Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 346 of 740 (734420)
07-28-2014 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by herebedragons
07-28-2014 11:16 PM


Re: Cardenas
You are missing 90% of what I said that you think you are answering and I'm too tired right now to deal with it properly. So all I'll do here is ask you to supply the time periods for the events on your chart. I really can't go research all that, though I did for JonF's similar presentation. Too much, sorry. Later or tomorrow I'll try to answer the post itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2014 11:16 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2014 12:29 AM Faith has replied
 Message 357 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2014 7:35 AM Faith has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 347 of 740 (734423)
07-29-2014 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
07-28-2014 11:41 PM


Re: Cardenas
I am amazed that every single time someone answers you, you proceed to say you are too tired or you don't feel like reading or it's too hard. You are bar none the most intellectually lazy person I have ever encountered on the internet. I could understand if you were simply a troll (I am holding out hope that you are playing the long con on EvC as it would be fucking epic), but you appear to just genuinely be plum ignorant with absolutely zero interest in learning. That is the sad part: sometimes you give a slight indication that you are willing to do something to hold up your end of the bargain, but then you sully all that with ....this bullshit. One has to wonder what is really gained from all this? This is too long for you to read, so I will cheese jump moons over my hammy while the radar indicates a strong monkey tsunami with occasional spurts of rainbow flavored orange drops. Now, if you actually did read that, then that proves my initial point of utter intellectual laziness because the only time you read is to play the martyr card and you will use this to pretend like I am attacking poor little old Faith.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE - 24 hour suspension for this message - Adminnemooseus

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 11:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 6:33 AM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 348 of 740 (734424)
07-29-2014 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Faith
07-28-2014 11:33 PM


Re: Bible
There never was another "apologetics," that was just someone's made-up accusation. And this isn't apologetics either, I'm getting interrogated so I'm answering the questions I'm asked. Maybe if I answer them enough they'll stop asking them.
Sure you're doing apologetics. Pure apologetics!
You certainly aren't doing science, since you reject evidence, the scientific method, and any scientific findings that contradict your ancient tribal myths.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 11:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 349 of 740 (734427)
07-29-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
07-28-2014 10:13 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Isn't it clear yet? You misunderstand the evidence.
But you fail to make that case.
Could it not be you who misunderstands the evidence? Are you not fallible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 10:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by JonF, posted 07-29-2014 7:43 AM edge has not replied
 Message 377 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 12:16 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 350 of 740 (734428)
07-29-2014 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
07-28-2014 10:12 PM


Re: Bible
That's just a weird misrepresentation of the facts. Note that I said "the issues that matter," and the vast majority of all those denominations agree on those.
So, you agree with RC church on evolution and old ages?
The differences are on minor points, points of organization usually. Debunkers like to make this statistic sound like something it's not.
But it appears a great enough difference to break away and then to fight wars over...
It would be nice if you'd respect that I'm being serious and remarks like that are out of order.
Give us a reason to take your scenario seriously. Show us now evaporites formed during the fludde. Show us how dinosaurs proliferate in the middle of the greatest disaster to ever occur on earth. Show us why radiometric dates confirm relative ages.
Science is not 'nice'. And discussion boards are even less nice. If you cannot support your position, you should go somewhere and learn some facts.
But the fact is that you are misinterpreting the evidence when it comes to the events of the past.
Then show me where I did so. AFAICS, this is just another assertion that you cannot support.
It's calculated from the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 5, ...
The Bible does this calculation?
... other genealogies and other clues in the text, plus historical facts apart from the Bible such as the known reign of some kings.
So, the Bible does not actually say that the earth is 6ky old, right? It's all calculated.
Fallen human nature is geared to contradicting God. That's why He gave us the Bible.
So, you are not fallen? It seems to me that you are evading here. Are you indeed infallible?
A Bible believer then looks for other explanations. Such as that they leached out of the rocks after they were deposited, which looks to me like it fits the known facts of what happens where there are salt deposits.
Okay, what is the mechanism for this? How do you get pure salts? How do you get precipitation patterns and geometries that look like lakes?
You keep making these assertions but never provide evidence or explanations.
But that's why I'm looking for information about other parts of the world in the cross sections I've been collecting. Getting a good collection isn't easy. Other languages, inferior diagrams, stuff too small to read clearly, and the basic problem of how complicated the geology is elsewhere, ...
You understand why it is complicated, don't you? It's because your model is so simple minded.
... the enormous amount of faulting for instance. I believe I can reconstruct the original situation through all that but I don't know if I could convince you. I do think you must have been convinced by me about the "quiescent" Grand Canyon during the Paleozoic (really the Phanerozoic), since I've never encountered that idea anywhere else.
It's all relative, but I would agree that the sediments were deposited in a location that was on the stable continental platform. But this is news??
I'm sure you'll deny it but oh well. Anyway maybe there's hope for convincing you of a few other things.
Well, you haven't come close yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:20 AM edge has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 351 of 740 (734430)
07-29-2014 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Faith
07-28-2014 9:29 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:
Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood in the miles-deep sedimentary strata and their fossil contents has no appreciation of what evidence is.
Perhaps you could explain your concept of evidence because it does not seem to be the one that everyone else uses.
I know that you assume that the Flood created the strata but this is not a position that seems even remotely sensible, and to take that assumption as evidence is silly. And since you also assert that it is impossible to work out what the Flood would have done, even you can't consistently claim that it is anything more than an assumption.
I also know for a fact that your position on the fossils requires taking the fossil record as merely a large number of dead things without considering any of the other information we have discovered about the fossil record. Information which rules out the Flood as a plausible cause.
On both counts we cannot say that either the strata or the fossil record should be counted as evidence for the Flood, as the word is usually understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 9:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 6:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 352 of 740 (734431)
07-29-2014 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by PaulK
07-29-2014 2:07 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Would have thought that evidence is simply anything that evidently would have been caused by the event it evidences. Strata and fossils on the scale they in fact exist would evidently have been the result of a worldwide Flood. Raising objections to parts of it is simply another subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2014 2:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2014 7:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 353 of 740 (734432)
07-29-2014 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by hooah212002
07-29-2014 12:29 AM


