Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 451 of 740 (734554)
07-30-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
07-30-2014 3:39 PM


Re: Cardenas
It never fails to amaze me how rare it is for anybody here ever to put a positive construction on anything I say, ...
Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for this?
but always come up with the sleaziest possible interpretation.
Please tell us what is sleazy about providing you with a mainstream explanation for virtually every argument you make.
I HAVE tons of evidence for this order of things.
You have nothing but your own personal incredulity for old ages and evolution You have provided no evidence for you scenario other than "it must be because the Bible says so!"
One doesn't abandon a hypothesis the first time a knee-jerk objection comes from the opposition with a vested interest in "proving" me wrong.
Ummm, Faith? We are WAY beyong the 'first time'.
I haven't yet given the Cardenas a careful think-through; that whole bunch of rocks beneath the GC is a very complicated situation and it's going to take time to sort it all out, WHEN I'm finally able to get to it.
Why bother thinking about it? You haven't done that about the other occurrences that we have provided you with.
And I don't ASSUME there is only one such supposed extrusive event, so far the evidence is that there is only one.
This has been amply proven wrong. It is a mystery to me how one so hopeless can be named Faith.
The objections I've been getting to my view of the geo column, for just the most recent example, tell me nobody cares to understand anything from my point of view, I HAVE TO accept theirs, the sooner the better, as soon as they've posted them for the very first time, or I'm being "evasive" or "lying" or "denying" or whatever. And that's all you're doing here, putting anything I think in a bad light which is all from your own assumptions.
Oh, I feel sorry for you.
If there's one thing I've learned from EvC it's to expect a great screaming chorus of objections to ANYTHING I post, that eventually will show themselves to be irrelevant if I just take my time to think through the issues. Which of course isn't easy when you're being deluged with objections before you've even begun to grasp the particular issue.
Again, we are WAY beyond the beginning here.
So, you think I should just fold up because the Cardenas is supposedly a killer objection.
How many exceptions to your rigid interpretation do you want? Seems like one should do it, but we have provided many that you simply dismiss.
Sorry, not when I know I'm on the right track on this issue from other angles. The Cardenas will have to wait, and I expect it will eventually fall into place.
I'm sure it will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 3:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:49 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 452 of 740 (734556)
07-30-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:07 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
You're blind to the evidence for the Flood like everybody else here who has a vested interest in denying it. And of course it starts with denying that the Bible is God's word. All the assertions that I have no evidence can easily enough be answered that I do. Might as well give it up.
This is getting to be comical.
All we have is your impression from 'looking at cross sections' that it's 'glaringly obvious' (to you) that the rock record depicts a biblical flood and everything tectonic or igneous happened afterward.
That's it.
A monumentally uninformed opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 453 of 740 (734557)
07-30-2014 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by Taq
07-30-2014 4:20 PM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
What type of observations would falsify a recent global flood?
I know the answer to that one!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Taq, posted 07-30-2014 4:20 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 454 of 740 (734558)
07-30-2014 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Faith
07-28-2014 4:02 AM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Faith writes:
I would think it would be a lot harder to accumulate that much sand in one place on the Old Earth model than on the Flood model. In the Flood the water would do a lot of pulverizing as well as transporting and depositing. Where's all that sand going to come from over hundreds of millions of years? Can you identify a source on the South American continent and a method for its deposition and compression to such a huge depth and breadth?
The processes that produces the sedimentary layers found around the world have been described before, but it doesn't hurt to describe them again. This isn't any great mystery, because we see these processes happening today. The runoff from land reaches the coastline via wind and rivers and water flow from rain, and this runoff carries the products of all the weathering from the landmass in the form of rocks, pebbles, grains and particles of minerals.
At the coastline a sorting process is performed on this sediment laden runoff from land. Because the most energetic water is nearest shore, that is where the largest and densest material will fall out of suspension. This is why the biggest and heaviest sediments, namely sand and pebbles, are found along beaches and not further out.
A little further from shore the water is much more still, and so silt and mud and clay will fall out of suspension there.
Even further from shore, too far off shore for the sediment-laden runoff from land to reach very effectively, will be mid-ocean ooze and, if conditions are right, carbonate skeletons of dead microorganisms.
