|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world. By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion? The logic that says the strata and their contents were created by the Flood. Everything in the strata is evidence of the pre-Flood world. We could learn a lot about the original Creation by studying those things in that context. Unfortunately they are absurdly misinterpreted to be evidence of fantastical time periods that didn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
You said the world is wrecked, but quite obviously it is not, aside from man-made damage. You're just saying something absurd and ridiculous to divert attention away from all the other things you've recently said that you cannot support.
Responding to a few things you said in your post:
Faith writes: 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,... Take away the flora and fauna and you're left with dirt. So you're talking about dirt? What's wrecked about dirt?Remove the dirt and you're left with rock. What's wrecked about rock? ...the tumble-down broken up desolate look of so much of the world. Perhaps you could present a few images?
Piles of gravel,... Granted not a thing of beauty, but wrecked?
...rocks in the surf,... Some of the most spectacularly beautiful and dramatic photos are of rocks in the surf:
...amorphous shapes,... You mean like these:
This all hit me about ten years ago or maybe more. My sympathies.
If you don't see it I'm not going to argue with you. See what? You haven't presented any images or even described what you're talking about. All we know so far is that you think the world is wrecked and that if we don't see it then that's just tough patooties for us. As I said before, back up your words - show us the view out one of your windows and show us how it's a wrecked world out there.
I know what I'm talking about is my own impression and it's hardly typical. Yes, it is very much your own impression, but maybe not so untypical. Have you considered that possibly you're depressed? You replied to only 2 out of my last 7 messages, and of those 2 you barely addressed any of the points made. Basically you've responded to almost nothing. Not addressing points does not make them go away. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
t? You haven't presented any images or even described what you're talking about. Oh but I did. Here's Message 717 in its entirety;
I keep getting these new desktop images thanks to Windows 10, I suppose most people do, and a lot of them are scenes of rocky beaches and that sort of thing. Today's is a lighthouse on a giant rock somewhere. These images often have a desolate feeling to me although I think they are supposed to evoke the beauty of nature. Your avatar has you, I assume that's you, overlooking a vast desert like place, yes? Same kind of feeling about the environment. These and many similar images of planet Earth have come to speak loudly of the Flood to me. Waste spaces, uninhabitable places, what's left after a huge catastrophe destroyed the world. Badlands are an example, but also the interesting ones like the hoodoos, the buttes of Monument Valley, the Grand Staircase, the Grand Canyon. All of it speaks to me of something that was formerly perfect now ruined. All the geological phenomena you study seem to have that characteristic of some form of wreckage. There is often still beauty in these things, but I've come to think that we're looking at the devastated remains of what must originally have been a spectacular beauty and order now utterly lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Surely it is clear that to get from one species to another would require lots and lots of transitionals and lots and lots and lots of trial and error before the right combinations show up, and this would have to happen increment by increment. Just what the FUCK are you babelling on about? Just what fucking stupid ideas are you trying to advance???????????????????????????????????????? "trial and error" Just what the frickin', frackin', fuck' are you babbling about with all your idiocy? You want transitionals? GO TO THE FUCKING LIBRARY!!! It's all there and has been for all the years that you have spent on this forum denying reality and even much longer than that!
... and lots and lots and lots of trial and error ... Just what the hell is that utterly stupid shit? No, features evolved because they evolved. Nothing came about through "trial and error", but rather because they evolved, you stupid twit. Faith, you have absolutely no clue what evolution is nor how it works. You are completely and utterly clueless. As such, you are consigned to the complete and utter idiots littering the sewerways. Content hidden. Childish rant with no real content. A substantial lack of "niceness". A substantial amount of "asshole". Official "You are in danger of getting suspended again" warning. Or something like that. Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Toxic message hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: 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. It isn't that I don't want to. It's that you haven't responded to most of what I've said, not just today but throughout the thread and across all threads where we've discussed anything. Saying that you've ignored whole swathes of evidence and arguments would be understating things by quite a bit. Convince me you're going to discuss any image presented rather than just dismissing 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. What you mean is that you have no answers, but you can't admit that, so you have to invent some problem that casts the blame elsewhere. We should have a list of Faith's best hits, all the most ridiculous reasons you've concocted about why all your shortcomings are someone else's fault. I hope you're enjoying these little off topic diversions you keep introducing.
