Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 5 of 163 (558172)
04-30-2010 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
04-30-2010 3:16 AM


Re: Fossils?
Out of curiosity, how would you date the age of the soil itself when there are no fossils present, and you're not dating the rocks or paying particular attention to the geological strata?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 04-30-2010 3:16 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 04-30-2010 4:34 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 8 of 163 (558185)
04-30-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coyote
04-30-2010 4:34 AM


Re: Fossils?
So if you're looking at a deposit that is older than C14 can date, are there any other absolute dating methods besides dating the layers of volcanic ash? You know what creationists always say -- they think their get-out clause is that if humans have made correlations between deposits and the types of things found in them, this is "circular reasoning." (I'm only bringing this up because you said that all you should have to do is date the soil itself.)
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 04-30-2010 4:34 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 04-30-2010 11:36 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 04-30-2010 9:50 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 43 of 163 (558454)
05-01-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
04-30-2010 9:50 PM


Re: Fossils?
Thanks for that Coragyps. Fortunately I'm aware enough of these methods to have used them in debating creationists. I was interested in Coyote's claim that all you have to do is find the soil though -- without dating fossils, without dating rocks. I would have thought these things were pretty essential. If you've got a paleosol older than 40,000 years with no volcanic deposits near the stratum and no fossils (though this doesn't seem likely to me), then what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 04-30-2010 9:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 51 of 163 (558470)
05-01-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-01-2010 6:22 AM


Re: It is said: There is plenty of strata on Mars...
God must have really been pissed off at the Martians . . .
Catastrophic Flood Channel of Ares Valles
And there is increasing evidence of geological strata on Mars; no one who has been keeping up with the information from the rovers and the orbiters would think that Mars is nothing but an inert ball of rock disturbed by impact craters, as Mercury and Earth's Moon seem to be (though even "dead" worlds like these seem to yield no end of surprises).
Quasi-Periodic Bedding in the Sedimentary Rock Record of Mars
We used 1-meter stereo topographic maps to demonstrate the presence of rhythmic bedding at several outcrops in the Arabia Terra region. Repeating beds are 10 meters thick, and one site contains hundreds of meters of strata bundled into larger units at a 10:1 thickness ratio.
It is not clear whether or not these are aeolian deposits, but the beginning of the abstract suggests that the scientists believe that at least some of them were deposited in warm, wet conditions.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-01-2010 6:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 53 of 163 (558478)
05-01-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
05-01-2010 12:27 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
The misunderstandings in this post cover topics in a dozen or more different threads here. But I can see that you are busy with many posts, so I'd like to focus on one bit that I have asked creationists about many times and never received a straightforward answer to. Can you give me one?
All the living things died at the same time just as God said they would
So why, when we look at strata around the world, do we consistently see fossils in the same order (unless the strata have been locally disturbed)? Why do we always find trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs above those, and human remains at the top? Never mixed together. And those heavy animals like elephants and rhinos, even they somehow consistently, all over the world ended up above those tiny trilobites in the hydrological sorting. Don't you think it's more likely that we would find diplodocus in the bottom strata, since they were so big and heavy? How does your alternative theory explain all of the above?
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 12:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 76 of 163 (558541)
05-02-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:28 PM


The depths of ignorance
Hi Faith, I know there are a lot of posts here but it would be helpful if you could take note of where the evidence has contradicted you in this thread alone.
Evidence against geo theory: no similar strata on other planets which there should be if geo theory were correct.
A few posts up in Message 51 I gave you a link that shows that you are in error. Though what this is supposed to show one way or another about a Biblical flood, I am not sure.
And Apothecus asked you in Message 66 what I asked you in Message 53:
So why, when we look at strata around the world, do we consistently see fossils in the same order (unless the strata have been locally disturbed)? Why do we always find trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs above those, and human remains at the top? Never mixed together. And those heavy animals like elephants and rhinos, even they somehow consistently, all over the world ended up above those tiny trilobites in the hydrological sorting. Don't you think it's more likely that we would find diplodocus in the bottom strata, since they were so big and heavy? How does your alternative theory explain all of the above?
This really is a crucial point that needs addressing because it would seem to shoot a great big cannonball of a hole through your hydrological sorting assumption. You might also explain why there are aeolian (dry wind-deposited) layers of sediment and paleosols (ancient soil layers) mixed up with your alleged flood layers, as in the Grand Canyon.
And ultimately, as Dr. A says above,
Go on, read a geology textbook. A basic one. It'll have the word "Geology" in the title, or maybe "The Earth".
For fuck's sake,why don't you try to know about a subject before you talk about a subject? Why?
This. You're embarrassing yourself in this thread because you are arguing against basic principles you clearly know nothing about. If you were willing to learn then people's time would be justified here trying to teach you. At the moment, from what I can see, you are simply keeping people entertained with your jaw-dropping ignorance of geology.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:54 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 78 of 163 (558544)
05-02-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
05-02-2010 6:54 AM


