Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:58 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,933 Year: 11,969/19,786 Month: 1,750/2,641 Week: 259/708 Day: 34/52 Hour: 15/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 153 of 409 (752659)
03-11-2015 2:55 PM


Closing This Down
Apologies for taking so long to catch up with this thread, but discussion on this topic should return to the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread where it began. I'll be actively moderating it now. Responding to some of the concerns:

  • New threads can be proposed over at Proposed New Topics for topics that don't fit in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread, but they shouldn't be proposed here in the Coffee House forum. This forum is for topics having nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate.

  • Complaints about participants won't be tolerated. Someone's arguments can only be shown wrong with evidence, not by complaining about what horrible people they are.

  • Bald declarations, from either side, also won't be tolerated.

  • Anyone can respond to any message (this shouldn't have to be said). (AbE)

  • Talmudic claims that I'm not enforcing the guidelines (e.g., "He said that water freezes at 32 degrees at STC, but you didn't make him prove it") won't be tolerated either.

  • Concerns about discussion should be reported to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread, not in-thread.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 154 of 409 (752660)
03-12-2015 7:03 AM


I'm Expecting a Thread Proposal
This thread should have gone through the normal thread proposal process over at Proposed New Topics. That it didn't, that it was opened here in Coffee House, is why I closed it down. I thought that I might see a new thread proposal by now, but I haven't, so I'm going to give this thread the title "Origin of the Flood Layers" and move it over to the Geology and the Great Flood forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 155 of 409 (752661)
03-12-2015 7:09 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread forum in the Coffee House forum.
    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 196 of 409 (752800)
03-13-2015 6:46 AM


Moderator On Duty
Given that the part of the discussion requiring moderation has moved from the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread to this one, I'll be moderating this thread, too. I have just a couple requests:

  • Please don't make claims you don't intend to defend.

  • Please don't make discussion personal by making claims about yourself or others. I'm referring to things like claims about the quality of investigative skills, accusations of mischaracterizing or misrepresenting your arguments, and responding to such. Please let moderators handle moderator issues. Register concerns at the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

Note: I had all but completed this message yesterday (before concerns about this thread had been posted to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread) when other obligations pulled me away.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 226 of 409 (753124)
03-17-2015 8:01 AM


Moderator Request
This thread is again drifting off topic. As I requested in Message 196 when I announced that I would be moderating, please don't make discussion personal by making claims about oneself or others. Evidence and the supporting arguments that give them structure speak to the quality of one's thinking - additional assessments are unneeded.

It's also worth making a comment about objectivity. Science is a community activity. Objectivity is a product not of single individuals but of groups of individuals. Objectivity and consensus emerge out out of a multiplicity of viewpoints about evidence. Objectivity is when many people agree about what they see.

I have these specific requests:

  • Constructively respond to misunderstandings of one's arguments by clarifying and/or reexplaining.

  • Support arguments with evidence so that the thread can focus on those arguments that are actually plausible.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 233 of 409 (753168)
03-17-2015 1:09 PM


More Moderator Requests
Concerns about discussion should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread.

Please keep the focus on the topic.

Because this is a science forum, sincere efforts should be made to keep discussion scientific.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 240 of 409 (753193)
03-17-2015 6:42 PM


Moderator Repeating His Request
Please focus on the topic, the origin of the flood layers. Please drop discussion of objectivity and what is appropriately scientific for a science thread. As moderator I will try to keep things within reasonable bounds.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 262 of 409 (753311)
03-19-2015 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 6:47 PM


herebedragons writes:

You could follow the images to their source and confirm what I say. You could do a teeny bit of research to verify if what I presented has any validity. You could go to the canyon yourself and collect samples and analyze them to see if what I said holds up. Or... you could just dismiss it as irrelevant and unmeaningful.

