Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 10:41 AM
461 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,221 Year: 6,827/21,208 Month: 2,588/2,634 Week: 251/525 Day: 10/74 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7879
80
81828384Next
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1186 of 1257 (791659)
09-19-2016 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1185 by ringo
09-19-2016 11:51 AM


Re: The Great Martian Flood
But Faith has decreed that the Flood "would be different" from everything we've ever observed and every experiment we've ever done. Yet there was no violation of physical laws and no miracle.

Faith has also suggested, IIRC, that geology has ended. When the flood retreated, we no longer have geological processes except erosion, I guess.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1185 by ringo, posted 09-19-2016 11:51 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:13 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1187 of 1257 (791664)
09-19-2016 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1186 by edge
09-19-2016 5:33 PM


Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
But Faith has decreed that the Flood "would be different" from everything we've ever observed and every experiment we've ever done. Yet there was no violation of physical laws and no miracle.

Faith has also suggested, IIRC, that geology has ended. When the flood retreated, we no longer have geological processes except erosion, I guess.

Golly gosh it's amazing what people think you said even when you've said something entirely different a hundred times. The Flood would be dramatically different from local floods is all I've ever said about that, because, well golly gee, it covered every scrap of land on earth while local floods just relocate some mud.

And geology has ended? Amazing. I believe what I said was that the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN was finished when the Flood ended. I know there are sedimentary deposits still going on in odd places but they aren't the Geologic Column. That I believe is all I ever said that you might have misconstrued.

But this is way off topic. The Martian strata are not the result of a flood. How about responding to the conclusion I came to that they are the result of a volcanic eruption?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1186 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 5:33 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1188 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 6:57 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1198 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 10:17 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1188 of 1257 (791668)
09-19-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1187 by Faith
09-19-2016 6:13 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
And geology has ended? Amazing. I believe what I said was that the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN was finished when the Flood ended.

But you have said that strata are no longer being deposited and that no fossils are being formed today.

Did I read that wrongly?

I know there are sedimentary deposits still going on in odd places but they aren't the Geologic Column. That I believe is all I ever said that you might have misconstrued.

So, the 'geological column' is over, kaput?

But this is way off topic.

Not according to the title, but I will gladly defer to Percy on that.

The Martian strata are not the result of a flood. How about responding to the conclusion I came to that they are the result of a volcanic eruption?

It looks wrong from my experience. Some of them look more eolian, but the nice evenly layered stuff looks more sedimentary.

And if there is one thing I DO know volcanic rocks. Nevertheless, I don't do geology from pictures taken in an alien environment millions of miles away.

By the way, how do you know that they are strata 'AFD' (According to Faith's Definition)?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1189 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:24 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1189 of 1257 (791675)
09-19-2016 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1188 by edge
09-19-2016 6:57 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
But you have said that strata are no longer being deposited and that no fossils are being formed today.
Did I read that wrongly?

Fraid so. You may be getting some limited areas of strata but they are not the Geologic Column. You are probably getting some fossils here and there but they are certainly not fossils building on top of the Holocene Period or whatever is the last one in the Geo Column, say as found in the Grand Staircase. Probably quite a motley crew as a matter of fact.

So, the 'geological column' is over, kaput?

Yup. The Flood made it so when the Flood ended so did the Geo Column. It stands as a memorial to that event and a record of the living things that existed in the pre-Flood world.

As for the Martian strata, I've said my bit. I guess you and Percy can continue it as you like.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1188 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 6:57 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1190 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:27 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1190 of 1257 (791678)
09-19-2016 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1189 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:24 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Yup. The Flood made it so when the Flood ended so did the Geo Column. It stands as a memorial to that event and a record of the living things that existed in the pre-Flood world.

