Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 969 (724077)
04-12-2014 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
04-12-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
I'll tell ya why it's so "uncontroversial" as you put it. It's because it's unfalsifiable, being built out of hot air to explain past events that can't be observed. Through this whole silly thread the only examples given of evolution are of microevolution which supports creationism better than evolution, being basically what Mendel observed about how species vary within their own gene pool.
Cedre is of course right that complexity can't be explained by evolution, which is self evident to anyone who can think, but the hot air aficionados call that the argument from incredulity and that's all it takes to keep the hot air balloon aloft. Golly gee such cleverness on behalf of the biggest fraud ever foisted on the scientific community and the human race.
Oh but do carry on. I know you will anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2014 11:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 11:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 113 by Larni, posted 04-12-2014 2:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 04-12-2014 5:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 127 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2014 5:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 133 of 969 (724123)
04-13-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Larni
04-12-2014 2:05 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE as that would contradict one of it's predictions.
Yeah but the likelihood of finding a land animal that deep in the geologic column is so small as to make that a worthless test.
Besides, the nature of evolutionary theory as hot air simply means there are dozens of ways of denying any such find anyway. It would be unique after all so you'd just hypothesize that it was a hoax or the result of some unusual geologic event. I have great faith in the ability of evolutionists to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit the theory.
And again it IS all mental stuff, theory, etc., hot air. The actual facts support creationism just as well or better, the fact of microevolution for instance, which is observed all the time and has been known for millennia, fits the nature of separately created Kinds very nicely, whereas macroevolution can't be observed and is made of mental cobwebs, has all the substance of navel gazing. And then there are the fossils, which fit the Flood oh so beautifully, and the strata which fit the effect of deposition by water just as neatly, whereas the idea of great aeons of time is purely mental castlebuilding that weirdly attaches time periods to slabs of rock. These actual FACTS do NOT support evolutionism any better than creationism, and really, the strata fit the Flood a LOT better than evolution.
Now I'll go away again so all the predictable, silly, rude and nasty answers can accumulate.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Larni, posted 04-12-2014 2:05 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Larni, posted 04-13-2014 6:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 8:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2014 1:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2014 2:54 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 140 of 969 (724136)
04-13-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
04-13-2014 1:03 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
No, silly, it doesn't verify evolution because even on the Flood model we wouldn't expect to find a cow in the "Precambrian," otherwise and much more rationally known simply as one of the lowest strata in the geologic column. That was my point, do pay attention.
ABE: It's sort of like saying if pigs flew that would falsify the law of gravity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2014 1:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2014 2:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2014 2:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 5:04 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 190 of 969 (724250)
04-15-2014 10:58 AM


