Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 691 of 899 (820027)
09-15-2017 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Faith
09-15-2017 6:59 PM


Re: Conclusions That Support A Premise Dont Work
Most of the creationist-evolutionist debate doesn't involve new evidence. It's all about different interpretations of the same facts held by both sides. Such as: Evos look at a wall of strata and see millions of years; I look at it and see rapid deposition/ the Flood.
There is a sense in which there is new evidence, however, since I would point out different features of, say, a cross section of the Grand Canyon area, than an evolutionist is likely to notice, to show that it supports my interpretation and not theirs.
But that hasn't happened, has it?
The problem you have is that there is too much evidence for all of these processes happening all over the world within the geological record. Neither the Grand Canyon, nor Great Britain are representative of the rest of the world. There is too much evidence of mountain building and erosion for your scenario to be remotely accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 6:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 692 of 899 (820028)
09-15-2017 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Astrophile
09-15-2017 6:01 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
There are about 2500 metres of Triassic New Red Sandstone in Cheshire, and >2700 metres of probable Permo-Triassic in south-east Devon.
And if you look closely, you will see that they are not continental in extent.
Remember the section I showed from New Jersey a few pages back? Those are the equivalent to the ones you mention above. They are related to basins that started to form with the break-up of Pangaea and the ongoing erosion of the various Paleozoic orogenies. While of similar age the types of deposits are very different.
There are about 2000-3900 metres of Namurian-age Millstone Grit in the Pennines. Finally, there are 7-13 km of Devonian Old Red Sandstone in the Shetland Islands, and in the Scottish Midland Valley. I don't know whether these rocks are the same age as the sandstone deposits of the Colorado Plateau.
Well, the Devonian is older so, those sands would not be equivalent to the Mesozoic of the western North America.
The large Mesozoic sandstone formations of the CP appear quite different in texture, form and extent than the Old Red Sandstone anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Astrophile, posted 09-15-2017 6:01 PM Astrophile has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 693 of 899 (820029)
09-15-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 675 by Faith
09-15-2017 3:29 PM


Re: strat column
OH GOOD GRIEF. A SLIGHT SLOPE THAT IS NOT EVEN VISIBLE DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT OF THE FLATNESS I'M TALKING ABOUT.
So, flatness isn't all that important.
That's what I'm saying.
I was driving across the desert here the other day and noticed how truly flat it is even though I am above base level in an arguably erosional setting.
Any transgression here would look exactly like what we see in the geological record.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M SAYING.
The problem is that we DO understand what you are saying and it conflicts with the actual evidence.
THERE IS NO POINT IN THIS DISCUSSING. THIS IS SICKENING.
I tend to agree, but I think that there may be some people out there who would like to hear the most effective theory.
And your story simply isn't up to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 694 of 899 (820031)
09-15-2017 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
09-15-2017 3:25 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
THEY DON'T "LATER HAVE THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE EROSION!" YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONE THING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THAT CROSS SECTION, WHICH I SUSPECTED LONG AGO.
Oh, I understand what you are saying and that is the problem.
It has no basis in fact.
LOOK AT THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO "EROSION" UNTIL THE CANYON AND STAIRCASE WERE CUT AND THEN THERE IS MASSIVE "EROSION"
Remember, the map is not the terrain.
There most certainly are evidences for erosion within the CP geological record.
THE MAGMA STARTS AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND PENETRATES TO THE VERY TOP -- OBVIOUSLY BEGUN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. I'VE EXPLAINED THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES ALREADY WHEN THIS CROSS SECTION HAS COME UP.
Actually not. Some are cut off at the Great Unconformity and found nowhere above it.
This is just one instance.
I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY FORMED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE AND HAVE ARGUED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.
There is no evidence to support this scenario. We have been over it many times and you have failed to provide any.
I REJECT THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVISIBLE UNCONFORMITIES AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SURFACE.
Well, that is good because there aren't any that are invisible.
IT IS SICKENING TO HAVE TO START ALL OVER EXPLAINING WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES ALREADY TO SOMEONE WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND ONE WORD OF IT.
Well, if you don't have anything new, I certainly agree.
THIS COULD BE MY PROBLEM OF FAILURE TO SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH THOUGH I EXPLAINED IT ALL SO MANY TIMES I DOUBT IT, NOW YOU ARE COMING ALONG KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT. BUT WHATEVER THE PROBLEM THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THIS DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE DEBATE AT EVC IS.
As I said, we understand what you say, it is just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 1:52 AM edge has replied

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


Message 695 of 899 (820038)
09-16-2017 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by edge
09-15-2017 10:08 PM


the usual miserable finale
The erosion is minuscule, like rubble between layers caused by runoff or perhaps a shifting of the rocks causing abrasion. Erosion of the sort that we find on the surface would look like canyons and cliffs which did finally occur after, ha ha, "millions of years." Ha ha.
Sorry about your paradigm blindness.
Sure would be nice if there was anyone on the evo side here who could think straight and had the guts to say what needs to be said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by edge, posted 09-15-2017 10:08 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Percy, posted 09-16-2017 8:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 701 by edge, posted 09-16-2017 8:27 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 704 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2017 8:47 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 696 of 899 (820040)
09-16-2017 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 687 by Faith
09-15-2017 6:59 PM


