Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 361 of 1257 (788831)
08-05-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Faith
08-05-2016 11:30 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Faith writes:
Righto. Good one. Belittle the creationist, that will work.
Not the creationists but rather the absolutely silly posts they make.
Reality is that the flat slabs of rock you imagine are simply a fantasy. Sure, there are places where the material has been compressed and lithified and places where the lithified material ls not compressed and it is those areas that add yet additional evidence of what has been going on for billions of years.
Just as there are identifiable layers seen at the Grand Canyon there are also identifiable layers that are totally missing there. Those gaps are yet more evidence of the process explained by the conventional theory and unexplained by any Creationist or Biblical Flood theory.
I mentioned the Appalachians and that too is important. There we see an example of lithified material that is still in the process of being weathered and eroded down.
The process is that high spots get weathered and eroded and the material transported to lower areas which over time flattens all landscapes.
None of this is new information Faith; it has been explained to you by countless people in countless posts over more than a decade.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 11:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 362 of 1257 (788833)
08-05-2016 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
08-05-2016 10:54 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
No amount of compaction would change "all the normal surface conditions" of any surface on the earth now or ever into straight flat rock. Hills, valleys, riverbeds, lake basins, deep tree roots, no.
Not compaction alone, no. You need sedimentation first. But even then, the layers aren't so flat until after they are compacted.
You can't look at the flatness of the layers and think that when those layers were on the surface they were also as flat.
Same answer to your Message 266 where you say compression would have made the strata appear flatter.
I didn't mean that a mountain gets compacted. You got to have erosion and sedimentation, then later you get compaction.
All three of those processes increase flatness, so the flatness doesn't show what the layer looked like when it was on the surface before those processes.
Not unless the compressing weight was flat itself,
Actually no, it depends on how flat the layer underneath that it's being compressed into, not the one above it adding to the compression.
And when the compressive pressure approaches infinity, the flatness approaches perfection. The further down you go the flatter the layers will be.
But not if the sediment being compressed had any of the lumpiness of a normal surface of the earth.
That literally has nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 12:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 363 of 1257 (788834)
08-05-2016 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by New Cat's Eye
08-05-2016 11:55 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Well, you have that part of the fairytale down pat, the weird idea that any surface can somehow be eroded and compacted down to flatness and become a rock like those in the strata of the Geo Column. Start with enough sediment and just stand back and it will all come down to a flat slab of rock in the end. Even today's surface with all its high mountains and deep lakes and all the rest of it of course. It's just a matter of giving it all enough Time. One absurdity on top of another. Imagination can accomplish miracles of course, or whatever you want it to.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2016 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 1:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 365 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2016 1:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 366 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 2:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 364 of 1257 (788835)
08-05-2016 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-05-2016 12:42 PM


