Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geology- working up from basic principles.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 156 (419433)
09-02-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Ihategod
09-02-2007 1:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
How can we know the earth was not distorted from a catastrophe?
We can look at the reality, the evidence, and see what that tells us.
I have offered in the past and offer once again, an opportunity for you to show how your Model can explain the evidence seen. However, simply asserting some catastrophe or flood or other imaginary scenario is meaningless unless you can show how it explains the actual geology.
Again, if you wish to actually support your model, I will be glad to try to get a Great Discussion set up where you can present the Flood Model.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:42 AM Ihategod has not replied

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 4879 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 62 of 156 (419476)
09-03-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Ihategod
09-02-2007 1:42 AM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
I presume the earth was distorted by a catastrophe. Multiple cotastrophes. Many are recorded in the geologic record. So what? Catastrophes don't change the laws of nature. They conform to them.
My geological thought pattern was shaped by an adult life of studying geology, so I can't really provide a link or two.
Also, remember since it is the truth it is not obstructing anything but lies.
This is circular reasoning.You are assuming your position is true.
No offence but I think continuing to deny superposition after reading and participating in this thread is like denying the sun rose this morning.

Brent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Ihategod, posted 09-02-2007 1:42 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

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 64 of 156 (419629)
09-03-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Ihategod
09-03-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Why does it have to be flat?
Because things fall down?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Ihategod, posted 09-03-2007 9:01 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 65 of 156 (419657)
09-04-2007 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Ihategod
09-03-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Vashgun writes:
I'm not denying superposition, I believe it is trivial.
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.
Vashgun writes:
Why does it have to be flat?
Gravity. Actually some deposits are not horizontal like fossilized crossbedded dunes such as the Coconino formation. But if you look closely the cross bedding nature is obvious - the layers are curvilinear and are at shallow angles that match modern dunes.
However you never find (flood or not) sediment layers deposited near vertical such as:
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!
And here is another of the famous Siccar Point.
More images are here: No such page | The University of Edinburgh
Vashgun writes:
Also, with original lateral continuity I have the same basic protest of physics.
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.
Vashgun writes:
Moreover, I find it interesting that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering
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.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Ihategod, posted 09-03-2007 9:01 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 09-04-2007 4:55 PM iceage has replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 66 of 156 (419676)
09-04-2007 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Ihategod
09-03-2007 9:01 PM


horizontality revisited
The principle of original horizontality, I am having difficulty accepting. Why does it have to be flat?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Ihategod, posted 09-03-2007 9:01 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coragyps, posted 09-04-2007 8:08 AM The Matt has not replied
 Message 73 by Ihategod, posted 09-04-2007 4:59 PM The Matt has not replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 5542 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 67 of 156 (419680)
09-04-2007 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Ihategod
09-03-2007 9:01 PM


Lateral continuity revisited.
Also, with original lateral continuity I have the same basic protest of physics. Why must the sediment be deposited evenly?
It doesn't say that sediment is deposited evenly. Here is the definition again:
quote:
strata originally extended in all directions until they thinned to zero or terminated against the edges of their original basin of deposition.
Link
The point here is that if strata comes to an abrupt end (for example somewhere where it has been eroded, or reaches a fault, then this was probably not initially the end of the strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Ihategod, posted 09-03-2007 9:01 PM Ihategod has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 68 of 156 (419689)
09-04-2007 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by The Matt
09-04-2007 6:01 AM


Re: horizontality revisited
The angle of repose for dry sand for example is nearly 30 degrees, and saturated sand closer to zero.
Vashgun, do this little experiment for yourself: swipe a pint of sand from a sandbox, beach, or a construction site. Let it dry out well. Then see how steep of a cone you can make with it - say by pouring it through a funnel or even out of your fist.
Then make a cone under water in a saucepan or a plastic tub. Compare its steepness to that of the dry cone.
You'll see what The Matt is talking about for yourself.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 156 (419734)
09-04-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Ihategod
09-03-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Moreover, I find it interesting that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering.
No-one said that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering, did they?
That's something you made up in your head, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Ihategod, posted 09-03-2007 9:01 PM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AdminNosy, posted 09-04-2007 2:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 70 of 156 (419735)
09-04-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
09-04-2007 2:10 PM


Read more carefully Dr A
Moreover, I find it interesting that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering.
No-one said that a "flood" type catalyst must be involved with layering, did they?
That's something you made up in your head, isn't it?
I understand the he writes very, very poorly and uses words he doesn't actually understand. However, it would be a good idea for you to try to guess what he means and so further the discussion more readily.
It may be that he is saying water borne sediments are a part of rock formation. I suspect that is what he is getting at and will then try to extend that to a single global flood.
Try that out and see if it enhances communication a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2007 2:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-04-2007 2:26 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 156 (419738)
09-04-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by AdminNosy
09-04-2007 2:13 PM


Re: Read more carefully Dr A
Okay.
---
Vashgun, on the (generous) assumption that by "flood-type catalyst" you means "water that is not part of a flood in any way, least of alll an impossible magical one", then you still have to learn that there are other ways of getting layers of rock than deposition by non-flood waters. Hopefully these will be covered later in the course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AdminNosy, posted 09-04-2007 2:13 PM AdminNosy 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

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 74 of 156 (419775)
09-04-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
09-04-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
ice writes:
I never changed my position, I just wasn't getting anywhere arguing in the face of opposition and religious devotion to the LoS.
I remember you mentioning that LoS applied to geology was "super sketchy". There is no religious devotion to the LoS - just a tendency of a system of particles to seek the lowest potential energy state. There is no more religious devotion than say to the understanding that gravity acts in the direction of masses and not away.
ice writes:
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!
vash writes:
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.
Yes the lower layers where formed, buried or subsided to a point where heat and pressure acted on the sedimentary rock to transform the material into metamorphic rock, these layers uplifted and probably tilt them on the way, erosional processes beveled the metamorphic rock at an angle to the original dispositional layers, and deposition begin again followed by second lithofication (solidification) processes.
These are all parallel processes, each requiring long geological periods of time. Angular Nonconformities are a very large elephant sitting in the young earth living room.
Didn't follow you last sentence but definitely angular (and parallel) nonconformities exist throughout the geological column. Note the Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon is "on the surface" because a river carved a canyon over a mile deep.
Vash writes:
Putting Darwin with Newton and Einstein is crass.
I use to think the same until I learned more about his life and works. I have gained a deep respect for the man. He was *extremely* diligent and cautious in developing his theory. He spent years collecting data, he was frank on the possible weaknesses to his theory and described falsification conditions long before falsification was a concept, his theory was comprehensive and in areas where he was forced to make conjectures because of the lack of data he was surprising correct. Keep in mind that at Darwin's time things like the DNA molecule and even the rules of genetics were unknown.
His theory was a huge step forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 09-04-2007 4:55 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 1:41 AM iceage has replied

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


Message 75 of 156 (419776)
09-04-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Ihategod
09-04-2007 4:55 PM


Re: Law of superposition (revisited)
Vashgun writes:
I don't see how it is a law, I do see how it can be a basic principle.
A law is really just the codification of a basic principle.
And laws can have exceptions. The Law of Superposition just says, "The layers on the bottom were deposited first, unless something changed the order."

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Ihategod, posted 09-04-2007 4:55 PM Ihategod 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