As the sediments accumulate their weight causes isostatic subsidence, so more sediments accumulate, adding more weight and causing more subsidence. Even with stable sea levels there will always be coastline erosion, so depending upon the amount of runoff from land the natural state of a coastline is not stationary but is one of gradual transgression inland or regression out to sea. It depends upon whether sediments are delivered to a coastline faster than oceans are eroding the coastline away. So the sedimentary depth gradually builds up over thousands of years as the coastline moves gradually inland. The layers will not be horizontal both because of gradual isostatic subsidence and because the transgressions are climbing higher on the landscape while regressions are receding lower.
The Mississippi River Delta is a good example of sediments being delivered to the coast faster than oceans are eroding them away. The Beaufort Sea in Alaska, where in some years as much as a hundred feet of coast can disappear, is an example of a coastline eroding faster than sediments are being delivered. Happisburgh in Norfolk, Great Britain, is another good example:
Of course, if seas are rising or falling, or even alternately rising and falling, then coastlines will move back and forth across a landscape, generating complex and interesting sequences of sedimentary layers. Also note that when seas retreat then the sedimentary layers just deposited will be exposed to the forces of weathering and will be eroded, creating an unconformity surface the next time the sea transgresses and begins depositing more sediments.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 4:02 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 455 of 740 (734560)
07-30-2014 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Percy
07-30-2014 2:42 PM


Flood debunkery revisited
All that evidence for the Old Earth in all the sciences is mostly just plausibilities, interpretations of observations, suppositions, assumptions, hypotheses and so on. There's a lot of it so it looks like a lot of *evidence* -- which it is of course if you count plausibilities, interpretations of observations, assumptions, hypotheses and so on as evidence. Which again, is all anyone's got for the prehistoric past.
What we actually have is evidence, and interpretation and analysis of evidence. The "plausibilities,...,suppositions, assumptions, hypotheses" stuff is all on your side of the fence.
I'm sorry you don't see the obvious. Old Earthers have had more time to accumulate your web of interpretations but that's all it is, a web of interpretations, plausibilities, suppositions, assumptions and hypotheses.
For example, we know how sand is deposited in deserts and along coastlines because we observe it happening today.
Oh sure there are lots of such facts, and they're available to me just as to you. But the theory that any particular observation in the present applies to the past is just a supposition that can't be proved, which may be plausible or not.
And we know that the sandstone in geological layers was deposited in the same way because analysis reveals it has the same composition, structure and types of fossils as sedimentary sand deposits forming today.
In order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore the fact that you are comparing hilly piles of loose sand to a gigantic square hunk of lithified rock. But I doubt your fossil claim too.
You, on the other hand, claim a Flood that does things that no flood anywhere has ever done, and that no one can conceive could happen using natural processes.
More like no one WANTS to conceive of it so you find all kinds of objections to it. And really, this constant refrain about other floods is ludicrous, should have been given up long ago in this debate. The worldwide Flood was a rising of the oceans over all the land on the planet. To compare it to a local flood is just plain insane. Stop it.
You claim this is a Flood as has never been seen before and that it could nonetheless do these things, but now you are way beyond even "plausibilities, suppositions, assumptions, hypotheses" and into the realm of fiction.
"Now?" Since when? My reasoning is based on the facts available. You start with the Biblical fact that there WAS a worldwide Flood, you follow with the calculations based on the Biblical time indicators so you know roughly when it occurred. This comes from God Himself so anything science says that contradicts it has to be excluded. But that much doesn't even have to be stated in a science discussion unless forced, because there are scientific facts that don't challenge God and do support such an event, such as the huge strata and the huge number of fossils. Explaining all that on Old Earth assumptions is the weird fictional stuff. And boy are those explanations weird.
Walther's Law is about rising sea level, not waves, tsunami-sized or not.
You still misunderstand Walther's Law. Walther's Law is about a depositional environment moving across a landscape. It could be the riverbank of a meandering river or the coastline of a transgressing/regressing sea. Both are examples of Walther's Law in action.
Sigh. Which is exactly what the Flood would have brought about, as I keep saying.
