Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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:   Hello everyone
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 380 (712901)
12-08-2013 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Atheos canadensis
12-07-2013 11:54 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Nope. If the rock record is the product of the flood, explain the existence of unequivocal desert deposits.
See, here we go. You will not think about what I said, you will only change the subject to focus on something else. OK. You are INTERPRETING a collection of sand and other contents of a particular rock as "desert deposits" as if they were once actual environments that occurred where they have been found, which oddly enough happen to be in a flattened hardened originally horizontal slab of sandstone, which all by itself ought to cause you to doubt your bizarre idea of its representing a former landscape. You don't seem to know you are INTERPRETING, and that your interpretation is really really strange as applied to such a rock formation. But you're all so used to it you just never stand back and actually LOOK at that rock you are calling a landscape. With a sharply demarcated flat horizontal interface with an entirely different kind of rock above and below. It's a weird blindness you all have, induced by your theory. I don't know how to break through it, it's some kind of delusion that's as hard as the rocks you are so strangely misinterpreting. Hey, is our current earth surface conveniently arranging itself into flat single-sediment horizontality in which only a certain collection of living things are conveniently lying down and dying in groups, huh? Never mind, I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize that away too.
There is absolutely no way to reconcile the assertion that the rock record was produce by the Flood with the existence of desert strata unless you're prepared to get completely extra-biblical.
Except, as I say above, it isn't "desert" strata, it's a lot of sand that was transported on waves or currents of water and deposited as a layer among the layers. Yeah, all that cross-bedding too, you wanna talk about that next? It was either already shaped so as to lie in the familiar cross-bedded patterns before the water transported it, or the tumbling in the water itself shaped the grains.
That would of course be hypocrisy as you believe the Bible to be the only reliable record with which to explain geology. I sense you're trying to avoid having to support your assertions about the Flood now that you've blurted them out without a shred of substantiation. Nice integrity there.
Sigh. You're new here. This has been gone over ad nauseam. I'm not a newcomer to these arguments myself. At the moment I'm tired because of all the arguing I've already done on this thread, so that's probably what you are "sensing," my great desire NOT to have to go over this again.
And what do you mean when you say that only water could cause "strangely familial groupings of fossils"? It sounds very much like nonsense.
I mean that most fossils are found with others of their kind, is that not so? They are often found in "familial groupings" in other words. It's after all what leads evolutionists to arrange them in terms of evolution from one form to another up the strata. They tend to be found in only certain strata, in fairly homogeneous groupings. While there are arguments against water having the capacity to arrange them in this way, it's even more absurd to think of these arrangements in terms of the natural burial grounds from past eras of time. So conveniently buried in era after era where they could get fossilized. Conditions for fossilization are really not that easy to come by. And then why buried together in family groups? I mean more or less of course. Like the nautiloids in the Grand Canyon, all those nautiloids in one humongous layer that stretches for miles in all directions. That makes no sense on the theory of long eras of time over which the creatures just died normally. I'm sure I've said this much better with more detail elsewhere but I'm getting very tired and may have to take a long break.
I see others have dealt with your mischaracterization of uniformitarianism. You can try to redefine the principle but that is dishonest. But I suppose you must realize that it is easier to make uniformitarianism mean something different than to explain why all available observations of physical law in action are unreliable for inferring its action in the past. I see you have already been referred to RAZD's thoroughly researched and supported posts on the reliability of dendrochronology. Ignore them if you want, but your lack of intellectual integrity will not alter the reality that all our observations point to the conclusion that tree rings formed annually in the past as they do now.
Have it your way. You guys always do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-07-2013 11:54 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2013 1:13 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 247 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 10:19 AM Faith has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 242 of 380 (712902)
12-08-2013 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:36 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
One witness certainly wouldn't do it for your scientific theories about the past, you need lots of witnesses. But witnesses who live in the present and have only human speculation and imagination to go by in interpreting the evidence that comes to hand about the ancient past, is a true case of the unreliability of witnesses. Your dating methods are the same thing, as I've already said. These are witnesses who have witnessed nothing whatever, but just let their imaginations reconstruct the unknowable past, even calling their theory "fact," and you call that science and have no feeling for how absurd that is.
