Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-16-2019 12:55 AM
34 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,807 Year: 11,843/19,786 Month: 1,624/2,641 Week: 133/708 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(3)
Message 97 of 1257 (788026)
07-24-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
07-24-2016 6:42 PM


Re: a definite contradiction
From your quote of Wikipedia on Chinle formation-

Chinle Formation is an Upper Triassic continental geologic formation of fluvial, lacustrine, and palustrine to eolian deposits....

Also from Wikipedia

Fluvial is a term used in geography and geology to refer to the processes associated with rivers and streams and the deposits and landforms created by them.

Lacustrine deposits are sedimentary rock formations which formed in the bottom of ancient lakes.

Aeolian processes, also spelled eolian or śolian, pertain to wind activity in the study of geology and weather and specifically to the wind's ability to shape the surface of the Earth....

Palustrine is define by Wiktionary

Of, pertaining to, or thriving in marshy habitats.

So the people who have studied the geology found evidence of streams and floodplains, marshes, lakes, as well as deserts.

Did you even read the Stratigraphy section further down the Chinle Formation Wikipedia page? The Chinle Formation is more complicated than your flat layers of continuous strata.

If you want to convince anyone of errors in geology, you should start by arguing specific points.

For example, I typed in the name for just one member of the Chinle Formation, the Shinarump Member which Wikipedia describes as

Shinarump is a braided-river system channel-deposit facies.

I found a conference guide book for attendees to go look for themselves what other geologist found. I would think that if someone is lying about geology, they wouldn't want to draw attention to the actual rocks in the field.

Some quotes from this document don't fit your idea of flat strata. http://nmgs.nmt.edu/...debooks/downloads/9/9_p0095_p0097.pdf

Under Distribution

In many areas the Shinarump is absent locally as a result of nondeposition where the pre-existing land surface was topographically high. In these areas the advancing sheet of Shinarump sediments appears to have lapped against, and to have been deposited around, residual hills of the Moenkopi formation.

Under Thickness, the Shinarump is described as varying from non-existent to over 350 ft thick. The variation in thickness is due to the roughness of the rock below.

The primary control of the thickness was the relief of the erosion surface on which it was deposited.

The whole section on Basal Contact describes evidence of stream channels.

Under Lithology, Conglomerate describes finding pebbles and cobbles. If your Flood is transporting unconsolidated sediment, how did it move pebbles and cobbles without eroding away all the unconsolidated silt & mud?

If you think the science of geology is wrong, point out specific examples. The current back & forth is going nowhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 6:42 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:38 AM 14174dm has responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 118 of 1257 (788050)
07-25-2016 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
07-25-2016 1:38 AM


Re: a definite contradiction
Your claim is that the Chinle Formation is a marine deposit based on the graphics in a text book.

Based on other sources, the whole Chinle Formation WAS NOT under water. The Wikipedia article specifically uses terms that contradict marine deposition - fluvial, lucastrine, etc.

If you are using two sources - Wikipedia and your text book - that contradict each other, you need to check other sources to confirm one or the other.

I found, in a few seconds, multiple sources directly discussing the actual geology of the formation. They describe strata formed by braided streams including pebbles and cobbles that would not be found in marine sediments.

So maybe your text book is painting with too broad a brush for what you are trying to use the information for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 449 of 1257 (789093)
08-10-2016 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
08-10-2016 11:25 AM


Re: let's take Baby steps... to Nowhere
As you are describing it this all happens way too slowly for the creatures to be buried and fossilized. They'd have been first mangled by scavengers and then just rotted away to dust in such a time frame.

Most dinosaur skeletons are incomplete. Here is an interview with Sue Hendrickson who found the T Rex named Sue after her.

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/subarticle.jsp?id=21

In 1900, the first T. rex was found. In 1990, Sue was the 11th T. rex. Since then, 24 more T. rexes have been found. But when I say a T. rex, most are just one or two bones. There are only five, including Sue, that are over 40 percent complete, and Sue is more than 90 percent complete, which makes her truly extraordinary

Several species of dinosaur are known from only a few bones that significantly differ from all other dinosaur bones.

http://www.usatoday.com/...saur-skeleton-discovered/15031803

Thanks to the dinosaurs' entombment, Lacovara and his team recovered some 70% of the bones Dreadnoughtus had below its head, the researchers report in Scientific Reports. Until now, no more than 27% of any giant dinosaur's bone types had been found. Argentinosaurus, for example, is known from a half-dozen vertebrae, a leg bone and a few scraps of hipbone, Lacovara says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentinosaurus

Not much of Argentinosaurus has been recovered. The holotype included only a series of vertebrae (six from the back, five partial vertebrae from the hip region), ribs of the right side of the hip region, a part of a rib from the flank, and the right fibula (lower leg bone). One of these vertebra was 1.59 meters tall, and the fibula was about 1.55 meters (61 inches).[2] In addition to these bones, an incomplete femur (upper leg bone, specimen number MLP-DP 46-VIII-21-3) is assigned to Argentinosaurus; this incomplete femur shaft has a minimum circumference of about 1.18 meters

So Old Earth geology would predict rare fossilization of dinosaurs of mostly partial skeletons due to exposure of at least part of any carcass.

What is the prediction of YEC? Whole skeletons of dinosaurs buried and fossilized without decay or scavenging?

Edited by 14174dm, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 08-10-2016 11:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 10:25 AM 14174dm has responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(2)
Message 502 of 1257 (789172)
08-11-2016 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
08-11-2016 10:25 AM


Re: let's take Baby steps... to Nowhere
My reply to you was to show that most fossils found are missing some to almost all the bones. In message 436 you claimed

As you are describing it this all happens way too slowly for the creatures to be buried and fossilized. They'd have been first mangled by scavengers and then just rotted away to dust in such a time frame.

