Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 564 565 566 567 568 [569] 570 571 572 573 574 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2016,21:17    The phrase "flood geology" can apply to any geology that was caused by flooding. And for me to remain objective I must fairly judge future flood geology theories after seeing them, not before. But you were correct in regards to the phrase "rift valley lake". Just don't let your small victory "go to your head". -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2016,21:19    My above reply (that started a new page) is in answer to N.Wells: Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 04 2016,20:55)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2016,20:34)     Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 04 2016,08:55) You are apparently trying to do for "Flood Geology" what you want to do for "Intelligent Design", which is to say to create a bible-friendly version that is compatable with science.  Unfortunately for you, a) this isn't possible, b) science done with an agenda is always bad science, and c) your logic falls apart on close inspection. I am rightly expecting the same level of scientific integrity from all sides in the debate(s). Theories need to be tentative, therefore "flood geology theory" is tentative too. And what it says is not up to you to decide. That is for flood geology theorists to work on.       Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 04 2016,08:55) As an example, you just said, "'Creationists' are not claiming that regular and local floods did not happen in the past."  Well, yes they are, No they are not. The claim in question pertains to a GLOBAL flood, not LOCAL ones.       Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 04 2016,08:55) for the time frame represented by deposits that they think were deposited during Noah's Flood.  Read Henry Morris's tripe that you cited: he contradicts you specifically on this point, as I cited earlier. Creationists can't decide precisely which portion of the stratigraphic column resulted from the Flood, but they pretty much always assign at least Cambrian through well past the Cretaceous strata as Flood deposits.  For those to be deposited during one global flood, with "hydraulic sorting" of the fossils and all that other nonsense, you cannot have such things as dinosaur footprints and dinosaur nests representing dinosaurs walking around and doing normal dinosaurian stuff while they were supposed to be drowned corpses getting rapidly buried under thousands of meters of sediment settling at the bottom of thousands of meters of water.  Fish cannot be swimming around normally in a global flood that contains all the earth's salt water plus all the earth's fresh water, together with a suspended sediment concentration between 50% and 500% of the flood water volume. (Note that "Flood Geology" is specifically a creationist term with no meaning in regularly geology: it is not that geologists deny floods - look up jokulhlaup - but floods and their deposits fall into the fields of Geomorphology, Hydrology, and Sedimentology.) Theories are tentative. And Henry Morris is just one of many flood geology theorists, anyway.       Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 04 2016,08:55) Also, rift valley lakes are caused by rifting: floodplain lakes are formed on floodplains next to rivers.  You can have a river with floodplain lakes within a rift valley, but these are always small relative to all but a very few of the very youngest and/or most saline lakes formed by rifting. A "rift valley lake" does seem to be more precise. I'll first though have to make sure that Patrick agrees that it is the most precise phrase to use. Again, "Flood geology" is a term coined by creationists who insist that most or all of the Phanerozoic geological column was deposited by Noah's worldwide flood.  On the basis of their religious beliefs, they view this as a fundamental point, so to speak, that is not up for debate.  You can not have freshwater lakes and rivers in the middle of a worldwide flood.  If you have local lakes and rivers in the geological record, then you don't have a Noachian flood and the "Flood Geology" creationists are wrong. You really need to start doing a better job of thinking through your claims. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,06:28    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2016,22:17) The phrase "flood geology" can apply to any geology that was caused by flooding. And for me to remain objective I must fairly judge future flood geology theories after seeing them, not before. But you were correct in regards to the phrase "rift valley lake". Just don't let your small victory "go to your head". For you to 'remain objective' you must have established that you are, as a general matter, objective. A casual observation of this thread, or your "drunkard's walk" around the web over the last 9+ years would clearly show, you don't meet the pre-requisite. You are not objective.  You don't know the meaning(s) of the word.  I doubt you could spell it correctly without  spell-checker and/or auto-correct.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,07:04    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2016,21:17) The phrase "flood geology" can apply to any geology that was caused by flooding. And for me to remain objective I must fairly judge future flood geology theories after seeing them, not before. No.  "Flood geology" has a very specific meaning, so that now precludes "Geology of generic floods", and using it otherwise risks great confusion.  If you wish to study geological aspects of floods, you are studying the sedimentology, stratigraphy, geomorphology, and/or hydrology of floods.         Quote And for me to remain objective I must fairly judge future flood geology theories after seeing them, not before. But we have seen everything we need to see regarding the concept of Flood Geology as defined by everyone but you. "Diluvial Geology" or "Flood Geology" was one of the earliest theories in Geology, and it was thoroughly investigated and disproven very early on.  One initial idea was that the entire geological record was the result of the Noachian flood.  This was dismissed even before 1800, e.g. by Cuvier and Brogniart recognizing that the stratigraphic section in the Paris basin consists of multiple marine regressions and transgressions.  