Wrong, Grasshopper!
Science doesn't require any witnesses. In fact, witnesses are not reliable.
Science requires evidence (also known as facts). And those facts have to be verified. Then one or more hypotheses are formed to give meaning to those facts. Only when one hypothesis explains all the relevant facts, has withstood the tests of time, and has successfully made predictions that have been verified, can that hypothesis be advanced to the level of a theory.
The usage of "theory" in the vernacular is vastly different from the usage of that term in science--something creationists either don't know or find convenient to lie about.
If you are going to speak about science, don't you think it would be good to learn a little about it? Or are you one of those creationists who thinks it's all wrong, so why bother learning anything? It sure seems that way from your posts.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-09-2013 11:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 380 (712903)
12-08-2013 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 12:52 AM


Re: Evidence's role in belief vs. knowledge
I'm not trying to say Islam is the one true religion, I'm saying that your myth and the Islamic myth are on equal (shaky) footing.
Which is exactly what I answered. The comparison is idiotic in the extreme.
And saying that the Bible has many authors doesn't resolve the circularity of using the bible to support the truth of the bible.
If you had an ounce of integrity you'd see that it must, that its many independent witnesses and many independent authors support and build upon each other.
I don't really see the point of debating this with you if your position boils down to "the Bible is true because it says so".
That is not what I said but of course as you've already done you will continue to mischaracterize what I've said to suit yourself. And I certainly see no point in discussing anything further with the likes of YOU either.
But I'm still interested in seeing how you reconcile the existence of desert-deposited strata with the story that the Flood produced the rock record.
Gosh, I have no idea why since you wouldn't give it a moment's fair consideration anyway.
Sorry, I'm getting beyond my tolerance here. Must take a break.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 12:52 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 244 of 380 (712905)
12-08-2013 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:59 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
But you're all so used to it you just never stand back and actually LOOK at that rock you are calling a landscape.
Geologists do in fact look at rocks. You don't. This is why you've been repeatedly caught talking complete crap just about the simple question of what the rocks look like.
Yeah, all that cross-bedding too, you wanna talk about that next? It was either already shaped so as to lie in the familiar cross-bedded patterns before the water transported it ...
Well now I've heard it all.
Did you even try to form some sort of concrete mental picture of what those words could possible refer to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 245 of 380 (712914)
12-08-2013 4:40 AM


have mercy
Even I am guilty, by virtue of my posts and my cheers/jeers votes down this thread, of leaping on the dogpile. Poor Faith - she is getting shredded again.
We should give her some time to herself, methinks.
Really? What do we have to do? Rip her brain apart into even smaller bite-sized pieces?
What kind of pride is it to beat down and stomp on the helpless?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:56 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 246 of 380 (712916)
12-08-2013 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
12-07-2013 9:50 PM


Re: Huguenots
The French Wars were fomented by Catholics persecuting Protestants, like all those other incidents, as opposed to your insistence it was just a political thing.
Still more misrepresentation from you Faith, as usual. I have never said that the French Wars of Religion were just political. You need to try actually reading what I have written.
It was religious, and being religious you have the choice of saying that Catholics are naturally evil, or doesn't it seem more likely that they got their incentive from Catholic doctrine through priests down from the Vatican?
Again, those are certainly not the only choices.
Religion, as usual, was simply a part of the conflicts, a tool to persuade the ignorant to enlist and get killed. But the Huguenots were not just peaceful non-violent religious folk, they were a political and military revolutionary party.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(3)
Message 247 of 380 (712920)
12-08-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:59 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
You contradict yourself. Either the strata are completely flat:
You are INTERPRETING a collection of sand and other contents of a particular rock as "desert deposits" as if they were once actual environments that occurred where they have been found, which oddly enough happen to be in a flattened hardened originally horizontal slab of sandstone, which all by itself ought to cause you to doubt your bizarre idea of its representing a former landscape
Or they display crossbedding:
Yeah, all that cross-bedding too, you wanna talk about that next? It was either already shaped so as to lie in the familiar cross-bedded patterns before the water transported it, or the tumbling in the water itself shaped the grains.
