Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,233 Year: 5,490/9,624 Month: 515/323 Week: 12/143 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 7 of 877 (833839)
05-27-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-27-2018 10:53 AM


Popular press magazines are unlikely to include that kind of information. Use Google Scholar.
Exactly. If the reference gets to be too technical, people like Faith start to complain about details and jargon.
For instance, I was able to turn up the reference The Jurassic Climate which states at the beginning of the section titled Climatic Criteria on page 159:
quote:
By far the best climatic indicators among sedimentary rocks found in the Jurassic are evaporites and coals (Frakes, 1979). Substantial deposits of evaporites (notably gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) indicate conditions of both warmth and aridity, whereas coals indicate swampy conditions in generally humid regimes, though there is no particular temperature connotation.
Just read on, there's plenty of detail, though keep in mind that this reference is 35 years old and much has been learned since then. For example, if you start reading from the top of page 162 you'll note that it equivocates considerably on the humidity-aridity issue, while today the Jurassic is viewed as a more humid period.
Frankly, I have a problem with characterizing the climate of the Jurassic in simplistic terms. After all, this is a fairly large planet with land, oceans, weather and tectonism. We clearly had deserts in what was western North America at the time. Really, there is no need to generalize. After all, why couldn't climates have been similarly variable as they are today?
And remember, the Jurassic Period lasted for 50 million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-27-2018 12:43 PM edge has not replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 1:52 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 14 of 877 (833856)
05-27-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Capt Stormfield
05-27-2018 1:12 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Would it be impolite to inquire why, of all the sciences, you picked these two as examples? In my experience, the discourse around all of science is roughly equivalent in terms of presenting nuanced discussion in some rough proportion to the sophistication of the audience.
It would seem to me that the solution is simple.
Faith should abandon the popular literature for information on geology and evolution and go straight to the scientific literature.
Problem solved!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 1:12 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 1:45 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 37 of 877 (833895)
05-27-2018 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
05-27-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
OF COURSE NOT. I expect just enough information on the evidence so people know something about HOW THE CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT (maybe even how stupid it is) and aren't kept in the dark and have enough motivation to look up more information at the public library or whatnot.
Come on, Faith, be honest. You ask for the Goldilocks level of information so that YOU can be personally satisfied, and yet thousands of children find enough motivation from the very sources you decry to pursue education and careers in science. What makes you so special?
And really, you have already told us that nothing will sway you, so the chances of you being motivated to look up more information are nil.
Why should anyone waste their time satisfying you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 5:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 877 (833896)
05-27-2018 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Capt Stormfield
05-27-2018 6:44 PM


