Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 4:59 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 9 of 533 (724751)
04-20-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-19-2014 3:55 PM


Hi Faith,

I think it would help if you gave Message 981 of the Why the Flood Never Happened thread another read, because even though you replied to it three times you seem to have forgotten everything it says, and it contains a great deal of information about coastal sedimentary systems. For example, it contains this illustration (click to enlarge):

When Edge talks about "laterally adjacent environments" he's referring to these from the diagram, all of which are forming simultaneously:

  • Eroding Land: Since the land is not the lowest point, it is eroding and its material flows into the sea.

  • Sands: Nearest to the coast, sand is the sedimentary material that is deposited.

  • Siliciclastic Muds: A little further from the coast, these muds are the sedimentary material that is deposited. They're mostly sand.

  • Carbonate Sediments: Still further from the coast, this is limestone that is deposited.

  • Coccolith Foram Ooze: Far from coast, I think he's referring to pelagic sediments, which occur in the open ocean.

Again, all these depositional systems are taking place simultaneously. One blends into the other, sometimes quickly, sometimes gradually. Their surface (which descends more and more deeply beneath the ocean's surface with distance from the shore) forms a single timescape, and parallel timescapes exist with increasing depth descending back into time.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by roxrkool, posted 04-21-2014 12:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-21-2014 1:26 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 18 of 533 (725362)
04-26-2014 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
04-21-2014 1:26 AM


Faith writes:

Another reason I may not reply is because I ignore insulting posts, more and more lately. That includes an awful lot of Percy's recently.

I vary my approach seeking what works best. You ignored so many of my posts in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread that when you hijacked the Why is evolution so controversial? thread to discuss the flood I decided to try a more direct approach. That didn't work either, so the search for your light bulb's on-button continues.

The illustration is clear enough in relation to the previous posts about how strata are laid down although I'm not sure what people think I need to get from this,...

What we all hope you "get from this" is that the sedimentary processes we see taking place today are the same ones that created the sedimentary layers we see in places like the Grand Canyon. We know this because the sedimentary layers of the geologic column are identical in character to sedimentary layers we see being deposited today, except that those of the geologic column have been subjected to great pressure and so have turned to rock.

...and I need to think about it a lot more anyway.

While you think about this it should help you a great deal if you could incorporate into your thinking that your supposedly natural scenarios have to obey the laws of nature. When you claim scenarios that require flood water to sort by isotopic concentration (which you must acknowledge they do whether you accept the dating conclusions or not), or to deposit denser material above less dense material, or to sort fossils by difference from modern forms, or to transport burrows and worm tracks and footprints and egg clutches undamaged, then you're invoking processes that violate the physical laws of the universe.

Surely you know I'm going to apply it to the Flood, which it already suggests to my mind.

We're aware of your flood bias, but to what end are you confessing this bias while claiming to be scientific, where one must remain unbiased and just follow the evidence where it leads. That you can't devise scenarios that don't violate physical laws is telling you something - it's just that you're not listening.

So I am to understand that the layers "farther from the coast" are under water?

Yes, that's correct. As sea transgresses onto land the older deposits become further and further from the coast and, of course, remain submerged. Here's the diagram again (click to enlarge):

This diagram represents what is happening along all coastlines everywhere all around the world. It isn't hypothetical. It derives from observations and research of well over a century. Anyone who has sauntered out far, far from shore at low tide knows that at some point the beach bottom transitions from sand to mud, and if you look at the diagram you can see that sand is deposited close to shore, but further out mud is deposited. The diagram is not made up.

But then eventually the water regresses and the layers are now on the land.

Yes.

I'd really like to know what distances we're talking about,...

Distances will be highly variable and dependent upon local conditions, but of course sand is deposited close to the coast (perhaps within a mile), mud is deposited anywhere from a hundred yards from shore to a few miles out, carbonate sediments (limestone) can be deposited in any warm shallow sea regardless of distance from a coast, and coccolith foram ooze means pelagic sediments, i.e., deep ocean sediments, that are high in calcium carbonates.

...and of course what lengths of time,...

Deposition rates can be highly variable. In mid-ocean it's around a few centimeters per thousand years, and that's pretty constant, but closer to shore who knows. It will be widely influenced by a host of factors, including climate, runoff from land, tides, etc.

