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:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2791 of 2887 (832598)
05-05-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2678 by Faith
05-03-2018 3:51 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Hey, a post about the topic! Congratulations!
Faith writes:
It normally would cause them to sag...
Well, yes, but not just normally - always. In the middle of a stratigraphic column there is a huge amount of weight of overlying material, so removing any material from there would cause the overlying material to sag into it. There's no "normally" about it - that's what will always happen.
...so some other explanation is needed in this case.
Are you saying you still believe that removing material from the middle of a stratigraphic column will not cause the overlying material to sag into the empty space and that you're seeking some other explanation than the one you originally offered? If so then that would be a big fat no. Just for an example, a cubic mile of sedimentary rock weighs at least 10 billion tons - if you open up an empty space a mile down then the overlying material *will* collapse into that space.
You need some other explanation, one that doesn't pretend that holes can open up in buried rock. 14174dm already provided that explanation in Message 2674:
14174dm in Message 2674 writes:
To make the layers shown, the channels have to be eroded before the layer above is deposited. Then next layer deposited fills the channel and finishes with the flat top of the layer shown.
Putting this in my own words in the hope seeing it phrased in two different ways will serve as an aid to clarity, while the layer is at the surface streams and rivers will cut channels into it. If the area becomes one of net sedimentation, perhaps because it subsides suddenly below sea level (say because of an earthquake), then the channels will fill with sediment. Sediment always seeks the lowest level, so the channels will accumulate sediments the most rapidly and will fill up with sediment first. Once the channels are filled in there is a flat surface which will continue to accumulate sediments.
I say it's probably the small amount of salt and the hardness of the layers above, and the fact that softer sediment did immediately fill the channels.
It's hard to decipher this. Are you saying that when a space opens up in the stratigraphic column that the hardness of the layers above means the overlying material wouldn't slump into it? No, this is wrong and impossible.
And where are you imagining that the softer sediment that filled the channels came from? There's no soft sediment in the stratigraphic column. It's hard rock, or maybe consolidated sediments at best. And when it fills the empty space it will leave a hole in the space it just vacated, so the rock above it will fall into that space. And that rock will in turn leave behind an empty space, and so the rock above that will fall into that space. And this will happen all the up to the top of the stratigraphic column. We would see the slump of material in the stratigraphic column not just at the level where the empty space was created, but right up through all the strata to the very top of column. Every layer above the empty space would show that slumping.
The really saggy places I've seen were obviously just deposited by the Flood, and there was lots of salt and the entire stratigraphic column sagged as a unit.
I'm unable to make sense of this. Please provide an example of one of the "saggy places." Why is the flood that deposits thousands of square miles of flat sediments in the American Southwest and that you insist is what floods do suddenly depositing saggy places in Michigan? Why are you assuming "there was lots of salt"? How could the stratigraphic column sag as a unit without leaving evidence behind at its boundaries with adjacent stratigraphic columns that did not sag?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2678 by Faith, posted 05-03-2018 3:51 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2792 of 2887 (832599)
05-05-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2675 by Faith
05-03-2018 3:38 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:
I'm the only one here with the correct understanding of the Bible,...
Next you'll be claiming you're the most brilliant and modest person in the world.
...but that of course means that everybody else with the weird views claims I'm the wrong one.
You shouldn't even be discussing the Bible in this thread. You *are* like Trump. Your posts are chock full of gems showing you don't even know what wrong is, just like Trump's tweets are chock full of tidbits revealing he doesn't even know what illegal is.
I just need to take my evidence to people who know what evidence is.
There's a lot of things you need, evidence and comprehension being two of them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2675 by Faith, posted 05-03-2018 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2793 of 2887 (832601)
05-05-2018 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2690 by Faith
05-04-2018 5:33 AM


Re: Limestones are very much mostly of biochemical precipitate origin
Faith writes:
...lived in an offshore environment within a few miles of the coast.
All that is evo fairy tale/interpretation, like "Tapeats beach" and other such imaginary landscapes that always make my eyes roll so hard they want to jump out of my skull.
My, so hostile. You know far too little to hold an opinion, let alone one strong enough for an eye roll.
