Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1067 of 2887 (829207)
03-04-2018 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1064 by Faith
03-04-2018 1:10 PM


Re: all the same
Cross beds are not part of the form, they are a detail related to the sediment which has nothing to do with the form. The whole point here is that I know the Coconino and the Navajo were and are not dunes because they had to be deposited in the same way as all the other strata of other sediments were because of their identical form.
Ignoring evidence and making up fantasy characters like "form" destroys your "paradigm" again.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by Faith, posted 03-04-2018 1:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by Faith, posted 03-04-2018 1:21 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1139 of 2887 (829318)
03-06-2018 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1133 by Percy
03-05-2018 8:38 PM


Re: Just a few pictures
Tanypteryx didn't reply for some reason, so let me give it a try.
I apologize for dropping out of the conversation. That was kind of the first time I have been active in a while. I have a pinched nerve in my lower back and so was having to lay flat and not do much for a few days. Then it started getting better and I had to get back to my current photomicrography research project and make up for the days I missed. Today I spent too much time shooting and sitting at the computer and my back is giving me fits again.
Sometimes Faith's responses seem completely incoherent and I just feel it is futile to carry on with her. Her denial of the implications of the crossbedding in the Navajo when we can all see it in the photos is totally daft.
Faith in Message 1064 writes: writes:
Cross beds are not part of the form, they are a detail related to the sediment which has nothing to do with the form. The whole point here is that I know the Coconino and the Navajo were and are not dunes because they had to be deposited in the same way as all the other strata of other sediments were because of their identical form-- meaning their straight flat form.
And then there is stuff like this....
Faith in Message 1079 writes: writes:
Yes that's one place the Navajo sandstone didn't form in the geologic column. There are many other places where it also didn't.
Her self contradictions are mind boggling, over and over and over............
You did a great job answering her, but she says she doesn't read it, how sad for her.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1133 by Percy, posted 03-05-2018 8:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 1165 of 2887 (829373)
03-06-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1156 by Faith
03-06-2018 11:37 AM


Re: Another line of evidence
Well, if a given formation is said to be such and such millions of years old in its present form
Oh good grief, when the age of a formation is given, they are not talking about the present form. They are talking about when those sediments were deposited, not when they started eroding. In many cases erosion does not occur until millions of years after deposition.
The sediments are deposited. More sediments are deposited covering the first sediments deeply. The first sediments are slowly turned to rock by the heat and pressure of being buried deeply.
Eventually, the overlying sediments are eroded away exposing the first sediments, now turned to rock. The hardness of the rock is determined by the type of material, the depth it was buried and the length of time it was buried.
If we take the case of Monument Valley, we know there were sedimentary layers not only filling all the space between the buttes, but deeply above the level of all the buttes. We know this because that is the only way the buttes could be turned to stone.
Erosion has removed all the sediments that deeply buried the layers in and between the buttes. Then, erosion removed the material that was between the buttes. Now we have a large area with a few tall remnants of those layers in the form of buttes and spires that are continuing to slowly erode and that are surrounded by talus slopes of material that has fractured from the cliffs.
The present form of Monument Valley is not the form that was deposited. It is the result of millions of years of erosion that removed all that other material.
In the case of the hoodoos at Bryce, the hoodoos were not deposited in their present form. They were deposited as a layer which was not buried as deeply, or for as long and made of softer material so it erodes more rapidly than what we see in areas like Monument Valley or the GC. The material is eroding unevenly, leaving the hoodoos. There is no river eroding this material, rather it is chemical and mechanical weathering, mainly from snow and rainfall runoff. Rather than a real canyon it is more the side of a soft plateau being carried away.
So if one formation dates to, say, the Cretaceous period which dates from 145 mya to 65 mya but its rate of erosion would have disintegrated it within thousands of years, or even give it ten million if you want, it simply is not as old as they say it is, and if it isn't that old neither is the Cretaceous period. If the formation has been clearly clearly dated by its sediment or its fossils or its placement in the geological column, the whole time scale system falls apart.
To clarify once again, the dates assigned to formations are the dates the sediments were deposited, not the date they begin eroding. Then they had to be buried deeply by more sediments for millions of years and turned to stone, Then the sediments burying them have to be eroded away, Then, millions of years after those particular sediments were deposited erosion begins removing material from the formation.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by Faith, posted 03-06-2018 11:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1167 by Faith, posted 03-06-2018 1:14 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1269 of 2887 (829587)
03-10-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Faith
03-09-2018 10:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit
Do you have a reference that that says what that light ~1 inch light band is? Does it make any difference to your argument if the cantact is at the top of the light band or at the bottom of the light band or actually is the ~1 inch light band?
I can tell you that the 1 inch band is lighter than the material above and below it. The same light illuminating it is also illuminating the whole wall, so there is nothing about the light that is effecting that thin layer and making it look brighter.
But I was saying that the reason the contact is a darker fine line than the surrounding rock is that we're seeing the shadow that is IN the contact.
I don't know what you mean by IN the contact, but guess you mean the shadow is falling across the contact line.
And I can tell you don't get it, you don't get any of this and I guess nobody is going to straighten you out about it, nothing surprising there, but I'm tired of being the butt of your failures of comprehension.
Is it your superiority at reading photographs of strata that tells you that the thin bright band is not the contact or is it based on someone else's analysis? If the former, then surely you can tell us why the band looks different and as I already said, it is not because of lighting, it is caused by what minerals make up that band.
No, if you still think the contact is an inch thick or that the lighter band beneath the contact doesn't belong to the Hermit, you are not getting it and I am not interested in discussing any of this with you.
So, is there some principle of stratiography that says the contact cannot be an inch thick? What is it that convinces you that the light band belongs to the Hermit?

