Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 1257 (787865)
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


Asgara has been pleading with us to take the discussion of strata off the thread about fossil order to another thread. I didn't find a thread in the Geology Forum that seemed like a good fit so I'm proposing another, with my lovely cartoon (from Message 380) as its theme:
Which got explained in Message 383 this way:
Faith writes:
What you don't get is that all those scenes you ascribe to various Time Periods are purely imaginary. The actual evidence is the surface of slabs of rock that are all stacked up. They are associated with Time Periods, whose supposed character is constructed out of some characteristics of the rock plus the flotsam within the rock, but the actual evidence is merely the rock and its superficial characteristics.
If you like you may draw some dinosaur footprints wherever indicated on the surface of a particular rock, some other fossilized impressions perhaps, or some ripple marks, burrow holes, raindrops etc. But the point is that the surface of these rocks is ALL you have to represent the actual surface of the Earth in the indicated Time Period. You have no mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. except as imaginary constructs you impose on these clues.
All you have is the relatively flat surface of sedimentary rocks. I'm going through this book about the Grand Canyon that led off the thread on AIG's view of the canyon, and of course it's full of drawings of the strata, all identified with the Time Period assigned to each. The surfaces of these strata cover enormous swaths of geography; they are the ONLY physical representation of the actual surface of the earth in the assigned time period, obviously a flattish rock surface with some markings on it, and NOTHING ELSE.
There is something very very wrong with this picture but you don't see it, do you? What you "see" is what you IMAGINE was there, not the strata themselves which is ALL that was there.
As usual what seems obvious to me is being fought tooth and nail by those who couldn't bear to see the Flood emerge as the actual explanation for the evidence, and that in a nutshell is what the argument at the other thread has been since I posted that cartoon.
There are lots of posts at the other thread I should try to answer starting about HERE so that's probably where I should start if and when this gets promoted.
Or maybe I should start by answering some in this OP, so it shouldn't be promoted until I get that done.
ABE: So let's start with HBD's in Message 473
The totally bizarre thing about this whole line of discussion is that it seems that Faith thinks that if the earth is old, as mainstream geology has determined, then we should see fully functional landscapes buried beneath loads of sediment.
No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks. This isn't expecting to see such a landscape, it is expecting to see that such a landscape was possible and finding out it wasn't, that it is nothing but a fiction.
But if the global flood story is true, we should see highly organized sediments and fossil sequences that are structured into discrete, systematic units. The logic of this is just completely dumbfounding. It is like saying that good drivers have lots of traffic violations, accidents and insurance claims while the lousy drivers have impeccable driving records. I am not sure there is any remedy for this contention.
HBD
Strange analogy and unrelated to my argument. The orderliness of the fossil record seems to be a problem for the Flood if that's where you start, but if you start by recognizing that the OE explanation is in fact physically impossible then there is nothing left but the Flood to explain the facts.
So far it should have been made clear that the great extent of the strata of the Geologic Column takes the place of any landscape inferred to have existed in each time period. If where there should be dinosaurs roaming there is only in reality a huge slab of rock (or a sea transgression etc) then dinosaurs simply could not have been roaming in that putative "time period." The time period is a fiction. The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep.
I think I'll stop there for now and get to the other posts after this gets promoted.
ABE: SECOND CARTOON REMOVED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T CONVEY WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO CONVEY.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-21-2016 10:47 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-22-2016 9:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 9:50 PM Faith has replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2016 11:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 11:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 12:27 AM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2016 1:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2016 2:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 215 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2016 6:25 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 12 of 1257 (787882)
07-23-2016 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
07-22-2016 9:23 PM


Is the cartoon really wrong?
For those who say the cartoon is wrong, I would quote edge from the other thread, in Message 501 where he is agreeing that landscapes in the various time periods are created and then eroded away to flatness, when sediments can be deposited on the flat surface:
Yes, and all of that time in erosion, the landscape is being leveled and cleared of fossils, soils, gravel etc. Then it can be inundated and covered by later sediment.
Is the cartoon meant to illustrate the entire world? No, it's meant to illustrate the surface of the layer that represents the time period in question (although what would have existed apart from those surfaces is also something to think about). From what he has said above it seems to me the cartoon is right on: everything has been eroded away and there is nothing but the flat expanse of sediment, which would be the case at the end of the time period.
So although everyone is calling this a misrepresentation, and edge himself called it a straw man, the worst he'd ever seen here, I think his own description of events says otherwise.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-22-2016 9:23 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 3:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2016 4:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 34 by edge, posted 07-23-2016 4:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 13 of 1257 (787883)
07-23-2016 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by vimesey
07-23-2016 12:27 AM


