Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 286 of 380 (712991)
12-09-2013 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 AM


Faith writes:
Show me a lithified beach please that was never buried, or a lithified sand dune that was never buried.
You still don't know what the word 'lithified' means.
And stop being so cutesy about the Karoo formation. I know it contains a bazillion fossils....
So do those geologists and paleontologists who actually study the Karoo Sequence.
... so I regard it as a Flood deposit.
Luckily what or what or not you regard is of no value at all. What is important are those tens of thousands of geologists and palaeontologists who have actually studied the Karoo Sequence. And publish their findings.
Those mining companies, hiring those tens of thousands of geologists, are way more important than you. Unlike you, they actually put their money where their mouths are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:25 AM Pressie has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 287 of 380 (712992)
12-09-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
12-08-2013 6:15 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
Yeah I know it's geologists, but the thing is the geologists and the evolutionists are in cahoots about the ridiculous interpretation of the layers and their fossil contents, and they ARE evolutionists too you now.
Right.
The world's geologist's and the world's biologists are all in cahoots to spread a lie about both how rocks form and how organisms evolve. Odd how those two quite different disciplines manage to make a coherent and inter-locking story, but that's just lucky i guess.
These days of course, in order to maintain these great conspiracies the biologists had to recruit the chemists too so that the stuff being discovered about molecular genetics doesn't screw thing up for them.
It was a clever move getting the physicists to invent all that radio dating stuff too - they didn't have to of course, some say it's overkill but it all adds power to the conspiracy.
And what a stroke of luck that astronomers joined the conspiracy of an old age universe without even being asked!
It's the most successful conspiracy of all time: it's independent of political party, religion, gender, race, and country and it's held up for a couple of centuries. It even seems to work in the real world - finding oil, making drugs, sending mechanical objects far into space.
As a conspiracy, it's so successful that it's indistinguishable from reality. And yet, you, armed with only a computer, access to the intertubes and a 2,000 year old book of myths have seen straight through this enormous scam.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 6:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:29 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 290 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 2:35 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 306 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 10:59 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 313 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-09-2013 11:35 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 288 of 380 (712993)
12-09-2013 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Pressie
12-09-2013 2:13 AM


Fine, I don't need your information. Keep it to yourself. Good grief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 2:13 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 289 of 380 (712994)
12-09-2013 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tangle
12-09-2013 2:18 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
No, I don't consider them to be intentionally deceiving us, I think they are deceived but it's got an iron grip on them they refuse to let go. I have nothing against geology as such you see, but I have a lot against evolutionism, and since geologists are also evolutionists insofar as they share the same view of the strata and the fossil record, I call them evolutionists. It's really not such a complicated thing as you would prefer to make it out to be.
I'm trying to make a simple point in these last few posts which nobody will think about, including you. You prefer to accuse me of something, anything apparently. It would be very nice, however, if you would think about what I'm trying to get across.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 2:18 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 3:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 298 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-09-2013 8:05 AM Faith has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 290 of 380 (712995)
12-09-2013 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tangle
12-09-2013 2:18 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Tangle wrote:
It's the most successful conspiracy of all time: it's independent of political party, religion, gender, race, and country and it's held up for a couple of centuries. It even seems to work in the real world - finding oil, making drugs, sending mechanical objects far into space.
It sure must be the most successfull conspiracy theory ever. I can see old Igor (ex-KGB), Fritz (German Intelligence agency), Lee (Chinese Intelligence Agency), Bro (CIA), David (Mossad), Muhammed (Iranian Intelligence Agency), Carlos (Argentinian Intelligence Agency); Japie (South African Intelligence agency), Nigel (SI5); all sitting together around a camp fire (at Camp David, most propably) declaring:
'The world is lots of years old', take that. Stuff the YEC "research"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 2:18 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:44 AM Pressie has replied

