|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Funny how you can’t see what is obviously there even after it has been explained to you.
quote: But the deformation is not the same. That is very, very clear. We can see that the lowest strata are much more deformed than the upper. We can see that there are large variations in the thickness of some strata where they fill depressions in the surfaces below. We can see strata that bend up and suddenly stop where they meet the strata above - and where those upper strata do not follow that same curve. Look at the magnified sections posted by Percy in Message 617 quote: The Smith cross-section looks like that. This one certainly does not Look at it!
quote: In full, perhaps not. But we can certainly see that there were multiple episodes of deformation and erosion while the strata were being laid down. That much is obvious - and that is the real reason you’re insisting that it’s too complex to understand. Because it is understandable and proves you wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Which sounds like you saying that you can see the evidence, but refuse to accept that it can override your opinions. It’s certainly the way you argue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: That’s an interesting insight into your mind. Looking at the evidence and understanding it + even at a quite basic level - is something you consider a sign of desperation. It explains why you are wrong all the time.
quote: I guess it is simple if you don’t care about accounting for the evidence. Unfortunately for accounting for the evidence is a requirement for a worthwhile explanation.
quote: That is certainly not true unless you have a very weird idea of parallel. Is a stratum that slopes down parallel to one that curves up ?
quote: Assuming you mean the area under the buried peak rather than off the edge of the diagram it looks like they don’t know what’s there. Certainly there are strata shown which could continue into that region and aren’t marked as terminating.
quote: There’s nothing weird about it. The evidence clearly contradicts you and you are desperately trying to deny it. That’s entirely normal here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: The fact that you can’t remember seeing examples (like Siccar Point)is irrelevant to the interpretation. The diagram shows what it shows. quote: It contradicts an obviously false idea that you made up. That doesn’t make it devious.
quote: Obviously if we are going to say which view a diagram supports we have to deal with the diagram as it is. And you have certainly tried to make such arguments yourself. Moreover we are not relying on any ambiguities but on obvious features of the diagram - and you haven’t pointed out a single case where we are.
quote: It’s obvious we can only deal with the question of when deformation occurred by looking at deformed strata. To accuse us of being devious on that ground is just laughable. Such a silly smear.
quote: The main reason they aren’t being used is that they aren’t any of the strata seen in any of the diagrams under discussion. And assuming that your interpretation is correct, they don’t even have much to contribute to the discussion. You are making a universal claim (at least with regard to this planet) - you can’t refute counter-examples by pointing to a few small examples of your own.
quote: The diagram clearly contradicts your mad speculation as has been explained. All you can do in response is to deny, to lie and to make false insinuations. And apparently you think that’s better and more honest than actually looking at the diagram as it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I am going to assume that when you say deformation between layers you mean deformation occurring in the time between layers being deposited. And in that case both assertions have been decisively refuted.
quote: Even if it is true in those diagrams - for the strata shown - that can’t refute the definite evidence to the contrary we have seen. So those really add very little to the discussion.
quote: As has been shown that is a misleading impression given by the Smith cross-section. The more complete diagram from 1910 shows clear and definite evidence of both deformation and erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited.
quote: Nobody confuses rocks with time except for you. However, since the evidence does point to long periods of time - to account for the massive erosion between layers as well as the multiple deformation events that occurred during the time the strata were deposited it doesn’t seem you have much of a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: As we have seen there are quite a few showing significant erosion. None of which can reasonably be explained as having occurred later.
quote: You have never explained the idea of erosion as a unit. However deformation as a unit can certainly occur if the geological timescale is true - and we have sufficient examples of deformation occurring before all the strata were deposited to say that your ideas are certainly false, You don’t have a million examples. So far we haven’t seen any real examples from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
So erosion as a unit just means exposed cross-sections getting eroded? That’s really not evidence for anything significant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Faith, this is openly dishonest. You know that the Smith diagram is misleading. You know that there is a complex history of deformation that doesn’t fit in with your crazy nonsense. Yet here you are trying to deceive us with the same old falsehood that has already been exposed. Here’s the more complete diagram again:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: It’s hardly unlikely. Current dog breeds were produced by artificial selection, which works faster than natural evolution. Evolution relies on mutation to supply additional diversity. Speeding up selection without speeding up mutation won’t make it work that much faster. Speeding up mutation produces problems which would need to be dealt with, too. And if your version of evolution predicts total extinction within 100,000 years that proves that your version of evolution is wrong. But please go back to existing topics if you really think you can defend this silly nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Of course that isn’t true and you know it. Perhaps you should make up your mind which lie you want to tell. Either the diagram is too complex for you to understand or it obviously supports your claims. They can’t both be true. (Of course both are false, anyway). Here’s the diagram again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
You’re just being silly and wrong. Mutation is needed to overcome the loss of genetic variation produced by selection and drift. Your own argument admits that.
quote: Unfortunately for you we know that there has been much longer than 100,000 years so your truth is quite obviously false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: In other words your time was wasted because you couldn’t pick any holes in it. If you actually cared about truth you’d know that understanding the evidence isn’t a waste of time.
quote: But I guess you have to resort - again - to making up bullshit to avoid admitting that the evidence is firmly against you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: It will never make sense if you think that a line that curves up is parallel to one running across.
This detail shows a nice example of the cut-off strata. From the middle of the left hand side, there is a thin shaded formation (I assume it is something bigger than a single stratum given the scale) Before it reaches the centre of the diagram it curves up to meet a dotted region, which slopes down - showing no sign of following the upward curve at all. Clearly the deformation of the upward curve did not affect the upper strata.
quote: In other words you couldn’t refute it. The evidence is quite clear.
quote: See above. We can certainly see enough to tell that you are wrong.
quote: Interesting how you suddenly claim that you CAN work out the history of the deformation. And you do it by ignoring the evidence and declaring yourself right. The dishonesty is so obvious.
quote: That is hardly plausible - aside from the fact that the distortion would also count as deformation we have the fact that the strata clearly did not deform as a unit. And the problems of deformation occurring underground and affecting some strata but not those above them are severe as you certainly ought to know. It’s not something that can be blithely assumed.
quote: Of course you are in no position to know that, you just assume it because it’s convenient to you. And at present we have NO examples of places where there was no tectonic disturbance until all the strata were deposited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: The problem with that is it makes no sense. How could it encounter anything which had been there all the time ? Why are you trying to make an apparently meaningless distinction between distortion and deformation ?
quote: quote: To any sensible person it is obvious that there was plenty of deformation going on long before all the layers were deposited. You just refuse to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: By which you mean we allow ourselves to see the obvious because we don’t care about pretending that your nutty ideas are true.
quote: None of us believes that a time period can become a rock in any way that is at all silly. That’s just one of your lies. Your ideas about evolutionary timescales are ridiculous and founded in false assumptions. It’s true we don’t have any problem in rejecting them but that’s because of their obvious faults and because we have the evidence on our side. There are plenty of transitional fossils covering intermediate states between reptilian and mammalian ears so there is no reason why any sensible person should have a problem with it.
quote: Which should be the case if there was continuous deposition. Erosion can only occur when deposition stops.
quote: You seem to have great difficulty coming up with anything that makes sense even though you are quite prepared to invent elaborate ad hoc scenarios without a shred of evidence for them.
quote: The fact that you choose to minimise and misrepresent the evidence only shows that you are dishonest. In short you think we are crazy because we don’t care about worshipping your lies even though you slander us. And we think you are crazy because you expect us to worship your lies. You even think that people who have never heard of you should worship your lies! I assure you that most working geologists have never even heard of you, let alone feel any fear of being slandered by you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024