Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 2856 of 2887 (832719)
05-08-2018 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2848 by Faith
05-08-2018 9:12 AM


Re: the strata again
How does a formation preserve a topography?
It buries the topography, fills in the lows until the area is flat again.
But the odds of their being preserved/fossilized is extremely remote.
Preservation is uncommon, but locally very abundant.
By the way I've been wondering why all that vegetation ended up in the Carboniferous "period" where it turned into coal, while I gather the strata in which the dinosaurs are buried don't have much vegetation though ...
How come?
We have dinosaur tracks in coal seams. The fact that they got preserved in rapidly deposited sand bars is no freak accident.
... of all animals they would have needed a prodigious amount of it.
There are plenty of plant fossils in the Cretaceous and Paleogene rocks that I have drilled.
There's no problem of course on the Flood model since the "Carboniferous" is merely a layer where the vegetation got deposited and not a time period, but it doesn't make a lot of sense on the Geo Time Scale model that so much is found there and not with the dinosaurs.
That is a silly notion. You are saying that entire swamps with dinosaur tracks and all, are somehow picked up by a turbulent fludde, transported on a tempestuous sea, and then gently deposited, en masse, by a receding sea in which waves don't tear up the organic mass?
Not gonna work...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2848 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 9:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2859 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:39 AM edge has replied

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


Message 2857 of 2887 (832720)
05-08-2018 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2852 by Faith
05-08-2018 7:07 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
There aren't any sags in this diagram. I was thinking of areas like the Michigan basin and the Texas/Gulf area where the cross sections clearly show the strata of many "time periods" all sagging together into a huge hammock like shape, with a very large salt layer beneath it (I hope I'm remembering this right for the Michigan area, I know it's right for the Gulf area). Many salt domes are rising up through the Gulf strata. I would like to know more about how salt behaves under various conditions and have been reading up on it some.
But in this diagram it looks to me like there isn't enough salt to cause that degree of sagging,
There is not enough to form salt domes. For that you need a certain amount of mass to create the buoyancy necessary to penetrate the upper sediments. However, you will get sags and pinches that wouldn't show up on a large cross section. On the other hand, if a large enough area of salt were dissolved, you could get some subsidence.
... and it also may not be the salt that caused the channel as I'd first thought.
Likely not. The presence of sand channels and gravel suggest that it was stream erosion.
It still looks like dissolving limestone probably had a lot to do with the formation of the channels but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.
Usually, it is pretty easy to recognize cavern development. And it is commonly filled by clay rather than stream sediments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2852 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 7:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2860 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:59 AM edge has not replied

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


(2)
Message 2865 of 2887 (832734)
05-09-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2859 by Faith
05-09-2018 7:39 AM


Re: whole worlds in a rock?
If there's a lot of plant life in the dinosaur era rocks that's fine with me, I had the wrong idea I guess. But again, you aren't talking about a real swamp of course, you are talking about something in a rock you interpret as formerly a swamp, right? Why do you reify such things? Why not just say exactly what you see in the rock instead of treating a mere interpretation as if it was a reality right before your eyes, as if you were describing a swamp such as exists now on the earth?
So, you have a better explanation. I haven't heard it yet.
And you're not talking about a real flood, are you?
Isn't it just something written as an ancient story that you force-fit evidence to?
That's mystification, questionable science. I have no idea what you are seeing in the rock so I have no idea how the Flood might explain its being there.
Not at all. It's all out there for you to learn. You simply refuse to. Making up stories is more your style. And it's a lot easier, too.
I'm not sure how you have any idea what science is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2859 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2867 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 9:12 AM edge has not replied
 Message 2869 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2018 9:18 AM edge 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