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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 241 of 1257 (788366)
07-30-2016 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-30-2016 8:31 AM


Re: and multiple shore lines
What's so odd about the idea that the Flood should have left shorelines?
Well, the main problem is that a shoreline implies a land surface because shorelines are the interface between land and water.
You will notice in your images that above the highest shoreline, there is land without shorelines.
The point is that we can recognize shorelines in the geological record. For instance, the Dakota Sandstone records a shoreline that advanced across the mid-continent of North America. The problem is that it did not cover all of the land. There were emergent areas to both the east and to the west; hence there was topography above sea-level ... a landscape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 8:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by herebedragons, posted 07-30-2016 10:50 PM edge has replied
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 12:18 PM edge has replied

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


(2)
Message 242 of 1257 (788367)
07-30-2016 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
07-30-2016 8:38 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
No landscapes BETWEEN STRATA is the idea, or even "within" strata since that's implied too. The only landscapes on the surface would have been before the Flood, ... ; and the landscapes that have formed after the Flood. Looking at the strata all that you see is tight lines between them, but wherever there is an exposed surface you get hills and valleys, trees and other living things -- which is how I'm using the term "landscape."
What we are arguing is whether there was ever a surface landscape in, say, the "Devonian period," or the "Permian," or the "Jurassic" etc, which would supposedly have left SOME clues instead of those flat straight contacts between their strata and the next.
Of course they leave clues. That's why we say that there were ancient landscapes.
We have offered to you things like river channels cut in various older formations, drainage patterns in the lower Paleozoic, and paleosoils at a number of locations.
I have also asked repeatedly how we get trace fossils such as footprints injected into the geological record during a massive flood. Your implication is that fossils were transported there, somehow, but what about footprints?
Of course, I'm making the wild assumption that dinosaurs actually walked on landscapes. Is that crazy, or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 8:38 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 243 of 1257 (788369)
07-30-2016 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by edge
07-29-2016 5:58 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
So, canyons are not real landscapes?
Not what I said.
So if this canyon was filled in and covered by the next layer of sediment, it was never a canyon?
No.
So, maybe it's just a "canyon" and not a canyon, is that correct?
No.
Maybe you could tell us what a "canyon" is.
No.
Perhaps, then you could explain what you mean by buried canyons not being part of an ancient landscape. Your previous paragraph on the subject was not clear.
Sorry I was not clear. I thought you'd all remember the seismic image of a jagged gash deep in the earth which was interpreted as a former canyon, later filled in by sediment, sand I think. I believe it was presented as an image that converted someone named Morton somethingorother from a YEC to an Old Earther.
I'm having a hard time seeing any alternative interpretation to the buried landscape interpretation of the data. What do you see or not see that convinces you of your position?
Mostly what I see is the strata, strata, strata and more strata, those originally flat straight sedimentary deposits that are now great slabs of rock piled very deep and often extending for huge distances. So when I'm shown a seismic image of an enormous gash in those rocks buried very very deep and called a former canyon, I see no canyon unless you want to call it an "underground canyon" but that could be misleading, I see an enormous gash in the strata buried very deep. I wouldn't call it a canyon unless it occurred at the surface NOW. There is nothing about it other than its outline to suggest it was ever anything but that, a huge gash in the rock filled in with sediment, a feature most likely created by the very running water that created all the strata, and while it might have begun when it was at the surface it never became a "landscape" from any of the actual clues given, it just got carved out of the sediment and filled with another sediment, and successive sedimentary deposits buried it deeper and deeper. Really, there's nothing in the image itself to suggest anything else, and again there's the fact of the utterly barren surfaces of the strata in the stack that we see in so many places.
For instance, here is some data from the San Joaquin Valley:
It clearly shows not only multiple soil horizons, but a couple of stream channels cut in the soils. Note also that gravels occur at the base of the channel fill, as we would expect.
How is this not indicative of previous topography?
I see no reason to consider this a former landscape, or "previous topography" that occurred on the surface of the earth. By the way there is no clue in the illustration as to the depth of this cross section, or where the current surface is now, which would help orient me to what I'm looking at. Would a paleosol occur at the surface now or is it buried?