Re: Conclusions That Support A Premise Dont Work
quote:
Most of the creationist-evolutionist debate doesn't involve new evidence. It's all about different interpretations of the same facts held by both sides.
Not really, since creationists are prone to reject evidence they can't force into,their interpretation. E.g the many transitional fossils.
It's all about the method of interpretation. Those who follow the scientific way seek to understand and to find the truth. Those who follow the creationism seek to force the evidence to fit their established views, often stop examining the evidence as soon as they do (likely to avoid finding out that they were wrong) and some invent bizarre fantasies to make the evidence fit.
It is pretty clear that only one side has any interest in the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 6:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 697 of 899 (820041)
09-16-2017 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
09-15-2017 3:25 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
quote:
THEY DON'T "LATER HAVE THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE EROSION!" YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONE THING I'VE EVER SAID ABOUT THAT CROSS SECTION, WHICH I SUSPECTED LONG AGO.
There you go confusing understanding with agreement again. It is possible to understand what you are saying without agreeing with it. Indeed, when what you are saying is obviously false (as is often the case) pretty much everyone who understands will disagree.
quote:
LOOK AT THE CROSS SECTION. THERE IS NO "EROSION" UNTIL THE CANYON AND STAIRCASE WERE CUT AND THEN THERE IS MASSIVE "EROSION"
And there's an example. Obviously the tilted rocks at the Great Unconformity were eroded before later rocks were deposited on them. And even if you believe your crazy attempt to deny that you can't call it obvious.
quote:
THE MAGMA STARTS AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND PENETRATES TO THE VERY TOP -- OBVIOUSLY BEGUN AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE. I'VE EXPLAINED THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES ALREADY WHEN THIS CROSS SECTION HAS COME UP
Even if you are right about some of the intrusions, you can't prove that all these events happened later just by looking at one of them. And we have the Cardenas lava which definitely erupted on to the surface as it was then.
quote:
I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY FORMED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE AND HAVE ARGUED IT IN GREAT DETAIL.
Your ability to invent fantasies is not in question. However, you never came up with any evidence for it, nor did you adequately address the serious problems.
quote:
I REJECT THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVISIBLE UNCONFORMITIES AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS THAT COULD HAVE OCCURRED ON THE SURFACE.
You can call unconformities "invisible" all you like but the majority are quite visible. And there is plenty of erosion "between layers" that only makes sense if it occurred at the surface. Remember the monadnocks ?
quote:
IT IS SICKENING TO HAVE TO START ALL OVER EXPLAINING WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED SO MANY TIMES ALREADY TO SOMEONE WHO NEVER BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND ONE WORD OF IT
Funny how you try to reverse reality as usual. But you ignore the fact that your claims are being rejected because they are false.
quote:
THIS COULD BE MY PROBLEM OF FAILURE TO SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH THOUGH I EXPLAINED IT ALL SO MANY TIMES I DOUBT IT, NOW YOU ARE COMING ALONG KNOWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANY OF IT. BUT WHATEVER THE PROBLEM THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THIS DEGREE OF MISCOMMUNICATION. WHAT A PATHETIC JOKE DEBATE AT EVC IS.
The problem is that you are blind, arrogant, uncaring of the truth - and you expect to be unquestioningly believed even when it is obvious that you are wrong. And you try to blame other people for your faults. Maybe if you stopped ranting and tried to be a Christian things might just become clearer to you. But probably not, since being Christian in any real sense seems to be beyond you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 3:19 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 698 of 899 (820042)
09-16-2017 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 697 by PaulK
09-16-2017 3:17 AM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
But they don't understand because they misrepresent it. Particularly Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2017 3:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2017 3:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 702 by Percy, posted 09-16-2017 8:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 743 by Phat, posted 09-16-2017 12:43 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 699 of 899 (820044)
09-16-2017 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by Faith
09-16-2017 3:19 AM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
But in the post you were replying to, Percy was simply pointing out the obvious evidence against your assertions. You can't honestly call that misrepresentation of your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 3:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 700 of 899 (820050)
09-16-2017 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Faith
09-16-2017 1:52 AM


Re: the usual miserable finale
Faith writes:
The erosion is minuscule, like rubble between layers caused by runoff or perhaps a shifting of the rocks causing abrasion.
Why do you say things that are so easily rebutted? Here's a diagram from the Wikipedia article on the Great Unconformity. Note that the erosion of the top of the Muav Limestone is not miniscule:
Here's an image of the Muav Limstone that happens to show a channel (riverbed) eroded into it's surface by the Temple Butte Formation:
Erosion of the sort that we find on the surface would look like canyons and cliffs which did finally occur after, ha ha, "millions of years." Ha ha.
And you would be wrong, incredibly, deeply, acutely wrong, ha ha. Some surface erosion looks like the badlands of South Dakota:
But some looks like Kansas:
What we find in the geological strata is a record of what happened. What we do not find is strata following a set of rules invented by Faith.
Sorry about your paradigm blindness.
Oh, gratuitous insults. Well, then, sorry about your ignorance, ineptitude, evidence avoidance and pigheadedness.
Sure would be nice if there was anyone on the evo side here who could think straight and had the guts to say what needs to be said.
Yet more insults. If you can manage to say anything that is true then no one could deny it. But if you're just going to continue to make things up then your situation is hopeless.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 1:52 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by herebedragons, posted 09-16-2017 9:04 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 701 of 899 (820051)
09-16-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Faith
09-16-2017 1:52 AM