Discussion then centered on the Diluvium, now understood as glacial tills and outwash, on the top of the stratigraphic column.    Pro-Flood Buckland, 1823, Reliquiae Diluvianae Sedgewick, 1825, On the origin of alluvial and diluvial deposits However, even very simple studies showed that the flood was not a tenable explanation: in 1833, Sedgewick told the Geological Society that "one violent and transitory period" is now "a most unwarranted conclusion".  Buckland gradually swung to agree with this from 1836 onward. The idea has been kept "alive" (sort of) under the banner of "Flood Geology" name by young-earth creationists (George McCready Price, Henry Morris, John Whitccomb, Steve Austin), who have gone back to the earlier disproven idea that Noah's Flood deposited the entire geological column, in order to support their young-earth religious beliefs.  However, they can only support it by lying extensively about the evidence, so it no longer has any scientific validity.  Scientific practice is that theories are indeed tentative, but only until they are disproven.  A disproven theory is no longer a plausible or legitimate theory, so (unless you can show that the evidence for the disproof is somehow flawed), it is dead and must be discarded.  People who wish to study the geology of generic floods are behoven to do so using other names.   The definitive disproof of phlogiston theory means that people are no longer free to claim that everyone needs to be tentative about phlogistons, nor to re-use the word phlogiston in service of a different concept. You are not doing the world a service nor helping your cause by ignoring the definitions of well-defined terms.   As I noted earlier, this is also your problem with regard to "intelligent design", as what you are so incompetently trying to propose involves neither intelligence nor design as standardly defined, so you are spreading murk rather than light on the subject.       Quote But you were correct in regards to the phrase "rift valley lake". Of course I was correct. I merely stated standard definitions.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,16:38    4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?     Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,16:45    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2016,06:37) In fact in my location the oldest trace fossils are where I live, on a mountain range. The youngest traces are found in the valley below. It's simply the result of geological uplift bringing deeply buried sediment to the surface. The higher elevations then have the oldest material on or around them. Thinking about it, you are more wrong than right on that statement as well.   However, are you talking about the Triassic-Jurassic strata relative to the Pelham Hills and the Berkshires, or E. Jurassic East Berlin Formation on the southern extensions of the Mt Tom - Mt Holyoke ridges relative to younger Jurassic beds to the east? You are in a rift valley, whose floor has been dropped down, and which then got filled with sediments (which are therefore all younger than the older rocks around them, on the margins of the Connecticut Valley rift).  The filling strata along with the older metamorphosed rocks to the west have been tilted down to the east as a unit (so older Triassic and younger Jurassic fill have both been tilted: neither has been uplifted relative to the other).  Erosion has cut into the tilted stack.  Resistant beds, like the Holyoke etc. lavas and your sandstone, stick up as ridges.  Less resistant younger beds above them (and originally farther west) have long since been eroded away, so older nonresistant beds are present at lower elevations downhill to the west and younger less resistant beds are preserved downhill to the east.   There are some older Triassic trace fossils in older beds down section to the west, as well as younger Jurassic trace fossils up-section to the east. You have slightly older and more resistant Holyoke Basalt underneath you and also making higher elevations on Mt Tom. See http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses....ley.gif https://pubs.usgs.gov/of....t....tom.pdf

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,16:51    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,16:38) 4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?       Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking.  That appears to be a local flood, albeit a very big one, caused in one watershed by an earthquake and a related landslide.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,17:10    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,16:51) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,16:38) 4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?       Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking.  That appears to be a local flood, albeit a very big one, caused in one watershed by an earthquake and a related landslide. Evidence indicates that it is possible for the Noah's (man saves the day) flood story to have morphed from the Chinese (man saves the day) flood legend. The possibility would at least have to be ruled out using physical evidence, before assuming that there is no link at all between the two. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2016,20:13    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,17:10)   Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,16:51)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,16:38) 4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?           Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking.  That appears to be a local flood, albeit a very big one, caused in one watershed by an earthquake and a related landslide. Evidence indicates that it is possible for the Noah's (man saves the day) flood story to have morphed from the Chinese (man saves the day) flood legend. The possibility would at least have to be ruled out using physical evidence, before assuming that there is no link at all between the two. All the evidence indicates that a fully global Noah's flood and Noah's ark never happened, so it's going to be difficult to come up with any evidence linking them to another flood. (Whether one myth in China could have been birthed from or given rise to or merged with another myth in the Middle East is another matter.) Earlier, were you talking about local hills & valleys in the Connecticut River Valley, or rift fill versus the ancient metamorphic rocks in which the rift formed?

