Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:34 AM
24 online now:
(24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 34 of 1257 (787916)
07-23-2016 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:38 AM


Re: 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 then deposition continued. I would hardly consider that to be supporting your argument, since you deny that erosion occurred until after the fludde.

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).

A surface of a layer cannot represent an entire time period.

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.

But you said there was no erosion in the geological record.

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.

I'm not sure how to make it any simpler.

There is evidence of erosion in the geological record and buried landscapes are common.


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

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 35 of 1257 (787917)
07-23-2016 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
07-23-2016 9:40 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.

Please name one 'flat expanse of rock".

For every one you name, I can name an irregular deposit of terrestrial origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 9:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 36 of 1257 (787918)
07-23-2016 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
07-23-2016 4:12 PM


Re: Just a brief reply
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 ...

Yes, and the Shinumo Sea was filled by the Tapeats Sandstone and the the Bright Angel Shale.

Oh, wait ... That's not post-fludde.

So, how's that happen?

... 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.

Why would a sea creature run from a flood?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 37 of 1257 (787919)
07-23-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
07-23-2016 4:06 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?

What do you mean by '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.

Sure it is. What do you think it is composed of? The lithified sediments of a delta.

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.

Perhaps you should give us your definition of strata. There's something very odd going on here.

I think I gave you a definition earlier. Did you read it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 4:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 38 of 1257 (787920)
07-23-2016 4:51 PM


I thought I might try this image to help clarify some visualization that is simply not occurring here.

This image shows terrestrial sandstone (an eolian deposit) with a flat surface cutting through it.

That surface is an erosional feature.

It quite literally cuts off the inclined bedding beneath it.

This would be called truncated cross-bedding. It is a relative dating feature showing deposition, erosion and continued deposition in that order. In this case, I'm pretty sure that the erosion was by wind.


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
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 responded

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

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 40 of 1257 (787922)
07-23-2016 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:30 AM


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.

Well, that's kind of weird since we find their footprints in the geological record at a time when the fludde covered the earth.

And I'm not going to even get into nests, eggs and coprolites.

I have asked this about 3 times now: how did footprints get transported into the upper fludde sediments of the Mesozoic? Actually, I guess it was any footprints to any Phanerozoic system.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


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: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(3)
Message 41 of 1257 (787926)
07-23-2016 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
07-23-2016 4:12 PM


Re: Just a brief reply
Faith writes:

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.

That has got to be one of the stupidest posts ever, absolutely asinine sophomoric bullshit.

There is only one possible reaction to that post Faith and that is that is to laugh at the sheer ignorance that your post displayed.

Present the model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob for your imaginary silly flood that could possibly do that?

Faith, you have NEVER been able to explain how the flood you claim happened could do anything like lay down a layer for critters to run across and then cover it over with yet another layer. We are discussing the things that really do exist in reality instead of just your fantasy.

Just so everyone can see just how absurd your post is, here is the content of the post you are replying to.

quote:
Faith writes:

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.

Once again Faith is simply wrong.

Geologist, archeologists, botanists, paleontologists and even just those honest people who look at the evidence, at reality instead of juvenile caricatures and cartoons, have some clue about what is found in those layers and what really is found are fossilized spores of plants, seeds of plants, imprints of plants and leaves (which can even tell us what the temperatures were like), tracks of animals that moved across the landscapes in addition to fossil bones. In fact, there are far more examples of the various landscapes during the billions of years the Earth has existed than of the animals that roamed the landscapes.

Those slabs of rock show whether the location was under water, how fast the water was moving, what direction the water was moving, what lived in the water at that location and time. It tells us whether it was above water, wet or dry, hot or cold, forest or meadow or tundra or bog. It tells us how high it was and how low it was. And each of the layers tell the story of that particular location at one particular time.

Reality, unlike the imaginary Biblical floods, leaves evidence.

Take a look at a few images of fossil leaf imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a genuine landscape existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each can tell us about the plant as well as the landscape that existed at the time it was alive.

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.

Take a look at a few images of fossil insect imprints. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that a insect lived in the genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these tells us about the environment of the landscape where the insect lived.

Take a look at a few images of fossil seed cones. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that conifer lived in the genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these tells us about the environment of the landscape where the tree lived.

Take a look at a few images of fossil flowers. Each of those examples is direct, positive and irrefutable evidence that flower lived in the genuine landscape that existed at the time that particular layer of sediment was laid down. Each of these tells us about the environment of the landscape where the flower lived.

And interestingly when you look at what Faith calls flat slabs what you find is irrefutable evidence of landscapes and even when the first flowers show up, the first conifers show up, the first tracks made on land instead of under water, when the first trees appeared, when the first grasses appeared.

Reality is not the silly cartoons. In reality layers are not just flat slabs of rock. ALL of the evidence shows what existed were landscapes just like we see today, with high spots and low spots, water and land and most of all, with change over time.

The reality is that the fossil leaf imprints, fossil insect imprints, fossil tracks are ordered in the same way that all the other fossils are ordered and not in any way any flood could possible create. They are ordered based on what really lived at a given period and given location.

Faith writes:

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.

Well, not, that too is simply just not true.

Even if the very reasonable current explanation of change over vast amounts of time were wrong (and so far no one has ever presented any reason to think it wrong) the Biblical Flood is still not an explanation. The Biblical Flood is totally wrong and has been refuted for hundreds of years and cannot explain anything found in reality.

Granted, if the current theories were not so robust, so overwhelmingly supported by ALL of the evidence, some other explanation would be needed. That could not be the Biblical Flood though since that one has already been shown to be false and incapable of explaining ANYTHING seen in reality.

What is found in reality is not conjecture, not imagined, not just theory but rather they are facts; the nature of the item, the exact composition of the minerals, the method of lithification and consolidation are all factual, testable and irrefutable. The fossil exists. The track exists. The composition of the material exists.

Only the Biblical flood is conjecture.


The tracks exist. The fossils exist. The sequential and repeated layers of unique materials exist. What does not exist is the silly Biblical Flood or anything like Biblical Flood Evidence.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 4:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:59 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

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

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31177
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 44 of 1257 (787935)
07-24-2016 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:59 PM


Re: Just a brief reply
Faith writes:

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.

Then stop posting things that are patently false. It's not a matter of opinions but rather one of reality opposed to your fantasy.

The tracks exist. The fossils exist. The sequential and repeated layers of unique materials exist. What does not exist is the silly Biblical Flood or anything like Biblical Flood Evidence.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 12:12 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32669
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
Prev12
3
456
...
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