Evolution? How?

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
We weren't talking glaciation only but also erosion, weren't we? By definition, the erosion carries sediment away so it is no longer where the eroded material that is left still remains, right?

"We" weren't talking about erosion at all. Paasky mentioned the complete absence of sedimentary rock in Finnland, and i replied with the same absence in the Canadian Shield rock.

Hmmm. You did mean absence, as in none, right? Perhaps not all would necessarily concur......

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_28108.htm

http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/v-g/nation/sec3/nation43_e.asp

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/resgeol/provgeo_e.asp

http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/canada/rock_e.php

http://www2.kpr.edu.on.ca/cdciw/departments/geography/PHYSGEOG/GEOLOGY/GEOLOGY.HTM

but you got style.

0 Replies

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img/104004A-island.jpg

0 Replies

I kick dogs...

Bad joke apology... Embarrassed

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I kick dogs...

Ok Setanta. He's all yours. I won't interfere.

0 Replies

"Real Life" (god, that still cracks me up): Your pathetic attempt to weasel out of your position here is what is known as a false analogy. In fact, there are two false analogies in operation here. The one is a false analogy from geology, the other a false analogy from my criticism of your rhetorical method.

To examine the latter first: you keep referring to style--this does not surprise me, as your arguments for a biblical flood lack substance altogether. I have not criticized your style, although were i to do so, i would describe it as sophomoric. Rather, i have ridiculed your forensic method, your rhetoric.

Setanta wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:
Most of the Finnish bedrock is made up of bare granite and gneiss, no sedimentary rock at all, no evidence of it being sea bottom a few thousand years ago. (emphasis added)

A good point, Paasky . . . the Canadian shield is just like that. The Cambrian mountains which once stood there have been nearly completely worn away, by ordinary erosive processes, as well as successive glaciations, but it has never been sea bottom.

This leads us to the former false analogy, a glaring example of rhetorical failure. It further entails another logical fallacy, a categorical fallacy, the fallacy of compostion. Because parts of a whole have a certain property, you attempt to argue that the whole has the same property. As can been seen in the above quote of the exchange between me and Paasky (in which i have emphasized the relevant time frame with boldface), Paasky has referred to evidence of the Finnish bedrock being sea bottom a few thousand years ago, to which i had replied that there is a similar lack of evidence of the Canadian Shield being sea bottom a few thousand years ago.

The following quote is from your source:

Quote:

Then, because of Arctica colliding with other plates rifting and folding caused a portion of the Arctica to become uplifted and form mountain ranges. This was the Canadian Shield as the Canadian shield eroded sediment was deposited in the ancient seas surrounding the Canadian Shield. During this period of time the area which Cobourg is in, Southern Ontario was submerged in seas.

I have bold-faced the portion of this quote which shows that it refers to sedimentation around the Canadian Shield, and not on the Canadian Shield. What is more important is that this source, and all of your other sources, refer to clastic sedimentary rock, which is formed from the deposition of the weathered remains of other rocks--not the sedimentation of a sea bed. The Pleistocene ice ages, during which glaciers scraped the top of the Canadian Shield began two and one half million years ago--the last glaciation which covered the Canadian Shield retreated more than 15,000 years ago.

Therefore, you have used the following false analogies:

That the Canadian Shield rock is formed from sedimentation--false, your own sources report that the formations of southern Ontario and the other regions which surround the Canadian Shield display clastic sedimentation from the rocks of the Canadian Shield, and do not assert that the Canadian Shield is sedimentary rock.

That the Canadian Shield was once submerged by the sea--false, your own sources show that the Canadian Shield was surrounded by seas to which it conributed the materials of clastic sedimentation.

And finally, inferentially, you suggest that the Canadian Shield, based upon the false analogies you have attempted to construct, therefore provides evidence for your worldwide biblical flood--false, all of your own sources do not list erosion from glaciation any more recent than 15,000 years ago, well before the putative date of your world-wide flood.

You don't even get a nice try for this one. Once again, leaving aside your puerile style of sneering at others based upon either an ignorant or willfully obtuse misinterpretation of data--your rhetorical method is pathetic. In this particular case, you have attempted to make a case from false analogy, and failed to do so. You have even attempted a sneer at me with your "but you got style" remark, but that was false analogy as well, because i have been consistently criticizing your rhetorical method, not your style of writing. I am delighted, however, that you have provided me this opportunity to direct my contempt at that aspect of your presentation as well.