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Faith, posted 03-09-2018 10:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1270 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:51 AM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 1277 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 11:13 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 1271 of 2887 (829589)
03-10-2018 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1270 by Faith
03-10-2018 12:51 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
No there is no rule that says a contact cannot be an inch thick, but follow the discussion: this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.
I was following the discussion and you still didn't say how you know "the important thing is that is not the contact, the fine line is the contact." Why is that the important thing? How do you know?
this contact line in this particular section of the GC is pointed out for its extreme tightness which wouldn't be the case if it were an inch thick.
So, a 1 inch thick layer could never ever be considered a tight contact in a canyon that is thousands of feet deep? Really? Are you daft?

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1270 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1272 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 1:39 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 1280 of 2887 (829611)
03-10-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1274 by Faith
03-10-2018 9:41 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
You're all so afraid it might be used to justify the Flood you can't even recognize the simple fact that the contact is indeed "knife-edge tight."
Ok, the contact is tight, so what?
How does that "justify" the flood?
How does flood water deposit multiple layers, some with knife-edge thin contacts and some with thicker blurred contacts?
How does any flood deposit randomly alternating bands of completely different sediments?
If the flood was worldwide and the land was all one continent, as you have many times asserted, why aren't the sequence of layers the same everywhere?
How does a flood deposit fossils that are increasing different from modern organisms the more deeply they are buried?
How could any flood carry trillions of tons of sediment in suspension , enough to create miles deep rocks, on land, but not in the oceans?
These are all questions that you have failed to answer convincingly, but that geology and physics and other sciences answer incredibly well. All the observations fit together. There are no aspects of the evidence are ignored, all the details are considered and when questions arise science attempts to understand, not dismiss.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1274 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 9:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1282 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:28 PM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 1283 by jar, posted 03-10-2018 12:32 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1288 of 2887 (829619)
03-10-2018 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1278 by edge
03-10-2018 11:28 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Especially when those waves would consist of heavily sediment laden slurries. It staggers the imagination to think that sand could be so sorted from silt and clay to form formations, and that they all could be laid down evenly so as not to disturb the underlying sediments.
I have a hard time imagining how water could carry in suspension the volume of material to create layers of solid rock miles thick. There must be limits to the amount of solid material with particle sizes from clay to boulders that water can keep suspended no matter how turbulent.
We see what happens when really swift, turbulent rivers carrying lots of sediment reach any large body of water, turbulence is quickly reduced and the sediment begins falling out of suspension. Sediments eroded from the land are deposited in lakes and in the oceans relatively near shore, heaviest and densest closest and lightest furthest from shore.
Trying to imagine how this fantasy flood ended up redepositing the sediment that it scoured off the continents back on the continents and looking just like it had been deposited and eroded successively by transgressions and regressions of the sea over millions of years shows how absurd it is.
Any method of transport that could carry all of that sediment of all those sizes and composition would have to be so turbulent to mix all of the sediments and dump them at once in a chaos deposit.
"Chaos deposit" sums it up perfectly. If Faith's Fantasy Flood was true there should be a single Chaos Deposit layer worldwide, including in the ocean basins.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1278 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 11:28 AM edge has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 1289 of 2887 (829621)
03-10-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1287 by Faith
03-10-2018 12:48 PM