If you read the Wikipedia Section on Walther's Law you'll see that it describes it as "when a depositional environment 'migrates' laterally". This could refer to a coastline that moves inland or out to sea with the depositional environments of that coastline moving with it, or to the banks of a meandering river whose depositional environments moves back and forth across the landscape with the changing course of the river.
Well, the Flood was no river, but it was the rising of the sea level, moving the coastline inland and then out again. There's nothing wrong with applying Walther's Law to this scenario.
It order for a depositional environment to deposit the significant amounts of sand, silt, mud, clay, calcium carbonate remains and mid-ocean ooze that we see in the sedimentary record, that environment has to persist in one place for quite some time.
Sure, "quite some time" but that could be months, not millions of years. This is just one of those assumptions, hypotheses, suppositions etc. You haven't seen this and you have no idea how long it would take. You just assume that it takes whatever time fits into the Old Earth scenario. There is nothing whatever to justify such an assumption. A year is really quite a long time for the entire earth to be flooded.
The ocean deposits sand on beaches every day. Rivers deposit sediments in deltas every day.
That's why the transgression onto or regression from a landscape has to be gradual, otherwise there's no time for significant deposits to form.
Again you are simply assuming the amount of time needed since nobody has ever witnessed this and what IS witnessed as occurring today does occur a lot more rapidly than you seem to be willing to apply to your scenario-- beach sand, river delta etc. Rivers often change course due to sedimentation build-up in a matter of a hundred years, not hundreds of millions, and that means the sedimentation is occurring daily. The Flood would have involved ocean water incredibly full of sediments from the scouring off of the land.
The runoff from land has to feed the depositional environments with the raw material that it sorts by density and grain size. The heaviest material, sand, can fall out of suspension in the active water of waves, and so we find sand at the interface between between land and ocean, and the activity of the waves provides additional weathering that produces more sand. A little further off the coast we find mud, silt and clay sediments that consist of smaller and lighter particles and that require quieter water to fall out of suspension. Further off the coast if the environment is suitable the carbonate skeletons of microorganisms will accumulate, and otherwise there will be only mid-ocean ooze.
The Flood waters would have been thick with sediments of all sorts.
Walther's Law is definitely not about a flood moving across a landscape, even a global flood.
Try rising sea level instead of "flood," which is a more accurate picture of the actual situation.
Once the world is flooded no water is moving in any significant way and there are no higher elevations from which sediments can be supplied.
Once the water is full of sediments they just keep being deposited on the land, you don't need a further supply. And ocean water doesn't stop moving. It has temperature levels and currents, and tides don't stop when the land is covered, though exactly how they would move under those circumstances is an interesting question.
You think the sediments would come from the scoured landscape, but floods do not scour landscapes, only fast flowing water does that, and fast flowing water only occurs in confined waterways.
Oh for crying out loud, Percy. The first stage of the Flood was forty days and nights of heavy rain. Have you ever seen a heavy rain that only lasts a few days? It swells rivers and soaks hills and causes enormous mudslides in just that short period of time. One day of heavy rain where I live, an event that only happens every decade or so, fills the walled walkway in front of my door with water up to the threshold and the mud collected is a real problem for the clean-up crew. In the early stage of the Flood the water would run from the higher parts to the lower parts, pretty fast-flowing water one would assume, and ALL OVER THE LAND EVERYWHERE, millions of fast-flowing rivers. What ARE you thinking?
Floods spread out across landscapes and move slowly.
Itty bitty little local floods are no comparison, are you never going to recognize this? In a worldwide Flood you would have hundreds of thousands of little local floods all converging from all directions.
But even a fast flowing tsunami does not scour a landscape, as we saw when the tsunami flooded across the Japanese landscape. About the best it did in the way of scouring was pick up a little beach sand and carry it a little bit inland.
And I've already answered this too. The main deposition would have occurred on the transgression and regression of the ocean water itself. Huge waves would have to have occurred somewhere in this process, though, because tides didn't stop and waves don't stop coming up over the land when there is still land for them to come up over. When the water was so heavy with sediments from the scouring, such a wave could have contributed quite a bit of deposition. You are just continuing to make inadequate comparisons.
