Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 256 of 303 (236895)
08-25-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by deerbreh
08-25-2005 10:27 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
I'm sure I'm older than you, and I don't appreciate your attitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by deerbreh, posted 08-25-2005 10:27 AM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by CK, posted 08-25-2005 3:34 PM Faith has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 257 of 303 (236898)
08-25-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
08-25-2005 3:26 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
So? I'm a professional qualified teacher with many years of experience - His assessment seems spot on to me. Would you prefer he tells you pleasant lies about his interactions with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 4:32 PM CK has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 258 of 303 (236901)
08-25-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
08-25-2005 2:48 AM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Disclaimer -- I have come NO WHERE NEAR reading all the posts on this thread.
I saw this and it jumped out at me.
it's absurd to think that one sediment would deposit exclusively for twenty million years and then abruptly with no transition whatever but a knife-edge thin demarcation between the two, be covered by an entirely different sediment that proceeds to deposit exclusively for another umpteen million years.
It sounds like you are imagining a scenario is static climate where gravel is laid down, then suddenly sand, or something else.
What I would suggest is that you aren't picturing the changes that take place in the world.
Imagine an area at the bottom of a body of water (let's use Great Salt Lake). I would assume that below GSL is a rather thick layer of a silt/salt mix.
Thousands of years pass, maybe millions and, for whatever, reason the water that feeds GSL dries up. The lake itself then dries up leaving a barren wasteland, which hardens.
Over a relatively short period of time plants which can survive in that nasty soil colonize the area. They grow and die. Their leaves deteriorate into soil and more plants grow. Over a thousand years a praire of hardy grasses builds up. This praire lasts for a million years.
Then, another Ice Age descends, completely burying the praire. The ice, full of the gravel it's collected in it's journey south, eventually melts, leaving the stones behind.
The run off from the melting ice creates a new lake, this time with Fresh water. Plants and animals thrive, and the stony bottom is covered in a black muck.
etc.
This scenario is not hard to believe at all, and from a geological perspective, the line between the salt clay and the grasses would be "knife like" since it likely took less than a hundred years to get started.
Likewise, the line between the praire soil and the ice age gravel would be just as abrupt, as would the life between the gravel and the black muck of the fresh water sea.
While this scenario examines a relatively small area, it would hold true on a larger scale. I doubt that most geological levels are completely consistant across their entire form.
Also, I didn't bring up fast events, like volcanic ash or a landslide, both of which would be even more abrupt than my examples.
I hope this helps explain the process

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 2:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 4:01 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 259 of 303 (236904)
08-25-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Jazzns
08-25-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Can't dispute the facts
Lot of text there I'm not going to get around to for a while. It would have been nice of you to abstract the main points.
As far as I can see, none of those rocks with their jagged edges and lumpy forms look like the illustration deerbreh posted of roundly folded strata. Are there examples of that sort of strain in the Alleghenies? Could be for all I know. And since I'm not reading the text, what is the evidence that this sort of strain occurs to solidly lithified rocks rather than to them at some softer point in their lithification? Am I to accept that a buried trilobite would simply elongate rather than break into pieces if it were already fossilized? Am I to believe that hardened rock can acquire waviness or record rain drops?
How about the strata which are exposed in the Grand Canyon walls and which cover the enormous territory from there up into Utah? How about where the strata are shown in diagrams holding their parallel forms while draping themselves over the upraised area which is just north of the canyon and which the canyon cuts through?
Here's a diagram: Grand Canyon & Grand Staircase cross section Scroll down to picture.
Do hardened rocks stretch yet keep their perfectly parallel evenness like that? Two separate diagrams posted on the GC debate thread show that rounded perfectly parallel form. Are there examples of such stretching over that mound to the north of the GC? There should be, I would think, considering that the raising of the land there obviously occurred after all the strata were laid down, including the unconformity at the very base of the canyon. But there is also evidence of cracking and breaking: The canyons themselves, the cliffs that are the broken edges of the higher strata in the Grand Staircase area. There are also tracks beneath the whole formation suggesting magma intrusion from beneath, although they don't reach into the strata area. But they could have under the right circumstances.
In any case I don't see how your information affects anything I said. I don't care if they deformed before or after they lithified, only the way they buckled suggests something short of perfect hardness and I'm not sure anything you linked truly precludes that possibility. The Rockies appear to have been upthrust after total lithification which could happen pretty rapidly under the enormous pressures of the weight of the wet/damp column itself.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 03:48 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 04:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 1:32 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 4:32 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 260 of 303 (236915)
08-25-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Nuggin
08-25-2005 3:40 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
The usual evolutionist semi-plausible scenarios. Mine make more sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Nuggin, posted 08-25-2005 3:40 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 261 of 303 (236926)
08-25-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
08-20-2005 9:13 AM