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,08:58    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,17:51) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,16:38) 4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?         Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking. ... No one is thinking what Gary is thinking for the very simple reason that what Gary does is not, properly speaking, thinking at all. As to whether anyone has entertained the notions Gary emits here, well, that's another story. Gary, there's nothing new about your suggestion other than the outlandish reach from China to the ancient MidEast, skipping over all the nearer, and thus more probable, sources.  Are you so totally unaware of flood mythology that you think any of these notions are new or have not been raised countless times before?  Good lord, you're stupid. The only thing new or interesting about the Chinese find is that it confirms yet another local flood account with physical evidence.  Note that that has been done for flood myths nearer the ancient MidEast.  Some of those are only indirectly recorded in tribal or cultural myths -- Noah's flood appears to be either one of those or a lift from the Babylonian epics.  We know the Jews spent time in Babylon.  We don't know of any who spent time in first dynasty China, nor pre-dynastic China. You're an idiot.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,10:37    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,20:13)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,17:10)     Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,16:51)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,16:38) 4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?             Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking.  That appears to be a local flood, albeit a very big one, caused in one watershed by an earthquake and a related landslide. Evidence indicates that it is possible for the Noah's (man saves the day) flood story to have morphed from the Chinese (man saves the day) flood legend. The possibility would at least have to be ruled out using physical evidence, before assuming that there is no link at all between the two. All the evidence indicates that Noah's flood and Noah's ark never happened, so it's going to be difficult to come up with any evidence linking them to another flood. (Whether one myth in China could have been birthed from or given rise to or merged with another myth in the Middle East is another matter.) Links to other floods and legends already exist. For example:   Quote In 1948, a British pilot serving in Iraq acquired a clay tablet with an intriguing, 3,700 year-old inscription. The ancient writing tells the story of how the god Enki warns a Sumerian king named Atra-Hasis of a future flood that will destroy mankind; Enki gives him instructions for building a boat to save his family and livestock. If that sounds like a familiar tale, it’s because this was one of several ancient flood traditions that, centuries later, would inspire the biblical story of Noah. But the tablet’s inscription describes a boat very different from the traditional image of the Ark—it’s said to be circular and made of reeds. Is this nothing more than a fanciful myth? Or could such a reed boat have carried Atra-Hasis’ family of more than one hundred and his many animals? Join NOVA as a team of historians and expert boat builders investigates this fascinating flood legend and sets out to rebuild a tantalizing, ancient forerunner of the Ark. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-noahs-ark.html The above possibility seems more likely of a source than the Chinese legend, but it's still worth following up on by someone who is trying to find out where the Noah's Ark story originally came from.   Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,20:13) Earlier, were you talking about local hills & valleys in the Connecticut River Valley, or rift fill versus the ancient metamorphic rocks in which the rift formed? You are correct about the fill material having later tilted, but it's the uplift from underground magma that brought the older East Berlin formation to the surface. The tilt of the now collapsed plate(s) is greatest where the underground magma flow made a giant zit on the surface that was later eroded by glaciers. What is left is now Mt. Tom and its ranges. As a result Gaulin Tracksite is tilted to 12-13 degrees, while the tilt of the bedrock plates decrease as you travel east. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,11:10    I can add that the tracksite is at an altitude of 430 to 440 feet above sea level, while the Connecticut river below (where the younger dinosaur trace fossil containing Portland Formation is found) is ~50 feet above sea level. My having some of the oldest traces around is counterintuitive to what a person would expect. That's because uplift has a way of depositing deeply buried fossils on later formed mountains and their ranges. Finding pressed into stone fossils on a mountain is good evidence for uplift, not a global flood. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,11:21    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,12:10) I can add that the tracksite is at an altitude of 430 to 440 feet above sea level, while the Connecticut river below (where the younger dinosaur trace fossil containing Portland Formation is found) is ~50 feet above sea level. My having some of the oldest traces around is counterintuitive to what a person would expect. That's because uplift has a way of depositing deeply buried fossils on later formed mountains and their ranges. Finding pressed into stone fossils on a mountain is good evidence for uplift, not a global flood. And who was arguing otherwise?