Re: The depths of ignorance
If you are referring to the bit you quoted,
Evidence against geo theory: Ridiculous fact that layers were untouched by normal events such as canyon cutting, erosion by wind and weather and rivers, buckling and raising up by tectonic forces, until ALL were neatly in place. Evidence all over the earth.
. . . I had to read it several times to understand what this was trying to say. Because this is just bizarre. It saddens me that someone could have lived so much of life as Faith has and instead of learning the most basic things about the earth she lives on, or taking a hike and looking around her, she just swallows stuff that people like Kent Hovind say. Surely the only reason someone would do this is because the real-world facts are a threat to deeply-held beliefs and never the twain shall meet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 7:33 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 84 of 163 (558552)
05-02-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-02-2010 8:24 AM


Well what I said to you in my post above still applies. There are some questions very pertinent to this thread that for some reason you seem to be consistently overlooking. I would also be interested in seeing a reply to Message 71 by Coragyps, where he explained the geology of his area of Oklahoma to you. For some reason you skip all of these relevant points in order to make even more general posts about your lack of understanding of geological processes.
Or you should be able to see with your own two eyes that if the geological explanation were correct the strata all over the world would have to have been laid down quietly without a glitch, all neatly horizontally, and stayed in place for millions of years per layer, without any tectonic disturbances or deep erosion or the like for all those billions of years. How do you get a deep stack of strata if they undergo such disturbances?
Sediment is eroded from rocks and deposited in new layers elsewhere. This is what we see today and this is what has been happening for a few billion years. Are you seriously saying that you think it is supposed to magically appear out of nowhere, collect for millions of years and then suddenly get eroded? No you haven't been reading Hovind, he's too clever to have fed you this hooey. An area that exists today, which has been eroded down to the bedrock, is the Canadian Shield. The erosion has occurred mainly due to uplift -- strangely, the reason why the Grand Canyon was eroded also.
You will also notice, if you go study some rocks, that certain strata within the geologic column for any given area will almost always be eroded or missing. This is because, between periods of deposition, there were periods of erosion. Yet hilariously, this is the very thing that creationists like to harp on as being "proof" that geologists are wrong or lying -- the fact that there are few places in the world where the entire geologic column is intact.
Of course, mixed in with the sedimentary layers you will also have igneous layers. These in turn get eroded too. You do realise that as rocks get eroded and subducted back into the earth, new rock emerges in the form of lava? Plate tectonics.
This is basic, basic stuff Faith. Please. Get yourself some level of education on this topic or admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 8:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:05 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:22 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 87 of 163 (558555)
05-02-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
05-02-2010 8:39 AM


Mars has sediment
Sheesh, for the third time:
Quasi-Periodic Bedding in the Sedimentary Rock Record of Mars
Why is it that you keep ignoring stuff in this thread that shows you are wrong (i.e. pretty much everything)?
(ABE) The post below really just begs the above question again. Ignore the evidence that contradicts the claim and move on . . .
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 8:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:08 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 89 of 163 (558557)
05-02-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-02-2010 9:05 AM


Coragyps' post was one of those typical interpretive sallies that is mistaken for evidence. You think if he just proclaims that such and such happened in the past that it DID happen in the past. You guys don't know the difference between a fact and an interpretation. Truly sad.
No. This is a science forum, not a pulpit. Please stop making vague posts about how everyone is wrong and you are right and start addressing the evidence people have presented, and offer some of your own to shore up your own claims. If you can't, which I suspect is the case, might I suggest again that you find a geology for beginners book and spend your time more productively in that pursuit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:12 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 91 of 163 (558559)
05-02-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
05-02-2010 9:12 AM


Honeydarling, you're ignoring just about every point everyone has made on this thread. The only thing you said in reply to Message 84 is that Coragyps don't know what he's talkin' about. This is, I think, the most blatant example I've ever seen of a creationist talking nonsense about something they don't understand, then claiming they presented some devastating evidence at some undisclosed time that everyone missed or couldn't deal with.
You're a funny gal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:23 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 102 of 163 (558588)
05-02-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Dr Adequate
05-02-2010 4:47 PM


