Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 46 of 1257 (787937)
07-24-2016 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:59 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.
Opinions, arguments, and beliefs all must depend on evidence. Some opinions, arguments and beliefs are supported by the evidence, while others are not. Not all interpretations are of equal value or accuracy!
We know you are giving your argument and opinions, and have been doing so here for years, but your argument and opinions are not supported by the evidence. That does make them false, or in scientific terms, they are disproved.
The fact that you can't accept this shows that you are doing religious apologetics, not science. Science relies on evidence not beliefs. In science, when hypotheses are disproved by the evidence they must be discarded or modified.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 1257 (787938)
07-24-2016 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:52 PM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
quote:
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.
Isn't that essentially asking how landscapes form ? You don't doubt the existence of modern landscapes so why couldn't those ancient landscapes have formed in much the same way ?
quote:
ow 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?
A depositional environment is just somewhere where sediment is being deposited faster than erosive forces move it away. I know that you've taken one if your bizarre dislikes to the idea, but I really don't see why you are trying to object to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 48 of 1257 (787939)
07-24-2016 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:59 PM


Re: Just a brief reply
quote:
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.
The problem is that your opinions are contrary to the evidence - which you are largely ignoring. And when you do not ignore it you invent dubious excuses to discount it.
Then there is the misrepresentation, which is something of a habit with you.
quote:
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
I understand that you don't like the fact that you are being so thoroughly defeated. But that does not excuse this misrepresentation. You set out to defeat well-established science using ill-founded opinions without regard to the evidence. This result was pretty much inevitable. Trying to blame us for that - and trying to pretend that the evidence has nothing to do with it - is dishonest and unfair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 49 of 1257 (787941)
07-24-2016 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
07-23-2016 11:52 PM


Re: The theory sometimes doesn't fit the facts
"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.
I'll give this question a shot. But really my explanation is simply a description of part of the rock cycle as taught primary school earth science classes.
Landscapes form in soil. Soil is largely sediment plus decaying remains of organic material plus water plus minerals and nitrogen compounds. The old layers of rock are of course below the soil. In a depositional environment, sediment can form on top of the current level, possibly becoming more soil if there are enough mineral, organic matter etc. in the environment. Eventually, the lower levels of soil can become sedimentary rock through lithification.
Because the pressure required for lithification is highest at the bottom(feel free to ask why if such a thing is not obvious), the newest layer of sedimentary rock must be expected to form first at the bottom of the soil layer if it occurs at all. That readily explains what is found when the layers are examined.
Now maybe you don't believe that such a thing actually did happen, but if you want to support your position as announced in the OP, you need to explain why that mechanism could not at least hypothetically work, or alternatively to show that it did not occur.
It is my suspicion that the basis for your position is simply a lack of knowledge of or ability to imagine the mechanisms that geologist say work. Dr. Adequate has explained the mechanism in his posts. Beyond that, the mechanism is taught in elementary/junior high school earth science classes. Thirdly, it is extremely easy to find an explanation with even a moments worth of googling. Terms like "soil becomes rock" turn up lots of explanation. So the problem is certainly not that science does not provide a viable mechanism. And of course for the purpose of this discussion whether or not you believe those sources is irrelevant.
Now a question for you. How you can demonstrate that the mechanisms that geologists say occur are wrong when you don't appear to have any idea what those proposed mechanisms are? Why is it not your responsibility to find out what those mechanisms are before starting a thread claiming to have eliminated all possible explanations other than the Flood?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:42 AM NoNukes has 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

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(3)
Message 51 of 1257 (787943)
07-24-2016 3:34 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
how a landscape forms ON TOP OF A STRATUM
A landscape doesn't generally form on top of a stratum of rock - that is not how the science works. Instead, layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever, get layered on top of other layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever, and on the surface of this evolving landscape, life continues. Like my example of Romania Britain to modern day Britain.
THEN, over millions of years, as the layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever get buried deeper, sometimes the conditions (pressure, heat) are such that they lithify and turn into strata of rock.
That's the sequence you need to get - first it's strata of living landscape, some of which, millions of years later, then lithify into rock.