The term "horizon" is of course an OE concept that implies an ancient surface, but all that just shows the theory as applied to the depicted facts; the facts themselves can suggest other interpretations.
All the features shown would be created by water, same as the seismic image discussed above. That is, there isn't any hint of an actual landscape, just the effects of running water within layers of sediment and paleosol, right? Just because there is paleosol present doesn't mean it was ever surface soil on that very spot, but just one of the layers rapidly deposited in succession. It's OE theory that leads you to your conclusion, not the actual facts as shown there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 07-29-2016 5:58 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by edge, posted 07-30-2016 10:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 248 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 4:39 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 244 of 1257 (788370)
07-30-2016 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
07-30-2016 10:20 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Mostly what I see is the strata, strata, strata and more strata, those originally flat straight sedimentary deposits that are now great slabs of rock piled very deep and often extending for huge distances.
The problem is that those are marine deposits. It is their nature to be layer-cake in appearance.
But you have two problems.
One is that those layers have been eroded in some places, including in the
Grand Canyon, prior to the next layer.
The other is that the Mesozoic of North America is composed of mostly terrestrial deposits which do not have the continuity of the the marine sedimentary rocks.
quote:
So when I'm shown a seismic image of an enormous gash in those rocks buried very very deep and called a former canyon, I see no canyon unless you want to call it an "underground canyon" but that could be misleading, I see an enormous gash in the strata buried very deep.
So, how did that gash form?
And why, in some cases, doe they have a dendritic pattern typical of surface river systems.
quote:
I wouldn't call it a canyon unless it occurred at the surface NOW.
That's why we call then 'buried canyons' or 'paleotopography'.
So, what would you call it?
quote:
There is nothing about it other than its outline to suggest it was ever anything but that, a huge gash in the rock filled in with sediment, a feature most likely created by the very running water that created all the strata, and while it might have begun when it was at the surface it never became a "landscape" from any of the actual clues given, it just got carved out of the sediment and filled with another sediment, and successive sedimentary deposits buried it deeper and deeper. Really, there's nothing in the image itself to suggest anything else, and again there's the fact of the utterly barren surfaces of the strata in the stack that we see in so many places.
This continues to be nonsense. Why would we see entire river systems cut into older rocks and then filled in with younger sedimentary rocks?
And how do you transport trackways into buried strata if they were not at the surface at one time?
I see no reason to consider this a former landscape, or "previous topography" that occurred on the surface of the earth. By the way there is no clue in the illustration as to the depth of this cross section, or where the current surface is now, which would help orient me to what I'm looking at. Would a paleosol occur at the surface now or is it buried?
The surface is shown at the top of the diagram. The current soil would not be a 'paleosoil' by definition.
However, I showed this section because you mentioned once that it makes not sense to have on paleosoil developed on top of another.
The fact that they are cut by stream channels only emphasizes the fact that channels can be buried.
The term "horizon" is of course an OE concept that implies an ancient surface, but all that just shows the theory as applied to the depicted facts; the facts themselves can suggest other interpretations.
Actually, horizon means a surface within the strata that indicates a single moment in time. It has nothing to do with Old Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 10:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 245 of 1257 (788372)
07-30-2016 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
07-30-2016 8:38 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
No landscapes BETWEEN STRATA is the idea, or even "within" strata since that's implied too. The only landscapes on the surface would have been before the Flood, which would have been obliterated by the Flood waters, starting with the heavy rain and continuing with the rising sea water laying down its sediments; and the landscapes that have formed after the Flood.
OK, I get it now. During the flood "land"scapes couldn't exist underwater.
"starting with the heavy rain and continuing with the rising water laying down its sediments" implies that the sediments fell with the rain. I have always wondered where the millions of cubic miles of sediment came from, now I know.
Looking at the strata all that you see is tight lines between them, but wherever there is an exposed surface you get hills and valleys, trees and other living things -- which is how I'm using the term "landscape."
"Tight lines between them". What else would you expect? I guess you you think if there was a landscape there with trees growing on it the next layer to be deposited would would only form at the level of the treetops, leaving gap of maybe a hundred feet or so?
We know that a flood would leave only one layer with the heavier, denser material at the bottom and lighter, finer material at the top and bodies of organisms with similar densities found at the same levels.