YOu think it would have taken "geologic time" in the millions of years to lay down the sediments we see in the strata, I don't. Matter of plausibilities.
No, it is not a "matter of plausibilities.
It sure is, and that's a woefully inadequate bunch of plausibilities you've just outlined above.
There is nothing plausible about a global flood that has no source of sediment yet not only produces copious sedimentary layers into which it inserts undisturbed footprints, burrows and nests, it sorts them by type (but without regard to density and size), by degree of difference of fossils from modern forms, and by amount of radiometric decay products. Your ideas about the Flood fail on the simplest and most fundamental levels.
Yeah yeah yeah. Your utter inability to imagine the scale of such an event makes your criticism of my view ridiculous. "No source of sediments???" The entire land mass of all the continents put together down to bedrock isn't enough sediments? abe: Add to that the carbonates and calcareous ooze from the ocean itself that formed the limestones and that's a LOT of sediment. /abe
You can't prove how long it would have taken and neither can I,...
Au contraire, we *can* prove (that's "prove" in the scientific sense of providing evidence for one's theories) how long it would have taken because we can observe how slowly the same processes are happening today while building sedimentary layers identical in character to their lithified cousins deeper in the geologic column. In addition we have the radiometric data, and we have the fossils.
Sigh. You do NOT have evidence, you have plausibilities, which is amply shown already in this discussion alone as you so inadequately envision what you think would have happened. It's all imagination and yours is woefully out of scale. You are living in neverneverland if you think the layers being built today are even remotely similar in size to the Coconino, the Redwall, the Dover Cliffs, the tepui etc. And you keep comparing the volume of water to a local flood when a worldwide Flood begun with over a month of heavy rain would be made up of millions of such little floods all running together all at one time.
...but five months up and five months back seems like plenty of time to carry and dump sediments.
Here's yet another reason you're mistaken. Sedimentary layers are everywhere around the world. If the flood had truly carried sediments from one place to be deposited in another, then the places where the sediments came from should have no material left. Yet, as I said, sedimentary layers are everywhere. There is nowhere in your scenario from which the sediments could come.
Sigh. The denuded places would have been covered with deposited sediments, Percy, there would have been no such thing as a place where no material was left. The sediments would just have been carried in the water wherever they were carried, maybe even back where they came from in some cases, but all of them would have ended up on the land in any case. Put some dirt in a square glass dish, add water to a good depth, stir until it's all mixed together, let it settle. Are there any places it didn't settle? Did the exact same sediments settle where they were originally?
Oceans cover 3/4 of the globe, which is 3/4 of a global flood. There's nothing in today's oceans remotely similar to your claim of cubic miles and miles sediments being carried from one set of places hither and yon to another set of places in short periods of time.
You are way too literal about this idea of carrying from one place to another as if that means emptying one place to fill another when all it means is that the sediments got stirred up and redeposited all over the place. See example of glass dish above.
ABE: Here's an experiment. Find a flat rock. Put it in the center of a fairly large square flat pyrex dish, the bigger the better. sprinkle whatever sediments you can get together onto the rock, or make mud out of them and pack them onto the rock and let it dry or whatever. Then fill the dish with water to cover the whole rock. Stir up the water until it's all mixed, and let it settle. I wonder what would end up on the rock.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : grammar
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Percy, posted 07-30-2014 2:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2014 5:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 459 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 6:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 626 by Percy, posted 08-03-2014 7:29 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 456 of 740 (734562)
07-30-2014 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by edge
07-30-2014 4:28 PM


Re: Cardenas
It never fails to amaze me how rare it is for anybody here ever to put a positive construction on anything I say, ...
Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for this?
Case in point.
I've made a lot of good arguments even today so far, but far be it from you to recognize that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 4:28 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Taq, posted 07-30-2014 6:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 457 of 740 (734563)
07-30-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:28 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
quote:
I'm sorry you don't see the obvious
Oh we do see that what you are saying is often obviously distorted, exaggerated, untrue or even dishonest. We just don't see that those as reasons to believe you.
quote:
Old Earthers have had more time to accumulate your web of interpretations but that's all it is, a web of interpretations, plausibilities, suppositions, assumptions and hypotheses.