You really need to rethink this statement about cross-bedding. Either you don't know what it is or you have badly misspoken. Are you really trying to say that the cross-bedding was already formed and then the Flood picked the cross-beds up as a unit and redeposited them in the same configuration?
I'm not a newcomer to these arguments myself
This being the case, you must have worked very hard in the past to avoid absorbing any of the information presented to you. You don't have to believe in an old earth, but you should at least be familiar with the actual evidence instead of your misconceptions thereof.
Anyway, how does a catastrophic flood preserve a dinosaur sitting on its nest?" http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/...2008/12/ovirpatornest.jpg
Add to this other evidence of desert environments like faceting or angle of repose and your contention that it's just a misinterpretation becomes even weaker. We know that water weathers clasts to become increasingly rounded; it doesn't produce the wear facets seen on the grains of desert-deposited sand. And what of the angle of repose of the cross-beds? In dry conditions the angle of repose for sand is 34 degrees. In water it is 45 degrees. To refute this evidence from the angle of repose you must make the unfounded assertion that physical law today is not the same as physical law in the past.
I mean that most fossils are found with others of their kind, is that not so? They are often found in "familial groupings" in other words. It's after all what leads evolutionists to arrange them in terms of evolution from one form to another up the strata
So you think mass death assemblages are only possible as the result of a global flood? You are perhaps unaware that mass death assemblages occur today? For example in 1994 10 000 caribou drowned trying to cross a river in Qubec. No global flood involved. And perhaps you should clarify what you mean by the second half of that quote. Because it is not these mass death assemblages or "familial groupings" that leads to the conclusion of evolution; it's the pattern of morphological similarities and differences. If you object to the use of morphology to infer relatedness, please explain this. I started a thread a couple weeks ago challenging creationists to explain just that contention (Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness). No takers so far.
Have it your way. You guys always do
Oh poor little you. Maybe if you could provide evidence for your statements you could have things your way once in a while. Instead you will choose to ignore the evidence presented in order to maintain your fantasy. While you're taking your "long break", try reading the Great Debate thread for some well-researched and supported arguments for the fact that the earth is much older than the Bible claims. Try actually reading them instead of just dismissing them because you "know" you're right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 11:59 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 248 of 380 (712925)
12-08-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 10:19 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Good GRIEF. LOOK at say the Coconino Sandstone. It is FLAT on the top and the bottom with the crossbedding evident on the exposed vertical surfaces. Good GRIEF.
Yes, I'm GONE GONE GONE. Good GRIEF.
No, I'm not gone, idiot that I am, glutton for punishment that I am, optimist that I am that somebody might sometime actually THINK about what I'm saying. NO I AM NOT SAYING THE SANDSTONE WAS PICKED UP AS A UNIT, I"M TALKING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALLY SHAPED SAND GRAINS. They lie in the cross bedded pattern when heaped together because of their individual shape which was caused by either wind or water tumbling them together either in their original location or in the water. Or didn't you know that?
Dinosaur on nest, gosh you just keep em comin don't you, just like all the sophomoric debaters here. You haven't answered anything I've said but you know how to throw em out. Along with the gratuitous insults of course. I guess you're trying to impress the other idiot evolutionists here. Mustn't ever talk respectfully to a creationist.
I don't care if the sand was formed in wind or water, it was certainly no desert landscape and you have managed, as all you idiot evolutionists do, not to address the fact that it is pure idiocy to claim to see a landscape in a slab of rock with living things embedded in it at all levels yet.
\ So you think mass death assemblages are only possible as the result of a global flood? You are perhaps unaware that mass death assemblages occur today? For example in 1994 10 000 caribou drowned trying to cross a river in Qubec. No global flood involved.