What we are arguing is whether there was ever a surface landscape in, say, the "Devonian period," or the "Permian," or the "Jurassic" etc, which would supposedly have left SOME clues instead of those flat straight contacts between their strata and the next.
Well, all we have to do is look at all the places the strata are exposed and we can see that you are mistaken. In some places there are flat, straight contacts between the strata, but in many places we can observe that there were "hills and valleys, trees and other living things" or in other words "landscapes" that were later covered by sediments.
which would supposedly have left SOME clues
People have been pointing out hundreds of clues, but you keep saying "I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about how I can't see any sky and trees and other living things when I look at certain pictures of the strata".
The layered strata is the clue that the strata were not deposited by a single flood.
The strata layers that are missing because they were eroded away before subsequent layers were deposited is a clue that the strata were not deposited by a single flood.
Sand dunes with animal tracks that are sandwiched between marine layers are clues that the strata were not deposited by a single flood.
The complete lack of a single global flood strata layer is absolute evidence that there was never a global flood.
I hope this suffices for the enlightenment you seek.
Thanks, yes it was very enlightening.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 8:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 246 of 1257 (788390)
07-30-2016 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by edge
07-30-2016 9:51 AM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Faith writes:
What's so odd about the idea that the Flood should have left shorelines?
Correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't those "shorelines" erosional, not depositional? In other words, those stepped features are caused by eroding existing materials?
This is just typical YEC silliness. The receding flood waters are depositing millions of tons of sediment... rapidly... very rapidly, but at the same time they are eroding those very same materials that have already hardened. How does this stuff make sense to them???
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by edge, posted 07-30-2016 9:51 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 7:24 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 261 by edge, posted 07-31-2016 9:59 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 247 of 1257 (788392)
07-30-2016 11:38 PM


The geologic timeline ("column") - The analogy
The geologic timeline can be annotated by various processes, events, and results. For any given moment in that timeline, different processes, events, and results happened at various locations of the world.
The analogy is the (relatively speaking) recent history of the Earth, or in my specific example, the recent history of Europe and America.
Specific source of graphic
Source page of graphic
Now the above timeline graphic is oldest at the top, while the geologic timeline ("geologic column") is presented with the oldest at the bottom. But the concept is the same.
The graphic shows many different "stratigraphic columns" for the different locations. Likewise in geology, there are many different stratigraphic columns, depending on where in the world you are.
The is no such thing as THE stratagraphic column.
For whatever it might be worth, Stratigraphic column - Wikipedia
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 3:31 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 248 of 1257 (788398)
07-31-2016 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
07-30-2016 10:20 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
quote:
Sorry I was not clear. I thought you'd all remember the seismic image of a jagged gash deep in the earth which was interpreted as a former canyon, later filled in by sediment, sand I think. I believe it was presented as an image that converted someone named Morton somethingorother from a YEC to an Old Earther.
While it is likely that the image came from Glen Mortons site, Morton was hardly "converted" by it. Morton actually worked as a geologist and discovered that the Flood Geology that he had been taught by the ICR was worthless - unlike the geology offered by mainstream science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 07-30-2016 10:20 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 249 of 1257 (788399)
07-31-2016 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by herebedragons
07-30-2016 10:50 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't those "shorelines" erosional, not depositional? In other words, those stepped features are caused by eroding existing materials?
Yes, I don't think I said otherwise, did I?
This is just typical YEC silliness. The receding flood waters are depositing millions of tons of sediment... rapidly... very rapidly, but at the same time they are eroding those very same materials that have already hardened. How does this stuff make sense to them???
Where are you getting this scenario? I've argued that the receding Flood waters REMOVED bazillions of tons of sediment from the strata that it had deposited as it rose. I haven't been completely clear if there had been any or much deposition in the receding phase but there should have been so much catastrophic erosion I don't see how there could have been, unless there were quieter zones separate from the eroding zones somehow. Also, at its height the Flood waters just stood there for some time, so that it should have deposited everything it carried by the time it started abating.
I've pictured the receding Flood waters as the cause of the carving of the Grand Staircase and the Grand Canyon, both, and of the whole Kaibab Plateau and whatever else was scoured off in that vicinity. The strata would have been deposited to something like a couple miles or more, maybe three miles, above the current rim of the Grand Canyon, most of that breaking up and washing into cracks that made the canyon itself, some of it remaining to form the stairs of the Grand Staircase.
