|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
It's sad when someone, either through ignorance, incompetence or design, makes it impossible to move a discussion forward. Such is the case here where you repeat your original argument (and only part of it) from scratch, with no acknowledgement of, let alone any reply to, the rebuttal:
Faith writes: I'm talking about contacts where there is no visible sign whatever of a layer that is assumed to have been there and eroded away based on belief in the Time Scale and not based on actual evidence. Perhaps you'd like to tell us about your "actual evidence," because we've certainly told you about ours, over and over again. When there are no signs of erosion then evidence for unconformities comes from either a jump in time as indicated by indicator fossils, or by actual radiometric dating when possible, or by out-of-sequence strata (e.g., sandstone overlying limestone).
If there is some of that layer present that's a different situation. An exmple would be the Temple Butte Formation, which has an off and on presence between the Muav Limestone and the overlying Redwall Limestone. See the "Muav Limestone/Redwall Limestone" entry I just added to Message 723 upon discovering this information in Wikipedia.
Why are you going on about this? I'm not going on about unconformities with little or no evidence of erosional cutting. Had you read the conclusion of Message 723 you would know that because it notes that five (now six with the additional information I found) of these unconformities are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible. Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence. Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited. To repeat this in list form to help insure the information gets across this time:
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
An unconformity is a buried erosional or non-depositional surface separating two rock masses
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You should have read on
In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger
Or more sensibly you should have realised that the definition is consistent with erosion being present at every example Percy mentioned, and so doesn’t help your case at all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
That you have a complete lack of evidence is made clear when you argue like this:
Faith writes: Nobody has a clue what the preFlood world actually was like so I can't possibly be saying exactly WHAT was ruined,... If you have no clue, no evidence, of what the preFlood world was like, how do you know anything was ruined?
...all I know is that this world looks like a gigantic wreck. The world exists in all states of condition. Here are some particularly nice ones:
What parts of the world look like wrecks to you? Especially the Nevada desert that you criticize has great beauty:
Why do you think the world is wrecked? Is the concept of natural beauty lost on you? I'm lucky - I sit in my family room or study or back porch and look out on a beautiful forest that extends for miles (not without its clusters of houses) with squirrels and chipmunks and turkeys and the very occasional quail and birds and deer and fishers and hedgehogs and snakes and toads and tree frogs and the very occasional bear and changing seasons and snow and sleet and rain. Sometimes during a violent thunderstorm we'll sit on the back porch while the rain pours down amidst cracks of thunder and great bolts of lightning - beautiful and wondrous. Here's the view out my family room window:
Back up your words - show us the view out one of your windows and show us how it's a wrecked world out there. Since you have no idea what the preFlood world looked like, how can you draw any comparison of the world today with the world preFlood?
That's all I'm saying. The strata are a clue to the Flood that did it,... There is no evidence of a global flood in the strata, which appear to be the result of the same geologic processes we see in operation around the world today.
...there is no evidence left anywhere of what the original Creation was really like since all its parts have been scattered. But scattered doesn't mean non-existent. We've explored a fair amount of the world. Don't you think we'd have come across some of these scattered remnants of the preFlood world by now if they existed? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
SHOW ME THE EROSION. PICTURES PLEASE.
CLAIMS OF EROSION ARE THEORETICAL AND NOT REAL IN SOME CASES, PERHAPS ALL..
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Beautiful foliage covers a multitude of geological sins.
As it were.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world. By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Ignoring the rebuttal and simply repeating her original assertion unchanged has become a Faith hallmark. Here we see it again about angular unconformities:
Faith writes: Faith says that units deform as a block, but then breaks her own rule by claiming the layers from the Sixtymile down tilted by themselves independently of the rest of the unit from the Tapeats up. Clearly she has no coherent definition of a unit. Nonsense. You forget I've excepted angular unconformities. Your claim is that strata deform as a unit. But you also assert this sequence of events that contradict that claim:
For example, we have this sequence of strata that form a unit:
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile downward tilt, and the layers above it do not tilt. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit. There's the dictum that you can have your own opinion but not your own facts, and I'd like to add another. You can't reach any valid conclusions without valid logic. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
When someone refuses to respond to substance and just makes baseless accusations, that's a pretty strong indication that they have no counters to the arguments. Nothing you say has anything to do with your topic, you're just lashing out at people who are pointing out the problems with your views. Let's examine your content-free post bit by bit:
Faith writes: Well I read enough of your post to know I have no interest in answering any of it. Because why? I responded to most of the points in your long Message 681. Didn't you make these points to see how people would respond? Well, I responded, so why do you have no interest in posting a response back? The answer is that you don't really have evidence or arguments and that you're just playing a game. Distracting attention away from the topic is what you do when your chain of illogic and absence of evidence runs into a yet another dead end.