Back to earth
As someone said here the cow in the Precambrian is a very bad example and you need better ideas of what would constitute a real falsification test.
Yes, following someone else's characterization of my argument, even if Earth is only 6000 years old the cow in the Precambrian is not to be expected because that's too deep for the burial of land animals in the Flood. It's not impossible on Flood theory but it is highly unlikely. The idea that it is to be expected from the Flood comes from evolutionists because of course you all have a big problem thinking outside your interpretive box.
If finding fossils isn't all that easy, as someone else said here, that also makes the falsification test all the more ridiculous. Sure, if you DID find a cow in the Precambrian that WOULD falsify the ToE but again that's a falsification test on the order of pigs flying.
Yes, despite Percy's usual straw man version of my arguments, he's right that I argue the Flood must account for all the strata we actually see, because there is no other explanation for them that makes any sense.
ABE: Just remembered that Coragyps complained that I never addressed something he said about trilobites and crabs being in different layers, which I don't remember but I also don't see any particular issue with it /ABE.
Then somebody reiterated the basic argument with cats and gophers below the Devonian, but that's just as unlikely as the cow. What about a mammal in a layer above the Permian, where land animals ARE found though not mammals? Not a good enough test for you?
And here again just for fun is the basic silliness of the ToE as expressed in the Wikipedia article on the Devonian:
The Devonian period experienced the first significant adaptive radiation of terrestrial life.
Here we go, into the wonderful fantasyworld of evolutionist interpretation presented as fact, a completely fictional time period described in terms of supposedly real happenings during it based only on some fossils found in some rocks here and there.
Free-sporing vascular plants began to spread across dry land, forming extensive forests which covered the continents.
This stuff makes me laugh, especially when I think of how seriously all the rest of you take it. Yup, what we have found in some rocks laid down deep in the geologic column is fossilized vascular plants, lots and lots and lots of them in that rock layer covering lots and lots of geography, which we interpret as "extensive forests which covered the continents" although of course this is just one of the rock layers originally deposited by the Flood as sediment containing these particular plants.
By the middle of the Devonian, several groups of plants had evolved leaves and true roots, and by the end of the period the first seed-bearing plants appeared.
Chortle. Simply descriptively speaking, factually speaking, referring to what is actually seen in the rocks, kind of in the middle of this rock what we actually find in reality is fossilized plants with leaves and roots, and at the top of the rock we find fossilized seed-bearing plants, but this simple factual spatial description isn't sufficient for the evolutionist mind, they always prefer the mystification of interpretive evospeak to simple fact so what we get instead is the mental cobweb interpretation that invents a whole time scenario for this rock and has the plants "appearing" in time when in reality they were simply carried and dumped by the Flood waters.
Various terrestrial arthropods also became well-established.
Again we must translate this interpretive nonsense back into simple fact: we find lots of fossilized terrestrial arthropods buried in this particular rock layer.
Fish reached substantial diversity during this time, leading the Devonian to often be dubbed the "Age of Fish".
Again the Fact of the matter is that there are many kinds of fossilized fish found in this particular rock layer. Not an "age" of fish" but a large Flood deposition of fish.
The first ray-finned and lobe-finned bony fish appeared, while the placoderms began dominating almost every known aquatic environment.
Translation: There are LOTs of these creatures found fossilized in this rock layer.
The ancestors of all tetrapods began adapting to walking on land, their strong pectoral and pelvic fins gradually evolved into legs.
I'm not sure where they get this "land" idea, probably from the fossils themselves being of land creatures, right? So we find lots of these in this rock layer too and we go on constructing our time period evofantasy by having them begin "adapting" to the land, when in reality all that has happened is that these creatures happened to get carried and buried by the Flood in this particular layer of sediment that later became rock.
[6] In the oceans, primitive sharks became more numerous than in the Silurian and the late Ordovician.
That is, there are more fossilized sharks found in this rock layer than in lower rock layers.
The first ammonite mollusks appeared. Trilobites, the mollusk-like brachiopods and the great coral reefs, were still common.
That is, ammonite mollusks are found in this layer though not in lower layers, though trilobites, mollusk-like brachiopods and the coral reefs are found in as great profusion in this rock layer as in the lower rock layers.
The Late Devonian extinction which started about 375 million years ago,[7] severely affected marine life, killing off all placoderms, and all trilobites, save for a few species of the order Proetida.
Which, translated, means only that these creatures are not found in this rock or a level of this rock, whereas they are found in lower rocks.
The paleogeography was dominated by the supercontinent of Gondwana to the south, the continent of Siberia to the north, and the early formation of the small continent of Euramerica in between.
How they arrived at this I don't know but it's obviously a huge interpretive leap from whatever the simple facts are.
Ya know, a science that really is a science should give us factual descriptive terminology instead of interpretive mystifications, and people who think of themselves as scientists really ought to know the difference and regret this sort of abuse of the human mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Larni, posted 04-15-2014 11:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 3:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 04-15-2014 8:41 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 205 of 969 (724280)
04-15-2014 4:52 PM


Good grief!
Of COURSE "cow" represents all mammals!
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-15-2014 5:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 5:15 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 209 of 969 (724289)
04-15-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
04-15-2014 5:15 PM


Calling AZPaul!
He's defended me from this sort of stupidity before, both CS and NN having suffered some kind of mental collapse, I hope he'll do it again, even if he does hate everything I believe and will say it as obnoxiously as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 5:15 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-15-2014 5:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 5:28 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 213 of 969 (724296)
04-15-2014 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
04-15-2014 5:28 PM


Re: Calling AZPaul!
At least he can think and follow an argument most of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 5:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 9:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 1:14 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 216 of 969 (724310)
04-15-2014 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Taq
04-15-2014 8:41 PM


