|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Faith
Faith writes: There would be successive shorelines as the water rose and then as it receded. Take a look at the Bay of Fundy where the water rises over 45 feet in 6 hours and 11 minutes then receads and then rises again. There are two tide's per day.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDNg101oLkE Here you see the water advancing up river. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 372 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
Usually people are trying to prove there IS loose dirt between layers. No, this is wrong. You need to let go of this notion you have where soil should be between the rock layers. This misrepresents our side of the argument.
There's nothing for me to acknowledge that I can see. Wrong, vimesey explained this to you in very easy-to-understand words.
Everybody has their own take on things. Vimesey's doesn't represent any particular view I'm aware of. Please, then, become aware.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Faith
I didn't really think you would accept the challenge as you or AIG or any other YEC has any Biblical evidence to support your catastrophic flood. But if it would help I would add that you can use information from any other YEC site than the one I mentioned, AIG. But as far as the Hebrew goes we can stick with the KJV Bible. Anything offered in Hebrew will be for those reading the thread.
Faith writes: I'd really like to try to do a better job on the OP eventually if I can. Until you get a foundation to argue from you will never improve your argument. Your entire argument in this thread is based upon a stack of assumptions that are not supported by the Bible. The posters here are trying to point that out to you by presenting physical evidence of what is observed on/in the earth. YEC beliefs came from the warped mind of Ellen G. White, and her followers which is present day Seventh Day Adventist, not the Bible. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not arguing about the Flood when I argue according to the OP, or in most of my arguments about the scientific questions. I'm completely focused on the physical facts of the argument.
What the "posters here are trying to point out to me" is just the usual false science. Obviously you and I differ on all of this. I really am not at all interested in arguing with you about any of it. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from having opinions about my personal motivations. It's enough having to deal with unbelievers without also having to argue with believers who can't tell the difference between arguing about the facts versus arguing about the Biblical revelation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined: |
Not because of any failure of the geologists but because the Flood would naturally contradict many of the supposed depositional environments. But I need to do a much better job of thinking it all through than I've done lately. Bad case of brain fog. No Faith, it is not that you are not thinking hard enough. Give yourself a break. At least tens of thousands of geologists have done thinking for you. They are not out to disprove the Bible - most likely nothing even remotely religious has occurred to them while doing what they have been trained to do. That is also one of your problems - you lack even the basic training to be able to decipher rocks and strata not to mention the ability to form hypotheses. By doing what you do you spit on universities, you spit on honest scientists passing their knowledge on the younger generation and you spit on scientific integrity. It just is not so that you alone hold some kind of philosopher's stone regarding the origins of earth and everyone else is deceited and wrong. I really kinda honour you for effort but you are just so dead wrong that it is not even funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't consider myself to be alone in my views, I share them with the whole creationist community. I do have my own personal take on some of it that I argue here.
Old Earthers ARE deceived and wrong. Sorry, that's the way it is. And what you are overlooking is that all those scientific institutions I'm "spitting" on are doing far worse: they are spitting on God, THE source of all truth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Then why are you forced to resort to misrepresentations, falsehoods and denying the evidence and the facts ?
quote: And that is sheer unjustified nastiness - far, far worse than the criticisms you complain about. Is it any wonder people say "harsh" things about you ? Thank you for providing such a timely demonstration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh please. There would be successive shorelines as the water rose and then as it receded. Well, we've never seen that happen anywhere outside your vivid imagination. But we have seen shorelines existing without a magic flood happening. So I question your claim that shorelines "have to be from the Flood". The best we can say is that you (who can, apparently, believe anything so long as its false) can imagine shorelines being produced by the flood as well as by real processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm completely focused on the physical facts of the argument. Oh, Faith ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Try thinking about what you are saying. The only person who should expect loose fragments between strata is you, with your bizarre ideas about angular unconformities. Well there are clasts at some unconformities. There's just not "dirt". As far as I can see what Faith should expect at an angular unconformity is a portal into another dimension though which zillions of tons of rock can magically vanish. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
My impression is that this topic is badly overheated, with a poor signal to noise ratio.
Going to give it a break for about 24 hours (maybe more). AdminnemooseusOr something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I never did get caught up in reading all those messages, but skimming indicated that I didn't miss much substance.
Now, how about fewer messages, each with more topic theme substance? You don't want to make Moose cranky, do you? AdminnemooseusOr something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thanks for reopening the thread, Moose.