0 Replies

Please excuse my intrusion... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life is all air and no substance. Just a waste of time trying to debate anything with somebody that claims facts only he can support with his own "opinion" and nothing else.

Yeah, what you said. Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

"Real Life" (god, that still cracks me up): Your pathetic attempt to weasel out of your position here is what is known as a false analogy. In fact, there are two false analogies in operation here. The one is a false analogy from geology, the other a false analogy from my criticism of your rhetorical method.

To examine the latter first: you keep referring to style--this does not surprise me, as your arguments for a biblical flood lack substance altogether. I have not criticized your style, although were i to do so, i would describe it as sophomoric. Rather, i have ridiculed your forensic method, your rhetoric.

Setanta wrote:
Paaskynen wrote:
Most of the Finnish bedrock is made up of bare granite and gneiss, no sedimentary rock at all, no evidence of it being sea bottom a few thousand years ago. (emphasis added)

A good point, Paasky . . . the Canadian shield is just like that. The Cambrian mountains which once stood there have been nearly completely worn away, by ordinary erosive processes, as well as successive glaciations, but it has never been sea bottom.

This leads us to the former false analogy, a glaring example of rhetorical failure. It further entails another logical fallacy, a categorical fallacy, the fallacy of compostion. Because parts of a whole have a certain property, you attempt to argue that the whole has the same property. As can been seen in the above quote of the exchange between me and Paasky (in which i have emphasized the relevant time frame with boldface), Paasky has referred to evidence of the Finnish bedrock being sea bottom a few thousand years ago, to which i had replied that there is a similar lack of evidence of the Canadian Shield being sea bottom a few thousand years ago.

The following quote is from your source:

Quote:
Then, because of Arctica colliding with other plates rifting and folding caused a portion of the Arctica to become uplifted and form mountain ranges. This was the Canadian Shield as the Canadian shield eroded sediment was deposited in the ancient seas surrounding the Canadian Shield. During this period of time the area which Cobourg is in, Southern Ontario was submerged in seas.

I have bold-faced the portion of this quote which shows that it refers to sedimentation around the Canadian Shield, and not on the Canadian Shield. What is more important is that this source, and all of your other sources, refer to clastic sedimentary rock, which is formed from the deposition of the weathered remains of other rocks--not the sedimentation of a sea bed. The Pleistocene ice ages, during which glaciers scraped the top of the Canadian Shield began two and one half million years ago--the last glaciation which covered the Canadian Shield retreated more than 15,000 years ago.

Therefore, you have used the following false analogies:

That the Canadian Shield rock is formed from sedimentation--false, your own sources report that the formations of southern Ontario and the other regions which surround the Canadian Shield display clastic sedimentation from the rocks of the Canadian Shield, and do not assert that the Canadian Shield is sedimentary rock.

That the Canadian Shield was once submerged by the sea--false, your own sources show that the Canadian Shield was surrounded by seas to which it conributed the materials of clastic sedimentation.

And finally, inferentially, you suggest that the Canadian Shield, based upon the false analogies you have attempted to construct, therefore provides evidence for your worldwide biblical flood--false, all of your own sources do not list erosion from glaciation any more recent than 15,000 years ago, well before the putative date of your world-wide flood.

You don't even get a nice try for this one. Once again, leaving aside your puerile style of sneering at others based upon either an ignorant or willfully obtuse misinterpretation of data--your rhetorical method is pathetic. In this particular case, you have attempted to make a case from false analogy, and failed to do so. You have even attempted a sneer at me with your "but you got style" remark, but that was false analogy as well, because i have been consistently criticizing your rhetorical method, not your style of writing. I am delighted, however, that you have provided me this opportunity to direct my contempt at that aspect of your presentation as well.

Actually while Paasky did mention a time frame of a few thousand years for his statement, you stated that the area in question had NEVER been sea bottom. You may not have thought anyone would notice.

----------------------

A very selective reading of this you have done. Did you miss things like

Quote:

* The Canadian Shield is subdivided into provinces, including:

* the Superior Province, which is the oldest and largest and which consists of rocks of Archean age (i.e. greater than 2.5 billion years old). In general, the Superior Province consists of alternating belts of predominantly volcanic, predominantly sedimentary and predominantly gneissic rocks, representing the accreted remains of ancient continents and ocean basins

-----------------------

Also your characterization of clastic sedimentary rock seems a bit lacking as you refer to it as not sedimentation of a sea bed. Clastic sedimentation refers to the manner in which the sediment was formed, not it's location. Clastic sedimentary deposits are found in oceans today.