The following is not possible if the world is 6000 years old and all strata were deposited by one catastrophic flood.
It is also not possible if all strata were gradually deposited and not eroded or metamorphosed until the sudden recent carving of canyons.
IMO another explanation is required. I propose geology.
(ABE) Percy, beat me to it
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 4:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:27 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 148 of 163 (564232)
06-09-2010 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Architect-426
06-08-2010 12:44 AM


Geology of the real world
Hi Architect,
I've taken a bit of an interest in the geology of the Scottish Highlands. Unfortunately it's clear that you haven't, and that you are making rather absurd guesses that even a quick look at Wikipedia would correct.
Perhaps the culprit of this intense volcanism in Scotland can be pinpointed to a massive crater that is partially buried in the sound between the mainland and the Outer Hebrides.
No, the Highlands were formed in the Caledonian Orogeny, which occurred 490-390 million years ago. While different areas of the Highlands have their own unique geology, I can tell you a bit about the Cairngorms specifically. During the orogeny, a large granite pluton was formed in this area, and slowly cooled underground. Uplift and erosion (most notably by glaciation) exposed the granite and created the landscape we see today. Here is a good article about this: The Cairngorm landscape that really is older than the hills.
So no "intense vulcanism," and no crater.
These islands are perhaps the remaining rim of the massive crater while land to the west experience massive liquefaction due to blast concussions and is now dissolved,
The Outer Hebrides are the eroded remains of an ancient mountain chain. Lewisian gneiss is some of the oldest rock in the world, dating to 3 billion years ago. I don't know what you're trying to make up in the quote above, you've lost me there.
ballistic and intrusive and are NOT a plate tectonic crumple zone.
The granite pluton that became the Cairngorms was indeed formed as part of a "crumple zone." The Caledonian Orogeny, as the above link explains, was a collision of tectonic plates.
The fact that there is very little topsoil on these monoliths is evidence of a recent event.
Well, Percy and others here have explained this. I would also add that glaciers tend to do a pretty good job of scouring topsoil from elevated areas.
You're welcome to try again of course, but might I suggest you find out what geologists actually know about an area first. My sister-in-law is a glaciologist who regularly does field work in Scotland and she'd be laughing her ass off at this, if she could be bothered to spend time reading it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Architect-426, posted 06-08-2010 12:44 AM Architect-426 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(2)
Message 157 of 163 (564684)
06-11-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Architect-426
06-10-2010 12:30 PM


