with which Faith just makes things up and then insists endlessly that they are true while being unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale or even the physically possible often leaves one at a loss for how to characterize them as anything but lies. I long ago decided I would never call anything a lie here, but the blatantness of some more recent false pronouncements by Faith has left me no choice to occasionally use the word. It doesn't matter that Faith thinks them true because she's made not effort to verify their veracity. Besides, the odds of making something up that just by pure happenstance turns out to be true is vanishingly small.
About me Faith says:
Faith in Message 871 writes:
Percy should also be smacked down for his attitude to me.
Again, members don't get smacked down by moderators, but it's interesting that Faith now believes that low opinions of her contributions should be punishable violations. She wants to place herself in a special category above reproach.
He endlessly comments on my debate behavior as if he had a right to do that in his non-Admin mode.
I responded each time Faith went off-topic to complain about other participants and to point out how her behavior was far worse.
If he wants to complain about that he should put on his Admin persona for the purpose.
I don't think Faith has thought this through. She really doesn't want me as moderator because my first action would be to require her to support her claims with evidence and/or rationale. Because she ignores most moderation I would make use of the temporary suspension feature.
Otherwise as a participant he is guilty of probably more violations of his rule against personal comments than anyone else on this forum.
Faith doesn't like people who speak truth to her lies.
If you want to deal with my violations of rules...
Faith is apparently aware that she frequently and flagrantly violates the Forum Guidelines.
...you have to do it officially and not as a mad sniper.
Anyone can comment on any part of any message, including those parts that violate the Forum Guidelines. Faith is apparently operating under the misimpression that she makes up the rules here.
No Percy summary would be complete without a list of issues Faith has failed to address. Some she ignored, others she typed words in response that made no sense:
  1. In stratigraphic columns, why does radiometric age increase with increasing depth?
  2. Why does radiometric age also change laterally across a strata?
  3. Why are radiometric isotopes older than 80 million years completely missing, something that could only happen if they'd had at least 4 billions years to decay?
  4. What causes magnetic sea floor striping, and why is it consistent with radiometric ages?
  5. In stratigraphic columns, why do fossils appear increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
  6. In stratigraphic columns, with increasing depth why are there first no mammals, then no dinosaurs, then no reptiles, then no amphibians, then no fish, then no multicellular life?
  7. Why do you think the Grand Staircase region's geology to be representative of all geology worldwide?
  8. If the Paleozoic layers were already present when the Supergroup layers tilted, why do the faults associated with the Supergroup extend down into the Vishnu Schist but not up into the Paleozoic layers?
  9. If the Supergroup layers actually tilted, where did all the missing cubic miles of rock go?
  10. If the Grand Canyon had been cut suddenly then the canyon walls would be vertical. How do you explain the sloping walls of the Grand Canyon?
  11. Why is the rate of slope retreat at the Grand Canyon consistent with an age of millions of years?
  12. What is your evidence that all tectonic activity worldwide occurred after deposition of sediments?
  13. Given the randomness of floods, why has no fossil ever been found in the wrong strata evolutionarily?
  14. How did the flood leave behind cross bedded sand dunes with animal tracks in the Coconino?
  15. How did the flood transport and deposit sediments that include burrows, termite nests, worm holes, etc.?
  16. What is the definition of kind?
  17. How can you argue about kind without a definition?
  18. Why, if you believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, do you think there are exceptions to God's claim to have "destroyed all living creatures" in Genesis 8:21?
  19. How did the ocean keep all the sedimentary types separate?
  20. Since floods only sort continuously by size/density of sediment and do not create sharp contacts, what is it about strata that says "flood" to you?
  21. How did the deposition of sediments by a series of waves leave no evidence of that process behind?
  22. If the flood rains washed all the land sediment into the sea, how was life left behind on the denuded landscape to leave tracks when waves deposited new sediments?
  23. Why do you think Bertault's views relevant since his experiments deposited sediments at an angle of 45° and required a flume?
  24. Since 3/4 of the globe is currently covered by water, how is a truly global flood that covers the remaining quarter much different?
  25. Why did no fishermen survive the flood?
  26. How was the original salinity of the ocean restored after the Flood?
  27. If the fountains of the deep were undersea volcanos, where is the evidence that many undersea volcanos erupted 4500 years ago?
  28. How does a four inch deep sheet of water dropping in level at the rate of 1.5 inches/minute have any meaningful erosive poser?
  29. How is it that at the Grand Canyon the strata above the Kaibab were hard enough for tectonic activity to fracture into blocks that were swept away by the receding waters, but not so hard that they couldn't be easily eroded by flowing water?
  30. How could the flow fast enough to cut channels into the soft rock, but not so fast that it couldn't form meanders?
  31. How could the canyon rock be soft enough that the water could easily cause boulders of it to fall into the canyon, but somehow these boulders later became the kind of hard rock that only diagenesis can create?
