Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 676 of 877 (835089)
06-17-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by edge
06-17-2018 10:35 AM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
So you've got a mechanism for the rising and falling of the sea floor, and you recognize that "stratigraphic mega sequences" are "global events," and all that is really interestingly suggestive of a worldwide Flood and all there is against it is your assumption of millions of years....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by edge, posted 06-17-2018 10:35 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 680 by edge, posted 06-17-2018 6:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 677 of 877 (835090)
06-17-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by Faith
06-16-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Faith writes:
Please explain why you think none of the contacts between strata at the Grand Canyon contain evidence of erosion and/or missing spans of time?
I believe I've not said NONE of the contacts, but VERY FEW, VERY VERY VERY FEW, and I believe they can be explained as having occurred after the strata were deposited.
  • Supergroup/Tapeats: unconformity
  • Muav Limestone/Temple Butte: unconformity
  • Surprise Canyon Formation/Supai Group: unconformity
  • Formations within the Supai: unconformity at top of each
  • Supai Group/Hermit Shale: unconformity
  • Hermit Shale/Coconino Sandstone: unconformity
  • Coconino Sandstone/Toroweap Formation: unconformity
  • Toroweap Formation/Kaibab Limestone: unconformity
  • Kaibab Limestone/Moenkopi Formation: unconformity
But we've presented evidence on numerous occasions of erosion at a number of these contacts. I'll not repeat the evidence again unless you request it. So of these unconformities that geologists believe have evidence of erosion, which ones do you believe they're wrong about and why? You can find the information about the unconformities at the USGS site, for example, for the base contact of the Kaibab Limestone it says:
quote:
Unconformable contact with underlying Woods Ranch Member of Toroweap Formation attributed to solution erosion and channel erosion; average relief about 10 ft (3 m). Some channels have eroded as much as 150 ft (45 m) into the Woods Ranch in western half of map area. Erosion channels were filled with sandy cherty limestone typical of the Fossil Mountain, providing an extra thickness of the Fossil Mountain.
Back to your message:
As for missing "time," no, missing layers that often occur at a location but didn't in a particular case, yes.
As Edge asked, how many exceptions do you believe are necessary to falsify your views?
Why do claim that strata deform as a unit but contradict yourself and claim that the stack of Supergroup and Paleozoic strata did not deform as unit, with only the Supergroup layers tilting but none of the layers above?
Again the point is that deformation or erosion as a unit is just one of the many ways it can be shown that the Time Scale is false,...
This isn't relevant to the question, but it's worth noting that you still haven't defined what "erosion as a unit" means. There is no logic to the claim that what happens to strata after they're deposited, whether it be deformation or erosion, has anything to do with how they were deposited, continuously or not.
...and yes of course it's another way of saying all disturbances occur after all the strata were in place and no you have not proved anything to the contrary, what a silly thought, it's obvious in a million places.
You've never defined what "in place" means. Strata do not move around with respect to adjacent strata except through faulting. You can tell by everyone's responses to you that we all believe that "in place" means the strata have been deposited and exist, which makes your statement self evident and incredibly obvious, i.e., something there is no need to say. Of course strata cannot be deformed or eroded until they exist.
So are you really just continually repeating something very obvious, or are you trying to make a different point? If the latter then it should have been obvious to you some time ago that your point isn't getting across. If you truly mean something different from what everyone thinks you mean then you need to find a different way to say it.
Actually the Paleozoic strata deformed as a unit in that they all rise over the uplift. The Supergroup deformed in two blocks of strata. Since I think all these things occurred at the same time in a sense the whole thing deformed as a unit.
But they did not deform as a unit. Deforming at the same time is not synonymous with deforming as a unit. You're abusing the English language. The Supergroup deformed completely independently of the Paleozoic layers. That is the opposite of deforming as a unit.
This calls into question your definition of "deformed as a unit." When you say the Smith cross section of layers tilted as a unit then we all agree with you, because all the evidence indicates that they did, indeed, tilt as a unit, i.e., that they tilted at the same time in the same way in response to the same forces. But when you use the same term of "deformed as a unit" for the Supergroup/Paleozoic stratigraphic column where part of it tilted and part of it didn't then obviously they did not tilt at the same time and did not experience the same forces.
--->>>>But if you might remember, I also said that angular unconformities are the single exception to this rule of deformation as a unit which would resolve your "contradiction." .
And I questioned this when you first mentioned it in my Message 187 - you didn't respond. This is as good as no definition at all. It likes saying, "Strata tilt as a unit except where they don't."
So now you've got two different and inconsistent definitions for "deformed as a unit," one that makes no sense, and another that is useless. You need to come up with a third definition, one that is useful and makes sense.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 5:40 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 678 of 877 (835092)
06-17-2018 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by Percy
06-17-2018 5:13 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
If it's invisible it isn't evidence of erosion.;

