Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 11:25 AM
345 online now:
DOCJ, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,537 Year: 21,143/21,208 Month: 1,576/2,326 Week: 31/881 Day: 31/119 Hour: 6/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
125126127128129
130
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1936 of 1939 (762993)
07-19-2015 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1935 by Admin
07-19-2015 8:04 AM


looking for Faith's model, method, procedure, mechanism, process
I have been asking Faith for the model, method, procedure, mechanism, process that can explain her claims since Message 16 and so far not one has been presented.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1935 by Admin, posted 07-19-2015 8:04 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1938 by herebedragons, posted 07-20-2015 9:11 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13450
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1937 of 1939 (763012)
07-19-2015 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1929 by Faith
07-18-2015 10:15 PM


Faith writes:

When someone throws a brand new geological situation at me and asks me to explain it in terms of the Flood, the best I can do is perhaps think it out in terms of the Flood hypothesis.


The best you could do is propose experiments to test the Flood hypothesis. Unfortunately, though, when you do experiments they don't confirm your hypothesis.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1929 by Faith, posted 07-18-2015 10:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1357
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(3)
Message 1938 of 1939 (763064)
07-20-2015 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1936 by jar
07-19-2015 9:00 AM


Re: looking for Faith's model, method, procedure, mechanism, process
I have been asking Faith for the model, method, procedure, mechanism, process that can explain her claims since Message 16 and so far not one has been presented.

In her defense, she think that the following examples ARE her model, procedure, mechanism and process of her claims (From Message 1914)

Faith writes:

since the strata do NOT represent time periods the mountain-building with its resultant erosion into the alluvial fans occurred AFTER THE FLOOD, which is when I've said ALL ALONG that according to my hypothesis the tectonic activity occurred that created all the massive erosion in the GC area AND the Rockies. The fans had to have been pushed into the different layers of the strata as seen on the cross section, at the same time the strata were being compressed and raised into the mountains. I can picture it but it would be hard to describe.

The change in rock type is easily explained by the tectonic forces that raised the mountains, the thickness, if I'm getting what that refers to, explained by the shedding of chunks of rock from the rising mountains.

the Pennsylvanian sediments, not yet lithified, GOT lithified by the tectonic force that raised the mountains and turned them into solid rock, shedding chunks in the process that built up into the fans.

the strata are spread or expanded vertically in that cross section, which suggests that the fans had space or created the space to intrude or force the conglomerate into or between the layers. Again, I can picture it but describing it isn't easy. Sort of how the bristles of a stiff brush spread out if you push it hard against a solid surface. Best I can do at the moment.

What she doesn't understand is WHY we don't except that as a model, procedure, mechanism or process that explains those features. It seems to her as if we are doing the same thing, just providing "reasonable" answers based on our personal worldview. She fails to see the painstaking and detailed work that has gone into determining depositional environments and how conclusions are built upon that work, not just pulled out of thin air (which is what petrophysics has pointed out in a couple posts recently).

I recognized this problem in the population genetics thread I was participating in with her and I decided I would not try to discuss the conclusions of the subject until the basic premises were established and understood. However, she doesn't seem to see how those basic premises are relevant to the discussion. It is much easier to just draw conclusions based on intuition or speculation rather than evidence based data.

The ship to accomplish that kind of thing in this thread has long since sailed, IMHO.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1936 by jar, posted 07-19-2015 9:00 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1939 by Admin, posted 07-21-2015 2:49 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1939 of 1939 (763155)
07-21-2015 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1938 by herebedragons
07-20-2015 9:11 AM


Re: looking for Faith's model, method, procedure, mechanism, process
herebedragons writes:

She fails to see the painstaking and detailed work that has gone into determining depositional environments and how conclusions are built upon that work, not just pulled out of thin air (which is what petrophysics has pointed out in a couple posts recently).

A couple or three or four decades ago James Burke wrote Connections, and it became a PBS TV series by the same name. The book is still in print, I see he wrote a new preface in 2007, and the shows appear to be on YouTube, here's episode 1:

Burke traces how one scientific discovery led to another through vastly different fields of science. The overarching theme is how science is an interconnected whole where the theories and laws of one field cohere with and bolster other fields, and how facts and evidence are tightly intertwined with their implications that lead eventually to theory.

Faith doesn't view the world as interconnected, which is why her scenarios often explain the facts in only the most superficial ways. To her the facts about a stratum, its mineral composition, grain size and fossils, have little to do with how and when the stratum formed. Deep sediments of fine grained limestone sediments require quiet water and long time periods, but Faith has no problem believing the Flood did it in less than a year. Anyone pushing a pile of plywood up from below expects the whole stack to be affected, but Faith must believe that the bottom layers of plywood can tilt without affecting the above layers since she believes the Grand Canyon supergroup did just that. And Faith apparently still believes that sediments cannot accumulate on a slope, despite that every beach in the world is proof she's wrong.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by herebedragons, posted 07-20-2015 9:11 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
125126127128129
130
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017