Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
74 online now:
jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,118 Year: 4,230/6,534 Month: 444/900 Week: 150/150 Day: 4/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 376 of 533 (727580)
05-19-2014 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
05-18-2014 12:41 PM


Re: salt basin
ABE: My point is that your point is wrong, ...

I'm sure you would know.

... that there is no evidence whatever for ascribing any time period to the phenomena illustrated, that's all an artifact of the Old Earth theory, ...

Based on your work, I'm sure we can throw out a century of geological field work done by people who have actually been there.

... not borne out by the facts shown in the diagram. /ABE

The purpose of the diagram was not to 'prove' any age or correlation of the strata. For that you would have to go to a lot of previous work.

However, what you should do is show that the correlation of strata in the Grand Canyon to the various basins and uplifts of the Ancestral Rockies is wrong. So, where are the rocks equivalent to the Supai Group in southeast Utah or Colorado? Has everyone else been wrong?

Your hyper-skepticism of mainstream geology is interesting to me. I am curious how you can require so much exacting evidence from mainstream geology while you seem to just make up whatever you want, and our questions and requests for evidence seem to fall on deaf ears. How do you justify that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 12:41 PM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 377 of 533 (727581)
05-19-2014 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
05-18-2014 12:41 PM


Re: salt basin
there is no evidence whatever for ascribing any time period to the phenomena illustrated, that's all an artifact of the Old Earth theory, not borne out by the facts shown in the diagram.

Faith, this is silly. Even you recognize that if a layer is deposited on top of another layer then it was laid down AFTER the previous one - not simultaneously. Each layer would represent a period in time. What you disagree with is the extent of those time periods. Rather than accepting the long periods of time assigned by geologists, you assign very, very, very short periods of time, which is one of the physical impossibilities that we keep mentioning.

I also think that you would say we have no way to correlate a layer of a particular age in one region to a layer of the same age in another area. Again, this would be wrong ... Geology 101. And again, this correlation doesn't require assignment of long ages. They can be correlated whether they span a billion years or one single year. The age assignments come from other lines of evidence besides sequence order.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 05-18-2014 12:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 8:59 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:46 AM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:47 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 378 of 533 (727582)
05-19-2014 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by herebedragons
05-19-2014 8:49 AM


Re: salt basin
Faith, this is silly. Even you recognize that if a layer is deposited on top of another layer then it was laid down AFTER the previous one - not simultaneously. Each layer would represent a period in time. What you disagree with is the extent of those time periods. Rather than accepting the long periods of time assigned by geologists, you assign very, very, very short periods of time, which is one of the physical impossibilities that we keep mentioning.

I also think that you would say we have no way to correlate a layer of a particular age in one region to a layer of the same age in another area. Again, this would be wrong ... Geology 101. And again, this correlation doesn't require assignment of long ages. They can be correlated whether they span a billion years or one single year. The age assignments come from other lines of evidence besides sequence order.


Faith is not constrained by evidence, but by an idiosyncratic subset of a religion.

Which is kind of weird because she keeps asking us for evidence or saying that we don't have any...

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 8:49 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 9:34 AM edge has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 379 of 533 (727584)
05-19-2014 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Percy
05-19-2014 7:50 AM


Interesting resource
Percy, you may find this guys blog interesting. I really haven't had time* to scrutinize it, but it seems very well done. He ties more recent tectonic activity and geological features back to Pangaea and even Rodinia. He has diagrams and illustrations that I haven't found elsewhere. For example, here is an image of the Grand Staircase with all the layers from the Vishnu to Bryce Canyon. It also has a longitudinal section with only 1.5 X vertical exaggeration, which illustrates what you have been saying about the angle of the uplifted layers.

Another example of the work he has done

quote:
Here’s the same photo with guide-lines added for identification. Notice the Great Unconformity (upper right) between the overlying Tapeats Sandstone and the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite and a “lesser” unconformity (upper center) between the Tapeats and the underlying Shinumo Quartzite. The Cremation Fault runs obliquely to the line of sight in the photo.

I am really impressed so far!

Anyway ... Here is a link to an article about the Vishnu schist and the Great Unconformity.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : typo


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 7:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 12:16 PM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 05-20-2014 9:00 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 380 of 533 (727590)
05-19-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by edge
05-19-2014 8:59 AM


Re: salt basin
Faith is not constrained by evidence, but by an idiosyncratic subset of a religion.