Re: Back to earth
Yes, following someone else's characterization of my argument, even if Earth is only 6000 years old the cow in the Precambrian is not to be expected because that's too deep for the burial of land animals in the Flood. It's not impossible on Flood theory but it is highly unlikely.
And yet you can't tell us why it is unlikely that we would find a single mammal species anywhere in the Pre-cambrian through the Devonian. It is just something you have made up.
The falsification stands.
Oh but I have told you and many times too.
Land animals got buried in the higher levels of the strata, that's the explanation and there's nothing wrong with it. Certainly no more wrong with it than the idiotic idea that flat slabs of rock represent time periods of millions of years each. A lot less crazy than that as a matter of fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 04-15-2014 8:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 10:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 04-15-2014 10:26 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 218 of 969 (724312)
04-15-2014 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Dr Adequate
04-15-2014 9:17 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial? Redux
Falsifiability is one of the hallmarks of genuine science. The typical standard for falsifiability of the ToE given here is the idea of finding a mammal in the lower levels of the strata, where YECs also say they wouldn't have occurred. I'm sorry you seem to be unable to follow the argument but that's your problem, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 9:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 10:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 10:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2014 10:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 274 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2014 1:19 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 226 of 969 (724323)
04-16-2014 1:20 AM


It's just a big convoluted mental construct
Sorry, I do get confused. I should stick to mammals. Land animals don't occur in the Precambrian though some do in higher layers but mammals not until the highest. OK? So instead of a mammal in the Precambrian how about a mammal in the Triassic, would that do for a falsification criterion?
Well, actually it does occur to me to wonder why so many of some kinds of animals aren't in some of the strata, but I also wonder how well represented they are in the strata where they supposedly ARE found. I don't find this sort of information to be readily available. One thing about this peculiar "science" is that it gives out its information to the public very sparingly, as well as presenting the interpretive baggage rather than simple description, which is, as I've said, pure mystification. Not very science-like at all. Although in public presentations it tells us what SORTS of fossilized creatures are found in which "time periods" it only gives a rough sketch, doesn't tell us geographically where particular ones are found, which are found in groups of their own kind or with other groups or whatnot, or in what numbers or anything like that. Perhaps the information is available somewhere but it's not very accessible. Everywhere the inquiring layman is met with handy dandy little charts and diagrams, basically interpretation and mystification.
My point when I joined this thread was just to answer why evolution is so "uncontroversial," meaning so easily believed and the main answer is because it is pure mental stuff, pure "theory" and nothing but theory, intertwined theory, theory building on theory, nothing provable in any of it, as well as being presented in such a mystifying way that defeats actual thought many simply don't even try. In contrast to true science which is observable and available to all inquirers. Microevolution is an observable and provable phenomenon, known and knowable by all for millennia. While on the other hand macroevolution is pure theory and totally unprovable. Genetics is a true science, many can observe it and work with it with the right tools, but the theory of evolution remains unprovable theory. Medicine doesn't need evolution, which I believe was part of the OP of this thread. In fact I can't think of a single actual useful science or technology that needs anything from the idea of evolution, it's a navel-gazing useless science. Veterinarians don't need it, doctors don't need it, conservationists don't need it. Knowledge of microevolution can be useful, but macro, useless.
So for all intents and purposes it's unfalsifiable. Twenty people working on DNA can correct each other. Twenty people working on evolution are doing nothing but elaborating the mental labyrinth, memorizing theory and regurgitating it and cramming data into it.
And then there is that nonsense about the strata. It just keeps astonishing me that you can look at the surface of the earth which has beneath it layer upon layer of strata with fossils, say the Kaibab Plateau in the Grand Canyon area, that stretches for thousands of square miles in that area, look at it and not realize that all those layers were built up in the PAST and are over and done with, and now we have the surface of the earth on top of them all and the process has come to a stop. Long long ago. The land was tilted and folded here and there AFTER it all, the canyons were cut in "our" time, not in any time period before, and all the rest of the striking formations we see everywhere, including the Kaibab Plateau itself which was washed clean at the same time the Grand Canyon was cut. It all happened AFTER the layers were laid down, those supposed millions upon millions upon millions of years worth, and yet you can't see this obvious fact that makes the whole notion of reading past aeons in them utterly futile. But this is all a matter of SEEING, or interpreting, so you either see it or you don't. Some science.
It would be nice if you did find a rabbit in the Precambrian but as I realized here you aren't going to because obviously the Flood, which is the only viable alternative theory, didn't happen to sort things in such a way that a mammal would be found in the Precambrian. Hence like making flying pigs your criterion for falsifying the theory of gravity. MAYBE a rabbit could be found in the Triassic, maybe we should keep looking.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2014 4:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 231 by Pressie, posted 04-16-2014 5:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 04-16-2014 6:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 04-16-2014 8:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 240 by frako, posted 04-16-2014 10:46 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 282 by Coyote, posted 04-17-2014 1:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 227 of 969 (724324)
04-16-2014 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by NoNukes
04-16-2014 1:14 AM