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


Message 291 of 380 (712997)
12-09-2013 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Pressie
12-09-2013 2:35 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Let's see, you play Cat and Mouse and you play Change the Subject and you play Ridicule the Straw Man. Dr. A plays Garble Whatever Faith Says, and Misrepresent and Trivialize Whatever Faith Says, and he's also very good at Change the Subject, also Ridicule the Opponent is one of his staples; and Tangle plays Accuse Accuse Accuse.
Meanwhile I've made some very simple points that absolutely demolish Old Earth theory and you all ignore them. Oh yes, Ignore Faith, that's a biggie you all play, and you all play Change the Subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 2:35 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 4:03 AM Faith has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 292 of 380 (712999)
12-09-2013 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:29 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
I have nothing against geology as such you see, but I have a lot against evolutionism
But you *should* have something against geologists because they decided that the earth was old *before* the satan Darwin came along with his evil ideas.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 3:09 AM Tangle has replied

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


Message 293 of 380 (713000)
12-09-2013 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Tangle
12-09-2013 3:07 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Hutton and all that, but I'd rather call them evolutionists anyway if you don't mind because it conveys what I want to convey, which "geology" doesn't. If you don't mind.
And by the way I've actually defended Darwin at times, at my blog and I think even here, so you might reconsider your snarky snarly Straw Man. He made some necessary observations and criticized some stupidities that needed to be criticized. He was wrong about species evolving to new species of course, and Hutton's totally subjectively made up Old Earth unfortunately gave him license for that stupendous error.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 292 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 3:07 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 3:32 AM Faith has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 294 of 380 (713001)
12-09-2013 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
12-09-2013 3:09 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
.....I'd rather call them evolutionists anyway if you don't mind because it conveys what I want to convey, which "geology" doesn't. If you don't mind.
I don't mind at all Faith, not at all.
By saying 'it conveys what you want to convey' despite it being factually incorrect at a very basic level, you just demostrate perfectly your dishonest approach.
By calling geologists, chemists, physicists and astronomers 'evolutionists' that are all involved in a global conspiarcy, you just promote your prejudice and bias.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 3:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 4:20 AM Tangle has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 295 of 380 (713002)
12-09-2013 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:44 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
quote:
Meanwhile I've made some very simple points that absolutely demolish Old Earth theory and you all ignore them. Oh yes, Ignore Faith, that's a biggie you all play, and you all play Change the Subject.
Really? Please explain exactly what 'Old Earth theory' is. I've never heard of such a scientific theory in my life.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:44 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 296 of 380 (713003)
12-09-2013 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Tangle
12-09-2013 3:32 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
By calling geologists, chemists, physicists and astronomers 'evolutionists' that are all involved in a global conspiarcy, you just promote your prejudice and bias.
But I DON'T call chemists, physicists and astronomers evolutionists, and I just said I'm not talking about a conspiracy so it's you who are lying and promoting prejudice and bias. Straighten up.
Oh and if you ever do decide to stop lying about me and changing the subject try considering my points about how the Old Earth is a delusional theory since that's my main effort here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 3:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2013 5:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 300 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 9:48 AM Faith has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 297 of 380 (713006)
12-09-2013 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
12-09-2013 4:20 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
You wrote:
No, I don't consider them to be intentionally deceiving us, I think they are deceived but it's got an iron grip on them they refuse to let go. I have nothing against geology as such you see, but I have a lot against evolutionism, and since geologists are also evolutionists insofar as they share the same view of the strata and the fossil record, I call them evolutionists. It's really not such a complicated thing as you would prefer to make it out to be.
Do you actually know what you write, Faith? Living in Colorado I guess? (Nothing against people of Colorado at all. Legally smoking weed from the first of January is what I'm referring to). Whoopieeeeeee!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Chamged sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 4:20 AM Faith has not replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 298 of 380 (713023)
12-09-2013 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:29 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
I'm trying to make a simple point in these last few posts which nobody will think about,
Nobody is giving any credence to your posts because they all boil down to "I'm right, OBVIOUSLY, so you must be wrong". Simple is right, but not in a good way. And you're harping on people for changing the subject and not responding to your posts, but I notice you seem to have forgotten to respond substantively to this point I made:
It is of course conceivable that grains weathered in a desert environment could be redeposited elsewhere by water. But when you try to argue that such reworked sediments also contain a clearly in situ dinosaur on a nest it strains credulity that they were deposited in the Flood. Add to this the bedforms (not grain weathering pattern) described in the paper I linked that are found only in aeolian deposits and your fantasy becomes less plausible still. Plus there's the angle of repose, which you haven't been able to explain away. Sand deposited in dry conditions has a 34 degree angle of repose. Sand deposited in water has a 45 degree angle of repose. Therefore when we find cross-bedded sand with a 34 degree angle of repose we can logically conclude that the sand was deposited under aeolian conditions, not aqueous conditions. Unless you're prepared to argue that physical law operated differently at the time of the Flood and allowed wet sand to be deposited with an angle of repose characteristic of dry sand. You'll have to argue that certain deposits are composed of grains that display signs of aeolian weathering and are bedded in a way characteristic of aeolian environments and contain in situ terrestrial fossils all by coincidence because they are really reworked sediments deposited by the Flood? Is that the logic that you feel is so iron-clad that you don't need to provide citations? I have provided sources that corroborate my statement that aeolian deposits are identifiable and present in the rock record.
Your reply consisted of something like "I'm right and you're wrong. Furthermore, you're wrong and I'm right. OBVIOUSLY." Come on Faith. Explain why we find deposits that have grain morphology that looks like it's from a desert as well as bedforms that show distinctive traits of deserts and contain in situ remains of terrestrial animals. Try to do better than "They aren't desert deposits because they aren't desert deposits", which is the best argument you've squeezed out so far. Explain why the bedding is at a 34 degree angle, something that only occurs in dry sand and thus refutes your position that the sediments were deposited by water. I know you won't do this because you'd actually have to provide reasoned argumentation instead of merely claiming to have done so (still waiting on those messages where you provided all those great arguments).
Well, it's lithified and apparently it looks like some beaches. Beyond that there's no reason to think it's any more ancient than about 4300 years old, and was somehow created in the Flood, probably between waves.
Getting it lithified should be a problem on your model, though it's not a problem on mine, since such a pattern could have been created as a wave receded or the tide was out for some period of time, and then it would have been filled in by new sediments brought in on the next wave, which would preserve its structure, and the incredible height to which the strata rose would explain how it was all eventually solidified.
Surprise! More unsupported nonsense. Explain why lithification is problematic for the old earth and uniformitarianism models. Are you going to say its because only the Flood could have deposited the required sediment to compress the underlying sediments? If so, that would be another example of a worthless assertion that no one will take seriously because you have no support for this statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 10:39 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 299 of 380 (713024)
12-09-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
12-09-2013 1:52 AM