...and I'd like to see actual examples of phenomena that this diagram explains.

You'd like an example of transgression of the sea onto land? How about Alexandria, Egypt. Parts of the ancient city have slipped beneath the waves and are being more and more deeply covered by sand as time goes by. There's also the Roman city of Baiae and many others around the world.

I'd like to see you apply the same skepticism to the flood. Have you ever seen any actual examples of a flood sorting by isotopic concentration or by evolutionary distance? Have you ever seen a flood scoop up burrows and footprints and transport them elsewhere? Have you ever seen a flood deposit a series of different strata? Have you ever seen a flood deposit fine sediment?

The answer to all these questions must be no. Not only has no one ever witnessed events like these, there's no evidence of any of them ever happening, and they all violate various physical laws as we understand them.

Can you relate this sequence to the strata in the GC area for instance?

Edge's answer in Message 15 was a good one, but I'll put it in vertical stratigraphic order:

  • Mauv Limestone
  • Bright Angle Shale
  • Tapeats Sandstone
  • great unconformity
  • Precambrian basement

Off the top of my head the sequence of sediments there doesn't suggest such an orderly progression.

When the sea retreats from the land then the now-exposed layers can be eroded away. If erosion takes the landscape down to a limestone layer and then the sea transgresses again then you can have a sandstone layer deposited upon a limestone layer, but of course the limestone layer was deposited long before. We see this at the Grand Canyon where the Supai Group consisting mainly of sandstone overlies the RedWall Limestone.

I HAVE NO REASON WHATEVER TO OBJECT TO ANY OF THIS AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD THINK SO.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that it appears like you're objecting to almost everything.

Edge keeps putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with my point of view.

It is your consistent objection that people are misrepresenting what you say. I think I can again speak for everyone when I say that it doesn't appear that anyone is misrepresenting you. My own personal observation is that this is the objection you raise when you can think of no response.

The sequences are interesting and could be valuable for the creationist model since after all the Flood was basically the ocean transgressing the land to a great depth and then regressing.

Your flood washed across the landscape in a short period of time and for most of its duration covered all the land and had no coastlines. How did this flood deposit coastal sedimentary layers like sandstone and shale that take eons to form? A coastline has to exist for a considerable period of time to produce all the sand in sandstone layers and all the silt, mud and clay of shale layers. How did this flood deposit miles of very finely grained limestone layers that require warm quiet seas ("quiet" because active waters will keep fine grains suspended in the water rather than depositing them) for eons.

You need answers to these questions that don't violate the laws of nature. You can't just say, "This was a flood like no other and wouldn't behave like normal floods." It wouldn't be acceptable to you if we were to say, "Our planet's geologic record was created from processes that have never before been observed and that appear to violate known physical laws, but we know they happened anyway," so why are you asking us to accept such answers from you?

We understand you're convinced the flood doesn't require magical processes, but the validity of one's ideas is their power to convince others. By this measure your ideas have no validity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 04-21-2014 1:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:16 AM Percy has responded
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2014 7:36 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 8:57 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 20 of 533 (725370)
04-26-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by JonF
04-26-2014 10:16 AM


As Steven Novella likes to say, a theory is not considered true because it is accepted. Rather, it is accepted because it is likely true. It becomes accepted by, if I can paraphrase what you said, consistency with each scientists own personal observations, whether they be firsthand through attempts at replication or at greater distance by review of the literature.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 04-26-2014 10:16 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 65 of 533 (725742)
05-01-2014 9:17 AM


Question
Weekdays have been busy lately, no time for real participation, but I've been following along and I'm unable to figure out what Faith is saying about angles of repose, so I thought I'd ask.

Say there's a desert that meets the coast. Deeply buried beneath the surface of this desert and covered by many feet of sand is an ancient sand dune with an angle of repose that could only occur on land. The sea transgresses across the desert. Does Faith believe that this deeply buried sand dune will now take on a different angle of repose?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 05-01-2014 11:15 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 1:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 7:49 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 74 of 533 (725895)
05-03-2014 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
04-27-2014 8:57 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Hi Faith,

Sorry for the week between each reply, it's been another busy week.

Faith writes:

That didn't work either, so the search for your light bulb's on-button continues.

I wish you success in your worthy endeavor.

