|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Those are not facts; just your own personal prejudice. I know the truth and the truth includes the revelation of the Flood. Sorry Faith but once again you are simply wrong. No one doubts that you are basing your position on your faith but faith and fact are not the same thing.
Faith writes: The idea is that at some point a clear contradiction should be found between the depositional environment determined by the clues found in the rock strata, and the actual environment that is determined from shorelines and other clues to the six sequences of epeiric seas. Not because of any failure of the geologists but because the Flood would naturally contradict many of the supposed depositional environments. We all fully understand that but the reality is that not only has no clear contradiction ever been found between the depositional environment determined by the clues found in the rock strata, and the actual environment that is determined from shorelines and other clues to the six sequences of epeiric seas; every line of research in every field, physics, archeology, paleontology, chemistry, geology, biology, genetics and cultural history has shown that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened. Those are not a matter of opinion but rather of fact. When the rocks contradict the book, believe the rocks. When physics contradicts the book, believe physics. When archeology contradicts the book, believe the archeology. When the evidence contradicts the book, believe the evidence. My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The idea is that at some point a clear contradiction should be found between the depositional environment determined by the clues found in the rock strata, and the actual environment that is determined from shorelines and other clues to the six sequences of epeiric seas. Not because of any failure of the geologists but because the Flood would naturally contradict many of the supposed depositional environments. The big error in your position (other than it being factually wrong) is that even if an unexplained contradiction was found between the depositional environment determined by the clues found in the rock strata, and the actual environment that is determined from shorelines and other clues to the six sequences of epeiric seas it would not add any support for the concept of some Biblical Flood having really happened. What is needed is not refutation of the current theory but rather actual support for the existence of some Biblical Flood and unfortunately no one has ever been able to find any evidence such an event ever happened. Worse, no one has ever even been able to present a Flood model. method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob that might begin to explain any, much less all, of the evidence that is currently explained fully by long periods of time and a continuation of the forces, evolution, chemistry, biology, physics and geology we see in going on today.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: My interpretation of scripture is the traditional orthodox interpretation, not at all idiosyncratic. The interpretations that find millions of years in scripture, and believe in evolution, those are idiosyncratic, nothing but capitulations to worldly dogmas. Only one of the positions is dogma Faith and the other is very different from dogma, it is a willingness to base decisions on actual evidence and to change decisions when the evidence demands. You really need to learn some basics.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: However, It has occurred to me that an actual contradiction between the geological fantasies of the former time periods, and something like the observable shorelines of former bodies of water, could emerge and expose the fantasy. Fortunately Faith, the subject of ancient shorelines has been studied extensively over the last few hundred years and so there is a whole wealth of evidence, facts and knowledge on the subject. To begin learning just Google "ancient shorelines". Edited by jar, : fix link and appalin spallinMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Could very well be the needed contradiction there. Maybe, but it is certain that there is no support for either a Young Earth or any magic flood there.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
DA writes: For example, some people fantasize that the strata were formed during a universal flood; and our ability to find shorelines in the strata completely debunk this fantasy, since shorelines are one of the many topographic features attested to in the geological record that would not exist if the world was covered in water. But wait, there's more ... what we do find is not just ancient shorelines but multiple sequential shorelines where water levels rose and retreated and rose yet again. It is the same pattern of sequential layers found in varves and ice cores and tree rings and geological layers; indications that could never be produced by any single event.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Any shore lines of worldwide extent, or continent-covering extent for that matter, have to be from the Flood. Now that is a really stupid comment. Are there not shorelines now?My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It was a pretty simple question Faith. Are there shorelines today?
Supposedly the flood you say happened took one year and was universal. That would be one constantly higher shoreline everywhere on Earth and then almost immediately one receding shoreline. But once again, reality says "That never happened." There is not only no such evidence but rather there are examples all over the world of sequential shorelines, that bugaboo of Creationism recurring feature. The is no way your magic flood can produce recurring sequences of shorelines of varves or limestone layers or any of the other things found in the real world.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: 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. Utter nonsense Faith. Just plain silly. If you open your eyes you can see exactly what was going on; it is exactly the same thing that is going on today. Of course the layer below did not have to be lithified before the next layer was deposited, just like today, but sometimes it was, also just like today. Where new material is deposited on much older lithified material a new unconformity is being created. We can see such unconformities being created today where older layers are exposed and being covered by new layers of material. A great example is the soil being farmed in the Appalachians. There old old material, the roots of great mountain ranges that have weathered and eroded down to the stubs that still exist today are being covered by new material that in turn someday may also get lithified. When that happens the geologists of that far in the future time will find lithified rock from the Ordovician time period covered by lithified rock from the Cenozoic Era. They will note that there is a gap of about 500 million years between the two layers.