Facts such as where it was found in this real world, circumstances of its finding, by whom, when, what else was found nearby and so on, would be far more useful.
As the link I provided would have told you had you clicked on it (HUGE CRINOID FOSSIL - SEIROCRINUS SUBANGULARIS), the fossil was found in the Posidonia Shale near Holzmaden, Germany, an extremely fossil rich area - it's famous. I don't know when it was found, but I suspect it wasn't in winter. I don't know who found it, but his name was probably Rolf. I don't know what was found nearby, but it was likely other fossils. Here are people seeking fossils in a Holzmaden slate quarry:
You know, FACTS, real observable things, FACTS, not interpretations and wild imaginations.
I guess this is what passes for intelligent discussion for you. The facts you requested aren't relevant and you have no idea what to do with them. You're just a fraud wasting people's time.
Oh and information about how fast crinoids grow would be helpful. I've googled it but not found the answer. Others here do much better at that sort of research than I do.
Oh, sure Faith, let me fetch some more information for you to ignore. Why don't you check out this section of information I found about crinoid reproduction and life cycle at this incredibly obscure website called Wikipedia. It'll tell you that it takes 10 to 16 months for a crinoid to reach reproductive maturity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2690 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 5:33 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2794 of 2887 (832602)
05-05-2018 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2692 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:27 AM


Re: Can't... keep... the... snark... restrained
Faith writes:
qs=edge Then you should explain why there are cobbles of granite and schist and shale, etc. along with the quartzite.
quote by who knows? writes:
...The Tapeats Sandstone represents near-shore beach and sand bar deposits.
Evo/Geo Fairy Tale Landscape. Reminds me of "Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea ...
Must be passing through your second childhood.
continuing quote writes:
The base of the Tapeats contains a conglomerate member (part of the Tapeats), called the Hotauta Conglomerate. This was a pebble beach formed as the Tonto Sea encroached and tore up the Vishnu, so the Hotauta contains schist and granite pebbles.
Error 404 - Not Found
So, how do you get rounded pebbles of schist along with quartzite in the conglomerate just above the unconformity? If they were so soft they should be folded instead of forming hard 'river rock' cobbles.
But they weren't all THAT soft.
You know, FACTS, real observable things, FACTS, not interpretations and wild imaginations.
Does the above line look familiar? It should. They're your words from Message 2690. So come on, Faith, facts this time. How do you know how soft they were?
What is more, how do you get rounded pebbles and cobbles of granite if the granite was not formed until long after the entire stratigraphic section at the GC?
The rocks got formed fast beneath all that weight of three miles of sedimentary layers and the heat of the friction and the volcano.
And what facts are telling you this?
Geology always imputes way too much time to just about any kind of geological event.
And what facts lead you to this conclusion?
And no, don't even think for a minute that faulting in either soft or hard rock can form hard, rounded pebbles.
If the movement at the GU broke off chunks as I'm supposing happened because of the dampness of the rocks...
But you just finished telling us that "The rocks got formed fast beneath all that weight of three miles of sedimentary layers." At that depth, in fact at much less than that depth, almost all water would have been forced out of the interstices between sedimentary particles. There would be no dampness.
...(though pretty hard from compaction),...
This is just like a Goldilocks fairy tale - you don't have any facts, but everything was just right. Whatever you need, that's the way it was.
...then I'd also suppose some of the chunks got rolled into pebble shapes, you know, the way you can roll damp clay into balls between your hands.
The pressure at 3 miles down is at least 13,000 pounds per square inch. There is nothing damp, and definitely nothing rolling around into pebble shapes. You're way off.
Yes I know you say faults can't do that, I'm not even to go there, but since you believe in all kinds of evo fairy tales about imaginary landscapes and seascapes in the unknowable distant past, I can't take your views about what happened in the distant past very seriously.
Still can't seem to carry on a scientific discussion, I guess, so you just fall into your usual content-free schtick.
Maybe most faults don't produce pebbles and cobbles, but this movement occurred during the Flood, a whole nother set of circumstances. Not your usual fault.
This would be the time to start presenting some of that evidence you keep telling us you have.
All you've got is imaginary landscapes,...
You said that already - look up a few lines. Amnesia much?
