Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 241 of 310 (191492)
03-14-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
03-14-2005 2:47 PM


Re: Taking a Step Back
I was only giving the reasons for confining religious and Biblical arguments to certain forums. I had nothing specific from any of your posts in mind when I wrote. I've written much the same thing many times to many people.
But the following *is* a good example of what I was talking about:
Faith writes:
Yes, but again, I was merely giving my own Biblical assumptions which underlie any claims about the geo column etc that I make on this thread.
Members on both sides of the debate should leave religious and Biblical issues out of the science forums. If you were drawn into making Biblical defenses because the issue was first broached by others, then remind them that the science forums aren't the proper venue for such arguments. Members should maintain their focus on the evidence supporting their positions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 2:47 PM Faith has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 310 (191497)
03-14-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
03-14-2005 3:26 PM


quote:
The overall column, however, with its neat straight strata, everywhere on earth, continues overwhelmingly to suggest formation in water, and at the very least continues to defy explanation on any slow-buildup theory, especially OUTSIDE of water.
I think we have already said that the strata are not "neat" nor are they "everywhere on earth". There are places where pre-Cambrian rock is laid bare, rock that has been around for hundreds of millions of years (600+ million). The strata in other areas only reflects a period of a few million years with some periods of that era completely missing. Only in very, very rare cases do we find areas with a complete sedimentary history of the entire earth. One of those places is in North Dakota. Even then, some layers are extremely shallow compared to the same strata from that period found elsewhere.
Since the Grand Canyon has come up quite a few times I thought I would post the following image (from http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/cowley/GCandMoon.html). The first thing you will notice is that the bottom most strata are not horizontal but tilted upwards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:08 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 8:35 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 9:17 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 243 of 310 (191498)
03-14-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jazzns
03-14-2005 3:29 PM


Re: Exactly!
One problem I've had throughout this thread is that one single post could take far more than one thread to deal with and yet there are multiple posts with multiple different kinds of information in them all piling up on me. I would have to take days to understand the picture you are creating with the sediment descriptions, then more days to think about the dry land examples.
YOu didn't answer my question, however, about whether these sediments do in fact get arranged in the same kind of formation as the Geo Column. That they do form layers I get, but the same kinds of layers, same kinds of sedimentary arrangements, to the same thicknesses and so on?
Yes. Take the above scenario and this time drop sea level until what was once under water is now shallow land like a beach. Now wind will act upon it creating dunes and animals can walk across it creating tracks. When sea level rises again this goes back underwater and get preserved by the ocean sediments burying it like it did the others.
Seems to me you'd have trouble explaining how the tracks got preserved in mere sand in the first place, and if they did manage that, how they survived being immersed in water. Isn't that a bit of a problem for this layer-at-a-time buildup idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jazzns, posted 03-14-2005 3:29 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Jazzns, posted 03-14-2005 4:17 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 310 (191499)
03-14-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
03-14-2005 3:26 PM


At the moment I'm simply concentrating on how such neat layers could have built up over graet lengths of time on dry land.
Buried under other sediments, which protect them from weathering until they solidify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:22 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 245 of 310 (191503)
03-14-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Loudmouth
03-14-2005 3:50 PM


I think we have already said that the strata are not "neat" nor are they "everywhere on earth".
Yes you have said that, but I've seen that kind of diagram and I honestly don't understand how you think that answers me. The diagram DOES show extremely neat parallel layers. There is nothing there that disputes my very simple observation. At some point after they were laid down upheavals changed the direction in some cases to various degrees of incline, and overlayed some on others going a different direction, and areas were eroded away and so on, but they nevertheless REMAIN neat parallel layers that obviously preceded those effects on them. This is exactly what I have in mind when I say neat layers.
There are places where pre-Cambrian rock is laid bare, rock that has been around for hundreds of millions of years (600+ million). The strata in other areas only reflects a period of a few million years with some periods of that era completely missing. Only in very, very rare cases do we find areas with a complete sedimentary history of the entire earth. One of those places is in North Dakota. Even then, some layers are extremely shallow compared to the same strata from that period found elsewhere.
Actually such differences would be compatible with a worldwide Flood too, but in any case changes to the layers after they were laid down, such as the erosion away from bedrock in some areas and so on, don't contradict anything about how they came to be laid down in the first place. Where they are extant they remain neat and horizontal -- or where they have been subjected to upheaval, parallel if not horizontal -- and this is the neatness I keep referring to, that defies explanation on slow-buildup theory. Except underwater buildup, which still shouldn't need long ages either though it would at least account for the horizontal/parallel arrangement of layers of different sediments.
But some areas were supposedly built up slowly in dry conditions, and still formed such neat parallel layers according to your theories, impossible it seems to me considering normal weathering. Yes, again, I know I'm a broken record, and I know somebody is going to come on eventually and say something nasty about how I am not willing to learn anything, but sorry, the answers just aren't answering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Loudmouth, posted 03-14-2005 3:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 246 of 310 (191504)
03-14-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Loudmouth
03-14-2005 3:50 PM


