Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 1:33 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
vimesey
Member
Posts: 967
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 16 of 1257 (787888)
07-23-2016 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
I'm going to remove that cartoon because it isn't conveying what it was meant to convey

Ok, fair enough.

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 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.

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.

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. (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.

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.

Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 9:02 AM vimesey has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 17 of 1257 (787889)
07-23-2016 6:30 AM


Grand Staircase
In the other thread, Faith claimed that the Grand Staircase included extensive terrestrial formations containing dinosaur fossils.

In looking so far I have found that:

The Kaiparowits formation is rich in dinosaur fossils, but seems to have a relatively limited extent. It may well be that parts have been lost to erosion, but it does not seem to offer any problem to old earth beliefs.

The Navajo Sandstone is more extensive, but it was a desert, so that is not surprising. More of a problem for Faiths Flood geology than for mainstream science.

The Kayenta formation lead me to some interesting and relevant information.

From Wikipedia


Fossil mudcracks attest to occasional seasonal climate, and thin limestones and fossilized trails of aquatic snails or worms mark the existence of ponds and lakes. The most interesting fossils, however, are the dinosaur tracks that are relatively common in Kayenta mudstone

There is more, but this is enough. Clearly it speaks more of a fossil landscape than a load of sediment dumped by a raging flood.


    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 19 of 1257 (787891)
07-23-2016 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
Faith writes:

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.

But of course that is utter nonsense. Some areas were barren and some areas were fertile. Also, one period did not end and then another begin but just as today change was continuous.

Weathering and erosion are going on constantly just as the process of building up goes on constantly, just like today.

The reality is that if we look at the surface of the earth today we see very old rocks exposed in some places and brand new rocks being created in others. Today's great mountain chains like the US West Coastal range are being raised up today while old mountain ranges like the US East Coastal range are being worn down.

But as humans we examine and catalog what we find and what is found is evidence of billions of years of change; and, since we are humans we also tried to make sense of what we saw.

For a really brief moment, a few thousand years out of the hundreds of thousand years modern humans have existed on Earth the Biblical Flood was accepted as the explanation. So that explanation lasted until more detailed examination of reality showed it was simply impossible as a valid explanation.

While that was going on humans noticed certain uniform and universal traits that allowed the list of what exists to be grouped into smaller segments; that in this catalog we can group these things together.

One method was to use the first appearance of a particular anatomical feature; the first signs of life, the first appearance of back bones, the first appearance of reptiles, the first appearance of conifers, the first appearance of flowering plants, the first appearance of mammals, the last appearance of dinosaurs, the first appearance of grasses.

There were other groupings, cycles of hot and cold; repeated great die-offs where a large percentage of lifeforms suddenly (in geological terms) disappeared.

There was specific evidence of landmasses being created and broken up. And of new material surging up from within the planet and old material being pushed back down into the planet.

But only in a very very few cases was the whole planet relatively barren.

Just as today, the landscape changed. Usually the change was slow as mountains got pushed up, inches higher each year and other areas worn down becoming sediment that when worked by living things and mixed with the waste products of living things became soil.

Today, much of the US and Europe and Asia are rising up. Most folk don't notice but it's still happening. It is the surface of the earth that was scraped bare by the Glaciers that covered it until about 10,000 years ago. That glaciation happened several times, each incursion wiping the soil away leaving only a barren surface of bare rock, rock carved and scored by the glacier. With the weight of those thousands of feet of ice removed the land has been rising slowly back up. And in most places that had been just barren rock soil has formed and some of the most fertile land around.

Change is continuous Faith. It is not one landscape being created and then worn down before another landscape gets started; it is both processes going on continuously and simultaneously; The Rockies and Cascades going up while the Appalachians and Blue Ridge and Adirondack and Catskill chains are worn down to just stubs, the roots of what they once were. The San Joaquin Valley in California has subsided nearly 50 feet just since the 1920 while much of the Northern Hemisphere is seeing land rising in the post-glacial rebound that began 10,000 years ago and will likely continue for another 10,000 years.

But as I pointed out in Message 8 when we examine the content of the rocks from earliest to most recent what we do find is conclusive evidence of the life and lifeforms that lived on the landscape during every period for several billion years.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 9:40 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 21 of 1257 (787893)
07-23-2016 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
07-23-2016 9:40 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
And the flat expanses of rock do not exit in reality as you have been shown many times.

However the explanation for what really is seen is still the same, constant change over long periods of time. The Biblical Flood is simply just a fantasy and myth.

The evidence of what was there is still found in the individual rock layers as you have also been shown.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 9:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:12 AM jar has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 22 of 1257 (787894)
07-23-2016 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
07-23-2016 9:02 AM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
quote:

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 it is flat - and there are plenty of exceptions, and if it isn't a naturally flat environment and if the flatness isn't the result of the infilling of depressions then you might expect erosion. However it is certainly not the case that differing sediment "marks the next age".

quote:

I 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.