Since someone complained that I hadn't responded to Vimesey's posts I want to do that first:==================================== . . A landscape doesn't generally form on top of a stratum of rock - that is not how the science works. Instead, layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever, get layered on top of other layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever, and on the surface of this evolving landscape, life continues. Like my example of Romania Britain to modern day Britain. THEN, over millions of years, as the layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever get buried deeper, sometimes the conditions (pressure, heat) are such that they lithify and turn into strata of rock. That's the sequence you need to get - first it's strata of living landscape, some of which, millions of years later, then lithify into rock. ..What happens is this - soil strata form on top of soil strata. (Just like the soil on top of the soil that the Roman villas are found in here). All of those strata get buried over time, and then, when the conditions are right, the strata get compressed and turned from soil into rock strata, all together, one on top of each other. Does that make it clearer ? The soil is there, on top of other layers of soil, and they all get turned into rock together, one on top of the other And to repeat, the strata themselves were the loose soil. They rested, one on top of the other, as layers of soil. (Or sediment, if you prefer). There was no loose layer of soil in between - they were layers of soil on top of each other. They then got lithified into layers of rock on top of each other. Layers of rock are what layers of lithified soil look like. So I’m trying to make sense of this, vinesey. I can’t. Soil on top of soil? No landscape? What? While one of the layers was resting on top of another, both apparently loose sediment according to you, what was going on in the strata below? Were they lithified? Clearly the strata that represent separate time periods had to have lithified long before the next layer did, or possibly even got deposited — because of the many millions of years between the time periods you know. Some idea of the timeline you have in mind might help. After the soil/rock of the previous time period has been laid down, how long are we talking about before the soil of the next layer starts accumulating? I don’t even know if that’s an appropriate question though, since I can’t make any sense out of the scenario you are describing in relation to the actuality of the strata. Also, the strata are usually characterized by differences in sediment from one layer to the next. What you are describing is very much what one would find in an archaeological dig, all those various kinds of material that do amount to soil whereas the strata really can’t be described that way. We’ve got rocks with dead things in them, flat rocks, thick flat rocks in a stack of rocks. You see them all over the place. Some of them cover enormous distances. Some of them are straight, some of them are bent and twisted, some of them are seen in mountains and cliffs from which a huge volume of the same stack of sediments has been eroded away in the foreground and all around them. The understanding I get of the geological interpretation of these rocks is that the fossilized living things inside them, as well as the qualities of the rock itself, tell us about a landscape with living things in it that once lived on that very spot. Sketches of such landscapes aren’t hard to find, they show whatever flora and fauna are found fossilized in the rock living in this makebelieve landscape. On that very spot means on top of the slab of rock beneath I assume, which may or may not have been lithified at the time. Somehow or other a landscape had to occur on that surface, had to grow up after that rock slab was already there, whether lithified or not But if it wasn’t lithified it’s hard to see how it could ever maintain any semblance of flatness as we see in the strata now. It also hard to suppose that a whole landscape formed on it with trees and rivers and waterfalls and so on because all those should have left their mark in it, but didn’t. Some trees put down incredibly deep roots for instance. How come such root systems aren’t common in the rocks that supposedly once supported a whole time period of living things in a landscape? (Don’t try to tell me they’re common; I know they’re not). But that’s just one of many problems. The thing is we DO have to think in terms of rock-landscape-rock, and in terms of not a shred of that landscape remaining on the surface of the rock either, just some fossilized flora and fauna in the rock. Nothing anyone has said gives a reasonable explanation of this that I can see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I would like to have a policy from this point on of completely skipping any posts that make snarky remarks whether or not they also have something to say that's relevant to the topic. So I'll miss some substantive remarks that way, so if you want me to address them you'll have to leave out the snarky remarks. Fair warning though: I may not even get to all the substantive comments either, just so you know, for reasons I've given before.
I hope this is acceptable to the mods, because if I don't do something like this it's all going to become a morass of bickering and irrelevant barbs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My intention was to stick to the subject of the OP and not get back into the Interior Seaway topic yet, but I found this quote which is irresistible, in the Wikipedia article Paleontology in Kansas:
Carcasses of dinosaurs like Niobrarasaurus coleii were occasionally preserved after drifting hundreds of miles out into the Seaway.[13] Cretaceous plants left behind fossil leaves in Ellsworth County.[2] Couldn't possibly be that they were living there at the time, right? Musta drifted there. Looks like I may have to comment on some other posts on this subject before I get back to the OP too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024