Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

Faith, why in the world are you quoting or using Lyell to support your theories?Lyell's Principles of Geology was written 192 years ago. While a brilliant man, geology has advanced far above what he understood nearly two hundred years ago. As you can see below, miles of tilted strata do not necessarily break. And as for FEY's normal faulting causing tilting without deformation... yest, that is certainly possible and we see it all the time in the field. However, deformation is occasionally associated with normal faulting occasionally in the form of drag folds. Normal faulting resulting from crustal extension is what gives Nevada (and portions of surrounding states) it's physiographic features, namely, horst and graben structure. These structures manifest themselves as North-South trending mountains and valleys and today we call it the Basin and Range. But that is only the youngest major structural component of its geological history. Prior to that, we had many other various episodes of compressional tectonics, extensional

When I first read those words, I found them downright offensive and insulting because of what those words clearly state -- that I am an intellectual fraud and liar. That all geoscientists (and life scientists) are frauds and liars. That all these thousands of scientists across the continents have somehow colluded to prove the Bible wrong. As if such a thing were even possible. But as I finished writing this reply, I realized how truly foolish it would be to take offense at such abject nonsense, not to mention what an utter waste of time it would be to take anything you say at face value.The truth is, you are an ignorant and if you were intellectually honest with yourself, you would admit that it takes more than just testability and usefulness for mainstream geology to qualify as "real" in your world. In your world, it is a foregone conclusion that the geosciences and life sciences are wrong because if they are not, your Bible is a fraud. And what a precipitous position that would be!The fact is, these sciences do work and they work extremely well, despite your innumerate protestations to the contrary. That is why mining companies and pharmaceutical companies make billions, why medicine, virology, and vaccinations have allowed humans to live longer and healthier lives, and why Creation Science (an oxymoron to be sure) must resort to bilking money from the ignorant and uniformed masses.In the grand scheme of things, Faith, it doesn't matter what you think about these sciences or any other science, because your rejection of their efficacy has absolutely no bearing on their success.Thusly, it gives me great pleasure to know that geology and evolutionary science have already won.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, Faith, but I really don't see how you could possibly have defended evolution "and the works" when it's clear you don't know much about mainstream science. You are an extremely articulate person, no doubt about it, but the knowledge you think you have regarding mainstream science is nothing more than delusional. I don't think I've met anyone more proud of their intellect than you.I've spent nearly 20 years as a geologist with a specialty in ore deposits, and I would never presume to think I know more than petrophysics about oil and gas (I am assuming that is his/her specialty based on the alias). Or any other geologist with a different specialty than myself, much less something completely outside my field. And yet you sit there and lecture us on geology. A rational person just does not do that.

Faith, you in fact do claim to know more than anyone else in pretty much all of your discussions. When you can't be bothered to first learn all you can about whatever science you are discounting and then be able to provide well reasoned and logical explanations for why mainstream science is wrong, then you don't respect that science. Or it's scientists. That attitude screams contempt. And you haven't the right. You haven't earned it. Until you know what you are talking about, you should not be accusing those not following your beliefs of being liars, frauds, anti-Bible conspirators, incompetent boobs, and basically, idiots.That's why you are "abused." Not because of your beliefs, but because of your unmitigated contempt for anything and everyone who doesn't follow your beliefs.Any geologist will tell you that, yes, there is an enormous amount of speculation and conjecturing and theorizing and hypothesizing in geology. That's what makes my job so frustrating and intellectually fulfilling at the same time. The nature of the science demands that, as you well know. We weren't there when 99.99999% of the geological record was formed. So we are left with attempting to read a book written in a language that we've only started to translate. But don't think that allows you or anyone else the opportunity to bullshit and hand wave your way through the arguments.We know our shit. We know it because we've seen the details that you haven't, and the details you can't even imagine exist. You arguments, Faith, are nothing more than vacuous declarations drawn from pure willful ignorance of the very worst kind. And if you can't defend them here on EvC by providing a clear and cogent defense of your assertions, they are indefensible and not worthy of being on anyone's blog.