Aw GEE, you would compare an occasional mass death in a river to the bazillions of dead things in the strata that got FOSSILIZED too. I bet your caribou just rotted away, didn't they? You aren't thinking but that's OK you sure know how to accuse a creationist and that's all that matters around here.
And perhaps you should clarify what you mean by the second half of that quote. Because it is not these mass death assemblages or "familial groupings" that leads to the conclusion of evolution; it's the pattern of morphological similarities and differences.
Which you would not be able to consider if these creatures didn't so frequently get fossilized in bunches so that you could classify them as belonging to separate eras of time, the evidence would be too singular and too random. However, you miss the implication of the familial groupings, of course, which is that they could not possibly have died normal deaths over huge spans of time and been fossilized in such huge numbers over huge spans of time, individuals of all sizes and ages too, which your idiotic theory requires; they HAD to be buried en masse in a one-time catastrophe, and if you think multiple drownings of caribou in multiple rivers could possibly account for the huge numbers of fossils in the huge depths and breadths of strata that are seen all over the world, then you've lost your mind. But that's OK, all you know is what you've been told and it gives you license to be nasty, which is what you all really thrive on. Gosh, getting to beat up a creationist must be a real thrill. What a bunch of self-aggrandizing idiots you all are.
If you object to the use of morphology to infer relatedness, please explain this. I started a thread a couple weeks ago challenging creationists to explain just that contention (Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness). No takers so far.
What I object to is your stupid answers to what I've already said, such as about the cross bedding, and thinking the death of some caribou is an answer, and your refusing to take anything I've said seriously: there is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna. If you just LOOKED at the rock, really looked at it, instead of imposing your idiotic theory on it, that should be immediately apparent. Dr. A says geologists look at rocks. No, in these cases they are looking right through them to their idiotic theory. The actual formation of the strata STRONGLY SUGGESTS DEPOSITION IN WATER ALL AT ONE TIME. Water DOES layer sediments. Long time spans are not going to layer sediments to such prodigious length and breadth as we actually see. An enormous quantity of water COULD do this and COULD bury bazillions of living things in such a way as to promote fossilization, whereas long time spans, even if you imagine periodic water inundations and risings and fallings of land, which is just a Rube Goldberg attempt to accommodate your idiotic theory, couldn't possibly accomplish what is actually seen. ACTUALLY SEEN, REAL EVIDENCE.
But hey, I know how the game is played here. I'm a creationist and you don't have to think about anything I say, you can give even more idiotic answers because any idiotic answer is sufficient to answer a creationist.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 10:19 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 3:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2013 8:39 PM Faith has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 249 of 380 (712928)
12-08-2013 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
12-07-2013 1:57 PM


Re: Some apology
Faith writes:
However, Jesus did teach us to hate even our own families if they draw us away from the Truth, so your quote is a tad out of context.
You're the one who's quoting out of context. Jesus said we have to count the cost of anything we do before we start. If we take up our cross to follow Him we take the risk of losing our family, of having them turn against us. It's more a question of being hated than of us actively hating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 1:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:17 PM ringo has replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 250 of 380 (712932)
12-08-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
12-08-2013 11:59 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
They lie in the cross bedded pattern when heaped together because of their individual shape which was caused by either wind or water tumbling them together either in their original location or in the water.
So you accept that the rock record contains wind-deposited (aeolian) strata? How does that fit with the Flood model? And I still don't understand your problem with the rock record. You think the flat contacts between the strata prove it was deposited in a global flood? Please elaborate.
In any case, the implied assertion here that aqueous and aeolian deposits cannot be distinguished from one another is pure fantasy born of ignorance. Given your professed familiarity with this topic,
I'm not a newcomer to these arguments myself
I must conclude that your ignorance has been carefully cultivated. The people who actually study these things seem to have noticed some differences between aqueous and aeolian deposits
quote:
Hunter (1976, 1977a, 1977b) has established the foundation for such distinctions by his differentiation of modem eolian dune cross-strata into their component stratification types. Each stratification type described by him is the result of transport of sand on dunes by a particular aeolian process. Some of these processes leave telltale characteristics that are uniquely eolian, allowing for definite interpretations of ancient cross-strata.
