Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1051 of 1257 (790731)
09-04-2016 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Faith
09-04-2016 2:30 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
No, I'm not calling anyone stu*pid
Of course you are.
Still no evidence, just muddled thinking and a fantasy that will never convince anyone because you can't make sense of it yourself. "It must be an illusion." Grow up.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:56 AM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 1059 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 7:06 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1052 of 1257 (790732)
09-04-2016 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1036 by Tanypteryx
09-03-2016 6:55 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
Your operative word here is "imaginary", but although you repeatedly assert this you have been completely unsuccessful in demonstrating it. You have no evidence.
But there is no evidence whatever that any such landscapes ever actually existed, and that's a fact for which I shouldn't have to produce any further evidence than that observation. There are no such landscapes or environments, there is ONLY A STACK OF ROCKS. PERIOD. I haven't been unsuccessful in demonstrating THAT -- it doesn't need any demonstration. If you want to call it speculation or theory, OK, because those are just mental concepts too. The point is these landscapes exist ONLY in the brains of geologists and other science types, nowhere in reality. The rocks exist in reality, but not the supposed environments or the time periods.
What I haven't been able to demonstrate is how there are inevitable problems with trying to get an imaginary landscape into a real rock. That is what this thread is about, and if I could demonstrate that it would show that imaginary is the correct term for the landscapes, not theoretical.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-03-2016 6:55 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2016 3:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1053 of 1257 (790733)
09-04-2016 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Tanypteryx
09-04-2016 2:53 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
You really ought to stay out of a discussion you don't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-04-2016 2:53 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-04-2016 3:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1064 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2016 9:24 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 1054 of 1257 (790734)
09-04-2016 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1052 by Faith
09-04-2016 2:55 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
quote:
But there is no evidence whatever that any such landscapes ever actually existed, and that's a fact for which I shouldn't have to produce any further evidence than that observation
Of course, there is a huge amount of evidence - river channels with associated deposits, eroded surfaces, trace fossils - and in marine environments coral reefs.
quote:
There are no such landscapes or environments, there is ONLY A STACK OF ROCKS. PERIOD. I haven't been unsuccessful in demonstrating THAT -- it doesn't need any demonstration
The evidence is there to say otherwise. The fact that you make dubious attempts to dismiss it rather imdicates that you know it is there.
quote:
What I haven't been able to demonstrate is how there are inevitable problems with trying to get an imaginary landscape into a real rock.
It is rather telling that you haven't been able to think of any reasonable objections.
And equally telling that you try to blame us for your failure.
On the other hand we really do have good evidence which you are reduced to calling an illusion even though that claim makes no sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1052 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1055 of 1257 (790735)
09-04-2016 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Faith
09-04-2016 2:56 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
You really ought to stay out of a discussion you don't understand.
I know BS when I see it.
So still no evidence and still no coherent description of your imaginary problems for geology.
If you can't refute the obvious conclusion that geological processes have taken hundreds of millions of years, with actual evidence, you will never convince anyone that you have found a flaw in the science that everyone else studying geology and a bunch of other sciences missed.
If you actually knew what you are talking about you'd be pretty amazing.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1056 of 1257 (790737)
09-04-2016 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1037 by Faith
09-03-2016 7:03 PM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
quote:
The problem with imaginary concepts is that they are very flexible and can be bent in enough directions to seem to prove themselves correct
This is hardly an issue in the present discussion. It is, of course, relevant to discussions of the Biblical Flood. In the hands of Flood geologists it has gone from a simple flood that drowned everything (excepting those on the ark) to depositing massive amounts of sediment everywhere (except for some unidentified location, which somehow escapes) repeatedly uncovering and recovering at least some areas of land where large animals that somehow survived the catastrophe so far can roam - and even nest long enough for the eggs to hatch - and somehow created the order (or illusion of order if the idea made any sense) in the fossil record.
quote:
I nevertheless have had the hope that I CAN demonstrate that, because they are imaginary,l the concepts of former landscapes/environments in separate time periods, also imaginary, run into physical obstacles in getting from there to the actual physically real stratified sedimentary rocks that represent them. I still think it may be possible to show this
Unfortunately your main argument is your main problem. When you attempt to think about the issue you start producing objections before you have even understood the subject. Unsurprisingly the objections are nonsensical and only show muddled thinking.
quote:
Even if I could, however, I do doubt the ability of those for whom the concepts of stacked time and stacked landscapes have solidified into concrete and glued their brain cells into an indissoluble mass, to be able to recognize the proof even if I can pull it off.
I am sure that none of us have forgotten your usual retreat into nastiness and insult whenever your arguments are defeated. It really does. Itching to persuade us that you are right. It does however rather damage any claim you have to be a "Real Christian"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1037 by Faith, posted 09-03-2016 7:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1057 of 1257 (790738)
09-04-2016 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1049 by Faith
09-04-2016 2:24 AM


Re: Touching on Walther's Law again
So then, you ARE talking about the flood myth.
And it DOES affect your interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1058 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 7:02 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1058 of 1257 (790739)
09-04-2016 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1057 by edge
09-04-2016 5:32 AM