To be fair, Faith is one of the best creationists I have ever debated with as far as dealing with evidence. She honestly does try to look at the evidence and make sense of it - just usually in light of her own hypothesis. Her problem is (besides the fact that she starts off knowing the "right" answer and tries to interpret evidence to fit that preconceived notion) that she wants to limit herself to a small subset of the evidence. If the only evidence we had was the cross section of the Grand Canyon area, she would have some reasonable arguments. But she is not willing to look at the issue on a global or even regional scale and consider ALL available evidence.

The other problem I see is that she doesn't have a strong scientific foundation to build on. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to get basic physical principals across to her. Sometimes it's hard to know where to start and what misunderstanding needs to be addressed.

But again, one of the best creationists I have debated with - at least she tries to be scientific. Keep being patient and keep explaining the science of geology. You are quite knowledgeable and even if she doesn't "get it" it helps the rest of us. I am a biologist, not a geologist and have not even taken a geology course. But I have learned a lot just being involved in these debates about the GC.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 8:59 AM edge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:58 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 381 of 533 (727591)
05-19-2014 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Percy
05-19-2014 7:50 AM


Re: salt basin
My ideas violate no physical laws, but many of yours have over the last year or so and that's why I don't read much of what you write. There is no point in having a discussion with somebody whose straw man arguments aren't even remotely rational. And you lecture me in a particularly offensive way. I might put up with that except for the way you garble the a4rguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 7:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 05-19-2014 9:47 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 389 by JonF, posted 05-19-2014 12:03 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 382 of 533 (727592)
05-19-2014 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by herebedragons
05-19-2014 8:49 AM


Re: salt basin
duplicate

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 8:49 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 383 of 533 (727593)
05-19-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by herebedragons
05-19-2014 8:49 AM


Re: salt basin
there is no evidence whatever for ascribing any time period to the phenomena illustrated, that's all an artifact of the Old Earth theory, not borne out by the facts shown in the diagram.

Faith, this is silly. Even you recognize that if a layer is deposited on top of another layer then it was laid down AFTER the previous one - not simultaneously. Each layer would represent a period in time. What you disagree with is the extent of those time periods. Rather than accepting the long periods of time assigned by geologists, you assign very, very, very short periods of time, which is one of the physical impossibilities that we keep mentioning.

That's "impossible" only by ingrained theory, not reality.

What's silly is THIS comment of yours. The point of that diagram was to suggest that the fault line at least and perhaps the unconformity, occurred DURING the period of its laying down but there is no evidence for that in that diagram. There is no rational way to impute those phenomena to the laying-down period let alone to the "Pennsylvanian" period. As I answered. it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that all that occurred afterward, after all the erosion that had to have occurred in that area to remove all the strata up to the "Cenozoic." And all he answers me with is more of the Old Earth assumptions rather than reasonable physical reasons to assign the fault line to the laying-down period. Which he can't because all he has is the OE assumptions.

I also think that you would say we have no way to correlate a layer of a particular age in one region to a layer of the same age in another area.

No, I'm not going to argue with that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Again, this would be wrong ... Geology 101. And again, this correlation doesn't require assignment of long ages. They can be correlated whether they span a billion years or one single year. The age assignments come from other lines of evidence besides sequence order.

I've never questioned that. I figure they can know such PHYSICAL things. What they can't know was that there was supposedly a mountain range here and a shallow sea there such and such millions of years ago.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 8:49 AM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 10:27 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 384 of 533 (727594)
05-19-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
05-19-2014 9:35 AM


Re: salt basin
Faith writes:

My ideas violate no physical laws, but many of yours have over the last year or so...

Well, now you're just making stuff up again.

I have been arguing for standard geological views and theories. If they violate known physical laws then you've failed to describe how.

There is no point in having a discussion with somebody whose straw man arguments aren't even remotely rational.

What you call straw man arguments are actually just implications of your ideas that you've failed to consider.

And you lecture me in a particularly offensive way.

Is there anyone who hasn't managed to offend you?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:35 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 385 of 533 (727595)
05-19-2014 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by herebedragons
05-19-2014 9:34 AM


Re: salt basin
If the only evidence we had was the cross section of the Grand Canyon area, she would have some reasonable arguments. But she is not willing to look at the issue on a global or even regional scale and consider ALL available evidence.