I'm at the point where I sometimes repeat some things because I don't want them to get lost... Actually, you've been at the point for some years where you're only capable of repeating what you've said dozens of times before, always as if they were new points that had never been rebutted when the reality is that they've been rebutted dozens of times.
...but otherwise disagree with so much of the nonsense...even in the teeth of the craziness here. If what we were saying were truly nonsense then you would show that it was nonsense by showing its lack of correspondence to real-world evidence or the lack of rational arguments. But you can't do that, so you do this instead.
...here I don't have any interest in addressing it any more except for that purpose, to keep certain ideas on the table that I take seriously... Why do you take seriously ideas that have no evidential support? Why are you attempting naturalistic explanations for supernatural events, especially when you have no knowledge of or intuition for science? Even if such were possible, you're precisely the wrong person to be attempting this.
Every now and then I may have something more to say. Well, that's not true. After you successfully derail one line of discussion you always have more to say.
Meanwhile sorry but that's the way it is these days. Your ill behavior spans far more than just "these days." It has been your modus operandi for years. So did you enjoy this little response to your digression from the topic? A response that would never have occurred had you stuck to the topic instead of abusing those you're debating with? Here are the points you didn't respond to summarized in list form:
I predict either no reply, or a reply of one or two sentences per point. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: An unconformity is a buried erosional or non-depositional surface separating two rock masses How is this a rebuttal to anything I said? I'll once again summarize my points in list form:
I again predict no reply, or replies of one or two sentences per point. I guess another possibility is an off-topic reply about some made-up complaint. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Shouting is never a good sign, usually a strong sign that one finds oneself boxed in:
Faith writes: SHOW ME THE EROSION. PICTURES PLEASE. You've been shown plenty in the past - before I make the effort to dig these images out I would need some substantial assurances from you that you'll respond in an honest fashion and discuss rather than dismiss them.
CLAIMS OF EROSION ARE THEORETICAL AND NOT REAL IN SOME CASES, PERHAPS ALL. So just to be clear, you're saying that all this text at the USGS website is "theoretical and not real":
How are these "theoretical and not real"? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Beautiful foliage covers a multitude of geological sins. What is a "geological sin"? Can I guess that it has nothing to do with science? There isn't a lot of foliage in these beautiful landscapes from your neck of the woods:
How about some photos from you of the wrecked parts of our planet? Even if you start with the badlands of South Dakota you'll have a hard time making these erosional structures look like wreckage. Want to see something wrecked? Try this image of the Aral Sea:
If you want wreckage just look to man, not nature. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
'tis the Myth of Sisyphus made fact.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you don't see what I see, so be it, but I see it just about everywhere I look, and it's all geology, not plant life. Lucky you to have such a view out your window but trees and ferns and vines and flowers are welcome camouflage for what I'm talking about, the tumble-down broken up desolate look of so much of the world. Piles of gravel, rocks in the surf, amorphous shapes, etc. This all hit me about ten years ago or maybe more. If you don't see it I'm not going to argue with you. I know what I'm talking about is my own impression and it's hardly typical.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Six of the unconformities in the Paleozoic layers of the Grand Canyon are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible. Show me one picture. If you don't want to I can live without it. I can't keep up with your voluminous posts anyway that have half a zillion weird misrepresentations and other problems I'd need to answer.
Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence. If there isn't any sign of erosion but just a contact line that doesn't disprove continuous deposition; and if there is some sign of erosion there but not a different sediment that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either; and if there is some portion of a different kind of sediment there that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either.
Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited. As I've said umpteen times they are the only exception to that rule. But the fact that they are the ONLY exception rather confirms the rule. And I have an explanation for them that confirms it further. 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