Second cartoon from OP removed
I'm going to remove that cartoon because it isn't conveying what it was meant to convey, which is not layers descending out of the sky, but merely a dinosaur peering out from his own layer/time period to see that the whole stack is just as barren and unlivable as his layer is.
I'm removing it. No point in discussing something so easily misunderstood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 12:27 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 6:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 9:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 07-23-2016 12:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 117 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2016 7:15 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 18 of 1257 (787890)
07-23-2016 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by vimesey
07-23-2016 6:30 AM


The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
I'm not sure where you get the idea that each geological age, (which archaeologists have ascribed to the history of the earth as a matter of nomenclature, for ease of understanding and discussion), sort of wipes the surface of the earth clean before starting again on the next age. That is not what science says is happening here.
Where I get it is from the flat surfaces of the layers of the strata, some extremely flat and tightly adherent to the layer above or below. Isn't it reasonable to interpret the flatness on the top as the last surface presented by a given rock, pretty much "wiped clean" before the sediment that marks the next age begins depositing on that surface? If you look at a deep stack of layers where they remain intact and haven't been tectonically distorted, such as in the walls of the Grand Canyon, I would think the impression would be overwhelming that they were all laid down by the same processes: all have flat tops and bottoms, suggesting that all were thoroughly "wiped clean" before the next deposition came along.
When you say "That is not what science says is happening here" all I can say is that science seems to be looking at some other evidence than I'm looking at.
The earth is a complex system geologically. In simplistic terms, at different times, different parts of it will be being eroded, sometimes down to the plains Edge referred to - (and that erosion could be aeolian, tidal, river-based, oceanic) - others will be undergoing accretion, others will be being deformed and maybe raised up by tectonic plate movement, others will be being created by volcanic activity, etc.
There's no way to argue with such a generalization. But what I'm looking at is the strata which present quite a uniform structure from one to another. Different sediments, different effects from erosion because of different properties of the sediments, but structurally they are laid out flat one on top of another, to a great depth in the GC, and for hundreds of thousands of miles horizontally as well. This is what fascinates me and it often seems to me that the theories Geology comes up with are using a microscope to understand an elephant, or missing the forest for the trees. Such as the idea of "depositional environments" but I won't get into that yet.
Where accretion is occurring, the layers of dirt/sand/dust/sod which are being layered onto the existing surface will sometimes end up being compressed and lithified over the course of millions of years.
Geologists can then dig up those lithification layers, and can work out which geological age the layers in question came from.
This is all OE theory of course, but I'm not going to argue with the idea that they can indeed correlate layers with each other, which according to the theory is about their age. I don't doubt that such correlations can be made though I don't know what point you are trying to make by stating all this.
(Remember that the geological ages are nomenclature only - the process is a continuum). If dead animals got trapped in any of the layers and became fossilised, then we know that the particular species lived in the geological age identified.
This is very nice theory, but the fact is that the ages are identified by discrete layers of rock. This is what makes the whole thing look like something other than a continuum. The different layers are actually assigned date ranges. This is all over the internet under Geo Column or Geo Timescale. And then read what edge and Dr. A have been saying: landscapes form on the surface of the rock and then get eroded down and down and down until they are very very flat, and then comes the sediment deposition. They have been saying this on the other thread. This isn't a continuum, this is a pattern of building up and eroding down, leaving nothing but a flat thickness of sediment that becomes a flat slab of rock, time period to time period, over and over down the eons.
(Oh now wait, somebody is going to come along and call me a liar. Sigh. But it's all there on the other thread. I even characterized it at one point as landscapes becoming rock and of course somebody had to contradict that, no, landscapes don't become rock, but then along comes Dr. A and calls it all "lithified landscapes." Sigh. Sorry to get carried away on this.)
But the key thing to know is that the process is a continuum. The dinosaur is no more peering out of a discrete section of time/geology at more recent times, than the Romans are peering at us from 2,000 years ago. All that happened is that a dinosaur died millions of years ago, and got covered by something, which later turned into rock, along with its remains. In the meantime, the earth quietly got on with eroding, accreting, folding and adding to with lava, an ever-changing but generally un-barren surface. And life got on with living on that surface, notwithstanding that certain living creatures died and got buried in the process.
Rather too neat, too "just so," too much what we're supposed to believe; and it doesn't deal with certain facts which don't exactly fit the idea of a continuum as mentioned above. At least I want to focus on particular facts here that may or may not fit some of that scenario.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2016 6:30 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2016 10:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 1:01 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 20 of 1257 (787892)
07-23-2016 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
07-23-2016 9:11 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
I'm focused on the STRATA, jar, those flat expanses of rock. The landscapes and surface conditions you are hallucinating do not exist on those flat expanses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 9:11 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 9:46 AM Faith has replied
 Message 35 by edge, posted 07-23-2016 4:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 23 of 1257 (787896)
07-23-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
07-23-2016 9:46 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
No, it's the rocks themselves, the strata, that are the only things that DO exist in this whole argument. Photos galore are available of the strata in every kind of situation, many perfectly flat and forming sides of hills and mountains and cliffs and canyon walls, many tilted or twisted, but always identifiable as layers of rocks. There are no photos of the landscapes imputed to them because if they ever did exist they no longer do, now being supposedly contained only in the rock layers; and of course this argument is about exactly that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 9:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 12:36 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 24 of 1257 (787897)
07-23-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2016 9:50 PM


