Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 5 of 1257 (787870)
07-22-2016 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 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.
Perhaps you could argue for that point of view instead of just saying it.
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 1257 (787872)
07-22-2016 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
07-21-2016 6:53 PM


While you try to figure out what your objection is, I'd like to ask whether it also applies to unlithified sediment. After all archaelogists digging down at a given site may (for example) find medieval artifacts, and then going deeper, Roman artifacts, and then deeper still, those from the Bronze Age ... are you going to tell us that this is "absurd", show us a cartoon of a Roman centurion peering out from under a layer of sediment and another cartoon showing that there were no trees or mountains during the days of the Roman Empire, and then claim that the Romans must have been buried by the Flood?
All geolgoists are doing is invoking the same processes as archaeologists, plus the fact that time and burial will bring about compaction, cementation, recrystallization, and so lithification.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 1257 (787885)
07-23-2016 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:38 AM


Re: Is the cartoon really wrong?
Well there edge seems to be talking about the creation of unconformities. I should skip that for now until you can understand the basics.
(What unconformities have to do with your cartoon I cannot begin to imagine.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 1257 (787921)
07-23-2016 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:53 PM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
I represented you saying what I understood you to be saying.
And yet you knew that you were going to be called a liar. You predicted it with 100% accuracy. So unless God's been talking to you and has made you a prophet, the only way you could have done that is if you knew that you were not telling the truth.
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.
Despite me saying over and over again what I actually think?
Good god Faith. Let me say it again. In a depostional environment, such as I have been discussing, the landscape is the sediment on top. This sediment is not eroded. It is covered over by more sediment, which in its turn becomes the surface of the landscape. This sediment is not deposited "on the surface of the rock". It is deposited on the landscape, the surface of which is unlithified sediement. The rock is further down. Every opinion you attributed to me is complete bollocks and the exact opposite of what I said.
There is erosion visible in the geological record of course, but what I have been trying to explain to you is deposition, which is the opposite of erosion.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 1257 (788028)
07-25-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
07-24-2016 2:42 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
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.
The official explanation is that it doesn't disappear, and that it is the other stratum of sediment. That's why there's another stratum of sediment. This is not rocket science. How many times do you need this explaining to you, Faith? You have been told this over and over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 1257 (788064)
07-25-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
07-25-2016 1:08 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Sorry, I still don't get what you are trying to say. I also don't care.
Evidently.
So perhaps you should stop trying to argue against a point of view that you cannot understand and will make no effort to understand. Obviously even if there was a flaw in geology, you wouldn't be able to find it, because of your astonishing incapacity to grasp what it is that geologists claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 131 of 1257 (788065)
07-25-2016 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
07-25-2016 8:46 AM


Clash Of Faiths
Faith writes:
Oh but I do know what Geology entails ...
Faith writes:
Sorry, I still don't get what you are trying to say. I also don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:46 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by kjsimons, posted 07-25-2016 12:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 1257 (788130)
07-26-2016 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
07-26-2016 11:30 AM


Re: Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in area that was underwater for the whole time period
It's a matter of persuasion to the most plausible argument in the end, that's all. However, It has occurred to me that an actual contradiction between the geological fantasies of the former time periods, and something like the observable shorelines of former bodies of water, could emerge and expose the fantasy.
For example, some people fantasize that the strata were formed during a universal flood; and our ability to find shorelines in the strata completely debunk this fantasy, since shorelines are one of the many topographic features attested to in the geological record that would not exist if the world was covered in water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 11:30 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 07-26-2016 12:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 1257 (788140)
07-26-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
07-26-2016 12:14 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Any shore lines of worldwide extent, or continent-covering extent for that matter, have to be from the Flood.
If the Earth was covered with water, there would be no shore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 12:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 1:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 1257 (788179)
07-26-2016 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Faith
07-26-2016 1:36 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Oh please. There would be successive shorelines as the water rose and then as it receded.
Well, we've never seen that happen anywhere outside your vivid imagination. But we have seen shorelines existing without a magic flood happening. So I question your claim that shorelines "have to be from the Flood". The best we can say is that you (who can, apparently, believe anything so long as its false) can imagine shorelines being produced by the flood as well as by real processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 1257 (788180)
07-26-2016 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
07-26-2016 4:22 PM


I'm completely focused on the physical facts of the argument.
Oh, Faith ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 4:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 1257 (788181)
07-26-2016 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by PaulK
07-26-2016 3:14 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Try thinking about what you are saying. The only person who should expect loose fragments between strata is you, with your bizarre ideas about angular unconformities.
Well there are clasts at some unconformities. There's just not "dirt".
As far as I can see what Faith should expect at an angular unconformity is a portal into another dimension though which zillions of tons of rock can magically vanish.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 3:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 211 of 1257 (788297)
07-29-2016 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
07-28-2016 7:20 PM


Re: temporary sidetrack
Couldn't possibly be that they were living there at the time, right?
Dinosaurs were definitely land animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 07-28-2016 7:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 07-29-2016 7:23 AM Dr Adequate 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