|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I see, so what happened is that what accumulated over a few billion years on the sea floors has been subducted and burned up and that's that. So I guess that will also happen to the sediments accumulating on the sea floors now, so that not only are they irrelevant to the Geologic Timetable because they aren't building ON that Geologic Timetable, and because they are only collecting marine life anyway, which may or may not be getting fossilized, but they are disappearing under the continents anyway, making the whole idea that they represent the continuation of the Geologic Timescale a terrific joke. See post #306.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Typo, I meant "couple of hundred million.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did not say there were no layers accumulating on the ocean floors, in fact I clearly said the opposite more than once, what I said was that they are not at all like those in the strata we see all over the continents. And your pictures bear this out. Pictures I also of course saw when I produced those links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Ooh, good catch, I fixed the attribution. But what an oddly appropriate slip!
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, I have been corrected many times about the age of the ocean floors, which are continuously being recreated and subducted, but that poses even more problems for the idea that the Geologic Timetable is being continued there, which I believe I stated in a post to Percy above, as if any more problems could possibly be necessary to show the absurdity of the whole scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I said, the layering on the ocean floors bears just about zero resemblance to the layering of the Geologic Column. Yes I know that water layers sediments, that's how I know the Geo Column was formed by the Flood, and there's no way the layering now accumulating on the sea floor or in newly formed basins elsewhere has anything to do with the continued building of the Geo Timetable. Which has clearly come to an end, kaput, finis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: I did not say there were no layers accumulating on the ocean floors... It's often pretty hard to tell what you're saying. This is you in Message 268:
Faith in Message 268 writes: I KNOW sediments are still forming, and I ALREADY SAID SO. They do not form on anything like the scale of the Geologic Column and there is no REASON FOR THEM TO HAVE STOPPED FORMING THAT COLUMN EITHER ON YOUR THEORY. They stopped because the Flood stopped. So which is it? They're still forming? They're forming but on a different scale? They stopped forming? You've said them all. In some parts of the world, those that are regions of net deposition, the geologic column is still gradually forming. In other parts of the world, those that are regions of net erosion, the geologic column is gradually disappearing. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
And this process is going to put the newly forming sedimentary layers on top of the continents? Sounds to me like it's going to bury them under the continents. Both. Some goes on top, some goes underneath, some of what goes underneath comes back in solid or liquid form.
The problem here is that a supposedly continuous accumulation of strata containing a supposedly ever-evolving record of life forms up through those strata, in order to continue to BE that record, has to build ON TOP of the previously accumulated strata plus life forms, Yes. You just are intellectually incapable of understanding or even remembering modern geological theory. You've seen and read many accurate descriptions of exactly how this happens and you haven't even remembered that it exists. Start with Dr. A's geology thread.
but this is obviously no longer happening Oh it is. We measure it. We have, as you have already forgotten, all sorts of evidence including photos of layers on the sea floor, and we know a lot about them.
where it can only accumulate marine life, and where, according to your scenario, it's all getting subducted under the continents and disappearing anyway You get an occasional non-marine fossil in marine sediments. But as I wrote above and you obviously don't understand because you haven't a clue about the mainstream geology is, some of it goes on top and some goes below. Of the stuff which goes below, some of it returns in solid or liquid form, it doesn't just disappear. We have images of it happening today. And you are ignoring that some goes on top. There are detailed investigations and scenarios for how this has happened for lots of interesting places. You've been exposed to a few of them, but of course you don't remember and can't learn.
Whatever you're saying it doesn't answer the problem of the discontinuation of the building of the Geologic Timetable. Ther's no problem to answer. Just a few looney tunes who can't face reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I see, so what happened is that what accumulated over a few billion years on the sea floors has been subducted and burned up and that's that. See my reply above. There are three classes: 1. Stuff that gets pushed on top of other stuff.2. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff, and is never seen again. 3. Stuff that gets pushed underneath other stuff and returns in one form or another (uplift, lava). I know that comprehending the concept of three (very broadly stated) classes is difficult, but it's required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Bears zero resemblance" is an intensely subjective statement. A scientist would explain what differs between the two states and why those differences are significant. Unlike a petro-brained fundy, who would just assert.