Re: The point of the discussion?
We know there was a worldwide Flood but we don't know exactly how it played out geologically despite many interesting hypotheses, and despite recognizing the patent absurdity of the geo timescale. We know that human beings started with one couple with no precursors and that death did not exist before the Fall. Yes we KNOW this, this is a rockbottom indisputable Premise. Faith has to be in God's word, not in any particular explanation science comes up with, and however long we have to go without proof, the waiting is necessary and worth it, knowing that eventually it will all be made clear. The futility of arguing these things with people who don't share this faith is already becoming only too clear, however.
My bad, I should have read more of the string to figure out who you were.
Since you are one of "those" people, I have to assume you don't have a basic understanding of reason, vocabulary or science. There's no point discussing issues with you. Clearly, you confuse the words "believe" and "know". You have hitched your wagon to a particular horse, and if it makes you happy, go on believing that.
Just keep that particular fantasy away from the public school system.
OR, alternatively, if you want Creation taught in school, accept that ALL creation myths should be taught in school (Maya, Babylonian, Egyption, etc. Since we KNOW that all these are truths and they have their own sets of Gods backing them.)
I strongly urge the rest of the science minded people to abandon arguments with this poster as they are a waste of your valuable time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 08-20-2005 9:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 4:18 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 262 of 303 (236931)
08-25-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Nuggin
08-25-2005 4:12 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
You should be banned for this personal attack. In fact I believe I will report you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Nuggin, posted 08-25-2005 4:12 PM Nuggin has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 263 of 303 (236944)
08-25-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
08-25-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Can't dispute the facts
I know. And since I'm not reading the text, what is the evidence that this sort of strain occurs to solidly lithified rocks rather than to them at some softer point in their lithification?
Strain cannot happen to an unlithified rock. If it is soft, it dosen't strain. We know this because there are rare instances of that. You can makup whatever other scenario you wish to believe how the flood might have done it but the fact is simply that most sedimentary rock was not "soft" when it was deformed.
Am I to accept that a buried trilobite would simply elongate rather than break into pieces if it were already fossilized?
That is pretty much what you have to accept because that is the fact. In order for a fossil to strain it must be part of the matrix of lithified rock. Unless you can come up with a better way to stretch a trilobite inside of soft sediment.
Am I to believe that hardened rock can acquire waviness or record rain drops?
Yep. That is pretty much what the facts are with some clarifications. The rain drop trace fossils happen before the rock is lithified. Then the rock is lithified and strained to produce strained trace fossils. That is the fact unless you can show another way that raindrop impressions would stretch.
In any case I don't see how your information affects anything I said. I don't care if they deformed before or after they lithified, only the way they buckled suggests something short of perfect hardness and I'm not sure anything you linked truly precludes that possibility. The Rockies appear to have been upthrust after total lithification which could happen pretty rapidly under the enormous pressures of the weight of the wet/damp column itself.
Sure. You are allowed to believe anything you like. But the facts say that layers are lithified when they deform. Not soft like you claimed. Just wanted to make sure we are all working with the same facts.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 3:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 4:51 PM Jazzns has replied

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


Message 264 of 303 (236945)
08-25-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by CK
08-25-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
So? I'm a professional qualified teacher with many years of experience - His assessment seems spot on to me. Would you prefer he tells you pleasant lies about his interactions with you?
Yes. Nobody has the right to impose their personal assessment of someone else on them, based on their "interactions with" that person, as if their subjective judgments and feelings deserve such a high place. There are other people in the world, not just you, and your personal judgments should be kept to yourself except when asked for.
{Correction: Pleasant civility doesn't require lies.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 05:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by CK, posted 08-25-2005 3:34 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by CK, posted 08-25-2005 5:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 270 by deerbreh, posted 08-25-2005 5:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 265 of 303 (236955)
08-25-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Jazzns
08-25-2005 4:32 PM


