Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
72 online now:
anglagard, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 68 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,058 Year: 2,704/14,102 Month: 369/703 Week: 22/168 Day: 22/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2479
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 162 of 206 (781693)
04-06-2016 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:51 AM


Faith writes:

I'm talking about the OE theory that geologists carry around with them everywhere. It colors everything they study, which is only to be expected.

So close, but no.

Geologists study the Earth. Everything they study is evidence of an old Earth. Everything they study colors the theory, which is to be expected.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2479
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 171 of 206 (781706)
04-06-2016 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
04-06-2016 4:06 PM


Re: Strata in South Africa
but what interested me was whether there was any place on earth where strata didn't form at all and I didn't find any, though my research was not exhaustive.

I don't know what your definition of strata is, but the crust of the earth is made of strata, so how could there be a place where there is no strata? What else would be there?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 4:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2479
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


(3)
Message 175 of 206 (781712)
04-06-2016 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
04-05-2016 10:38 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
I have been too busy to read this thread until this morning and it took a while, but I wanted to comment on a couple things from yesterday.

Faith writes:

Jar keeps saying I don't have a model. The fact is I do, and that's all I'm required to answer at this point.

You don't have a valid model, one that works. As soon as we start nitpicking, the objections to your model build up.

Faith writes:

But when you say it has to be tested against reality, I will for the umpteen jillionth time say that what you regard as reality is really just OE/evolutionist interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

Well, interestingly, we go out and study rocks as they are today (reality) and we observe and note their appearance and composition and the ordering of the layers at different points around the globe. We can observe fossils and their ordering in the layers around the globe. Making those observations requires no knowledge about the age of the earth or dating. Observing the occurrence of fossils around the globe requires no knowledge of evolutionary biology.

We can predict that the layers would look a certain way if there was a 1 year long global flood. We can predict how the fossils would be deposited in a global flood. The Earth has a flood that covers approximately 85% of the surface right now. We can watch what happens in floods of high velocity, high volume water all the way to quiet steady rise in depth.

Being a global flood does not mean that WE cannot construct a model that accurately describes what kind of evidence it would leave.

Your model does not fit the reality of our observations. Saying this is like no other flood is just empty bluster.

Faith writes:

I say the strata and their fossil contents are excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood and they are, just on the face of it they are, and the idea that a miles-deep stack of straight flat slabs of rock of different kinds of sediments could possibly represent the surface of this earth at different time periods is nutty, Coyote, just nutty.

Your model cannot explain why there are multiple layers, or why we can see obvious erosional features in the surfaces of layers that are overlain by marine layers. Your model cannot explain why we see marine layers that are under aeolian layers, that are under more marine layers.

Faith writes:

The only way anyone could hold onto that idea is by just not thinking about it, keeping their focus on the details and missing the big picture.

The whole picture, fine details, and global scale are explained by the science of Geology. That's the interesting thing, Faith, Geology has a model that explains everything, every single solitary observation fits into the theory. All those pesky details that you cannot explain, well we can. There are whole libraries of explanations and none of those explanations support your model. Your model is made up of only two things, water and dirt, the rest is holes where nothing fits.

Faith writes:

Why should there be time periods at all, let alone time periods marked by a particular kind of sediment with a particular kind of fossil contents? That alone makes no sense.

Well, of course, that alone makes no sense, but it is not alone. We have a planet and libraries full of observations about it, and when we take account of vast stretches of time, it ALL makes perfect sense. It all fits together perfectly. There is no place on Earth that you can point to that contradicts the science of Geology.

Faith writes:

You are NOT going to get anything like that out of the era WE live in. Look at the current surface of the earth. It is NOT going to flatten down to a slab of some particular kind of sediment that spans the world EVER.

The processes that formed the layers we see in the Grand Canyon and around the planet are still going on. The places above sea level (land) are eroding and the resulting sediment is being deposited in the oceans around the land. Deposits of dead organisms are accumulating in marine environments and all this will continue in the future.

Once again, erosion and deposition over vast amounts of time explains exactly what we see and your model does not.

Faith writes:

And no other "time period" ever did so either. The idea is nutty nutty nutty.

What is really nutty, is insisting on a model loosely based on a myth, while denying that the single, simple fact of geological processes acting over vast amounts of time explains EVERYTHING we see, without a single piece of contradictory evidence.

Faith writes:

Just because years of piling on assumption after assumption after interpretation after interpretation seems to "prove" YOUR model by sheer accumulation of same doesn't make it so.

All the evidence from all the natural sciences leads to the single inevitable conclusion that the Earth is very old and taking that factor into account makes everything fit together perfectly.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 10:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:58 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2479
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 178 of 206 (781722)
04-06-2016 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:58 PM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
Faith writes:

Your tiresome lecture about your own point of view is not what is needed here. "You're wrong because science says so" is ridiculous since that's what I'm answering.

Well, except that your answers are water and dirt. You never have answers for any of the details. Your "big Picture" is water and dirt. That's it. No physics, no chemistry, no geology.

Faith writes:

You haven't addressed anything I've said or tried for half a second to see how it makes sense

Sure, we've thought about it, you have been repeating it for years. That's the point, it doesn't make any sense. The holes in your model are glaringly obvious, everyone can see it.

Faith writes:

This thread is a joke.

Watching you try to shoehorn your myth into a discussion about the geology by ignoring all the evidence is pretty humorous.

You claim everyone else is nutty, when you are the one who said your mythical flood story is absolutely correct, even if the evidence shows it is not. So far no converts.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:57 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021