-Kocurek and Dott, 1981 - Dinstinctions and uses of stratification types in the interpretation of eolian sand Page not found | Geosciences
I've provided the link. You can read the paper yourself but I suspect you'd rather ignore it so you can keep pretending the geologists are clueless
Aeolian deposition has other telltale sings like faceting, frosting, angle of repose and grain sorting:
quote:
Diagnostic dune features:
Very well-sorted frosted grains.
Slip faces appear as very large scale cross beds.
ripples marks
Reverse grading: smaller particles blown across the dune crest tend to travel farther than large ones. The result is that dunes deposits show a coarsening upward sequence.
Abrasion (sandblasting): impact of saltating grains causes objects in eolian envoronments to have a frosted patina, like the frosting of glass infancy restaurant windows. Indeed, grains of eolian sand deposits are called frosted grains because of their texture.
Ventifacts: The products of the abrasion of larger objects by sand. These include pebbles, cobbles, boulders faceted by the wind.
-Typically of fine grained structureless rock like chert or quartzite.
-planar faces that meet at sharp ridges
-Facets eroded on windward side , but storms roll or rotate, expose new side. http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/geol100/lectures/34.html
quote:
As the sand mound grows, the point of maximum sand deposition on the leeward face moves closer to the summit, causing a steepening of the leeward face relative to the windward face. The steepening and growing dune now forces wind out over the top of the dune rather than down the leeward face. The saltating sand drops out at the crest and further steepens the leeward face until it reaches its angle of repose (about 32 to 34 degrees for dry sand), at which time gravity may pull sand from the crest down the leeward slope in the form of either isolated slow-flowing avalanches or the shearing and slumping of whole blocks of sand. http://digital-desert.com/natural-formations/sand-dunes.html
Aolian deposits are also characterized by a coarsening upward sequence in grain size and are generally finer grained than aqueous deposits.
To refute these various indications of aeolian deposition you must take the as-yet unsupported position that physical law today is not the same as physical law in the past. Observations show that aeolian deposits have certain distinct characteristics so it is absurd to maintain that when these same characteristics are observed in the rock record they are actually the product of aqueous deposition.
Dinosaur on nest, gosh you just keep em comin don't you, just like all the sophomoric debaters here.
Wow, nice rebuttal. I'm guessing you're aware that a catastrophic flood would not preserve a dinosaur sitting on its nest so you're forced to insist based on absolutely nothing that it isn't really sitting on a nest. Unfortunately just expressing doubt is insufficient to substantiate it. In Norell et al., 1995 A nesting dinosaur they make their case. Now you make yours.
Which you would not be able to consider if these creatures didn't so frequently get fossilized in bunches so that you could classify them as belonging to separate eras of time, the evidence would be too singular and too random. However, you miss the implication of the familial groupings, of course, which is that they could not possibly have died normal deaths over huge spans of time and been fossilized in such huge numbers over huge spans of time, individuals of all sizes and ages too, which your idiotic theory requires; they HAD to be buried en masse in a one-time catastrophe, and if you think multiple drownings of caribou in multiple rivers could possibly account for the huge numbers of fossils in the huge depths and breadths of strata that are seen all over the world, then you've lost your mind.
This betrays such a lack of understanding of the nature of the fossil record that I really have no idea where to start. Because it also contains several assertions (I count five at a cursory glance) about what is and is not possible and why only the Flood could have deposited fossils in this way, I think I'll just ignore it until you produce some sources as I have done. I'm perfectly willing to address your points when you can provide some evidence that they are more than just fantasy. If you really don't understand why you're not treated with respect, I'll tell you now it is likely because your idea of debate seems to be to spray unsupported assertions instead of backing up what you say. Note the tone of this thread: Creationist response to cetacean femur, leg atavism, and limb bud. where Aaron is generally treated with respect because, while his interlocutors disagree with him, he is actually trying to provide reasoned arguments and support for his position. Maybe if you try to support your arguments like Aaron did you will be met with less scorn.