Re: Geology of the real world OR is it geo-fantasy???
This book was written 113 years ago? Sounds like creationist quote mining to me. Only this time we're not hearing about "uniformitarianism" because we've got catastrophic super-volcanoes spewing all over the place.
Anyhoo, I'd like to address a few points in the above post. I've had to do some research for this so that's always a good reason to engage with the absurd here.
These plutons are massive remnants of powerful eruption processes and typically rise after intense episodes within or near a volcanic epicenter.
Where are you getting this information from? No they don't. Often as land is uplifted during orogeny, magma rises from below the crust, without erupting onto the surface. It's a common occurrence.
By the way, if no one truly witnessed this orogeny process milliards [sic] of years ago, then milliards of years ago is nothing but evolutionary speculation.
There's also radiometric dating, which you are more than welcome to argue against in an appropriate thread if you want to continue to display your ignorance of science. There are other dating methods such as cosmogenic, which measures the amount of time a surface has been exposed (and absorbing cosmic rays). You can also look at the surrounding strata. By the way, Scotland's geology is much more diverse than you seem to realise. One of the recent posters here summed it up pretty well: do you honestly think that the ground in this part of the world (and maybe elsewhere) all burbled to the surface 6,000 years ago from volcanoes? Really?
Fact: The entire Scottish northern territory including Northern Ireland rest on a massive basaltic lava flow that creates the plateux of the entire region.
You would be referring to the North Atlantic Igneous Province, which according to cosmogenic exposure events, isotope records from deep oceans and Greenland ice cores, and Ar-Ar radiometric dating, is 60 million years old. That also happens to be the time when the Mid-Atlantic Rift was forming and the Atlantic Ocean was opening up. Congratulations, you've discovered another piece of evidence that supports plate tectonics.
Though what your point is about this, I'm not sure. The vast majority of the earth's crust consists of igneous rock. Are you trying to claim that it was all formed at once, and managed not to boil the seas away, or choke the earth in greenhouse gasses?
Let's look at another specific example. This is Suilven, a mountain in northwest Scotland:
The bedrock underneath it is Lewisian gneiss. (Note that gneiss is metamorphic rock, so it has undergone intense heat and pressure within the earth after the original lava flows occurred. This takes time.) There are sandstones and shales at the base of the mountain which contain conglomerates. These conglomerates contain weathered bits of Lewisian gniess, as well as material from rocks that have long ago eroded or been buried. These rocks would, of course, have to have been exposed and uplifted long enough to be eroded and sedimentary layers deposited. This takes a while, since gneiss is hard rock. Above this are layer upon layer of Torridonian sandstone, deposited by ancient rivers. This layer, which once covered the vicinity of Loch Torridon, was once more than 10 miles thick in places. Much of it has since eroded away. What we now see are inselbergs -- lone mountains like this. They survived while the landscape around them eroded because their upper layers consist of quartzite, which is metamorphosed sandstone. It prevented the mountains from weathering. The weathering process was largely accomplished through the action of glaciers, and Scotland is full of evidence for multiple glaciation events.
Interestingly, there are no fossils in Torridonian sandstone. This would be because it is of proterozoic origin, though some fossilised worm burrows (known as pipe rock) can be found in the upper quartzite layers. These are dated to 500 million years ago.
So here's the kicker. If Lewisian gneiss -- or rather, the original unmetamorphosed lava -- was spewed out of the earth 6,000 years ago, why does a massive overlying sandstone layer contain no fossils? And how can you explain all these metamorphic, uplift, erosion, deposition, and further erosion events in the space of 6,000 years? If you honestly think any of this is possible, you apparently haven't opened a basic geology book. I know they teach this stuff because I was covering a science lesson today for 13-year-olds and we were talking about how sedimentary rocks form. (Actually that's also how I found out about Suilven.)
I would also be very interested in your explanation for the multiple glaciation events that occurred in the past 6,000 years and sculpted the Scottish landscape, including so many of those deep glens and lochs. It must have been truly amazing to behold.
Plate Tectonics is bunk from A to Z.
And yet you provide no explanation for why this is so. Maybe you can start by explaining how paleomagnetic dating is wrong. And how that volcano that's been erupting in Iceland has nothing to do with the magma that wells up from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and drives seafloor spreading. Strange how geologists consistently get young dates for rocks near the ridge, and old dates for rocks in subduction zones.
I can’t wait to see your next post.
There is always the hope that it has encouraged you to consider learning about what you're trying to talk about before you criticise it. Try listening to the people who have actually seen it and studied it. Some of them are on this forum.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Architect-426, posted 06-10-2010 12:30 PM Architect-426 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-11-2010 11:25 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 160 of 163 (564731)
06-12-2010 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Minnemooseus
06-11-2010 11:25 PM


Re: Geo-smoke detector going off
Hi Moose,
I'm sorry if I was not clear with some details. The mountains I was talking about in my previous post were no longer the Cairngorms (apart from where I referenced the pluton), but Suilven and other individual peaks of northwest Scotland that are the remnants of proterozoic Torridonian sandstone. The gneiss of course predates them because it forms the bedrock on which the sandstone layer was deposited. My main point was to show the time it must have taken for the sequence of processes to occur that shaped that modern landscape.
Formation of the gneiss: I'm not an expert on gneiss formation and I was assuming that the lava came from volcanoes 3 billion years ago, and was at some point metamorphosed under the ground. I'm happy to be corrected if this is inaccurate or too simplistic.
The gneiss then had to be eroded in order to form the conglomerates at the base of the Torridonian sandstone; again I don't know the specific rates of erosion for Lewisian gneiss but I'm guessing it's a process that takes a long time because it's hard rock -- as opposed to, say, the unmetamorphosed sand comprising the Torridonian sandstone, mile upon mile of which was eroded away.
Then of course if you look at the picture, you see many sedimentary layers that were formed slowly by deposition from ancient rivers. No catastrophic floods in evidence.
The area was then glaciated, and much of the sandstone eroded away. The inselbergs have been protected from erosion by upper layers of quartzite. Other remaining areas of the sandstone have been covered by Cambrian and subsequent strata.
The absence of fossils is a particular problem for any creationist that would still want to call the sandstone a flood layer. Our particular creationist here also has to explain how mountains like Suilven appeared in the 6,000 years after he claims that the Lewisian gneiss was formed (which would also seem to suggest that he doesn't know how gneiss is formed either, since it does not magically appear fresh out of a volcano).
As for the Greenland ice cores, I was quoting from an article I found. My bad for not citing it. If I had been as thorough as I ought, I would have cross-referenced it and explained its significance. I've combed through my internet history yesterday and can't seem to locate the article, though as you say the Ar-Ar dating is relevant and there are lots of sources for that. Here is one, which dated one area of the flood basalt:
Ar-Ar dating of the Antrim Lava Group
I'm not a scientist so I'm perhaps not very good at explaining this stuff I hope this clarifies?
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-11-2010 11:25 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but 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