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,11:32    Quote (NoName @ Aug. 06 2016,11:21) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,12:10) I can add that the tracksite is at an altitude of 430 to 440 feet above sea level, while the Connecticut river below (where the younger dinosaur trace fossil containing Portland Formation is found) is ~50 feet above sea level. My having some of the oldest traces around is counterintuitive to what a person would expect. That's because uplift has a way of depositing deeply buried fossils on later formed mountains and their ranges. Finding pressed into stone fossils on a mountain is good evidence for uplift, not a global flood. And who was arguing otherwise? Ken Ham and other "flood geology" theorists are trying to argue the opposite, by (knowingly or unknowingly) misleading the public using counterintuitive facts such as this. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,12:20    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,10:37)     Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,20:13)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,17:10)           Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,16:51)           Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2016,16:38) 4000 years ago? First evidence of legendary flood reveals China’s origin story https://www.newscientist.com/article....n-story Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?                   Quote the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/ I doubt that anyone is thinking what you are thinking.  That appears to be a local flood, albeit a very big one, caused in one watershed by an earthquake and a related landslide. Evidence indicates that it is possible for the Noah's (man saves the day) flood story to have morphed from the Chinese (man saves the day) flood legend. The possibility would at least have to be ruled out using physical evidence, before assuming that there is no link at all between the two. All the evidence indicates that Noah's flood and Noah's ark never happened, so it's going to be difficult to come up with any evidence linking them to another flood. (Whether one myth in China could have been birthed from or given rise to or merged with another myth in the Middle East is another matter.) Links to other floods and legends already exist. For example:       Quote In 1948, a British pilot serving in Iraq acquired a clay tablet with an intriguing, 3,700 year-old inscription. The ancient writing tells the story of how the god Enki warns a Sumerian king named Atra-Hasis of a future flood that will destroy mankind; Enki gives him instructions for building a boat to save his family and livestock. If that sounds like a familiar tale, it’s because this was one of several ancient flood traditions that, centuries later, would inspire the biblical story of Noah. But the tablet’s inscription describes a boat very different from the traditional image of the Ark—it’s said to be circular and made of reeds. Is this nothing more than a fanciful myth? Or could such a reed boat have carried Atra-Hasis’ family of more than one hundred and his many animals? Join NOVA as a team of historians and expert boat builders investigates this fascinating flood legend and sets out to rebuild a tantalizing, ancient forerunner of the Ark. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-noahs-ark.html The above possibility seems more likely of a source than the Chinese legend, but it's still worth following up on by someone who is trying to find out where the Noah's Ark story originally came from.         Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 05 2016,20:13) Earlier, were you talking about local hills & valleys in the Connecticut River Valley, or rift fill versus the ancient metamorphic rocks in which the rift formed? You are correct about the fill material having later tilted, but it's the uplift from underground magma that brought the older East Berlin formation to the surface. The tilt of the now collapsed plate(s) is greatest where the underground magma flow made a giant zit on the surface that was later eroded by glaciers. What is left is now Mt. Tom and its ranges. As a result Gaulin Tracksite is tilted to 12-13 degrees, while the tilt of the bedrock plates decrease as you travel east. Basically, no.  Intrusion of magma does have some effects, but they are mostly small and local.  Your area also has local complications from small folds and faults, and growth-fault geometry due to growth of the rift during deposition. Nonetheless, the major control on your dips are the fact that your rift is a half-graben, on a curved low-angle detachment fault that climbs and curves upward from great depths in the west to reach the surface in the east.  Because the fault surface is curved upward to the west, as the western crustal block that overlies the fault got detached and pulled to the west, the eastern edge of the western block (i.e., your rift valley strata) dropped down and became rotated into a steeper east-facing incline.   In any given location, the Triassic New Haven Arkose under all the volcanics has approximately the same dip as the East Berlin Formation above the volcanics, unless you are close up against the western border of the rift valley, local structural complications, or a local intrusion.   See cross-section F in http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc....357.htm   Quote That's because uplift has a way of depositing deeply buried fossils on later formed mountains and their ranges. Finding pressed into stone fossils on a mountain is good evidence for uplift, not a global flood. That's a deeply confused pair of sentences (other than fossils not providing evidence for a global flood). Lithification of those beds undoubtedly happened more during burial than during uplift, partly because most lithification tends to happen fairly early during burial but also because your beds have probably not been significantly uplifted - your strata formed in a half-graben, not a compressive / collisional mountain belt, and things have been largely static along with minor trailing passive margin subsidence since the end of extension after the Atlantic Ocean opened.   