Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 91 of 1257 (788018)
07-24-2016 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
07-24-2016 4:54 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Right, I've seen the map and I think that you are obviously misreading something. The western coast seems to be under water but that does not stretch far enough east to cover the Colorado Plateau. While the Chinle formation covers part of Nevada, it would be in the Eastern part of the state (probably only the Southeast) and I can't see the sea reaching much past the western border of that state from the superimposed map of modern North America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 4:54 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 5:37 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 92 of 1257 (788019)
07-24-2016 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
07-24-2016 5:26 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The same maps and moe information can be found
here
While the Sundance Sea does cover the area in the Jurassic, the Sundance formation is well above the Chinle. Not surprisingly marine fossils are found in the Sundance formation.
I still see no sign of a genuine contradiction here. If anyone else wishes to look at the maps they can find them in the pdf linked above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 5:26 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 6:42 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 93 of 1257 (788020)
07-24-2016 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
07-24-2016 5:37 PM


a definite contradiction
I certainly hope others may come along who can interpret the maps better than you do.
You don't seem to grasp that the states in which the Chinle Formation is found are all mostly west of the Rockies, and the Rockies are that band of volcanoes in the maps in the book. Here's a map showing the location of the Rockies today:
Here's the Wikipedia quote about the Chinle Formation again:
The Chinle Formation is an Upper Triassic continental geologic formation of fluvial, lacustrine, and palustrine to eolian deposits spread across the U.S. states of Nevada, Utah, northern Arizona, western New Mexico, and western Colorado.
All these are west of the Rockies, with the last two partially in the Rockies. Which doesn't help the situation since while deep ocean makes the west unlivable, active volcanoes make the mountains unlivable during this time period.
The Wikipedia quote goes on to say that a formation east of the Rockies is sometimes included as part of the Chinle Formation, and in the Triassic Period that area is dry land and not under water. However, the west IS under water and there are lots of dinosaur fossils there. So there is definitely a contradiction between the interpretation of a landscape with dinosaurs in that area and the paleogeographic interpretation of deep ocean covering it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 5:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 07-24-2016 8:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 97 by 14174dm, posted 07-24-2016 8:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 12:28 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 1257 (788022)
07-24-2016 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
07-24-2016 4:25 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Far be it from me to expect to "demonstrate" anything to anyone here. But it's an OBSERVATION of mine that NOTHING happened between the layers EVER, and I've spent a lot of time arguing that quite well in my opinion.
For good reason. Anything sediment between the layers would have lithified. What you are supposed to be demonstrating is that there was never any soil on top of any layers. And you have utterly failed to offer any reason, evidence, or argument for such a thing.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:41 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 95 of 1257 (788023)
07-24-2016 8:05 PM


Reality not just stacks of rocks
Let's look at some numerical support for the geological time scale.
In the oceans, particularly in the Pacific, there are chains of sea mounts and islands. The radiometric dates for these chains increase virtually linearly as you go from one end to the other.
The best known one is the Hawaiian -Emperor sea mount chain extending northwest from Hawaii. At least 40 have been dated ranging up to 81 million years, with of course at the Hawaiian end you have the current volcanoes, and a new one under sea S-E of Hawaii.
The volume of the volcanic products in the chain is 750,000 cubic km.The R-M dates are what you would expect for the current rate of movement of the Pacific plate over the hawaiian hot spot.
These chains present at least two problems for YEC.
1. Why do these dates look exactly as you would expect given current nuclear physics and the observed rate of plate movement?
2. How could the chain be formed around the time of the Flood with the extreme rate of plate movement and of volcanism required? The H-E chain alone represents at least 30,000 Krakatoas.

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


(1)
Message 96 of 1257 (788025)
07-24-2016 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
07-24-2016 6:42 PM


Re: a definite contradiction
Faith writes:
All these are west of the Rockies, with the last two partially in the Rockies. Which doesn't help the situation since while deep ocean makes the west unlivable, active volcanoes make the mountains unlivable during this time period.
More utter nonsense Faith.
Active volcanoes do not make mountains unlivable and believe it or not there is life in seas and even on islands in seas. There are even life forms today that live on volcanoes as well as in mountain chains where there are active volcanoes.
But WAIT... There's more.
Guess what? Very few dinosaur fossils have ever been found in California. There have been some Duck-billed dinosaurs and a few Raptors and all of those dated to around the time the Sierra Nevadas were forming and parts of what now is California were not under seas.
Remember Faith, when we are talking about dinosaurs we are talking about fairly long periods of history, over 200 million years and during that period of time things including landmasses did change. Some areas that were once under water became dry land.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 6:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 2:01 AM jar has replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(3)
Message 97 of 1257 (788026)
07-24-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
07-24-2016 6:42 PM