That's a particularly nice diagram, however. Thanks.
Now, since people have referred to fine distinctions within the strata, it would be really nice to see that spelled out or shown in a diagram. With all the fossils found in them and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Loudmouth, posted 03-14-2005 3:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by mark24, posted 03-14-2005 4:34 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 247 of 310 (191507)
03-14-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
03-14-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Exactly!
YOu didn't answer my question, however, about whether these sediments do in fact get arranged in the same kind of formation as the Geo Column. That they do form layers I get, but the same kinds of layers, same kinds of sedimentary arrangements, to the same thicknesses and so on?
If you asked that question then I missunderstood. Sorry.
As a matter of fact this does not happen. Nothing mandates the thickness of layers other than time spent in a depositional envionment with a given rate of deposition. The same kind of sedimentary arrangements only exist in the same areas. Travel in any direction from a given geologic site for a few hundred miles and you will be at a location that has a completely different geologic history then the one you were just at. You may even find layers that were deposited by the same environment but they may be thinner, thicker, have different properties, or be missing all together.
No two locations are the same. Therefore no two locations would have the same anything in terms of geologic history over nearly any distance. Even in the GC there is a difference between the deposits up and downstream of the canyon. Once again, sameness does not exist.
Seems to me you'd have trouble explaining how the tracks got preserved in mere sand in the first place, and if they did manage that, how they survived being immersed in water. Isn't that a bit of a problem for this layer-at-a-time buildup idea?
I know you aren't talking about the flood but how is it easier explained by a torrential violent water catastrophy over a relativly calm system? Not to mention how do you get an animal walking around on top of other flood deposits in the middle of a raging flood?
Overall, trace fossils, for which tracks fall into the category, are not my immediate area of expertise. I do know that things like mud cracks preserve because the moist situation that allows them to form will cause them to be pretty tough once it dries out and before it gets buried by something else. I don't know the details of the tracks found in the GC but it is my guess that all tracks preserve because they are hardened of once moist depressions caused by an animal.
And Last:
One problem I've had throughout this thread is that one single post could take far more than one thread to deal with and yet there are multiple posts with multiple different kinds of information in them all piling up on me. I would have to take days to understand the picture you are creating with the sediment descriptions, then more days to think about the dry land examples.
It must be frustrating to have all this piled upon you. That being said, it is not an excuse for claiming that you have not been given a proper answer. Plenty of people have said that your idea of erosion is not correct in pretty much the same way. Just because each of them is unique does not mean that the point has not been met.
Sediments gather in low places. We can watch this today.
As environments change the type of sediment being deposited in these low places changes too. This we can watch today.
The more buried a depost gets the more compressed and harder it becomes, like a rock. This we can watch today.
Rocks that are made in this fashion that we are watching today are strikingly similar to other rocks that are buried much farther down or in different places. Given this, what is your conclusion?

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 3:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:49 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 248 of 310 (191509)
03-14-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by crashfrog
03-14-2005 3:55 PM


At the moment I'm simply concentrating on how such neat layers could have built up over graet lengths of time on dry land.
Buried under other sediments, which protect them from weathering until they solidify.
Weathering MOVES around the sediments. It blows them, it erodes them, it piles them up and narrows them down, washes them away, it doesn't allow great acres of neat horizontal layers to accumulate over even a hundred years, less a thousand, not at all in a million. It seems to me. And you guys are doing nothing more than speculating same as I am.
Actually in historical time in some parts of the world sediments build up a lot faster than the geo column predicts. Tells in the Middle East have town built upon town just in a few thousand years, to quite a depth. But they don't form neat parallel layers, just mounds of dirt and artifacts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2005 3:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Jazzns, posted 03-14-2005 4:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2005 5:58 PM Faith has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 249 of 310 (191510)
03-14-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
03-14-2005 4:11 PM


