|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I'm not claiming to provide a model. I've provided it many times over in the course of this debate over the years. Go on bleating, you're just wasting your breath. The evidence pf the Flood in bazillions of fossils in a miles-deep stack of water-deposited sediments over thousands of square miles is in-your-face evidence. It takes a bizarre level of denial to pretend there isn't any. It takes a bizarre level of dishonesty and willful ignorance to claim that you have ever presented a model that explains how any flood, even the two Biblical Floods, could sort either the geology or the fossils in the order that they are found in reality.
Faith writes: Calling historical evangelical/Protestant biblical Christianity a "cult" is one of the most stupid and blasphemous things you say. Yet all of the evidence shows that it is a Cult of Ignorance. That is simply fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Erosion shouldn't take much time when it is caused by torrential continuous rain over every inch of Earth for forty days and nights. I've seen a three-day local rainfall make mud out of a hill and flood the lower areas. There are lots of videos of such events you can find online. Ocean waves bring sand from the water, even from far out to sea, and deposit it on beaches. Higher elevation is obviously not necessary. The initial stage of the Flood would have dumped tons of sediments scoured off the land into the water which also was laden with ocean floor sediments stirred up by the "fountains of the deep," calcareous ooze and so on; the water rose high over the land and the sediments were deposited or precipitated out in layers. It took months for the water to rise, and it sat at its highest level for a couple of months; that should be enough time to deposit the layers.
Something like that. . Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Put the dating in the evolution column for now. There are ways to answer some of it but not now.
The exact mechanism may not be clear but it is SO obvious that bazillions of fossils fit the purpose of the Flood to perfection, and that explaining them on the Old Earth scheme takes a Rube Goldbergish system because fossilization needs particular conditions to occur, which of course would have been provided by the Flood; and the strata which are made up of DIFFERENT KINDS of sediments often strikingly sharply segregated from one another is something water does, and their flatness too. And there is no way for whole life scenarios of plants and animals to have occupied the space of each sedimentary layer for millions of years as the standard scenario requires. Turns into rock and another totally different living scenario presents itself? Really, the whole thing is so preposterous that if any of you could put aside your evo convictions and give it some truly serious thought you'd have to see how preposterous it is. It could not possibly have happened as the standard theory requires. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: Erosion don't take no time when it is caused by torrential continuous rain over every inch of Earth for forty days and nights. I've seen a three-day local rainfall make mud out of a hill and flood the lower areas Torrential rain over 40 days may erode some soil off some hills, though it's unlikely that much damage would be done. But rain, no matter how heavy, will nor erode rock over 40 days. If it was the case that heavy rain could erode rock that quickly we'd have no mountains now.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We're not talking rock, we're talking dissolvable sediments, and there were no high mountains before the Flood anyway. Concentrate on what actually happens: Torrential rain over a few days in a local area saturates the land and carries it in streams and mudflows, often swamping houses and cars in its path. It is absurd how you all want to trivialize what worldwide rain wouid do to the land. You just aren't thinking.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Plus we have areas of the world today that get torrential rains for more than 40 days every year and life goes on and there is even still dirt and soil left after the rain.
Yes Virginia, we can and do know what 40 days of water does to rocks and the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well that’s pretty ridiculous to start with. You might as well count the graves in a large cemetery and attribute it to the Flood. And fossilisation doesn’t need any system other then the ordinary workings of nature. Call it Rube Goldbergish If you like but the fact that it exists makes it a foolish objection.
quote: You seem to forget that most strata are deposited by water in the mainstream view, too. But the sequences produced by transgression and regression, for instance speak of long timescales, not a single year-long Flood. And there’s plenty more.
quote: Let us know if you ever come up with any remotely sensible support for this silliness.
quote: Certainly not. Inventing silly strawmen hardly helps your case. Perhaps you should try remembering past discussions where various people have attempted to explain it to you.
quote: And there is a complete inversion of the truth. If you could set aside your crew convictions and actually think about it you would see that you are the one posting preposterous nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: We're not talking rock, we're talking dissolvable sediments, wtf is a dissolvable sediment? Earth does not dissolve.
and there were no high mountains before the Flood anyway. The discussion should really end here. No mountains 4,500 years ago? Lunacy.
Concentrate on what actually happens: Very sound advice, I suggest you take it.