What I object to is your stupid answers to what I've already said,
Does that mean then that you don't object to using morphology to infer relatedness? Or were you just trying to avoid the issue? If you do object to using morphology to infer relatedness then you should post your reasons (ideally with supporting references) in the Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness thread.
...your refusing to take anything I've said seriously: there is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna
I'll take what you say seriously when you can support statements like that. So far you haven't cited a single reference.
The actual formation of the strata STRONGLY SUGGESTS DEPOSITION IN WATER ALL AT ONE TIME.
This would be an example of one of those unsupported statements I'm talking about. I've provided several sources that show the aeolian deposits are distinguishable from aqueous deposits while you have provided nothing but your opinion that they are indistinguishable or that the rock record is the result of the Flood.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added link
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 11:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2013 3:29 PM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:14 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 251 of 380 (712933)
12-08-2013 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 3:08 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
I'm not a newcomer to these arguments myself
I must conclude that your ignorance has been carefully cultivated.
You have no idea how carefully. When she wanted me, a non-geologist, to produce rock samples and explain in detail how they formed and how we can tell how they formed, I recommended that she approach a geologist who would do a far better job than I ever could. She immediately flew into a hysterical rage.
She absolutely does not want to ever learn the truth. Deep down, she must know that she must avoid learning the truth regardless the cost. scienceishonesty (AKA "SIH") was in the same position as she is, only he was not able to protect his ignorance as much Faith is. It would be a very good idea for her to have a heart-to-heart with SIH, even though his own creationist past is still poisoning his mind regarding the alternatives to "creation science".
In the meantime, even though Faith refuses to benefit from the facts, there are many lurkers who still can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 3:08 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 4:14 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:20 PM dwise1 has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 252 of 380 (712934)
12-08-2013 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by dwise1
12-08-2013 3:29 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
I may be new here, but it is apparent that Faith gets quite huffy about not being taken seriously but refuses to address the cause of this, i.e. that she never seems to support her arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by dwise1, posted 12-08-2013 3:29 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:17 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 380 (712935)
12-08-2013 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 3:08 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
I must conclude that your ignorance has been carefully cultivated. The people who actually study these things seem to have noticed some differences between aqueous and aeolian deposits
I did not claim to know everything, Mister, kindly pay attention. I claimed to have been through this argument before. The difference you are harping on is irrelevant to my point, which is that in either case the grains were transported and deposited in their present location where they lithified, they could not possibly have been formed there.
I guess you simply have the usual learned inability to see what's wrong with the idea of a landscape being encased in solid rock, a whole stack of them yet, all different kinds of rock too. No problem for the evolutionist mind of course, reality is never a challenge.
But golly, how you do go on about irrelevancies concerning the formation of sand grains.
If you recognized the fact that the actual presentation of the strata absolutely destroys your theory, the question about dinosaurs on nests would be irrelevant, something to consider later.
I do believe the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the presentation of the strata, the evolutionist explanation is ridiculous as I have shown.
Again your disquisition on Aeolian deposits is irrelevant since there is no way they could have formed in situ. And I expect this to be recognizable if you just consider the appearance of the rock itself, it doesn't require references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 3:08 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Tangle, posted 12-08-2013 5:33 PM Faith has replied
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2013 11:24 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 380 (712936)
12-08-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by ringo
12-08-2013 1:43 PM


Re: Some apology
Jesus was saying that we have to choose between him and our families and all other loved persons and things, and that means hating those we all too easily love more than him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 12-08-2013 1:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by ringo, posted 12-09-2013 11:04 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 255 of 380 (712937)
12-08-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Atheos canadensis
12-08-2013 4:14 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
I have given ample support, but you are incapable of following the argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 4:14 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-08-2013 4:59 PM Faith 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