It takes both someone trying to explain and someone trying to understand for a light bulb to go on. All your effort seems exerted toward misunderstanding almost everything that's explained to you.

Take the buried sand dunes. You apparently believe that when a desert sinks beneath the waves that it not only affects the angle of repose of dunes on the surface but also of any buried dunes. Why you think so impossible a thing no one knows, we can only marvel.

You *could* try a simple experiment. Buy some colored sand and create something like this in a large glass jar:

Slowly add water until the sand is saturated. Did the angle of repose of the buried layers change?

By the way, you say you couldn't use Coragyps angle-of-repose kit because it lacked a protracter, so here you go (click to enlarge):

Right click on the image and select "Print...". Once the protractor is printed, glue it to a piece of cardboard and cut it out.

Or you could go to Walmart where they sell protractors at prices ranging from 40 cents to a few dollars.

Hey, everybody, let's have a contest to guess what obstacle will next prevent Faith from using the angle-of-repose kit. I'm going to guess smudged eyeglasses.

Why is it that you don't require a Genesis Flood kit for any of the nonsense you claim to be true about the Genesis Flood, but even after endless explanations, evidence and demonstrations you still reject even the most obvious of facts about the real world.

Although you seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that I wouldn't like this idea, in fact I like it very much and hope I will be able to recognize it. So far I haven't seen the pattern.

Faith, 10-year olds could see the obvious pattern that has been presented to you. Here are the layers of the Grand Canyon:

And here is the image originally presented by RoxRKool:

Here's a table listing the corresponding layers in each diagram:

Grand Canyon DaigramRoxRKool Diagram
Mauv LimestoneCarbonate Sediments
Bright Angel ShaleSiliciclastic Muds
Tapeats SandstoneSandstone
Precambrian Basement/Great UnconformityEroding Land

The order of the types of layers in the RoxRKool diagram and the bottommost layers of the Grand Canyon are identical. This is because the same process we see taking place at coastlines all around the world today has been occurring along all coastlines of all the distant eras of the past.

Because seas can both advance and retreat, layers that are adjacent in the RoxRKool diagram can transition one to the other in any order. Sandstone can transition to shale and back to sandstone and then back to shale again, and that would be a pattern that we not only expect but that we find in coastal sediments all around the world.

What shouldn't happen is a transition between layers that are not adjacent in the RoxRKool diagram. We should not see a transition from a sandstone layer to a limestone layer unless there is an unconformity, and this is again precisely what we observe in the layers of the Grand Canyon. For example, the Redwall Limestone is overlain by the sandstone of the lower Supai Group. Limestone and sandstone are not adjacent layers in the RoxRKool diagram, but the boundary between the upper Redwall Limestone and the lower Supai Group is a distinct disconformity. The Redwall Limestone was exposed and eroded on land before sinking beneath the waves where layers of sand could be deposited along new coastlines.

We know this because the sedimentary layers of the geologic column are identical in character to sedimentary layers we see being deposited today, except that those of the geologic column have been subjected to great pressure and so have turned to rock.

I'm sorry but I'm completely unable to understand this paragraph. Identical how, and what does turning to rock have to do with it?

The sedimentary layers of sandstone, shale, limestone and mid-ocean pelagic material that we see being deposited today are identical in character to their more ancient lithified cousins in the geologic column. By identical in character I mean that their composition is the same. The sand being deposited in layers along coastlines today has the same composition as sandstone layers of the Grand Canyon. Clay and mud being deposited in layers along coastlines today has the same composition as shale layers of the Grand Canyon. Calciferous deposits forming in warm shallow seas today has the same composition as limestone layers of the Grand Canyon.

The layers of the Grand Canyon differ from these layers being deposited today in that they were all once deeply buried and subjected to great pressure, which lithified them and turned them to rock. But any layers forming today will also turn to rock if they at some point become deeply buried, and in fact when we drill deep enough we find that the layers deep beneath the sea floor have become rock because of the weight of all the overlying layers.

While you think about this it should help you a great deal if you could incorporate into your thinking that your supposedly natural scenarios have to obey the laws of nature. When you claim scenarios that require flood water to sort by isotopic concentration (which you must acknowledge they do whether you accept the dating conclusions or not), or to deposit denser material above less dense material, or to sort fossils by difference from modern forms, or to transport burrows and worm tracks and footprints and egg clutches undamaged, then you're invoking processes that violate the physical laws of the universe.