Re: Grand Canyon Panorama Project
So that's not erosion reducing the material to dust?
The idea about reducing a formation to dust is about how long it would take from its formation to be completely disintegrated.
It has been pointed out to you that erosion does not start with its formation because it is deeply buried when it becomes rock. The material that buried it must be eroded first. The burial and subsequent erosion of overlying material could take millions of years before the formation is completely disintegrated.
Don't you get it? The formation has to end up at the surface before erosion can start working on it. The Grand Canyon did not start eroding when the formations were deposited. The GC began eroding after the overlying material was eroded, and millions of years after the formations were deposited.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1287 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 12:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1290 by edge, posted 03-10-2018 1:24 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1293 by Faith, posted 03-10-2018 1:55 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1313 of 2887 (829676)
03-12-2018 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1310 by edge
03-11-2018 11:32 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
It's starting to look like there was some kind of seismic event or events, that liquified the base of the Coconino and caused injection into fractures forming in the Hermit near the Bright Angel Fault.
When you say the the base of the Coconino liquified, do you mean it changed behavior and started acting like a liquid due to earthquake vibration?
The crack formation and the presence of sandstone fragments (which I have not seen, but were mentioned) suggest that lithification was advanced in both units. It also seems to be telling us something about lithification of sandstones in that it can take quite a long time. For instance that might explain why a lot of the Mesozoic sandstones are not really all that hard.
Another question this brings to mind, can sandstone form relatively near the surface and without the extreme pressure that we normally see sedimentary rock being subject to? I am just trying to understand the lithification process that captures the cross bedding of sand dunes. Can water passing through the sand initiate a chemical reaction that results in a solid mineral matrix filling some of the space between sand graines?
As a landscape photographer I find myself drawn to places in the SW where crossdedded sandstone is exposed. I have not been to The Wave in Arizona but hope to some day. The places I have made it to offered endlessly varied patterns and textures, but new places are fun.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by edge, posted 03-11-2018 11:32 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1316 by jar, posted 03-12-2018 8:17 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1319 by edge, posted 03-12-2018 9:00 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1332 of 2887 (829716)
03-12-2018 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by herebedragons
03-11-2018 11:11 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
I think it is important to note the differences in thickness of the Hermit Formation at various locations around the region.
quote:
HERMIT FORMATION (LOWER PERMIAN)
The Hermit "shale" was named by Noble (1922, p. 26) for the red sandstones and siltstones lying between the Coconino sandstone and the Supai formation at Bass Trail. The designation "shale" to the unit is a misnomer, inasmuch as Noble (p. 28) in his description of the type section, used the term sandstone for the compact massive beds and "shale" for the thinly laminated soft beds, which are in reality fine-grained sandstones.
At Bass Trail the Hermit formation is 332 feet thick. At Kanab Canyon, 30 miles northwest of Bass Trail, it is 775 feet thick, according to a section measured by Walcott and compiled by Noble (1922, Pl. XIX). At South Hurricane Cliffs, approximately 32 miles southwest of Kanab Canyon, the formation is 933 feet thick. It decreases slightly in thickness westward and is approximately 700 feet thick at North Grand Wash Cliffs and Pakoon Ridge.
The upper contact of the Hermit formation with the Coconino sandstone is abrupt and is marked by a sharply defined line separating pink and gray sandstones from the conspicuously cross-bedded lower layers of the Coconino sandstone.
Emphasis mine.
This shows that this layer of sediment cannot be considered flat, level, parallel thickness, or uniform thickness in the Grand Canyon region and certainly not over thousands of square miles. When we look at surveys of many layers we find the same thing, evidence that we cannot judge the thickness, flatness, or levelness characters of these layers, over broad areas, based on what we see where they are exposed in cliffs within the Grand Canyon.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2018 11:11 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1334 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:02 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1336 of 2887 (829722)
03-12-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1333 by Faith
03-12-2018 2:59 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:
but just because some effects can be seen in those rocks doesn't mean that's when the event or phenomenon occurred.
Good grief! If the effects are only seen in certain layers that can only be used as evidence that something happened to only those layers where we see the effects. The lack of any effects in other layers cannot be used to show that the event effected those layers.
Faith writes:
Especially since the whole stack was built by the Flood and there's not really any "when" to any particular layer unless you're counting in hours or days.
They were not built by the flood. The evidence presented completely refutes your fantasy flood. There was no global flood, ever and the lack of a single "chaos layer" proves it.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1333 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 2:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1338 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:46 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1339 of 2887 (829725)
03-12-2018 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1334 by Faith
03-12-2018 3:02 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:
Flat and straight refers to the appearance of strata from a distance, has nothing to do with variations in thickness over thousands of square miles.
And yet, in the past you have erroneously extrapolated that appearance of flat and straight from a distance to imply those same features over thousands of square miles.
Faith writes:
The point as usual is that the apparance of flatness defies the idea of millions of years between layers.
How does the "appearance of flatness" from a distance defy the idea of millions of years between some layers? Some layers took millions of years to be deposited and some layers were exposed to erosion for millions of years before the next layer was deposited.
The flatness is an illusion of distance, but why would flatness be evidence against vast amounts of time?
We have shown measurement surveys where the thickness of layers varies greatly, so that shoots down your continued statements "that the flatness defies the the idea of millions of years between layers."