Uplift does not "deposit" fossils on later formed mountains: wrong use of the term "deposit".  The fossils were originally deposited and buried on playa lake mudflats and related environments on the floor of the rift valley, became lithified during burial, and were later uplifted and exposed by erosion. Your mountains (Mt Tom & Mt Holyoke and related ridges) are not formed by compressive uplift but by differential subsidence and subsequent differential erosion. For clarification, the metamorphic rocks under all this and east and west of the rift valley did form due to compression during continental collision, but all that was over tens of millions of years before the rift valley started to form.  You can get a little local compression due to local fault block rotation and under downwarp hinge-lines, etc., during extension, but relative to all the overall subsidence, not much.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,14:14    None of the cross sections appear to run through my location. And I am relatively certain that the angle at my site is greater than at the lower (Portland Formation) elevations, to the east. To help geologically locate the site I just made a couple of maps: Legend: mrdata.usgs.gov/catalog/lithclass-color.php -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,14:53    Quote None of the cross sections appear to run through my location. F is close enough to show the structure of the rift valley in your region.   Quote And I am relatively certain that the angle at my site is greater than at the lower (Portland Formation) elevations, to the east. I'm not disputing that.  I'm not even disputing that some of the difference may reflect local intrusion of magma, although the bits of the "Metacomet Ridge" that I know about are layer-cake surficial basalt lava flows that have been tilted, and not laccoliths and other intrusions capable of tilting the strata.  I am saying that uplift is not primarily responsible for the dip, because what you are seeing is primarily differential subsidence, with greater subsidence in the east due to the nature of the rift valley.   If your beds dip 12-13 degrees east, the New Haven Arkose underneath the lava flows underneath you dip about the same.  The stuff to the east may well dip 2 or 3 degees less, but that's 10 degrees of regional dip, only two or three degrees possible due to local magmatism and/or local folding and faulting, and none due to tectonic uplift (differential or otherwise).

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,15:05    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,11:32) Ken Ham and other "flood geology" theorists are trying to argue the opposite, by (knowingly or unknowingly) misleading the public using counterintuitive facts such as this. I notice that you are now using "flood geology" properly.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,15:33    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,14:53) Quote None of the cross sections appear to run through my location. F is close enough to show the structure of the rift valley in your region. Quote And I am relatively certain that the angle at my site is greater than at the lower (Portland Formation) elevations, to the east. I'm not disputing that.  I'm not even disputing that some of the difference may reflect local intrusion of magma.  I am saying that uplift is not primarily responsible for the dip, because what you are seeing is primarily differential subsidence, with greater subsidence in the east due to the nature of the rift valley.   If your beds dip 12-13 degrees east, the New Haven Arkose underneath the lava flows underneath you dip about the same.  The stuff to the east may well dip 2 or 3 degees less, but that's 10 degrees of regional dip, only two or three degrees possible due to local magmatism and/or local folding and faulting, and none due to tectonic uplift (differential or otherwise). Local sideways intrusion of magma did happen, which is more or less what I was describing as the making of a zit with molten basalt instead of puss inside. It was not a volcano type eruption, just some of what happens underground to help lift deeply buried layers to the surface. A widespread tilting did also occur. The Nash site in Granby has some too. Maybe you could elaborate on whether that was in part the cause of cracking that led to upward magma flow towards the surface. The mountain range I am on is like a miniature version of ones with the world's tallest mountains on them. And likewise what is found around it are fossils and trace fossils that were uplifted, as opposed to having been recently formed on a preexisting mountain range. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,16:40    More info: www.nashdinosaurtracks.com/learn-about-local-geology.php -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,16:46    Quote Local sideways intrusion of magma did happen, which is more or less what I was describing as the making of a zit with molten basalt instead of puss inside. It was not a volcano type eruption, just some of what happens underground to help lift deeply buried layers to the surface. Laccoliths are the zit-like type of lateral intrusions that locally significantly inflate (and thus tilt) the stratigraphic section.  I'm not disputing whether or not any are present (they wouldn't be surprising, although I note that I'm only aware of lavas, i.e. flows out onto the surface, in your general region).            Quote A widespread tilting did also occur.  Yes, that's the cause of most of the tilting there, to the extent of the minimum dip shared by all the strata, above and below the lavas.  This is most of the total dip.  