One thing the Flood has over ALL the scenarios you can come up with is that it would have provided the PERFECT conditions for fossilization: rapid burial and compaction.

The majority of dinosaur fossils that are found are incomplete like you would expect if scavengers and decomposition occur before fossilization.

You are claiming the Flood providing "PERFECT" conditions for fossilization. How do imperfect and incomplete fossils fit your "PERFECT" scenario?

As just one example I found in a couple minutes of searching, Puertasaurus is known based on four vertebrae from a massive animal. If it had been buried and fossilized by the Flood, why wouldn't the rest of the bones be nearby?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 10:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(3)
Message 503 of 1257 (789173)
08-11-2016 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Faith
08-11-2016 10:15 AM


Re: misusing logic -- yes you are, jar
Wrong.

If the current theory is discredited in a particular way to a particular degree there may be only the Flood left as the reasonable alternative ...

You are saying that just because I say 2+3=23, your answer of 2+3=32 is right.

We could both be wrong. For example in ancient Greece, Asclepius believed disease was caused by the anger of the gods while Hippocrates thought disease was an imbalance in the humors. Proving one wrong does not make the other right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 10:15 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 2:25 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 669 of 1257 (789482)
08-15-2016 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by edge
08-15-2016 1:52 PM


Re: A HUMBLE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS
I think she believes the sandstone is somehow "pure" sandstone and changes to "pure" limestone without a transition = No changes in texture or composition, no physical or chemical weathering, no extraneous materials, etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by edge, posted 08-15-2016 1:52 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 08-15-2016 3:08 PM 14174dm has responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(1)
Message 718 of 1257 (789645)
08-17-2016 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Faith
08-15-2016 3:08 PM


Re: A HUMBLE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS
The transition from one stratum to the next is not always a sharp line. Sometimes the transition is messy.

I did some hunting for "paleosols" which are buried soil layers. When a layer of sediment lies exposed for some time, physical & chemical weathering, biological activity, etc. change the characteristics of the sediment to soil. Some of the characteristics of soils can be found in rock layers after lithification.

I found one geology thesis by Joseph John Beer. No particular reason, it just popped up and was a thorough document.

http://www.d.umn.edu/dees/research/thesis/Beer_MS_2005.pdf

Unfortunately I can't figure out how to post individual pages to this forum.

On page 30-31, section 3.1.1 , an example is the author's description of the top of one of the rock layers showing signs of having been a surface soil.

The paleosols formed in the Moenkopi parent material range from 1-7 meters thick....(Figure AI.8). Grain-size of these paleosols is variable, ranging from medium grained sand to dominantly silt and clay. In most cases, especially where the paleosol is finer grained, these rocks weather to form resistant, light-colored ledges (Figures 3.1.1-1, AI.12, AI.41). .... Evidence of soil fabrics include large root traces and burrows; however, often the identification of such features is difficult because the rocks are extensively bioturbated and have undergone multiple stages of oxidation/reduction (Figure AI.8).

So this top of this rock layer was, while still sediment, exposed to the air long enough for minerals to leach deeper into the sediment (lighter color), have plants grow (root traces) and animals thrive (burrows).

More evidence of soil formation is found in a higher layer as described in pg 33-34 section 3.1.3.

A well-developed gleyed oxisol, similar in nature to the paleosol described in section 3.1.1, marks the base of the Monitor Butte Member immediately above the coarse-grained deposits of the Shinarump Member in White Canyon, at Jacobís Chair (MS 19), and in Red Canyon (MS 21). At Jacobís Chair, the paleosol is fine-grained and nearly 6 meters thick. .... Remnant sedimentologic horizonation is crude, however pedogenic indicators such as crayfish burrows and rooted horizons indicate slow overall soil accumulation under highly fluctuating hydrologic conditions.

Again, burrows and roots.

On page 41, figure 3.1.5-2 shows burrows in the rock to the left of the hammer.

A summary of the history of the area is shown on page 65 with the oldest scene A at the bottom of the page. The figures show erosion, deposition, and soil development through time to match the evidence in the rocks.

When landscapes are discussed as existing between the rock layers it is because geologists in the field found and documented evidence of time & life - soil development, root traces, and burrows.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Faith, posted 08-15-2016 3:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 737 of 1257 (789700)
08-18-2016 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Faith
08-17-2016 6:55 PM


Re: A layer to a landscape or what?
2) and even a very thin layer of sediment could represent a very long time according to the reckonings of the Geological Timescale

A thin layer could be the remnants of a thicker layer that was deposited and later eroded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Faith, posted 08-17-2016 6:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 148
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 1004 of 1257 (790649)
09-02-2016 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1003 by Faith
09-02-2016 7:52 AM


What is in the Landscape?
Maybe we should clarify what is in the "landscape" that is being discussed as becoming the stratigraphic column.

Just off the top of my head - mineral materials & organic materials.

Mineral materials include the sediment developed from the underlying bedrock, sediment transported from outside (windblown dust & sand; flood borne sand, silt, etc.; slumps & landslides, etc.), the remnants of decomposed organics.

The mineral components (at least in soils with some rain and/or groundwater), are being altered by chemical weathering. Soluble minerals are washed deeper in the soil for example.

Organic material includes the bacteria, fungus, etc. living in the sediment as well as all the plant & animal remains deposited (including roots).

As time passes and the organic material gets buried deeper, it tends to be broken down, leaving traces that can be seen in some rock layers.

Stile is working toward (I believe) showing how this process leaves evidence that can be seen in the stratigraphic column.

Edited by 14174dm, : Clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1003 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 7:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1005 by Faith, posted 09-02-2016 5:05 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019