Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 302 of 969 (724462)
04-17-2014 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
04-17-2014 2:56 AM


Re: Geo Timescale no longer telling time
I don't know why you are all insisting the sediments in the ocean are at all like the geo column when they clearly aren't. I produced the links that show that they aren't.
Hmm, I missed that. However, what do you mean by modern seafloor sediments being unlike the geological column? Of course there are differences. The modern sediments are younger, for one and thinner for another. There are reasons for this if you want to discuss.
quote:
All you've done is assert that they are. There's no similar layering and I can't find any evidence of fossilization going on in anything I looked at either.
Then you haven't looked very hard. Try this:
http://green.rpi.edu/archives/fossils/
It SHOULD continue just as the strata are normally laid down, at the top of the existing last layer. Not in new basins, not at the bottom of the sea.
Why should it? We know that the ocean basins are actually younger than the continents. Why should they contain rocks that are older than the basins themselves?
The Geologic Timescale is over and done with, kaput. Because it never existed in the first place. It's a fiction imposed upon a stack of sediments containing fossilized dead things, that accumulated over a short period of time. Then it stopped accumulating. It's over with.
I'll be sure to pass your recommendation along.
I'm not sure where any of your post could be further from the truth. Do you really want to discuss this or are you just going to bloviate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 4:09 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 348 of 969 (724535)
04-18-2014 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Faith
04-17-2014 3:48 PM


Re: Geo Timescale no longer telling time
As I said, the layering on the ocean floors bears just about zero resemblance to the layering of the Geologic Column.
And the geologic column in Pennsylvania bears almost no resemblance to that of Colorado. And the geological column for Nevada bears almost no resemblance to that of the Canadian Shield.
So the modern sediments are different from those of the Precambrian. And continental shelf sediments are different from the abyssal plain.
Yep, it's a little more complicated than you think.
Certainly, however there are some sediments like the modern deep sea as in the Precambrian of Montana...
How, does that happen? Well, it does.
quote:
Yes I know that water layers sediments, that's how I know the Geo Column was formed by the Flood, and there's no way the layering now accumulating on the sea floor or in newly formed basins elsewhere has anything to do with the continued building of the Geo Timetable.
Well, they do. The may not look like the Grand Canyon sequence but they certainly look like lower plate rocks of Nevada. and the pelagic sediments of of the Belt Supergroup in the Northwest.
As usual, your viewpoint is simplified to the point of uselessness.
quote:
Which has clearly come to an end, kaput, finis.
So, you say that sediments are not being deposited in the Mississippi River delta, or the Andes trench or the Bahamas Banks?
Please tell us more.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 3:48 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 349 of 969 (724536)
04-18-2014 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
04-17-2014 6:03 PM


Re: Geo Timescale no longer telling time
Na, the fact is that I DISAGREE with some Geology and that's what you don't like. I don't toe the party line so I'm crazy. Oh well.
You are free to agree or disagree. You just look kind of silly to anyone who knows anything about geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 6:03 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 351 of 969 (724539)
04-18-2014 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
04-17-2014 5:55 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
NONE OF IT GOES ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS. The newly created ocean floor is just part of the MOVEMENT of the continents.
I'm wondering how you know this.
But since you are so knowledgeable, perhaps you could explain ophiolite sequences to us in your own words. But first, maybe this little article might be useful.
Ophiolite - Wikipedia
Have no idea what you are talking about.
I"m sure.
Sea floor layers cannot possibly be the Geologic Timetable as I've shown over and over.
So you say. Why not?
quote:
NOT ON TOP OF THE CONTINENTS.
Why not? Or are just trying to reinforce a lie?
In that case have pity on me and explain what on earth you are talking about. I've never seen anything about continents being built out of ocean floor. Volcanic islands is It.
Then maybe you can explain the Fransiscan Formation of California.
No, just me. I just hit on this in this thread. Suddenly realized how clear it is that the Geo Column and therefore Timescale has absolutely stopped forming and how absolutely stupid the idea of it continuing on the ocean floor is.
Clear to you and your baseless assertions. Sedimentation occurs presently all over the world, mainly in the oceans, but also in lakes and rivers similar to those we see in the geological record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 5:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:34 AM edge has replied
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:40 AM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 354 of 969 (724542)
04-18-2014 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:21 AM