That is not true as you ought to know by now. Does the word "monadnock" remind you of anything ?

quote:

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.

Science looks at a lot of evidence you don't. Including evidence that you apparently refuse to look at. Now I certainly don't expect you to look at all the evidence because there's just too damn much. But you ought to take into account the fact that scientists know a whole lot more than you do - and stop ignoring evidence that contradicts you.

quote:

This is very nice theory, but the fact is that the ages are identified by discrete layers of rock.

I think we've been over this before. You can have multiple strata - multiple formations even - for a single age, and I've pointed out an example of a formation that crosses a boundary (not between major geological ages, but between ages which subdivide those)

Which, you will note, do not exactly correspond to geological ages. Isn't that a bit of a problem for your argument ?

quote:

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.

You seem to be engaged in a generalisation that adds up to misrepresentation here. Saying that something does happen is not the same as saying that it always happens. And what about all the places where the strata are not flat or where depressions gave been filled ?

Really the relationship between the strata and the geological ages is not as neat as you assume. Your usual mistake I suppose of taking a superficial impression as an "obvious" truth and closing your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong. A fault that causes you no end of problems here, and one you would do well to avoid, if you can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 9:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32184
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 25 of 1257 (787902)
07-23-2016 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
Faith writes:

... 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.


You could have a thought balloon with him wondering why there are animal tracks, etc. in those "barren and unlivable" layers.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 26 of 1257 (787903)
07-23-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:30 AM


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."

Yes you can. Aeolian sandstone is lithified aeolian sand. Paleosol is lithified soil. Lithified lacustrine deposits are lithified lacustrine deposits. Etc. Out of consideration for the fact that you don't agree with this, I wrote "looks exactly like" for "is" to indicate the nature of the inference.

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," ...

Yes they do, Faith. Stop making stuff up, Faith.

Exactly my point: that if the strata themselves is all there was no living things could have been able to live ...

Your point is the exact opposite to mine, then.

My point is that sediment is essential to terrestrial life. Your seems to be that it is inimical to it, because of there being something wrong with your head.

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.

You've made it clear; but all those lithified landscapes make it clear that you're talking crap. Repeatedly talking crap will not make them go away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15221
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 27 of 1257 (787904)
07-23-2016 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:30 AM


quote:

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.

Is is another if those things that is so "obvious" that you keep on believing it even after it has been shown to be false ? What about the evidence - the river channels, the monadnocks, the lithified sand dunes, the lime deposits from dried up lakes and ponds and the tracks ?

No, the idea is very solidly based on very strong evidence. I do not see any way you could honestly claim otherwise at this point - to really, ever since you would have to familiarise yourself with the evidence to know at all.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31076
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 28 of 1257 (787905)
07-23-2016 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:12 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
Faith writes:

No, it's the rocks themselves, the strata, that are the only things that DO exist in this whole argument.

While that might well be true in your fantasy, in the real world it is utter nonsense.

Faith writes:

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.

And that to may well be true in your fantasy but in the real world it is just utter nonsense. Sure there are layers of rock, but no one has ever denied that fact, but it is what is within those layers that testifies to the landscape that was there when that layer was the surface of the Earth.

Faith writes:

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.

And of course there are few photographs of those landscapes since photography is a brand new technology while we are talking about layers that were the surface millions and billions of years ago.

However the evidence as you have been shown repeatedly that does exist within those rocks attested to the indisputable fact that there was a landscape there when the critters that lived there wandered around. There is no supposed about it. The fossils exist, they exist in the very rock layers.

The only supposedly is the Biblical Flood and all the evidence shows that supposedly simply never happened and is just stories; fantasy, myth.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:12 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 29 of 1257 (787906)
07-23-2016 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:30 AM


Hi Faith

Faith writes:

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.

I want to address the last portion of this paragraph, where you say:

quote:
because the whole idea of time periods and landscapes for each is a fiction. That is the argument I hope to make clear.

You believe this because you believe in a young earth for which there is zero evidence.

In order to make the argument clear, you would have to present evidence to support your assertions, that all the layers were laid down during the year of the flood of Noah.

I am Old Earth creation and you are young earth creation.

I would like to challenge you to present a argument using the King James Version Bible and the Hebrew text to convince me that the catastrophic flood you believe covered the earth is Biblical.

You can also quote AIG to your mind's content.

If you choose to accept such a challenge reply to this message with the word 'YES' and I will begin a thread in Bible Study.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : correct spelling


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 1257 (787907)
07-23-2016 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
07-23-2016 9:02 AM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
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.

Please do not tell dirty stupid fucking lies about what I "have been saying".

Oh now wait, somebody is going to come along and call me a liar.

Well, duh.

If you don't like that, you shouldn't tell lies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : NOTE: 24 HOUR SUSPENSION BECAUSE OF THIS MESSAGE - ADMINNEMOOSEUS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 9:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019