|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I represented you saying what I understood you to be saying. That's not lying and since you don't bother to understand how I got what I got out of it, and show what you really meant, I'm left with the same impression of what you said. And how about toning down your barbaric insults?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You may well be right that all those parts of your environment would turn to rock eventually given enough time. But turn to STRATA? That's one thing that bothers me about this "depositional environment" idea. As if we're to see an actual river IN the rock. But the rock is just the rock. If there are some contents normally found in rivers or deltas or wherever, nevertheless the river or delta itself are not there. And there is no reason I know of to expect that your local environments to end up in strata even if they eventually get buried or turn into rock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Take a look at a few images of fossil track imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a critter moved across a genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these can tell us about the critter that created the tracks as well as about the physical properties of the landscape the critter lived in. Not at all evidence of a "genuine landscape that existed at the time" -- could very well be just the surface of the most recent deposit of sediment left by the Flood that would soon be followed by another, and the creature is probably running from it. Nevertheless there are probably things that can be learned about the creature from its tracks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
For those who say the cartoon is wrong, I would quote edge from the other thread, in Message 501 where he is agreeing that landscapes in the various time periods are created and then eroded away to flatness, when sediments can be deposited on the flat surface:
Yes, and then deposition continued. I would hardly consider that to be supporting your argument, since you deny that erosion occurred until after the fludde.
Is the cartoon meant to illustrate the entire world? No, it's meant to illustrate the surface of the layer that represents the time period in question (although what would have existed apart from those surfaces is also something to think about).
A surface of a layer cannot represent an entire time period.
From what he has said above it seems to me the cartoon is right on: everything has been eroded away and there is nothing but the flat expanse of sediment, which would be the case at the end of the time period.
But you said there was no erosion in the geological record.
So although everyone is calling this a misrepresentation, and edge himself called it a straw man, the worst he'd ever seen here, I think his own description of events says otherwise.
I'm not sure how to make it any simpler. There is evidence of erosion in the geological record and buried landscapes are common.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I'm focused on the STRATA, jar, those flat expanses of rock. The landscapes and surface conditions you are hallucinating do not exist on those flat expanses.
Please name one 'flat expanse of rock". For every one you name, I can name an irregular deposit of terrestrial origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Not at all evidence of a "genuine landscape that existed at the time" -- could very well be just the surface of the most recent deposit of sediment left by the Flood ...
Yes, and the Shinumo Sea was filled by the Tapeats Sandstone and the the Bright Angel Shale. Oh, wait ... That's not post-fludde. So, how's that happen?
... that would soon be followed by another, and the creature is probably running from it. Nevertheless there are probably things that can be learned about the creature from its tracks.
Why would a sea creature run from a flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You may well be right that all those parts of your environment would turn to rock eventually given enough time. But turn to STRATA?
What do you mean by 'turn to strata'?
That's one thing that bothers me about this "depositional environment" idea. As if we're to see an actual river IN the rock. But the rock is just the rock. If there are some contents normally found in rivers or deltas or wherever, nevertheless the river or delta itself are not there.
Sure it is. What do you think it is composed of? The lithified sediments of a delta.
And there is no reason I know of to expect that your local environments to end up in strata even if they eventually get buried or turn into rock.
Perhaps you should give us your definition of strata. There's something very odd going on here. I think I gave you a definition earlier. Did you read it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I thought I might try this image to help clarify some visualization that is simply not occurring here.
This image shows terrestrial sandstone (an eolian deposit) with a flat surface cutting through it.
That surface is an erosional feature. It quite literally cuts off the inclined bedding beneath it. This would be called truncated cross-bedding. It is a relative dating feature showing deposition, erosion and continued deposition in that order. In this case, I'm pretty sure that the erosion was by wind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I represented you saying what I understood you to be saying. And yet you knew that you were going to be called a liar. You predicted it with 100% accuracy. So unless God's been talking to you and has made you a prophet, the only way you could have done that is if you knew that you were not telling the truth.
That's not lying and since you don't bother to understand how I got what I got out of it, and show what you really meant, I'm left with the same impression of what you said. Despite me saying over and over again what I actually think? Good god Faith. Let me say it again. In a depostional environment, such as I have been discussing, the landscape is the sediment on top. This sediment is not eroded. It is covered over by more sediment, which in its turn becomes the surface of the landscape. This sediment is not deposited "on the surface of the rock". It is deposited on the landscape, the surface of which is unlithified sediement. The rock is further down. Every opinion you attributed to me is complete bollocks and the exact opposite of what I said. There is erosion visible in the geological record of course, but what I have been trying to explain to you is deposition, which is the opposite of erosion. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
In the "time periods" associated with the strata, all that happened is that creatures died, they could not have lived because there was no landscape for them to live in, because the whole idea of time periods and landscapes for each is a fiction. That is the argument I hope to make clear.
Well, that's kind of weird since we find their footprints in the geological record at a time when the fludde covered the earth. And I'm not going to even get into nests, eggs and coprolites. I have asked this about 3 times now: how did footprints get transported into the upper fludde sediments of the Mesozoic? Actually, I guess it was any footprints to any Phanerozoic system. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Not at all evidence of a "genuine landscape that existed at the time" -- could very well be just the surface of the most recent deposit of sediment left by the Flood that would soon be followed by another, and the creature is probably running from it. Nevertheless there are probably things that can be learned about the creature from its tracks. That has got to be one of the stupidest posts ever, absolutely asinine sophomoric bullshit. There is only one possible reaction to that post Faith and that is that is to laugh at the sheer ignorance that your post displayed. Present the model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob for your imaginary silly flood that could possibly do that? Faith, you have NEVER been able to explain how the flood you claim happened could do anything like lay down a layer for critters to run across and then cover it over with yet another layer. We are discussing the things that really do exist in reality instead of just your fantasy. Just so everyone can see just how absurd your post is, here is the content of the post you are replying to.
quote: The tracks exist. The fossils exist. The sequential and repeated layers of unique materials exist. What does not exist is the silly Biblical Flood or anything like Biblical Flood Evidence.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know how I got your opinion wrong but I'm too tired to care at the moment. When I recover I'll try to track it all down.
Knowing I'll be accused of lying is just knowing how things operate around here, it is not a confession of lying, which I wasn't doing. "The landscape is the sediment on top" doesn't convey anything to me. I want to know how the landscape forms at all on top of a rock that is a layer in the strata, a landscape with everything needed to sustain life. When does it occur, how does it occur. How can a new "depositional environment" form on top of a layer in the strata? And why is all we see when looking at the strata the rock itself and the contact between it and the next rock? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Stop telling me what I'm saying is "not true," when the point is I'm giving my argument and I know you have a different opinion. Of course, it's what the argument is about, and I expect to have to try to prove it. That doesn't make my argument false.
I'm sick of this excuse for "debate" which is nothing but saying your opinion is right and mine is a lie. Sick sick sick of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Stop telling me what I'm saying is "not true," when the point is I'm giving my argument and I know you have a different opinion. Then stop posting things that are patently false. It's not a matter of opinions but rather one of reality opposed to your fantasy. The tracks exist. The fossils exist. The sequential and repeated layers of unique materials exist. What does not exist is the silly Biblical Flood or anything like Biblical Flood Evidence.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All you are doing is blathering the status quo which is what I'm answering. What you call fact is just your own opinion. I'm sick of it and stop accusing me of what is nothing more than disagreeing with you and the status quo, winning the debate by trumpeting your questionable opinion as if it were Truth. Never mind, I can just go back to ignoring you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024