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; Of course this is true, but... First, you didn't quote me from the message you're replying to but from a different message. And second, what you quoted is just a summary of a more detailed argument from just a couple paragraphs earlier in that message (Message 751). But I bet we can all safely assume that you're not the kind of person who would ignore detailed arguments on purpose, that you're a person of such honesty and integrity that you will go back and find the detailed argument and post a reply to that. Nah, just kidding. But hey, surprise me.
and if there is some sign of erosion there but not a different sediment that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either; I don't know what you're drinking, but same sediment or not, if there was erosion then there couldn't possibly have been continuous deposition. They're opposites and mutually exclusive. At any given spot if one is taking place then the other definitely is not. While erosion is occurring then deposition definitely is not, so evidence of erosion is also evidence against continuous deposition.
and if there is some portion of a different kind of sediment there that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either. True. Look, Faith, the world is a big place with a long history, and every type of erosional and depositional sequence can be found in strata somewhere. In some cases the deposition is continuous across strata (e.g., Tapeats/Bright Angel/Muav, which is the Tonto Group), and in other cases it is not (Supai/Hermit).
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. You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. Once again, from Message 758 that you didn't reply to (if you want shorter messages don't ignore my posts and force me to repeat arguments): Your claim is that strata deform as a unit, except for angular unconformities. So we have this sequence of strata that form a unit and that has no angular unconformities. In your flood scenario this corresponds to after all the strata have been deposited but before the tectonic deformations have begun. These strata are a unit and must deform together:
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile down deform by tilting, and the layers above it do not deform. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit. But this is wrong (i.e., this is a proof by contradiction) since we know that strata must deform as a unit. Therefore it's not possible that only the strata from Sixtymile down tilted, and angular unconformities cannot be an exception. And if you still insist that angular unconformities are an exception to the rule that strata deform as a unit, then by the logic above that's the same as saying, "Strata deform as a unit, except when they don't." That's arbitrary and useless. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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? The logic that says the strata and their contents were created by the Flood. There's no logic in that sentence. That's a bald declaration.
Everything in the strata is evidence of the pre-Flood world. That's another bald declaration.
We could learn a lot about the original Creation by studying those things in that context. Unfortunately they are absurdly misinterpreted to be evidence of fantastical time periods that didn't exist. More bald declarations. We know you've got your little opinions, but you're unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale. And declaring sometime to be logic doesn't make it so. So once again, by what logic do you conclude that pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world, i.e., are evidence that any such thing as a pre-Flood world ever existed. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith, Message 717 is just your subjective impressions. You say the world is wrecked, but you have not presented any images of where the world is wrecked, nor have you described any places where the world is wrecked. If you claim that for you deserts and badlands and hoodoos and buttes are wrecked landscapes then no one would deny that you feel this way, but these are subjective impressions. I think very few would agree with you, and there's no objectivity in the assessment anyway.
Do you have any place in the world that we can see has been wrecked rather than is just a result of the natural environment? If so, what is it? I agree that places like this are desolate:
But wrecked? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes it's my subjective impression, so what? I'm giving my subjective impression that the planet shows that it has been wrecked by a worldwide disaster. I described my impression. If you don't see it you don't see it. Forget it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes all the fossils in the strata could possibly show us something about the world before the Flood because the Flood put them there. I've given the evidence for the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Yes it's my subjective impression, so what? So can this be the last we hear about a wrecked world? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know. "Subjective" doesn't mean "false" you know. Perhaps others will see it as I see it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Yes all the fossils in the strata could possibly show us something about the world before the Flood because the Flood put them there. That's a bald declaration.
I've given the evidence for the Flood. That may be your subjective impression, but you really haven't. This is just another of your bad habits, claiming you've already provided evidence when you haven't. If you had evidence you'd be arguing the evidence instead of doing the Faith dodge. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I don't know. "Subjective" doesn't mean "false" you know. Perhaps others will see it as I see it. This is a science thread. Objectivity, evidence and rational arguments. If you want to argue the world is wrecked then give wrecked a clear definition so that we assess the real-world evidence and determine if the world is really wrecked. If you can't manage objective arguments based upon evidence and well defined terms then you should drop it. What else you should do is address all the counters to your views that have been made recently. Ignoring posts or clicking the reply button and typing a few words is pitiful. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've argued the evidence on many threads, including this one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
As i’ve pointed out before according to your ideas the things that give you the impression of a wrecked planet didn’t even come from wrecking the planet.
To call them evidence thst the planet was wrecked, then, is simply false.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024