|
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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But it does deal with the de novo formation of a landscape, which seemed to be one of the things that was puzzling you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: in other words the entire problem with this discussion is that you will not accept that what you "see" is incorrect. And rather than deal with that you declare all posts pointing out your mistake "irrelevant" - typically without even bothering to directly say so - and ignore them. However, they clearly are relevant, so your tactic is neither honest nor productive.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2403 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
quote:Sam Harris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
...which are based on the facts as I find them in the strata Exactly what facts have you found in the strata? What you know is a close approximation to zero. You have never examined anything yourself and you have never studied an iota of geology from texts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But it does deal with the de novo formation of a landscape, which seemed to be one of the things that was puzzling you. The formation of a landscape under ordinary situations is not what is "puzzling" me if that's the right word anyway. I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK (which as the geo column was forming would have been the uppermost surface in the column, or the latest rock/time period representative to have formed.) But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata, as it must because that's the evidence in the geo column itself: one rock on top of another rock, with an assumed landscape "in between," meaning the landscape that grew on top of the former rock/time period and eventually became a rock on top of that rock/time period. Getting from one landscape to another is NOT the problem. I'm trying to account for how a landscape forms on top of a rock and then becomes a rock on top of that rock. It's not the same as getting a terrestrial surface on top of a seafloor today. No it is not. I added a version of this to my response to Tangle: Your parents' landscape isn't going to become an enormous flat rock on the surface of a stack of enormous flat rocks as has to be the case in the geological scenario of the construction of the rock strata from landscapes. The strata situation is unique; you can't answer it with standard scenarios from today. I see a special problem with the strata that you all are trying to gloss over. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
you have never studied an iota of geology from texts. I have a geology textbook, which is often open on my kitchen table; I read most of Dr. A's online textbook, I consult both from time to time. And I have collected lots of pictures of strata online (unfortunately having lost some to computer crashes). I also have three books specifically on the Grand Canyon, two creationist and one anti-creationist or anti-YEC. They all have great pictures, but the anti-YEC book has the best. abe: Seems to me this complaint that I have no geological knowledge is a false judgment based on my disagreeing with the status quo explanations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: YOUR PARENTS' LANDSCAPE ISN'T GOING TO BECOME AN ENORMOUS FLAT ROCK ON THE SURFACE Now you have to explain why not because what I've explained is how sedimentary deposits are formed. It's a necessary first step to forming sedimentary rock.
AS HAS TO BE THE CASE IN THE GEO SCENARIO OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROCK STRATA FROM LANDSCAPES. Correct
THE STRATA SITUATION IS UNIQUE; No it's not.
YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT WITH STANDARD EXPLANATIONS. Yes we can.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I no longer pay attention to long insulting lectures that start out with how I've been told this or that many times. And that willful ignorance on your part will only result in your continued ignorance. Try to actually learn a little.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined:
|
My questions have nothing to do with the Flood. That's a figment of YOUR imagination. The questions come from pondering the strata and the geological interpretations thereof, which I find laughable. The only role the Flood plays in that is freeing me from those ideas.
That is IMO your biggest problem - without training to be able to read rocks you're throwing wild assumptions. Just like pathologists are able to read tissues and tell whether it's tumor or just a cyst, geologists are able to tell the origins and ages of rocks and what else - make predictions that the evidence either supports or not. There is no centuries-long conspiracy of doing academic work just to prove the Bible wrong. It is just silly to even think that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And when it is pointed out that that even forming a landscape directly on rock is a rare situation you ignore it, and you dismiss the explanations you do get on spurious grounds.
quote: That isn't a difficult problem at all. It eventually gets buried deeply enough to lithified, and it does.
quote: Terrestrial strata aren't generally enormous and why is the rest even an issue ?
quote: You say that but you have given us no reason to think so. Setting artificial barriers on discussion where posts that do not accept your assumptions get automatically rejected is not a good way to get to the truth.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The formation of a landscape under ordinary situations is not what is "puzzling" me if that's the right word anyway. I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK ... Well, that can happen occasionally, and why is it puzzling? What you need is (a) an erosional environment to expose the rock, followed by (b) a depositional environment that deposits the sediment. Why would this be puzzling?
But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata ... Burial under more sediment, followed by lithification. Why is that puzzling?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
I am sorry that I said that then.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
So I'm picturing the situation of the sediments as first laid down before they became the rock in the geo column, that would not be a livable landscape for living things.
Then why do we find fossils and trace fossils of (say) Cambrian life?