...at least mine has an independent witness from the time itself to a great event even if it doesn't spell out all the particulars. It spells out enough to contradict the whole Old Earth fairy tale and suggest a very different explanation for the observed phenomena.
Could you go practice your religion somewhere else?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2692 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:27 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2795 of 2887 (832603)
05-05-2018 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2760 by Faith
05-05-2018 12:00 PM


Re: the strata again
Sigh. The Holocene "covers the entire Earth."
It does?
Sigh. And you expect the Holocene to end up as a flat slab of rock?
Parts of it. yes.
More than you can imagine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2760 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:00 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2796 of 2887 (832604)
05-05-2018 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2789 by herebedragons
05-05-2018 4:11 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
[qs]Sometimes, you just gotta let things go, Herbie. As tempting as they are ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2789 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2018 4:11 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


(1)
Message 2797 of 2887 (832605)
05-05-2018 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2696 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:48 AM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
Faith writes:
Nothing in the distant past can be replicated or tested.
How distant is the distant past, and how do you know?
My complaint about evo/geo interpretations is that they are regarded as fact despite this handicap, though based completely on pure imagination from what, bits of flotsam found in the flat slabs of layered sedimentary rocks.
You're just trying to distract attention from your inability to discuss anything that hasn't been adulterated by your religious beliefs.
Of course some things can be known from the past, like the tomb,...
So evidence from the tomb from 3600 years ago can be known. How about evidence from 5000 years ago? 6000? 10,000? A million? Whatever your answer, how do you know?
...but I'm talking about THEORY, INTERPRETATION, not just facts.
Mostly you're talking nonsense.
All that stuff about "landscapes" such as a beach or a coastline environment and that sort of thing constructed entirely out of bits found in a rock and absolutely nothing else.
You let us know when you're ready to tell us how you found the expiration date on evidence.
And then I try to point out that you couldn't have any such landscapes where the rocks now are because they cover way too much territory and are nothing but flat sedimentary rocks which couldn't have formed from a landscape anyway, but the idea is so ingrained despite its impossibility nobody will ever see what's wrong with it.
You're repeating the same mistakes even though correct information has been provided to you many times, probably because you ignore so many messages. You put a lot of effort into your ignorance.
Perhaps you heard about the recent arrest of the Golden State Killer based upon DNA evidence from over 30 years ago. There is no statute of limitations on the age of evidence. Ancient evidence is how we know about ancient civilizations, for instance this Canaanite tomb
DNA is very solid evidence, but bits and pieces of stuff found in a rock evoke imaginary landscapes to the Evo/Old Earth paradigm-saturated mind that are unprovable and in fact impossible and actually falsify the whole paradigm.
You keep repeating what you believe but are never able to show how it is true.
And DNA couldn't tell you about any of that anyway. Neither could radiometric dating.
Tell us about the problems with radiometric dating. Really get into the details. Blow us away with your knowledge. Yeah, that'll happen.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2696 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:48 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2798 of 2887 (832606)
05-05-2018 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2743 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:31 AM


Re: no supergenome
It is very common to find time periods associated with their rocks, it's not considered a confusion and I'm certainly not making up the idea. You can find a map of "the Jurassic period" which obviously associates it with the rocks.
What rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2743 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:31 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2799 by jar, posted 05-05-2018 9:33 PM edge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2799 of 2887 (832607)
05-05-2018 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2798 by edge
05-05-2018 9:11 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
And then I try to point out that you couldn't have any such landscapes where the rocks now are because they cover way too much territory and are nothing but flat sedimentary rocks which couldn't have formed from a landscape anyway, but the idea is so ingrained despite its impossibility nobody will ever see what's wrong with it.
And that's a great question that we've gone over a brazillion times before but not recently.
So let's give it a try.
Maybe those of you who are geologists or archeologists or paleontologists can help.
What type of rocks will you get from a buried mud flat landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried marsh landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried sea shore landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried desert landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried salt flat landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried forest landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried volcanic ash landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried lava flow landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried volcanic fissure eruption landscape?