  32. 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?
  33. What evidence dates the Kaibab Uplift as coincident with the end of the Flood 4500 years ago?
  34. What evidence indicates that there were two miles of sedimentary layers atop the Kaibab 4500 years ago?
  35. What evidence indicates that the Colorado River followed the path of cracks created by tectonic forces?
  36. Why does the Colorado River have a number of meanders if it followed the path of tectonic cracks?
  37. What evidence indicates that some of the chunks of upper strata washed into the canyon only 4500 years ago, since they should still be there?
  38. Since some Supergroup exposures lie outside the Kaibab uplift, we know the Supergroup didn't cause it. For example, Nanoweap and Unkar group strata are exposed well to the west of the Kaibab Uplift, see Figure 5.1 on page 77 of GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE GRAND CANYON - one of the authors is Dr. Karl Karlstrom from Mod's video. How do you respond?
  39. Here's a link to a page that has an animation of the tilting and eroding of the Supergroup that should help you visualize geology's views: Tilting, Faulting and Eroding of the Grand Canyon Supergroup. Just click anywhere on the diagram, or click on the little "Play" button beneath the diagram. It's a very short video, maybe only 10 seconds. Any comments?
  40. You argued that the great extent of the water was a factor contributing to it's erosive power, but it is not. It's the rate of dropping water level that matters. Physics. It doesn't matter whether the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute in a kiddie pool or an Olympic pool or a planet sized ocean. How do you respond?
  41. You changed the units of the rate to make it a larger value, but transforming the rate into different units doesn't change anything. It's a minuscule rate, and your thin sheet of water of a few inches deep is only going to flow for 3 or 4 minutes before there's nothing left of the sheet, because the water level is dropping at 1.5 inches/minute. 3 or 4 minutes of a slow flow isn't going to erode anything, not even wet and malleable rock. How do you respond?
  42. About water draining from a bathtub, at the drain it drains from the bottom. The further you get from the drain the more the water just generally flows toward the drain. And about its value as an analogy to water draining off the continents, it isn't an appropriate model for your scenario, where water would drain toward all seas, not toward one single drain. How do you respond?
  43. The ocean floor has not dropped. Surveys of the ocean floor after WWII in order to aid submarine navigation revealed a great deal of information about mid-oceanic ridges and sea floor striping and so on, but not an ounce of evidence for dropping sea floors. How do you respond?
  44. There is no evidence of any obstacles on the Kaibab Plateau, the ones you have somehow impeding the flow of water while enhancing its force. How do you respond?
  45. How do unconsolidated sediments and wet and malleable rock fracture?
  46. How is it that strata broke up into small enough pieces to be carried away by four inches of water that flowed for only a few minutes?
  47. How are floods and lakes from before you think the world existed evidence for a global flood only 4500 years ago.
  48. The many unconformities between strata, such as those seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon, are visible and indicate strata were not deposited continuously. The deposition was continually interrupted by terrestrial erosion. Details about the unconformities are available online, such as at the USGS website, of which you have has not availed herself. How do your respond?
  49. What does "erosion as a unit" mean?
  50. What does "in place" mean?
  51. Your definition of "deformation as a unit" is contradictory. In your view the Supergroup/Paleozoic layers in the Grand Canyon region were once a unit of horizontal layers. You think that at one time all those layers existed as a stratigraphic column of horizontal layers. Here are all the major subunits from top to bottom:
    • Kaibab
    • Toroweap
    • Coconino
    • Hermit
    • Supai
    • Redwall
    • Temple Butte
    • Muav
    • Bright Angel
    • Tapeats
    • Sixtymile
    • Chuar
    • Kwagunt
    • Galeros
    • Nankoweap
    • Unkar
    • Cardenas
    • Dox
    • Shinumo
    • Diabase
    • Hakatai
    • Bass
    You say that units deform as a block, but then you break your own rule by claiming the layers from the Sixtymile down tilted by themselves independently of the rest of the unit from the Tapeats up. How do you reconcile this?
  52. Any strata with erosional cuts at the top contact with the overlying strata is undeniable evidence of an unconformity. Before the erosion there must have been overlying strata in order to create enough pressure to turn the strata to rock. These overlying layers must have been eroded away in order to expose the strata to erosion. Why do you think there were no overlying strata?
  53. The East African Rift is not part of some one time tectonic event 4500 years ago. It is a parting of the African plate into two new plates called the Somali and Nubian plates that began around 20 Ma and continues to this day. Why do you think there is no active tectonism at the East African Rift?
  54. There's no such thing as "tectonic bashing and crashing". Tectonic movements occur very slowly at the rate of inches/year at most. These slow motions can become apparent when tectonic forces build up stress along existing fault lines or create new fault lines, causing sudden slips that result in earthquakes, such as along the San Andreas fault in California or the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey. Volcanos can be another manifestation, though produced in a less direct way. Why do you think there was ever any such thing as "tectonic bashing and crashing"?