It's funny... I only know one geologist who is not skeptical of AGW. lol I think it has to do with our ingrained understanding of earth's great age and it's very complex history. Having people think they know what's happening today based on a few hundred years of real data and a few thousand years of proxy data when the earth is 4.5 billion years old is just hard for us to swallow.I'm an AGW skeptic, too, but that doesn't make me a denier (I detest that anti-science term) and it doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to clean up our planet. I just think we need more data and more time before we conclude "AGW." Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This is what an "old earth" has to do with finding porphyry copper deposits: This is the sort of knowledge we geologists apply on a daily basis in mineral and oil/gas exploration where we do actual work finding and exploiting natural reserouces. So tell me, how does the above fit into your theory and how many mines or oil/gas fields have Creationists found using YECism?

Let’s discuss a bit of sequence stratigraphy -- as simplistically as possible. If I've made a mistake, please feel free to correct.Essentially, the better we understand how and why and where certain sediments are laid down, the better our stratigraphic predictions of the resultant rocks will be. And if we can predict where the more porous and permeable rocks will be, because those are the rock types that make the best hosts/reservoirs for mineral deposits and oil/gas fields, the more successful we will be at finding natural resources.Whereas stratigraphy is the science of the characteristics and geometries of layered rocks, which can include volcanic, sedimentary, and even igneous rocks, sequence stratigraphy is the science of placing rocks within a chronological and stratigraphic framework of erosional and depositional surfaces. These surfaces are formed as a result of either: 1) erosion due to surface exposure or change in current (wind or water) direction/energy/speed; 2) non deposition; or 3) deposition in the form of bedding planes or as a result of changing sediment type (sand vs. mud). Basically, these surfaces are boundaries that confine specific sediment packages laid down in a wide variety of depositional settings under a variety of depositional processes, having both a vertical and a horizontal component to them (applying the principles of superposition, original horizontality, and lateral continuity). As a result, the sediment (and later sedimentary rock) that lie between these bounding surfaces will have recognizable and predictable dimensions and very specific characteristics with respect to lithology, grain size, chemistry, and ultimately, pore space, porosity, permeability, which are all variably critical properties that directly control the localization of mineral and energy resources.Probably the most important sedimentary process that affects the geometry of the sedimentary packages is change in the relative sea level. It is the change in relative sea level that forms the boundaries of our sedimentary packages and which determines which sediment will be deposited (e.g., sand, carbonate, shale, silica ooze, etc.). For example, if you are standing on a beach when the relative sea level rises, a certain package of rocks will form both vertically and horizontally with respect to your position. Where once there was beach sand under your feet, a higher sea level will result in pushing the beach back towards the continent and perhaps carbonate being deposited on top of you. With higher seal levels, the beach will be pushed even further back and with the water at your location getting deeper, your feet will be in sand, your waist in carbonate, and your shoulders in recently deposited mud (i.e., shale). When the sea level lowers again, the pattern reverses. Then to complicate things, tectonics, basin fill levels/compaction, and continental erosion rates, will change the pattern and geometry.The stratigraphic record on earth indicates the presence of thousands upon thousands of these relative sea level changes. We see them clearly in road cuts, on mountain sides, and in our drill holes. We can trace them from continent to continent. We can match certain fossils with certain oil-/gas-friendly horizons because certain organisms lived in and required very specific environmental conditions in order to survive -- just as they do today. We know beach sands by their physical characteristics, the near-beach environment by their sand dune structures and local plant and animal fossils, the adjacent swamps by their plant and animal fossils and carbonaceous rocks, the fluvial and deltaic environments by their internal depositional sand and gravel structures, and so on and so forth. We can identify where the marine environment becomes a beach, dunes, a swamp, a delta, a river, an alluvial fan, a mountain, then back to a deep sea setting with the most fragile of laminations.Changes in sea level produce very specific, identifiable, and most importantly, predictable changes in the rock record. These are not characteristics or properties that would exist had it all been laid down by one single catastrophic event over a one year or even 100 year period. These lithologic relationships are far too complex and took far too many years to be laid down by one flood. A giant flood cannot deposit limestone or coral reefs or allow the formation of fine mud laminations that occur all throughout the entire stratigraphic column. A giant flood would not deposit sand dunes or evaporites (salt, etc.) or fresh water limestone or leave fragile lizard tracks on a beach. Not to mention account for the thousands of bentonite horizons found in marine sequences that were originally laid down as ash fall tuffs, later devitrified to clay.In addition, there are certain geologic periods where oil and gas formation was prolific, and likely due to various fortuitous geological circumstances (e.g., depth, heat, pressure, sediment, organic concentration or type, etc.). These are not things that can be or have every been explained via a flood model.It is the recognition that the rocks and enclosed fossils we see on the surface and subsurface represent a multitude of environments that include mountain building events, oceanic transgressions and regressions, deserts, swamps, forests, volcanic and hydrothermal activity, and magmatic intrusions (that took millions of years to cool and solidify), that great age can reasonably be inferred.When you come up with a better method and theory to explain all the little details you and other YECs can't be bothered to explain, then the world will start listening. Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Basically then, your model consists of "it exists where we find it." Awesome model. OEC geologist do all the legwork by publishing their years of hard work and YECs say, "HERE IT IS!"So what are the YEC mechanisms for the deposition of each of the following:arenite
greywacke
arkose
mudstone
carbonaceous shale
limestone
dolomite
chert
oolite
conglomerate
salt
basaltWithin the context of YECism (10,000 years???), I also want to know how the gold deposits on the Carlin Trend formed and how copper porphyry systems develop.

