|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
That drawing is not evidence, but rather an artist's compilation and representation of the actual evidence. The actual evidence are the rock formations themselves. Others have tried to point you to the actual evidence and presented photographs of the actual evidence (which are much better than a drawing that is not even to scale), but you have refused all evidence in favor of that drawing.
Faith, how many years has it been that we've had to repeated ask you to please learn some geology! You never have. Why not? Because of your bad theology?
You really are obliged, if you have even an ounce of fairness in you, to point out where I supposedly committed this folly. You presented the "basic felid created kind" in order to argue against macro-evolution. For once, you went against type and actually thought through the problem and stepped through the process by which the original Ur-felid had through the accumulation of micro-evolution steps resulted in the formation of new species. When we pointed out that that result was macro-evolution, you immediately went into denial and started redefining the world. Changing reality through redefining only works for lawyers, theologians, and deceivers. It does not work in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sorry, you are wrong, the drawing does indeed show evidence that proves the earth is young. It would have to be grossly in error on a few simple points for this conclusion to be wrong, and it's not.
I've read a lot of Geology, I have five Geology books I consult. You just can't stand the idea that anyone would find them at fault. No idea what your example means. I don't remember it and you don't give enough information to figure it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I'm sorry, you are wrong, the drawing does indeed show evidence that proves the earth is young. The dating shows its old. Creationists have never been able to do more than try and hand-wave that evidence away. They have to ignore what they can't disprove.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool 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" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
You've again have posted a response with no substance.
Faith writes: I've described the evidence many times... In terms of evidence that supports your position, no, you really haven't. For example, this is from your Message 881:
Faith in Message 881 writes: The strata were pushed up by the Supergroup, it did not penetrate the Tapeats as the quartzite did. This is just one piece of evidence that all the basement rocks were confined beneath the strata when the Supergroup was tilted. Tilted and obviously pushed upward into the Tapeats. The quartzite was the only rock capable of penetrating the Great Unconformity because it is harder than the others. Do you see what you did here? You declared what happened, that the strata were pushed up by the Supergroup, and then you call that evidence. You're doing things precisely backwards. You should not baldly declare what you think happened and then call that evidence. You should first find the evidence, then figure out what the evidence says happened. In this case you need evidence that the Supergroup somehow caused the uplift of the Grand Canyon region. Given that the Supergroup underlies only part of the Grand Canyon region, not all of it, you shouldn't expect to find such evidence. You'll never find evidence that the Supergroup blocks tilted while buried because that's impossible because it would require cubic miles of rock to disappear. Back to the current message:
...and I've made the case that it shows one tectonic event. All you've done is baldly declare that there was one tectonic event without evidence or argument. First, even to you it must be obvious that there is more than one tectonic event represented in the diagram. On the left by Cedar City is one set of tilted layers, and on the right is another set of tilted layers. There are at least two independent tectonic events represented in the diagram. Second, you know that tectonic forces can tilt layers. So obviously, since buried layers cannot tilt without affecting overlying layers, the Supergroup was tilted by one tectonic event, an uplift event since the Supergroup layers were later eroded flat. Much later after the Paleozoic layers had been deposited the Grand Canyon region (all of it: the Vishnu Schist, the Supergroup blocks, and the Paleozoic layers) was uplifted, creating tilted layers to the left and right of the highest elevation. Third, look closely at the tops of the two Supergroup blocks - they follow the contours of the overlying Tapeats. That's because the Supergroup was already flat when the Tapeats was deposited, with the exception of some hard Shinumo Quartzite that eroded much more slowly than the rest of the Supergroup and so was an island in the sea whose coastline formed the Tapeats. If you want your scenario of the Supergroup strata tilting while buried to not be rejected out of hand then you need an explanation that's not impossible for where the cubic miles of rock went. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: I'm sorry, you are wrong, the drawing does indeed show evidence that proves the earth is young. What are you looking at in this diagram of geological strata that says "young" to you? There is a huge amount of evidence that says the Earth is ancient and that a global flood did not create the geology we observe, and you've proven unable to account for any of it:
It would have to be grossly in error on a few simple points for this conclusion to be wrong, and it's not. In what ways would the diagram have to be "grossly in error" for it to say "old" to you?
I've read a lot of Geology, I have five Geology books I consult. Knowledge of geology is not reflected in your messages.
You just can't stand the idea that anyone would find them at fault. We'd be delighted to find geology books, indeed any science books, at fault. New science is exciting. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Sorry, no matter what problems you can find, the fact remains that the rise or hill over the Supergroup occurred after all the strata were in place and pushed up the entire stack.