  55. What makes you think Pacific Plate subduction beneath the North American Continent, a process ongoing for millions of years, could be linked to erosion caused by receding flood waters?
  56. You said that sedimentation and strata formation continued after the Flood but recently ceased. That of course is not true. We observe sedimentation occurring today, and there is no doubt it will continue on into the future. The products of erosion have to go somewhere, and the mechanisms of transport pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of sediments eventually end up on pond, swamp, lake, lagoon and sea bottoms. How do you support your claim the sedimentation atop strata recently ceased?
  57. How does continuous sedimentation up to "Recent time" provide evidence for when Pangaea broke up? The dating of sea sediments from ocean cores tells us that the bottom layers from the oldest parts of the Atlantic, such as off the Maine coast, are around 175 million years old. The dating is mostly done through magnetic striping.
  58. You were incorrect to say that strata have not been deposited since the breakup of Pangaea, which was actually a lengthy event taking around 100 million years. How do you respond?
  59. Why do you think the strata in the Smith diagram follow the same pattern as "all the rest" of the strata? And what, exactly, is that pattern? Are you referring to tilted strata? Fairly common.
  60. Tilted strata did not all occur at the same time but have occurred across all time periods of geologic history. How do you respond?
  61. The generally horizontal deposition of sediments has nothing to do with "the conventional timing" - it is just something that's been understood since Steno. How do you respond?
  62. The mere existence of angular unconformities is proof that deformation occurred before all strata were deposited. How do you respond?
  63. As has been stated before, the Colorado Plateau has been relatively quiet tectonically for hundreds of millions of years, but not the rest of the world, including the regions immediately adjacent to the Colorado Plateau. Why do you think the entire world was quiet tectonically during the Flood?
  64. You're making the mistake basing all your conclusions on evidence from the Grand Staircase region because that's where strata are most easily visible, and you're ignoring geological evidence from the rest of the world that clearly indicates that a) Taking your evidence from just one geological region is poor science; and b) That is why your conclusions are wrong. How do you justify using the Grand Staircase region as a model for the rest of the world?
  65. The Appalachians did not form at the same time as the breakup of Pangaea. Obviously since the Appalachians exist in both North America and Ireland, they had to exist before the breakup of Pangaea. Why do you think the Appalachians formed during the breakup of Pangaea?
And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:
  1. Constructive discussion.
  2. How to anchor views in facts.
  3. Subordinating everything to the Bible is not science.
  4. Math.
  5. Physics.
  6. Walther's Law.
  7. That the strata of the Grand Canyon formed through Walther's Law, except the Coconino.
  8. The claim that no terrestrial landscape is as straight and flat as strata is false.
  9. Strata are not as flat and straight as Faith thinks, even at the Grand Canyon.
  10. Strata are rarely uniform with regard to sediment type.
  11. Life in the past lived and died and sometimes became entombed just as it does today, above, atop and beneath surfaces of terrestrial, marine or lacustrine sediment, not on flat slabs of rock.
  12. Most strata are marine. While terrestrial landscapes can become strata, they usually don't.
  13. Lithified soil is called a paleosol.
  14. Rocks do not form by drying but by diagenesis.
  15. There are no underground rivers and streams eroding buried strata (karst structures are a different matter).
  16. Buried strata cannot tilt without affecting surrounding strata.
  17. Angular unconformities happen when sediment is deposited atop tilted strata, such as at Welcombe Mouth Beach.
  18. Accelerated continental drift with the attendant accelerated creation of sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges would release enough heat to boil the oceans. This is even without taking into account the heat from friction and subduction.
  19. In the oceans, sea floor sediment depth increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges where the sea floor forms. Sea floor near mid-oceanic ridges is young and has little time to accumulate sediments, while that far from mid-oceanic ridges is much older and has had much time to accumulate sediments.
  20. The sediments comprising strata were always deposited during a particular time period, whether the millions of years of geology or the year of the Flood.
  21. Stratigraphic columns continue to grow today, mostly at low points such as lake and sea bottom.
  22. Fossil abundance varies widely among strata.
  23. Life buried today could eventually become fossils.
  24. Speciation does not take millions of years.
  25. Old evidence is still evidence. Evidence has no expiration date.
  26. Vegetation and trees did not keep buried sediments loose so that the 40 days and nights of rain could wash them into the ocean.
  27. The dog does not have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today. It can be no more genetically diverse than the gray wolf from which it is descended.
  28. A definition of kind that is different for each kind is not a definition.
  29. Deposition is still taking place atop stratigraphic columns around the world.
  30. Strata were deposited over periods of time. That cannot be disputed.
  31. Boulders role onto beaches from the cliffs above.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024