a check with reality instead of fantasy.
Faith writes:
Well, you have that part of the fairytale down pat, the weird idea that any surface can somehow be eroded and compacted down to flatness and become a rock like those in the strata of the Geo Column. Start with enough sediment and just stand back and it will all come down to a flat slab of rock in the end. Even today's surface with all its high mountains and deep lakes and all the rest of it of course. It's just a matter of giving it all enough Time. One absurdity on top of another. Imagination can accomplish miracles of course, or whatever you want it to.
What is absurd is you not understanding that the conventional theories do explain what is found in reality while no Creationist of Biblical Flood theories even exist much less explain what really exists.
In addition we can see all the processes involved in the conventional theories going on today in reality as opposed to only in stories in a book.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 1257 (788837)
08-05-2016 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-05-2016 12:42 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Well, you have that part of the fairytale down pat, the weird idea that any surface can somehow be eroded and compacted down to flatness and become a rock like those in the strata of the Geo Column.
Where is your argument?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 366 of 1257 (788839)
08-05-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-05-2016 12:42 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Well, you have that part of the fairytale down pat, the weird idea that any surface ...
Please do not exaggerate. No one is talking about 'any' surface.
... can somehow be eroded and compacted down to flatness and become a rock ...
There is a disconnect here. No surface becomes a rock. Sediments can be lithified to become rock, but surfaces simply reflect some kind of discontinuity in the rock, be they bedding planes or cross-bedding or fault planes, etc. They can be deformed, accentuated or eradicated by later processes, but they are never more than a plane. We can discuss lineations later...
As far a flattening by compression, this would happen in the marine sediments that you always refer to as strata. It all depends on the homegeneity of the underlying stratum, its strength and how it is loaded. It would be a complex enough process that it isn't really a good argument either way, but I can see it happening in certain situations of even loading on an undulating surface.
The difference is in terrestrial deposits. Here are some late Cretaceous siltstone beds in Wyoming that have been unevenly loaded by an overlying sand. Note that the lower coal is not distorted but the thinly bedded silts (with sandy and coaly layers) has been warped downward wherever the sand accumulated in greater amounts. This process of compaction allows even more sand to fill in at the top. Also, notice how the upper contact of the sand is also quite even and level.
My point is that with uneven loading, such as what you would get in a meandering stream channel (that would be a terrestrial landscape), over weak sediments, you can get irregular bedding planes. This is one way that we recognize non-marine sedimentation.
In a marine situation, you have weak sediments, but very even loading (i.e. a stead rain of sediments) so there is less distortion with loading.
... like those in the strata of the Geo Column.
All rocks are part of a geological column. The only exception would be if someone moved them.
Start with enough sediment and just stand back and it will all come down to a flat slab of rock in the end. Even today's surface with all its high mountains and deep lakes and all the rest of it of course. It's just a matter of giving it all enough Time. One absurdity on top of another. Imagination can accomplish miracles of course, or whatever you want it to.
I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems like a straw-man argument, but certainly erosion can lead to very flat surfaces on the earth. It can do so by planing off the surface or by creating material to fill in low spots.
The thing we have that you do not is time and certain processes that act over time. Since you don't have time, you cannot even visualize these processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 367 of 1257 (788840)
08-05-2016 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
08-05-2016 10:54 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Same answer to your Message 266 where you say compression would have made the strata appear flatter.
As I said earlier, it can happen. The situation would be one of very similar sediments with very similar properties, an irregular surface on the earlier one and then compression of the entire stack of rocks at once. I don't see this as a huge effect, but one that you would have to take into account if you were explaining a particular section of rocks.
Not unless the compressing weight was flat itself, ...
Exactly. it would have to be a vertical force exerted evenly over a large area. This can happen in marine sediments and maybe locally in terrestrial settings.
... and that would be true of the strata themselves whose weight would certainly have enormously compacted lower layers.
If the section were deep enough.
But not if the sediment being compressed had any of the lumpiness of a normal surface of the earth.
That 'normal surface', of course, being a landscape formed by erosion. So, yes, it would show very irregular surfaces, which are exactly what we see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 10:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 368 of 1257 (788842)
08-05-2016 2:40 PM


Here is an example of a channel (landscape) cut into the Muav Limestone in the Grand Canyon. It is filled by the Temple Butte Limestone and all overlain by the Redwall Limestone. I think it should be readily visible to most folks.
The point here is not only erosion of a landscape somewhere within flat and even strata, but the fact that this actually occurs within the Grand Canyon area which is Faith's type section for what 'strata' should look like.

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 3:16 PM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 369 of 1257 (788844)
08-05-2016 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by edge
08-05-2016 2:40 PM