What type of rocks will you get from a buried annual runoff landscape?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2798 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:11 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 2800 of 2887 (832608)
05-05-2018 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2754 by edge
05-05-2018 9:08 AM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
edge writes:
Faith to Moose writes:
How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?
An angular unconformity occurs when the sedimentary layering in the two layers are different. There is nothing in the definition of unconformity that says one must be a flat slab of rock.
From Wikipedia, Unconformity:
An angular unconformity is an unconformity where horizontally parallel strata of sedimentary rock are deposited on tilted and eroded layers, producing an angular discordance with the overlying horizontal layers.
"Overlying horizontal layers."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2754 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:08 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2801 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2802 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-06-2018 6:16 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2801 of 2887 (832609)
05-05-2018 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2800 by Faith
05-05-2018 9:44 PM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
"Overlying horizontal layers."
And?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2800 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 9:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2802 of 2887 (832617)
05-06-2018 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2800 by Faith
05-05-2018 9:44 PM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
edge writes:
Faith to Moose writes:
How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?
An angular unconformity occurs when the sedimentary layering in the two layers are different. There is nothing in the definition of unconformity that says one must be a flat slab of rock.
My "bolding". I think Edge didn't state that real well. I think he meant "An angular unconformity occurs when the sedimentary layering in the two layers are of different attitudes", or something like that. Better stated as "An angular unconformity occurs when the later sedimentary layer has a different attitude (strike and dip) than the earlier layer.
From Wikipedia, Unconformity:
An angular unconformity is an unconformity where horizontally parallel strata of sedimentary rock are deposited on tilted and eroded layers, producing an angular discordance with the overlying horizontal layers.
"Overlying horizontal layers."
Your much loved Steno Principle of Original Horizontality. Which is to say that the dipping lower rock strata was NOT originally deposited dipping like that.
Later deformation might cause the later layers to also no longer be horizontal. There is even the possibility that the later deformation might have caused the lower layers to rotate back to horizontal.
Here is a photo of an angular unconformity that shows a history of two deformations. The older rocks are near vertical while the later rocks dip at about 45 degrees. See the source page for a little more information on how this happened.
I recall once having seen a photo of a similar situation, only that there was a third more or less horizontal sedimentary unit on top. Two angular unconformities in the same photo. Alas, I haven't been able to track down that photo.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2800 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 9:44 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2804 by edge, posted 05-06-2018 8:46 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2803 of 2887 (832621)
05-06-2018 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 2699 by Faith
05-04-2018 10:17 AM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
Faith writes:
You might try once. Or refute the usual straw man for the millionth time.
You seem terribly confused. The ball is in your court. You're supposed to be trying to explain the invalidity of ancient evidence, such as how far back in time evidence is valid, what is it that causes it to become invalid, and how you know this.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2699 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 10:17 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2804 of 2887 (832622)
05-06-2018 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2802 by Minnemooseus
05-06-2018 6:16 AM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
My "bolding". I think Edge didn't state that real well. I think he meant "An angular unconformity occurs when the sedimentary layering in the two layers are of different attitudes", or something like that. Better stated as "An angular unconformity occurs when the later sedimentary layer has a different attitude (strike and dip) than the earlier layer.
Well, my explanation had two parts. One was what an unconformity is and then what makes an angular unconformity. But you are correct that it might be a bit obtuse for the layperson anyway.
Your point is exactly correct, though. There is no reason that any layers in an angular unconformity need to remain horizontal after deposition. In fact, the Old Red Sandstone, the upper layer at Siccar Point is also not horizontally bedded.
I'm not sure that this addresses Faith's point completely or not, but I'm sure we'll find out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2802 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-06-2018 6:16 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 2805 of 2887 (832623)
05-06-2018 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2703 by Faith
05-04-2018 1:10 PM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
JonF and NoNukes have already addressed the main gist of your post. I agree with NoNukes that you're not debating with any sincerity or honor, but I think your lack of knowledge, something you actually seem to strive for, is forcing you to make unprincipled choices, leaving you nothing but rhetorical devices to defend your views.
We do not accept your views, but most of us are so familiar with them that we can repeat them back to you both backwards and forwards. This is a key point, so don't rush on to the next paragraph but ponder it for a moment. I'm saying that though we don't accept your views, we know them intimately. Most of us would have no trouble in an "exchanged roles" thread where we argued from your viewpoint.