------------------------

Other items of interest are easy to find for those willing to look, such as from

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/resgeol/northwest/kenora/Guide/kenoraguide_e.asp

The Kenora area is located within the Lake of the Woods greenstone belt in the Canadian Shield of Ontario. The Lake of the woods greenstone belt is a complex assemblage of volcanic and sedimentary rocks that were deposited in ancient oceans that covered the area between 2.8 and 2.7 billion years ago.

-----------------------

In short, there is very little doubt that the Canadian Shield as well as many other areas of the world have been undersea at some point in their history, as I previously stated. It would be difficult, as I mentioned, to find an area of the world that had not been undersea at some point.

0 Replies

It is by no means certain that the Canadian Shield was formed from undersea sedimentaton, which is a point you are trying to slip in in the use of the categorical fallacy of composition--suggesting that because a part has a characteristic, the whole has the same characteristic. To avoid addressing your use of this fallacy does not lessen the applicability of the charge. As my original statement was referential to Paasky's, you are using a substitution fallacy to claim that in an instance in which i have not fully referred once again to Paasky's remarks, i have made a separate statement which you can assail as being my original statement. Finally, you are once again trying to slip out from under the burden of your "revealed truth" contention that there is geological evidence for a world-wide flood, while failing to present said evidence. Even were one to concede for the sake of debate that all rock on the planet were at one time or another under sea, this would neither mean that said rock were formed by seabed sedimentation (and that seabed sedimentation may include clasts as sources does not support your post hoc fallacy which attempts to assert that the Canadian Shield is an example of seabed sedimentation--you note yourself that: "Clastic sedimentation refers to the manner in which the sediment was formed, not it's location. Clastic sedimentary deposits are found in oceans today."--which is only partially true: clastic sedimentation refers to the composition of the sedimentary material and not the manner in which the sedimentation is formed, so this is also an attempt at a post hoc fallacy); nor, crucial to the refutation of your silliness, would it be authority for asserting a world-wide flood had occurred, and especially not in the time frame required by christian exegesis.

Because seabed sedimentation may contain clasts, which derive from a non-seabed source, you attempt to claim the Canadian Shield has evidence of having been a sea bed--this is a syllogistic fallacy which seeks to contend that two distinct categories are in fact a single category simply because they share a common characteristic. You also use the inductive fallacy of contending that because sedimentary rock which has properties similar to seabed sedimentation is found adjacent to the Canadian Shield (which is all your sources are saying), the Canadian Shield must therefore have been formed from seabed sedimentation.

Your sources do not support your fallacious conclusions. Your syllogistic fallacy to attempt to support a contention of a world-wide flood, and therefore the validity of biblical revealed truth will not stand. Attempting to take what i have written in isolation from its context and argue against the language of the isolated quote is a silly attempt at rasing a smoke screen to obscure the simple fact that you have asserted a world-wide flood for which there is geological evidence, but have failed to produce the evidence.

There is a good deal of reason to doubt that the Canadian Shield has been underwater at any time in its existence, and there is a great deal of reason to doubt both that such a contention (an inductive fallacy of attempting to combine unrepresentative samples to make a claim about the whole) is supportable by geological evidence, and to doubt that even were it so, it were evidence of a single, discrete occurance of a world-wide flood. The sources you link neither support the narrow contentions of your attempted smoke screen, nor your broader hypothesis of a single, discrete, world-wide flood.

All of this derives from your foolish attempt to shove the concept of "revealed truth" in the bible down the throats of people who know better.

Once again, you don't even get a nice try for this one.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Because seabed sedimentation may contain clasts, which derive from a non-seabed source, you attempt to claim the Canadian Shield has evidence of having been a sea bed--this is a syllogistic fallacy which...................

There is a good deal of reason to doubt that the Canadian Shield has been underwater at any time in its existence, and there is a great deal of reason to doubt both that such a contention (an inductive fallacy of attempting to combine unrepresentative samples to make a claim about the whole) is supportable by geological evidence...................

Once again, you don't even get a nice try for this one.

Which part of discussions about

Quote:

ancient oceans that covered the area

or

Quote:

accreted remains of ancient continents and ocean basins

do you not understand? And which part do you think I wrote, or made up? This info was not put out there by me or by religious zealots. I may be a fast typist, but not that fast.