Faith,
Now, since people have referred to fine distinctions within the strata, it would be really nice to see that spelled out or shown in a diagram. With all the fossils found in them and so on.
Grand Canyon Rock Layers
"Palaeozoic Strata
Kaibab Limestone - This layer averages about 250 million years old and forms the surface of the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.
Toroweap Formation - This layer averages about 255 million years old and is composed of pretty much the same material as the Kaibab Limestone above. It is darker in color, ranging from yellow to grey, and contains a similar fossil history.
Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.
Hermit Shale - This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians.
Supai Formation - This layer averages about 285 million years old and is composed primarily of shale that is intermixed with some small amounts of limestone and capped by sandstone. The limestone features become more and more prominent in the western regions of the Canyon, leading one to believe that that region was more marine. The eastern portions where probably a muddy river delta that fed into an ancient sea. The color of this layer varies from red for the shale to tan for the sandstone caps. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles and terrestial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward.
Redwall Limestone - This layer averages about 335 million years old and is composed of marine limestones and dolomites. This is probably the most prominent rock layer in the Canyon as it usually forms a sheer cliff ranging from 400-500 feet in height, which has become a natural barrier between the upper and lower regions of the Canyon. The only way though this barrier is in areas where the rock has faulted and broken apart to form a slope which can be climbed upon. The deep reddish color of this layer is caused by iron oxides leaching out of the layers above it and staining its outward face. Behind the reddish face the rock is a dark brownish color. Numerous marine fossils can be found in the Redwall Limestone including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites. Many caves and arches can also be seen in the Redwall.
Temple Butte Limestone - This layer averages about 350 million years old and is composed of freshwater limestone in the east and dolomite in the west. In the eastern Grand Canyon this layer occurs irregularly and only then by way of limestone lenses that fill stream beds that have been eroded into the underlaying Mauv Limestone. Apart from these channels, which are quite large in places, the Redwall Limestone sits directly atop the Mauv Limestone. The Temple Butte Limestone is quite prominent, however, in the western regions and forms massive cliffs hundreds of feet high. The color of this layer ranges from purplish in the eastern regions to grey or cream colored in the west. The only fossils to be found in the eastern region are bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. In the western region there are numerous marine fossils.
Tonto Group - These layers average about 515 to 545 million years old.
Muav Limestone - This layer averages about 515 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. The Mauv Limestone layer is much thicker in the western areas of the Canyon than it is in the east. Its color is grey and it does not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and brachiopods.
Bright Angel Shale - This layer averages about 530 million years old and is composed primarily of mudstone shale. It is also interbedded with small sections of sandstone and sandy limestone. The retreat of the Canyon rim is attributed primarily to the erosion of this layer which forms the top of the Tonto Platform. The plateau is much wider in the eastern portions of the Canyon where the Bright Angel Shale contains less sand and is more easily eroded. The color of this layer varies with its compostion but it is mostly various shades of green with some grey, brown and tan thrown in here and there. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods.
Tapeats Sandstone - This layer averages about 545 million years old and is composed of medium-grained and coarse-grained sandstone. Ripple marks formed by ocean waves of an early Cambrian sea are common in the upper layer. The Tapeats is similar to the Redwall in that it forms a barrier between upper and lower reaches of the Canyon that can only be traversed where a fault has caused its collapse. The color of this layer is dark brown and it contains fossils of trilobites. brachiopods, and trilobite trails.
Great Unconformity
- This non-layer indicates an age in which no sediments can be found. It is indicative of a time when an advancing sea eroded away the sediments that should be here.
Late Pre-Cambrian Rocks
Chuar Group - These layers average about 825 to 1,000 million years old and is composed of the following:
Sixtymile Formation - This tan colored layer is composed primarily of sandstone with some small sections of shale.
Kwagunt Formation - This layer is composed primarily of shale and mudstone with some limestone. In the area of Carbon Butte the lower layer also contains a large section of reddish sandstone. The shales within this layer are black and the mudstones range from red to purple. Fossils to be found in this layer are those of stromatolites, the oldest fossils to be found anywhere in the Grand Canyon.
Galeros Formaton - This layer is composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone and shale. The color is primarily greenish with some of the shales ranging from red to purple. Fossil stromatolites also exist in this layer.
Nankoweap Formation - This layer averages about 1,050 million years old and is composed of a coarse-grained sandstone. This layer is exposed only in the eastern section of the Canyon and belongs to neither the Chuar or Unkar groups because it is bounded on both sides by unconformities.
Unkar Group - These layers average about 1,100 to 1,250 million years old.
Cardenas Lavas - This dark brown layer is composed of basaltic lava flows.
Dox Sandstone - This layer averages about 1,190 million years old, is composed of sandstone interbedded with shale, and occurs primarily in the eastern regions of the Canyon. Its color varies from red to orange and its fossil record contains stromatolites and algae.
Shinumo Quartzite - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed of sandstone. This layer is only exposed in a few sections in the Canyon. Its color can be deep red, brown, purple or white.
Hakatai Shale - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed primarily of shale with some sandstone. The color is a very bright orange-red red and is the layer that gives Red Canyon its name.
Bass Formation - This layer averages about 1,250 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone with some interbedded shale. It is greyish in color and its fossil record consists of stromatolites.
Pre-Cambrian Unconformity - This non-layer represents a time where the mountains that had grown here were gradually eroded away to form a plain.
Early Pre-Cambrian Rocks
Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster Granite - This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were they deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas. The color of this layer is dark grey or black."
Hope this helps.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:11 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 250 of 310 (191511)
03-14-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-14-2005 4:22 PM