The contrary is not true. Even after all these years you do not understand the most simple principles of geology, primarily sedimentation, diagenesis, and Walther's Law. Understand that the criticism is not that you don't accept geological principles, but that you don't understand them. It would be fine for you to understand geology and reject it anyway, because then we could have productive discussions and explore your rationale. But you're instead working hard at not understanding geology and then rejecting what you don't understand. You've constructed a ridiculous parody of geology within your own mind and you argue relentlessly against it, obviously to no purpose since it's only a fiction of your own construction.
Some spurious objections you use so often that they've almost become memes, such as words to the effect "life can't live on flat slabs of rock," something that no one here ever said or believes, and that you cannot explain why it is an implication of geological principles. You just say it over and over again as if repetition of lies yields truth instead of garnering contempt. These days there are two memes echoing endlessly in my mind: "There's no collusion" and "There's no life on flat slabs of rock." (The quotes aren't meant to imply you've ever phrased it precisely this way.)
Responding to your message's specific content:
Faith writes:
How do you test, replicate or in any way validate the idea that time periods as indicated in the rocks actually existed as landscapes with living things populating them?
Do you think possibly, if you rack your brain for just a bit, that this might be something that has been explained literally in the neighborhood of a hundred times over the years? Do you recall any of those answers? Might it be possible to discuss with you aspects of those answers, instead of us explaining this yet again from scratch for the 101st time so that you can ignore it and we can gird ourselves for having to explain it for the 102nd time later today?
In other words, I'm not explaining this again. Rack your brain, search through previous posts in this thread (maybe the ones you didn't read or understand), think about it, look things up on the web, etc.
All you have is the theory or imaginative construct and no way whatever to prove it.
Given you're astonishingly meager level of knowledge and the many things you "know" that aren't true and that are in many cases absurd and ridiculous, this isn't something you can state with even a modicum of authority.
Besides which as I've pointed out the rock itself makes it impossible, which you all flat out deny.
And yet when asked to explain why you think it impossible...crickets. And then a few posts later you say it again. And later again. And later again. It just never stops. You never get beyond square one.
How can you prove that your fields or that grooved Oceanside bench could ever become a rock in the geo column?
We can't prove that the bench at Welcombe Mouth Beach will become a layer of strata in the geological column. Predicting what the planet will do isn't something that can be done with any certainty. But no one was trying to state that one day that specific bench at Welcombe Mouth Beach will absolutely become strata. The point people were actually stating was that that bench represents the kind of conditions necessary to creating a layer of strata. And it would be fair to say that given current conditions that bench might indeed one day become strata, and the contact with the underlying layer would represent an angular conformity. But there's no guarantee.
But Welcombe Mouth Beach is not the only place in the world where those conditions prevail. There are probably many (not necessarily with underlying tilted strata), and some of them will go on to accumulate sediments that eventually become deeply buried and turn to rock, and some of them will erode away and disappear from the geological record.
But is typing that explanation of any value, or will you just ignore it and then later this afternoon or tomorrow morning ask the exact same question yet again?
How do you test, replicate, or validate the whole evolutionary theory that any given animal descended from any other? That mammals descended from reptiles for instance? You cannot prove that no matter how much circumstantial stuff you amass, and there will always be the possibility of some other way of interpreting it, and in any case the changes that would have to be made are astronomically impossible.
Has not this also been discussed at length? Do you not recall any of the many times this has been explained? What strange condition in your mind is driving you to reset discussion of not one but two topics to square one as if nothing had ever been said on the subjects before?
You hold to these theories because there is no way to actively prove or disprove them despite their impossibility.
Again, the paltry knowledge level that you've carefully maintained makes you uniquely unqualified to make such statements.
So to sum up with a few questions, why is it that after all your time here, after all the times you've been corrected, why are you still saying that we must believe that fossils are of life that lived on a flat slab of rock? Why are you saying that landscapes cannot become strata? What explains you're inability to comprehend how a simple thing like an angular conformity forms?
Learn something. You don't have to accept it, but to discuss it you do have to learn it, or at least start learning it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2703 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 1:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024