Re: Can't dispute the facts
I know. And since I'm not reading the text, what is the evidence that this sort of strain occurs to solidly lithified rocks rather than to them at some softer point in their lithification?
=========
Strain cannot happen to an unlithified rock. If it is soft, it dosen't strain. We know this because there are rare instances of that. You can makup whatever other scenario you wish to believe how the flood might have done it but the fact is simply that most sedimentary rock was not "soft" when it was deformed.
As I said, it doesn't matter to me but I don't see the relevance of this. I asked if there are signs of strain in the Alleghenies that deerbreh gave as an example, or in the downslope from the mounded area at the north of the Grand Canyon? You didn't answer. Are neat parallels maintained with strain? Those pictures don't look like strain maintains any kind of neatness whatever but produces deformities.
Just out of curiosity, how do you explain the difference between the soft-looking buckling of the Alleghenies and the jagged sharp straight stratifications upthrust at angles in the Rockies?
Am I to accept that a buried trilobite would simply elongate rather than break into pieces if it were already fossilized?
==============
That is pretty much what you have to accept because that is the fact. In order for a fossil to strain it must be part of the matrix of lithified rock. Unless you can come up with a better way to stretch a trilobite inside of soft sediment.
I'm not talking very soft, just not totally lithified. And also, has anyone SEEN a totally lithified rock deforming under strain? If not, how do you know it was totally lithified?
Am I to believe that hardened rock can acquire waviness or record rain drops?
==========
Yep. That is pretty much what the facts are with some clarifications. The rain drop trace fossils happen before the rock is lithified. Then the rock is lithified and strained to produce strained trace fossils. That is the fact unless you can show another way that raindrop impressions would stretch.
Something must have to happen awfully rapidly to preserve a raindrop impression.
In any case I don't see how your information affects anything I said. I don't care if they deformed before or after they lithified, only the way they buckled suggests something short of perfect hardness and I'm not sure anything you linked truly precludes that possibility. The Rockies appear to have been upthrust after total lithification which could happen pretty rapidly under the enormous pressures of the weight of the wet/damp column itself.
============
Sure. You are allowed to believe anything you like. But the facts say that layers are lithified when they deform. Not soft like you claimed. Just wanted to make sure we are all working with the same facts.
I'm not sure this has actually been proven, although again, it isn't important to the discussion as far as I can tell. So what happens to soft strata/rocks/sediments under deforming pressures?
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 05:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 4:32 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Jazzns, posted 08-25-2005 5:44 PM Faith has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 266 of 303 (236962)
08-25-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
08-25-2005 4:32 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
What a joke! What do you think human interaction is? Every communication we have either in the real world or via a virtual intermediary such as this is a reflection of, and informed by, our constant interaction with each other and the social context in which that interaction is grounded.
All your computer does is act as * tool for mediating that interaction. Subjective judgements, personal assessments and feelings about you are expressed in every post you have seen in this thread. There are always framed by the our assessments (on many levels) of what we feel the other person can understand, can stand to hear etc. Anyone who can read can see a "personal assessment" of your viewpoints in every reply posted on this thread and every often - it's unavoidable. Some are explicit but far more is expressed implicitly because of the cultural norms of this board and the sanctions that members (as enforced by the moderators) could expect for expressing more clearly how they feel about their interactions with you.
* That’s an activity theory approach rather than those defined by more cognitive based theories before anyone starts ragging me on that.In all its richness the activity of the human individual forms a system embedded in the system of societal relationships. Outside these relationships there is no such thing as a human activity (Leont'ev)".
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25-Aug-2005 05:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 4:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 5:08 PM CK has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 267 of 303 (236964)
08-25-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
08-25-2005 3:17 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
Faith writes:
The uncomformities that are upthrust or otherwise displaced portions of strata occurred with the tectonic pressures on the column after all the strata were laid down.
It is impossible for an unconformity to occur that way.
unconformity
Surface of erosion or nondeposition eventually overlain by younger sedimentary rock strata and preserved in the geologic record. A surface where the beds above and below lie at different angles is called an angular unconformity.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/...opaedia/hutchinson/m0007802.html
An unconformity is caused by a break in deposition of a layer and by a layer (or layers) being partially or fully eroded away. This has to occur BEFORE the next layer is laid down. It cannot occur after all the strata are laid down as you describe.
Another good link with some nice diagrams.
geoahead.com has expired
Link to a picture of a nice picture of an angular unconformity
Oops! That page can’t be found. Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences Iowa State University
An angular unconformity occurs when layers are thrust upward and top end of the layers are eroded to a horizontal surface. New deposits then cover the angular layers. Sometimes these angular unconformities are covered by numerous layers of horizontal strata hundreds of feet thick. There is simply no way this happens after the entire strata column is laid down.
And finally - here is a virtual field trip to an unconformity. Very nice.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/VFT/VFTManitou.html
I hope you check out these links Faith. I tried to select ones that were heavy on graphics so you did not have to spend a lot of time plowing through lengthy verbiage. I am sure you will find a way to rationalize YEC even with this evidence but if you are objective you have to concede that your notion of how these unconformities occured is simply impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 3:17 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 268 of 303 (236966)
08-25-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by CK
08-25-2005 5:06 PM


Civility
What a bunch of irrelevant trash. I'm obviously not talking about inadvertent or unconscious communications. I'm talking about civility. You generally exhibit very little of that, which may explain your inability to get the point.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 05:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by CK, posted 08-25-2005 5:06 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by CK, posted 08-25-2005 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 269 of 303 (236968)
08-25-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
08-25-2005 5:08 PM


Re: Civility
quote:
I'm obviously not talking about inadvertent or unconscious communications.
Neither am I - did I use too many long words?
But let's not get into it, the colour is slightly different on the planet I currently inhabit.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25-Aug-2005 05:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 5:08 PM Faith has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 270 of 303 (236976)
08-25-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
08-25-2005 4:32 PM


Re: Never was any intellectual dishonesty
I stand by my assessment of your lack of motivation for learning.
Here is what you said:
"what I'm saying makes sense as is."
I interpret this to mean that your mind is made up so there is nothing I can say that can inform your understanding of geology or the ToE. Was I wrong?
Why do you ask for explanations and links if you really don't want information?
And what do our respective ages have to do with anything? Because I used the example of how I interacted with young students you thought I was claiming to be older than you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 4:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 08-25-2005 5:51 PM deerbreh 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