Go check out the dips at Easthampton or Southwick - despite minor reorientation, absent complications from local faults those are probably close to your regional tilting within the half-graben.  Anything extra you can attribute to other causes.         Quote Maybe you could elaborate on whether that was in part the cause of cracking that led to upward magma flow towards the surface.  The beds accumulated within the rift as it grew, and the lavas flowed out onto the beds as sedimentation accumulated in the rift, so everything happened together, with lots of interplay between processes.  However, the driving agent was extensional plate tectonics pulling the region apart, so there was little if any lateral compression.  The heating at depth that caused the rifting generated the magma, weakened the crust, and caused the faulting that allowed the magma to rise to the surface (basaltic magma is dense, and so often fails to rise to surface unless provided with easy pathways along major faults).         Quote The mountain range I am on is like a miniature version of ones with the world's tallest mountains on them. And likewise what is found around it are fossils and trace fossils that were uplifted, as opposed to having been recently formed on a preexisting mountain range. No, you're doubling down on this and these are the points where you are wrong.  The world's great mountain ranges are compressional, due to collisions between plates, resulting in thrust faults, compressional folds, metamorphism, and uplift of the top of the crust and downbuckling of the bottom of the crust.  Your mountains (Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke and related ridges) are due to basal heating, crustal extension, differential subsidence, and differential erosion, not compression and uplift (other than minor, local, and incidental complications).   The tops of mountains are carved by a limited arsenal of erosional processes, (mostly frost, root growth, mass movement, and running water, plus glaciation if the mountains are high enough and/or sufficiently poleward). Thus mountains of similar heights and climates tend to have similar-looking surfaces.  However, their innards and origins can be very different, depending on how they formed.  Yours are quite dissimilar from the Rockies, the Andes, and the Himalayas.  Technically speaking, despite being fairly large and rugged, your mountains are more along the lines of  homoclinal ridges (loosely, hogbacks) rather than orogenic mountains. The fossils on them are not greatly uplifted - they are more substantially differentially down-dropped. I should note another complication.  Your area has experienced a modest amount of very broad-scale regional epeirogenic and/or isostatic uplift, basically on the scale of most of the Northern Appalachians during the Cenozoic and all of New England after deglaciation, but not in any way that raises your ridge above the neighboring parts of the landscape. I agree that the fossils have not been "recently formed on a preexisting mountain range" (although bear in mind that the creationist flood geologists also do not propose that your fossils are younger than your mountains).

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,17:28    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,16:46) Quote The mountain range I am on is like a miniature version of ones with the world's tallest mountains on them. And likewise what is found around it are fossils and trace fossils that were uplifted, as opposed to having been recently formed on a preexisting mountain range. No, it's not.  The world's great mountain ranges are compressional, due to collisions between plates, resulting in thrust faults, compressional folds, metamorphism, and uplift of the top of the crust and downbuckling of the bottom of the crust.  Your mountains (Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke and related ridges) are due to basal heating, crustal extension, differential subsidence, and differential erosion, not compression, and not uplift.   The tops of mountains are carved by a limited arsenal of erosional processes, (mostly frost, root growth, mass movement, and running water, plus glaciation if the mountains are high enough and/or sufficiently poleward). Thus mountains of similar heights and climates tend to have similar-looking surfaces.  However, their innards and origins can be very different, depending on how they formed.  Yours are quite dissimilar from the Rockies, the Andes, and the Himalayas.  Technically speaking, despite being fairly large and rugged, your mountains are more along the lines of  homoclinal ridges (loosely, hogbacks) rather than orogenic mountains. Well yes, there are differences in how they were formed. The "uplift" at my site is a local event, caused by the tilting of a plate followed by glacial erosion. Compression also tilts the land, while forcing entire giant plates upwards. But if that were the case for this site then I would more likely be halfway to the top of a Mount Everest type mountain range. In both cases the fossil bearing formations ended up at a higher altitude, relative to all the rest. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,18:46    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,16:46) I agree that the fossils have not been "recently formed on a preexisting mountain range" (although bear in mind that the creationist flood geologists also do not propose that your fossils are younger than your mountains). According to this the above sea level mountain ranges such as the one I live on with fossils deposited on top of them are supposed to have been deposited underwater by Noah's Flood: answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/ The layer after layer of probably millions of well stomped on seasonal flood deposit layers could not have possibly been formed by one flooding event, or happened around 4000 years ago. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,19:20    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,18:46) Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,16:46) I agree that the fossils have not been "recently formed on a preexisting mountain range" (although bear in mind that the creationist flood geologists also do not propose that your fossils are younger than your mountains). According to this the above sea level mountain ranges such as the one I live on with fossils deposited on top of them are supposed to have been deposited underwater by Noah's Flood: answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/ The layer after layer of probably millions of well stomped on seasonal flood deposit layers could not have possibly been formed by one flooding event, or happened around 4000 years ago. From the source that you cited:   Quote We must remember that the rock layers [ME: with the fossils] in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. Exactly as I said, creationists do NOT propose that your fossils are younger than your mountains, i.e they do not claim that the fossils were deposited ON the mountains.  They want the fossils deposited on the sea floor under Noah's Flood, in very rapid succession, then turned to rock, uplifted, and eroded extremely violently, before Noah's flood has finished draining away.  None of that makes any sense, but it's what they believe. Quote The layer after layer of probably millions of well stomped on seasonal flood deposit layers could not have possibly been formed by one flooding event, or happened around 4000 years ago. Well, that I can absolutely agree with.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,19:37    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,17:28)     Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,16:46)     Quote The mountain range I am on is like a miniature version of ones with the world's tallest mountains on them. And likewise what is found around it are fossils and trace fossils that were uplifted, as opposed to having been recently formed on a preexisting mountain range. No, it's not.  The world's great mountain ranges are compressional, due to collisions between plates, resulting in thrust faults, compressional folds, metamorphism, and uplift of the top of the crust and downbuckling of the bottom of the crust.  Your mountains (Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke and related ridges) are due to basal heating, crustal extension, differential subsidence, and differential erosion, not compression, and not uplift.   The tops of mountains are carved by a limited arsenal of erosional processes, (mostly frost, root growth, mass movement, and running water, plus glaciation if the mountains are high enough and/or sufficiently poleward). Thus mountains of similar heights and climates tend to have similar-looking surfaces.  However, their innards and origins can be very different, depending on how they formed.  Yours are quite dissimilar from the Rockies, the Andes, and the Himalayas.  Technically speaking, despite being fairly large and rugged, your mountains are more along the lines of  homoclinal ridges (loosely, hogbacks) rather than orogenic mountains. Well yes, there are differences in how they were formed. The "uplift" at my site is a local event, caused by the tilting of a plate followed by glacial erosion. Compression also tilts the land, while forcing entire giant plates upwards. But if that were the case for this site then I would more likely be halfway to the top of a Mount Everest type mountain range. In both cases the fossil bearing formations ended up at a higher altitude, relative to all the rest. You aren't getting it.   Hold your arm out horizontally, pointing east.  Now lower your hand about 20 cm.  Your elbow is now higher than your hand, but that does not mean that your elbow got uplifted relative to your hand.  (Your elbow is your house, & your hand is the valley to the east.) Return your arm to the horizontal, pointing west, and now raise your hand about 20 cm.  Your hand is now higher than your elbow, and now I'll agree that you can talk about your hand being raised relative to your elbow.  Your top of shoulder would be the rocks in the valley, the underside of your elbow would be your fossil site, and your fingers would be where both formations used to extend to the west, now up in the air.  However, this is not what happened to your rocks.  You are on a less than usually eroded high spot in a depression, not on a high spot that has been lifted up. Minor details: No plate tilted here, just the edge of a fault block. "the fossil bearing formations ended up at a higher altitude, relative to all the rest."  No.  Your portion of your formation is higher where you are, but you'd have to drill below the younger formation to find it out in the valley.  Similarly, if you could go back in time, the younger formation would now be present at elevations well above where your house is now.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,20:22    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,19:20)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,18:46)   Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,16:46) I agree that the fossils have not been "recently formed on a preexisting mountain range" (although bear in mind that the creationist flood geologists also do not propose that your fossils are younger than your mountains). According to this the above sea level mountain ranges such as the one I live on with fossils deposited on top of them are supposed to have been deposited underwater by Noah's Flood: answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/ The layer after layer of probably millions of well stomped on seasonal flood deposit layers could not have possibly been formed by one flooding event, or happened around 4000 years ago. From the source that you cited:     Quote We must remember that the rock layers [ME: with the fossils] in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed. In fact, many of these mountain ranges were pushed up by earth movements to their present high elevations at the end of the Flood. Exactly as I said, creationists do NOT propose that your fossils are younger than your mountains, i.e they do not claim that the fossils were deposited ON the mountains.  