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1334 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 3:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1340 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 4:21 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1343 of 2887 (829730)
03-12-2018 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1340 by Faith
03-12-2018 4:21 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thick
Faith writes:
The flatness is seen up close too. Like the knife-edge contact.
Obviously, there are flat places and non-flat places. You keep thinking that some flat places represent all places.
Faith writes:
And ALL of the strata from Cambrian to Holocene have this flatness.
You have an odd definition of flatness. And no, ALL the strata from the Cambrian to the Holocene are not flat.
The hermit Formation is Lower Permian and is not flat.
quote:
At Bass Trail the Hermit formation is 332 feet thick. At Kanab Canyon, 30 miles northwest of Bass Trail, it is 775 feet thick, according to a section measured by Walcott and compiled by Noble (1922, Pl. XIX). At South Hurricane Cliffs, approximately 32 miles southwest of Kanab Canyon, the formation is 933 feet thick. It decreases slightly in thickness westward and is approximately 700 feet thick at North Grand Wash Cliffs and Pakoon Ridge.
The Navajo Sandstone is Middle Jurassic and is not flat. It varies from less than 300 feet thick to 2200 feet thick. UTAH GEOLOGIC LAYER THICKNESS MAP
Faith writes:
I don't know how anyone can look at some of the stratified mountains or hills where there is absolute straightness of strata with no disturbance whatever until the hill itself was carved out of the whole stack, and not just know that the layers are not millions of years apart from each other.
I would like to know how you can look at layers and tell anything about their ages or whether they have been disturbed or not.
You have it backwards, the canyons between the mountains and hills were carved out of the whole stack. I don't know how you can look at that and not see that it takes millions of years to erode away all that material.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1340 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1352 of 2887 (829740)
03-12-2018 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1350 by Faith
03-12-2018 10:43 PM


Re: THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
Faith writes:
HOW straight flat and tight is irrelevant; they've been there over four thousand years.
Wow! A twofer.....2 correct statements for the first time in this thread.
Flat and tight is irrelevant as evidence supporting your argument.
The layers have been there longer than 4000 years, 50,000 times longer than 4000 years.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1350 by Faith, posted 03-12-2018 10:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:24 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 1363 of 2887 (829760)
03-13-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1357 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:24 AM


Re: THESE ARE STRAIGHT STRATA
Faith writes:
The pictures show ORIGINALLY flat and straight and tight strata. About 4500 years ago. Yet a lot of them are STILL extremely straight and flat and tight.
Not so much. No photos from 4500 years ago. Not so much.
Faith in message 1348 writes:
Once I know the Flood happened and that the strata were the result I also know that whatever is found IN the strata was deposited by the Flood. How it happened I don't know and don't care once I know the Flood did it, and I do.
Faith in message 1351 writes:
Once you absolutely know something, having an open mind is stupid.
I'm through taking anything you say seriously. Your defense of your argument is increasingly incoherent and chaotic. And now we see that you are stuck and will never improve your mindset to see the glaring inconsistencies your fantasy creates.

What 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024