Where does it all go?
Moves them to where? Where does it go? Does it get moved from that place too? What happens if it finally gets weathered down to a few hundred feet below sea level in the ocean? What happens if it gets caught at the bottom of a lake? What happens if it ends up in a land basin and then more and more of it gets piled on top of it?
it doesn't allow great acres of neat horizontal layers to accumulate over even a hundred years, less a thousand, not at all in a million.
I think part of the problem is you have this fixation on "neat horizontal layers". It is only neat and horizontal in a relativly isolated location. But that location compared to one right next to it over some distance made from the same material may not be horizontal or neat. It may be thicker because it was a deeper part of the lake. It may be missing a piece because it was near the shore line and the rise and fall of the level of the water caused on particular substance to be missing from that exact spot. Overall thought it is considered to be the same layer over the wide area of "the lake".
It seems to me. And you guys are doing nothing more than speculating same as I am.
I have actually seen this stuff in real life from my courses in geology. These are things you can go see with your own two eyes and that many others HAVE seen and documented for us. You can see the same rocks, the same layers, the small areas that are neat and the large areas that are not. The bent, the fractured, the fossils, and all the rest of the data. Just because you have not or cannot does not mean that we have not.
Geology is very complicated. One should not be able to fully understand it from some posts on an internet discussion board.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:22 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 251 of 310 (191512)
03-14-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Jazzns
03-14-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Exactly!
YOu didn't answer my question, however, about whether these sediments do in fact get arranged in the same kind of formation as the Geo Column. That they do form layers I get, but the same kinds of layers, same kinds of sedimentary arrangements, to the same thicknesses and so on?
If you asked that question then I missunderstood. Sorry.
As a matter of fact this does not happen. Nothing mandates the thickness of layers other than time spent in a depositional envionment with a given rate of deposition. The same kind of sedimentary arrangements only exist in the same areas. Travel in any direction from a given geologic site for a few hundred miles and you will be at a location that has a completely different geologic history then the one you were just at. You may even find layers that were deposited by the same environment but they may be thinner, thicker, have different properties, or be missing all together.
No two locations are the same. Therefore no two locations would have the same anything in terms of geologic history over nearly any distance. Even in the GC there is a difference between the deposits up and downstream of the canyon. Once again, sameness does not exist.
OK, that's fair.
Seems to me you'd have trouble explaining how the tracks got preserved in mere sand in the first place, and if they did manage that, how they survived being immersed in water. Isn't that a bit of a problem for this layer-at-a-time buildup idea?
I know you aren't talking about the flood but how is it easier explained by a torrential violent water catastrophy over a relativly calm system? Not to mention how do you get an animal walking around on top of other flood deposits in the middle of a raging flood?
Yes, well we know it is a problem for Flood theory. Same thing for the different kinds of layers theory though.
Overall, trace fossils, for which tracks fall into the category, are not my immediate area of expertise. I do know that things like mud cracks preserve because the moist situation that allows them to form will cause them to be pretty tough once it dries out and before it gets buried by something else. I don't know the details of the tracks found in the GC but it is my guess that all tracks preserve because they are hardened of once moist depressions caused by an animal.
Of course. Somehow one has to imagine already-hardened layers moving over other layers and preserving their contents. Perhaps something to do with the tectonic shifts, which I know you put in a different time frame, but a creationist has to place within a few thousand years. The uplifted layers at the bottom of the Grand Canyon look like they were simply sliced off by the upper horizontal layers. Hard to imagine how any of that happened except that it suggests a lot of underground violence.
And Last:
One problem I've had throughout this thread is that one single post could take far more than one thread to deal with and yet there are multiple posts with multiple different kinds of information in them all piling up on me. I would have to take days to understand the picture you are creating with the sediment descriptions, then more days to think about the dry land examples.
It must be frustrating to have all this piled upon you. That being said, it is not an excuse for claiming that you have not been given a proper answer. Plenty of people have said that your idea of erosion is not correct in pretty much the same way. Just because each of them is unique does not mean that the point has not been met.
But if I can't appreciate the point it's as good as having not been made. And I am now answering some that were given earlier that for some reason I apparently didn't answer before. Some of the answers have not answered anything. Some have supported my view though they think they are answering it. Etc.
Sediments gather in low places. We can watch this today.
Obviously. But the geo column is nice neat straight layers.
As environments change the type of sediment being deposited in these low places changes too. This we can watch today.
Obviously. But the geo column is nice neat straight layers. It is claimed that you can see erosion in them, gullies in them etc., but I haven't seen these effects demonstrated in any of the pictures given here. I see effects ON the layers after they've been formed though, twisting them and pushing them around, but you can still see the layers in their original parallel condition that preceded the force applied later.
The more buried a depost gets the more compressed and harder it becomes, like a rock. This we can watch today.
Yes.
Rocks that are made in this fashion that we are watching today are strikingly similar to other rocks that are buried much farther down or in different places. Given this, what is your conclusion?
You havent shown them to be forming in nice neat straight parallel layers like the geo column, and obviously it isn't taking millions of years to form them either.
None of it explains the Grand Canyon or the whole Southwest, or the strata in the Rockies, or layers that I've seen in any pictures yet produced here. All it explains is that all the known geological processes continue to operate here and there in various local conditions, of course, but the geo column is nice neat straight layers found all over the world. Nothing explains that of anything said so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Jazzns, posted 03-14-2005 4:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Jazzns, posted 03-14-2005 5:20 PM Faith has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 310 (191514)
03-14-2005 4:55 PM