Ignoring and dismissing observational scientific facts in favor of a 2000 year old religious text is, in fact, invoking the supernatural.

Outside of YEC? Doubtful. Why do you persist in this fraud? It is perfectly clear that you have never taken the time to actually look at rocks -- you know, those hard things on the side of the road, that which forms the foundation of your home -- much less been able to observe and study "strata all over the world."While rocks are certainly COOL, rocks are certainly not "NEAT." They may appear to be "NEAT" on your computer screen and from 5 miles away, but get up close and personal with those rocks, and you see things that cannot be explained in terms of your farcical YEC theory, which is nothing more than a confused agglomeration of intellectually bankrupt absurdness. Like tiny little reptile tracks in sandstone, or mud cracks, or impressions of rain drops, or ripple marks, or basalt flows, or sand dunes. But that's okay. You just keep on pretending all those nasty little details don't exist so you can keep on believing your juvenile fairytale.And please, show us all how ANY flood, large or small, lays down neat layers of rock composed of limestone, shale, sand, chert, basalt. Show me the scientific research that shows this sort of deposition is happening RIGHT NOW as a result of a flood. We have floods every year on every continent so this should not pose any problem to you whatsoever. Again with the rampant hucksterism and blatant fraud? You've actually looked at every single rock unit on the planet? Really? Oh wait, you're just referring to the Grand Canyon again, aren't you, because it is perfectly reasonable to assume the Grand Canyon is representative of the geology of the entire planet.I bet I could show you two rocks and you couldn't tell me their names or even what minerals comprise them. In fact, I'm fairly certain you couldn't even identify quartz, the most common mineral on the planet, much less recognize an unconformity.And yet you expect us all to believe and trust that you actually know what the Hell you're talking about? My God, the hubris is strong with this one. Back to these erosions you can't actually identify or recognize unless, of course, they are the size of the Grand Canyon???The only thing that is OBVIOUS here is that you don't know: 1) that the Permian was not 5 to 6 million years ago (when the canyon was actually thought to have been carved); and 2) that, in fact, the only unit present 1.5 billion years ago, was the Vishnu Schist, because the rest of the "stack," which encompasses the Grand Canyon Supergroup to the Kaibab, hadn't been deposited yet. It was deposited between 1.2 Ga and 270 Ma. Well golly gee. The fact that you've displayed such depth of knowledge and understanding of all things geology, must obviously mean we can totally trust your highly regarded judgment with respect to Garner. An "entire population" of nautiloids? Really? How many nautiloids does it take to qualify as an "entire population?" Because it sounds like "billions" or something like that.Without a good description of the surrounding rock, no reasonable interpretation is possible. As the Creationists like it, as it turns out. Yes, because your baseless assertions presented without substantive documentation of evidence are oh-so-compelling.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Fine 3,000 to 3,500 years old. Doesn't really help your case, though.I am not listening to human beings when arguing with you. I am using my own brain, which if your God exists, was good enough to gift it to me.May you have a wonderful, prosperous, and safe New Year.