The Kaibab Plateau is bounded on the south by the Grand Canyon and by Colorado tributaries on the east and west. It is higher than all that and yet at some point it was eroded into a plateau. On the north it is bounded by the higher cliffs of the Grand Staircase, so that is a source of water for erosion, but no normal rivers could have denuded that plateau flat as it is. On the flyover videos of that area it appears very flat indeed, ...
Yes, flat and featureless, similar to a coastal plain with meandering streams...
Your planet is very dynamic indeed, risings and fallings of seas and land areas galore, and yet you all accept your ridiculous version of geology and scorn mine.
Well, considering your lack of references and any hint of training in geology, you are well-deserving of scorn.
quote:
Lot of theory there, not much reality. No reason whatever to expect the Kaibab plateau to sink or the Grand Canyon or the Grand Staircase. Clearly the layers were all laid down one after another to a great depth, some three miles or so, before any of the large scale erosion occurred, the canyon cutting, the cliff formation, the denuding of the Kaibab etc etc etc.
Untrue. There were several periods of erosion before the recent uplift and subsequent erosion. But you wouldn't know that, would you?
But I didn't mention any of that at all on this thread. I merely observed that the formation of the strata, which is the basis for the Geologic Timetable, has clearly come to a halt.
Yes, that is what would normally happen when an area is eroded. But at the same time, we know that marine deposition continues elsewhere.
Again, I OBSERVED that the building of the strata HAS ceased.
This is a joke, right? You are saying that sedimentation should continue during a period of erosion at the same place?
quote:
It's an observed FACT, not the product of theory. And you all tacitly acknowledge this fact by relocating the continued strata-building to the ocean floor and newer small-scale basins.
Somehow, I don't see the Pacific Ocean as a small-scale basin...
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:45 AM edge has replied
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:57 AM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 355 of 969 (724543)
04-18-2014 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:40 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Why would they not be part of the geological column for some areas? Are you under the impression that the geo column is the same every where?
That's crazy.
But then, you would know better, of course.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:40 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 357 of 969 (724545)
04-18-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:34 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Sure sedimentation occurs all over the world, but it isn't occurring on the scale it occurred when it laid down the strata that form the Geologic Column on which the Geologic Timetable is built, very deep disparate sediments that extend across the entire continent of North America for instance.
Just one little question...
If this was a global flood, where did all of the sediment come from to create all of those sediments? Where was the erosion occurring?
And I'm not even going to get into the evaporite deposits, the dinosaur footprints, the raindrop impressions and the termite nests...
And you were asking about our silly models for sedimentation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:01 AM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 360 of 969 (724548)
04-18-2014 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:45 AM


I would know it has been said but that the actual reality defies the idea.
Good. Then you can explain the angular unconformities such as the ones at the base of the Grand Canyon Group and the Tapeats Sandstone.
In fact, why is there a beach sand such as the Tapeats? Doesn't a beach imply land?
And what about the swamps of the Hermit Shale? How do you get swamps in the middle of a global flood?
And then, of course there's the disconformity between the Redwall and the Temple Butte which forms in channels cut in the Tonto Group. I'm glad you can explain these and look forward to your treatment of the geology of the GC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:21 AM edge has replied
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:39 PM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 361 of 969 (724549)
04-18-2014 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:01 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Yes, obviously you've missed all the voluminous previous discussions of these things. The material for the strata must have come from the washing off of the land mass in the torrential forty days and nights of rain. It got sorted in the currents and layers of the ocean water and redeposited as strata.
Ah, good. Then you can explain how limestones were deposited in a turbid flow regime environment, and why we see multiple sorting events with sandstones and shales scattered throughout. Just \[b\]where\[b\] did those limestones wash in from and maintain their purity?
And then you can let us know how tetrapod tracks were preserved in such a 'washing off' of the continents. Oh, and don't forget the burrow fossils. How did they form in the middle of such a catastrophic event?
And then I'd like to know how you fit in the tilting of the GC Group of sediments followed by their erosion.
Why is there a beach sand in the middle of all this torrent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 6:21 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 362 of 969 (724550)
04-18-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Faith
04-18-2014 12:57 AM