Yes, I know that you have to try to pretend that everyone is at the same level. But the fact is that the science of geology has a good deal more evidence than you do, and a lot more understanding.
quote:
Oh sure there are lots of such facts, and they're available to me just as to you. But the theory that any particular observation in the present applies to the past is just a supposition that can't be proved, which may be plausible or not.
Sure, the laws of physics might have indetectably changed so that the Flood just happens to produce results that look like hundreds of millions of years of geological processes. But if you have to appeal to that sort of thinking you have left rationality a long way behind you.
quote:
In order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore the fact that you are comparing hilly piles of loose sand to a gigantic square hunk of lithified rock.
And in order to make that objection you have to ignore the fact that you believe that lithification happens even more readily than Percy does.
quote:
"Now?" Since when? My reasoning is based on the facts available.
Too often it seems that isn't true.
quote:
You start with the Biblical fact that there WAS a worldwide Flood, you follow with the calculations based on the Biblical time indicators so you know roughly when it occurred. This comes from God Himself so anything science says that contradicts it has to be excluded. But that much doesn't even have to be stated in a science discussion unless forced...
You mean that you try to deny that your argument starts with dogmatic religious belief, even though it is the truth.
quote:
...because there are scientific facts that don't challenge God and do support such an event, such as the huge strata and the huge number of fossils.
In other words you are reduced to desperately pretending to have evidence.
quote:
Explaining all that on Old Earth assumptions is the weird fictional stuff. And boy are those explanations weird.
If you really think that it's weird to believe sensible ideas instead of crazy nonsense that explains a lot. Simple accumulation over time explains a lot. And given the time - which we really do have very good evidence for - it's pretty much inevitable.
New thread coming for the fossil record, since it is off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 458 of 740 (734565)
07-30-2014 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:49 PM


Re: Cardenas
I've made a lot of good arguments even today so far, but far be it from you to recognize that.
All of your arguments can be boiled down to one sentence.
"No matter what the evidence is, I will claim that a global flood caused it."
Your position is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what features a geologic formation has, you will proclaim that it requires a global flood because . . . well, you say so, and for no other reason.
If you think I am wrong, then describe for me a hypothetical geologic formation that a recent global flood could not produce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 459 of 740 (734567)
07-30-2014 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:28 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
Sigh. You do NOT have evidence, you have plausibilities, ...
Which would be better than implausibilities.
... which is amply shown already in this discussion alone as you so inadequately envision what you think would have happened.
That's weird logic. Why would Percy think of anything that would happen during the fludde? Isn't that your job, to describe such events?
It's all imagination and yours is woefully out of scale.
How do you know that? What scale are you working with?
You are living in neverneverland if you think the layers being built today are even remotely similar in size to the Coconino, the Redwall, the Dover Cliffs, the tepui etc.
Actually, I'm betting that some are larger. Just look at the continental shelf of North America. What do you think will happen according to Walther's Law when sea level rises? What do you think the Sahara Desert will look like in the geological record? And what about the Great Barrier Reef? And you never did address the late Triassic limestone formations that run from Alaska to Peru, all deposited after major volcanic events.
I know... details, details...
And you keep comparing the volume of water to a local flood when a worldwide Flood begun with over a month of heavy rain would be made up of millions of such little floods all running together all at one time.
But you never explain where that water came from or where it went. You never explain how limestone would be deposited during such a flood event. You never explain how evaporites were deposited in the middle of a global flood, or how dinosaurs flourished during the flood.
Put some dirt in a square glass dish, add water to a good depth, stir until it's all mixed together, let it settle. Are there any places it didn't settle? Did the exact same sediments settle where they were originally?
You mean you are comparing a global flood with a glass of water??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:28 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 460 of 740 (734570)
07-30-2014 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by herebedragons
07-30-2014 8:56 AM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
I don't see this at all. The depth of the strata I consider to be solidly fixed by the standard geological nomenclature, so I don't shift things around at all. There are some places where the stack is deep and places where it isn't and the examples presented here show the one or the other. I certainly expect that geologists can identify the different rocks they are talking about although they represent time to them and just rocks at different depths to me.