They want the fossils deposited on the sea floor under Noah's Flood, in very rapid succession, then turned to rock, uplifted, and eroded extremely violently, before Noah's flood has finished draining away.  None of that makes any sense, but it what they believe. According to what the whole article is saying the sea floor(s) was supposed to have greatly risen to around 3500 feet, flooding all of the land, then fell again to allow the flood waters to retreat back to the oceans. Since my site is well above sea level yet much less than 3500 feet it should have been flooded over, trace fossils deposited (by many generations of dinosaurs and other animals that as on land walked on the sea floor as in air instead of swimming) then the land was left high and dry again. Multiple layers of trace fossils showing many generations of dinosaurs and other land animals thriving just fine in an often dry and arid (yet supposedly always underwater) environment is causing their logic to completely break down, in a rather humorous way. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,20:26    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,19:37) Similarly, if you could go back in time, the younger formation would now be present at elevations well above where your house is now. Above or below 3500 feet (1,067 m)? -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,21:03    Quote Multiple layers of trace fossils showing many generations of dinosaurs and other land animals thriving just fine in an often dry and arid (yet supposedly always underwater) environment is causing their logic to completely break down, in a rather humorous way. Very true.     Quote Above or below 3500 feet (1,067 m)? About that, perhaps, depending on where "in the valley" you are starting.  If the outcrop of interest is 5000 m ESE of you and is at 15 m above sea level, then it would pass over you at almost 1170 m up, or about 1035 m above you (c. 3840 ft a.s.l.).  However, if the site is only 1 km E of you then it would be close to twice your current elevation (245 m).  All assuming no folds or faults between it and you. Note that both formations would have been considerably higher even farther to the west.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,21:23    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,21:03) Quote Multiple layers of trace fossils showing many generations of dinosaurs and other land animals thriving just fine in an often dry and arid (yet supposedly always underwater) environment is causing their logic to completely break down, in a rather humorous way. Very true.   Quote Above or below 3500 feet (1,067 m)? About that, perhaps, depending on where "in the valley" you are starting.  If the outcrop of interest is 5000 m ESE of you and is at 30 m above sea level, then it would pass over you at almost 1200 m up, or about 1050 m above you (3886 ft a.s.l.).  However, if the site is only 1 km E of you then it would not even be at twice your current elevation (230 m).  All assuming no folds or faults between it and you. I was more wondering the rift valley floor where I'm at in the strata when the land was level and the dinosaurs were walking on it. From what I understand the expanding valley caused the floor to sink, while new sediment piled on top of it. There should not have been an overly large change in altitude being caused by the flood water sedimentation. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2016,23:25    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2016,21:23) Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2016,21:03) Quote Multiple layers of trace fossils showing many generations of dinosaurs and other land animals thriving just fine in an often dry and arid (yet supposedly always underwater) environment is causing their logic to completely break down, in a rather humorous way. Very true.     Quote Above or below 3500 feet (1,067 m)? About that, perhaps, depending on where "in the valley" you are starting.  If the outcrop of interest is 5000 m ESE of you and is at 30 m above sea level, then it would pass over you at almost 1200 m up, or about 1050 m above you (3886 ft a.s.l.).  However, if the site is only 1 km E of you then it would not even be at twice your current elevation (230 m).  All assuming no folds or faults between it and you. I was more wondering the rift valley floor where I'm at in the strata when the land was level and the dinosaurs were walking on it. From what I understand the expanding valley caused the floor to sink, while new sediment piled on top of it. There should not have been an overly large change in altitude being caused by the flood water sedimentation. I don't know.  The area would have been regionally domed prior to rifting: for instance, the floor of the East African Rift Valley varies from sea level to higher than 1500 m.  However, the area was a flat plain before it started to dome in the Miocene, and that flat surface now varies from 600 m away from the rift to 1500 to 1800 m on the shoulders of the rift (so the center mostly fell over 1000 m). The Appalachians also broadly upwarped again in the Cenozoic (this is why some parts of the Appalachians like Georgia have lots of gorges and waterfalls), so modern elevations are not a good clue to ancient elevations. There are probably some estimates in the literature somewhere, but I'm not aware of them.

Pages: (622) < ... 564 565 566 567 568 [569] 570 571 572 573 574 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard