Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 9:15 AM
113 online now:
bluegenes, JonF, Meddle, Percy (Admin), RAZD (5 members, 108 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,200 Year: 13,806/21,208 Month: 3,288/3,605 Week: 74/556 Day: 25/49 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 1257 (787865)
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


Asgara has been pleading with us to take the discussion of strata off the thread about fossil order to another thread. I didn't find a thread in the Geology Forum that seemed like a good fit so I'm proposing another, with my lovely cartoon (from Message 380) as its theme:

Which got explained in Message 383 this way:

Faith writes:

What you don't get is that all those scenes you ascribe to various Time Periods are purely imaginary. The actual evidence is the surface of slabs of rock that are all stacked up. They are associated with Time Periods, whose supposed character is constructed out of some characteristics of the rock plus the flotsam within the rock, but the actual evidence is merely the rock and its superficial characteristics.

If you like you may draw some dinosaur footprints wherever indicated on the surface of a particular rock, some other fossilized impressions perhaps, or some ripple marks, burrow holes, raindrops etc. But the point is that the surface of these rocks is ALL you have to represent the actual surface of the Earth in the indicated Time Period. You have no mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. except as imaginary constructs you impose on these clues.

All you have is the relatively flat surface of sedimentary rocks. I'm going through this book about the Grand Canyon that led off the thread on AIG's view of the canyon, and of course it's full of drawings of the strata, all identified with the Time Period assigned to each. The surfaces of these strata cover enormous swaths of geography; they are the ONLY physical representation of the actual surface of the earth in the assigned time period, obviously a flattish rock surface with some markings on it, and NOTHING ELSE.

There is something very very wrong with this picture but you don't see it, do you? What you "see" is what you IMAGINE was there, not the strata themselves which is ALL that was there.

As usual what seems obvious to me is being fought tooth and nail by those who couldn't bear to see the Flood emerge as the actual explanation for the evidence, and that in a nutshell is what the argument at the other thread has been since I posted that cartoon.

There are lots of posts at the other thread I should try to answer starting about HERE so that's probably where I should start if and when this gets promoted.

Or maybe I should start by answering some in this OP, so it shouldn't be promoted until I get that done.

ABE: So let's start with HBD's in Message 473

The totally bizarre thing about this whole line of discussion is that it seems that Faith thinks that if the earth is old, as mainstream geology has determined, then we should see fully functional landscapes buried beneath loads of sediment.

No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks. This isn't expecting to see such a landscape, it is expecting to see that such a landscape was possible and finding out it wasn't, that it is nothing but a fiction.

But if the global flood story is true, we should see highly organized sediments and fossil sequences that are structured into discrete, systematic units. The logic of this is just completely dumbfounding. It is like saying that good drivers have lots of traffic violations, accidents and insurance claims while the lousy drivers have impeccable driving records. I am not sure there is any remedy for this contention.

HBD

Strange analogy and unrelated to my argument. The orderliness of the fossil record seems to be a problem for the Flood if that's where you start, but if you start by recognizing that the OE explanation is in fact physically impossible then there is nothing left but the Flood to explain the facts.

So far it should have been made clear that the great extent of the strata of the Geologic Column takes the place of any landscape inferred to have existed in each time period. If where there should be dinosaurs roaming there is only in reality a huge slab of rock (or a sea transgression etc) then dinosaurs simply could not have been roaming in that putative "time period." The time period is a fiction. The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep.

I think I'll stop there for now and get to the other posts after this gets promoted.

ABE: SECOND CARTOON REMOVED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T CONVEY WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO CONVEY.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-21-2016 10:47 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-22-2016 9:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 9:50 PM Faith has responded
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2016 11:05 PM Faith has responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 11:17 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 12:27 AM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2016 1:02 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2016 2:00 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 215 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2016 6:25 AM Faith has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3784
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2 of 1257 (787866)
07-21-2016 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


Evaluation in (slow) progress
I am looking at this topic.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3784
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 3 of 1257 (787867)
07-22-2016 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


I don't know where you got the above, but the worldly evidence, if you're intending it to represent the entire Earth, says that it's flat out (no pun intended) wrong.

But here comes the topic promotion.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:38 AM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3784
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 4 of 1257 (787869)
07-22-2016 9:23 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 5 of 1257 (787870)
07-22-2016 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks.

Perhaps you could argue for that point of view instead of just saying it.

