|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
RAZD writes: I considered that, but the other layers don't show that dip... I don't think it's a dip. I think it's an illusion of perspective. If it's really what you think it is then it should be easy to find images showing it unambiguously. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And I think the fact that you can see layers of undisturbed horizontal strata ... That's not a fact, though.
... (the disturbances occurred AFTER they were all laid down) You're like a kid saying "I didn't hit him, and anyway he hit me first!" The strata are all undisturbed, you say, and anyway all the disturbances happened after they were all deposited.
But that creed about "theory" not being provable only applies to this sort of argument, that is, arguments about the past that cannot be replicated where all you have is speculation and argument. Some things in science have definitely been proved but these things can't be. The shape of the DNA molecule has been proved, gravity has been proved etc etc etc. Yes I know about new persepctives over time, but those things have been proved in a way evolution and old earth can't be because you can't observe the past. If you know nothing about the scientific method, this would be a great place to not discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: That's a picture of the Great Unconformity, showing the upper layer horizontal over the tilted lower layers. What you think are tilted layers is also an illusion of perspective, and the image shows neither the Great Unconformity nor the layers of the supergroup. Here's the image again:
The supergroup layers have just a tiny amount of exposure at the very bottom of the canyon - they're not in this image. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 141 Joined: |
Interpretation is pretty straightforward in this case, RAZD, either you think it possible there could have been nearly a billion years during which strata covering hundreds of square miles or maybe even thousands were quietly being laid down without any major disturbances such as earthquakes, tectonic movement, volcanic intrusions and so on, or you don't. I don't. This is still a blatant double standard, faith. You insist on the importance of this evidence (which, by the way, relies on your assertion that it disproves an OE) while denying the importance of other evidence that is even more straightforward than your point. The canyon meanders, your model can't account for this. Very simple. You didn't respond to my last post in which I asked you three questions. I'll repost it here for your convenience:
Feel free to point out how I have mischaracterized your argument. I'm pretty certain that it is not a misrepresentation to say that you have deemed the structure of the canyon itself to be irrelevant. You have tried to explain why it is irrelevant to you personally but have offered no explanation of why it is irrelevant to the issue of what the GC tells us about the validity of the Flood model.
I think your approach of refusing to discuss anything besides one particular point is dishonest. Imagine the following: You came upon this thread already in progress and various points were being discussed like the angle of repose of sediment or in situ, terrestrial dinosaurs or the meandering path of the GC. You join the discussion by posting your favourite point about the strata. You consider it to be good evidence for your position but to your surprise you are told it is irrelevant and doesn't bear discussion or examination. Wouldn't you consider this a dishonest tactic? Wouldn't you think it was merely an attempt to avoid a difficult question? Wouldn't you feel that your point deserved to be addressed? If the answer to these questions is "yes", then how can you justify ignoring the various points I have made, including one that concerns the very canyon you say proves your point? If your answer is"no", then why should anyone give the points you raise any attention? This is why I accuse you of dishonesty. It seems pretty clear that you are operating under a double standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AND there are no unconformities in that long stretfch of parallel layers, so my point still stands. Those start above the unconformity and stretch hundreds of miles north and climb to the top of the Grand Staircase without a disturbance to their neat parallel placidity. HUH? What makes you think there are no unconformities other that the Great Unconformity? Don't you think the fact that that one is named would imply that there are more than just one? "Their neat parallel placidity" like the god you market exist only in your mind and you have repeatedly been shown examples.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
But that creed about "theory" not being provable only applies to this sort of argument, that is, arguments about the past that cannot be replicated where all you have is speculation and argument. Some things in science have definitely been proved but these things can't be. The shape of the DNA molecule has been proved, gravity has been proved etc etc etc. Yes I know about new persepctives over time, but those things have been proved in a way evolution and old earth can't be because you can't observe the past. I just love it how creationists, whose only interest in science is destroying it, feel so free to lecture scientists on the nature of their profession. What a joke!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
AND there are no unconformities in that long stretfch of parallel layers Yes there are. We showed you photographs, remember?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What you think are tilted layers is also an illusion of perspective, and the image shows neither the Great Unconformity nor the layers of the supergroup. That is in fact the Great Unconformity as seen from Lipan Point.
