Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2255 of 2887 (831846)
04-25-2018 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2254 by Faith
04-25-2018 1:07 AM


Re: Geological Column also known as Stratigraphic Column
quote:
I guess the problem is just that you all live on some other planet.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2254 by Faith, posted 04-25-2018 1:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 2286 of 2887 (831907)
04-27-2018 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2285 by Faith
04-27-2018 9:25 AM


Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
In other words this article is identifying the Jurassic, a time period, with the Navajo sandstone, a rock, as if they were one and the same. Anyone want to try to rationalize this? L
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:
Let's hear just what relation you all think the rocks bear to the time period. I'll try not to burst out laughing.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2285 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 9:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2288 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 10:30 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 2305 by jar, posted 04-27-2018 8:21 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2290 of 2887 (831911)
04-27-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2288 by Faith
04-27-2018 10:30 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Your corrections are all a bunch of ad hoc nonsense.
Funny how often you object to obvious truths. What I said was neither ad hoc or nonsense.
quote:
There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists.
In your ignorant opinion.
quote:
Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock.
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:
I hope eventually this ridiculous imposition on the human mind is absolutely and totally debunked.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2288 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 10:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2291 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 11:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2293 of 2887 (831914)
04-27-2018 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2291 by Faith
04-27-2018 11:10 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Oh you probably believe your stuff, but I believe mine. Some day yours will be exposed as ridiculous. I hope soon of course.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2291 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 11:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2294 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 11:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 2295 of 2887 (831917)
04-27-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2294 by Faith
04-27-2018 11:46 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
It's ad hoc whether you say it or the article says it.
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:
All made up to fit the ridiculous "landscape" interpretation of what is only now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2294 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 11:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2296 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 12:28 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 2297 by jar, posted 04-27-2018 12:30 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2300 of 2887 (831924)
04-27-2018 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2296 by Faith
04-27-2018 12:28 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Not "on the spot" NOW,
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:
but still made up out of nothing because there is no justification at all for the "landscape" or time period interpretation of the rocks.
Which is quite irrelevant to your misrepresentation even if it wasn’t a silly falsehood.
quote:
nOTHING happened during the "Jurassic" period because there was no Jurassic period
In your prejudiced opinion. I’ll stick with informed expert opinion backed by real evidence.
quote:
If sand pipes indicate earthquakes they occurred after the whole geologic/stratigraphic column was laid down.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2296 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 12:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2315 of 2887 (831948)
04-28-2018 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2303 by Faith
04-27-2018 6:28 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
You don't have evidence, that's the point I keep making, you have a lot of imaginative conjurings. Apparently you all don't know the difference.
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:
Facts are facts and we share those but the Old Earth interpretations are not scientifically valid, just one speculative guess on top of another called science, big big shuck.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2303 by Faith, posted 04-27-2018 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2322 of 2887 (831958)
04-28-2018 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2318 by Faith
04-28-2018 2:08 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
The early geologists made up stuff that was patently unbiblical among other things.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2318 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 2:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2328 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 10:02 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2326 of 2887 (831963)
04-28-2018 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2324 by Faith
04-28-2018 3:26 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Those who knew the Bible wouldn't have believed their nonsense, but you could be right that I too wouldn't have been in a position to know it. Doesn't change the fact that what they believed was certainly unbiblical and if they'd been true to the Bible we might have been spared a lot of other kinds of weirdness.
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:
What's really really hard for you guys to grasp is that the "old ways of thinking" are exactly what the ToE and Old Earthism perpetuate. Because the historical sciences are nothing but wild imagination.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2324 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 3:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2330 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 10:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2332 of 2887 (831972)
04-28-2018 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2330 by Faith
04-28-2018 10:10 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
That is the exact opposite of what I said
So? I’m supposed to automatically agree with you?
quote:
They did NOT trust Genesis and that was the problem. If they HAD realized that Genesis is literally true and started explaining the observed evidence by what it says, THAT's when we'd have been apared the unbiblical weirdness
That’s obviously false since the Bible doesn’t provide an adequate explanation. That’s why you have to produce your unBiblical weirdness.
quote:
And I'm very serious in saying that the historical sciences (Old Earth Geological Timescale and the ToE) are the "old style of thinking" and not modern science.
That only makes it more of a joke. You really should learn to understand what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2330 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 10:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2333 of 2887 (831973)
04-28-2018 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2331 by Faith
04-28-2018 10:14 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Oh get off it NN. Coyote was misusing the term "belief.
No, he wasn’t. You’re just making a big fuss about your strange interpretation of what he said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2331 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 10:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 2350 of 2887 (831998)
04-28-2018 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2339 by Faith
04-28-2018 11:01 AM


The reality of dating
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2339 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 11:01 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2352 by edge, posted 04-28-2018 7:14 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 2357 by Pollux, posted 04-28-2018 8:29 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2372 of 2887 (832033)
04-29-2018 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2360 by Faith
04-28-2018 8:44 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
It's a ROCK in a STACK OF ROCKS, it's not a "time period.
Nobody says that the rocks ARE time periods Faith. That’s just something you made up.
quote:
If there is evidence of an earthquake in those rocks it did not occur in that "time period" because there is NO Jurassic time period.
In your opinion. And your opinion is worthless. As you demonstrated in the very first sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2360 by Faith, posted 04-28-2018 8:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2376 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 3:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2377 of 2887 (832043)
04-29-2018 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2376 by Faith
04-29-2018 3:38 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
Of course nobody thinks of them that way. I'm the one saying that's what's really going on here
Nobody else is saying it because it is literally insane.
quote:
I get the impression nobody has thought about it at all because if anyone did think about it I don't see how it could be avoided and the absurdity should become apparent.
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:
Many have clearly said they picture the whole time period landscape on the site of the rock itself; others come along and deny it though how they could avoid that idea I can't fathom, and in any case what they think they think is not at all clear.
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:
But on a rock that covers most of North America, for instance, thinking it through back to the supposed time period has a flat thick layer of wet sediment where the rock now is, and even if it supposedly took aeons of time to form, the thing is ONLY a flat wet layer of sediment that nothing could live on and that displaces any possible living surface.
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:
If such a surface existed anywhere during any of that period it doesn't show up in the massive thick single-sediment rock that now represents it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2376 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 3:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2378 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 4:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2379 of 2887 (832052)
04-29-2018 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2378 by Faith
04-29-2018 4:31 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
quote:
I agree
You agree that you invented a crazy straw man ?
quote:
Sad to say but this centerpiece of historical geology is indeed literally insane, and yes I'm sure that's why people avoid noticing it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2378 by Faith, posted 04-29-2018 4:31 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