Where are you getting the idea it had hardened anyway? I've supposed the deeper layers had hardened enough to hold their shape from compaction, though not being lithified, while the higher the stack the less compaction there would have been in the upper layers, which is why I picture the strata above the GC breaking up and washing away, leaving those intact from the Kaibab down while enormous quantities from what became the canyon itself were also washed away.
In other areas the receding water could have been less catastrophic and left shorelines on the sides of basin areas. How is this so silly?
abe: You know what's really silly? It's when people who are hostile to the idea of the Flood try to imagine what it would have been like -- or even think they understand what Flood believers say about how it happened. THOSE ideas are sheer silliness.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by herebedragons, posted 07-30-2016 10:50 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 250 of 1257 (788403)
07-31-2016 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by vimesey
07-29-2016 1:41 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
vimesey writes:
Faith writes:
So I’m trying to make sense of this, vinesey. I can’t.
Soil on top of soil? No landscape? What?
Ok, this is where my original example of Roman ruins in Britain is so useful.
So the Roman buildings in question were (obviously enough) built on top of the the British landscape as it was 2000 odd years ago. They get abandoned, and over time, they end up getting buried under more and more soil and assorted other sediments. (We know that this is the case, because we have to dig down, under a couple of feet of soil, to unearth them).
So we have a picture of a landscape, where more and more soil is being deposited, certainly on parts of it, over 2000 years. It remains a landscape - it retains a surface, which gets forested, or farmed, or built on or whatever - but parts of it are having more and more soil accreted on top of them.
And as they do, stuff (Roman villas, dead animals) gets buried in the accreted soil....
I've done a fair amount of reading about archaeological excavations and I'm aware of the layering that accumulates over even a series of settlements, on top of which new settlements grew, even many such settlements over time. In the Middle East these ended up as "tells," mounded areas underneath which there could be quite a series of former settlements one on top of another.
The thing is I can't for the life of me make this process fit the strata I'm talking about.
For one thing the strata often DO cover great distances, and in any case are never confined to the space of a tell or Roman buildings. In my favorite cross section of the Grand Canyon area you can see how the strata that are visible in the wall of the canyon extend for hundreds of miles north beneath the Grand Staircase, all in the same order as in the canyon, and quite straight and flat except where lifted over the canyon area (although people here may get nitpicky and suppose I'm talking about an impossibly perfect straightness), and the same order and straightness no doubt also extends many hundreds of miles to the south, off the area of the illustration.
For another thing, there really is no comparison between the KIND of material that covered the Roman buildings and the sediments that are stacked as shown in that cross section. As I understand it the layers in the tells, and most probably around the Roman villa, are composed of quite a mingled mass of stuff and not at all sorted into discrete sediments which is the main characteristic of the geo column.
I also don't understand how "soil on top of soil" expresses the OE interpretation of the strata, since the idea does seem to be that a landscape DID build where a particular layer now sits. It would have to BUILD there because all there was previously was the lower layer of sediment, in most cases no leftover remains from that previous time period protruding into the new layer at all.
And how do you get a new discrete flat layer on top of that without mixing and blurring, if they were both soft sediments anyway? The contacts between so many of the layers are clear demarcations between two entirely different kinds of sediment.
I don't see the similarity, vimesey.
Eventually, in certain areas of the planet, accretion, tectonic and volcanic activity, and other geological activity, will mean that the accreted soil will get pushed far enough down below the surface, that it will be subjected to such pressure and temperature, that it gets lithified. And if the conditions are also such that the buried stuff (Roman villas, dead animals) didn't rot away in the meantime, they'll get lithified too, and turned into fossils.
Don't you need high compaction and water IMMEDIATELY to bring about fossilization?
Now, the only piece to add to this picture, is why the layers of lithified soil (ie layers of rock) look different - in other words, they look such obvious layers. And this is because, over time, conditions on the accreting surface of the landscape, which is gradually building up this eventually-to-be-lithified pile of soil, change. And whereas in one century or millennium, it might be good arable soil which is being deposited, in another, it might become sand or clay or ash (because of an encroaching shoreline, or a meandering river, or a volcano, or whatever). The sediment which then starts accreting looks different from the previous sediment, and when the whole lot gets lithified, the rock that it lithifies into looks different too - which is why you get layers of different looking rock, one on top,of the other.