Here it is again. Note that this page belongs to Dr. John Merck, professor of geology at the University of Maryland, who presumably knows an unconformity when he sees one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no unconformity anywhere in that long stretch of parallel layers shown on the cross-sections of the GC to the top of the GS that have been posted a number of times. There are only the parallel layers a mile deep. There is an unconformity at the very north end of those layers, and there is the Great Unconformity beneath the canyon. Neither changes the fact that there is a stretch of hundreds of miles of undisturbed parallel layers a mile deep between the GC and the GS, which on OE time covers according to Dr. A three quarters of a billion years. Long time for no tectonic or volcanic or earthquake or visible erosional activity to happen to any of the layers during that long span pver such a large area.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There is no unconformity anywhere in that long stretch of parallel layers shown on the cross-sections of the GC to the top of the GS that have been posted a number of times. Yes there are. This is why I was able to show you photographs of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 3028 days) Posts: 141 Joined:
|
there is an unconformity at the very north end of those layers, and there is the Great Unconformity beneath the canyon. This is peculiar. Do you not understand that accepting the existence of any unconformity means you are accepting that erosion occurred, something you have steadfastly insisted didn't happen. And I am still waiting for a justification of why the shape of the entire GC is irrelevant. You have made it clear that you don't want to address it because it doesn't prove your point (and in fact refutes it), but you haven't been able to explain how this is logically justified. And now that I have modified the tone of my posts your continued refusal to address them is evidence that it is the points you find objectionable, not the tone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes:
There is no unconformity anywhere in that long stretch of parallel layers shown on the cross-sections of the GC to the top of the GS that have been posted a number of times. There are only the parallel layers a mile deep. There is an unconformity at the very north end of those layers, and there is the Great Unconformity beneath the canyon. Neither changes the fact that there is a stretch of hundreds of miles of undisturbed parallel layers a mile deep between the GC and the GS, which on OE time covers according to Dr. A three quarters of a billion years. Long time for no tectonic or volcanic or earthquake or visible erosional activity to happen to any of the layers during that long span pver such a large area. I know nothing about geology and even less about the Grand Canyon so maybe I can mediate. You're saying: 1. There's a section of the GC that's (how many) hundreds of miles long showing flat, undisturbed sedimentary layers. Is this true chaps? 2. These layers represent about 750m years. True? 3. If both those things are true, is there anything remarkable about it? Should we be surprised that a particular stretch of land has not been subject to disturbance? Is there anything special about this stretch that says that we should expect it? 4. My ignorance of the GC is complete, so are the layers that Faith is looking at formed underwater? Do they contain fossils of sea/lake living organisms? 5. Does erosion of the sort we're talking about only occur after an uplift or retreat of water so that the layers become susceptible to the sort of erosion I'm familiar with caused by rain, frost, wind? Or can erosion occur under water. (Obviously it can at areas of turbulence near a coast or in shallows, but my mental image of deep water is of extreme calm.) In the end, it seems to me that Faith has a fairly simple question 'is it reasonable for there to be a hundred or so miles of undisturbed layers of sediment for such a long period?' To be honest I can't think of a reason why it's not, particularly as we have the evidence of massive disturbance at both ends of the hundred miles. The question seems to me more like 'is it reasonable to expect all the sediment layers to be broken up many times and in many places and if so, how much jumbling should we expect?'Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Holy cow! You just provided the other perspective that I suggested RAZD try to find:
I had no idea the Grand Canyon Supergroup was so incredibly prominently visible anywhere at the Grand Canyon. I've only seen images of a few exposed meters just above river level, and diagrams like this that show just a tiny bit of the supergroup visible at the canyon base:
Anyway, commenting about the image from Dr Merck, if RAZD sees a dip at the unconformity he should point it out in this image. If it's there it will be much easier to see when viewed straight on than from that other image with the angled view. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I believe that I can offer some clarifications.
quote: We have no clear idea of how long this section, or sections, is. Only that faith doesn't want us to consider other locations, apparently because they don't support her argument. However, it is not true that they are undisturbed, only that the effects of the disturbance is not visible in photographs taken form the opposite side of the canyon. That's a really major difference (and as we've seen the two dimensional nature of photographs does seem to make interpreting the pictures difficult). So far as I can tell this is not a very good argument. Plains exist, so I'm not sure what a region of mostly flat land - when it's even above water - is meant to show. Especially when the sort of erosional features Faith talks about seem to be visible in the strata in other places.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
Actually I don't know a heck of a lot about the strata of the GC either but... does that stop me?
For there to be a large area of flat, undisturbed layers you'd need something depositing sediment there for a long time. What could possibly do that? Magic? Oh, how about an ocean? The layers would vary with the surrounding conditions and do oceans last 100's of millions of years? Well, it seems they do. How long should we expect a given continental area to remain "undisturbed" (discussed more below)? We'll from my limited knowledge major orogenies are caused by tectonic plate movements (not isolated volcanoes). Someone is lumping them all together because they don't understand any of it. How frequently should we expect them? once in 10 million years, a 100? , a billion? They result when the supercontinents form and breakup. The Appalachians are a worn down stub of the orogeny when pangea formed (IIRC). That sat there for a looong time. Then the Atlantic started to open and North America started to plow up the Rockies. Since the continents take 100's of millions of years to crash together, sit around and then start to split up we would expect 100's of millions of years between orogenies. Why anyone would expect other wise I can't guess. (and they aren't telling) Volcanoes are, of course, associated with tectonics but don't have to be over much of an area and can arise and fade awary in millions to 10's of millions of years so they can operate on time scales about an order of magnitude smaller than major orogenies. That's my thinking anyway. So no, on a large scale we shouldn't be surprised at what we see. Of course, half of what is being said isn't true anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024