Then I stand by my earlier comment that Faith has foretold the end of geology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1191 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:30 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1191 of 1257 (791680)
09-19-2016 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1190 by edge
09-19-2016 7:27 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Can't be the end of geology. You still have gold to find, (maybe even) oil to find though you haven't proved this yet. How about all the other precious stones and metals on the earth? Isn't that something you guys do? How about studying volcanoes? I think there's lots for geology to dol, and in fact I don't think you've ever needed OE dates or used them as you think. And as a matter of fact how about studying what the Flood did and how it did it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1190 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:27 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1192 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:41 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 1192 of 1257 (791682)
09-19-2016 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:30 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Can't be the end of geology.

The end of new geology.

You still have gold to find, (maybe even) oil to find though you haven't proved this yet.

But it's like going to the library with no new books.

Okay, so I'm dramatizing. But my point remains.

How about all the other precious stones and metals on the earth? Isn't that something you guys do?

But you say that they are no longer forming.

That's no fun.

How about studying volcanoes? I think there's lots for geology to dol,

Just hang-overs from the flood, no doubt. Aftershocks, if you will.

... and in fact I don't think you've ever needed OE dates or used them as you think. And as a matter of fact how about studying what the Flood did and how it did it.

Actually, I have used absolute dates in oil exploration. I mentioned this earlier.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1193 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:54 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24006
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 1193 of 1257 (791686)
09-19-2016 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1192 by edge
09-19-2016 7:41 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
I suppose that could be true, the Flood is boring compared to the vast scope of imagination the OE vision provides. However, if there is really no utility to the dates, which I'm afraid still seems to stand unanswered, then it's really not all that fun anyway.

Actually, I have used absolute dates in oil exploration. I mentioned this earlier.

And I've acknowledged that you probably do use those dates, but nevertheless you haven't said anything about how they are necessary, what they actually tell you that you can't find out from relative dating and seismic imaging.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 7:41 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1194 by edge, posted 09-19-2016 10:43 PM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 1194 of 1257 (791701)
09-19-2016 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by Faith
09-19-2016 7:54 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
And I've acknowledged that you probably do use those dates, but nevertheless you haven't said anything about how they are necessary, what they actually tell you that you can't find out from relative dating and seismic imaging.

Actually, I did. In so many words, anyway.

Radiometric dates help determine the thermal history of a basin and when/where oil might be generated. If a date is too old, the oil might have already formed and migrated, or the heat from an intrusive might be too old to have affected a source rock.

This kind of information is used as a filter to set priorities for maintaining a land position or when to drill a target.

However, what you say is that all intrusive rocks are of the same age. That really doesn't fly in any kind of exploration.

In some mineral exploration, age dates are critical in determining targets and prioritizing them. Too old or too young in the Rocky Mountains and no one wants to spend money on them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 7:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1219 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 4:28 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 1224 by Admin, posted 09-21-2016 9:23 PM edge has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4417
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1195 of 1257 (791702)
09-20-2016 4:02 AM


One date
Can someone remind me what the counter to the flood 'geology' dating problem is - if the geological column was created all at the same time any/all of our normal dating methods would produce the same result for each layer.

And if the YEC ideas were correct, they would all read <10,000.

If you believe that the dating methods are broken - for whatever daft reason - they would each have to be broken in different ways for them to read different dates from the same age rocks.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1197 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 10:02 AM Tangle has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1480
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1196 of 1257 (791704)
09-20-2016 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1185 by ringo
09-19-2016 11:51 AM


Re: The Great Martian Flood
ringo writes:

But Faith has decreed that the Flood "would be different" from everything we've ever observed and every experiment we've ever done. Yet there was no violation of physical laws and no miracle.

Yeah, just magic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1185 by ringo, posted 09-19-2016 11:51 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(4)
Message 1197 of 1257 (791710)
09-20-2016 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1195 by Tangle
09-20-2016 4:02 AM


Re: One date
Can someone remind me what the counter to the flood 'geology' dating problem is - if the geological column was created all at the same time any/all of our normal dating methods would produce the same result for each layer.

Not sure what your question is, but sure, just as there is a pattern of life forms in the geological record, there is a pattern of age determinations. And just as YEC cannot explain the fossils they cannot explain (actually, they ignore) the pattern of radiometric dates.