This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Percy, posted 06-17-2018 5:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by Percy, posted 06-18-2018 7:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 723 by Percy, posted 06-19-2018 1:59 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 679 of 877 (835095)
06-17-2018 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
06-17-2018 3:52 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
No, I've specifically said that angular unconformities are NOT a block, specifically said that more than once. Angular unconformities are the ONLY exception to the rule I keep talking about, that LLhe strata were laid down before being eroded or deformed as a whole block or unit; said that many times, I guess you missed it. Angular unconformities are an exception. NOT a block/unit. ONLY exception.
Well, then, the Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary rocks are in different blocks because they are not undergone the same deformation, yes?
And also, PLEASE explain the unconformities to us.
The splitting of the ocntinents was a worldwide event, that's what I'm talking about.
Please document this. Is the East African Rift part of that break-up?
A lot of tectonic bashing and crashing going on. The breaking up must have been fairly jolting, but then there was the subduction on the west side of the Americas that pushed up mountains etc. I happen to think it occurred in conjunction with the beginning of the receding of the Flood, because of the effects like the cutting of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase and the other massive erosion events in that area; and the dramatically deformed rocks in other places would be a natural result of such a tectonic bashing.
So, the deformation occurred before the Tertiary rocks were deposited.
Yes a very nice theory. Puts together a lot of phenomena in one nice neat elegant package. Yes, cute.
Except for the problem of not conforming to the facts, sure.
So you had the mountains forming in western North America and the continents breaking up in eastern North America.
When did the Appalachians form?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 7:58 PM edge has replied

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


Message 680 of 877 (835096)
06-17-2018 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 676 by Faith
06-17-2018 4:55 PM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
So you've got a mechanism for the rising and falling of the sea floor, and you recognize that "stratigraphic mega sequences" are "global events," and all that is really interestingly suggestive of a worldwide Flood ...
Except that there was no world-wide flooding, and there were six transgressions, and there were mountain-building events going on at the same time. And it has taken about a half billion years to happen.
... and all there is against it is your assumption of millions of years..
That does not follow.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 4:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 8:35 PM edge has replied