So far, the geologists' take on geology seems perfectly sensible. They see what looks exactly like a lithified desert, they infer a desert. They see what looks exactly like a lithified floodplain, they infer a floodplain. They see what looks exactly like a lithified delta, they infer a delta. They see what looks exactly like a lithified savanna, they infer a savanna. They see what looks exactly like a lithified peat swamp, they infer a peat swamp.

So far it should have been made clear that the great extent of the strata of the Geologic Column takes the place of any landscape inferred to have existed in each time period.

The strata are the landscapes, lithified.

The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep.

The sediments (of the appropriate age) are the landscape they roamed on.

What is your bizarre, otherworldly alternative? Do you suppose that the dinosaurs lived on bare bedrock? What would they eat? Terrestrial life needs sediment for the plants to grow in. No sediment, no life. Maybe some lichen. Certainly no dinosaurs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8776
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 6 of 1257 (787871)
07-22-2016 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


Looking around today
Faith, all those landscapes that we see in the strata now are here today. Look at the Sahara- it will be (maybe) like the Navajo sandstone complete with footprints and an occasional camel fossil.

A mile from me is a pond. Slowly it is silting up as it is a low spot in the landscape. With luck it will be siltstone or mudstone someday complete with beaver, duck and turtle fossils.

I look at the local mountains. They will mostly not be a strata where they site. They are wearing down every year and may complete turn into marine sediments and strata in the arm of the Salish sea that is between me and them. Maybe some will remain and be engulfed in other sediments as has been described to you.

I look on the horizon and see a volcano. It has erupted in the past and will again. On the lava and ash from it trees grow. Eventually they will be embedded in the next ash fall or flooding from the Fraser river.

Around our airport there is a river delta. It has been lived on while it built up from millenia (after the ice left). There are hundreds of feet of muck there that will be another strata of rock someday.

Each of these is on it's way to being stata (rock) but right now it is a fine place to live. Of course, the biggest place making future strata is the bottom of the sea which is BIG and getting lots and lots of stuff dumped down there which piles up to make rock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 4:06 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 7 of 1257 (787872)
07-22-2016 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


While you try to figure out what your objection is, I'd like to ask whether it also applies to unlithified sediment. After all archaelogists digging down at a given site may (for example) find medieval artifacts, and then going deeper, Roman artifacts, and then deeper still, those from the Bronze Age ... are you going to tell us that this is "absurd", show us a cartoon of a Roman centurion peering out from under a layer of sediment and another cartoon showing that there were no trees or mountains during the days of the Roman Empire, and then claim that the Romans must have been buried by the Flood?

All geolgoists are doing is invoking the same processes as archaeologists, plus the fact that time and burial will bring about compaction, cementation, recrystallization, and so lithification.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28842
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 8 of 1257 (787873)
07-22-2016 11:33 PM


Faith's idea is just silly but good for a laugh or three
Faith writes:

No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks. This isn't expecting to see such a landscape, it is expecting to see that such a landscape was possible and finding out it wasn't, that it is nothing but a fiction.

Once again Faith is simply wrong.

Geologist, archeologists, botanists, paleontologists and even just those honest people who look at the evidence, at reality instead of juvenile caricatures and cartoons, have some clue about what is found in those layers and what really is found are fossilized spores of plants, seeds of plants, imprints of plants and leaves (which can even tell us what the temperatures were like), tracks of animals that moved across the landscapes in addition to fossil bones. In fact, there are far more examples of the various landscapes during the billions of years the Earth has existed than of the animals that roamed the landscapes.

Those slabs of rock show whether the location was under water, how fast the water was moving, what direction the water was moving, what lived in the water at that location and time. It tells us whether it was above water, wet or dry, hot or cold, forest or meadow or tundra or bog. It tells us how high it was and how low it was. And each of the layers tell the story of that particular location at one particular time.

Reality, unlike the imaginary Biblical floods, leaves evidence.

Take a look at a few images of fossil leaf imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a genuine landscape existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each can tell us about the plant as well as the landscape that existed at the time it was alive.

Take a look at a few images of fossil track imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a critter moved across a genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these can tell us about the critter that created the tracks as well as about the physical properties of the landscape the critter lived in.

Take a look at a few images of fossil insect imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a insect lived in the genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these tells us about the environment of the landscape where the insect lived.

Take a look at a few images of fossil seed cones. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that conifer lived in the genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these tells us about the environment of the landscape where the tree lived.

Take a look at a few images of fossil flowers. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that flower lived in the genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these tells us about the environment of the landscape where the flower lived.

And interestingly when you look at what Faith calls flat slabs what you find is irrefutable evidence of landscapes and even when the first flowers show up, the first conifers show up, the first tracks made on land instead of under water, when the first trees appeared, when the first grasses appeared.