Sure, that's the Kaibab uplift. That's always been known to be late. Look at one of the controlling faults about half-way across the section.
Yes I didn't answer you very clearly but you need to be asked where the tilted Supergroup went if it wasn't the reason for the rise over it. If there was only, say, schist there, how did the Supergroup get there?:
Once again, easy. The Vishnu was eroded back in the Proterozoic and then the Supergroup was deposited on that erosional surface.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I know the answer. Obviously the Hurricane Fault doesn't run precisely north/south, and so it does intersect with the diagram's north/south cross section, but unfortunately for me my visualization skills don't extend to these kinds of subtleties. I'm unable to extrapolate in my mind what the diagram's layers are doing behind the page (east) and above the page (west), and your explanation describes strata in terms of east and west. Anyway, I'll struggle on...
You are correct. It is deceiving. I'm not convinced that the north arrow is correct on the diagram. My vague knowledge of the region tells me that the section runs WNW to ESE.
Is the upthrust side to the right of the Hurricane Fault in the diagram?
Yes, however, I should have written 'upthrown' to be more specific.
Why to the west?
Dip directions are always in the down direction. So if the fault dragged the layers on the east side down they should dip to the west.
I understand about the original tilt, but I can't tell from the diagram whether the layers would be tilted upward or downward to the east. Which is it, and how did you figure that out?
Dow to the east.
Not sure how to interpret "chopped them off." Leaving drag faulting aside, my main confusion is how the strata on opposite sides of the fault could have opposite tilts. It almost as if the region were uplifted centered roughly at where the Hurricane fault is now, then a large central portion of the uplifted region just disappeared, and what remained to the left and right of this central portion was somehow brought together at the Hurricane Fault.
Okay, this is the tricky part. The actual uplift is west of the Hurriane Fault even though it is now 'downdropped' against the east side of the fault.
This is, of course, impossible, but what is shown in the diagram looks equally impossible. Is it possible that the diagram is inaccurate? Only a small extent of the layers to the left of the Hurricane Fault are shown. Could their tilt just be a greatly exaggerated representation of a dragging fault, while the dragging fault to the right of the Hurricane Fault was completely left out?
As far as I'm concerned, if I didn't make the section it is to be questioned. I think there is a bit of artistic license going on here.
But there could be no erosion of still-buried strata, and in the diagram there's no drag faulting of the buried layers to the right of the fault.
Exactly. Anything still buried should retain the original relationships across the fault. If you project the fault upward it goes into the sky. rocks to the east of the projection are exposed to erosion.
So now I'll assume you're referring to the strata to the left of the Hurricane fault.
Exactly.
But there could be no erosion of still-buried strata, and in the diagram there's no drag faulting of the buried layers to the right of the fault.
That is the point. The downthrown side that we can see is not eroded and retains the drag fold aspect.
I don't understand this part, either. If the uplifted area was some miles to the left of the Hurricane Fault and off the diagram, why wouldn't those layers slope upward to the left?
If you went farther off to the west, I think you would see the rocks reverse dip and rise to the west. In fact there is an angular unconformity that I'm not sure about. It shows a lot of deformation and erosion prior to deposition of the Claron. This section covers a whole lot of territory and is at least partly schematic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
This idiocy has been going on for years now. To my knowledge, all of Faith's objections are drawn solely from that very drawing, which is not even to scale. Coupled with her religion's requirement that she deny reality, that's all that she's going on.
All good observations. I was wishing earlier that it was more of a scientific cross section, but when you think about it, the thing covers a vast amount of terranes. Honestly, I drove across parts of it just yesterday and it's really a lot more complex than shown here.
I'm sorry, but some people are just so hopelessly lost that we have to give up on them. Faith will just simply make no effort to think anything through for fear of what she might discover -- look at how she had proven all on her own that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution, only to immediately back-pedal and deny everything the moment she realized what she had done. I'm sorry, but she is just a hopeless case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Or you would have to grossly be in error. Which you are. I think that has been more than adequately established. Just one of my posts to remind you of that Message 889 It’s really amazing that you almost never admit your errors even when you obviously know that your position is indefensible. E.g. the lack of any reply to Message 836 after already evading the question once. Or even worse the refusal to answer Message 789 because it had already been shown to you that your claim was ridiculous - and you still doubled down by repeating it. It’s daft enough to say that something has to be true when you have neither evidence that it is or know of any reason why it should be.
quote: I don’t think that disagreeing with your fantasies can reasonably be considered a fault in the books. Although you seem to consider it so. I will also note that reading material without taking it in and remembering it is hardly useful. Remember Faith, we are not your support group. We don’t have to pretend that you are right. When you are ridiculously wrong we get to say so, and whining about it and attacking us for doing so is just an attempt at bullying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Distribution of Tapeats Sandstone in North America:
A beach???!
