Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 353 of 380 (713152)
12-10-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:06 AM


Dr. A., your assignment was to view a long segment of the canyon wall from a distance and say what you actually see between the layers. You've found a more close up view of a smaller section.
The Redwall formation varies in thickness from 240 meters to 150 meters. So that is not a close-up photograph.
But that's really OK, I understand you will never debate fairly ...
You asked a question, I gave a completely accurate answer. I guess in creationism land, telling the truth may be considered unfair, but where I come from it's thought of as a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 354 of 380 (713153)
12-10-2013 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by NoNukes
12-10-2013 2:09 AM


What possible difference could it make what distance the evidence is viewed from?
It's harder to see what the rocks look like if you look at them from further away; hence easier to entertain dumb creationist fantasies about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 2:09 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-10-2013 10:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 356 of 380 (713156)
12-10-2013 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:21 AM


But Dr. A defeated the purpose of the experiment anyway by choosing a section where the horizontality and flatness are not evident.
Yeah, 'cos of all the obvious surface erosion, the valleys and the karst landscape cut into the limestone. Which doesn't just defeat "the experiement", but the whole of "flood geology".
I want the undisturbed parts to be in view.
Sure, there are also bits that have not been eroded. Real geology does not predict that everything should be eroded. That would involve, y'know, denying the existence of rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 366 of 380 (713185)
12-10-2013 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
After that much has been observed and duly noted you might consider as Question 2 (or Proposition 2 or Assertion 2 since I see the folly of asking questions) the fact that the canyon itself did not cut through those neatly level horizontal layers until they had accumulated to the depth of a mile without any other disturbance occurring to them.
Er ... apart from the episodes of erosion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 368 of 380 (713188)
12-10-2013 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
12-10-2013 12:15 PM


The point of viewing a very long segment of neatly and deeply stacked UNeroded lithified sediments, is to contemplate the fact that the original deposition of those sediments was continuous and could not possibly have involved exposure at the surface of the earth of any layer or part of the stack at any time during its formation.
But that is not a fact, since we can see clear evidence of subaerial erosion and of the deposition of terrestrial sediments. So we know that sometimes there was exposure at the surface, or those things couldn't have happened.
The SHARPLY separated different kinds of sediments just make no sense at all on any theory of normal deposition in normal time ...
Oh, I don't know about that. Geologists have a highly satisfying theory. Moreover, one that doesn't involve, y'know ... magic.
The disturbed parts of the strata can be shown to have undergone the disturbance after the entire stack was in place.
The erosion, not so much. Or, of course, the strata below the Great Unconformity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 12:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 370 of 380 (713193)
12-10-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:47 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
Which clearly did not occur to any of those neatly level layers that are under discussion, except on the minuscule scale of runoff between the layers
What geologists actually see is valleys and karst landscape formation, neither of which is on a minuscule scale.
because of it HAD occurred as real erosion occurs on the real surface of the real earth it would have disturbed that neat level horizontality sufficient to be visible a few miles across the canyon.
I showed you an actual photograph, remember?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 378 of 380 (713204)
12-10-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:06 PM


Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments, but NOT the kind of erosion that occurs to land that is aerially exposed for years on end, which would be visible in the strata from across the whole canyon.
Large paleovalleys carved into the underlying Redwall Limestone developed through dissolution i.e. karstification, and likely were enlarged by west-flowing streams. --- Timons and Karlstrom (eds.), Grand Canyon Geology, Geological Society of America, 2012.
Sink holes, caverns, and solution cracks common in upper parts of the Redwall limestone are in places partly or entirely filled with red mudstone accumulated during deposition of the overlying Supai formation. --- E. D. McKee, U.S. Geological Survey, "The Redwall Limestone", Ninth Field Conference of the New Mexico Geological Society
The top of the Mississippian Redwall limestone in the Grand Canyon area was subject to extensive karstification during a period of about 30 million years from the late Meramacian to early Morrowan time. This hiatus has recently been shown to be much shorter, possibly only 5 million years, in the western Grand Canyon where tidal and deltaic channels draining westward toward the retreating sea are eroded into the Redwall surface. These channels have average depths of about 107 m (350 ft). --- T. Troutman, University of Texas at Austin, "Genesis, Paleoenvironment, and Paleogeomorphology of the Mississippian Redwall Limestone Paleokarst, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Grand Canyon Area", Cave Research Foundation Newsletter vol. 29 no. 1, 2001.
You would not have those neat level horizontal strata ANYWHERE AT ALL had that ever occurred to ANY of the layers.
You posted this gibberish before but didn't attempt to justify it. Why would erosion of one layer affect the unaffected underlying layers?
If you think about it, even you must admit that the top of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab Limestone, is currently undergoing subaerial erosion. Yet without affecting the surfaces of the strata beneath it, which, if flat, are remaining so.
That's why I specified that the stack above the basement rocks was to be the focus.
Ah, you don't know what "basement rocks" means, then? As to why you want to except such a glaring exception, I think we can guess.
However, I believe the Great Unconformity, as I have argued here before, was also created after ALL the strata were laid down, created by the forced tilting and sliding of a segment of the lowest strata by the volcanic activity beneath the Canyon, which had sufficient force to tilt that segment but not enough to disrupt the horizontality of the stack above it, although the entire region was lifted upward, stack and all.
You did indeed argue that. Oh, how we laughed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 379 of 380 (713206)
12-10-2013 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
12-10-2013 3:08 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
They do not see it in the sections of the Canyon I specifically required to be considered in my experiment ...
I'm sorry, which bits of the Grand Canyon aren't we allowed to look at when considering your ideas? Up until now I've been looking at it "without blinders on" but apparently there are some facts about it that I should completely ignore. Pray tell us which, that we may become blind to the appropriate facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:08 PM Faith 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