General Request to EVERYONE.
We're approaching the Witching Hour for this thread.
Is it possible to get ONE Designated Responder to Faith and try to deal with one single small question at a time? Perhaps that way it may be possible to show Faith where she is making her logical and evidential errors.
If we don't I see this thread simply being closed with no resolution.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 253 of 310 (191515)
03-14-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
03-14-2005 4:49 PM


Re: Exactly!
Of course. Somehow one has to imagine already-hardened layers moving over other layers and preserving their contents.
This is a simple misunderstanding. Let me try to clarify with steps on how I believe this to happen from what little I know.
1. On land the sandy or silty ground gets damp like mud.
2. An animal walks across the mud making deep prints.
3. The mud dries making the prints hard.
4. Soft sediments fill in the hard print and they themselves harden.
I don't think tectonics are needed to preserve tracks. I'd be willing to bet some hard cash too.
Obviously. But the geo column is nice neat straight layers.
...
Obviously. But the geo column is nice neat straight layers. It is claimed that you can see erosion in them, gullies in them etc., but I haven't seen these effects demonstrated in any of the pictures given here. I see effects ON the layers after they've been formed though, twisting them and pushing them around, but you can still see the layers in their original parallel condition that preceded the force applied later.
...
You havent shown them to be forming in nice neat straight parallel layers like the geo column, and obviously it isn't taking millions of years to form them either.
...
but the geo column is nice neat straight layers found all over the world. Nothing explains that of anything said so far.
I think I am beginning to see the problem a little clearer.
Kent Hovind does say one correct thing in his lectures. The geo column only exists in textbooks. This is partially true because "the geologic column" like it is thought of in basic geology is this stacking of layers. Moreover, you can even see this nice deliniated layering in very local circumstances. But over a large area things get anything but nice and neat.
For example, sand may settle out of water over an area like a lake. As you go deeper though the sand is actually going to be lower in "the column" then the sand higher up on the shore. This sand makes up the same layer even though it is actually diagonal with how the lake descends.
What looks neat and straight is when you cut into this though. Like layers in a cake, if you had a diagonal layer of cream in a cake and cut in in half, when you look at the cross section the layer looks nice and straight. But if you look at the whole cake the layer is actually tilted.
Does that analogy help?

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 6:20 PM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 254 of 310 (191518)
03-14-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
03-14-2005 1:26 PM


Off topic, proof, belief etc.
I think you need to distinguish between your personal beliefs and the actual facts.
You could reasonably say "I have no doubt that a worldwide flood occurred" - since tha tonly deals with your personal views.
You cannot reasonably say that "There is no doubt that a worldwide Flood occurred" - since that claims that there is clear proof of the Flood. And that is false. You would be closer to the truth to state that "there is no doubt that a worldwide Flood did NOT occur"
This is in the off-topic category we've been warned about, so if you want to discuss it start a new thread and possibly I'll find it and possibly I'll care to answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2005 1:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2005 6:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 03-14-2005 10:41 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 255 of 310 (191519)
03-14-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
03-14-2005 4:22 PM


Weathering MOVES around the sediments.
The ones on top, yes. Below that, sediments may rest undisturbed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 4:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 6:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024