Not buying it, vimesey. This sort of process wouldn't produce such clearly demarcated differences between sediments -- it would mingle and blur them. The best you could claim is that erosion took away the mingled section and left the clearly different sediments, as some have suggested in this debate some time ago, but I don't see how you could get such straight flat contact surfaces from that scenario of gradual change.
I don't think anything in OE theory accounts for the straight flat surfaces of the strata and the tight contacts between them.
The key thing to grasp, is that every grain of that sedimentary rock, at one time formed part of the surface of some of the landscape on the planet.
Um, surely much of it got coughed up out of the sea, the limestones for instance. And even if much of it had been part of the surface of the planet, the question is "where" it occurred -- right there on top of the lower sedimentary layer? I don't see much reason to think so as a general rule, though perhaps in some cases there's a fit.
You got a lot of cheers for what seems to me just another bad visualization of how the strata formed, a depressing indication that nobody here is really thinking clearly about the problem.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by vimesey, posted 07-29-2016 1:41 AM vimesey has not replied

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


Message 251 of 1257 (788407)
07-31-2016 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by vimesey
07-29-2016 7:18 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
vimesey writes:
One more thing, which may assist - when we say (possibly a little loosely) that there are millions of years between sedimentary rock layers, we generally don't mean "in between" the layers - ie separating them. We mean that the layers represent a continuous aggregation, which between them account for millions of years' worth of deposition.
The problem is that the typical depiction of the Geo column where the time periods are shown identifies the period occupied by the strata as covering specific spans of time. Since a span of time is represented only by a slab of rock it is the rock that is dated to that range of time, and that range of time covers multiple, even hundreds of millions of years, before and after which other sedimentary rocks are identified with another many millions of years. And on top of that they are identified as specific Time Periods and given names like Carboniferous and Triassic and so on. Because of these designations it is very hard not to think of these time periods as clearly separated. The rocks are clearly different, and the character of the rock plus its fossil contents clearly define the time period attached to them. The fossil contents are understood to define a landscape, clearly different from the landscape of the prior period and from the succeeding period.
Yes that in itself is very odd and I can see why you would want us to override the strong impression given by these depictions and try to think of it as all a "continuous aggregation." But it's your own system that makes this impossible. When you encounter a fossil in a particular layer of rock you identify it quite sharply as belonging to such-and-such a period of time; a fossil in the layer above is unequivocally assigned to a later time.
This highlights the problem I note over and over that to my mind utterly belies the whole OE/evolutionist system of thought. There is no way reality would have arranged itself in terms of separate sedimentary rocks representing ancient time periods. The idea is simply preposterous. Any idea of time gradations through series after series of fossil remains identified with evolutionary progress SHOULD expect a blurry continuum, not a discrete stack of rocks with clearly identifiable life forms. The complaint that the Flood would jumble things and not organize them has plausibility until you face the fact that an ancient earth with specifically identifiable time periods with specific life forms is even less likely. There's enough evidence that water forms layers and if it sorts sediments we have to assume it also sorts other things. And its reasonableness only increases when compared to the idea that hundreds of millions of years would have been naturally broken up into clearly identifiable periods with clearly identifiable slabs of rocks to mark them, containing clearly identifiable life forms. Nothing in our experience on this planet indicates that such a history could have occurred. Time is messy. The only thing that marks it is our own marking of it; Nature couldn't care less. [abe: I TAKE THIS BACK: time IS marked by Nature, by the seasons for instance, by the yearly movement around the sun] There were no separate time periods covering millions of years, no separate landscapes with their own peculiar life forms conveniently marked by a slab of rock containing the fossils of those life forms.
Kind of like saying some sportsmen or women have got 200 international appearances between them. We're not specifying anything about a gap in between them - rather referring to a shared period of time. (With the top layers being deposited at the end of that period and the bottom ones at the start of it).