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 50 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:42 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2016 4:18 AM vimesey has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 1257 (787944)
07-24-2016 3:34 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
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
In short this thread reflects your own ignorance regarding the topic and is not, and cannot be an assessment of what geologists actually think. Thanks for confirming that.
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.
You've been given that explanation several times. My explanation is no different from the other explanations you've been given. I only offered mine because you claimed not to understand anyone else's.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 1257 (787945)
07-24-2016 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by vimesey
07-24-2016 3:34 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
That's the sequence you need to get - first it's strata of living landscape, some of which, millions of years later, then lithify into rock.
I'd further add, that when you see rock on the surface, that can be because the soil has been removed by one or more processes including erosion. If there is some mystery here, then perhaps Faith owes some explanation of where the puzzle lies.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by vimesey, posted 07-24-2016 3:34 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 54 of 1257 (787946)
07-24-2016 4:45 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
Faith writes:
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.
But you've been told all this several times in the few years I've been here. The explanations don't change, the text books and websites are still there for you to read.
The problem is not that the information isn't there or that you're hearing it for the first time, it's that you simply refuse to try to understand it. You reject everything you're told so you never get to even understand what the science says. I'm not saying you need to accept it, but you do need to understand it. You can't repeatedly and indefinately argue from ignorance and expect to be taken seriously.
What I find facinating is that you do this with all the science that contradicts your beliefs. Here it's geology, before it's palaeontology, evolution, dendrochronology, archaeology, radiometric dating, molecular biology, astrophysics etc etc.
You don't understand any of them, have never studied any of them, have no qualifications in any of them, yet are convinced that they are all wrong. This despite the millions of man-years of research effort by highly qualified researchers that has confirmed them.
The hardest thing for you though is not that the individual sciences tell stories of a very, very old earth and universe, but that they ALL AGREE. Each part of earth and biological science is consistent with the others. Results of observation and experiment match. No matter where we look, to fossils, rocks, DNA, radioactivity, space, trees, ice samples, varves, stalagtites, caves, wherever....we find the same results.
You can't overturn that with your pre-school understanding of each component.
And then we have the problem of what you want to replace that hard earned knowledge with. A myth. A childish story in a 2,000 year old book of stories. That's just absurd.
What's really daft is that you can't evidentially defend the thing you believe in. Instead of saying that it's all just a miracle you're forced to explain how the evidence of reality matches your story. And of course it doesn't. You can't even provide us with a mechanism that would explain the things we see like the sorting of fossils in the geology. You have absolutely nothing on your side of the discussion and nothing at all to contradict science's explanation.
I don't get it Faith, it doesn't make any sort of sense.
Let me rephrase that, of course I get it, you have a fixated belief that can't be shifted by any amount of evidence. As classic a case of delusion that it's possible to see. I just find that particular reality really hard to believe even though I'm looking at it. But unlike you, I can't ignore the evidence.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

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 56 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 8:44 AM Tangle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 55 of 1257 (787948)
07-24-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
07-24-2016 12:12 AM


Re: Just a brief reply
Faith writes:
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.
I have no problem with you ignoring me. That's fine. But it really is foolish of you to ignore the factual evidence which is simply not a questionable opinion.
Slow down and actually read this:
quote:
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.
Those are not opinions but rather facts. The fossils exist and they exist in the order found in reality. That is a fact.
There is absolutely no way that any flood could do what is seen in reality. No one, not one single person, has ever presented a Flood model that can explain what is seen in reality.
The current explanation that does explain fully what is seen (there is no and can never be any "official explanation"; Science unlike dogma does not work that way and will always change when new evidence requires it) is that what is seen in older rocks is produced in the same way as what we see happening today.
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 quotation found above, 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 45 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 12:12 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 1257 (787951)
07-24-2016 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
07-24-2016 8:44 AM


Why do you reject explanations that are supported by all of the evidence?
Faith writes:
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.
Why do you reject it?
Why do you find it utterly beyond reason.
Why do you refuse, absolutely refuse, to accept the facts?
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 8:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 58 of 1257 (787958)
07-24-2016 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
07-24-2016 8:44 AM


In the long, long ago
Faith writes:
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.
Pick a rock layer in the middle.
Now go back to the past, when that "middle" layer was actually the top layer.
At this time, the "rock layer" was not rock. It was dirt and sediment and such things. It likely grew plants and animals walked on it and bugs crawled around inside it. It was a landscape.
As lots and lots of time passes... the layers get covered.
As they get covered with more stuff, they get pressurized by all the weight of the stuff above them. That's when they become rock.
"All that rock strata" you see today is only rock now because it's been under the weight of all the layers above it for a very long time.
"All that rock strata" was not rock when it was the top layer. It was more like the dirt under your feet right now. It was a landscape just as you see under your feet right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 8:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 1257 (787960)
07-24-2016 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
07-24-2016 8:44 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
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.
I think you're forgetting the compaction part of the lithification process. The flat layer of rock that you see today wasn't so flat and thin when it was on the surface in the past. It's been smashed down by all the new surfaces on top of it. All the normal surface conditions were there when it was on top, it just later got covered in more layers of stuff that compacted it down.
Yes, the creatures that were there at the time it was the surface would have been dead when it was turning into rock, as this would be happening much below the surface.
But there would be things left for the next time period, as they would be up on the surface in a normal environment instead of being buried far below the surface turning into rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 8:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 60 of 1257 (787963)
07-24-2016 1:41 PM


Oh good GRIEF.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024