Re: Predictable Hawaii
I wonder what YEC creationists think about the current volcanism in Hawaii? Why does all the action these days seem to be on the south-eastern end of the chain? It seems to be a nice combination of historical science explaining the location and relative weathering of the existing islands (and the Hawaiian-Emporer seamount chain), and also offering a prediction of Loihi, now under construction.
I'm pretty sure that Faith does not see this as evidence of anything.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 6:44 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 43 of 877 (833908)
05-28-2018 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
05-27-2018 10:37 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory.
Your opinion is noted.
There is no reason why that NG article couldn't just point out with each description of supposed conditions or features in the Jurassic time period, how this or that interpretation was based on this or that element found in a particular rock in a particular location.
I am sorry that things don't go the way you would like them.
But to indicate that it makes any difference to you is ridiculous.
You'd be adding a sentence to each point at most and being a lot more honest, speaking of being honest, than the usual pontifical declaration of dogma.
I'm sure that you are an expert on how to write science articles. Maybe you should contact all of the popular science outlets directly.
AND I think once it became clear what big pictures are based on what little evidence, and anyone not dedicated to Geology took the time to really look at that evidence in those rocks, people would fall over laughing.
I'm sure you would know.
Maybe that's why the pontifical method is preferred.
Anything would be preferable to uninformed bloviation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 10:34 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 113 of 877 (834054)
05-29-2018 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
05-29-2018 9:10 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
I've seen lots of animations along those lines. I guess you are objecting to something I said but I don't get your point. Nothing you said changes the apparent situation in the picture of a lot of water crossing a flat plateau and forming a stream that becomes a very wide meander that eventually becomes deeper and narrower. What is your objection to that?
What Jon showed is that meanders don't start out wide as you said earlier. And they don't erode downward so much as laterally. It is not the nature of meandering streams to be turbulent with coarse gravel loads. Also, he shows that it takes time to create meanders.
And sheet wash does not just 'turn into curves'. First of all there is no evidence of sheet wash or catastrophic drainage. And when it turns into streams there is less water present to erode a deep canyon.
Your theory has holes enough to empty an ocean into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:24 PM edge has replied
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:38 PM edge has replied
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:11 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 117 of 877 (834059)
05-29-2018 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
05-29-2018 9:24 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
There is some question in my mind where the holes are located, but in any case are you actually defending the idea that that itty bitty little river that you say cut that enormous canyon also cut the meanders?
Yes (sigh...)
That is why we have been saying that there were two main phases of river activity. One that set the meander pattern and then another that down cut the canyon.
And then of course, there is the modern canyon in which flows are regulated.
And does that explain the coarse gravel loads or whatnot?
Yes. Meandering rivers transport sediment as suspended silt and a bed load of sand with little gravel.
Who said anything about turbulence?
I did. There is much more turbulence in steeper stream gradients such as what we see in the Colorado now. Meandering streams are not as turbulent and carry larger detritus.
Your scenario does not match the development history of meandering streams. It has no evidence for break-out type flooding and it doesn't match the sediment types that I would expect to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:19 PM edge has replied
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:39 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 877 (834061)
05-29-2018 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
05-29-2018 9:38 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Well I'm sure you've never seen as much water as would have been running across the plateau after the Flood so we're not talking the kind of meanders you would have seen in today's world.
Neither have you. You are just making stuff up while I am comparing it with known features and processes.
THe plateau itself isn't enough evidence of sheet wash? The canyon and the cliffs of the Grand Staircase aren't enough evidence of catastrophic drainage?
I am a huge fan of catasrophic events. Millions of them.
Do you have any clue how erosion works? Until we started managing the flows, the Colorado would flood probably every year. And that doesn't count the temporary dams that formed in the past and still occur today.
The little meanders you see forming today probably do take more time than the ones in the Grand Canyon. Again, do you think that little river cut that very broad width of that huge meander?
Why not? The meander was established early in the history of the river. Downcutting occurred later.
No, I assume it would split into rivers streams first.
Yes, indeed; and the flows would be decreasing dramatically. The ability of this flood to erode has dissipated. It would look like a braided stream that has simply run dry.
But we do not see that braided stream deposit, do we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 9:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:56 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 121 of 877 (834063)
05-29-2018 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
05-29-2018 10:19 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Nothing you've said accounts for anything I see in that picture, particularly the breadth between the walls at the top of the meander.
Do not mistake me for someone who cares what you think.
There is no way your little river caused that. Or the canyon. If it was a big enough river to do that then it fits MY scenario, not yours.
If you do not see some of the basic mechanisms for erosion and mass wasting at work in the canyon, it makes no difference to me.
And if you're going to use jargon like "breakout type flooding" you have to explain what on earth it has to do with anything I said. Nothing that I can see.
Well, that was predictable. Sorry, Goldilocks. But what you see is what you get. If you don't understand, you could at least be civil and ask politely.
Or maybe look words up.
And what does turbulence or lack of it have to do with anything I said? Nothing that I can see.
I'm not surprised that such an expert would be confused about this. The presence of turbulence tells us what types of sediment to expect in contrasting meandering streams to mountain canyons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 129 of 877 (834071)
05-30-2018 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-29-2018 10:56 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Now you've got a big enough river to form the upper width of the meander, WHICH IS WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN.
There is no 'upper width of the meander'. The canyon widens due to erosion of the canyon walls and transport of detritus down the river. The original meander is widened by erosion to a (semi-) stable angle.
And how the flows would be decreasing dramatically is ALSO WHAT I SAID HAD TO HAPPEN.
Then you agree, there isn't enough water nor time to create meanders. In braided streams when flows decrease you don't start getting meanders. For instance, where are the meanders sequential to the Lake Missoula flooding? There aren't any.
And that fits with the FLOOD SCENARIO.
Only in your mind.
Always at some point you do have to bring in some evidence of the Flood and yet you always have to deny it.
Where did that happen?
Like your six impossible transgressions from the Sauk on up. Obviously evidence of the Flood prompted that idea, but you refuse to see the Flood where you should see it, you have to accommodate it all to the inadequate Old Earth theory. So was the canyon ever that full of water too? Because there's no way a little river cut it. It would have to have been big and broad like the one in your picture.
No, the canyon walls are eroded back just as they erode today. Mostly by undercutting and toppling along with temporary dam bursts and mudflows.
Obviously you're just going to keep on bringing up irrelevant factors to disqualify everything I say, refuse to see any possible exceptions to your assumptions and current observations that are so utterly inadequate to the reality of the Flood, and I'm not up to it right now
I cannot lie on this. Your scenario makes no sense at all.
There is no 'reality of the Flood'. Only stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 10:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 4:46 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 170 of 877 (834127)
05-30-2018 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
05-30-2018 9:14 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Check the video again. Can you point out for us where the sheets of water split into streams?
Perhaps Faith could show us where a flash flood forms meanders. That might be a start.
Or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 9:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 9:29 PM edge has replied
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 10:05 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 172 of 877 (834129)
05-30-2018 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
05-30-2018 9:29 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Who said anything about a flash flood?
I did. Just trying to imagine your massive sheet runoff transitioning to a meandering stream. Not seeing it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 9:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 10:48 PM edge has replied
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 11:00 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 175 of 877 (834132)
05-30-2018 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
05-30-2018 10:48 PM


