|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That post is so bizarre, edge, that I don't know if I can answer it at all. I have to take a break and while I'm gone I appeal to any clear-headed person who might actually exist at EvC, to answer you. I'm not holding my breath, things may well be worse when I return.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
[ Off-topic content hidden. Click on "peek" to see content. Please, no replies to this message. --Admin ]
Faith, decades ago I listened to a presentation by a former fundamentalist minister, one who had grown up a fundamentalist. He described the condition of being a fundamentalist as being when your theology becomes your psychology. In the subsequent decades, especially after my divorce, I have seen his description born out as true, especially in the fact that fundamentalist and near-fundamentalist Christians need specially-trained counselors and in how their own DivorceCare program and singles counseling presentations have nothing positive for non-Christians (eg, DivorceCare repeatedly emphasizes that you cannot ever possibly recover from divorce, but rather that only Jesus can help us to recover -- ergo they teach that only Christians could ever possibly recover from divorce; please note that the US Army Chaplain Corps had required that all Army personnel going through marital problems to undergo the DivorceCare program). BTW, that former fundamentalist minister and life-long fundamentalist was Dan Barker, now known as "America's Leading Atheist." Faith, you have your own unique way of looking at the world. It is your theology that controls how you think. I asked you directly what it would mean it you were wrong. That is all tied up with your theology. With your Man-made humanly fallible theology. The rest of us do not share your theology and therefore are not bound and blinded by your theology. One Sunday afternoon, my Lindy Hop instructor offered this thought. We rotate partners during the class. With some partners, the moves we're learning work, but with some partners they don't. So we expect to see that with some partners it will work (because they know what they are doing) and with others it won't (because they do not know what they are doing). If it doesn't work, then either you are the problem or your partner is the problem. His suggestion that Sunday afternoon was that, if it doesn't work with any of your partners, then you are the problem. BTW, FWIW, my prevailing experience as a leader was for my new partner to exclaim joy that she was finally able to perform the move, followed by a sigh or groan of regret when she had to rotate to the next guy. Faith, you think differently than we normals do. Here is a hint at how we think: We are familiar with physics. Physics explains how the universe works. Therefore, we are familiar with how the universe works. You are not familiar with physics. In fact, you have explicitly expressed opposition to even attempting to learn anything about physics. Therefore, you have no idea how the universe works nor do you have any desire to learn. Therefore, you are not familiar with how the universe works. And hence any statements you may attempt to make regarding how the universe works can only be met with dismissal and uncontrollable sniggering. We are familiar with basic geology. You are not. In fact, you have explicitly expressed opposition to even attempting to learn anything about geology. Therefore, you have no idea how geology works nor do you have any desire to learn. Our motivation is always to examine and follow the evidence. Your motivation is to always adhere to some kind of dogmatic stance that you never fully reveal to anyone. We seek the truth, whereas you seek to support your dogma no matter what. That should be a red flag to any seeker of truth. We understand how depositation occurs. You do not. You have received a kit with which you can perform your own experiments, but to my knowledge you have refused to do so. And yet you continue to pontificate on how depositation occurs. All of which is completely and utterly false. Logic is orderly thought, but logic always depends on premises. You can form any number of different logics upon different sets of premises. Pick idiotic and false premises and you can derive a valid logical conclusion, only it will be utterly false (actually, it could be true, but you cannot prove it to be such with this logical argument). Start with true premises and you can arrive at a conclusion whose truth you can be assured. Premises that are in accordance with observable and testable truth are far more trustworthy than premises that are contrary-to-fact. What the rest of us here discuss is based on our understanding of the universe. Everything that we say and think is compatible with that understanding. That understanding is based on physics and geology and direct experience and a myriad of other sources. What we know from all of those sources is self-consistent. And we are able to construct any number of experiments with which to test our own understandings and which confirm what we understand about the universe. Faith, you have no understanding of the universe. You have a set of arbitrary and contrary-to-fact assertions that you somehow feel must be absolutely true even though everything that is known about the universe indicates otherwise. Going back to Lindy Hop class, you are the one who always has a problem with every body else. That means that you are the problem. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
[ Off-topic content hidden. Click "peek" to view content. Please, no replies. This post presents an excellent question, but it's a discussion for another thread. ]