Well, somehow all of that was accomplished due to the Flood, the question only remains how.

Yes, Faith, how? Specifically, how did processes that violate known physical laws ever happen naturally? The things you claim happen don't just border on the miraculous, they step boldly over into the miraculous. Why do you feel the need to claim such incredible things happened naturally?

I've given some reasonable ideas whether you like it or not...

If you've demonstrated anything extremely clearly it's that you're not qualified to judge, not even close. The quality of ideas is measured not by how determinedly one holds them but how persuasive they are to others.

There's a lot of your message left but I've replied to enough.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-27-2014 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by edge, posted 05-04-2014 10:33 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2014 7:33 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2014 12:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 82 of 533 (725989)
05-05-2014 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-05-2014 2:34 PM


Re: So just HOW does this model apply to the GC?
Faith writes:

Scripture doesn't treat the Flood as miraculous,... the rain and the Flood itself and its physical consequences are treated as natural events.

Scripture begs to differ. This is from the King James:

Scripture writes:

Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
...
Genesis 7:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

You follow neither science nor Bible - even with religion you just make it up.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 2:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 88 of 533 (725998)
05-05-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-05-2014 3:52 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

Your scripture quotes miss the point I made...the difference is whether the event is a violation of natural processes...

No, you're just very confused about natural processes. The Flood is a violation of the physical laws of nature in a myriad of ways for which there's no need to list, they having all been described to you before many times.

You're also confused about what constitutes a miracle. Whenever God makes something happen that would not otherwise have happened, that's a miracle.

This is from the definition of miracle in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary. Baker's uses the same definition of miracle you do but seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about what can happen naturally and what can't:

Baker's writes:

Although English speakers regularly use "miracle" to refer to a broad range of wondrous events, the biblical concept is limited to those not explainable solely by natural processes but which require the direct causal agency of a supernatural being, usually God...
...
The next major miracle, the flood, thus affirms both God's judgment on extreme wickedness...

Your ignorance seems to span both science *and* religion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 89 of 533 (725999)
05-05-2014 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-05-2014 4:10 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

This is true of all the natural events that are going on all the time in your neighborhood and mine.

But you know nothing about what can happen naturally and what can't. You just make it up as you go along. If it were important to your position you'd be arguing that when Jesus walked on water it was just "natural processes" at work.

I think what most mystifies many of us is your ability to maintain a high regard for your own opinions despite the many times you've made your ignorance glaringly obvious.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 90 of 533 (726001)
05-05-2014 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-05-2014 4:15 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

The different times idea is an artifact of the Old Earth model;...

As has been pointed out many times, even if you disagree with the conclusions of radiometric dating you must still acknowledge that the Flood sorted the layers by isotopic concentration. This can only be explained in one of two ways: a) A miracle; b) Slow deposition in different environments over hundreds of millions of years.

Faith writes:

...the Flood happened in about one year about 4300 years ago and maybe some day you'll bring your model into conformity with this truth.

It can be your religious truth, but it can't become an accepted scientific theory until there is evidence. And there *is* no evidence, except to the incredibly ignorant who despite having their error described to them a multitude of times over the course of more than a decade look at fine grained deposits requiring quiet waters and see a violent flood.

Siliclastic sediments would have been scoured off the land mass and redeposited;...

Where is your evidence that anything like this ever happened?

And since most land is eroded and contributes sediments instead of receiving them, how could there possibly have been any significant accumulation of sediments on land before the flood, especially since there was only a couple thousand years for these sediments to accumulate?

And if you're going to argue that miles of sediments accumulated on land during the antediluvian period then that would mean those poor antediluvian farmers had to deal with 5-10 feet of sediment being deposited on their land every year. They'd build a house and in 10 years it would be deeply buried.

...limestones would have been coughed up by the sea itself.

What is your evidence that limestone was scoured off the sea floor, and why would limestone come from the sea floor while siliclastic sediments were scoured off the land, which makes no sense since both contain only marine fossils? Why the difference? If you're going to make stuff up you should at least try to be consistent. Of course that would require actually knowing something about the topic you're discussing.

