Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
33 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,138 Year: 22,174/19,786 Month: 737/1,834 Week: 237/500 Day: 65/69 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 14 of 283 (295288)
03-14-2006 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 8upwidit2
03-14-2006 3:46 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Layers Billions of years old
The rocks were deposited when the area was at a much lower elevation. The area has undergone a lot of uplift (and that is why we have a very deep canyon there).

I would add that as I understand it, the topographical variations we see on the Earth's surface don't really make a big difference to the size of the planet. The diameter of the Earth is 12,756 km, so a 100 km increase would be less than 1% of that..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 8upwidit2, posted 03-14-2006 3:46 PM 8upwidit2 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 03-14-2006 4:24 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 25 of 283 (295421)
03-15-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
03-14-2006 10:04 PM


Re: Moving on to the Zoroaster granite
Gramite is an igneous rock - it's formed directly from magma. From the posted diagram it intrudes into the Vishnu schist. So veins of magma have worked their way through the schist (or, IMHO more likely, the rocks that became the schist).

This must hav e happened after the rocks that became the Vishnu Schist were deposited. From the diagram, it looks as if it happened before the fault, and I would guess before the Bass limestone was deposited (but that latter is just a guess). If the magma reached the surface it has been eroded away.

THe intruison of igneous rck is probably part of the event - or one of the events - that produced the metamorphism that transformed the surrounding rock to schist.

To answer yor questions directly.

1) Schist is matamorphic and grantie is igneous - they are very different rocks

2) The granite was formed from magma that welled up underneath, and broke through, the schist.

3) The granite has to be younger thna the schist- and we know that because it intrudes into the schist.e

This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-15-2006 02:56 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 03-14-2006 10:04 PM jar has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 52 of 283 (295566)
03-15-2006 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jazzns
03-15-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Can we head back towards the topic.
quote:

The granite could have formed and been exposed before the sandstone was even deposited.

I don't think that this is possible. The diagram in Message 8 shows veins of granite running through the schist, and according to another post it couldn't have reached the surface.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 12:37 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 03-15-2006 1:40 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 72 of 283 (295813)
03-16-2006 2:23 AM


Erosion ?
Going back to the diagram in Message 8 it looks to me as if the intrusive dykes shown have been cut off at the top of the picture by erosion. That is, the schist and the intrusive dykes were "levelled off" before the deposition of the Bass limestone. Can the geologists among us confirm that this reading is correct ?m

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 8:58 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 75 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 12:30 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 262 of 283 (842144)
10-27-2018 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by RAZD
10-27-2018 9:54 AM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
By the given age (310 million years ago) I’d guess the very start of the Wescogame Formation. Footprints were discovered in that formation more than 100 years ago, but later in date.

More here Trackway


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2018 9:54 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 264 of 283 (842178)
10-27-2018 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
10-27-2018 3:00 PM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
quote:

Of course it's just an animal running from the Flood waters about 4500 years ago and eventually overtaken and buried in that particular layer...

Good luck coming up with a Flood geology scenario that explains how footprints can be found at many levels of the geological column.

quote:

...which of course isn't a time period hundreds of millions of years old.

Nobody thinks that a rock layer is a time period, Faith. That’s just something you made up. You would think that somebody who boasts of being honest and rational would avoid repeating crazy falsehoods. But here we are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 3:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 3:32 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 268 of 283 (842195)
10-27-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
10-27-2018 3:32 PM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
quote:

Funny, it's rock layers that are labeled as time periods in scads of illustrations of the geo column

That is the time period when the material was deposited. It isn’t saying that the rock IS the time period. You would have to be insane to think that.

quote:

As for footprints on layers, some animals obviously escaped wave after wave of the Flood's incursion before finally getting caught. Big deal.

The idea of multiple “waves” leaving areas of dry land all through the Flood seems a pretty big deal to me. How do you fit that with the supposedly accurate story in the Bible ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 3:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2018 4:44 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 8:17 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 269 of 283 (842196)
10-27-2018 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Thugpreacha
10-27-2018 4:22 PM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
quote:

Comments?

What creationist - or to be accurate - YEC - arguments do you consider to be valid ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-27-2018 4:22 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-27-2018 5:03 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 272 of 283 (842203)
10-27-2018 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Thugpreacha
10-27-2018 5:03 PM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
If “both sides have valid arguments” but the YECs have none, what do you mean by “both sides”?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-27-2018 5:03 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-28-2018 3:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 276 of 283 (842223)
10-28-2018 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
10-27-2018 8:17 PM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
I hope that in future you will stop accusing other people of “misreading” since your “rocks are time periods” misreading is the craziest misreading that I have ever seen and you keep on repeating it even after being corrected again and again.

As for something “leaving slicks” that really doesn’t help you explain how the trackway - or the many other trackways from different periods - fit with the Biblical description of the Flood.

Edited by PaulK, : 1 typo fixed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 10-27-2018 8:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15646
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 281 of 283 (842263)
10-28-2018 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
10-28-2018 4:18 PM


Re: New Footprints ... in the sand ...
It may have been argued a lot but we still haven’t seen any reason to think that it’s plausible from either a scriptural or an evidential point of view.

So how long do you have dry land between these conjectured waves? How many times do they need to inundate the land to account for all the fossil footprints?

Then when you’ve dealt with those you can get on to difficult questions like what could possibly cause them and what evidence is there for them aside from your need to explain terrestrial features in the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 10-28-2018 4:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019