I have never ever said I'm not willing to look at evidence elsewhere. In fact I would very much like to if a location could be selected that would be appropriate and I'm not sure one exists. The problem is it's messier elsewhere. It rapidly gets too complex and requires an enormous amount of time, which doesn't fit into a debate thread. It's only good for mystifying the creationist.

The Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase area has the virtue of being streamlined as well as amazingly complete from bottom to top. And what would be the point of moving on to other locations before I get people to see my argument there in the first place? That's just a typical railroading, it doesn't serve understanding, that's for sure.

ABE: The diagram edge put up with the intent of railroading me could be discussed further except that all he is interested in is railroading me, mystifying me and one-upping me. He hardly ever gives more than a brief cryptic statement about anything and then if I say it's incomprehensible he accuses me of all kinds of antiscientific perfidy along with uppityness that refuses to curtsey to the Scientist. Who needs it? In any case my HONEST assessment of that diagram is that there is no reason to think the fault line occurred even at the level of the "Pennsylvanian" let alone during that totally fictitious Time Period. And if he's going to answer me with more Old Earth mystification forget it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by herebedragons, posted 05-19-2014 9:34 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 10:48 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 401 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 1:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 408 by herebedragons, posted 05-20-2014 8:15 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 386 of 533 (727598)
05-19-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
05-19-2014 9:47 AM


Re: salt basin
The point of that diagram was to suggest that the fault line at least and perhaps the unconformity, occurred DURING the period of its laying down but there is no evidence for that in that diagram.

The diagram is a portrayal of field relationships. Unless you are saying the the author and all of his sources are incompetent, then the diagram presents the evidence.

The relationship of an active fault to the topography is evident: if there is relief on the fault, then it will have an effect on the sedimentation that is occurring simultaneously.

I guess I'm not sure which diagram you refer to, but in the one showing the Uncompahgre uplift this is the case, with coarse clastics and breccias near the fault grading outward to sand, silt and eventually evaporites in a playa.

The thickness/distribution of the sediments is also a clue that the the fault has an effect on the sedimentation.

There is no rational way to impute those phenomena to the laying-down period let alone to the "Pennsylvanian" period.

I am not quite sure why you say this. Do you have some evidence that the correlation is wrong? Have you traced the strata from the GC into Colorado? Why would these strata not correlate to the Supai Group?

As I answered. it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that all that occurred afterward, after all the erosion that had to have occurred in that area to remove all the strata up to the "Cenozoic."

But we can certainly surmise that the Pardox Basin sediments correlate to the Supai Group and there was certainly a lot going on in the Paradox.

And all he answers me with is more of the Old Earth assumptions rather than reasonable physical reasons to assign the fault line to the laying-down period. Which he can't because all he has is the OE assumptions.

Then it is incumbent upon YECs to disprove those 'old earth assumptions'. Where do you think they came from, anyway?

No, I'm not going to argue with that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Just going on record that I thought the same thing. Regardless of age, don't you think that tracing the rocks to Colorado shows a change of environment? Possibly representing a more tecontically active depositional environment? Where is the salt in the Supai Group?

I've never questioned that. I figure they can know such PHYSICAL things. What they can't know was that there was supposedly a mountain range here and a shallow sea there such and such millions of years ago.

Perhaps it's by comparison with known environments that we see about us every day. Perhaps it has to do with evidence for mountain building, erosion, high pressures and temperatures...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:47 AM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 387 of 533 (727601)
05-19-2014 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
05-19-2014 9:58 AM


Re: salt basin
I have never ever said I'm not willing to look at evidence elsewhere. In fact I would very much like to if a location could be selected that would be appropriate and I'm not sure one exists.

And that would be according to whom?

The problem is it's messier elsewhere. It rapidly gets too complex and requires an enormous amount of time, which doesn't fit into a debate thread.

Most of science is hard work. In fact, just to get to the point of having the tools to do science is hard work.

But I do agree that a debate thread is a difficult medium for communicating complex ideas.

It's only good for mystifying the creationist.

Well, then try to turn it into a learnable moment. Maybe this is all telling you something. I mean something other than the fact that we are a bunch of scowling meanies.

The Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase area has the virtue of being streamlined as well as amazingly complete from bottom to top.

Well, I will admit that it is well-exposed and fairly simple, but that's only if you ignore the pre-Phanerozoic.

And what would be the point of moving on to other locations before I get people to see my argument there in the first place?

Perhaps we are just more holistic than you. Or maybe we have learned to beware of ad hoc explanations.

That's just a typical railroading, it doesn't serve understanding, that's for sure.

But it does, perhaps serve reality. There are many concepts in geology that are not intuitive, but well-proven and form the basic tools for understanding.

The diagram edge put up with the intent of railroading me could be discussed further except that all he is interested in is railroading me, mystifying me and one-upping me.

Not at all. My intent was to show that, while the CP area may have been relatively quiet, there was plenty of activity going on elsewhere, all part of the geological history that snapshot of the CP does not record.

He hardly ever gives more than a brief cryptic statement about anything and then if I say it's incomprehensible he accuses me of all kinds of antiscientific perfidy along with uppityness that refuses to curtsey to the Scientist. Who needs it?

I can see why your are frustrated. Geology is not forgiving of half-baked scenarios, but isn't it better that we use all of the evidence to get at the truth as best we can?

In any case my HONEST assessment of that diagram is that there is no reason to think the fault line occurred even at the level of the "Pennsylvanian" let alone during that totally fictitious Time Period.

Well, you may be honest in presenting your interpretation, but you are also wrong. As several have described here, even if you ignore the 'fictitious' dates, correlation of strata shows a dramatic change going toward the more tectonically active areas with coarse detritus adjacent to a major fault.

And if he's going to answer me with more Old Earth mystification forget it.

I would suggest that most here are not mystified. But yes, if your mind is closed, you should just forget it.

I believe you are intelligent and you try very hard, but you do not have the tools to make accurate interpretations of the data. I understand that this is frustrating for you. Please be aware that if you were a more typical brainless YEC, I certainly wouldn't waste all of the time that I have spent so far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:58 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 388 of 533 (727606)
05-19-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by herebedragons
05-16-2014 4:51 PM


To HBD
Faith writes:

It's also interesting, I think, that your diagram shows the Vishnu schist, or the "Vishnu group" to be filling in the space beneath and surrounding the Supergroup, which we've just been talking about. And there's enough "metasedimentary" rock found in that formation to suggest, to me of course if nobody else, a connection between the two.

HBD writes:

You would have to explain how those blocks could have tilted while being lifted from underneath. If a gap formed underneath the block, there would be nothing to push against. And, as has already been explained, the Vishnu is made up of different material than the Supergroup. Your tilting after the upper layers were present doesn't make physical sense. What makes sense is they were tilted and eroded BEFORE the layers above were deposited.

I would like your assessment of my answer to this in Message 353


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by herebedragons, posted 05-16-2014 4:51 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 12:28 PM Faith has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 389 of 533 (727613)
05-19-2014 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
05-19-2014 9:35 AM


Re: salt basin
My ideas violate no physical laws

For the umpteenth time

One year of sedimentary deposition by water cannot produce the observed geology; it violates physical laws that large pebbles settle first, followed by smaller pieces until you get to clay.

Sorting fossils in water and depositing them in the order we see violates physical laws, in that similar sized organisms in similar environments under similar conditions (e.g ichthyosaurs and dolphins, but there are lots of others.) should often be deposited together... but they never are.

Sorting the isotopes in the geological column in the order we see them violates physical laws because chemical and mechanical forces have little to no impact on nuclear properties.

And there's lots more I could list.

but many of yours have over the last year or so

Standard unsupported Faith assertion.

Despite many challenges you have never been able to identify a single violation of any physical law in any mainstream science. You cry "violation!" over and over again but that cry is all you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 9:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 12:12 PM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 390 of 533 (727617)
05-19-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by JonF
05-19-2014 12:03 PM


Re: salt basin
You have no idea what a worldwide Flood would do, there's no point in addressing your unwarranted assertions about that. And besides as usual you are misrepresenting the argument. "Sorting fossils in water' is not something I've ever said.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by JonF, posted 05-19-2014 12:03 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by edge, posted 05-19-2014 12:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 394 by JonF, posted 05-19-2014 12:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 400 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-19-2014 1:10 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022