Faith writes: 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? That really varies Faith. In most cases there is not much time between layers getting put down but as shown in the paragraphs above, there can also be millions of years. That does not mean the surface sat untouched for those millions of years but rather just the opposite. As shown in the example of the Appalachians what happened is that for millions of years the layer first raised up and then was weathered down; tall mountains getting worn down to minor stubs. That process is what creates the unconformities and why they are different than the norm.
Faith writes: 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 In most cases what is living is not living on the lithified surface except as noted above. They are living on surfaces just like those we see today. The conclusive evidence for that is the stuff that died and got buried in material that was not yet lithified. If the surface had already been lithified the things like leaves and bones and tree trunks and spores and seed cones and tracks and insects and scales could not get inside the rock but would just be on the rock. Again, we are all living on a surface that rests on some lithified layers today but the surface we live on is not yet lithified. And the landscapes in the past also lived on surfaces that were above some lithified layers but not yet lithified themselves.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: What's so odd about the idea that the Flood should have left shorelines? The flood, if it had actually happened, would leave a very distinctive shoreline pattern all over the world. There would be one incursion and one recession event with a nearly unordered jumble of materials between the two. The two boundaries would be very close together made from unlithified materials and the only ordering seen would be more massive particles on the bottom graded uniformally to the finest particles on the top. All things that had been living would be jumbled together with no fossils at all. The Biblical Floods never happened which is a universal fact known by all scientists who have investigated for the last several hundred years and that continues to be supported by all evidence from every field of scientific inquiry and every technological development. My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PaulK writes: In all likelihood, then, the situation is typically that we are able to mostly date a formation to one period, but unless we find clear evidence from a later period - and we may not because the transition itself would be fuzzy and the evidence we need might not even be present, let alone eaisily found, the formation would be assigned to one period even if it happened to straddle the boundary. Which is almost always the case. Time is continuous and the transitions go on constantly. It is the sudden but infrequent changes that can allow more precise absolute dating, things like a major unconformity or major die off or a layer that can be attributed to a known event (layers from a given eruption, meteor strikes) that serve as place markers throughout the history. But index fossils can point us to broad chapters (below the first vertebrate fossils, above the K-T boundary, before flowers or grass) regardless of the specific makeup of the rock at that given point. I tried to point this out to Faith in Message 223 but it seems she has decided not to even read many posting.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Wherever there had been forests they had probably been uprooted by the late stages of the Flood, and buried in the strata somewhere or floating around waiting to be buried, or carried out to sea. Except of course for that Olive Tree.
Faith writes: No bottom of any sea, just a rising stack of sediments one on top of another, containing fossils, the last layer of which these animals skittered across hoping to escape the next wave of sediment. By the Mesozoic level we've got some more layers yet to come, the Flood isn't yet at its height but getting there. Except of course around where that Olive Tree was growing.
Faith writes: There are no forests growing on the sediments. Except of course that Olive Tree and all the landscape around it that never got washed way or covered. And don't forget that the magic flood also sorts those fossils but not by size or mass but rather by species; except of course for that Olive Tree. Come to think of it no Olive trees ever got mixed into the lower layers of sediment. Likely they ran real fast to higher grounds but not too high where it got cold at night. Don't forget that fast running Olive Tree and soil that was all around it. {It's pretty hard to tell what is and isn't on topic here, but the olive tree theme is a major part of another currently active topic. I'm declaring it "OFF-TOPIC" here. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide message and add admin comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Actually, it's how one of the stories puts it. Remember there is not one flood myth but two flood myths with additional commentary added by some unknown redactor or redactors.
But what the Bible says or does not say is totally irrelevant to this thread just as the flood is totally irrelevant to this thread. Your problem is that all of the evidence simply shows conclusively that what is seen is a series of landscapes, each made up of many different types of rock, each filled with a succession of different types of living organisms and landscapes. You need to produce a model that can compete with the current model of change over time and so far neither you or anyone else has been able to present anything worth more than a chuckle. Edited by jar, : appalin spallinMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Inerrancy doesn't apply to translations, only to the original writing. And of course we have no originals of anything found in any Bible from any Canon. So we have no idea what the originals said. And the Bible and bible stories are still totally irrelevant in this topic.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
edge writes: I'm just visualizing dinosaurs playing in the surf. Considering all the evidence of a Biblical flood, more like kiddies stomping in a puddle.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024