What's neat about this model of sea transgression/regression is not where the sediments come from but that the sea DOES deposit them in layers.

Knowing the origin of sediments is a key element in our understanding. That we see the same kinds of sediments forming around the world today that we see in ancient portions of the geologic column is how we know that the same processes that create sedimentary layers today were also at work in the past.

And what's the opposite of "neat" is the idea that a violent Flood that lacked any coastlines somehow laid down millions of cubic miles of sediment of types that only form along and near coastlines and in warm quiet seas.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by edge, posted 05-05-2014 6:17 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2014 9:09 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 107 of 533 (726019)
05-05-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:26 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

Then you should provide us with a model to explain various regional and local transgressions.

And I shall when I've worked it all through. This is still a new idea to me you know.

It's only a new idea to you. The idea has been around in geology for a couple centuries. You've already wasted a decade's worth of everyone's time pushing ideas you came up with before "working it all through", so could I suggest that for your next decade here you push ideas developed only *after* "working it all through"?

So, how do you scour land masses when there is no land?

Bedrock I suppose.

If some of the sedimentary layers of the geologic column were composed of eroded bedrock then we would find sedimentary layers of eroded bedrock in the geologic column. But we don't. Care to try making something up that makes sense next time?

How can you have a beach with no land masses available?

Scoured off doesn't mean obliterated.

If by this you mean that the sandstone layers of the geologic column are the remains of antediluvian beaches that were not obliterated (and let me guess that once you realize what a stupid idea this is that you'll object that that's not what you meant and that I'm misrepresenting you), then how is it that interspersed between these sandstone layers are shale layers that were scoured off the land, and limestone layers that were scoured off the seafloor? Extensive sandstone layers of the geologic column that can extend for a thousand miles in all directions and that formed from beaches can only occur by slow and gradual sea transgressions and regressions across a continent - there was no time for this in the antediluvian world.

If you want to claim the sedimentary layers of the geologic column formed from natural processes then you have to know how natural processes work. By neglecting to inform yourself of this essential information you keep repeating the same error of proposing solutions that are physically impossible.

How do you get conglomerates when there is no land to erode the cobbles from?

See above.

See above.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar and clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:17 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 108 of 533 (726020)
05-05-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:31 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Of course it's complex, but I don't address issues I can't follow,...

And there is so much that you "can't follow" that you're never aware that you're pushing ideas that violate known physical laws.

That's why it took me so long to appreciate the implications of this model of sea transgressions and regressions, which had been posted before.

Again, this has been known within geology for a couple centuries, it's been described to you here on many occasions, so how can it be that you're only "appreciating the implications" now? The answer is obvious to anyone who has observed you for a short period - you ignore everything you don't understand or that argues against your preconceived notions, which means you end up ignoring a great deal of knowledge.

In any case, if you are truly realizing that you've been profoundly mistaken about how sedimentary layers form (which I doubt) then I hope you remember this in the future so you don't keep repeating this oft-repeated mistake of cementing ideas in your mind before properly informing yourself.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 109 of 533 (726024)
05-05-2014 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
05-05-2014 6:46 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.

Based on what?

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood. You did a hand wave, so allow me to pose the question again: Given that the sea transgressions and regressions are often associated with tectonic activity, and given that the layers of the geologic column are evidence of many sea transgressions and regressions, and given that the unconformities between layers are futher evidence of sea transgressions and regressions, what evidence tells you that there was only tectonic activity at the end of the Flood, or even that there was ever any Flood at all?

Yep. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with not following your claims.

Your history is that you disagree with anything that contradicts your cherished beliefs regardless of the strength of the evidence and usually without understanding it or the implications. Your objections usually only introduce additional problems.

Not yet, this is new to me as I said, I'm only at the point of appreciating the implications as likely very useful to the Flood explanation.

My God, what crazy ideas are you going to insult us with next? How can you have layers that only form near coastlines being produced by a global flood that by definition has no coastlines?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 6:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 114 of 533 (726044)
05-05-2014 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:17 PM


Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
Faith writes:

That's what I said, the idea is new to me.

Yes, that's what you said, and I was expressing amazement that an idea that has been around in geology for over a couple centuries is new to you, despite that it's been explained to you many times.

If I'm wasting anyone's time they've chosen for it to be wasted.

