|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I think the monadnocks were pushed up into the still-wet layers after they were all laid down,... You've got this all mixed up. Monadnocks are a product of erosion. They couldn't have been pushed up into "still-wet" layers and then been eroded while still covered by these "still-wet layers". Also, pushing the monadnocks up into the Tapeats would have very visibly displaced the material of the Tapeats, something that isn't observed. You're piling impossibilities upon impossibilities.
...as part of the tectonic upheaval that occurred at that point,... There is no evidence of tectonic upheaval around these monadnocks. That's why there are recognizable as monadnocks and not as tectonic upheavals.
...raising it along with the whole stack. The monadnocks didn't rise abvoe the Tapeats into the layers above, so they didn't raise "the whole stack." The Tapeats deposited around the monadnocks. This is obvious from simple observation, and is described in this excerpt from Cambrian history of the Grand Canyon region, Parts 1-2 on page 119:
quote: The evidence is the curve in the Tapeats over those blocks of the GU, and in fact the curve of the entire stack,... The curve of the entire stack, including the Grand Canyon layers and the Grand Canyon Supergroup is evidence that they were all affected by the same tectonic forces that uplifted the entire region. Note that the layers of the Tapeat are deposited around the single monadnock shown in this diagram that extends into the Tapeats from the Grand Canyon Supergroup:
This whole upheaval also put strain on the uppermost strata a mile or more above the Kaibab, which is what began the formation of the canyon by creating cracks in them. The rocks were still wet and easily bendable, but they developed cracks? And rocks do not form by drying. They form by the process of lithification, which requires great pressure.
That uppermost strata broke up, the Flood waters were receding at this point, in fact probably began to receded as part of this upheaval, poured into the cracks, widening and deepening them, taking chunks of strata with it, and so the canyon was formed. There is no evidence that the "uppermost strata broke up." If this is what had happened then this is the evidence we would observe. Instead all we see is evidence of gradual deposition as indicated by a variety of evidence that you never address, such as radiometric dating, interspersed layers of different densities, increasing difference of fossils with increasing depth, and animal tracks and burrows.
Yes of course I'm repeating myself, it's what I think happened. You're forcing repeats of the rebuttals, which you never address.
And the reason the faults in the GU stop at the Tapeats is because they were forming at the same time the whole block was being pushed up and sliding under the Tapeats. There is no evidence that the Grand Canyon Supergroup slid around beneath the Tapeats. Such a fault would have left copious evidence behind. The reason the faults stop at the Tapeats is because the Tapeats wasn't there when they formed.
There was no continuous contact for them to continue upward due to the slippage between the layers. This would be the slippage for which not an iota of evidence exists.
And all this also occurred in conjunction with the volcanism which became the Cardenas layer... The law of superposition says that the "volcanism which became the Cardenas layer" definitely did not not occur in conjunction with anything happening in the Tapeats. Radiometric dating confirms that the Cardenas predates the Tapeats by at least half a billion years.
...as well as the flow in the canyon itself, which formed both the granite and the schist beneath the Tapeats. The Vishnu Schist is about a billion years older than the Tapeats. The Zoroaster Granite about a billion years older, too, and is thought to be the top of an ancient mountain range.
In fact I've come to think of this as a worldwide event, accounting for all the angular unconformities, all the tectonic stress in all the strata everywhere, all the twisting and upending of the rocks etc., as the continents split apart. All happening as the Flood began to recede, all connected with this tectonic movement of the continents. So the Siccar Point angular unconformity would have occurred at this time too. This is all a product of your imagination. There is no evidence for it, a great deal of evidence against it, and much of it violates known physical laws.
It all works. You won't accept it but it does all work. It has been explained over and over again how none of it works. If you think it works then start addressing the rebuttals. Start with how it could be that level sediments surround the monadnocks if they were somehow pushed up into the overlying layer, and how there is no evidence of displacement of material as the monadnocks were pushed up. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: See Wikipedia article on "Karst"
Karst topography is a landscape formed from the dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves.[1] It has also been documented for more weathering-resistant rocks, such as quartzite, given the right conditions. As Wikipedia says, "It is characterized by underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves." Do you see any "underground drainage systems with sinkholes and caves" in the Tapeats? Or in any layers of the Grand Canyon? Since nothing like these structures occur in this region, your rationale of karst as an explanation fails. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Acidic water if I recall correctly.ABE: Yes. From the same Wikipedia article: The development of karst occurs whenever acidic water starts to break down the surface of bedrock near its cracks, or bedding planes. As the bedrock (typically limestone or dolostone) continues to degrade, its cracks tend to get bigger. As time goes on, these fractures will become wider, and eventually a drainage system of some sort may start to form underneath. If this underground drainage system does form, it will speed up the development of karst formations there because more water will be able to flow through the region, giving it more erosive power Again, nothing like "cracks tending to get bigger" and "fractures becoming wider" and "an underground drainage system" were observed in the Tapeats or any of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Karst formations have a unique appearance and are easily recognizable, they couldn't be missed if they were there. Your karst explanation fails. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I always have multiple people against me refusing to acknowledge anything reasonable I say and in fact denying that I ever say anything reasonable, which is, excuse me, stupid because I know it's reasonable and it doesn't exactly inspire me to treat anything they say with any respect. What usually happens is you say something untenable and then someone says that your position can't be right because of some piece of evidence they present. Then rather than addressing the issue, you double down and make an even more ridiculous claim. And this continues ad nauseum until everyone involved gets frustrated and begins making personal attacks. For example, your original claim (from the last time we discussed this) was that water was being squeezed out of the layers and was running between the layers to form channels. I presented some evidence of how subsurface water behaves when it erodes inside limestone. Now you have doubled down with an even more ridiculous claim that it was liquefied limestone. I then complain that you are making stuff up (since there is no such thing as liquefied limestone) and you accuse me of a personal attack. It then degrades rapidly from there. So I see that the real key to preventing this process from continuing is just what Percy has been saying. Deal with the evidence presented against your position. Not in a way that doubles down on the implausibility but that seriously considers what is being brought up in a realistic an honest way. If you present reasonable and true arguments based on evidence it will be much more difficult for us to deny that what you have said is reasonable. But as long as you continue to just make stuff up as a rebuttal to the counter-evidence we present, we will continue to deny your arguments are reasonable. HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
How can you tell there are no pebbles in those channels? Those photos are taken from hundreds of feet away. Those channels could be 50 to 100 feet deep, how could you see pebbles at that scale? You have no reason to think there are no pebbles in the bottom of those channels.