But you said there have been previous periods of erosion and uplift in the Grand Canyon area, and I'm wondering where you see the evidence for that on this diagram: ...
On the far right, there are two of them. One clear disconformity and another angular unconformity.
Seems to me pretty clear that all the large-scale erosion I was talking about occurred above the Kaibab ...
Oops! Well, there you go! That's another one!
quote:
... at the same time the GC area was uplifted into that mounded shape and the canyons and cliffs were cut ...
Unlikely. The Kaibab plain was probably formed near sea level during a long period of coastal plain erosion where meandering streams eventually cut into the Kaibab itself and set the general trend of the future Colorado River. Uplift occurred after that.
quote:
... and the magma intrusions occurred in the GS area and the faultings too and the Great Unconformity beneath the GC as well. All at one time.
Hunh? You have the Great Unconformity occurring after all of the rocks were deposited?
Now that's plain weird.
Even the Great Unconformity. Yes.
Even that had to occur during the fludde. Yes (well, according to you).
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 12:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 5:37 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 364 of 969 (724552)
04-18-2014 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
04-17-2014 5:40 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Adding new layers to the uppermost Recent Time periods with very very modern fossils in them? Kindly show me any such thing.
Sure. In the Chesapeake Bay estuary, I have see all kinds of shells in the modern sediment. I've also seen shells buried in beach sands, very similar to Cretaceous beach sands in Colorado. I have seen trees covered in volcanic ash in Hawaii just as they occur in Tertiary volcanics of Nevada. And what about coral reefs? Is the Great Barrier Reef just going to disappear in the future geological record? If you think that fossilization has stopped, you are truly in error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 5:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:29 AM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 367 of 969 (724555)
04-18-2014 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:21 AM


After they were all laid down we got tectonic disturbance that released magma beneath the area where the GC now is, ...
Tell us about this 'disturbance'. What caused it?
... the force of the tectonic movement and possibly the accumulation of magma as well causing the lower strata to tilt up against the Tapeats. Slippage between the tilting strata and the Tapeats caused it to slide some distance.
Without disturbing the Tapeats. Excellent.
So what is the evidence for a dislocation at the base of the Tapeats?
There is a fifteen-foot quartzite boulder buried in the Tapeats sandstone above the contact line that was broken off the Shinumo layer about a quarter of a mile away from its current location.
Hmmm, classic evidence for an erosional unconformity...
I don't suppose you'd consider... nah....
That movement accounts for that and all the rest of the broken/eroded stuff we find in the sandstone.
Sure. Couldn't be erosional.
The sandstone was no doubt highly compressed by the three miles of sediment stacked above it but not completely lithified at the time
Right. Sure.
So the force exerted beneath the canyon lifted the whole stack but it remained more or less horizontal from the Tapeats on up, at least all the stack remained parallel from there up and mostly still horizontal. I figure the contact between the Tapeats and the tilted unconformity is the point where the forces balanced each other out, the tectonic and volcanic forces from beneath and the weight of the stack of sediments above. The stack was uplifted but not distorted from the Tapeats on up.
Right. And all of this happened during the fludde.
And no doubt, you have evidence.
I'm sure I've forgotten a bunch of stuff but I need to take a rest from all this. Since you no doubt find all this objectionable I'll probably see you here later or tomorrow.
I'm sure that I have forgotten a lot too, but evidently not quite enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 4:45 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 368 of 969 (724556)
04-18-2014 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:29 AM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
The deposition of shells is not the Geologic Timescale.
I never said so. I was describing the very very modern fossils.
Your Recent Time period on that Timescale has mammals and stuff, oh maybe some marine stuff, but it's not the Recent Time period if it only has shells.
In some locations it is.
But then, you would know better...
We are plotting the sequence of evolution up the time periods are we not? And the time periods do stack one on top of another do they not?
I guess. Well, some time periods may not have sediments deposited. Do you have a point?
That is, they do not decide to continue elsewhere, they build where they are.
True, sediments do not decide anything. They are not sentient. Do you think that sediments continue depositing where they are being eroded?
Are you saying that as they erode, the new sediments just disappear and never reach a depositional center?
Now you are getting weird again.
Current smallscale sedimentation and deposition of fossils is simply NOT the Geologic Timescale, ...
Of course not. The geological time scale is something else completely.
... it's just willy-nilly sedimentation and fossilization.
Of course. But it is part of the local geological column. Do you think that the geological column is the same everywhere?
I think you've forgotten a few more things about geology than you thought you did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 4:05 PM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 369 of 969 (724557)
04-18-2014 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
04-18-2014 1:26 AM


