Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:44 AM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, vimesey (2 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 61 of 163 (558507)
05-01-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
05-01-2010 5:34 PM


Double Standard, Double Tongue
Faith writes:

I don't think geologists think such a thing, they just managed to not notice this is the implication of their system. I'm sure they think all the same kinds of events that go on now also went on during all those ages when life was supposedly evolving. But the actual evidence is that nothing happened to disturb all those strata for billions of years, no canyon cutting, no deep erosion, no rivers cutting gorges through them, no wind altering their horizontality, no mountains buckling them and lifting them up -- all that ONLY happened in "recent" time IF their theory is correct.

I find it interesting that you simultaneously complain about being misrepresented while misrepresenting what mainstream (99.85%) geologists and biologists state.

Why should anyone believe you over most everyone else on earth when you speak with a forked tongue?


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 5:34 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:12 PM anglagard has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 62 of 163 (558508)
05-01-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by anglagard
05-01-2010 8:08 PM


The Accuser Strikes Again.
I see. Then please show me that they believe that the strata were quietly laid down for billions of years during which time no erosion happened, no canyon cutting happened, no carving of hoodoos happened, no buckling of strata or raising of strata to mountains happened. Please.

From what I've read they all think these things happened in the past same as now.

The evidence clearly shows that they didn't happen in the past, and I've never read anything that implies that geologists agree with what this evidence shows or even recognize it. I will take it back if you can show me they do. Better if they can actually explain it of course. That should be very amusing.

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 61 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:08 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 70 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 9:15 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Coragyps, posted 05-01-2010 9:16 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 72 by bluescat48, posted 05-01-2010 10:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 63 of 163 (558510)
05-01-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:12 PM


Re: The Accuser Strikes Again.
Which celestial body are you referring to?


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:28 PM anglagard has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31820
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 64 of 163 (558512)
05-01-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
05-01-2010 8:23 PM


Re: The Accuser Strikes Again.
That you have to ask simply proves that you didn't understand what I said in the first place although you were quite willing to excoriate me for it anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:23 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:33 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 6:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 65 of 163 (558514)
05-01-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:28 PM


Re: The Accuser Strikes Again.
Faith writes:

That you have to ask simply proves that you didn't understand what I said in the first place although you were quite willing to excoriate me for it anyway.

It does not matter to the science called geology as the principles of physical science are universal, what does matter is your inability to answer a simple question. To do so indicates you are debating in bad faith.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


(1)
Message 66 of 163 (558515)
05-01-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:07 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
OK, getting back to the magic water, since we're getting nowhere with the other stuff.

I'll ask you once again what others have asked and you have dodged:

In the fossil record, why are the single celled organisms found way down at the bottom, followed by progressively more complex organisms like trilobites, and on and on past early reptiles, amphibians, early mammals (in order, mind you), with early humans and their accompanying fellow "modern" organisms at the top of the heap? Would "magic water" make this happen and fly in the face of everything we observe about hydrodynamic sorting today?

I'll make it simple for you: heavy things sink faster, so they should show up first. Yet ... they don't, and not even close.

Curious, that.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 8:39 PM Apothecus has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 67 of 163 (558516)
05-01-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Apothecus
05-01-2010 8:37 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Smarter, more complex organisms ran faster to the safety of the hill tops.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Apothecus, posted 05-01-2010 8:37 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:47 PM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 83 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 8:45 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 68 of 163 (558518)
05-01-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by hooah212002
05-01-2010 8:39 PM


Invoking Ents
hooah212002 writes:

Smarter, more complex organisms ran faster to the safety of the hill tops.

Like the grasses and flowering plants that don't show up prior to the Cretaceous?

Maybe they were possessed by demons.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 8:39 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 9:08 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 69 of 163 (558520)
05-01-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by anglagard
05-01-2010 8:47 PM


Re: Invoking Ents
yes


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2010 8:47 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 70 of 163 (558522)
05-01-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:12 PM


Inability to Rationally Communicate in English
Faith writes:

Then please show me that they believe that the strata were quietly laid down for billions of years during which time no erosion happened, no canyon cutting happened, no carving of hoodoos happened, no buckling of strata or raising of strata to mountains happened. Please.

From what I've read they all think these things happened in the past same as now. The evidence clearly shows that they didn't happen in the past, and I've never read anything that implies that geologists agree with what this evidence shows or even recognize it. I will take it back if you can show me they do. Better if they can actually explain it of course. That should be very amusing.

Bolded for emphasis.

No they happened in the future.

I can't engage in a serious debate with someone who is incapable of proper communication in the English language.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5393
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 71 of 163 (558523)
05-01-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:12 PM


Re: The Accuser Strikes Again.
The evidence clearly shows that they didn't happen in the past,

Which evidence shows that, Faith?