Reality is not the silly cartoons. In reality layers are not just flat slabs of rock. ALL of the evidence shows what existed were landscapes just like we see today, with high spots and low spots, water and land and most of all, with change over time.

The reality is that the fossil leaf imprints, fossil insect imprints, fossil tracks are ordered in the same way that all the other fossils are ordered and not in any way any flood could possible create. They are ordered based on what really lived at a given period and given location.

Faith writes:

Strange analogy and unrelated to my argument. The orderliness of the fossil record seems to be a problem for the Flood if that's where you start, but if you start by recognizing that the OE explanation is in fact physically impossible then there is nothing left but the Flood to explain the facts.

Well, not, that too is simply just not true.

Even if the very reasonable current explanation of change over vast amounts of time were wrong (and so far no one has ever presented any reason to think it wrong) the Biblical Flood is still not an explanation. The Biblical Flood is totally wrong and has been refuted for hundreds of years and cannot explain anything found in reality.

Granted, if the current theories were not so robust, so overwhelmingly supported by ALL of the evidence, some other explanation would be needed. That could not be the Biblical Flood though since that one has already been shown to be false and incapable of explaining ANYTHING seen in reality.

What is found in reality is not conjecture, not imagined, not just theory but rather they are facts; the nature of the item, the exact composition of the minerals, the method of lithification and consolidation are all factual, testable and irrefutable. The fossil exists. The track exists. The composition of the material exists.

Only the Biblical flood is conjecture.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 4:12 PM jar has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 848
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 9 of 1257 (787874)
07-23-2016 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


Hi Faith.

Just looking at your second cartoon (the one with the unhappy looking dinosaur, under various layers, which I'm a bit too lazy to work out how to copy), I wonder if this will help you to follow the process.

Over here in England, we had the Romans come across, around a couple of thousand years ago. As well as beating the crap out of the natives, they built a bunch of villas and other buildings. They lived and worked in them, and led perfectly happy lives on what was then the surface of the British landscape.

Over time, the Romans passed on, and a lot of their buildings got abandoned and are now being discovered and investigated by teams of delighted archaeologists, (a number of them on TV, on the magnificently kitsch Time Team).

The point is that a large number of the villas and buildings which are being discovered are buried under a few feet of earth - the current surface of the earth, that is being farmed and existed on quite happily by Brits, a couple of thousand years after the buried buildings got built.

The way the process will work, according to the science, is that if these buildings were to stay in situ for a few million years, then there's a good chance that some of them would end up in layers of deposited material, which over time would become lithified, rendering the buildings fossils. (Not fossils of creatures, but of buildings).

The point is that layers don't suddenly descend on an environment, crushing the animals below, like your charmingly inaccurate cartoon. They accrete - gradually, imperceptibly over time, whilst life gets on with living on top of the accreted landscape. This is an undeniable conclusion of the evidence from unearthing Roman villas buried under a few feet of Earth in Britain. It's a wonderful example of how the process is working now, in relatively recent geological time.

Can we therefore abandon the premise of your cartoon that layers descend, per-formed, from the sky, crushing life below them ? That is not what the science is saying, and you are mocking a straw man.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:50 AM vimesey has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 1257 (787875)
07-23-2016 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


quote:

As usual what seems obvious to me is being fought tooth and nail by those who couldn't bear to see the Flood emerge as the actual explanation for the evidence, and that in a nutshell is what the argument at the other thread has been since I posted that cartoon.

This is a substantial misrepresentation that largely reverses the reality of the situation.

It would be fairer to say that Faith was fighting tooth and nail against the fact that the Flood is not a viable explanation of the evidence.

And if an obvious falsehood seems obviously true to her then that is her problem, not the problem of those who would reject it.

quote:

No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks. This isn't expecting to see such a landscape, it is expecting to see that such a landscape was possible and finding out it wasn't, that it is nothing but a fiction.

This is simply an opinion based on ignoring the evidence - largely through not bothering to investigate it - but also through rejecting obvious examples that have actually been produced. Nothing has been "found" - it is pure imagination on Faiths part.

quote:

Strange analogy and unrelated to my argument. The orderliness of the fossil record seems to be a problem for the Flood if that's where you start, but if you start by recognizing that the OE explanation is in fact physically impossible then there is nothing left but the Flood to explain the facts.