"Blackberry Hill is a series of quarries and outcrops in Central Wisconsin that is notable for its large concentration of trace fossils in Cambrian rocks." Blackberry Hill - Wikipedia Now, please explain how nothing could live on this surface of a Cambrian sandstone. If the surface were 'unlivable', then what the heck are these critters doing there?
I'm using the term landscape to describe an environment that can support living things, but a bare sedimentary expanse as not a livable landscape, whether before it became a livable landscape or after it was buried and becoming rock, or was the burying sediments that buried the landscape.
Then you need to explain the picture above. Also, I'm not sure that livability is a condition for something being a landscape.
Any time in the processes where the landscape was not the surface but only bare sediments.
Again, I think you are creating your own definitions here. Maybe that's why the communication in the thread is so bad.
And snce we have rocks in the geo column that stretch across a lot of geography I'm talking about any point before or after they were rock but not a livable landscape, making a surface for animal life that was not livable (including sea life though inadvertently I may not always include them).
So, in this case, you are dealing with marine sediments. Do you understand why terrestrial sediments are different with regard to lateral continuity? I assure you that terrestrial sediments are also considered to be strata and they are a part of the geological record.
Much of the discussion has been about how it could have been livable anyway despite having buried the livable landscape. As the discussion has proceeded it's seemed to me that there has always been a point where there must have been an absence of livable landscape and nothing but an unlivable bare surface of sediment.
I would say that the surface became unlivable when it was buried too deeply for creatures to live on it (personal communication, Captain Obvious).
This I'm judging simply from the fact of the rock in the strata today and considering what events must have occurred to get from a landscape to a rock.
Yes, I would say that the dead animals did not escape being buried.
That's ALL I'm trying to do here. In trying to juggle the events in this hostile atmosphere I'm most likely getting things out of order at times.
Well, certainly, your thinking is muddled on this topic. Clearly animals lived on the sandy bottom of the Cambrian sea and left behind a wealth of tracks and carcass fossils as trilobites, for instance. Your reasoning fails at that point, but you keep on going.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In Message 620 I think Faith may have provided some significant clues to where the problem lies:
Faith in Message 620 writes: I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK (which as the geo column was forming would have been the uppermost surface in the column, or the latest rock/time period representative to have formed.) But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata, as it must because that's the evidence in the geo column itself: one rock on top of another rock, with an assumed landscape "in between," meaning the landscape that grew on top of the former rock/time period and eventually became a rock on top of that rock/time period. This indicates three areas of misunderstanding:
Faith invariably pronounces my interpretations wrong, but even if they are I still think reaching a mutual understanding on these points would help advance the discussion. To Faith I would say that at this point people are not looking for a concession that they are right and you are wrong. It's just that no one, least of all modern geology, has suggested any of the ideas you are objecting to. If you think the actual ideas of geology are wrong then discussing the evidence and reasoning that led you to that conclusion should be very helpful. Please, no replies to this message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The formation of a landscape under ordinary situations is not what is "puzzling" me if that's the right word anyway. I'm trying to talk about the UNIQUE situation of forming a landscape ON TOP OF A HUGE FLAT SLAB OF ROCK (which as the geo column was forming would have been the uppermost surface in the column, or the latest rock/time period representative to have formed.)
Well, there you go. It's not rock.
But the more difficult problem is how that new landscape eventually becomes a new rock in the strata, as it must because that's the evidence in the geo column itself: one rock on top of another rock, with an assumed landscape "in between," meaning the landscape that grew on top of the former rock/time period and eventually became a rock on top of that rock/time period.
Yes, after a long period of burial. The 'landscape' is nothing more than a bedding plane. It represents a period of discontinuity in deposition. I'm still not seeing your problem.
Getting from one landscape to another is NOT the problem. I'm trying to account for how a landscape forms on top of a rock ...
First of all, it does not have to be a rock; and in a marine environment it almost certainly isn't. It's sediment.
... and then becomes a rock on top of that rock.
And that would be even later.
It's not the same as getting a terrestrial surface on top of a seafloor today. No it is not.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Certainly, if a marine sediment were uplifted, it would be exposed to erosion. And it would do so quite rapidly because it is sediment, not rock.
Your parents' landscape isn't going to become an enormous flat rock on the surface of a stack of enormous flat rocks as has to be the case in the geological scenario of the construction of the rock strata from landscapes.
Of course it doesn't and that's not what geology tells us.
The strata situation is unique; you can't answer it with standard scenarios from today.
Why not? Maybe you should give us your definition of 'strata'. Maybe that would help. AFAIK, strata includes all layered rocks.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024