|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So on your planet it is stupidand unfair to catch you telling obvious lies ? Please tell us about it. ABE
Message 1664 and this is the post where Faith admits that she CAN’T prove that the tectonic disturbances only occurred after all the strata were in place. And it was posted only a couple of weeks ago. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: No they are not. They claim that the Navajo Sandstone was a dune field during the Jurassic period. Every mention of Jurassic in the article:
The early Jurassic earthquake left its mark in the vast dunes that now form the famous red cliffs of Zion National Park in Utah,
In places like Navajo Canyon and the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, some of the disturbed layers have been attributed to Jurassic earthquakes.
The great Jurassic dune field covered an area of around 241,000 square miles (625,000 square kilometers) for about 15 million years, from between 192 million and 178 million years ago, researchers believe
Lenses of mud and limestone from playas (temporary lakes) and oases are common in the Navajo Sandstone, and helped preserve Early Jurassic dinosaur, plant and insect fossils and tracks in their mud deposits.
Loope said. "Everything has to be just right, and it was just right in the Jurassic in this particular part of Utah. You don't see layering this nicely preserved in modern dunes,"
In the Jurassic, western North America was bashed by fragmented volcanic arcs and microcontinents, sucked toward the continent by its subduction zone
And the sidebar
Sand pipes in the Navajo Sandstone are evidence of earthquakes during the Jurassic period, scientists say.
quote: The Navajo formation was sand dunes during (part of) the Jurassic period. That’s all they say. They don’t equate the time period and the rocks in any way that is at all silly. Now perhaps you can explain why you have spent years sneering at mainstream geology on that basis of an idiotic falsehood you invented ? Ignoring numerous corrections, too. And why you are trying to prop it up with an obvious misrepresentation. Let’s see you rationalise that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Funny how often you object to obvious truths. What I said was neither ad hoc or nonsense.
quote: In your ignorant opinion.
quote: Identifying sedimentary rick as formerly being sediment is hardly ludicrous, nor is identifying the nature of the deposits through study of the structure and composition. And of course that is hardly identifying rock with time.
quote: You can hardly debunk science by telling stupid lies. What does it say about youmthat you’ve been trying to do that for years ? Even when the lies have failed again and again ? And the best thing about this ? You can’t honestly whine about unfairness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You’ve already been exposed as resorting to misrepresentation to prop up a silly straw-man - and spouting incredibly obvious falsehoods in response (can you really believe that quoting the article to show that you misrepresented it can be considered ad hoc nonsense ?). It’s pretty obvious whose position is ridiculous. In fact it’s ridiculous to even think those things help your position. Before complaining that your arguments are unfairly treated just consider what ridiculous nonsense you do post - and try to defend when it is exposed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Just how stupid do,you think we are ? Can you really think that the quotes taken from the article were made up on the spot just to refute your assertions about what the article said? Can you expect anyone to believe that ?
quote: Oh, so you are going to try to pretend that the discussion was about something other than your misrepresentation of the article ? Just another example of your dishonesty. And, of course, what you say just isn’t true even then. The conclusions about the origins of the Navajo Sandstone are based on detailed study of the rock, which is something you have never done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Not on the spot when I quoted them either. In fact they were all written before you misrepresented the article. So, nothing as hoc at all.
quote: Which is quite irrelevant to your misrepresentation even if it wasn’t a silly falsehood.
quote: In your prejudiced opinion. I’ll stick with informed expert opinion backed by real evidence.
quote: You do realise that the things you make up are usually wrong, don’t you? And let’s go over the main point again. You misrepresented the article, pretending that it supported your idiotic straw-man. The quotes demonstrate that. Calling them ad hoc nonsense is just a silly lie - they are evidence of what the article says, and they were written before you tried to misrepresent the article. Trying to change the subject with objections to the content of the article would be dishonest attempt to avoid the issue even if you had a good basis for objecting. And you don’t. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: As Edge shows we have evidence Message 2311 while you have things you make up. Apparently things you make up are evidence, while actual facts are imaginative conjurings.
quote: The order of the fossil record is fact. The existence of fossils that are anatomically intermediate between groups that creationists say are unrelated is a fact. The lack of the evidence that should be produced by your imaginative scenario about the tilting of the Grand Canyon Suoergroup - which Edge points out - is a fact. I could go on. But the fact is that we have the real evidence while you make things up. But then this is just a standard Creationist strategy. And it is proof that Creationism is a lie and a fraud. Obviously you know that what you are doing is wrong. That is the whole point of falsely accusing us of doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And by the same standard, so do you. The Bible has no mention of Flood geology, doesn’t have waves racing around the planet throughout the Flood, doesn’t even have your idea of kind in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It is true that if they’d realised that Genesis wasn’t literally accurate and stopped trying to fit the evidence to it, we’d have been spared a lot of unBiblical weirdness. But the same is true of modern creationists - and you especially.
quote: Yawn. Look Faith we get that you are a lying hypocrite. What you don’t get is that we don’t see it as a reason to believe you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So? I’m supposed to automatically agree with you?
quote: That’s obviously false since the Bible doesn’t provide an adequate explanation. That’s why you have to produce your unBiblical weirdness.
quote: That only makes it more of a joke. You really should learn to understand what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, he wasn’t. You’re just making a big fuss about your strange interpretation of what he said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Every valid dating method shows that the Earth is older than YEC says.
The radiometric dating methods all have a solid basis in science - that even you would call science. There is no sensible reason to think that any one of them would regularly produce the vastly-inflated dates that YECs must assume it does. And if it did, that it would do produce dates consistent with the expectations of geologists is less likely still. In itself that possibility is hardly worth considering. If we had only one of the various radiometric dating methods we might worry that is was not as good as we thought it was, but we would still have very, very strong grounds to reject YEC. That multiple independent radiometric dating methods should do this - and produce consistent dates - is far, far less likely. Add in the fact that other independent methods with lower ranges still show that the Earth is much older than YEC allows. And the less accurate estimates made by earlier geologists are still good enough to conclude that the Earth is old. Astronomy reveals a universe that is even older. We can safely say that it is virtually impossible that the Earth is young. As a scientific conclusion that is as firm as anything you will find. There is no reasonable evidence that the Earth is young. There is no reasonable possibility that the Earth is young. Based on dating methods alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Nobody says that the rocks ARE time periods Faith. That’s just something you made up.
quote: In your opinion. And your opinion is worthless. As you demonstrated in the very first sentence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Nobody else is saying it because it is literally insane.
quote: I get the impression that you made up some crazy nonsense and won’t admit that it’s idiotically wrong. The fact that you run away from explaining it is rather strong evidence in favour of my view and against yours.
quote: That is neither true nor relevant. Changing the subject rather than supporting your claim is proof that even you know it isn’t obvious. There are areas where we find the remains of landscapes but nobody thinks that was the landscape for an entire geological period. Nobody thinks that the erosion happened instantly - even to say that what we find is a snapshot of the surface as it was when deposition restarted would likely be an oversimplification, even if the processes leading to lithification are not considered. Even you admit that the surfaces where footprints are found were surfaces at one point and that animals were there.
quote: Do you really think that the Sahara desert is a slab of wet sediment on which nothing could possibly live? How about the Nile delta? The Florida Everglades ?
quote: You’re the only one that thinks that such a surface existed. So if the evidence says it doesn’t, you’re the one who is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You agree that you invented a crazy straw man ?
quote: The idea that rocks are time periods is not a part of geology. It’s just stupid nonsense you made up. We don’t avoid noticing it any more than we avoid noticing that you are the AntiChrist. Even if you think you are.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024