No, what I'm saying is that what is actually seen is stacks of rocks that make it impossible for there ever to have been any such landscape as is inferred from the contents and qualities of those rocks.
So far, the geologists' take on geology seems perfectly sensible. They see what looks exactly like a lithified desert, they infer a desert. They see what looks exactly like a lithified floodplain, they infer a floodplain. They see what looks exactly like a lithified delta, they infer a delta. They see what looks exactly like a lithified savanna, they infer a savanna. They see what looks exactly like a lithified peat swamp, they infer a peat swamp.
This has to be a misuse of language. You cannot actually see a desert or a floodplain or a delta or a river in the rock, or whatever a lithified" version of such landscapes would "look like." What is actually seen is only the clues that are then interpreted to infer a delta or a river etc. This is the all-too-common way an interpretation is treated as a fact in the historical sciences. What is seen is only rock: lithified sediments that present flat top and bottom for hundreds of thousands of miles in some cases. The "depositional environments" you are describing are NOT SEEN, they are entirely inferred from certain contents of the rock that do not "look like" lithified versions of them as you claim, let alone "exactly," they can't be seen in reality, and this is what is known as a reification. The historical sciences do this a lot. Theory is described as if it were known fact; interpretations are refied into actualities. It would help if simple description of the actual phenomena took the place of such reifications for the sake of communication: exactly WHAT are you seeing in the rock that leads you to infer a particular "depositional environment?" It is certainly not the environment itself. A pebble? A fossilized plant?
So far it should have been made clear that the great extent of the strata of the Geologic Column takes the place of any landscape inferred to have existed in each time period.
The strata are the landscapes, lithified.
Well, that's the theory I'm trying to take on, the question of whether there ever were any landscapes at all. The strata exist, are evidenced in many different ways; the theory of former landscapes based on those strata, on the other hand, is purely theoretical.
The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep.
The sediments (of the appropriate age) are the landscape they roamed on.
Well I guess we can go on exchanging assertions of our differing theories, but I hope we can get to the argument itself pretty soon. As usual about this time I'm getting punchy from lack of sleep so I don't want to try to make my case in this condition.
What is your bizarre, otherworldly alternative? Do you suppose that the dinosaurs lived on bare bedrock? What would they eat? Terrestrial life needs sediment for the plants to grow in. No sediment, no life. Maybe some lichen. Certainly no dinosaurs.
Exactly my point: that if the strata themselves is all there was no living things could have been able to live, and my argument is that the strata IS all there was. Or those "epeiric seas" etc. on which they could not live either. I said above my view of how they DID live, and I quote myself:
The dinosaurs roamed before the Geo Column was laid down, on an actual landscape before it was covered in sediments miles deep
In the "time periods" associated with the strata, all that happened is that creatures died, they could not have lived because there was no landscape for them to live in, because the whole idea of time periods and landscapes for each is a fiction. That is the argument I hope to make clear.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 9:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 12:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2016 12:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2016 12:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 40 by edge, posted 07-23-2016 4:58 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 31 of 1257 (787911)
07-23-2016 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
07-23-2016 1:01 PM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
I represented you saying what I understood you to be saying. That's not lying and since you don't bother to understand how I got what I got out of it, and show what you really meant, I'm left with the same impression of what you said. And how about toning down your barbaric insults?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 1:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 4:55 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 32 of 1257 (787913)
07-23-2016 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
07-22-2016 11:05 PM