Re: a definite contradiction
From your quote of Wikipedia on Chinle formation-
Chinle Formation is an Upper Triassic continental geologic formation of fluvial, lacustrine, and palustrine to eolian deposits....
Also from Wikipedia
Fluvial is a term used in geography and geology to refer to the processes associated with rivers and streams and the deposits and landforms created by them.
Lacustrine deposits are sedimentary rock formations which formed in the bottom of ancient lakes.
Aeolian processes, also spelled eolian or olian, pertain to wind activity in the study of geology and weather and specifically to the wind's ability to shape the surface of the Earth....
Palustrine is define by Wiktionary
Of, pertaining to, or thriving in marshy habitats.
So the people who have studied the geology found evidence of streams and floodplains, marshes, lakes, as well as deserts.
Did you even read the Stratigraphy section further down the Chinle Formation Wikipedia page? The Chinle Formation is more complicated than your flat layers of continuous strata.
If you want to convince anyone of errors in geology, you should start by arguing specific points.
For example, I typed in the name for just one member of the Chinle Formation, the Shinarump Member which Wikipedia describes as
Shinarump is a braided-river system channel-deposit facies.
I found a conference guide book for attendees to go look for themselves what other geologist found. I would think that if someone is lying about geology, they wouldn't want to draw attention to the actual rocks in the field.
Some quotes from this document don't fit your idea of flat strata. http://nmgs.nmt.edu/...debooks/downloads/9/9_p0095_p0097.pdf
Under Distribution
In many areas the Shinarump is absent locally as a result of nondeposition where the pre-existing land surface was topographically high. In these areas the advancing sheet of Shinarump sediments appears to have lapped against, and to have been deposited around, residual hills of the Moenkopi formation.
Under Thickness, the Shinarump is described as varying from non-existent to over 350 ft thick. The variation in thickness is due to the roughness of the rock below.
The primary control of the thickness was the relief of the erosion surface on which it was deposited.
The whole section on Basal Contact describes evidence of stream channels.
Under Lithology, Conglomerate describes finding pebbles and cobbles. If your Flood is transporting unconsolidated sediment, how did it move pebbles and cobbles without eroding away all the unconsolidated silt & mud?
If you think the science of geology is wrong, point out specific examples. The current back & forth is going nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 6:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:38 AM 14174dm has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 98 of 1257 (788027)
07-25-2016 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
07-24-2016 6:42 PM


Re: a definite contradiction
quote:
I certainly hope others may come along who can interpret the maps better than you do.
An unwillingness to admit an obvious error does not make you right.
quote:
You don't seem to grasp that the states in which the Chinle Formation is found are all mostly west of the Rockies, and the Rockies are that band of volcanoes in the maps in the book.
Unfortunately for you, the volcanoes are not the Rocky Mountains as the map makes quite clear. The superimposed outline of the modern continent shows that they run along the California coast. They are also to the West of the Sundance sea which certainly did cover at least part of the area of the Chinle formation as I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 6:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:29 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 99 of 1257 (788028)
07-25-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
07-24-2016 2:42 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
And remember, what I want to know is the official explanation of how a landscape forms ON TOP OF A STRATUM, then how it comes to disappear so that all we have next is another stratum of sediment.
The official explanation is that it doesn't disappear, and that it is the other stratum of sediment. That's why there's another stratum of sediment. This is not rocket science. How many times do you need this explaining to you, Faith? You have been told this over and over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 100 of 1257 (788030)
07-25-2016 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
07-25-2016 1:00 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Sorry, I still don't get what you are trying to say. I also don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2016 1:00 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2016 12:27 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 101 of 1257 (788031)
07-25-2016 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
07-25-2016 12:28 AM


Re: a definite contradiction
If I saw an error I'd admit it, so obviously I don't see an error. Do you ever consider such a possibility or is it so important to you to accuse me of moral faults that just never enters your mind?
What YOU don't get is that that is NOT the California coast as we know it today. California had not been built up, there really wasn't much of California or the west coast at all yet, it WAS under deep ocean. All the states today to which the Chinle Formation belongs were UNDER WATER. However, as I see on the next page the volcanoes appear to be more to the west of the Rockies than in the Rockies. Which doesn't help matters anyway: there is still no place for the dinosaurs, whether because of deep water or volcanoes. All this is going on during the shifting of the continents after the break-up of Pangaea.
(And most likely the last phases of the Flood.)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 12:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 1:56 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 102 of 1257 (788032)
07-25-2016 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by 14174dm
07-24-2016 8:35 PM