You can't get to the next page, that starts with message 271? NWR and I have been having the same problem but only for part of 268 plus 269 and 270.
Originally, I could not get to anything past Message 268. I had my profile settings to 20 messages per page. I changed it to 15 per page, so that I could get to Message 271.
The problem seems to be fixed. I can now see the missing posts. The end of Message 268 now says:
quote:
Edited by Admin, 12-09-2013 6:45 AM: Remove text improperly inserted by board software.
I guess I can now go back to 20 messages per page.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:52 AM Faith has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 300 of 380 (713028)
12-09-2013 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
12-09-2013 4:20 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
But I DON'T call chemists, physicists and astronomers evolutionists, and I just said I'm not talking about a conspiracy so it's you who are lying and promoting prejudice and bias.
Really, so when you said this:
Faith writes:
No, I don't consider them [Ed:chemists, physicists and astronomers] to be intentionally deceiving us, I think they are deceived but it's got an iron grip on them they refuse to let go. I have nothing against geology as such you see, but I have a lot against evolutionism, and since geologists are also evolutionists insofar as they share the same view of the strata and the fossil record, I call them evolutionists. It's really not such a complicated thing as you would prefer to make it out to be.
It just means that they're all just stupid and wrong?
An 'evolutionist' is an anti-science, creationist, label which appears to mean anyone of any discipline that accepts evolution. This is a descriptor of virtually every scientist on the planet so it really doesn't define anyone at all.
ALL of science is against you so you might as well stick to standard labels and just call the ones that actually study evolution biologists so we're clear which particular branch of science you're trying to slander.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 4:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 10:30 AM Tangle 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