Take just one spot I'm familiar with, the southwest corner of Oklahoma. The present evidence there, from surface geology and several thousand oil and gas wells, shows that a major range of mountains grew there about 500,000,000 years ago, and slowly got eroded, with debris largely going into a body of water to the northwest, to deposit a big layer of sediment now called the Granite Wash. Rivers later cut into this sediment while it was dry land. Maybe 300,000,000 years ago it was submerged again under a different sea, and covered with a couple of miles of sediments. Rinse and repeat a couple of times....and we have the Granite Wash far beneath the surface up past Amarillo today.

Or did I misunderstand what "they" refers to in the quote from you above?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 72 of 163 (558528)
05-01-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:12 PM


Re: The Accuser Strikes Again.
The evidence clearly shows that they didn't happen in the past,

What evidence? You make a statement but don't back it up with anything. How can one debate your evidence if one cannot find it?¿


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 73 of 163 (558532)
05-02-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
05-01-2010 5:34 PM


Re: Flood evidence on Mars?
Part of the same event but I did not say the flood CAUSED it.

Good good. The only thing that you claim the flood caused is the strata itself. The sediments, volcanoes, tectonic activity, and fossils may all be associated with the flood but are not caused only by the flood. Correct me if I am wrong, you have said this several times now.

The weight of the layers themselves would have created the compression necessary for fossilization.

So would the same amount of layers providing the same amount of compression but laid down over a longer (or shorter) period of time. There is nothing special about a one year flood doing the exact same job of a one week flood, correct?

The Flood would have been such a prodigious amount of water it carried tons of separated sediments and dead creatures and deposited them in enormous layers all over the earth.

True. Much like the Mississippi carries much more than the creek in my town. The creek in my town does deposit tons of separated sediments and dead creatures, it just takes many more years.

If the total picture is the best explanation then the single example that seems not to fit just awaits the understanding of how it fits.

Incorrect. Some events require a change in the laws of physics for them to happen in a shorter or longer period of time. Unless laws change on a whim then some things simply cannot happen. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean everyone doesn't.

I see no problem with the Cliffs of Dover anyway. Just a deposit of limestone by the enormous Flood, one of many.

I realize you see no problem, but folks who understand how fast stuff settles and forms realize that such things cannot happen in a year. I would prefer to just link to Percy's thread Limestone Layers and the Flood My knowledge of the subject is limited and I would be doing little but trying to reword his OP.

You added words where I had written none, you jumped to conclusions not based on what I had written. If you read it straight you wouldn't get the silly stuff out of it you are getting.

It may sound silly to you, but now its pretty damn clear you agree that fossils, tectonic activity, volcanoes, and sedimentary layers do not require a worldwide flood to happen. No worries about misquotes or taking things out of context now is there? I am quite happy with where we sit, I am not jumping to any conclusions - you have provided them all in clear writing. Unless you care to retract anything at this point?

just that it all seems to have occurred as part of the same event

Great, now that we are past all the silly stuff we can move on to the evidence? One at a time though please, I cannot gallop.

Oh brother. Millions of years of nothing but limestone, then SUDDENLY allakazam! Millions of years of nothing but sandstone.

As crazy as this may sound, yes, you need to read the news. Rivers change direction, no magic or special effects required.

I'm sorry I mentioned Mars.

Why feel sorry? I think it was great that you mentioned it. I think further discussion about the planet compared to Earth would further clear up what you actually consider evidence for a worldwide flood. There is other images that I would like to provide, and further refine what you consider evidence for a worldwide flood.

I have NO idea what you think the relevance is of such a comment. It's utterly unrelated to anything I said.

I am sorry you don't get it. I thought it was pretty clear. You find it incomprehensible that for billions of years sediments got laid down and then suddenly... it gets eroded to create the grand canyon.

Now I suggest that for billions of years an area in South America is at one spot and then suddenly... it gets moved ten feet over. Or for millions of years a mountain is a mountain and then suddenly it becomes unwanted topsoil for a small town of Frank. So for millions of years there was a mountain, millions of years there wasn't a lake, and no flood was required to have a major effect on a region. Things change even if they have not changed for millions or billions of years.

You can call it utter nonsense all you want but the fact is that regardless of your incredulity things do change, some things that have remained the same for millions of years have changed recently, like in yesterdays newspaper. I can keep going with examples but unless you are purposely avoiding my point it should be pretty clear. Yes an area of flat ground can, in time, become a deep canyon if a major rivers water flow speeds up, thus increasing its ability to erode rock. (like uplift of the Colorado Plateau)

The evidence is the neat parallel of the layers that built up quietly for all those billions of years without even a river to disturb them.