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


Message 681 of 877 (835098)
06-17-2018 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 679 by edge
06-17-2018 6:34 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
No, I've specifically said that angular unconformities are NOT a block, specifically said that more than once. Angular unconformities are the ONLY exception to the rule I keep talking about, that LLhe strata were laid down before being eroded or deformed as a whole block or unit; said that many times, I guess you missed it. Angular unconformities are an exception. NOT a block/unit. ONLY exception.
Well, then, the Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary rocks are in different blocks because they are not undergone the same deformation, yes?
"Block" is a term I use to describe the strata eroded or deformed all together at one time and I don't apply it to angular unconformities because they are the single exception to the point i'm making about erosion or deformation to blocks or units.
And also, PLEASE explain the unconformities to us.
Certainly. They are contacts between layers that according to standard Old Earth Geology were originally occupied by a layer/time period, which can often be found in other stratigraphic columns in the vicinity. There isn't one iota of physical evidence of any former presence of such a layer where the "unconformity" supposedly exists, it is entirely an assumption based on the Geological Time Scale. In physical reality they never existed, no layer was ever deposited there.
The splitting of the ocntinents was a worldwide event, that's what I'm talking about.
Please document this. Is the East African Rift part of that break-up?
No idea, but if it's a similar event and it occurred at the same time as part of the same tectonic movement I suppose it was.
A lot of tectonic bashing and crashing going on. The breaking up must have been fairly jolting, but then there was the subduction on the west side of the Americas that pushed up mountains etc. I happen to think it occurred in conjunction with the beginning of the receding of the Flood, because of the effects like the cutting of the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase and the other massive erosion events in that area; and the dramatically deformed rocks in other places would be a natural result of such a tectonic bashing.
So, the deformation occurred before the Tertiary rocks were deposited.
No, the conventional timing of the breakup of Pangaea is incorrect, as evidenced by the continuous laying down of the strata up to Recent time, as shown on the Smith cross section of England. Had the strata since the Jurassic not been deposited at the time of the breakup of Pangaea, it would not be deformed in the same pattern as all the rest were, because that deformation is best explained as the result of the tectonic event we are discussing which came after all the strata were in place. In fact the recent strata in the UK would probably have been laid horizontally on top of all the other strata if the conventional timing was true because that's the way those strata were probably originally deposited. Instead the pattern of deformation across all the time periods shows that the continents did not split until after all the strata were laid down. The strata in the Grand Staircase area demonstrate the same thing: all in place up to Claron before tectonic disturbance formed the GS cliffs and the GC.
Yes a very nice theory. Puts together a lot of phenomena in one nice neat elegant package. Yes, cute.
Except for the problem of not conforming to the facts, sure.
Oh it does conform to the facts.
So you had the mountains forming in western North America and the continents breaking up in eastern North America.
When did the Appalachians form?
The continents split between the east coast of America and Europe/Africa of course. I think the Rockies were pushed up as a result of the subduction beneath the west coast of America, but the whole continent was affected, I don't think you can split it between east and west, it all happened at the same time due to the same tectonic event.
The Appalachians of course formed at the same time but the pressure wasn't as forceful on that side of the continent as it was in the west so they are more of a buckling or crumpling of the land than a thrusting up of whole blocks of strata as in the Rockies. And there was volcanism released as a result of this event too of course, which accounts for the Sierras among other things. The dike at Siccar Point one remnant of it in that area. The magma that reaches all the way to the Claron in the GS is another. Magma doesn't reach as far in the GC because the strata had been washed away above the point where the magma did spill over. The Hurricane Fault and the angular unconformity to the north of it were also the result of this tectonic event, the result of the raising of the land to the south, and apparently a LOT of sedimentary material just sort of fell off the cliff on the north, a lot of it getting washed away by the Flood water as so much of the Grand Staircase was also. Oh there's more...
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 679 by edge, posted 06-17-2018 6:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by edge, posted 06-17-2018 10:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 686 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2018 12:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 718 by Percy, posted 06-19-2018 1:09 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 682 of 877 (835100)
06-17-2018 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 680 by edge
06-17-2018 6:37 PM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
So you've got a mechanism for the rising and falling of the sea floor, and you recognize that "stratigraphic mega sequences" are "global events," and all that is really interestingly suggestive of a worldwide Flood
Except that there was no world-wide flooding,
Maybe no "floodING," whatever that is, but worldwide inundation of the entire planet, oh I think so.
... and there were six transgressions,
How do you know it was six separate transgressions and not just six phases of the worldwide Flood?
and there were mountain-building events going on at the same time.
How do you know it was at the same time? Aren't the strata continuous across the entire Midwest of the USA?
And it has taken about a half billion years to happen.
SO unnecessary and unlikely. All the current dog breeds evolved within a few hundred years, if evolution had even a hundred thousand years to work with all living things would be extinct by now.
... and all there is against it is your assumption of millions of years..
That does not follow.
Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 680 by edge, posted 06-17-2018 6:37 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2018 2:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 696 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 9:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 683 of 877 (835101)
06-17-2018 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by Minnemooseus
06-17-2018 2:20 AM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
Moose writes:
Now, per your "created according to the principles of Walther's Law". I still resist invoking Walther's Law as being a process.
But I didn't call it a process. I had you in mind when I said "created according to the principles of Walther's Law".
Recently I discovered a better terminology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(geology)#Null-point_hypothesis
quote:
The null-point hypothesis explains how sediment is deposited throughout a shore profile according to its grain size. This is due to the influence of hydraulic energy, resulting in a seaward-fining of sediment particle size, or where fluid forcing equals gravity for each grain size.[2] The concept can also be explained as "sediment of a particular size may move across the profile to a position where it is in equilibrium with the wave and flows acting on that sediment grain".[3] This sorting mechanism combines the influence of the down-slope gravitational force of the profile and forces due to flow asymmetry; the position where there is zero net transport is known as the null point and was first proposed by Cornaglia in 1889.[3] Figure 1 illustrates this relationship between sediment grain size and the depth of the marine environment.
quote:
The Null-point hypothesis has been quantitatively proven in Akaroa Harbour, New Zealand, The Wash, U.K., Bohai Bay and West Huang Sera, Mainland China, and in numerous other studies; Ippen and Eagleson (1955), Eagleson and Dean (1959, 1961) and Miller and Zeigler (1958, 1964).
This might be helpful detail for someone who already understands Walther's Law, but I don't it it's a helpful avenue for explaining Walther's Law.
Now, Faith's muddled scenario apparently involves sediment being eroded off the continents and being deposited at ocean shorelines.
This isn't recognizably, at least to me, a claim Faith has ever made. Let me make sure I'm interpreting this correctly. Does this say that the rains fall upon and denude the continents, and that then this sediment laden water flows off the continents and deposits its sediment load at the coastlines? If so then I don't think Faith has ever said this.
Or were you just trying to boil Faith's scenario down to a single sentence?
While I envision that the results of the Faith variation of the mainstream concept would look substantially different from the above graphic, I think that Walther's Law would still be valid. It's still a migrating environment.
I understand you're trying to lend Faith a hand, and I respect that, but this seems to adopt a Faith strategy, employing terms inappropriately, in this case "migrating environments." Could tsunamis really be described as migrating environments? A quick Google revealed nothing online where Walther's Law was discussed in the same context as tsunamis or waves or inundations.
But migrating depositional environments aside, Walther's Law is about vertical strata that were originally deposited in laterally adjacent environments, and Faith's scenario has no laterally adjacent environments.
Faith also invokes large sediment amounts being stirred up in the ocean basins and somehow being washed up into the near shore environment. While there are all sorts of problems with this scenario, I visualize that such might result in a sediment size distribution that goes from coarse to fine from seaward to landward (the opposite order of the "Walther's Law" model). I see this because of the sediment deposition fining as you get further from the ocean basin sediment source.
Right, but this is just another way that Faith's scenario requires sediments to behave in impossible ways.
You described Faith's scenario as "sediments...somehow being washed up into the near shore environment," but she's actually been specific about this, saying that it involves consecutive waves, each depositing a sediment load. She also says that eventually the water level rises enough to completely cover the continents, at which point there are, of course, no more waves, but deposition of sediments suspended in the waters continues. But as for Walther's Law, none of this involves laterally adjacent depositional environments.
So, the final stratigraphy might be some sort of hybrid of the land sourced sediment model and the ocean basin sourced sediment model. I would expect that even such hybrid would still result in a Walther's Law relationship.
I don't see how that's possible.
Now about a bit of Percy statement from message 556:
Percy, message 556, writes:
The ocean floor has not dropped. Surveys of the ocean floor after WWII in order to aid submarine navigation revealed a great deal of information about mid-oceanic ridges and sea floor striping and so on, but not an ounce of evidence for dropping sea floors.
I wasn't thinking of uplift and subsidence of sea floor but of the absence of evidence for dropping sea floors 4500 years ago (the total Faith scenario is for the sea floor to both drop and rise because the source of extra water was a reservoir of water beneath the sea floor, but she only mentioned dropping sea floors in the message I was replying to). Such a dramatic worldwide event (sea floors dropping several miles over 40 days and nights then gradually rising) would be the single most evident seafloor feature, yet there's no sign of it.
But this idea of a reservoir of water beneath the seafloor doesn't really work if the seafloor has to drop for the water to emerge and then later rise for the water to disappear beneath it again. That wouldn't change sea levels. For the sea level to rise the reservoir of water would have to emerge from beneath the sea floor, but the sea floor couldn't drop. That would leave a vacuum behind, another absurd possibility. I think someone might have mentioned the vacuum issue recently, maybe Edge. Plus we know there's no reservoir of water beneath the seafloor.
As I understand it, the great sea transgressions and regressions in geologic history were indeed largely caused by ocean floor rises and falls. This is the reality that ties into the "catastrophic plate tectonics" fantasy. Over the years I've tried and failed to find good (or even mediocre) internet literature on this process. Perhaps to be discussed further in later messages.
This would be really interesting to discuss, but I don't think it's related to anything Faith is saying.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-17-2018 2:20 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 684 of 877 (835102)
06-17-2018 9:20 PM


