Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 28 of 156 (418723)
08-29-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Matt
07-13-2007 7:50 AM


Preaching to the choir
Dude, no offense, your preaching to the choir. Who will debate this? Who here, amongst the ocean of evolutionists, will speak contrary to your position on basic principles of geology? I must attempt to represent.
The first thing I would like to deal with is the law of superposition. This states that sedimentary layers form in a time progressive sequence with the oldest layers at the bottom and the youngest on the top. To view this simply, picture stacking books one on top of the other- the book you put down first will by at the bottom of the pile, and the book you put down last will be at the top. Can we agree this principle is sound?
no it is not sound. Notice this assumption:
picture stacking books one on top of the other- the book you put down first will by at the bottom of the pile, and the book you put down last will be at the top.
This is assuming perfect environment. What if's abound. Example, your cat got a clever idea and decided to put the top on on the bottom. Or the maid mixed the top two out of spite for her poor employment wage. How is that each layer represents a certain age? More to the point; How is it that this is a law of geology? Wouldn't you have to have a foundational religion..., say, uniformitarianism? For this to even hold water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Matt, posted 07-13-2007 7:50 AM The Matt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by AdminNosy, posted 08-30-2007 12:19 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 1:56 AM Ihategod has replied
 Message 33 by bdfoster, posted 08-30-2007 1:01 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2007 5:29 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 43 by The Matt, posted 08-31-2007 7:06 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 31 of 156 (418781)
08-30-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Minnemooseus
08-30-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Ok, let me start over with a question.
Why is it valid to use the law of superposition, which is obvious, and apply it to rocks? Has the law of superposition been observed in this context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 1:56 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 08-30-2007 12:01 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 08-30-2007 1:34 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2007 5:25 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2007 7:35 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 38 of 156 (418880)
08-30-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jazzns
08-30-2007 12:01 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
I sincerely appreciate the replies, thank you.
The problem I have with superposition is, if God created earth (rocks, land, etc) then the rocks or earth would be the same age. Or the age of Creation.
So then why is there a necessity to prove otherwise? I understand that some will say that it's non bias science and only the results matter in a given experiment. How this basic principle can apply to earth and rock(s) amazes me. Where does the material come from to form the layers? If the earth were billions of years old?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 08-30-2007 12:01 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 08-30-2007 10:51 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 41 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 11:03 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 08-31-2007 2:09 AM Ihategod has replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 39 of 156 (418881)
08-30-2007 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bdfoster
08-30-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Preaching to the choir
What in the world are you talking aboiut? Superposition doesn't assume a perfect environment. It doesn't depend on any environment at all. It happens in any environment on earth. It happens on Mars.
It must in relation to geology. Which is why your arguments fail. I am not attacking superpostion, I just don't understand how it can apply so easily to rock(s) and rock(s) formation. Please help me understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bdfoster, posted 08-30-2007 1:01 PM bdfoster has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 45 of 156 (418938)
08-31-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by iceage
08-30-2007 11:03 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Are you proposing that God created the geologic column complete with replete evidences of past processes.
Your assuming the geologic column existed pre flood.
As only one small example, take a microfossil deposits like chalk, diatomaceous shale, or fossiliferous limestone formations. There are comprised mostly of cast off animal parts. These deposits in some cases are **huge** and extensive. Are you suggesting the God created these deposits in situ and they were not the result of living things? Are the ash layers real. Are mudstones and sandstone deposits fake? Are the encased dinosaur fossils fake. Was coal instantaneously created with intervening layers of sandstone just the way God liked to do it.
Note: I proposed none of these things, you did by putting words in my mouth (metaphorically typing). Again, you assume that pre-flood world was the same as it is today. Like a blender, the world was mixed up. How this exactly happened, is and would be very hard to tell. Also claiming a certain model for the flood assumes that there were no supernatural causes.
Things and fossils are found in rocks. This doesn't explain anything. Only imagination makes a static model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by iceage, posted 08-30-2007 11:03 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-31-2007 9:29 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2007 12:00 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 46 of 156 (418941)
08-31-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jazzns
08-31-2007 2:09 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
The problem I am having with the LoS, is that from a creationists view, the LoS doesn't apply to geology. I doubt the geologic column existed pre-flood. You assume it did. You probably don't even think there was a flood. So, for me to accept the application of this LoS I would need to agree and submit to your ideology. Which I won't do. Even the Admins can't grasp another view of geology in lieu of their doctrines. There is even unconformities and flipped layers in your model, which you will readily admit. So how does this law apply to a creation model? It is as if we are back in ancient Greece discussing classical physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 08-31-2007 2:09 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by The Matt, posted 08-31-2007 9:33 AM Ihategod has replied
 Message 50 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2007 10:29 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 51 by EighteenDelta, posted 08-31-2007 10:38 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 54 by bdfoster, posted 08-31-2007 4:44 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 49 of 156 (418957)
08-31-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by The Matt
08-31-2007 9:33 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Why is superposition not consistent with YEC? Superposition would still apply if every sedimentary rock in the world was deposited by a global flood. The rock at the bottom would be from the early flood as the waters rose and those at the top would be the very last deposits as the waters drained away.
I would like to bring back my point and stay on topic.
Superposition is consistent with YEC, because I don't understand why it would even apply to geology doesn't mean someone can't. *If* there was a flood, then the law of superposition would only be relevant to a certain time frame, ie after the flood and not before. The first rock created could be closest to the top. It seems the LoS is set in place to promote old age earth ideas. In a fundamental creation model it wouldn't even matter. We are on two sides of the coin, why would I agree to play by your rules?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by The Matt, posted 08-31-2007 9:33 AM The Matt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by The Matt, posted 08-31-2007 11:25 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 57 of 156 (419308)
09-02-2007 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by bdfoster
08-31-2007 6:34 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Weren't we on faunal succession?
no disrespect, but
You have the concept of my argument. How can we know the earth was not distorted from a catastrophe? And please refrain from baseless assertions and provide links that describe your geological thought pattern. Also, remember since it is the truth it is not obstructing anything but lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by bdfoster, posted 08-31-2007 6:34 PM bdfoster has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by iceage, posted 09-02-2007 2:33 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 59 by iceage, posted 09-02-2007 3:07 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 60 by The Matt, posted 09-02-2007 5:01 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 09-02-2007 5:53 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 62 by bdfoster, posted 09-03-2007 12:47 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 63 of 156 (419624)
09-03-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by The Matt
09-02-2007 5:01 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
I'm not denying superposition, I believe it is trivial. So, with that horse beat to death lets move on.
The principle of original horizontality, I am having difficulty accepting. Why does it have to be flat? Couldn't things like unconformities be formed with sedimentary deposits? Also, with original lateral continuity I have the same basic protest of physics. Why must the sediment be deposited evenly? Moreover, I find it interesting that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering.
ll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by The Matt, posted 09-02-2007 5:01 PM The Matt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coragyps, posted 09-03-2007 9:32 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 65 by iceage, posted 09-04-2007 1:31 AM Ihategod has replied
 Message 66 by The Matt, posted 09-04-2007 6:01 AM Ihategod has replied
 Message 67 by The Matt, posted 09-04-2007 6:22 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2007 2:10 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 72 of 156 (419762)
09-04-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by iceage
09-04-2007 1:31 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Originally you did protest and now it is trivial! At one time you stated that the LoS doesn't apply to geology. I believe the appropriate and polite response maybe something like "oh ok now I see thank you" instead of suddenly claiming it is trivial after several people took care, time and patience to demonstrate what you could have found out for yourself had you spent the effort.
I never changed my position, I just wasn't getting anywhere arguing in the face of opposition and religious devotion to the LoS. I still really can't imagine how this really applies to geology, all of the time without allowing variation. I don't see how it is a law, I do see how it can be a basic principle. So, I'm reading many things on the topic of geology. Perhaps we haven't arrived at the place where The Matt will kindly discuss more of the basics pertaining to my question as he has eluded.
Again note the metamorphosed lower layer with means that two sedimentation events did not occur any where near the same time or place. If you learn about the metamorphic process you will understand the significance of this point.
This single image is sufficient on its own to falsify any notion of a young earth!
Honestly, from a layman's perspective, it looks as if layers were formed, the somehow became less horizontal and more vertical maybe because the lower layers gave out. And if it is not the case that all the angular unconformities are at the surface exposed yet not throughout, then I don't see how this can be supporting evidence.
No offense Vashgun but you seem to be a bit light in your background of physics and geology. Some of the folks who took the time to reply to you are professional geologist who have spent years in school and in the field. If you really feel they are misguided and that the last 400 years of geology is flawed then get some educated and set out to prove it. If you do you will assure yourself a position in history on par with Newton, Einstein and Darwin.
I am working on getting some educated, thank you for your concern. I in NO way am trying to take anything away from anybody who has worked very hard to learn this wonderful subject. I think it is awesome, and moreover, I think it is awesome that we can have a forum where ignorant people like me can learn from people like you's guys. Although I feel as if some of the principles used are perhaps not the principles used. Also, putting Darwin with newton and einstein is crass.
Yes so. Sediment layed down in a moving stream will form graded layers. Been studied, reported and understood. This does not explain the vast majority of geological formations.
The vast majority of geological formations are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by iceage, posted 09-04-2007 1:31 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by iceage, posted 09-04-2007 5:50 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 75 by ringo, posted 09-04-2007 5:54 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2007 6:41 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 73 of 156 (419764)
09-04-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by The Matt
09-04-2007 6:01 AM