But you DO shift things around. Just like you suggest moving the Jurassic lava flows of the Alaskan Range to a post-flood time period. Why? Simply because it would fit your scenario better. That is NOT objective.
Well, I haven't done so before, but in this case I would be shifting the volcanic layers off the chart of the Geo Column as I've been describing it here, which I haven't done with respect to the Geo Column itself as I've been defining it. But I do have an objective reason for the post-Flood hypothesis in the fact that all those examples of interspersed volcanic and sedimentary rock are not at all LIKE the sedimentary strata of the Geologic Column as I've been defining it. The Geo Column as I've envisioned it really does exist as an actual type of formation, examples of which can be found in many places, while the interlayered examples really are something else, a whole category unto themselves that is predominantly volcanic.
The absolute dates of the layers are irrelevant or at least unnecessary to establish a correlation. In fact, much of the geological sequence was worked out before radiometric dating and before Darwin's ToE. It doesn't matter what time frame you assign to geological periods they will yield the same RELATIVE results.
Which is what I've been pointing out in relation to the practical versus theoretical work of Geology. Why you think you need to explain it to me I don't know.
I have been trying to figure out how to get this idea across to you and I think I may have an idea.
Well, this should be interesting since I could explain it myself.
Let's say I look at a cross section of the Grand Canyon...
And I notice that the Kaibab is at the top of the formation, which is assigned to the Permian.
Then I look at a section in the Grand Staircase...
Here I notice that the Claron Formation is at the top of the stack. Therefore, the Claron must also be of Permian age and was deposited at the same time as the Kaibab. Right?
You would say I was daft, would you not? Why? Because you can follow the layers through the GC / GS section and see that the Kaibab layer continues under the area where the Claron is and therefore you know the Claron was laid down much later.
Somewhat later anyway.
It is the RELATIVE order that counts here. You KNOW that the Kaibab and the Claron were NOT deposited at the same time. ....
Eyes crossing, lids lowering, fluttering, trying to be patient.
Here's the thing. Did you realize that the rock record is continuous from the Grand Canyon to the Alaskan Range? And to the Appalachian Mountains? And to the African continent? etc.
GOLLY GEE, You don't say? REALLY?
HBD, have I really not said clearly enough that I KNOW THAT??? Good grief.
So the RELATIVE sequence can be worked out between these geologically distinct areas just like you can work out the relative sequence between the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase.
You'd make an excellent kindergarten teacher I'm sure. It's hard to take being talked down to like this but I will try to keep my cool.
What on earth do you think I mean when I say that I know the Geo Column is a composite of lots of partial columns everywhere?
Of course, you may expect that I present such a cross section between the GC and the Alaskan Range, but I doubt any such composite drawing exists. It would just be too complex, it would do you no good anyway. But don't think for a second that geologists have not worked through those kind of relationships to establish a relative order of things. That's how it works.
Sigh.
The thing is, if one did construct such a composite, and if what I think is probably the case really is the case, then what you'd have is those interspersed layers building on top of the Holocene -- or Tertiary in the case of the Grand Staircase. Of course since you accept the dates of the Alaska deposits you'd put them on the same level with the Triassic and Jurassic and other deposits in the GS area. You can do that if you want since you believe it, but I may come along and decide that order of things is in fact wrong. I'm working on it. It won't convince anyone here but me but at this point I still need to be convinced one way or the other.
Slabs of rock DO NOT represent time periods, as you put it. Layers are assigned to geological time periods based on their RELATIVE position; their position in relation to one another. The clues that geologists use to determine this relative position are varied, but the bottom line is that it is the correlation that really matters. Absolute dating did not establish that the earth was old, it confirmed it!
Unfortunately the slabs of rock DO represent time periods. I can see for myself that they are in relative order, but even then they conventionally represent widely separated time periods so your emphasis is really just academic.
I have supposed that in their practical work Geologists don't really have a use for the Old Earth numbers of years anyway, but only for the relative dates between various formations. So far that seems to be borne out in what has been said here about how the work is actually done in the field, by petrophysics (see HERE and my answer two posts later), edge and Pressie. although edge at least claims the ancient age really matters, at least in terms of calculating past temperatures as part of the process of locating oil stores. I haven't seen it yet myself.