Faith, I asked you this before: What if you are wrong? You really do need to answer that question. Other "true Christians" have taken the position that if they are wrong, then the Bible is false and God does not exist. Is that your position? If it is, then you need to tell us so. If it is not, then you need to tell us so. You have mumbled something about you protecting the truth of the Bible. But your theology has nothing to do with the truth of the Bible, except for what your theology tortures the Bible to imply as opposed to what it actually says (your description of our methodology in the discussion of biblical support for the Trinity was most instructive; thank you very much for that). If you are wrong, then your theology is wrong. Your Man-made fallible theology. Says nothing about your Bible nor about your god. You are willing to deny everything about reality. Why? What if you're wrong? Edited by Admin, : Off-topic content hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Dwise1,
Well expressed, but Faith is not the topic. To everyone: This thread presents the puzzle of how to debate with someone who rejects much evidence and knowledge. It's a much more difficult problem then just lining up your ducks of evidence and knowledge and presenting them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Faith writes: ...I appeal to any clear-headed person who might actually exist at EvC... If I'm discouraging other participants from making comments about you personally, I have to also discourage you from doing the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Edge,
I recognize the effort it takes to compose complete responses that contain all the necessary information in one message, and I know that the demands of time and the desire to not waste one's time are good reasons for slipping into extreme brevity, but I was unable to understand your responses across most of this message, and Faith has indicated she didn't understand much of it either. If it helps, I didn't understand what the request for a reference to 'The Strata' was meant, and I'm guessing it's sarcasm, but I'm not sure. I also didn't understand the comment about gravel deposits. And about the Mississippi River Delta part, I don't think Faith was trying to imply that she believes sediments should be accumulating on the continent, though I should caution that I often find it hard to be sure what Faith is saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: A small amount will settle on the top of the rock, a smaller amount or possibly nothing at all, would stick to the sides, and the rest would form a horizontally surfaced layer on the bottom of the tank. Yes, except that the sedimentary layer formed around the perimeter of the rock would be deeper (and therefore tilt upward) because sediments that fall on the rock slip off the rock and fall beside it, and the rock can tend to trap sediments from any currents. Here's a diagram:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Faith,
This was posted by Coragyps in Message 1191:
Coragyps writes: Faith has a small tank that could be used for such an experiment. She apparently never used it for an angle of repose experiment because she didn't think the sand I also sent was suitable. Since you have the necessary equipment, could you perform this experiment:
You should find that the sand near the rock slopes up its sides and is not horizontal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've expected eventually to do the angle of repose experiment, and I'd be happy to do this one too, but if I haven't done Coragyps' and I skip meals because putting them together is too hard, I can't promise if or when I'll get to it. Has nothing to do with the sand. Don't really have a place where I can set something like this up and leave it either. It would also be nice to be able to photograph the result but I don't have a camera. Sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I recognize the effort it takes to compose complete responses that contain all the necessary information in one message, and I know that the demands of time and the desire to not waste one's time are good reasons for slipping into extreme brevity, but I was unable to understand your responses across most of this message, and Faith has indicated she didn't understand much of it either.
I think I was running out of time last night and got to be a bit brief and perhaps a little short-tempered at the posts I'm responding to.
If it helps, I didn't understand what the request for a reference to 'The Strata' was meant, and I'm guessing it's sarcasm, but I'm not sure.
Yes, I see what you mean. In some recent posts, Faith had started to provide an independent definition of 'strata' and to emphasize the point, she had started referring to it as 'The Strata'. I have no idea what this meant, but I suppose it conforms to her definition of 'real strata'. I wasn't in the mood to entertain further machinations. We have had plenty of those around here lately.
I also didn't understand the comment about gravel deposits.
Faith had mentioned these sedimentary deposits we were discussing are continental in scale. I was pointing out that comparing a gravel deposit to the Coconino (for instance) is not a good comparison. Here is the exchange:
Faith: " ... claims that a hill of gravel is the basis for a layer like those found in The Strata, a teeny tiny little hill of gravel; or The Mississippi River Delta with some layered sediments, about a thousandth of the horizontal extent of most of The Strata on the N. American continent;..."
So, as you can see, I was uncertain as to what she meant.
edge: "Gravel deposits are never continental, even in the geological record. What are you talking about?"(bold added) And about the Mississippi River Delta part, I don't think Faith was trying to imply that she believes sediments should be accumulating on the continent, though I should caution that I often find it hard to be sure what Faith is saying.
I intended to point out that yes, since most of the continents are very much emergent (above sea level), they are mostly undergoing erosion and continental-scale sedimentary deposits are not the norm. Here is what I said:
"Ummm, most of the NA continent is above sea level, why would it be accumulating continental-scale sedimentary deposits?" Faith's next statement is a resurrection of an old argument of hers that the geological column stopped at the end of the flood.