The normal policy at EvC Forum is for all information pertinent to one's point to be presented in messages, that members shouldn't send other members on scouting exhibitions at other websites, but of course there's a limit to how trivial a claim one should be forced to support. One shouldn't have to prove that the freezing point of water at STC is 32°F, so it would be perfectly valid just to tell someone expressing skepticism to go satisfy their doubt at some physics or chemistry website. So not being sure how obvious what you're saying is, and not understanding your point because I didn't understand your image nor the arguments you presented with it, I thought I'd take your suggestion and "follow the images to their source."

I first tried to follow this image to its source:

This image is at 1.bp.blogspot.com, and I was unable to follow it to any webpage. Looks like blogspot.com is a blogging site that can host photos.

This was your original explanation in Message 227:

herrebedragons in Message 227 writes:

(image above) The clasts are composed of the same material that the lower layer (layer "A") is made of and they have been incorporated into the upper layer (layer "B"). This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers.

This is my understanding of what you're saying about the image, but I found I had to do a lot of reading between the lines and referencing of prior posts and my own knowledge: The clasts are the white quartz-like chunks embedded at the boundary between lower and darker Layer "A" and upper and lighter Layer "B". The clasts are made of the same material as Layer "A". When Layer "A" was an exposed landscape and before Layer "B" began to be deposited here, weathering and erosion broke these clasts off from some higher elevation area of Layer "A" and carried them to this spot. Here they remained as time passed by, and when Layer "B" was deposited atop Layer "A" they became buried at the boundary between Layer "A" and Layer "B". The presence of these clasts from Layer "A" at this boundary is proof that Layer "A" was exposed to the surface, because if it wasn't then loose material could never have been weathered and eroded from it.

Also, the boundary between Layer "A" and Layer "B" is by definition an unconformity because Layer "B" was not deposited upon the topmost portion of Layer "A". Before Layer "B" was ever deposited, some of Layer "A" was eroded away.

What affected my ability to follow your argument, and it may have affected Faith's understanding, too, is your claim that the clasts are from Layer "A". They resemble Layer "A" not one bit. Maybe the clasts *are* from Layer "A", but they have a dramatically different appearance, and further, it seems unnecessary for the clasts to be from Layer "A" in order to make the point that Layer "A" must once have been exposed at the surface.

I'm not trying to involve myself in the discussion. I'm mainly trying to make the point that if I'm having trouble following arguments, it's possible that others may also. I know geology discussions have been over this ground before, but that doesn't justify arguing in some kind of verbal shorthand.

And more clarification: I'm definitely not singling you out. I'm having trouble understanding many points from many of the participants in this thread. My intent this morning was to go through the posts since Tuesday evening and ask questions about everything I don't understand, but I'm already out of time and have to move on to other things.

One other comment: I really like the way Faith marks up photos to clearly identify which portions she's talking about.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 6:47 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 03-19-2015 11:28 AM Admin has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 263 of 409 (753313)
03-19-2015 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by edge
03-18-2015 10:19 PM


Hi Edge,

This isn't going to be a clear post. I'm out of time and have to move on. I only have time to comment that I spent about 10 minutes trying to understand the point you were making with this image:

I think I've got it now, but I had to stare at it a long time and read your explanation several times. In the end it turned out that I already understood the point you were trying to make, yet it still took a big effort to understand how you were looking at the diagram.

I hope I'm not coming across as too critical. I think the fault lies with underestimating the difficulty of information one is already familiar with rather than any lack of skill at exposition. There's also the problem of repurposing images. The person repurposing the image knows what parts of the image are important to his point, but it's really difficult to get people's attention focused on the right parts of an image using only words. I again endorse Faith's approach of annotating images.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 10:19 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 286 of 409 (753372)
03-19-2015 1:02 PM


Moderator Caution
I just briefly read through today's messages. I know the lack of time I can devote to this is a contributing factor, but much of what people have written today is difficult to follow, and some of it is drifting off into personal comments again. I think both sides need to find ways to make it more clear what they think happened.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 319 of 409 (753463)
03-20-2015 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Dr Adequate
03-19-2015 8:23 PM


Moderator Concern
This is not on topic:

Dr Adequate writes:

This piece of clothing made me think of Faith ...