Well, this is certainly true. Anyone who's been here for any time should know that trying to explain most things to you is very likely a fool's errand.

Um, Percy, you are completely missing this conversation. "Bedrock" was my answer to explain that some of the land mass was NOT eroded, but is why there was land mass left after everything that could be eroded was eroded. However, farther down edge says that in fact bedrock DOES get eroded. So go chide him for being wrong. In this case I'm not. No eroded bedrock in the geologic column in MY statement.

As Edge said recently, your meaning is frequently unclear because you leave so much unexplained. I now interpret you as trying to say that the flood scoured land masses down to bedrock, and that this scouring continued for some number of days after the flood covered the land. I think Edge was trying fruitlessly to figure out what you meant.

But Edge was certainly not wrong to say that bedrock can be eroded. Of course it can be eroded. It's rock and exposed rock erodes. How can you flip-flop so easily from accepting Edge's statement that bedrock erodes to accepting what you thought was me stating that bedrock doesn't erode? Do you have no ability to assess the truth or falsity of anything based on evidence and reasoning? This is telling you that you have no talent for figuring anything out about geology. Or much else, apparently.

In any case, no sedimentary layers include eroded bedrock as a significant component (although one could argue that bedrock is the ultimate source of much of the non-biological material of all sedimentary layers).

Weird. No, you really should read the whole discussion through before you get into it. Edge is asking how sand could have been deposited if there was no land to deposit it on. My answer says the entire land wasn't obliterated by the previously mentioned "scouring" so there was indeed a land mass where sand could have been deposited.

Well, I did read the whole discussion, but the problem is that it involved trying to make sense of your half-baked and poorly described ideas. I never even considered the possibility that you meant that a global flood that covered even the highest mountains had coastlines, which is what I think Edge thought you meant. Was he correct? If so then that's obviously impossible, but I won't put in the time to explain until you confirm that's what you meant.

But I still think you meant something else. Are you saying that there was still solid material ("land") beneath the flood waters upon which the flood could deposit sand? But this is incredibly obvious, since no flood could scour the earth's surface all the way down to its molten core, so why would you say that?

The bottom line is that when you propose incompletely described scenarios where all the interpretations are impossible, all one can do is attempt to select the interpretation that is least impossible.

Well, as usual lately you ARE misrepresenting me, only in this case you're misrepresenting the whole conversation with edge as well.

Ah, I love being right!

I said, by the way, "coughed up by the sea" not "scoured off the seafloor" though perhaps it amounts to the same thing. Just don't impute statements to me I didn't say in those words.

When I use quotes around something you didn't say then you get to complain. I didn't use quotes, I don't have to use the same words you used, so quit your bitching. Besides, I didn't want to say "coughed up by the sea" because besides sounding incredibly inane it's also incredibly vague, and I like people to understand my meaning, something that seems anathema to you.

Seems to me, as I also suggest in that conversation you are mangling, that high tides and mega tsunamis during the transgression or regression phases might explain it. Such phenomena could cover great distances depositing sediments and wouldn't require mega time.

It isn't the great distances and amount of sediment involved that renders your ideas physically impossible. It's that each portion of the layer forms slowly, and so it takes a very long time to deposit that much material over so great a range. It doesn't help you to posit "high tides and mega tsunamis" (note the quotation marks - if I quoted you incorrectly then this is where you're well within your rights to complain) because it isn't high energy you need but long time spans. You can no more deposit sedimentary layers in a month than you could age a fine wine in an hour.

Ah well, Percy, you are so wrong about so many things,...

But I'm not wrong Faith. And when I said you were wrong I also explained how you were wrong, something you're unable to do.

...it's no surprise you keep being wrong about my sense of the physically possible too.

But I'm not wrong about your poor understanding of science. It's glaringly obvious to anyone who reads anything you write. The only one unaware of your ignorance is you.

You are of course also wrong to say I'm "neglecting to inform" myself of essential information...

Except that I was precisely right that you form your opinions in the absence of "essential information", else you wouldn't be going off to revise your opinions now in light of the "essential information" that was previously absent. You know, people can read the thread. You can't hide the reality that you didn't know about sea transgressions and regressions and now you're conceding that you have to go off and revise the views that you previously said represented the TRUTH.