Oh but I see you are going on to this kind of example:
For example, in drilling for oil or gas, it is not particularly important that a particular rock is 200 million years old or whatever, what IS important is the relative ages of the deposits.
Which is exactly what I was arguing with Pressie and edge a couple nights ago and now you think you need to inform ME of this? You may need to inform THEM.
Modern geological methods have made this easier by assigning absolute dates to geological periods so that the relative position of a layer can be more easily determined, but there is nothing particularly important about the absolute date.
Well, that is what I have been saying for years. Why are you lecturing me about it? Roxrkool, Dr. A and edge among others have argued with me about this. Perhaps you need to talk to them about it.
You could convert it in your head to 200 million minutes old for all it matters, as long as the relative ages remain consistent.
Which is exactly what I've thought. Try Message 274. Message 280. Message 282. and Message 302. I also argued it a long time ago here but those messages aren't coming up for some reason, or maybe I used different words.
You seem to think that geologists go about assigning ages to structures to bolster their presupposition that the earth is old.
I think no such thing!
But you think that because you are thinking like a creationist, because that is a creationist's modus operandi.
I think no such thing!
That is NOT how scientists operate. Scientists work on problems methodically; taking one piece of the puzzle at a time and fitting it into the bigger picture. It is this same systematic, methodical approach that has allow us to work out the structure of DNA, the cell cycle, the atomic theory, cosmology, ect, ect. Piece by piece, building on previous discoveries; working out details, drawing objective conclusions.
I know, I know... Blah, blah, blah.
Yes, blah blah blah. The party line, the recitation of the Creed, the litany. You are saying NOTHING. The way the time periods are worked out I have no doubt is "scientific" the way all historical science is "scientific," it can't be tested but I don't doubt that it was scientifically determined as far as that is possible with the untestable past. The structure of DNA is replicable, testable, as are the other scientific theories of the true or hard sciences, the age of the earth IS NOT.
The thing is, there are lava flows across the world that fall into the RELATIVE stratigraphic position that falsifies the idea that a worldwide flood deposited all the layers of the GC.
I'm sure you believe that. I'm doubting it and expect to be studying it.
I know you believe without a doubt that there was a global flood, and that's perfectly fine. No problem. But your scenario completely fails (I know you don't see that it does, but it does). How about a much simpler task. Show us just one layer that is consistent with flood deposits and that corresponds to the same relative position in the geological column throughout the world. That should prove to be much easier than the course you are taking. But your not much for taking my advice.
There is no way to convince anybody of anything here. ALL the layers are consistent with Flood deposits with very few exceptions. The fact that the layers exist at all as they do is GLARING evidence for the Flood, as is the staggering numbers of fossils. Nobody will accept that, so they certainly aren't going to accept anything I say about a particular layer. They'll just trot out their ridiculous stories about what happened in the era the rock represents based on the fossil contents. I'll fall asleep and later get back to my basic arguments.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : add link to petrophysics post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by herebedragons, posted 07-30-2014 8:56 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2014 10:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 462 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 10:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 463 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 11:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 468 by JonF, posted 07-31-2014 7:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 461 of 740 (734572)
07-30-2014 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:57 PM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
There is no way to convince anybody of anything here.
All you need is evidence to convince people. What you have presented as evidence has not been accepted because real-world evidence contradicts it.
ALL the layers are consistent with Flood deposits with very few exceptions.
That is assertion based on old tribal myth, not evidence. And that assertion is contradicted by real-world evidence.
The fact that the layers exist at all as they do is GLARING evidence for the Flood, as is the staggering numbers of fossils.
Staggering 100% wrong. The evidence shows those layers are separated by hundreds of millions of years. It also is clear that those fossils show the development, maturity, and death of species, genera, and whole families of organisms--which could not have happened in a single year. So the evidence you accept as proving a flood is exactly the evidence which proves such a flood could not have done what you say it did.
Nobody will accept that, so they certainly aren't going to accept anything I say about a particular layer.
You are correct. Your stories about geology and most of the rest of science are "just-so" stories. They bear no resemblance to what scientists have actually discovered. In fact, they are contradicted by the real-world evidence.
