I have been asking Faith for the model, method, procedure, mechanism, process that can explain her claims since Message 16 and so far not one has been presented.
In her defense, she think that the following examples ARE her model, procedure, mechanism and process of her claims (From
Message 1914)
Faith writes:
since the strata do NOT represent time periods the mountain-building with its resultant erosion into the alluvial fans occurred AFTER THE FLOOD, which is when I've said ALL ALONG that according to my hypothesis the tectonic activity occurred that created all the massive erosion in the GC area AND the Rockies. The fans had to have been pushed into the different layers of the strata as seen on the cross section, at the same time the strata were being compressed and raised into the mountains. I can picture it but it would be hard to describe.
The change in rock type is easily explained by the tectonic forces that raised the mountains, the thickness, if I'm getting what that refers to, explained by the shedding of chunks of rock from the rising mountains.
the Pennsylvanian sediments, not yet lithified, GOT lithified by the tectonic force that raised the mountains and turned them into solid rock, shedding chunks in the process that built up into the fans.
the strata are spread or expanded vertically in that cross section, which suggests that the fans had space or created the space to intrude or force the conglomerate into or between the layers. Again, I can picture it but describing it isn't easy. Sort of how the bristles of a stiff brush spread out if you push it hard against a solid surface. Best I can do at the moment.
What she doesn't understand is WHY we don't except that as a model, procedure, mechanism or process that explains those features. It seems to her as if we are doing the same thing, just providing "reasonable" answers based on our personal worldview. She fails to see the painstaking and detailed work that has gone into determining depositional environments and how conclusions are built upon that work, not just pulled out of thin air (which is what petrophysics has pointed out in a couple posts recently).
I recognized this problem in the population genetics thread I was participating in with her and I decided I would not try to discuss the conclusions of the subject until the basic premises were established and understood. However, she doesn't seem to see how those basic premises are relevant to the discussion. It is much easier to just draw conclusions based on intuition or speculation rather than evidence based data.
The ship to accomplish that kind of thing in this thread has long since sailed, IMHO.
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
™ Version 4.2