Knife-edge tight contact between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit formation in the Grand Canyon: Millions of years between deposition???!
East Kaibab monocline spanning Kaibab to Muav to Bright Angel Shale to Tapeats: No problem, rock can be millions of years old and even different ages in the millions of years and bend easily as a block?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Distribution of Tapeats Sandstone in North America:A beach???! The image says nothing about what it's showing. Can you provide a link to the document it came from? The image itself resides at the Southern California Seminary's website. Steve Austin and John Baumgardner are on the staff: The Faculty, Staff, and Guest Lecturers for the SCS. This webpage from the United States Geological Service says that the areal extent of the Tapeats is Arizona, Caflifornia, Nevada and Utah: USGS: Tapeats Sandstone. What you probably actually have there in that image is the total extent of similar sandstone layers that extend across not just North America but much of the world. As Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis (Part 3) says:
quote: That webpage goes on to quote from the book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record by Derek Ager:
quote: These sandstone layers are coastal deposits, so they could represent coastal desert, beach, or nearshore deposits.
Knife-edge tight contact between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit formation in the Grand Canyon: Millions of years between deposition???!
The contact between the Hermit Formation and the Coconino Sandstone is an unconformity, meaning that the top of the Hermit was eroded away before the Coconino was deposited. The separation in time between the top of the Hermit and bottom of the Coconino cannot be known with precision, but it must be less than 5 million years since that is the difference in age between the two layers. The Hermit varies in thickness from 100 to 900 feet (Geology of the Grand Canyon area). I don't know how flat it is throughout its extent, but erosion does tend to erode things flat, like the New Hampshire coastline I posted about yesterday, or like Kansas:
East Kaibab monocline spanning Kaibab to Muav to Bright Angel Shale to Tapeats: No problem, rock can be millions of years old and even different ages in the millions of years and bend easily as a block?
Yes, of course, how many times has this been described for you? On a scale of miles rock is very pliable. Keep in mind that the vertical scale in your image is greatly expanded. I assume you found your image at the webpage Grand Canyon strata show geologic time is imaginary of the Creation Ministries website, which says:
quote: But as I said, the vertical scale of the image is greatly expanded. In reality it looks something closer to this:
Creation Ministries says the great bending would have produced fractures and elongated grains, but the great bending simply isn't there, and again, on a scale of miles rock is plastic anyway. So, no reply to any of the messages to you? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You're right about that map. I was involved in a discussion of exactly that at at Talk Rational which I can't find now. I will look again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ah: Geological Provincialism | The Institute for Creation Research
quote: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group - Page 68:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The source of the Tapeats map is an article by Baumgardner at the seminary's website. What it says is
Figure 10. Map showing the distribution of the lower Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents across North America. (From Morris 2012, 149) "...and its equivalents" means it's all one continuous layer, so what's the problem? Even sand covering four states is no "beach' but when you add all the other deposits that cover the continent in the same layer it's even less of a beach. What point are you trying to make? Everything you quote about the consistency of the deposits across the world supports the Flood.
The contact between the Hermit Formation and the Coconino Sandstone is an unconformity, meaning that the top of the Hermit was eroded away before the Coconino was deposited. The separation in time between the top of the Hermit and bottom of the Coconino cannot be known with precision, but it must be less than 5 million years since that is the difference in age between the two layers. The Hermit varies in thickness from 100 to 900 feet (Geology of the Grand Canyon area). I don't know how flat it is throughout its extent, but erosion does tend to erode things flat... Not THIS flat for pete's sake. It is utterly absurd to think such a tight contact could occur from erosion, let alone after millions of years. I don't know how you can deny that the Tapeats map is referring to a single layer, or claim with a straight face that a knife-edge contact would occur after millions of years. Evolution/Old Earth theory is nuts. I'll give you the Kaibab Monocline though since I didn't allow for the exaggerated vertical scale. I don't think rock hardened over millions of years is going to follow even that gentle slope however., Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's all one continuous sandstone layer. Quartzite is just metamorphic sandstone.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024