Re: Cardenas
'Every single time?" Wow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by hooah212002, posted 07-29-2014 12:29 AM hooah212002 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 354 of 740 (734433)
07-29-2014 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Faith
07-29-2014 6:31 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:
Would have thought that evidence is simply anything that evidently would have been caused by the event it evidences.
In that case the strata and the fossil record are definitely not evidence for the Flood.
quote:
Strata and fossils on the scale they in fact exist would evidently have been the result of a worldwide Flood.
As I've pointed out in the case of the strata you simply assume this, in the case of the fossils you have to intentionally ignore evidence to conclude this.
quote:
Raising objections to parts of it is simply another subject.
I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out that you have no valid basis for your assertion.
Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 6:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 7:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 355 of 740 (734434)
07-29-2014 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by edge
07-29-2014 1:52 AM


Re: Bible
That's just a weird misrepresentation of the facts. Note that I said "the issues that matter," and the vast majority of all those denominations agree on those.
So, you agree with RC church on evolution and old ages?
Bizarre non sequitur there. I'm sure you pride yourself on your logical mind but this hardly justifies such pride.
"The vast majority" must certainly exclude some from the category of "those who agree on the issues that matter." With this hint I'll trust you to draw the appropriate conclusion.
The differences are on minor points, points of organization usually. Debunkers like to make this statistic sound like something it's not.
But it appears a great enough difference to break away and then to fight wars over...
So you wish to persist in the idea that the RC Church is just one of the denominations? Well, it's not, I don't include it among those many denominations, it's the False Church. The Reformation made that quite clear to those who are paying attention. Which isn't many, most are fogged out on the subject, but the facts are there for those who want to know. And may I ask what wars you could possibly be talking about? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The American Civil War? The Napoleonic Wars? The Bolshevik Revolution?
It would be nice if you'd respect that I'm being serious and remarks like that are out of order.
Give us a reason to take your scenario seriously. Show us now evaporites formed during the fludde.
I've given you my provisional hypothesis a few times already.
Show us how dinosaurs proliferate in the middle of the greatest disaster to ever occur on earth. Show us why radiometric dates confirm relative ages.
Strange thinking there, obviously misunderstanding something or other.
Science is not 'nice'. And discussion boards are even less nice. If you cannot support your position, you should go somewhere and learn some facts.
You just don't like the facts I focus on but I've pointed to plenty of facts. And isn't it time the barbarian internet learned a little civility? Why should Science need barbarian tactics?
But the fact is that you are misinterpreting the evidence when it comes to the events of the past.
Then show me where I did so. AFAICS, this is just another assertion that you cannot support.
Would have thought it obvious in the context of this side trip on this thread, that wherever you or any scientist interprets the evidence in terms of billions of years of Earth history, and when you interpret the strata and the fossils to exclude the obvious explanation of the Flood, you are misinterpreting.
It's calculated from the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 5, ...
The Bible does this calculation?
You do seem to be suffering from some sort of mental infirmity to say such a thing. No, readers do, you can.
... other genealogies and other clues in the text, plus historical facts apart from the Bible such as the known reign of some kings.
So, the Bible does not actually say that the earth is 6ky old, right? It's all calculated.
The facts are there, the calculations can be done.
Fallen human nature is geared to contradicting God. That's why He gave us the Bible.
So, you are not fallen? It seems to me that you are evading here. Are you indeed infallible?
Can you read, edge? We're ALL fallen, naturally geared to contradicting God, as you just quoted me saying, that's why God gave us the Bible, so we don't have to go on staggering blindly in the dark. I trust the Bible as God's word and try to follow where it leads because God's truth is the only cure for my fallenness. Of course if you prefer your fallen condition and ignore the Bible there's no remedy.
A Bible believer then looks for other explanations. Such as that they leached out of the rocks after they were deposited, which looks to me like it fits the known facts of what happens where there are salt deposits.
Okay, what is the mechanism for this? How do you get pure salts? How do you get precipitation patterns and geometries that look like lakes?
Why shouldn't there be underground lakes? Good grief man, I've never presented myself as knowledgeable about such things, my job here is to try to see things normally seen from the OE and Evo perspective from the Creationist and Floodist perspective, coming up with alternative views, and proving such views is a slow process of acquiring the necessary information. For me here but Creationism itself is really in the beginning stage. Why do you demand perfection of an enterprise that is only in its beginnings?
You keep making these assertions but never provide evidence or explanations.
Well I think I have done so. Sorry you don't see it.
But that's why I'm looking for information about other parts of the world in the cross sections I've been collecting. Getting a good collection isn't easy. Other languages, inferior diagrams, stuff too small to read clearly, and the basic problem of how complicated the geology is elsewhere, ...
You understand why it is complicated, don't you? It's because your model is so simple minded.
Yes my model is very simple minded. That's a virtue in this case. But no, it's complicated because the geology itself is complicated. There's very little out there that shows the neat undisturbed accumulation of the strata as the Grand Canyon area does. To reconstruct the original neat undisturbed strata requires undoing the knots in it brought about mostly by faulting. Here's a cute one for example, not terribly hard to interpret but riddled with faults:
And this one's nice too:
... the enormous amount of faulting for instance. I believe I can reconstruct the original situation through all that but I don't know if I could convince you. I do think you must have been convinced by me about the "quiescent" Grand Canyon during the Paleozoic (really the Phanerozoic), since I've never encountered that idea anywhere else.
It's all relative, but I would agree that the sediments were deposited in a location that was on the stable continental platform. But this is news??
I showed it from the cross section.
I'm sure you'll deny it but oh well. Anyway maybe there's hope for convincing you of a few other things.
Well, you haven't come close yet.
Sad but true.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by edge, posted 07-29-2014 1:52 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2014 7:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 514 by Percy, posted 08-01-2014 9:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 356 of 740 (734435)
07-29-2014 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by PaulK
07-29-2014 7:03 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
But my point was that you are missing the forest for the trees. The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2014 7:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2014 7:57 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 370 by Taq, posted 07-29-2014 12:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 522 by Percy, posted 08-01-2014 8:18 PM Faith has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 357 of 740 (734436)
07-29-2014 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
07-28-2014 11:41 PM