Re: Calling AZPaul!
I was talking about AZPaul, who is a lot sharper than Dr. A.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 1:14 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 1:36 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 229 of 969 (724327)
04-16-2014 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by NoNukes
04-16-2014 1:36 AM


Re: Calling AZPaul!
You and CS responded very weirdly to a simple remark of mine and while I'm sure AZPaul would recognize that fact and could point it out I'm also sure he wouldn't want to be appreciated by me. I tried to leave a while back, I'll try to leave again.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 1:36 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 8:00 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 233 of 969 (724333)
04-16-2014 7:28 AM


So mammals are found in the Triassic, fine, give me a layer where they aren't found that isn't as low as the Precambrian.
And I've certainly looked up scientific questions in scientific sources, and I'm talking about FOR THE LAYMAN, not professional journals, and the presentations are all of the sort I've described, not description but interpretation, which is mystification and not science, an abuse of the mind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Pressie, posted 04-16-2014 7:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 237 by Larni, posted 04-16-2014 8:15 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 235 of 969 (724336)
04-16-2014 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Pressie
04-16-2014 7:47 AM


Faith writes:
So mammals are found in the Triassic, fine, give me a layer where they aren't found that isn't as low as the Precambrian.
Your question doesn't make any sense. Do you mean from an earlier period than the Triassic?
No, I mean from lower down in the strata than the "Triassic." It is interpretive mystification to discuss layers of rocks in terms of time periods. The actual physical facts have to do with layers of sediments with fossilized dead things in them. Time periods are a fictional overlay.
I'll try to answer it, though. In the Ordovician we don't find any mammals. The Ordovician is younger than the Precambrian and older than the Triassic.
OK, then let's make finding a mammal in the Ordovician the falsifiability test. It's still a bit like flying pigs but better than the Precambrian.
In my country the Ordovician is represented by quite a few formations ( and members of formations, for example the lower members of the Cape Supergroup and the Natal Group with the Durban Member very prominent ). These contain fossils, but no fossils of mammals. The Beit Bridge Kimberlites also are of that age, but obviously Kimberlites are highly unlikely to contain fossils.
Did I answer your questions?
Of course we can still discuss the members of the Clarens Formation if you're up to it (it straddles the Triassic-Jurassic boundary)
I invited you to tell us about this formation, saying I'd really like to hear about it, but you never responded. The invitation still stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Pressie, posted 04-16-2014 7:47 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Pressie, posted 04-16-2014 8:21 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 246 of 969 (724368)
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