Again, if you are willing to look there are lots of sources of information on things like lava flows (from undersea volcanoes) that are still visible on the Canadian Shield. But , of course , you are not willing. It would be too inconvenient to your hypothesis.

0 Replies

That is arrogance personified. What part of "areas adjacent to the Canadian Shield" (to quote your sources) don't you understand?

"The Canadian Shield is a large craton in eastern and central Canada and adjacent portions of the United States, composed of bare rock dating to the Precambrian Era (between 4.5 billion and 540 million years ago). It is also called the Precambrian Shield, or Laurentian Shield, or Laurentian Plateau."

From the Wikipedia article, which further states: "Mountains have deep roots and float on the denser mantle much like an iceberg at sea. As mountains erode, their roots rise and are eroded in turn. The rocks that now form the surface of the Shield were once far below the earth's surface. The high pressures and temperatures at those depths provided ideal conditions for mineralization." Far below the earth's surface does not equate to seabed.

You wrote:

. . . lava flows (from undersea volcanoes) that are still visible on the Canadian Shield.

This is false; once again, Wikipedia: "The Shield was originally an area of very large mountains and much volcanic activity, but over the millennia the area was eroded to its current topographic appearance of relatively low relief." Your contention that the lava flows derive from undersea volcanoes is completely without merit and you have not supported it. The areas of Canada which were once undersea, and are referred to in your links surround the Shield, or are found to the west of it.

Once again, anyone willing to look at the information you have provided--without a "revealed truth" agenda--will find ample evidence that the oldest exposed rock surfaces on earth came from below the earth's surface, but not from under the sea. But, of course, you are not willing to view the evidence without applying that agenda, it would be wholely inconvenient to your thesis.

On July 25, You wrote:

But again I ask, how did those poor, dumb, backward, illiterate Hebrews just get lucky enough to claim that EVERYTHING had been under the sea, and evidence from the world's tallest mountain verifies it?

This is disingenuous, because you have since attempted to argue (and failed to support a contention that) all of the earth was, at one time or another, under the sea. But the biblical flood myth requires all of the earth to have been underwater at the same time. This you have failed to demonstrate, just as you have failed to demonstrate that all of the earth was under the sea at differing times. Furthermore, in that silly statement, you are arguing from data about Mt. Everest, and that constitutes a categorical fallacy of composition, which falsely seeks to contend that because a part (Mt. Everest) of a whole (the entire surface of the eath) has a certain property (evidence of seabed sedimentation), the same property is everywhere evident in the whole.

All of which is why i continue to contend that your rhetorical method is pathetic, and dependant upon deploying one fallacy after the other.

0 Replies

You are both right, sorta. The Shield is a "stable craton" because we call it so. Its a circular term that so defines any Shield area because we are generally too confused by what lies within. The Archean sedimentary basins of Eastern Canada that lie within are generally parralleling the present Hudson Bay. This is my primary work area and the big activity is the epigenesis of clastics that "surround the craton"
While there are evidences of Pre Cambrian marbles and pelitic schists that are definitely linear basin deposition, we note that these sediments have been remobilized by a series of anatectic melts (melting caused by mobilization) and the only truly visible sed basin that remains is the Devonian through Permian central core basin that now defines the Foxe, Hudson, and James Bays.This area lies perpendicular to the "hinge" on which Northern part of Gondwana swung away from the Lomonosov ridge and opened the Arctic Ocean. There are linear basins o all types of sediments in the Slave and Sub Superior, but even these are shown on maps as 'smudge" areas that "sort of define ancient mountain roots, lavas, or melt zones"(eg Wawa,Sachigo,Abitibi, Wabigoon and the Minnesota Greenschists)

Clastic only means 'broken". It has nothing to do with "where" its an attempt to classify sediments that originate as particles that have been abraided from larger rocks, like the chips from sculpting. Clasts can include sand, silt, and clay, only if these particles are caused by physical erosion. Chemical deposition of **** like hydrlolyzate clays, limestone or gypsum or salt are not " clastics: but are precipitates or reduzates.

You guys are overthinking the Shield thing. I have to agree with set that real-life's point of argument got lost by his trying to backpedal.
For present circumstances , shields are usually swept clean by erosion and they lay bare the accretionary cores of continents. They all have the same properties in being almost indecipherable because the earliest sediments , metasediments and igneous deposits that lie within have been squeezed and eroded so many times that they are very difficult to assess. The notable exception is the AUstralian shield. Its a cratonic section that still retains its original depositional character in many areas.