Torrential rain over a few days in a local area saturates the land and carries it in streams and mudflows, It does no such thing - except for some isolated examples, heavy rain does not cause mass mudslides. We know the effects of flooding because we have floods. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "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 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tangle writes: It does no such thing - except for some isolated examples, heavy rain does not cause mass mudslides. We know the effects of flooding because we have floods. And we know for a fact that some of the most productive, most fertile areas are flood plains and in fact there were even flourishing kingdoms both to the North and South of where Noah was supposed to be located that depended on annual floods directly caused by run off from mountains that were in existence before either of the Biblical Floods. The funny thing is those Kingdoms went right on keeping right on and never even noticed the imaginary Biblical flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Since Faith is complaining that her arguments don’t get fairly treated I am going to look at this one again.
quote: Now in actual fact buried landscapes only turn into rock when they are deeply buried. This takes a long time. Way above it on the (then) present-day surface is where the animals will live. And yes it could be quite different. The landscape does change over time. Deserts expand, the sea transgresses the land or regresses to expose areas which were underwater, glaciers roll across the landscape carving valleys and so on. Now I certainly can’t see anything preposterous there and Faith certainly hasn’t thought about it. I remember her question of where will the animals live? Which animals? The ones who used to live on the buried landscape and died long, long ago? The animals that are happily leaving on the then-present surface, who will be completely unaffected ? Now THAT is preposterous. Of course the fraction that Faith actually puts this forward when she doesn’t actually have any real criticism - or understanding of the view she calls preposterous is a pretty clear indication of how reliable her judgements are. Faith’s reaction to this is fairly predictable. But I can bet that the one thing it won’t involve is serious thought. It should. She should seriously think about just how much her own prejudices and lack of thought cause her to go so badly wrong. But she won’t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
But wait, there's more.
The conventional theories also contain explanations, models, methods, mechanisms, processes and procedures that explain how layers that start on the surface get deeply buried over time along with the remains of things that lived on the surface. In addition, the processes of uplift and subsidence, of weathering and erosion, of burial and exposure, of annual and seasonal changes are all things we observe going on today. We see aeolian and fluvial processes and can see the evidence that distinguishes between the two processes. We see flooding and the evidence that is left by floods. We see incursions and magma and lava flows and pillow lava and ash falls and the evidence that lets us identify past instances. The important thing is we do know how quickly mountains form and how quickly they are eroded away. We do know the processes that raise and lower lands to allow sea inundation and incursion and also recession. The conventional theories are not suppositions, not "What ifs" but rather conclusions based on observed processes that go on today and have gone on in the past and have left specific evidence to show the changes over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Now in actual fact buried landscapes only turn into rock when they are deeply buried. This takes a long time. OK. Now do you have an explanation for how the buried landscape that becomes a rock becomes a very flat slab of rock that in many examples in the stratigraphic column are quite horizontal and of a fairly uniform thickness? That is, I would expect a deeply buried landscape that turned to rock to be quite lumpy and irregular, about as far as you could get from a flat slab. I have to wonder how it could acquire flat surfaces top and bottom. Surely all the buried material is turning to rock above and below it as well, so how does this one particular landscape become so identifiable as we see the sediments of the stratigraphic column are. Those strata are often of very particular sediment too, say all sandstone like the Tapeats for instance. How would such a layer become so clearly differentiated from layers above and below it, which are often of some completely different sedimentary rock, say limestone, separated by what is often a very straight flat surface between them. Burial might harden sediment into rock I suppose, but not with the peculiar shape and composition of those in the stratigraphic column.
Way above it on the (then) present-day surface is where the animals will live. A very irregular surface such as we see at the surface today I would assume, and composed of a mixture of sediments, nothing that would ever become a rock of the form found in the stratigraphic column..
And yes it could be quite different. The landscape does change over time. But not normally from one kind of sediment to another completely different sediment, with little or no mixture, in a form that could harden into a flat rock of the kind seen in the stratigraphic column, one on top of another all quite similar in form.
Deserts expand, the sea transgresses the land or regresses to expose areas which were underwater, glaciers roll across the landscape carving valleys and so on. None of which even begins to account for the form of the stratigraphic column.
Now I certainly can’t see anything preposterous there and Faith certainly hasn’t thought about it. Why would I think about something so utterly irrelevant to the stratigraphic column? Normal earth surface could not possibly ever become a stack of disparate sedimentary rocks, or even one flat sedimentary rock in such a stack, nor would burying it fifty miles deeo change its normal irregularity into a flat rock. It's you who haven't thought through the requirements of the task you seem to think you are describing.