Again, Faiths position relies on imagining rather than "recognising" any real problems for the scientific view. And rather bizarre imaginings at that. She imagines that the surfaces of the planet must have been only rock in the time of the dinosaurs - offering not a shred of evidence for that claim. She imagines that sediment must be dropped on an area, all at once rather than gradually accumulating as it does today. In contrast, the evidence against the Flood is real objective fact, despite Faiths attempts to confuse the issue.

quote:

So far it should have been made clear that the great extent of the strata of the Geologic Column takes the place of any landscape inferred to have existed in each time period.

The "great extent" applies to only some strata, others are more local. Especially those from terrestrial environments. And, of course, terrestrial environments are more likely to be subject to net erosion and therefore lost from the record anyway.

quote:

If where there should be dinosaurs roaming there is only in reality a huge slab of rock (or a sea transgression etc) then dinosaurs simply could not have been roaming in that putative "time period." The time period is a fiction.

The idea that there was only "a huge slab of rock" is a fiction. An outright invention.

quote:

The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep

If the Flood is to be seen as the "actual explanation" of the evidence it must explain both the position of the dinosaurs in the fossil record and the evidence of landscapes found in the geological record. Dismissing the first and denying the second obviously cannot achieve that. Thus, this line of argument cannot possibly succeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 11 of 1257 (787881)
07-23-2016 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


Hi Faith

Faith writes:

but if you start by recognizing that the OE explanation is in fact physically impossible

What is physically impossible about the OE explanation?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 12 of 1257 (787882)
07-23-2016 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
07-22-2016 9:23 PM


Is the cartoon really wrong?
For those who say the cartoon is wrong, I would quote edge from the other thread, in Message 501 where he is agreeing that landscapes in the various time periods are created and then eroded away to flatness, when sediments can be deposited on the flat surface:

Yes, and all of that time in erosion, the landscape is being leveled and cleared of fossils, soils, gravel etc. Then it can be inundated and covered by later sediment.

Is the cartoon meant to illustrate the entire world? No, it's meant to illustrate the surface of the layer that represents the time period in question (although what would have existed apart from those surfaces is also something to think about). From what he has said above it seems to me the cartoon is right on: everything has been eroded away and there is nothing but the flat expanse of sediment, which would be the case at the end of the time period.

So although everyone is calling this a misrepresentation, and edge himself called it a straw man, the worst he'd ever seen here, I think his own description of events says otherwise.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-22-2016 9:23 PM Adminnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 3:35 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2016 4:22 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 34 by edge, posted 07-23-2016 4:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 1257 (787883)
07-23-2016 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by vimesey
07-23-2016 12:27 AM


Second cartoon from OP removed
I'm going to remove that cartoon because it isn't conveying what it was meant to convey, which is not layers descending out of the sky, but merely a dinosaur peering out from his own layer/time period to see that the whole stack is just as barren and unlivable as his layer is.

I'm removing it. No point in discussing something so easily misunderstood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 12:27 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 6:30 AM Faith has responded
 Message 19 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 9:11 AM Faith has responded
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 07-23-2016 12:09 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2016 7:15 AM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 14 of 1257 (787885)
07-23-2016 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:38 AM


Re: Is the cartoon really wrong?
Well there edge seems to be talking about the creation of unconformities. I should skip that for now until you can understand the basics.

(What unconformities have to do with your cartoon I cannot begin to imagine.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 15 of 1257 (787887)
07-23-2016 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:38 AM


Re: Is the cartoon really wrong?
quote:

For those who say the cartoon is wrong, I would quote edge from the other thread, in Message 501 where he is agreeing that landscapes in the various time periods are created and then eroded away to flatness, when sediments can be deposited on the flat surface:

Which hardly helps the idea that there never was a landscape there.

quote:

Is the cartoon meant to illustrate the entire world?

Then it is poorly labelled, and likely irrelevant. Maybe you can find regions where there was a flat landscape at some times and mountains today, but that hardly helps your argument.

quote:

From what he has said above it seems to me the cartoon is right on: everything has been eroded away and there is nothing but the flat expanse of sediment, which would be the case at the end of the time period.

Given that your central claim was that there were no landscapes, rather than that the landscapes were present but lost to the geological record this seems more than a little disingenuous. (It is also wrong - you can't be sure that the erosion was complete at the end of the period - it must have been complete by the time the next stratum up was deposited but it is very hard to know what happened in between)

If the cartoon was intended to illustrate a position that you never stated you can hardly blame us for thinking that it was intended to illustrate the position that you did state - not when it better fits the position you openly stated. Nor can you blame us for suspecting that you are rewriting the past and that the cartoon was intended to represent the position you claimed all along.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017