{ABE} Of course, there is a resemblance; both are layered. So it's definitely [/I]not zero resemblance. Now Faith should argue how little resemblance there is, and give reasons and evidence. Who am I kidding! Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Faith,
The only thing that is a joke is your comprehension skills. It's one thing to disagree with the explanation of geology, but you have to understand it first, and since you don't understand it you end up posting objections that make no sense. Yes, if all seafloor was subducted then there would be no geologic column, or at least a pretty short one. But as has been pointed out, seafloor occasionally becomes continent. This has been said many times, I just said it again in my message, and you quoted it. So how did you manage to miss it? Would you care to try again, this time not ignoring a key piece of information? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know why you are all insisting the sediments in the ocean are at all like the geo column when they clearly aren't. I produced the links that show that they aren't. Hmm, I missed that. However, what do you mean by modern seafloor sediments being unlike the geological column? Of course there are differences. The modern sediments are younger, for one and thinner for another. There are reasons for this if you want to discuss. Of course there are reasons for it, but the differences make the ocean floor sediments unrelated to the Geologic Timetable, as so many other things about them make them irrelevant. This is not the Geologic Timetable, for the many reasons I've already listed.
quote: All you've done is assert that they are. There's no similar layering and I can't find any evidence of fossilization going on in anything I looked at either. Then you haven't looked very hard. Try this: http://green.rpi.edu/archives/fossils/ Thank you, so there are fossils formed at the bottom of the ocean too. Itty bitty ones but still fossils. Marine fossils of course, what else, but not even of the complexity of the marine fossils in the lower levels of the Geo Column. Certainly no addition to the Holocene or whatever the most recent time period in the Geo Timetable is supposed to be, with its mammals and other creatures supposedly evolved through the whole sequence of "time periods" from the Precambrian on up.
It SHOULD continue just as the strata are normally laid down, at the top of the existing last layer. Not in new basins, not at the bottom of the sea.
Why should it? We know that the ocean basins are actually younger than the continents. Why should they contain rocks that are older than the basins themselves?
Well, the MAIN reason the Geo Timetable should continue where originally located is that according to you guys supposedly it DID just that for hundreds of millions of years, built one layer upon another containing supposedly more and more evolved living things, and it did this CONTINUOUSLY for all those hundreds of millions of years. The fact that it did this so reliably is how you all know which The Geologic Timescale is over and done with, kaput. Because it never existed in the first place. It's a fiction imposed upon a stack of sediments containing fossilized dead things, that accumulated over a short period of time. Then it stopped accumulating. It's over with.
I'll be sure to pass your recommendation along. Much obliged, I'm sure. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
In the Grand Canyon walls we have rocks supposedly formed in deep water over rocks supposedly formed on dry land and rocks supposedly formed in shallow water, implying a LOT of risings and fallings of either the land or the sea. Yeah that does strike me as silly. How Crustal Plates Move: Plate Tectonics - dummies - plate tectonics for dummies And some visual references of how the plates moved and what was going on and a more in-depth video on how we figured this all out. I know it strikes you as silly because all this coudlent have happened in 6000 years. but your problem is we have a lot more time to play with Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Who says I don't know anything about Geology? I had no problem at all following your geology course, 80% or so of which was already familiar to me from previous forays on the internet, and the other 20% mostly about stuff I object to such as the Geologic Timetable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Who says I don't know anything about Geology? I do. I know this to be a fact because of reading your posts. They are gibberish. Let me explain what I mean. Take this piece of garbage:
And what happened to the Principle of Superposition in this scenario? That only makes sense when the strata continue to accumulate on top of one another, each new layer representing a more recent time period with more recently evolved life forms. Having it continue at the bottom of the ocean blows that one out of the water as it were. What shall I compare this to? Suppose someone were to say "And if there are kangaroos in Australia, what happens to the Law of Gravity in this scenario? Having kangaroos in Australia blows that one out of the water as it were." It would be easy to see that that person was a halfwit. It would be easy to see that the halfwit was making a halfwitted mistake. One might even guess that this mistake involved being swinishly ignorant about what the Law of Gravity is. But that's as far as one can go. A mentally normal person cannot reconstruct the mistake being made in the mind of the moron; and the moron has not expressed it. All there is to say about it is that it is garbage, it is insanity, it is nonsense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024