They'll just trot out their ridiculous stories about what happened in the era the rock represents based on the fossil contents.
Scientists have to work with explanations based on real-world evidence. Apologists are the exact opposite.
I'll fall asleep and later get back to my basic arguments.
Don't bother. We've heard them all before and they failed then. Why just keep repeating failed arguments? To convince yourself? Because you certainly are not convincing anyone else.

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
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 462 of 740 (734573)
07-30-2014 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:57 PM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
I have supposed that in their practical work Geologists don't really have a use for the Old Earth numbers of years anyway, but only for the relative dates between various formations.
Not with intrusive rocks and not where there are no relative age relationships. I have given you real-life examples.
If the mapping is good enough and you have coordinated relative dates, absolute ages may not be necessary. In fact with just sedimentary rocks we often don't have dates anyway.
On the other hand, as you go back into the Precambrian absolute ages become more important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 463 of 740 (734575)
07-30-2014 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:57 PM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
The way the time periods are worked out I have no doubt is "scientific" the way all historical science is "scientific," it can't be tested but I don't doubt that it was scientifically determined as far as that is possible with the untestable past.
Actually, it was tested by radiometric dating, and guess what...
The (relatively) older rocks had older absolute dates.
The structure of DNA is replicable, testable, as are the other scientific theories of the true or hard sciences, the age of the earth IS NOT.
Except when they are. Radiometric dates can be tested a couple of easy ways. One is by repeated testing. The other is testing by other methods.
I suppose that, to you, concordance of dates is just a coincidence...
ALL the layers are consistent with Flood deposits with very few exceptions.
You mean like evaporite deposits, dinosaur tracks, fossil forests, subaerial volcanism, eolian sands? Stuff like that?
The fact that the layers exist at all as they do is GLARING evidence for the Flood, as is the staggering numbers of fossils.
Yes, old ages at work producing many fossils over many great ages. And in a well-defined order.
If this is so glaringly obvious, why not explain some of the features that I have just mentioned.
At present, the only thing that is glaring is the fact that you cannot address these issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 1:38 AM edge has replied

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


Message 464 of 740 (734577)
07-31-2014 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by edge
07-30-2014 11:32 PM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
If science contradicts God, so much for science. That means radiometric dating can't be accepted as true. Besides, tadiometric dating can't be verified any more than any other guess about the past can be. You have no way of knowing if those dates are really accurate. There could be a systematic error that can't be detected. You'd never know it because you can't go back into the past to see when the rocks formed.
I've given my best guesses as to how the tracks showed up during the Flood. Don't know how to account for the Aeolian sand but I'm sure there's a good explanation etc. Fossil forests were most likely formed at the end or after the Flood by all the volcanism at that time. Evaporite deposits leached out of the rocks etc.
The thing about fossils is that the conditions to produce them are rare, and most of the descriptions of how the strata formed don't suggest anything like those conditions, but the Flood, in depositing all those wet sediments full of dead creatures, certainly did provide the conditions for fossilization of such an enormous collection of them: rapid burial under great pressure of the weight of the stack of strata above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by edge, posted 07-30-2014 11:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2014 2:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 466 by Tangle, posted 07-31-2014 2:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 469 by JonF, posted 07-31-2014 8:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 470 by JonF, posted 07-31-2014 8:17 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 472 by edge, posted 07-31-2014 8:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 475 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2014 10:38 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 465 of 740 (734578)
07-31-2014 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Faith
07-31-2014 1:38 AM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
quote:
If science contradicts God, so much for science. That means radiometric dating can't be accepted as true. Besides, tadiometric dating can't be verified any more than any other guess about the past can be. You have no way of knowing if those dates are really accurate. There could be a systematic error that can't be detected. You'd never know it because you can't go back into the past to see when the rocks formed.
So what you are saying is that for you, your religious beliefs trump science. Well that's fine for you, but it is hardly an argument that your beliefs are true. Indeed, the fact that you have to appeal to it is pretty good evidence that your beliefs aren't true.
Why not consider the possibility that your view of the Bible might be wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 1:38 AM 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