forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,10:13) | Let's start with some of forastero's comments shall we...
| Quote | | I read through your link but your little paragraph is all the info they give on it. For such a grand column, you think there would have elaborated on it some what? I imagine from the citation that it was done with pollen but then well drilling dont operate like a core sampler but rather mixes everything up as it pushes and grinds away. Anyway, I’d sure like to see the preCambrian pollen. |
I think everyone would like to see this, since there were NO LAND ORGANISMS in the Precambrian. This is just sad.
You would think that for someone so interested in this, you could actually do some research on your own. The concept of 'summary' seems to be beyond you. As I said, stratigraphy is a course of study that covers multiple classes in multiple semesters. It's not something that we can explain to you in a 15 minute essay. It's almost sad that you think major concepts in science can be explained in 15 minute snippets.
| Quote | Green River formation doesnt represent a nasty lake but rather a very great and bio diverse lake. Blue green algae is Cyanobacteria and can grow in fresh or saltwater and on land.
Btw oil shale is another hydrocarbonated fossil fuel known to be laid down by flood compaction. |
Look, you still aren't getting the concept here. You have to explain hundreds of feet of compacted oil shale, with intervening layers of other rock (not soft sandy stuff, but ROCK), and you have to explain the massive compaction to drive the water out and the heat and you have to do all of that either during the Flood of Noah or in the less than 6000 years since the flood of Noah.
You don't have to explain one thin layer of oil shale that formed in this way, but millions.
| Quote | Sounds like another double standard. First y'all say mutation this mutation that, but if I mention a isotope mutation you get all sour-pussed. Likewise, you been telling me all along that different layers represent vastly different ages but now ya suddenly go and say a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together.
Oh and they dont use conodonts but rather so called conodont teeth, which btw, look an awful lot like baby lamprey and hagfish teeth. Not only that but those teeth are found in a lot of different strata around the world. Likewise mammal-like reptiles have teeth like modern reptiles so you will have to provide some better index fossils imo |
Mutations, have zero to do with this. This has nothing to do with anything to do with evolutionary theory. Index fossils are species (or genera) that have stayed remarkably similar over long time periods and have a nearly global coverage. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents this from happening.
I did not say "a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together." That is a lie. You should be more careful about the things you say. I warned you not to put words in my mouth.
Look very carefully at what I said.
The upper igneous layer gives you the max age that the sed layer could be. The lower igneous layer gives you the minimum age that the sed layer could be.
If a layer is between two datable layers, then the age of the layer is between that of the two datable layers. This isn't rocket science. But it is real science, not whatever you think is science.
Your babbling about the various fossils are meaningless. You don't understand the basic concept, so your ideas about what constitutes a valid index fossils are likewise meaningless.
I promise you, there are many, many experts in the field and they are making lots more money than you are with the current knowledge.
| Quote | | Oh btw, coal does have c14 but of course that one of the few time y'all cry "contamination!" |
Really, what's the half life of C-14? What is the estimated age of Carboniferous coal beds? Feel free to give a justifiable range. How much C-14 is likely to remain in Carboniferous coal beds?
| Quote | Thanks for the link but all it sasys about the 17000' is: "The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone. That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it.. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep. Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief. Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture. "
We have seen that that erosion can happen very fast and what is his point concerning seawater? Drainage patterns on the higher periphery of the gouge could have developed later
When I say flood, I mean the Flood but then why do you insist that a major flood only creates one strata, especially after I showed you how lots of strata can develop from even a one-day event at Mount St Helens? |
Please cite a study that shows that meandering canyons can be carved into limestone in a 'short amount of time'.
Drainage patterns could NOT have developed later, because the Flood has to put another 17,000 feet of sediment (that's 3+ miles) on top of it.
You really don't know anything do you? You do realize that the environment of the sedimentary deposit can be determined by the nature of the deposit. You can't form anhydrites in any water or even moist environment, that takes a desert. You can't form siltstone in fast moving water. It's simple physics (of course, you disagree with physics too, but that's beside the point).
Let me ask you... how much ROCK was formed in the Mt. St. Helen's event?
BTW: You still haven't answer the question... what exploded to cause the Big Bang? We'll get to your abysmal understanding of thermodynamics later.
What exploded to cause the Big Bang?
Run away little bun-bun. |
| Quote | | So even if strata B doesn't have an igneous layer on top of it in N. America, it will in India. It's a concept called stratigraphy and it's worth several junior to graduate level courses. If fact, as I have mentioned, oil geologists use these concepts ALL the time to make their parent company TONS of money. |
Sorry for LoL...and I already know that this stuff draws more money and more itching ears than even Benny Hinn
As for as this 1977 study that supposedly shows all the strata in in your order, why arent there any other studies on it or no elaborations? You know I have already called the Cambrian rocks benthic but I'd say you have been hell bent on spending your time trying to bring others to your level of disbelief, which is nothing short of spooky sinister.
Google atomic transmutation
Of course everything is going to drain toward a gorge like that if any waterways are nearby,
Oh and look up rapid rifting. Its happened all over the world and its happening dramatically but on a smaller scale as we speak
|