Re: Looking around today
You may well be right that all those parts of your environment would turn to rock eventually given enough time. But turn to STRATA? That's one thing that bothers me about this "depositional environment" idea. As if we're to see an actual river IN the rock. But the rock is just the rock. If there are some contents normally found in rivers or deltas or wherever, nevertheless the river or delta itself are not there. And there is no reason I know of to expect that your local environments to end up in strata even if they eventually get buried or turn into rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2016 11:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 07-23-2016 4:43 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 33 of 1257 (787914)
07-23-2016 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
07-22-2016 11:33 PM


Just a brief reply
Take a look at a few images of fossil track imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a critter moved across a genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these can tell us about the critter that created the tracks as well as about the physical properties of the landscape the critter lived in.
Not at all evidence of a "genuine landscape that existed at the time" -- could very well be just the surface of the most recent deposit of sediment left by the Flood that would soon be followed by another, and the creature is probably running from it. Nevertheless there are probably things that can be learned about the creature from its tracks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 07-22-2016 11:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by edge, posted 07-23-2016 4:40 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 6:07 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 42 of 1257 (787933)
07-23-2016 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
07-23-2016 4:55 PM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
I don't know how I got your opinion wrong but I'm too tired to care at the moment. When I recover I'll try to track it all down.
Knowing I'll be accused of lying is just knowing how things operate around here, it is not a confession of lying, which I wasn't doing.
"The landscape is the sediment on top" doesn't convey anything to me. I want to know how the landscape forms at all on top of a rock that is a layer in the strata, a landscape with everything needed to sustain life. When does it occur, how does it occur.
How can a new "depositional environment" form on top of a layer in the strata? And why is all we see when looking at the strata the rock itself and the contact between it and the next rock?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-23-2016 4:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 1:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2016 2:18 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 43 of 1257 (787934)
07-23-2016 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
07-23-2016 6:07 PM


Re: Just a brief reply
Stop telling me what I'm saying is "not true," when the point is I'm giving my argument and I know you have a different opinion. Of course, it's what the argument is about, and I expect to have to try to prove it. That doesn't make my argument false.
I'm sick of this excuse for "debate" which is nothing but saying your opinion is right and mine is a lie. Sick sick sick of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-23-2016 6:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-24-2016 12:05 AM Faith has replied
 Message 46 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2016 1:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 1:55 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 45 of 1257 (787936)
07-24-2016 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
07-24-2016 12:05 AM


Re: Just a brief reply
All you are doing is blathering the status quo which is what I'm answering. What you call fact is just your own opinion. I'm sick of it and stop accusing me of what is nothing more than disagreeing with you and the status quo, winning the debate by trumpeting your questionable opinion as if it were Truth. Never mind, I can just go back to ignoring you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-24-2016 12:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 07-24-2016 8:39 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 50 of 1257 (787942)
07-24-2016 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
07-24-2016 2:18 AM