You can't disprove a construction built out of hot air
NN thinks I misunderstood the cow example, I did not, he misunderstood me. And you also apparently missed how I know AZ despises me.
\Percy says I didn't see something he wrote, that is possible, so a mammal in the Ordovician would do. I don't really care, I was basically aping what you all say about a rabbit or cow in the Precambrian anyway, following what I thought was YOUR lead.
As for reading scientific journals, let me know when it becomes a rule for participants here to be scientists. As long as it's not a requirement and nonscientists are allowed I want to register my complaint about how the public is mistreated by the scientific community concerning evolution, nothing but interpretation and mystification, incomprehensible and unanswerable mental castlebuilding, abuse of the public.
Again, microevolution supports the creation of separate Kinds, and microevolution is observed and observable, macroevolution is not, it's pure fantasy.
Pressie wants me to look at bores from bore holes. I'm sure one can see lots of layers of different kinds of rock and fossils and so on. What one can NOT see is time periods despite his insistence that that is so. He doesn't seem to know the difference between observation and interpretation, but then that's what all this OE and Evo stuff does to a person.
Perhaps if I had another lifetime to put to the task I'd give some attention to the supposed upward changes in fossilized flora and fauna within the rock that are taken as examples of evolutionary change over time, I mean such facts as what I reported is described for the Devonian at Wikipedia, a certain kind of plant at the bottom of the rock being considered to be the evolutionary precursor to a different kind of plant higher in the rock and so on. The idea that there is a time succession is pure fantasy. It fits some sort of order you all have in your minds, but again it IS all in your minds, all this is purely mental stuff without actual reality. You have NO idea how a "vascular" plant became a "seed bearing" plant, you simply believe that's what happened and you insist all the rest of us believe it, and you get away with it for most of credulous humanity. Utter fraudulent nonsense. So anyway that's one place I'd go to prove the ToE false. Knowing it's a lost cause, again, because it IS all nothing but a mental construct and you can't fight a mental construct that is shared by a whole scientific community, it can be rationalized ad infinitum. THERE's the real unfalsifiability of the ToE.
And I really did like my pondering of the Kaibab Plateau back there too, something of course I've brought up before but this time from a slightly different angle. If you watch one of those flyover videos of the Grand Canyon one thing you might notice is that plateau that the canyon cuts through. Although it does vary in elevation somewhat, certainly the north rim of the canyon being higher than the south at least, overall it still retains the look of its original horizontality as one of those layers you can see exposed in the GC. It's a very large flat expanse of limestone that stretches for thousands of square miles in all directions but mostly north-south, and you can see its thickness in the walls of the canyon as the video flies over it.
Originally there was a stack of layers above that layer, which you can see on diagrams of the Grand Staircase to the north, and a butte that remains to the south of the Grand Canyon, ten or more layers to another mile or so of depth over that same vast expanse. That's a LOT of material that got eroded away to leave that fairly flat surface of the Kaibab Plateau.
It strikes me as humorous that the Kaibab limestone represents a TIME PERIOD, the PERMIAN time period. How did all the time periods below it stay parallel and those above it get washed away on OE geo theory? I'm curious because I can't think of a normal geological method that would accomplish that denuding of the layer of limestone, and I wonder if it's ever even been addressed somewhere. Looks to me like anywhere you bored through it you'd discover all the same layers that we see in the Grand Canyon to a great distance north and south, all remaining continuous and parallel with the Kaibab while the upper layers are long since gone.
How did all those "time periods" accumulate in their order over their supposed millions upon millions of years, all the way up to the uppermost layer in the Grand Staircase, and THEN and not sooner, just get eroded down to the Kaibab along with the eroding of the cliffs of the staircase and the faulting of the whole area here and there and the cutting of the canyons and the spilling of the lava here and there and so on, AFTER all those aeons of accumulated time. I've brought this up many times before and you all just shrug it off but it's a very very strange phenomenon to try to explain on the OE theory of time periods. IF you actually think about it, but of course that's the problem, normally it probably doesn't even get thought about, you just see that expanse of the limestone around the GC and you say Oh the Kaibab Plateau and don't ask Why are we seeing the surface of the Permian era here?
No, none of the others below it were ever surface. All the contours of the land are followed by all the strata in parallel.
So how did all that get eroded away leaving such a nice flat plateau. Oh I know you can come up with a rationalization, I expect there will be lots of that of course rather than a real recognition of the actual implication. Just more mental conjurings to support all the other mental conjurings.
To my mind there is nothing substantial to the OE or the ToE, it's all clearly fantasy without a shred of reality to it. And again, THAT is why it is so "UNCONTROVERSIAL," it's unanswerable, unfalsifiable, unreal, just a shared delusion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-16-2014 3:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 249 by AZPaul3, posted 04-16-2014 4:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 4:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 253 by frako, posted 04-16-2014 5:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 255 by AZPaul3, posted 04-16-2014 6:22 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