Please refrain from any comments of a personal nature. Humor is fine, but not at anyone else's expense.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2015 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 322 of 409 (753469)
03-20-2015 8:49 AM


Let's Move Forward
I'm sorry to see the latest posts. I know the discussion was more wide-ranging than this, but here are a couple photos that when shown together may help discussion constructively resume. This is the familiar picture of where the closeup of the clasts was taken. The clasts themselves are outlined in yellow:

And here is the closeup of the clasts:

These clasts are the exact same clasts shown outlined in yellow in the first photo. Viewing these images together should help resolve the differences of opinion about certain details, such as whether the Vishnu is a vertical surface or not, but also other details.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 9:38 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 323 of 409 (753470)
03-20-2015 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by JonF
03-19-2015 11:28 AM


As I read through the messages since yesterday morning I'll call attention to those parts that I found difficult to understand. Here's one:

"According to the geological Principle of Inclusions, clasts are older than the rock in which they are contained. Notice the “loose” fragments of Zoroaster pegmatite from the underlying Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite incorporated within the contact below the basal-most Tapeats Sandstone. Inclusions can often be utilized to recognize a nonconformity such as this."

You're quoting from Written in Stone about 60% down the page. Assuming you quoted this because it was important to your point, there's a great deal where clarification or explanation would be extremely helpful, and how much depends upon your audience. It might not be obvious at first thought to many (even though it couldn't be any other way) that clasts must be older than the rock containing them. Even if it's already been mentioned that the Zoroaster granite is part of the Vishnu Schist, it bears mentioning again. Many people might not be aware that pegmatite is a type of granite. I don't recall seeing the term "Grand Canyon Metamorphic Suite" here before, I'm guessing it's another way of referring to the basement rocks beneath the Grand Canyon layers and the supergroup layers, but a definition might be helpful. And not everyone may be familiar with the word basal.

AbE: I'm commenting on your own AbE:

{ABE} I sure don't see any way to interpret this as a fluid sandstone [sic] flowing across and stopping at the Vishnu. Pretty obviously both were eroded to expose this cross-section. Note the clasts in the sandstone.

The smooth upper surface of the Tapeats does give it the appearance of having been a liquid that flowed into place. Explaining what caused that surface to be so smooth would be helpful. My own guess is that it was once part of the riverbed and was eroded smooth. It might be worth mentioning that if the Tapeats had once been so hot to have been a liquid that it would then be metamorphic rock, which it definitely is not.

Edited by Admin, : AbE.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 03-19-2015 11:28 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 03-20-2015 10:00 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 337 by JonF, posted 03-20-2015 10:28 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 326 of 409 (753474)
03-20-2015 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
03-19-2015 12:43 PM


Moderator Concern
Faith writes:

Well, you're good at spieling the party line.

In the midst of an actual response editorial comments are fine, but as the sole content not so much.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 331 of 409 (753483)
03-20-2015 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Faith
03-19-2015 12:56 PM


Moderator Clarification
Though this is a reply to Faith, I'm actually just trying to draw attention to what Faith has been trying to say about the shadows beneath the clasts. I've circled what Faith sees as depressions in the Vishnu Schist in the image. Faith believes that the clasts used to be down in those depressions and were somehow "sucked up" into the Tapeats:

Moving on, I think Faith asks a very relevant question here. It might be answered later on, I don't know, I have to read and respond to posts in order rather than jumping about:

If you are talking about the picture in Message 247, no, they look like veins of quartz in a wall of schist. If something caused the quartz to come out of their veins then they might look like clasts either lying on the schist or stuck in sandstone and not lying on anything.

This is the image Faith is referring to:

She wants to know how pieces of quartz broken off from the veins of quartz embedded within the Vishnu Schist came to be deposited atop the Vishnu Schist.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 03-19-2015 12:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by edge, posted 03-20-2015 10:31 AM Admin has responded
 Message 344 by JonF, posted 03-20-2015 10:47 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019