Re: Cardenas
You are missing 90% of what I said that you think you are answering
I am? You keep drawing arbitrary lines in the sand as to what qualifies as evidence against your idea. We are all convinced that there was NO time period EVER where the entire earth was covered by water at the same time. And we show examples of subaerial lava flows bound by sedimentary deposits, which is something you claimed didn't happen, but since your line is so very arbitrary and poorly defined, we find out that any example we bring doesn't qualify for some reason or other.
The image I presented from Alaska has the time periods on the chart. It is mostly from the Triassic. This period is thought to be the breakup of Pangaea. You can read a bit about it at Central Atlantic magmatic province. While the Alaskan example is not part of the CAMP, it shows that it was some of the most extensive volcanic episodes in history (the area covered by these lava flows IS the most extensive on earth). Alaska would have been on the other side of the North American Craton and would have been active due to that plate boundary.
This event corresponds to the Chocolate Cliffs (the Moenkopi and Chinle formations) in the Grand Staircase area. A place where you were concerned about no tectonic activity occurring. Meanwhile, on the other side of the continent, the most extensive volcanic providence on earth was being formed. During a flood
You apparently accept the breakup of Pangeae, but of course think it happened very rapidly, either beginning during the flood or directly afterwards. The question is, how do these lava flows correspond with the GC time frame in your reckoning? My guess is that you want to put it at the same time as the lava flows in the GC, after the whole stack is in place. But that correlation is arbitrary based only on the presupposition that there was only volcanic and tectonic activity after the whole stack was in place.
I think you are the one who is missing 90% + of what you think you are answering.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 11:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:48 AM herebedragons has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 358 of 740 (734437)
07-29-2014 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
07-28-2014 3:51 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
Just because I'm talking about the great sedimentary rocks doesn't mean I'm ignoring anything, I'm simply talking about the great sedimentary rocks.
Which is ignoring large portions of stratigraphy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 3:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 359 of 740 (734438)
07-29-2014 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Faith
07-28-2014 8:20 PM


Re: Precambrian
But I don't need to prove that EVERYTHING occurred after all the strata were laid down, though that's what I believe and would like to be able to prove,
Contradicted by tons of evidence in this thread alone. E.g. 22+ tuffs in the Lake Turkana region interspersed with sedimentary layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Faith, posted 07-28-2014 8:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 8:10 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 360 of 740 (734439)
07-29-2014 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by edge
07-29-2014 1:35 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Are you not fallible?
She has started several times that her reading of the Bible is infallible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by edge, posted 07-29-2014 1:35 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 07-29-2014 9:59 PM JonF has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024