How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
I'm not in a debate with your primary school teacher, I want to know what today's Geologists have to say about it. And please spare me your opinions about what I know and don't know. I'm trying to get the official picture here because I'm debating it and there's nothing more frustrating than having to deal with a bunch of half-baked scenarios: I want the official one. When I have the best rendition of the official dogma then I can try floating my arguments against it.
And remember, what I want to know is the official explanation of how a landscape forms ON TOP OF A STRATUM, then how it comes to disappear so that all we have next is another stratum of sediment.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2016 2:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by vimesey, posted 07-24-2016 3:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2016 3:34 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 54 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 4:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2016 1:00 AM Faith has replied
 Message 802 by dwise1, posted 08-24-2016 1:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 56 of 1257 (787949)
07-24-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tangle
07-24-2016 4:45 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
You know what, I don't recall hearing this explanation in the terms I'm asking for it, but what I'm hearing now I do refuse, absolutely refuse, to accept, because it's utterly beyond reason. The millions of years are ridiculous, and the idea that the strata that we actually see, stacked up as slabs of rock to miles deep and in many cases hundreds of thousands of miles in breadth, ever hosted landscapes, is PREPOSTEROUS. How you all can go on as you do is mindboggling. So OK you think I have heard the answer. So OK I reject the answer, it's utter absolute ridiculous preposterous nonsense.
THOSE ARE ROCKS. Each rock slab covers the territory in which you believe its fossil contents once lived. Those fossilized creatures would have had no place to go when that "landscape" eventually disappeared. The only evidence of them is their fossilized corpses, in the very rock where they supposedly lived. When the livable conditions of that landscape that is now rock no longer existed and it was all returning to rock all the creatures would have had to have died. There would have been nothing left to evolve into the next time period with its own utterly ridiculous imaginary landscape. It would have to start all over again with every "time period." The physical situation you imagine is just plain impossible.
And on top of that physical impossibility, Geology seems to have taken leave of all sanity in its theories about the transgressing-regressing seas they find occurring during the "time periods" from the Cambrian to the present. I brought up a couple of examples on the other thread to Dr. A, who really had no answer to it. Geology has shot itself in the foot with this. Consider the Chinle Formation of the Grand Staircase in Utahl, where there are found lots of fossils, many of them of dinosaurs. It extends over a huge area of the western US, as reported by
Wikipedia:
The Chinle Formation is an Upper Triassic continental geologic formation of fluvial, lacustrine, and palustrine to eolian deposits spread across the U.S. states of Nevada, Utah, northern Arizona, western New Mexico, and western Colorado. The Chinle is controversially considered to be synonymous to the Dockum Group of eastern Colorado and New Mexico, western Texas, the Oklahoma panhandle, and southwestern Kansas.
Dinosaurs are supposed to have roamed all over that territory during this time period with its dinosaur-friendly imaginary landscape, but it seems that another part of Geology has decided to drown most of the Triassic landscape under "deep ocean" that covers the entire area west of the Rockies. Oops, where are our dinosaurs supposed to roam? Then on top of that, during the Triassic the Rockies were supposedly in the process of forming and the illustration that shows the "deep ocean" also shows a whole string of live volcanoes where the mountains are being pushed up. Oops, the dinosaurs can't even move into the mmountains if they wanted to. In the Triassic there is still land to the east of the Rockies that hasn't yet been inundated so maybe they all hung out there? But how odd then that so many huge dinosaur fossil beds are found in the strata on the west side of the Rockies. Oops.
It was the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods I described on the other thread, both periods known for their dinosaur fossils on the west side of the Rockies, but Oops, during those time periods there is still nothing but "deep ocean" over there. In the Jurassic there are even MORE volcanoes where the Rockies are pushing up, and now to the east of the Rockies we have one of those shallow "epeiric seas" that spreads all the way to the Great Lakes. OOPS. No room for dinosaurs! The volcanoes have settled down by the Cretaceous though, and there is now a strip of dry land along the east side of the Rockies, so maybe that's where they all went? But again, today there are an awful lot of dinosaur fossils found in strata to the west of the Rockies where the entire Mesozoic time of the dinosaurs was under "deep ocean." Unfortunately it's hard to see how anything could have survived the conditions in the preceding 'time periods." They must all be extinct by the Cretaceous: no need for the K-T meteor.
(Yes I know the seas transgressed and then regressed so that there would have been some dry time during those eras, but the wet time would have already killed them off anyway, and if it hadn't the next one would.)
Look, what we actually have is the rock strata and that's ALL we have and we have LOTS of it, and there is absolutely nothing about it that suggests anything whatever occurred between the layers of rock. One sediment got laid down and not too long afterward another, up the entire stack. The former environments imputed to those rocks simply never existed.
That is a picture of the Triassic Chinle Formation, chock full of dinosaur fossils. Just one place where you see strata with nice straight lines between them, and you are trying to tell me that each of those was a former surface of the earth on which the animals now buried in that layer once frolicked. Yes I know you all believe that. Geologists will say So what's the problem? That being the case I can only groan and weep with despair for the human race.
To the extent that there is anything right about the identified shorelines of the epeiric seas throughout the Phanerozoic Era (all the time from the Cambrian to the Cenozoic/present) perhaps they are most reasonably to be understood as phases of the Noachian Flood.
Nothing could have lived in the time periods covered by all that water, but nothing DID live. Every living thing was drowned and the proof of it is their fossilized remains in the strata.
Perhaps this should be my Summation Statement. Enough is enough.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 54 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 4:45 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 07-24-2016 9:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 07-24-2016 11:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2016 11:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 1:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2016 3:38 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