The Temple Butte limestone is far from fitting a normal surface feature. One limestone cut into another, that's all, either just as they were laid down or right afterward. This is no stream bed, this is just water doing its thing in a watery environment, in this case carrying one calcareous substance along a channel within another.
Water would run between the joints of the strata and create many effects, perhaps dislodging enough material to get it called erosion even though it never was on the surface of the earth. Water will run in patterns that look like rivers and deltas just because that's the way water behaves. That doesn't make it a river or a delta that ever existed on the surface of the earth where trees line its banks and so on.
And perhaps not "any" surface could be eroded down flat according to standard theory, but all those that are part of the geo column wherever it is found are considered to have been eroded down flat, each from a landscape defined by its fossil contents and other clues. That's all the strata in the world, that's a lot of eroded surfaces, or landscapes reduced to flatness during their supposed time period.
Some life forms that supposedly never existed before live in a landscape entirely different from any that existed before or since then either in that particular form, and then at some point like clockwork it all erodes down to flatness. The life forms had lived there though, on that very surface. Where did they go? They got fossilized in the sedimentary remains of the landscape, none could have survived as the next entirely different landscape starts building with the next collection of entirely different life forms. Each time it all erodes down to sediment in which a time period's flora and fauna are fossilized, we get an entirely new landscape with entirely NEW life forms building up on the solidifying surface of the prevous time period, and the whole pattern repeats itself. The living things all end up fossilized in the sediment that's all that's left of the landscape. And then we get another brand new scenario bulding on THAT surface. The same thing over and over again, leaving nothing but a sedimentary rock in which living things got fossilized. It's like creating the world from scratch each time. Nothing could survive from each scenario and yet it is assumed the next evolved from it. Impossible but that's the idea.
The kind of surfaces you mention that don't get eroded like that didn't end up in the strata of the geo column, so that's an academic point. I'm only talking about the strata of the geo column. It's the strata that were supposedly once landscapes in which their once-living fossils roamed, all the strata in the geo column. Stand back and look at the wall of the Grand Canyon at a location where it hasn't been tectonically distorted. ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 2:40 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 3:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 371 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 3:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2016 11:57 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 370 of 1257 (788845)
08-05-2016 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
08-05-2016 3:16 PM


The Temple Butte limestone is far from fitting a normal surface feature.
Why?
One limestone cut into another, that's all, either just as they were laid down or right afterward. This is no stream bed, this is just water doing its thing in a watery environment, in this case carrying one calcareous substance along a channel within another.
Then perhaps you can explain the shape of the channel, the bedding in it and the fact that there are boulders in base of it.
Water would run between the joints of the strata and create many effects, perhaps dislodging enough material to get it called erosion even though it never was on the surface of the earth.
That's weird since the channel boundaries are not simply 'following joints'. It's also kinda weird that the Redwall did not fall into the cavity created so shortly after deposition.
Water will run in patterns that look like rivers and deltas just because that's the way water behaves.
Not if they are following joints and fractures...
That doesn't make it a river or a delta that ever existed on the surface of the earth where trees line its banks and so on.
Why would there have to be trees? Why would they have to be preserved?
And perhaps not "any" surface could be eroded down flat according to standard theory, but all those that are part of the geo column wherever it is found are considered to have been eroded down flat, each from a landscape defined by its fossil contents and other clues.
I think you remain confused as to what the Geological Column is, or actually isn't.
That's all the strata in the world, that's a lot of eroded surfaces, or landscapes reduced to flatness during their supposed time period.
Since your concept of a Geological Column is so distorted, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Have you not been reading Pressie's posts?
Some life forms that supposedly never existed before live in a landscape entirely different from any that existed before or since then either in that particular form, and then at some point like clockwork it all erodes down to flatness.
Please rephrase this.
The life forms had lived there though, on that very surface. Where did they go?
Well, some of them are fossilized right there, such as trilobites or brachiopods that lived in the sediment.
They got fossilized in the sedimentary remains of the landscape, none could have survived as the next entirely different landscape starts building with the next collection of entirely different life forms.
Not really, they just get buried as time goes on.
Each time it all erodes down to sediment in which a time period's flora and fauna are fossilized, we get an entirely new landscape with entirely NEW life forms building up on the solidifying surface of the prevous time period, and the whole pattern repeats itself.
Again, I cannot even begin to address this statement. What 'all erodes down to sediment'? How do you have landscapes in a marine environment? Do you really think that these creatures live on bare rocks at the bottom of a sea?
The living things all end up fossilized in the sediment that's all that's left of the landscape.
Trilobites did not live on a landscape. They lived on the bottom of the ocean.
And then we get another brand new scenario bulding on THAT surface.
Well, it's a continuous process. I'm not sure what the problem is here.
The same thing over and over again, leaving nothing but a sedimentary rock in which living things got fossilized.
And the problem is?
It's like creating the world from scratch each time.
Not really. It's an ongoing process, just like what we see happening today.
Nothing could survive from each scenario and yet it is assumed the next evolved from it. Impossible but that's the idea.
Why not? There is always an seafloor on which animals could live and coral reefs could grow, etc., etc.
The kind of surfaces you mention that don't get eroded like that didn't end up in the strata of the geo column, so that's an academic point.
I thought you denied that erosion happened. What are you saying?
I'm only talking about the strata of the geo column.
Which you have no understanding of, evidently. There is no the Geological Column.
It's the strata that were supposedly once landscapes in which their once-living fossils roamed, all the strata in the geo column.
There is no The Geo Column.
And you are not talking about landscapes, you are talking about seafloors.
As near as I can tell.
Stand back and look at the wall of the Grand Canyon at a location where it hasn't been tectonically distorted. ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes ...
No.
The were considered to be seafloors. There are some unconformities, yes, but the layering is due mostly to marine deposition.
... that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.
No.
This is a strawman argument. It's not all of them and it's not 'flattened'. That's just the way that marine sediments are deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-06-2016 9:27 AM edge has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 371 of 1257 (788846)
08-05-2016 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
08-05-2016 3:16 PM