And if the YEC ideas were correct, they would all read <10,000.

That would be a logical conclusion from what little we know of 'flood geology'. And again, the fossils should show no preference for any age of rocks.

If you believe that the dating methods are broken - for whatever daft reason - they would each have to be broken in different ways for them to read different dates from the same age rocks.

YECs have a real problem with the concordance of independent dating methods. You are exactly correct. They would all have to be broken in diverse ways to all be corrected back to a 6ka planet.

Nevertheless, YECs present the argument that ages are based on 'assumptions', as though that is a bad thing in the real world. They ignore (once again) the fact that some assumptions are well-founded on experience, observations and testing. But, this notion still provides them with a flimsy grain of doubt that they can ride indefinitely through forums such as this. And the best part is that this argument appeals to those untrained in the sciences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1195 by Tangle, posted 09-20-2016 4:02 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1199 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 10:19 AM edge has responded
 Message 1208 by Tangle, posted 09-21-2016 4:51 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1198 of 1257 (791711)
09-20-2016 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1187 by Faith
09-19-2016 6:13 PM


Re: Martian strata not caused by water but by volcano
Faith writes:

The Flood would be dramatically different from local floods is all I've ever said about that, because, well golly gee, it covered every scrap of land on earth while local floods just relocate some mud.

This would be an opportune time to describe your evidence for the different things a global flood would do, as opposed to local floods. What physical laws come into play that cause floods to have greater sorting and organizing power as they grow larger? Why do the largest floods carve canyons instead of spreading out across a landscape like smaller floods, and what is the evidence that this has happened? Since oceans cover nearly 3/4 of the world, how does our evidence of what oceans do support what a global flood would do?

I believe what I said was that the GEOLOGICAL COLUMN was finished when the Flood ended. I know there are sedimentary deposits still going on in odd places but they aren't the Geologic Column.

Since gravity plus the simple physical laws behind erosion and transport seem to require that sediments be deposited at the lowest elevations almost everywhere (basins, lakes and oceans, more than 3/4 of the world), what is your evidence that sedimentary deposits are only occurring in "odd places"?

The Martian strata are not the result of a flood. How about responding to the conclusion I came to that they are the result of a volcanic eruption?

From the Wikipedia article Composition of Mars:

quote:
Layered sedimentary deposits are widespread on Mars.

You've often said that sedimentary deposits can only result from a planet-wide flood, and you say here that, "The Martian strata are not the result of a flood," so how did those layers that are sedimentary arise? Upon what evidence are you basing your claims?

You can respond to this message, though I won't be participating in the discussion.

Edited by Admin, : Clarify my first response.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1187 by Faith, posted 09-19-2016 6:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1218 by Faith, posted 09-21-2016 3:42 PM Admin has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1199 of 1257 (791712)
09-20-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1197 by edge
09-20-2016 10:02 AM


Re: One date
edge writes:

Nevertheless, YECs present the argument that ages are based on 'assumptions', as though that is a bad thing in the real world.

It would be helpful to clearly identify those assumptions.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1197 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 10:02 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1200 by edge, posted 09-20-2016 11:50 AM Admin has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1200 of 1257 (791719)
09-20-2016 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1199 by Admin
09-20-2016 10:19 AM


Re: One date
It would be helpful to clearly identify those assumptions.

True. YECS would like us to think that these assumptions are somehow hidden from the public. However, all of these assumptions ARE clearly stated in every textbook that I have ever seen, along with the reasons that they are accepted; even at the high school level.

There are two basic assumptions:

The isotopic ratios have not altered, and

The decay rates have not changed.

Other assumptions are minor, such as, 'we can get a meaningful sample', and that it can be collected, prepared and analyzed correctly.

Basically, radio decay is a clock and has to be treated properly. YECS have no.problem that I'm aware of with clocks, but those also require some assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1199 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 10:19 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1201 by Admin, posted 09-20-2016 12:32 PM edge has responded
 Message 1209 by Pressie, posted 09-21-2016 5:26 AM edge has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7879
80
81828384Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017