Re: a definite contradiction
I'm not discussing the Flood, I'm discussing the geological claims. The flat strata are evident in the picture I posted. The supposed fluvial contents of the rock are the usual interpretations based on the rock, which I am not addressing. What I am addressing is that the whole Chinle Formation, which is dated to the Triassic period, appears to have been under water according to the pages on Paleogeography in the textbook I'm using. That's all I'm talking about. The members of the formation are not relevant at this point, their thickness or anything else about them, nor are the fluvial contents of the rocks. And I haven't accused anyone of lying, just somehow not having put together two separate geological studies that turn out to contradict each other as far as I can tell from the presentations in this book.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by 14174dm, posted 07-24-2016 8:35 PM 14174dm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by 14174dm, posted 07-25-2016 7:53 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 103 of 1257 (788033)
07-25-2016 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
07-24-2016 7:09 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The soil is completely fictional. There is no evidence for it. The actual evidence is the flat straight contact lines between strata as seen in photo after photo after photo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2016 7:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by vimesey, posted 07-25-2016 2:16 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 1257 (788034)
07-25-2016 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
07-25-2016 1:29 AM


Re: a definite contradiction
quote:
What YOU don't get is that that is NOT the California coast as we know it today.
Then you are misunderstanding. The outline of the modern continent shows the California coastline as it exists today. So the locatiion of the volcanoes corresponds to the modern California coastline and not the location of the Rocky Mountains. The whole point is to relate the Triassic geography to the modern.
It would be more fair to accuse you of missing differences between Triassic and modern geography because the Rocky Mountains did not exist in the Triassic.
quote:
All the states today to which the Chinle Formation belongs were UNDER WATER.
If they were where you thought they were, they'd be underwater NOW.
quote:
However, as I see on the next page the volcanoes appear to be more to the west of the Rockies than in the Rockies.
I guess that mistaking the Sierra Nevada for the Rockies is a slight improvement. But it is still a mistake.
Faith, the outline of the modern continent is there to help you with precisely this sort of question. Why are you refusing to use it ?
quote:
Which doesn't help matters anyway: there is still no place for the dinosaurs, whether because of deep water or volcanoes. All this is going on during the shifting of the continents after the break-up of Pangaea.
And that is also ridiculous. There are people living close to volcanoes today and the "deep water" is just your geographical blunder as anyone who actually looks at the maps can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 105 of 1257 (788035)
07-25-2016 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
07-24-2016 8:28 PM


Re: a definite contradiction
All these are west of the Rockies, with the last two partially in the Rockies. Which doesn't help the situation since while deep ocean makes the west unlivable, active volcanoes make the mountains unlivable during this time period.
More utter nonsense Faith.
Active volcanoes do not make mountains unlivable and believe it or not there is life in seas and even on islands in seas. There are even life forms today that live on volcanoes as well as in mountain chains where there are active volcanoes.
The nonsense is in your head. The map shows clearly where the states are in relation to the Rockies.
The dinosaurs found in the fossil beds of the Chinle formation did not live under water, and that many volcanoes would surely make that locale unlivable for anything. Perhaps you'd like to move to a place that has a dozen active volcanoes.
But WAIT... There's more.
Guess what? Very few dinosaur fossils have ever been found in California. There have been some Duck-billed dinosaurs and a few Raptors and all of those dated to around the time the Sierra Nevadas were forming and parts of what now is California were not under seas.
Yes the dinosaur beds are not in California. That's because there was no California during the time period we are discussing. The description of the Chinle formation does not mention California for that reason, only those six states that are clearly to the west of the Rockies according to that map. According to the paleogeographic maps that whole area was "deep ocean" no matter what you prefer to believe about it.
Remember Faith, when we are talking about dinosaurs we are talking about fairly long periods of history, over 200 million years and during that period of time things including landmasses did change. Some areas that were once under water became dry land.
According to the maps the entire area west of the Rockies was under deep ocean water throughout the entire Mesozoic era, through the Triassic, the Jurassic and the Cretaceous periods. East of the Rockies the epeiric seas transgressed and regressed but there was water present in the middle of the continent throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous. The source of this information is a respected textbook on historical geology.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 07-24-2016 8:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 07-25-2016 8:59 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