HBD Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I REFERRED TO KARST FORMATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF LIMESTONE, WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE CHANNEL OF TEMPLE BUTTE LIMESTONE WAS FLOWING THROUGH, NOT FORMING KARSTS. HOWEVER, YES THERE ARE KARSTS IN THE GRAND CANYON. I'M SURE YOU CAN FIND THEM YOURSELF. ALSO, IF YOU LOOK UP MUAV FORMATION AND TEMPLE BUTTE FORMATION YOU'LL SEE AREAS THAT LOOK LIKE CAVE FORMATION IN BOTH, NOT EXTENSIVE BUT THERE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OH GOOD GRIEF.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO WHAT. I SHOULDN'T BE HERE AT ALL. I HAVE NO PATIENCE FOR THIS NONSENSE.
I THINK YOU'VE MIXED UP MY GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT HOW THE EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CAUSED BY RUNOFF, WITH THE LIMESTONE DISSOLUTION EXPLANATION FOR TEMPLE BUTTE. I NEED TO GET OUT OF THIS MADHOUSE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Again,
How can you tell there are no pebbles in those channels? Those photos are taken from hundreds of feet away. Those channels could be 50 to 100 feet deep, how could you see pebbles at that scale? HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Yeah, well that's the way it is. I see what I see. Accusing me of foul motives is pretty cheap debate form. But you're not telling it the way you see it because you have nothing to see. There is no evidence supporting your position. That you are are making it up is simply an observation of the obvious.
The "others" who determined that the channels were stream beds couldn't see it any other way because they assume that it was originally on the surface because of their belief in OE theory. Paradigm influence. They don't assume it was on the surface. They know it was on the surface because it is a stream bed, and stream beds form on the surface. If there is a paradigm influence going on here it's that gathering facts can tell us what happened in the past. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 887 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Aannnnnd.... here we go. All CAPS. So, rather than answering the rebuttals, you resort to name calling, screaming (I am sure you realize that typing in ALL CAPS is screaming), and threatening to leave. Percy is absolutely right... how about dealing with the rebuttals rather than acting like a ill-mannered, hot tempered child.
THE EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CAUSED BY RUNOFF Yes, here you go... that was a very reasonable statement!!! It was caused by runoff... at the surface. aka: streams HBDWhoever 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: When your "reasonable" claims have been shown to be wrong, or are obviously false or even require further support - let alone those that get to the level of raving insanity - it is far from unreasonable for people to disagree. And in fact it is far from rare for you to demand agreement with your claims even after they have successfully been rebutted, to insist that a defeated argument is "good" and must be accepted.
quote: Certainly it is one reason you refuse to admit that you are wrong even after it has been shown. And why you "know" that nonsense you made up is "reasonable"
quote: But that is not a reasonable claim at all. Firstly the "phenomena" often don't exist as you describe them or there are other factors that rule against them, and your Flood explanation doesn't always make sense (one example - far from the worst - how does the Flood produce "pure" sediments? - one of your claimed phenomena. I can't see a good reason why it should)
quote: And I have looked at it and seen that you are wrong. And others have looked at the actual rocks and found even more evidence you are wrong (e.g. the evidence that the Cardenas lava was erupting while the Dox formation was still being deposited)
quote: Well that isn't true. What you mean is that you get angry because people dare to prove you wrong. You get angry because people dare to look at evidence you want to suppress. Those really aren't good reasons to get angry, even if you do get frustrated at losing all the time. But if you rely on jumping to conclusions based on a superficial examination of the evidence or worse cherry-picking or even worse inventing nonsense - then you will lose. It's no use assuming you are right all the time when it just leads you into one mistake after another. And it does. Did you learn nothing from the incident with the Triassic maps? From your insistence that I was misreading the map even when you knew that you couldn't read it ? Even when I turned out to be absolutely correct ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I disagree, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't know about the Template Butte formation. I was pointing out that your experience is far too limited to be making the sort of proclamations you do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024