Real-life, if youre gonna post stuff right from links, please take time to understand your arguments v your evidence. Its obvious youve been clipping stuff thats "archival" and not real up to date.
For a really good read on acretionary margins,shields, cratons, and continental drift try to find Rogers and Santosh's book on "Continents and Supercontinents (2004).
As far as your argument style, it has got set more po'd than me because I picture you at a symposium getting your ass laughed off with some of the crap that you spume. The only reason that your posts even live is because you post them and , by having them in print, they have conferred credibility until some of us state that you are without clothing. Your arguments have been specious, incorrect, and of conclusions that are drawn by not willing to understand the details of the stories .
As I stated earlier, and set nailed you most recently, your point that "clams on a mountain top" evidence a flood (THIS YOU INFERRED SO DONT TRY TO DUCK IT), is like pre-Rennaissance science that is similar to the theory of "vis plastica" that Ibn Sinha (Avicenna) had proposed back before most of us were born. Since Leonardo, "little nicky" Steno and others had nicely dispensed with those midieaval concepts, we havent ressurected them for serious consideration (that is until you brought it up). I wouldnt go around posting such drivvle because even your Creationist buds have got more believable stories about plate tectonics and mountain building. (they at least speed up the atomic clock).Now IDers, on the other hand, fully stipulate to the age of the earth, geo processes as defined by science and , even evolution (Behe, 1994 Darwins Black Box, p5). So your very arguments are "out of tep " with your mentors

0 Replies

Well, FM, i see your point, although i had not considered Hudson and James Bays to have been a part of the Shield. My sweetiepie was born in southern Ontario, loves the Shield country, and we took a driving tour of some of the many beautiful provincial parks there last fall. The Shield is the only area of geology which i have studied, for that reason.

0 Replies

Some geos dont consider it part of the Shield because its a clearly defined basin. However, the same shield type rocks appear in Quebec, Labrador,Baffin Ile (AND) Greenland, where until the 60s, the Shield was considered just one. Now we differentiate the Greenland and Canadian., We only omit all of the Maritimes, since these are actually part of the Appalachian/Caledonian ranges.

I have to go up to a place on the shield in late August just to review a report with the field crew. I hate to see the summer die especially up there. I know Im gonna see the red leaves of the Crowberries and Blueberries and the aspens will already be losing leaves . Ahhh well.

The rock theyre drilling out is a contact zone between a greenstone and a "granite-like rock" called granodiorite. Lots of heavy minerals, we hope. Back on topic. We had the best geophysics and chemistry and all the Ministry maps but they still missed the contact by over 10 miles. That shows you how smeared these "zones" that real-life talks about are. One has to have been there .

(edited -to clarify the intro paragraph)

0 Replies

Set; Who is that driving Miss Cleo in the car?

Joe Sixpack and I have been reading this exchange and that's about all we can come up with.

If the bible had included such detailed explanations of how things came about, it would be an enormous tome.

May I interject an observation from one considered wise even by non believers?

Solomon wrote:

The words of the wise ones are like oxgoads, and just like nails driven in are those indulging in collections [of sentences]; they have been given from one shepherd. 12 As regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion [to them] is wearisome to the flesh.

13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole [obligation] of man. 14 For the [true] God himself will bring every sort of work into the judgment in relation to every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad. (Ecclesiastes 12: 11-13)

0 Replies

Nice so the Bible condones ignorance? Why am I not surprised? Joe Sixpack is quite ignorant but I guess that should be expected; the Bible told him to be so. I also don't believe Solomon to be wise. I reserve that for people who furthered the quest for truth, you know, like Aristotle, Galileo, Newton.

Quote:

If the bible had included such detailed explanations of how things came about, it would be an enormous tome.

Yes superstition is generally shorter than truth. After all superstition doesn't have to deal with all that icky evidence. It's ignorant believers will believe it no matter what.

0 Replies

woah, well said .
I believe that when we make up gods, we make up the story line and thats it, no need for proofs.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nice so the Bible condones ignorance?

You bet. Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat the apple? So as to keep them ignorant.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Set; Who is that driving Miss Cleo in the car?

Mr. Bailey occupies the driver's seat in that photo. Miss Cleo is wearing her "It's my turn to drive, right?" look--often she will get in the driver's seat, and be very resentful and hurt when you make her move. Perhaps she believes that the vehicle drives itself, and you're hogging the fun seat.

0 Replies

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know