Re: Formation of walls quite clearly fits the Flood model
Why "massive?"
OKay, fine. Moving a two-mile deep body of water off the continent isn't massive. Fine with me.
At some point the water got down to the volume where streams running across the plateau could form a meander.
That's the point. It's not about the volume of water. It's about gradient and time to create meanders.
We're talking about a great volume of water gradually decreasing. It's silly to think it couldn't have decreased to the point of forming a meander, given a huge flat area which is where meanders commonly form.
That isn't what we see in the real world.
And remember, you still don't have evidence of such a sheet flow in the first place.
It figures it would decrease to a sheet before becoming separated streams, that's the only reason for including a sheet, it's the natural transitional form from a larger volume of water to the right amount and shape to make meanders.
Except that we don't have sheet flow.
Seems like you're arguing with a perfectly natural sequence for no good reason I can see except to find something to object to in anything I say.
Actually, it seems that I'm getting bored with your whimsical notions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 10:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 05-31-2018 7:22 AM edge has not replied
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 1:33 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 176 of 877 (834133)
05-30-2018 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
05-30-2018 11:00 PM


Re: EDGE'S OBJECTIONS
By the way do you have any corrections you'd like to make to Message 151?
Other than the fact that it is only a start, no.
I do have a question though, regarding gravels. If the GC sedimentary layers were kinda, somewhat slightly, more or less, not lithified when the canyon was cut, how do you get detritus from the canyon formed of extremely hard boulders in the sedimentary output of the river? I'd like to you to show us a meandering river system the forms such deposits.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 11:55 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 178 of 877 (834135)
05-31-2018 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
05-30-2018 11:55 PM


Re: EDGE'S OBJECTIONS
What boulders are you talking about?
The ones that occur in the Colorado River beds downstream from the GC.
I have no idea what form the broken up chunks of strata ended up in after being washed through the canyon
I'm sure you don't.
-- but most of that would have gone over the sides lower in the canyon, not down the river from the upper part of the canyon. Why do you assume boulders?
But all of those rocks were deposited by the flood, not? Why are they so much harder than the rocks of the Grand Canyon such that they survived hundreds of miles of river transport?
But further, if the rocks of the GC were relatively soft compared to now, how did they get to be so hard just being exposed at the surface for the last 4 thousand years?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 05-30-2018 11:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 06-01-2018 1:24 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024