"... and arguments in the past that it's all continuing at the bottom of the ocean, despite a billion or so years of supposed accumulation on land, all said with a straight face in defiance of probability.
Basically, she is saying that sedimentary record has stopped. Our argument is that it has continued, just in a different place. This would be normal for geological processes. I think people have a hard time seeing long-slow processes and assume that the present is all that there is. And since all we see is erosion going on around us, that the world is fundamentally changed from the great sedimentary formations of the Phanerozoic. We don't see all of the sediments being deposited on the bottom of the ocean, and even the Mississippi River Delta is 'out of sight'. I refer to a later sentence of hers to show my point:
"The apparent observed fact/ actual evidence is that sedimentation and layering on the scale of The Strata long since ceased."
In fact this may be true, but it is so for two geological reasons: 1. The process of continental-scale deposits requires a long time and the slow process of transgressing/regressing seas, It was probably never visible. 2. Continental-scale deposits require submerged continents. So, I responded with:
"As expected, Faith."
Intending to mean that things are as I would expect them without modern, continental-scale deposits and that (as commonly occurs with YECs) there is no surprise here. In my very first geology class, this was one topic of discussion and I remember it well. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Basically, she is saying that sedimentary record has stopped. Our argument is that it has continued, just in a different place. This would be normal for geological processes. This flies in the face of the actual factual EVIDENCE, as I said, which is that The Strata, otherwise known as The Stratigraphic Column or the Geologic Column, do cover continents and supposedly took billions of years to do so, but now -- just on a whim? -- changed their location to "a different place" and we're supposed to consider this "normal?" After a billion years of continent-spanning deposition? Not to mention that, as I said, the examples of continuing deposition are minuscule compared to the extensive slabs of rock that make up The Stratigraphic Column. The gravel reference was to your photo of the gravel you marked to indicate strata. ABE: I'd also point out that there are too many obstacles on the continents now for continent-spanning slabs to occur any more. Evidence that mountain building and other tectonic effects waited a billion years or so before producing today's bumpy surface. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: I've expected eventually to do the angle of repose experiment,... Until you're able to perform the experiment, perhaps you could respond to the diagram in Message 1207 and explain your rationale for how sediments would fail to accumulate more deeply around the perimeter of the rock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
This flies in the face of the actual factual EVIDENCE, as I said, which is that The Strata, otherwise known as The Stratigraphic Column or the Geologic Column, do cover continents and supposedly took billions of years to do so, ...
Okay, that's the observation.
... but now -- just on a whim? -- changed their location to "a different place" and we're supposed to consider this "normal?"
Now you have left the realm of evidence and injected a personal wish.
After a billion years of continent-spanning deposition?
How long do you think it should be?
Not to mention that, as I said, the examples of continuing deposition are minuscule compared to the extensive slabs of rock that make up The Stratigraphic Column.
I have explained the reason for this. I mean, isn't it pretty obvious that you cannot deposit a basal Cambrian (Tapeats, for instance) type of sandstone across the continent while the continent is above sea level? I'm not getting your problem here.
ABE: I'd also point out that there are too many obstacles on the continents now for continent-spanning slabs to occur any more.
Yes, that's what I said. The continents are above sea level.
Evidence that mountain building and other tectonic effects waited a billion years or so before producing today's bumpy surface.
That is not reasonable. You don't know how many tectonic events there have been. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's time for me to leave this futile discussion. I absolutely reject your system as fantasy and you have the same attitude to mine. I just happened to read a bit in the Britannica on the Triassic period, full of pure imaginative nonsense they treat as fact, about imaginary climate, imaginary animal life -- limited to what happens to be found in a slab of rock with fossilized dead things in it, that was most certainly deposited in the Flood. But this fantastic nonsense is the "science" you insist be respected and that you insult Creationists for rejecting. You're impatient because I refuse to accept any of that, and I'm tired of your dismissive impatience.
Yes, deposition of sandstone does require being underwater. Flood required for all of it, ALL the strata all over the world. Flood ended, deposition ended. That's what the EVIDENCE shows. OK by you if a billion years of continual deposition just comes to a screeching halt, but to my mind that is outrageous denial In the Grand Canyon there was no tectonic activity for the entire Phanerozoic Era. In my opinion I've made my case over and over and over. You'll never acknowledge any of it. I've had enough edge. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2401 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Admin writes: This thread presents the puzzle of how to debate with someone who rejects much evidence and knowledge. It's a much more difficult problem then just lining up your ducks of evidence and knowledge and presenting them. Very well put. JB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024