|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Well that was a confused rant that completely failed to answer the question.
The creatures live on the surface. What goes on deep underground has little to n effect on them. Do you understand that much ? Because it certainly doesn't look like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: If that is the problem, why have you been ignoring it all through this thread ? The only way to talk about the strata we've actually got is to talk about the strata that we have actually got i.e. real examples, and you refuse to do that.
quote: That's just weird. Coyote is talking about material that is in the process of lithified and you think that makes it unlikely to be lithified ?
quote: This makes no sense at all. Having assumed for no sensible reason that the material that is being lithified won't become lithified you then assume that it would somehow get eroded away without the material above it being removed. Faith you really need to take a step back and really think about things. I know that you don't like accepting that your ideas are wrong but you really have been spouting too much nonsense in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If you had read the portion of you post that I quoted there would be no mystery. If what you write is at odds with your intent then the problem is yours.
quote: That is also a pretty damn weird thing to say. The sedimentary material in the soil would have been deposited in a depositional environment. Because a depositional environment is just an environment where there is net deposition of sediment.
quote: And it makes no sense to do that without an actual example. Which makes your refusal to consider actual examples more bizarre. Anyway, as you should know by now geologists have considerable success in doing exactly that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So you say. However the basis for that claim seems to be somewhat questionable to say the least.
quote: Because when you try to think about it you come up with objections like: When the landscape is lithified, the creatures that lived there millions of years ago will lose their homes. Seriously, Faith ? You think that is a problem for us ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Faith, it is not a fact, it is crazy nonsense that you made up. And that is why we don't believe it. What more reason would we need ?
quote: It is quite obvious that you don't get it. You don't get what geology says - and even you don't understand your objections. Faith, if what you were saying was at all true you would be showing that your objections made sense - but you don't even try to present any reasoning to support them.
quote: The first sentence is a lie - you don't look at any actual circumstances, so how can they lead you anywhere ? When we ask you to point at real examples you just refuse. Since you insist on keeping your argument on the level of general principles, is it surprising that the answers mostly do the same? It is obvious that you hate the ideas that you are discussing to the point where you can't bear to really think about them or understand them - and will throw out any nonsense as an excuse to reject them, but that is hardly going to convince anyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I stand by my point that you have not dealt with any actual examples, and in fact refuse to produce any actual examples. And you have an odd way of trying to show things. You make a lot of assertions but they don't seem to make any sense - and you fail to present anything like the supporting reasoning that is needed. So, really you are not only failing to show that geologists have missed something you don't even look like you are making a real attempt.
quote: Firstly, you are the one who sticks to general statements - you are the reason we haven't discussed any actual examples in this thread. And since you obviously "see" what you claim to see by dealing only with general statements it can hardly be the reason why geologists do not see it - even if it were not the case that geologists do look at actual examples. Also you ignore the fact that preserved landscapes are often more than flat slabs of rock. Which is par for the course for you. And quite frankly I find my efforts to avoid treating you with the unreserved snark you deserve are quote severely under appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Simply untrue. In fact you often get people asking you to explain - and you don't.
quote: And how could we do that ? You make claims that seem nonsensical but won't give us any hint as to how you reached those conclusions even when we ask. I advised you to deal with a real example, but you refuse to do that, sticking to entirely general claims. Dwise advised you to break the problem down but you haven't produced any attempt at that either. You tell us that if we try to reconstruct the events required - in a purely abstract general sense - we will found what you "found". But if you had actually produced your own reconstruction you could just present it, with an explanation of your reasoning. So obviously you have not done what you tell us to do, and have no idea what we would really find.
quote: Yes, you would abuse your moderator powers. Fortunately for debate here the moderation is honest and largely fair - even if you are given a huge amount of leeway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Faith I note that, yet again you are dealing in generalities.
quote: There are a number of possibilities, and it depends in what buries the original habitat. First, it need not be true that the burial leaves no habitat - the surface could remain inhabitable by the same life. Second, as in the case of a marine transgression or regression the habitats may be expected to "migrate", moving as the coastline does. This is the reason for Walther's Law. Third, they may migrate to other places. Fourth, if the change is sufficiently slow, adapt to the new conditions. Some species will be lost, others will not. Finally, the life may indeed die out. Indeed, we have evidence of mass extinctions where a large proportion of life on the planet died out. It can happen, so long as it does not happen everywhere. I remind you that your own Flood beliefs require a remarkably quick recovery from a great disaster, and even if you appeal to your assumed "vitality" it can hardly outweigh the vastly greater time available for conventional geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But it is not a specific. It is a completely unspecified environment. Which ends up getting buried by something equally unspecified.
quote: Actually you should forget that. It's irrelevant. All that matters is that the surface is buried to the extent that it no longer serves as a habitat to the creatures that used to live on it. Let us not confuse the issue with events that happen long after the important point.
quote: That has no relevance to the question of where the creatures went. If you think it does, no wonder you have problems with your argument.
quote: Wrong. And obviously so. If a depositional environment "moves" through the means of a transgression or regression, the sediment it has already deposited is still left behind.
quote: If it is, it is entirely your fault for presenting a completely general situation.
quote: Not really. We don't have to move everything out. An adequate breeding population of most species will be fine. We can easily afford to lose some species, and many, many individuals.
quote: That would be true if we were dealing with a real example. But you chose not to. So what might happen is all that matters. Complaining that I answer the "puzzle" as you posed it is just silly.
quote: This is not a real example. There is no column.
quote: It solves the "puzzle" you posed. If you wanted to deal with real examples you should have posed it in terms of a real example. I asked you to do that. You refused.
quote: No. I don't. All I have to do is answer the general question, because that is what your "puzzle" is.
quote: Obviously you have no idea what geology says. Of course geology accepts that habitats are lost. Suggesting otherwise is absurd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In other words, because we HAVE answered your argument as you presented it you are "forced" to claim that all the opposing evidence us a massive coincidence.
I guess that is as close to an admission of defeat as we can expect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That is not necessarily true, as i have already explained. And - as I should not need to explain - it is precisely the sort of claim that can be dealt with by offering alternative possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Always the same false accusation.
quote: In fact I offered real possibilities. You cannot honestly claim that transgression and regression in particular are imaginary. Coastlines change in the modern day. And, in fact, such an answer was forced by your presentation of the alleged "puzzle". Was your refusal to deal with real situations a deliberate tactic to allow you to reject any answer as "imaginary" ?
quote: If you had any argument to support that then you should have produced it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If we were dealing with an actual example that would be appropriate. Since we aren't it is really up to you to give reasons why they are not possible. And I note that you are not even trying.
quote: The fact that you keep confusing yourself with irrelevancies despite my repeated warnings is hardly encouraging or helpful to your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
False accusations are hardly an adequate alternative to substantive posts.
I will just take your failure to refute my points as an admission of defeat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: This begs the question though. If your argument relies on us assuming that we are wrong despite the evidence then you don't have an argument.
quote: On the contrary, it is valuable information for this thread. If we can explain what is seen as a result of known processes - and geologists certainly can - our views are viable. And I hardly think that your failure to produce any viable argument can be considered as "proving" that you are correct.
quote: In reality - as we can see - you prefer to divert discussion of that subject and talk about habitat destruction instead. Which is clearly a peripheral issue at most. If you really had a case why do you keep talking about something else - even though you don't have a case for that either ? Your lack of interest in the subject, of course, is hardly evidence in your favour. And as we can see from your first paragraph you are reduced to insisting that the "problem" is that we don't make the (false) assumptions you want us to make.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024