Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 130 (25858)
12-07-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
12-06-2002 9:24 AM


"When did those shells find time to grow? Where will you get the dissolved calcium, and what will you do with the emitted carbon dioxide, from either their growth or from chemical precipitation? "General Flood Topic", post 17 and following, please."
--I partially considered the limestones and such marine depositions would have a source which was pre-flood. I haven't seen data which would allow me to see it feasible to have various chalk & limestone strata to be deposited. Of course this is due to my lack of data on their geography.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 12-06-2002 9:24 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 130 (26070)
12-09-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by edge
12-09-2002 3:02 PM


This thread is going very well and I am enjoying reading the portions which I have read, but just thought I would comment on this:
"LOL! Of course it hasn’t this is not even a prediction of Stenon. Stenon indicates that where there are boundaries to sedimentation, there will be interruptions in continuity. This is exactly what happens in the real world. Now, if there had been a flood, we WOULD expect a continuous layer of sediment because that would be the only time that there was a continuous layer of water around the entire earth."
--This is technically incorrect because Flood geology does not predict that there are no boundaries to sedimentation, something Buddika cannot grasp. There will be various dynamics whether hydraulic or geomorphologic/erosive, where certain sedimentation operations will occur. Though of course, there are globally correlated stratum such as the K-T boundary (unless your going to be very detailed, it is a global stratum nonetheless) though this is due to the atmosphere being engulfed by the iridium(volcanic and/or resulting from impact) and other materials. Being that it had much to do with the atmosphere, it is easy to imagine the contents circulating in it, flood or no flood.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 3:02 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 130 (26368)
12-11-2002 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by wehappyfew
12-11-2002 10:11 PM


"Nothing in Berthault's website show any evidence that such crosscutting relationships have been found to violate superposition, despite his many claims of having done so."
--What really would be Berhault's accomplishment by violating the principle of superposition? I am slightly confused as to what exactly the issue at hand is here.
--And I had the impression that superposition is a principle in sedimentology which is only applicable in vertical successions. Unless ofcourse there was the scneario in geomorphologic influence where an earlier deposited stratum be lapped over a younger one.
--By the way, my desktop is working now so I'll be continuing some of the other threads I've been absent from recently.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by wehappyfew, posted 12-11-2002 10:11 PM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by edge, posted 12-11-2002 11:57 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 130 (27072)
12-17-2002 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by edge
12-17-2002 1:06 PM


"Actually, I think I have. But I will try to find it again soon. It is on the same pages as one of TC's quotes from Blatt and others. For some reason, TC didn't seem to read this part or paid it little heed because he found something to support his just-so story and dropped everything. It states something to the effect that we know sands can be deposited more rapidly than silts and muds. This has been known for a long time as I have seen pictures of trenches in sand deposited by storm surges."
--Oh really? Please cite this reference and the post where I made the quote or even a quote like it, I have no text authored by a 'Blatt'. Until then this is completely false.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 1:06 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:22 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 130 (27220)
12-18-2002 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by edge
12-17-2002 9:22 PM


"Sheesh! A little bit of a chip on the shoulder here? I was pretty sure it was you, but I guess it was TB. After all, you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur.
"
--Well you have made this exact mistake quite a few times now edge. I wasn't actually very vitriolic in my response, just stated that it was false. Also, it isn't very sufficient to display your thoughts [pertaining to the 'you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur'] when it is only supported by what is (unbeknownst to the world) in your mind.
--Don't you think scientists get upset when their work is misquoted?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:22 PM edge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 130 (27221)
12-18-2002 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
12-17-2002 9:45 PM


"There is nothing really new here. If it was so ground breaking, Berthault would be cited in every publication and textbook about sedimentation. Nothing biased about it. Just a fact."
--I would expect there is isotopic analysis of the formation and its inclusions. I don't think that even if Berthault is right on the ability to rapidly deposit such strata that it would be excepted by the mainstream.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 12-17-2002 9:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 12-18-2002 11:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 130 (27385)
12-19-2002 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by edge
12-18-2002 11:39 PM


"What? What formation? Why would there be an isotopic analysis of it?"
--The Tonto group. I have no specific reason, though it is a very large slab of the geologic column and I simply stated that it is likely that it has been subject to some dating work.
"Actually, we do except Berthault's experiment. It works for some sandstone, except it is not universally applicable.
And no, we categorically do accept rapid sedimentation. Just not in EVERY case. You have been told this repeatedly by several of us. I think you are well into the 'willful ignorance' category at this point."
--Your still confusing me and TB(or at least your thoughts on TB).. I never argued against anything. I understand that Berthault's experiments are accepted on small isolated scales. That it wouldn't be 'universally applicable' is exactly what I was getting at. We disagree on nothing here and you've accused me of willful ignorance?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 12-18-2002 11:39 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by edge, posted 12-19-2002 9:09 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 130 (27432)
12-19-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by edge
12-19-2002 9:09 PM


"wasn't very clear. Perhaps if you didn't abuse the word 'accepted', it might help."
--Not really, I think it was that 'such strata' segment which would need the clarification if anything because I made my statement in reference to the Tonto group.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by edge, posted 12-19-2002 9:09 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-20-2002 12:54 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 130 (27477)
12-20-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tranquility Base
12-20-2002 12:54 AM


"Hey, TC, do you realize that you use 'excepted' when you mean 'accepted'? That's what Edge is talking about and I have to agree that you seem to be competing with Brad in lack of clarity on occasions."
--Yes I did use 'excepted' instead of 'accepted' as well as did edge, I appoligize for my lack in clarity at times. Sometimes I subconceously assume that the reader already knows what I am thinking when I make my assertions. I will try to be more careful.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-20-2002 12:54 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by edge, posted 12-20-2002 5:39 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 130 (27561)
12-20-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by edge
12-20-2002 5:39 PM


"I can see that my considerable talents at subtlety are wasted on you, TC."
--What do you mean?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by edge, posted 12-20-2002 5:39 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by forgiven, posted 12-21-2002 9:48 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 128 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-22-2002 5:25 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 130 (27695)
12-22-2002 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by forgiven
12-21-2002 9:48 AM


"he means that if you see a misspelled word in one of his posts, and someone has misspelled the same word in the same way, his misspelling was simply a subtle way of poking fun at the first person's misspelling..."
--Oops, I guess I missed that (my apologies, edge)
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by forgiven, posted 12-21-2002 9:48 AM forgiven 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