I remember her question of where will the animals live? Which animals? The ones who used to live on the buried landscape and died long, long ago? The animals that are happily leaving on the then-present surface, who will be completely unaffected ? Now THAT is preposterous. Yes it is. But it has absolutely nothing to do with my question. You have to account for how a diferent sedimentary rock got laid on top of that deeply buried one but at the moment you've got a deep accumulation of who knows what between them, the lower parts of which must also have turned to rock on top of your original buried landscape, of a dfferent sediment or mix of sediments I would suppose and yet your buried rock has to be straight and flat and look like one of those in the stratigraphic column. And all that material has to erode away down to the straight flat surface of that buried rock in order for the next sedimentary rock to sit on top of it with nothing in between. You really are not thinking at all. The question about the animals had to do with the fact that they couldn't live ON a bare rock and that would have to occur at some time in this process you are describing, it's a phase that can't be escaped and in that phase you can't account for the animal life. You really are not thinking at.all. No fair hearing at all as I said .
Of course the fraction that Faith actually puts this forward when she doesn’t actually have any real criticism - or understanding of the view she calls preposterous is a pretty clear indication of how reliable her judgements are. Faith’s reaction to this is fairly predictable. But I can bet that the one thing it won’t involve is serious thought. It should. She should seriously think about just how much her own prejudices and lack of thought cause her to go so badly wrong. But she won’t Amazing. This level of mental incompetence is scary. The scariness is compounded further by the Cheer given it by Tanypteryx and the uncritical response by jar. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
The scariness is compounded further by the Cheer given it by Tanypteryx I'm glad you noticed. Every time you see me cheering when someone states the truth about you and points out your ignorance, it is really a thousand cheers. It is beyond amazing that you can't understand the simplest concepts of geology or any other science after all the time you have spent at EvC. We have the fossils. We win, again and again. CheersWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: As you know there are buried landscapes that are very far from flat. While the compression of lithification should reduce the relief somewhat, I’d expect only those landscapes that were flat when buried to remain flat. Even then, river channels, for instance are hardly rare. And don’t forget that high areas are typically subject to erosion rather than deposition. As most strata represent seabed rather than landscape this really is rather a silly question without actual examples.
quote: Likely because of the terrain features that you’re ignoring. The type of rock is also relevant, no doubt.
quote: As you should know from the discussion of Walther’s law, different environments produce different types of sediment. Although it should be pointed out that formations and even strata can contain multiple types of rock.
quote: Your assumptions about the geological record are wrong. And you really ought to know that by now.
quote: The sequences associated with transgression do exactly that, don’t they?
quote: I may be required to explain features of the actual geological record, which includes buried features like large monadnocks, canyons and riverbeds. But I am not required to explain your imaginary version of it. Perhaps you should have thought of that before making a fool of yourself.
quote: It is certainly associated with it - even in the recent quote where you suggest the land suddenly turning to rock while the creatures are living on it. But thanks for admitting that you have proposed truly preposterous arguments - that even you could have seen were preposterous, if you had bothered to think about it.
quote: Different sediments are not a problem, as you really ought to know. And no, the buried rock doesn’t have to be straight and flat because not all the real strata in the geological column are straight and flat.
quote: Amazing. Right after I explained exactly how it is escaped, after you admit that your argument was preposterous you repeat it! There is no bare rock in the scenario described. The material turning to rock is deeply buried - the pressure from the burial is an essential part of the process - and the present day surface is NOT deeply buried and NOT turning to rock. Now maybe your idea of a fair hearing requires me to believe idiotic falsehoods that I have just refuted, but unless it does you have no complaint here!
quote: You’ve just repeated a ridiculous falsehood that I had exposed as a ridiculous falsehood and complained that you weren’t getting a fair hearing because I didn’t believe it! Now THAT is mental incompetence. Disagreeing with your false assumptions is not (although I would love to see you try to explain why it is - am I meant to suppress knowledge that you don’t like or just lie for you ? Which is it?) In the end I must congratulate you for an attempting a reply - it is more than I expected of you, although the ridiculous final attack was exactly what I expected. Too bad for you that you didn’t bother to think things through properly and ended up embarrassing yourself badly - again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Again you absolutely failed to address the actual physical situation I'm talking about, denying essential features and missing the whole point. Never mind, I'm done here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024