See above. This is just an ad hoc response to the recognition that the Geological Timescale is as irrational as I just described it to be, and an attempt to deny the clear presentation and acceptance of it in spite of its irrationality, as if it made sense. We've GOT the discrete sedimentary rocks. They are the reality. Geologists built the timescale on those layers of rock.
And references to geological ages are just shorthand for saying "the period between x and y million years ago". They're not references to specific rock layers. (We do refer to rock layers as being Cambrian etc, but this is just a convenient way of saying that the layers in question were formed in the period between x and y million years ago).
Yeah yeah yeah, again an ad hoc attempt to mop up the incredible craziness of the Geo Timescale.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by vimesey, posted 07-29-2016 7:18 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 11:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 264 by edge, posted 07-31-2016 11:02 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 252 of 1257 (788415)
07-31-2016 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
07-31-2016 10:55 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
quote:
The problem is that the typical depiction of the Geo column where the time periods are shown identifies the period occupied by the strata as covering specific spans of time. Since a span of time is represented only by a slab of rock it is the rock that is dated to that range of time, and that range of time covers multiple, even hundreds of millions of years, before and after which other sedimentary rocks are identified with another many millions of years. And on top of that they are identified as specific Time Periods and given names like Carboniferous and Triassic and so on. Because of these designations it is very hard not to think of these time periods as clearly separated.
But as I have previously pointed out, this is not true. The rocks do not neatly fit into the periods of the geological timescale. The Wingate Sandstone, for instance crosses the boundary between the Triassic and the Jurassic Message 61
quote:
This highlights the problem I note over and over that to my mind utterly belies the whole OE/evolutionist system of thought. There is no way reality would have arranged itself in terms of separate sedimentary rocks representing ancient time periods. The idea is simply preposterous
Reality has done no such thing. Nobody says that it has. It is just your misreading of diagrams - as usual.
quote:
Any idea of time gradations through series after series of fossil remains identified with evolutionary progress SHOULD expect a blurry continuum, not a discrete stack of rocks with clearly identifiable life forms.
Reality is considerably more blurry than you suggest. I also not that the fossil record is rather spotty in many respects. And if you really think that evolution has anything to do with the geological column at any region as you seem to imply, you are even more mistaken than I imagined.
quote:
There's enough evidence that water forms layers and if it sorts sediments we have to assume it also sorts other things
Appealing to a ridiculously simplistic overview while ignoring the details we know is hardly a sensible argument. In fact I see it as a strong indication that you realise that the evidence disproves the flood. Nobody desperately seeks excuses to pretend that they are right unless they know that the evidence is against them.
quote:
Yeah yeah yeah, again an ad hoc attempt to mop up the incredible craziness of the Geo Timescale.
That is a very odd way to describe a simple fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 10:55 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 3:34 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 253 of 1257 (788431)
07-31-2016 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Minnemooseus
07-30-2016 11:38 PM


Re: The geologic timeline ("column") - The analogy
That's a well-chosen illustration to get the point across about many stratigraphic columns rather than just one. But I don't think it makes much if any difference to the discussion here.
The geologic timeline can be annotated by various processes, events, and results. For any given moment in that timeline, different processes, events, and results happened at various locations of the world.
But only in the most trivial sense: a different sediment, a different speed of deposition perhaps, certainly differences in how tectonic pressures affected the strata after they were laid down, but different results? The same fossils are found in the same layer everywhere, fitting in to the Geologic Timescale just fine, no difference there. The overall picture of the strata is pretty consistent where it counts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-30-2016 11:38 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 254 of 1257 (788432)
07-31-2016 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by PaulK
07-31-2016 11:41 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
All I have to do is glance at your accusatory posts to know I have no interest in reading them. I note your point about the exception to the rule, the Wingate. If you want to be taken seriously, talk to me like a civilized human being for a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 11:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 3:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 4:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-31-2016 4:53 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 255 of 1257 (788434)
07-31-2016 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
07-31-2016 3:34 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
There is nothing civilised in pretending that you arguments are any better than they are,
If your arguments rely on an exceedingly superficial and simplistic examination of the evidence - and reject any deeper examination - then they can only be regarded as an attempted deception. What possible reason could there be for a refusal to look further, but the expectation that the whole thing will fall apart ?
If you cannot accept the thoroughly deserved criticisms of your arguments then you are not worth taking seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 3:34 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