Oh and the magma is what created the granite and the schist at the bottom of the GC too, ...
I'm sure you are correct. Of course, I'd like to see the evidence that the Zoroaster Granite is the same as the younger basalts.
ETA: oh, yes... schist implies a pre-existing rock, so how do you know that it all happened quickly?
... taking not nearly as long as Geology requires ...
Why is that? Are you debating by assertion again? What does anything you've said have to do with the time it takes a granite pluton to cool?
Oh, that's right, it has to be that way to maintain your religious myth.
... but Geology does tend to overestimate time.
Actually geology does not estimate at all.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 1:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 2:49 PM edge has replied

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


(1)
Message 385 of 969 (724634)
04-18-2014 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
04-18-2014 2:49 PM


Re: granite schist and basalt
Am I right that you mean "same age as" rather than "same as?" If not, I have to ask "same how?"
You said 'the' magma and I thought you were talking about the later basalts. If you are talking Cardenas, then it is still younger than the granite/schist. I wrote it all off as confusion on your part.
I'm aware that there is an age discrepancy for my view of all this according to Geology, but I also don't take much of the dating claims seriously. I figure they are open to reinterpretation.
Regardless of age, you have to fit in a lot of events into 6ky.
Of course this is very interesting to me because it is an admission that there can be problems with radiometric dating, ...
To me it is an admission that we have developed new and improved methods for radiometric dating. However, I'm not surprised that a YEC would see this as a disadvantage.
quote:
... even that "deposition in a marine setting" can "disrupt" the system (and a marine setting is exactly what the Flood would have been).
If you have ever seen magma erupted into a water saturated environment you might see the reasoning.
Mmmm, nah, you wouldn't....
In discussions at EvC one normally finds radiometric dating treated as perfection itself.
Yes, in rhetoric we support radiometric dating. In science we always defer to geological evidence first. And no, I do not see it as perfect, however, you have nothing coming close to it in mythology.
So now with newer methods they are sure they have it right.
I'm sure the date could be improved upon.
Fraid I don't have the same certainty myself. About the basalt or anything else dated by these methods.
Actually, certainty is all you will accept. Which is kind of weird, considering what you've got. I'm willing to go with the evidence.
I also have found it difficult to get a clear idea of just what the Cardenas Basalt is. Sometimes it is presented as a layer in the Supergroup, but in this diagram it's presented as an intrusion through the Supergroup which makes more sense:
Yes, the concordant layers would be sills. If you'd had the first course in Geology, you would know that.
Of course on my view of the Grand Canyon the magma eruption would have formed all of it in roughly the same time period: the basalt and the granite and the schist.
What magma eruption? The granite? The Cardenas? or the Vulcan's Throne basalt? Even without radiometric dates, they show very different ages due to cross-cutting relationships.
It only needs to have happened over the last 4300 years, from the time of the magma eruption to the time it was recognized as schist.
The magma will never be recognized as Vishnu Schist, or vice versa.
It appears that you are forgetting more of your geology each day.
It doesn't need to have happened instantaneously. The pre-existing rock of the schist is probably partly rubble from the tilting and displacement of the Supergroup.
Except that the schist is older, so your scenario is impossible.
So you have three distinct magmatic events all different in style and composition and you want to stuff them into 4300 years, including the erosion that brings the granite and the Cardenas closer to the surface.
Pretty fantastic stuff. A geological miracle, in fact.
And, of course, you can back it all up with evidence.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 2:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 8:56 PM edge has not replied
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 8:59 PM edge has not replied
 Message 390 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 9:03 PM edge has not replied
 Message 391 by Faith, posted 04-18-2014 9:06 PM edge 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