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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(3)
Message 340 of 409 (680764)
11-21-2012 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:06 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:
Well then there is quite a definitional disconnect going on here that I certainly wasn't aware of. I thought the term was mainstream. Do you then call it the Geological time scale?
Well if you thought the term was mainstream why didn’t you simply point me to a mainstream article referencing it? That would have sufficed. I certainly use the term geological time scale, but that is certainly not what you’ve been talking about because ALL rocks on Earth fit within that framework.
Faith writes:
I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer..
Well this would make it hard to explain why you get well rounded boulders of granite and volcanic rocks in conglomeratic sediments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:21 AM Boof has replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 344 of 409 (680768)
11-21-2012 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:21 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:
I had NO idea that was a problem. I simply couldn't make any sense of what you were saying. I had NO idea why there was such a disconnect. You never said you didn't recognize that term so how would I know?
Indeed I didn't say I did not recognise the term, perhaps if I had it would have made my request clearer. My bad. All the same I'm a little surprised that you could not make any sense of my query "Could you please show me this geological column you have been referring to?" from message 256.
Faith writes:
Boof writes:
Faith writes:
I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer..
Well this would make it hard to explain why you get well rounded boulders of granite and volcanic rocks in conglomeratic sediments.
Don't just start shooting out objections at me again. I have reasons for thinking as I do and you may be talking from some completely other frame of reference. You can't deal with this argument that way. If you're so impatient about someone challenging your expertise and just want to slap us down with mystifying assertions I don't want to argue with you.
So you can dispute my interpretation of the geology, but I can't dispute yours? I think it was a reasonable observation and look forward to hearing a creationist perspective on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:15 AM Boof has replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 349 of 409 (680775)
11-21-2012 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:15 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:
Obviously you had no way of knowing I assumed you used the term just as I did, and I had no way of knowing it wasn't familiar to you.
Fair enough. I'm still interested to know why you think the term 'geological column' is mainstream. Is it in a lot of the geological literature you've read? If so could you point me towards some of it to help improve my understanding?
Faith writes:
I've already said I confine my argument to the Grand Canyon so when you bring in granite boulders and don't define their location except "conglomerate" - that's just mystification. Is it in the strata of the Grand Canyon or not? If not, then why do you expect me to have an explanation for it?
Seems a little incongruous to talk about a global flood if all the evidence you have for it comes from the Grand Canyon. I'm sure there are lots of threads specifically devoted to the Grand Canyon and flood geology, maybe we should move the debate to there?
Faith writes:
No, you aren't interested in the creationist perspective at all, just making creationists toe your line as everybody here does, as the Road Trip itself that started this thread aimed to do. You don't listen for half a minute to the creationist argument before you're putting out the next objection you think will really do us in. That's the modus operandi here, you're just doing your own version of it.
As you said from the moment you entered this discussion, your objective was just to slap me down for daring to challenge your sacrosant Holy Science and all its holier-than-thou priests. That's why you brought up eclogite and thats got to be why you are bringing this up, NOT to find out what a creationist view of it might be but just to find a way to blast me for not having an advanced degree in geology and having a creationist opinion at all. Which you refuse to think about, just telling me I "misunderstand" the Grand Canyon and need to study things I've already studied.
Wow, we just spent several pages confirming that you couldn't understand me when I asked a relatively straightforward question, but now you tell me you know what I'm thinking! Why didn't you use this mystical power earlier?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:15 AM 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