Not miraculaous but rather common and normal
Faith writes:
ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.
Too bad the reality once again shows you are wrong. Even at the Grand Canyon the layers are not neatly stacked but rather show erosion and missing parts and different environments over time.
Faith, there is nothing miraculous about geology except to the utterly ignorant by choice.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-05-2016 5:06 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(2)
Message 372 of 1257 (788849)
08-05-2016 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by jar
08-05-2016 3:50 PM


Re: Not miraculaous but rather common and normal
It's why Faith is a twin for George Price -- decide something is true (in this case that strata is all nice and even) and then make sure and not go out and learn that you're wrong.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 3:50 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 08-06-2016 8:13 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 373 of 1257 (788856)
08-05-2016 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
08-05-2016 3:16 PM


ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.
Except the ones that either aren't eroded or aren't flat, or which are marine and so would not be considered "landscapes".
I'm not sure that that leaves anything, I'd have to look it up.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 08-06-2016 8:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 374 of 1257 (788872)
08-06-2016 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by ThinAirDesigns
08-05-2016 5:06 PM


Re: Not miraculaous but rather common and normal
It's why Faith is a twin for George Price -- decide something is true (in this case that strata is all nice and even) and then make sure and not go out and learn that you're wrong.
I never said the strata "is all nice and even." The idea is that it was all originally straight and flat, and this can still be seen in many of the walls of the Grand Canyon.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-05-2016 5:06 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by jar, posted 08-06-2016 9:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 375 of 1257 (788873)
08-06-2016 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2016 11:57 PM


ALL of those layers so neatly stacked one on top of another are considered to have once been landscapes that somehow miraculously eroded down and flattened into rock. ALL of them.
Except the ones that either aren't eroded or aren't flat, or which are marine and so would not be considered "landscapes".
You are right that "landscape" doesn't fit the marine environments, but they ARE considered to have been "environments" and to represent the range of life during their "time period" and to have eventually come down to a flat rock, like all the rest in the geo column/strata. That rock now represents that particular time period, whatever is found in the rock considered to be whatever was living in the marine environment when the rock was formed. And that rock was replaced some millions of years later by another rock represented yet another marine environment.
They're all originally flat. All of them. Really, I keep pointing to the walls of the Grand Canyon where they have not been tectonically distorted to show their flatness. Of course if you impute absolutely perfect flatness to what I'm saying you create the usual straw man, because I've said nothing more than that they show flatness from a distance, and in some cases up close as well, even razor-tight flatness at their contacts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2016 11:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ringo, posted 08-06-2016 1:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 389 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-08-2016 2:26 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024