Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
480 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, Parasomnium, PaulK, Phat, Theodoric (6 members, 474 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,012 Year: 6,124/6,534 Month: 317/650 Week: 87/278 Day: 9/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deposition and Erosion of Sediments
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 127 (191970)
03-16-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by pink sasquatch
03-16-2005 4:44 PM


Re: no sedimentary rock?
No, PS he is saying that he doesn't think any layer could build up over 20 million years on dry land. He didn't say (in fact has agreed that sediment can form under water)that sediment can not form.

I think I would like to know which layer it is that geologists are saying formed on dry land for 20 million years. Could you tell us which layer you are refering to Faith.

I also think that the point made about net depostition needs to be understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-16-2005 4:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 127 (191972)
03-16-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
03-16-2005 4:37 PM


Erosion after or during
Over and over I have said that the ONLY VISIBLE erosion that we can all see with our own eyes happened AFTER the layers had built up

You may have said it but is it true that the erosion only happened after the layers were built up?

You have only seen photographs. What real evidence are you using besides some tourist pictures? We should, perhaps, ask the geologists if there is any erosion of layers in the middle of the pile?

The problem might be, Faith, that you are reaching conclusions without having all the evidence at hand. You can not make any firm statements about the Grand Canyon since you know nothing about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-16-2005 4:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 10:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 127 (192144)
03-17-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Minnemooseus
03-17-2005 1:22 PM


A summary
Are we missing some pretty basic things that Faith doesn't get?

Let's keep focussing in on more details.

The redwall formation has been chosen. Faith suggests that it can't have been deposited over a long period of time based on the idea that it is one layer, level and consistent through out.

If is my understanding that she is wrong on all counts.

It is a name given to a group of layers that have distinguishing characteristics. It is generally level but is not flat and horizontal. It only looks that way in picture she is using.

There are erosional surfaces in it. Several in fact.

Are the above statments true. For this formation? For any of the formations?

Faith, have I summarized what you think the facts are?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-17-2005 1:22 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 127 (192232)
03-18-2005 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
03-17-2005 11:47 PM


Facts??
re any of the above NOT facts? From those facts and others I have been drawing inferences about how such horizontal strata could not have been laid down as supposed by the Geological Time Table.

I'm certainly not claiming geologists are saying any of this. I think I've stuck pretty close to ONLY what I KNOW geologists have said, including what all of you have said, and the rest is my own inferences.

What you are being told is that many of the things you think are facts are not.

(eg. the canyon being formed under water -- in fact many of the layers of sediments but not all were formed underwater. But they did not spend all of the time from forming the lowest layer to forming the top most under water.

Your inferences don't stand up when all of the actual facts are considered.

In addition to the facts that you don't get right. There are a huge number of facts and details that you know nothing about. These additional pieces of information also make your inferences unsupportable.

It has been pointed out to you, a number of times, that until you have a reasonably great number of the facts in hand you are not nearly ready to begin to refute this science.

You start off with an objection to great ages. Yet you don't tackle the dates and dating forum threads that go into that in great detail.

You make statements like "horizontal" but do you know if the layers in the canyon that you think are horizontal actually are? How close or far from horizontal are they? These are some of the details you don't have.

You think that the major "layers" that you see are it. That they are uniform. It has been pointed out to you that this is not true but you have yet to appear to incorporate this into your inferences.

I think I've stuck pretty close to ONLY what I KNOW geologists have said, including what all of you have said, and the rest is my own inferences.

You may think this but it is clear to others that you do NOT KNOW what geologists have said. You have a half baked idea of some of what is said and very little idea about almost all of what is said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 03-17-2005 11:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 03-19-2005 12:57 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022