This is new to me. Old Earth means nothing changed, no rivers, no continental drift, no mountain building, no uplift, rising and falling of oceans, nothing... just a slow building of sediments. Thats what you think Old Earth means? No wonder you disagree, so does everyone else!

The idea is that the Earth wasn't separated into those separate sediments until the FLood did it.

Those seperate sediments are made from seperate materials, of which Mars doesn't have. So obviously it is not going to have them as seperate sedimentary layers, much like Saturn or Pluto. Why is this so tough to get? Are you holding out on a wealth of evidence of Mars having the same types of rock and sediment as Earth? I would be interested to read or see it. If not then why are you so unable to admit that a flood there would not look like a flood here, due to different materials (to the best of my knowledge)

It looks like something that originally ran like lava.

So you disagree with the experts? When I magnify the image I sure don't see any similarity to lava, but hey... what do the experts say? Why does it also look remarkably similar to Yardangs? Why is there no volcano? or lava flows? Why is the area covered with sediments, dunes, and drifts?

ABE: Here is another image of the same region of Mars. Gale Crater : http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/...40_1750_RED.abrowse.jpg ***This is a very large image! Notice the canyon in the middle of the image, the dunes on the bottom of the canyon? From looking at the images or reading about the crater there seems to be no lava nor any mention of it. /ABE

A very quiet planet for biillions of years THEN all that activity? Give me a break.

Evidence please. This claim is so absurd, it also goes against everything in geology. Of course things changed!! If nothing changed then why different sediments, the different sediments are change. You define change in your description!! The strata is composed of different sediments, change is required for those sediments to be available for deposition. Something changed, its right there.

You are actually unaware of geologists talking about ancient mountain ranges, ancient volcanos, continental drift, old sea beds or fossils on mountain tops? You are aware that these type of words exist outside of a dictionary because geologists don't say nothing changed for billions of years? I seriously doubt that you are that clueless about geology and geologists claims, you may not believe it but you cannot be that uniformed. Right?

I don't think geologists think such a thing, they just managed to not notice this is the implication of their system.

Oh good. I thought you had lost your mind. You just think they are idiots who talk about eroding mountains but don't realize that means change? This seems unlikely.

Edited by Vacate, : Added link / image


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 5:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 163 (558537)
05-02-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
05-01-2010 5:34 PM


Re: Flood evidence on Mars?
Oh brother. Millions of years of nothing but limestone, then SUDDENLY allakazam! Millions of years of nothing but sandstone. What utter nonsense you all believe, when a worldwide Flood EASILY explains it all.

I sometimes wonder if you guys have a competition to see how many explicit or implicit mistakes you can get into a single paragraph.

Now, let me explain something to you. You know nothing whatsoever about geology, because you have never bothered to study it.

You should go away and study it.

Yes, that's exactly what I said to you about genetics.

Because you don't know the first damn thing.

In this case, you are trying to contrast two different ideas about why the rocks look like they look like --- without knowing what they look like. When you rambled on about genetics, you had some vague idea of what you were meant to be trying to explain. But now you've wandered into mouthing nonsense about geology, you don't even know what it is that you're trying to explain.

Go and read a textbook on geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 5:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 163 (558538)
05-02-2010 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:07 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
Evidence against geo theory: Ridiculous fact that layers were untouched by normal events such as canyon cutting, erosion by wind and weather and rivers, buckling and raising up by tectonic forces, until ALL were neatly in place. Evidence all over the earth.

This is probably the craziest thing that I have ever read anyone write about geology, and I am a connoisseur of creationist crazy.

Go on, read a geology textbook. A basic one. It'll have the word "Geology" in the title, or maybe "The Earth".

For fuck's sake,why don't you try to know about a subject before you talk about a subject? Why?

I mean, I'm currently trying to learn Spanish. If, before I'd tried to learn Spanish, someone had asked me the Spanish for "eggplant", I wouldn't have said with perfect confidence: "Ah, I know for certain that the Spanish for eggplant is asdkjhgueruh". I'd have said: "I don't know".

Now, after a little study, I think that the word is berenjena. But I am still not so sure of myself that I'd argue the point with an actual Spaniard who thought I was wrong.

But you ... you talk nonsense constantly about subjects that you have never bothered to study, and therefore know nothing about.

I have two questions for you.

First: how can you live with yourself?

And second: what would you do if you knew that in a month's time you were going to be dropped by parachute into a country that was monolingual Spanish? Would you then bother to find out what you were talking about? Would you actually then take the trouble to learn Spanish? Or would you continue with your policy of making stuff up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019