Re: the usual miserable finale
The erosion is minuscule, like rubble between layers caused by runoff or perhaps a shifting of the rocks causing abrasion. Erosion of the sort that we find on the surface would look like canyons and cliffs which did finally occur after, ha ha, "millions of years."
Except that you have been shown entire stream systems in the rock record. You have been shown vast deposits of sand that we know came from eroding mountain ranges. You have been shown conglomerate rocks in the case of several erosional unconformities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 1:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 702 of 899 (820052)
09-16-2017 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by Faith
09-16-2017 3:19 AM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes:
But they don't understand because they misrepresent it. Particularly Percy
No one misrepresents what you say, particularly Percy. We compose detailed rebuttals of your ideas which you then ignore. You just responded to a 300 word message of rebuttal with a one liner. How do you expect to overcome any rebuttals with rubbish like that? You're in essence just letting the rebuttals stand, and then you have the chutzpah to complain about how no one gives your ideas any credence. You have to defend your ideas, not repeat them from scratch over and over again like a parrot.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 3:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 703 of 899 (820053)
09-16-2017 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 685 by Faith
09-15-2017 6:44 PM


Re: strata continuing
Faith writes:
Sorry, all edge was doing was repeating the standard explanation with which I disagree.
No, that's wrong. You misunderstood what Edge was saying and posted an irrelevant tirade on a different subject.
ALL strat columns everywhere were laid down and THEN erosion, volcanism and all the other disturbances occurred.
You're again simply restating your position absent any evidence and as if it hadn't been rebutted dozens of times.
And the volcanism at the bottom of the GC also occurred after the strata were all in place just as the Great Unconformity did.
This, too, has been rebutted dozens of times. How can you honestly keep restating your positions from scratch as if there had never been any rebuttals? Naturally the intrusions in the Grand Canyon Supergroup layers occurred after the supergroup strata were all in place, but not after the rest of the strata of the Grand Canyon was in place. And there is not only no evidence that the supergroup rotated after being physically buried, it isn't even physically possible. As I said before, take a pile of plywood and rotate the bottom four sheets upward 30 degrees. What does that get you?
No you don't understand any of it, and you cannot rebut it. All you can do is repeat the idiotic standard interpretation.
Well, more insults. You're the one that dropped into one-liner mode. If you're going to do childish things like that how can you expect to be understand?
But the fact of the matter is that we understand your positions very well. You have repeated them probably a hundred times over the years - there's no escaping them. And they've been rebutted as often. If the rebuttals are so idiotic then you shouldn't have any trouble responding to them, should you? But you don't. Why is that?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Faith, posted 09-15-2017 6:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 704 of 899 (820054)
09-16-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Faith
09-16-2017 1:52 AM


Re: the usual miserable finale
The erosion is minuscule, like rubble between layers caused by runoff or perhaps a shifting of the rocks causing abrasion. Erosion of the sort that we find on the surface would look like canyons and cliffs
You mean like the 800 foot tall monadnocks that jut up into the Tapeats? I never thought of 800' as miniscule, but I guess in Faith World who knows...
I did a project on "animals that farm" for a Population Ecology course I took and one of the groups I talked about was termites. Typically we think of termites as eating wood, but termites in Africa make these elaborate combs that they use to grow fungi and then they eat the fungus. In this paper, The first fossil fungus gardens of Isoptera: researchers identified fossilized fungal garden combs in paleosols associated with the Miocene.
A column showing the paleosols and in situ root systems.
Images of the fossilized combs recovered from the paleosols.
Here are the stratigraphic columns from another location where fossilized fungal combs were found.
Notice Aeolian cross bedding, erosional surfaces, roots, and fungal combs buried under 3 + meters of sediment.
There are quite a number of sites where these same types of termite associated fossils are found (at least hald a dozen of so).
So, what we need to know is ...
?? Are these sections part of the "Geological Column?"
?? Did the Flood deposit these as is?
?? Are these a result of termite activity post-flood?
Sure would be nice if there was anyone on the evo creo side here who could think straight and had the guts to say what needs to be said.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

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 695 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 1:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 708 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 10:51 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 705 of 899 (820055)
09-16-2017 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by Percy
09-16-2017 8:19 AM


Re: the usual miserable finale
ere's an image of the Muav Limstone that happens to show a channel (riverbed) eroded into it's surface by the Temple Butte Formation:
The channels on the Muav are maybe 30 - 50' deep; I think Faith considers that "miniscule." I think she expects that if the surface is eroded it should look like the Grand Canyon, which is the typification of surface erosion. Otherwise it FLAT, FLAT, FLAT.
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 700 by Percy, posted 09-16-2017 8:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 10:39 AM herebedragons 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