What Flood geologists say
This is an interesting article in which the author uses only arguments proposed by different supporters of a Flood to show it could not have occurred at any time in the Earth's history. There is no general agreement among them of what constitutes pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood.
Page not found | National Center for Science Education

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:34 PM Pollux has replied

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


Message 685 of 877 (835105)
06-17-2018 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by Faith
06-17-2018 7:58 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
Ah, it must be bliss to be unconstrained by facts.
"Block" is a term I use to describe the strata eroded or deformed all together at one time and I don't apply it to angular unconformities because they are the single exception to the point i'm making about erosion or deformation to blocks or units.
So you just handwave away all angular unconformities.
That's convenient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 7:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:34 AM edge has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 686 of 877 (835106)
06-18-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by Faith
06-17-2018 7:58 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
No, the conventional timing of the breakup of Pangaea is incorrect, as evidenced by the continuous laying down of the strata up to Recent time, as shown on the Smith cross section of England. Had the strata since the Jurassic not been deposited at the time of the breakup of Pangaea, it would not be deformed in the same pattern as all the rest were, because that deformation is best explained as the result of the tectonic event we are discussing which came after all the strata were in place.
Faith, this is openly dishonest. You know that the Smith diagram is misleading. You know that there is a complex history of deformation that doesn’t fit in with your crazy nonsense. Yet here you are trying to deceive us with the same old falsehood that has already been exposed.
Here’s the more complete diagram again:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 7:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 687 of 877 (835108)
06-18-2018 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
06-17-2018 8:35 PM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
quote:
SO unnecessary and unlikely. All the current dog breeds evolved within a few hundred years, if evolution had even a hundred thousand years to work with all living things would be extinct by now.
It’s hardly unlikely.
Current dog breeds were produced by artificial selection, which works faster than natural evolution.
Evolution relies on mutation to supply additional diversity. Speeding up selection without speeding up mutation won’t make it work that much faster. Speeding up mutation produces problems which would need to be dealt with, too.
And if your version of evolution predicts total extinction within 100,000 years that proves that your version of evolution is wrong.
But please go back to existing topics if you really think you can defend this silly nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 8:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:28 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 688 of 877 (835109)
06-18-2018 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 686 by PaulK
06-18-2018 12:13 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
I reject your "complex history," I see it as I described: the strata are deformed according to a recognizable pattern, all at one time, both at the surface and underground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2018 12:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2018 2:36 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 689 of 877 (835110)
06-18-2018 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 687 by PaulK
06-18-2018 2:12 AM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
Mutation is not needed for evolution at any level; it may contribute something from time to time but very very rarely; the rest of the time it is useless and adds nothing except new variations on genetic diseases. If domestic/artificial selection produces such a range of breeds in such a short time although natural selection would take longer it would NOT take millio9ns of years.
And unfortunately a hundred thousand years WOULD lead to extinction, certainly not according to the prevailing paradigm which is massive delusion, but according to the truth, which is that the original Creation designed immortal beings, both human and animal, and it's only because of the Fall that death entered. If there had been no sin or death all creatures would simply have diverged into wonderful varieties of unimaginable kinds. But death brings it all to an end eventually, and that hundred thousand years is probably a huge overestimation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2018 2:12 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2018 2:40 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 690 of 877 (835111)
06-18-2018 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by edge
06-17-2018 10:59 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
So you just handwave away all angular unconformities.
No, they need to be explained and that's why I've got an explanation I've been working on.
But I'd also mention again that they really are the ONLY exception to this rule and that in itself is very interesting, because of the prevailing model were correct there should be a huge number of such "exceptions," it should be the typical case. But it's not
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by edge, posted 06-17-2018 10:59 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by edge, posted 06-18-2018 9:02 AM Faith 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