Meanwhile if people just stopped accusing me and nagging me and asking me questions maybe I'd get there sooner.

Maybe if you engaged in some study before putting mouth in gear you wouldn't make so many obvious mistakes.

For what, examples of how wrong Percy can be about half a dozen things at once?

Ah, Faith, you're stating an untruth again, and everyone knows it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 05-06-2014 9:23 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 169 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2014 4:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 117 of 533 (726089)
05-06-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:44 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Hi Faith,

I'm going to post two responses to your Message 113. In this first one I'm just going to call attention again to your inverted way of posting quotes, namely this:

quote:
Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.

edge writes:

Based on what?

Faith writes:

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

Percy writes:

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood.


But if properly quoted what actually appeared in the original message, my Message 109, was this (I've added additional names for clarity, just as you did):

quote:
Percy writes:

Faith writes:

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Faulting would have occurred during the tectonic activity at the end of the Flood and volcanic activity roughly in the same period of time.


Based on what?

It so clearly occurred after the strata were ALL laid down. I realize there are places where this is ambiguous but it's not ambiguous in the Grand Canyon which is a main reason I like it so much.

When Edge asked, "Based on what?" he was asking you to describe the evidence that led you to conclude that there was tectonic and volcanic activity at the end of the Flood.


It would be much easier to follow your quotes if they followed the same formatting as in the original message where quoted excerpts are indented more than replies, plus you avoid a great deal of tedious editing. Just click on Peek Mode in the message you're cut-n-pasting from, then cut-n-paste away.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18611
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 118 of 533 (726107)
05-06-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-05-2014 9:44 PM


Re: complexity of geology
Faith writes:

Yes, I gave him the short-short answer. This has already been discussed many times.

Well, yes, this *has* been discussed many times, but you've only provided non-answers, like this:

The cross section of the GC-GS area that shows NO tectonic activity between the Great Unconformity and the cutting of the canyon but even beyond that the whole Grand Staircase stack.

The consistent response to this claim is to ask for the evidence supporting your argument that tectonic activity sufficient to cause significant faulting cannot be absent for hundreds of millions of years. You've never provided an answer, not even a "short-short" one.

As for your scenario I'd only suggest that the "many" sea transgressions and regressions most likely reflect mega-tsunami depositions in the transgressing and regressing phases of the Flood,...

Edge and I are still amazed at what you appear to be saying. Are you saying that flood levels repeatedly rose and fell so that the flood waters repeatedly transgressed onto and regressed from the land?

Sand isn't deposited by a "mega-tsunami" where it is most active, which is where it strikes the land. Active water keeps material in suspension and does not deposit it. Suspended material won't be deposited until the "mega-tsunami" runs out of energy and begins to retreat, and it won't deposit that much. This is from Distinguishing Tsunami from Storm Deposits in the Geologic Record

Tsunami deposits are generally less than 25 cm thick, extend hundreds of meters inland from the beach, and have an overall tendency to drape the preexisting landscape. They commonly consist of a single, homogeneous bed that grades from coarser grained at the bottom to finer grained at the top, or a bed with only a few thin layers. Mud clasts or thin layers of mud within the deposit are strong evidence of tsunami origin. Twig orientation or other indicators of return (seaward) flow during deposition of the sediment are also diagnostic of tsunami deposits. Tsunami deposits thicken and then thin landward, with a maximum deposit thickness typically more than 50 m inland from the beach because a zone of erosion commonly is present near the beach.

So, Faith, can you describe for us any evidence of "mega-tsunamis" in the geologic record? Or are these magic "mega-tsunamis"?

Note also that the material deposited by tsunamis is swept from the area nearest the beach or coastline, so if you're proposing that tsunamis deposited all the layers of the geologic column then most of the material should be what is typically found along coastlines or on land.

...but remember I haven't had a chance to think this through.

Clearly, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

I couldn't possibly stick with this with such tenacity if I weren't convinced of the basic argument.

Oh, we're familiar with the strength of your belief that your right. The important question is how much better is your evidence for the flood than a crazy person's evidence that he's Napoleon. The answer is that your evidence is no better than his: you both have no evidence.

It would have a moving coastline as it transgresses and again as it regresses. Maybe over as long as five months each way.

Yeah, sure. And your evidence is?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 9:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019