Thread is not about the Flood
I'm talking about the Flood only because somebody brought up points that have to be answered in terms of the Flood. Otherwise, no, that's not what this thread is about. Sure, I CAN talk about it when necessary, but no, that is not what this thread is about. The argument about how you get from a landscape to a big flat rock in the stratigraphic column has nothing to do with the Flood. In that argument I do my best to stick to what I understand standard Geology to say about how environments form, including marine environments, how sediments accumulate and lithify and all that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by edge, posted 09-04-2016 5:32 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1059 of 1257 (790740)
09-04-2016 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Tanypteryx
09-04-2016 2:53 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
No, I'm not calling anyone stu*pid, as I said. Edge's recent posts show that he can't think about things except in terms of standard Geology, that's what I said and that's what I meant. I don't know whether jar could if he tried, but everything he says is an assertion of the standard explanation for everything, quite as if he can't consider any other possible interpretation, and it may be that he can't. That's what I mean by a paradigm cramp. It's not a lack of intelligence at all, it's a habitual interpretive point of view that is set in concrete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-04-2016 2:53 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1060 of 1257 (790742)
09-04-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1045 by Minnemooseus
09-03-2016 11:17 PM


Re: Touching on Walther's Law again
And it applies ONLY to specific conditions, transgressions and regressions which are a very limited set of conditions compared to all the other various things found in reality. It makes no sense to try to apply Walther's Law to aeolian samples or to varves or to intrusions and extrusions.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-03-2016 11:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1061 of 1257 (790743)
09-04-2016 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Faith
09-04-2016 2:07 AM


Re: it's probably wrong is right when talking about anything other than Old Earth.
You keep making unsupported claims and truly idiotic assertions. For a leaf to be picked up and deposited by the Biblical Flood and environment where the leaf grew on a tree had to have existed at the time.
Further no one including you has EVER been able to provide a Biblical Flood model that explains the ordered biological samples that exist in reality.
The conventional theory is supported by evidence, model, mechanism, process, procedure while all you have is fantasy.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1062 of 1257 (790744)
09-04-2016 8:17 AM


Moderator Suggestions and Comments
Quite a few posts yesterday, but just a short list today:
  1. Let's concentrate on the topic. Please don't drift onto other topics like the Flood. Both sides should be presenting the evidence behind their positions. When it is felt that an argument is imaginary or illusory or absurd then deal with the evidence offered in support of the argument. "Your position is absurd" is not an argument. Please don't make arguments unsupported by evidence or counterarguments that ignore the evidence.
  2. From Faith in Message 1040:
    Faith in Message 1040 writes:
    Millions of years would simply wipe out all living things.
    As Edge noted later, this is an empty assertion. If part of the basis for Faith's belief that the views of modern geology are absurd is in part based upon the belief that the passage of too much time like millions of years would "simply wipe out all living things" then the evidence and rationale behind this belief should be presented.
  3. From Jar's Message 1041:
    jar in Message 1041 writes:
    Faith writes:
    Walther's Law produces an ordered series of alternating layers types and Walther's Law is consistent with the idea of Flood water rising and receding.
    Unfortunately Walther's Law does NOT explain the ordered sequences found in reality.
    Walther's Law explains the layers created by sequences of sea transgressions and regressions. I think what Jar meant is that Walther's Law doesn't work the way Faith thinks it works.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 1067 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 10:11 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1063 of 1257 (790745)
09-04-2016 8:48 AM


On Walther's Law
As has been pointed out Walther's Law does explain what should be seen during periods of sea transgression and recession but what is actually seen in reality is far more complex and varied than simple sea transgression and regression so to claim that Walther's Law explains what is seen in reality is patently false.
What is seen but NOT explained by Walther's Law is marine sediment layering, varves, cross bedding, limestone and other biological rocks, the formation of sandstone, mudstone, shale, peat, coal, magma metamorphism, intrusions, extrusions, faulting, weathering, channels, biological fossils, fossil tracks, imprints, pillow lava, trapps, flood debris, glacial carving, unconformities, non-conformities, folding and almost everything actually found in reality.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1064 of 1257 (790747)
09-04-2016 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Faith
09-04-2016 2:56 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
And yet nobody is able to understand you.
In most group dance classes, you rotate to different partners. My Lindy teacher once told us (from memory from about a decade ago):
quote:
You'll find that the move will work with some partners and not with others. So if you're having problems with a partner, they might be the problem or you might be, but don't worry because the next partner might be getting it. But if you have problems with all your partners, the you are the problem!
You're not just having problems with Tanpteryx, but you are having problems with everybody. That would mean that we are not the problem, but rather you are the problem. So what could you do to stop being the problem?
I have a modest proposal. Work through an intermediary. Find someone, probably someone here, whom you can get to understand what you are trying to say. Then that somebody can post to us a coherent explanation of what you are trying to say, one that we might have some chance of finally understanding. And when we respond, then that person can discuss it with you and work with you to write the response. During this process, you should refrain from bypassing your intermediary and respond on your own, since that would only return the discussion into the state of confusion that you have created so far.
Think it over. After more than 1000 messages, you are screaming about pulling your hair out from frustration, complaining, as you have repeatedly done in far too many topics in the past, that we are all too stupid to understand what you keep saying over and over again. Obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with your messages, something which makes them incomprehensible. You are the only person who is able to do anything about your messages, to resolve the problem that they repeatedly cause: the generation of confusion.
So, you can either try to resolve the problem or you can continue to waste bandwidth by generating thousands more messages trying to deal with your terminal confusion. Your choice. Unless, of course, it is your intention to generate nothing but confusion -- confusion is the creationist's best tool for fighting against the truth.
Consider implementing my proposal or something very much like it. You obviously need a translator. And, no, I am most decidedly not volunteering for that job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1065 by Faith, posted 09-04-2016 9:56 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1065 of 1257 (790748)
09-04-2016 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1064 by dwise1
09-04-2016 9:24 AM


Re: What is in the Landscape?-correction
I've tried to use your proposal but I'm not coming up with a plan. Also I'm not confused, I'm waiting for Stile to get back to resume the topic.
I'd really appreciate your leaving out the personal comments. I can ignore you too if necessary.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2016 9:24 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2016 10:09 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024