Re: horizontality revisited
The the principle of original horizontality is more of a guideline. There are examples of rocks laid down with an angle of as high as 30 degrees from horizontal. All you are really supposed to take home from this is that if rock is heavily folded, near vertical etc then it was not laid down like that. As for why sediment must be [near] flat, this is due to a property called the angle of repose. This is the maximum stable slope that can be achieved on a pile of sediment before it gives way. We can observe and measure this in sediment today. The angle of repose for dry sand for example is nearly 30 degrees, and saturated sand closer to zero.
Thank you, it is very clear now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by The Matt, posted 09-04-2007 6:01 AM The Matt has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 77 of 156 (419845)
09-05-2007 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by iceage
09-04-2007 5:50 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Thanks for helping out, I mean to extend this to everyone as I don't deem it necessary to respond in kind. I think I am beginning to understand how this works, as I was previously ignorant but due to the participation of you's guys I think we can move on. Much gratitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by iceage, posted 09-04-2007 5:50 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2007 1:58 AM Ihategod has replied
 Message 79 by iceage, posted 09-05-2007 2:07 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 80 of 156 (419859)
09-05-2007 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by NosyNed
09-05-2007 1:58 AM


Re: In your own words
I understand how the Basics of Steno's principles are relative to geology for the most part. So I think The Matt can move on as I seem to be the only one holding this thread back. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2007 1:58 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2007 9:23 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 82 by bdfoster, posted 09-05-2007 3:26 PM Ihategod has replied

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 83 of 156 (420686)
09-09-2007 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by bdfoster
09-05-2007 3:26 PM


Re: In your own words
Pretend I never interrupted please. I am ok with all of the basic principles thus far stated, and if I get confused, allow me the opportunity to ask you's guys questions. Thanks for being patient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by bdfoster, posted 09-05-2007 3:26 PM bdfoster 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