Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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 Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 453 of 1163 (787729)
07-21-2016 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2016 6:33 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Is that your theory then, they lived in the mountains? But aren't the dinosaur beds mostly found in the plains or west of the Rockies? There's a time factor here as well as a location factor.
ABE: Also, aren't dinosauria supposed to need lots of vegetation to eat. Would that have been found in the mountains?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 6:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2016 6:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 455 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2016 7:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 467 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 11:19 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 456 of 1163 (787733)
07-21-2016 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by edge
07-20-2016 6:20 PM


Corals weren't generated during the Flood; they were killed like everything else
edge writes:
Faith writes:
But the actual surface of the earth was nothing but sedimentary deposits in each bogus "time period." This is clear because it is known that the strata cover great distances, great distances of flat sedimentation that became rock, to a great depth in which the layers are all in a recognizable order. Strata, not livable landscapes, just sedimentary deposits, the ACTUAL surface of the earth in each time period. It's amazing how much effort has gone into pretending this was not the case.
That's weird.
How do you think these corals got into the Pennsylvanian fossil record?
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Order: Tabulata
Family: Pachyporidae
Genus: Thamnoporella (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)
The tabulate corals, forming the order Tabulata, are an extinct form of coral. ... Like rugose corals, they lived entirely during the Paleozoic, being found from the Ordovician to the Permian. (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)
Seems kind of strange that you could have and entire order of corals generated during a flood that deposited the entire Phanerozoic section in one year.
But this is a fundamental error made by anti-Floodists. They were not "generated" during the Flood, they would have been uprooted and redeposited where found.
... they lived entirely during the Paleozoic, being found from the Ordovician to the Permian. (Thamnoporella - Wikipedia)
And this is the source of that fundamental error, the idea that what is found in the strata actually lived on that spot during that "time period," the interpretation being contested in this discussion. According to Flood thinking it would be dead corals that are found from the Ordovician to the Permian, most likely transported there from their place of origin.
Seems kind of strange that you could have and entire order of corals generated during a flood that deposited the entire Phanerozoic section in one year.
That would indeed be strange since nothing could possibly have been generated during the Flood, only killed, and in most cases moved from their usual location.
Well, maybe the Bethany Falls Limestone (where these coral specimens came from) is not a stratum, eh?
But wait. It's within the Pennsylvanian System. That would be in the middle of the fludde when strata were being deposited.
What happened?
Just the usual clash of paradigms and interpretations.
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 430 by edge, posted 07-20-2016 6:20 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by jar, posted 07-21-2016 8:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 460 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 8:48 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 458 of 1163 (787740)
07-21-2016 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2016 4:23 PM


Nope, no landscapes, no living things, just rock
The fact of the matter is that there are no time periods, there are only the rocks wrongly associated with time periods. There are no landscapes, those are all imagined from stuff in the rocks ...
Inferred, not imagined. Just as we infer a dinosaur from its bones.
A semantic distinction without a difference.
There are no rivers in the strata, just some kinds of rocks that were formed in rivers. They seem unable to tell the difference.
We can tell the difference. One is a rive, the other is evidence of a former river.
Edge just replied to my claim that there are no rivers in the strata with an example of pebbles that were formed in rivers, and channels through which water must have flowed after the strata were laid down, not real rivers which run in landscapes on the surface of the earth.
But the actual surface of the earth was nothing but sedimentary deposits in each bogus "time period." This is clear because it is known that the strata cover great distances ...
Well, some facies cover great distances. But the remains of lakes cover smaller distances, which is one way we can recognize them. The remains of rivers are, y'know, river-shaped.
Your usual silly meaningless retort.
I'm comparing livable landscapes on the surface of the earth to the rocks of the strata which in fact covered huge swaths of the surface of the earth layer after layer offering nothing but flat featureless sedimentary deposits, no livable landscapes. THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES of these strata in the Midwest according to the hundreds of cores reported to have been taken in that area. Many of those layers were supposedly laid down when there were living things in that area, which is inferred from the fossils in the rocks. But since the fossils in the rocks is all there was there wouldn't have been any place any of those creatures could have lived if they were living. Your inference is based on a faulty theory: that the rocks reflect what was living at that location at that supposed "time."
When those layers were surface they were not landscapes as I've been using the term, nothing could live on them if they did last anywhere near as long as OE theory says they did. Which of course they didn't, but it's the implications of the OE theory I'm exploring here. That's what the cartoon reflects, the actual reality of featureless sedimentary deposits/rocks that WAS the surface of the earth over thousands of miles, that WAS the "landscape" just as depicted in the second and third panels of the cartoon.
This is clear because it is known that the strata cover great distances, great distances of flat sedimentation that became rock, to a great depth in which the layers are all in a recognizable order. Strata, not livable landscapes, just sedimentary deposits ...
Could I once again point out that most livable landscapes are in fact sedimentary deposits. It is actually harder to live on bare rock. If you dug beneath your own house, it is highly probable that you would hit dirt.
Again are you just obfuscating or do you really think you are saying something relevant? You keep talking about Panel 1 of the cartoon when I'm talking about Panels 2 and 3. Either you know this and are just trying to derail my argument or you don't know it, which is very surprising in one who considers himself a genius.
They prefer their games and their imaginary time periods, but the facts remain: ...
That dumb cartoon is not a fact, Faith It is dumb shit that you have made up in your head which is contradicted by all the evidence in the geological record, and which everyone who has studied that record would dismiss as the retarded product of a deranged mind.
Unfortunately you are wrong. It is fact. The actual surface of the earth was nothing but strata in those time periods and all your inferences of something more like a real living environment just go poof because such an environment had no place to exist except in your mind because all there was in those "time periods" was the rock itself.
abe: Where are the landscapes Dr A? Shouldn't they have existed on the surface of the rock beneath the one interpreted as the landscape in question? Maybe you'll find some rubble between the rocks, or maybe nothing, just a knife-edge flat contact between them. Where's the landscape, where are the flora and fauna you infer from the fossilized flora and fauna in the rock to have lived in that nonexistent landscape?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2016 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 8:58 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 462 of 1163 (787745)
07-21-2016 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by edge
07-21-2016 8:58 AM


Re: Nope, no landscapes, no living things, just rock
Once again, you are talking about marine sediments, that are completely different from terrestrial sediments ..
I try to keep the distinction clear because I mostly have terrestrial sediments in mind, but may forget to. In any case why should a core sample be only marine sediments?
Unfortunately I've been up all night and though I wish I could continue I'm going to have to sleep, so I won't get to this until later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 8:58 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 9:52 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 463 of 1163 (787746)
07-21-2016 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by edge
07-21-2016 8:48 AM


Re: Corals weren't generated during the Flood; they were killed like everything else
ANYWAY. Those eroded stream channels in your rock strata obviously occurred after all the strata were laid down, right?
No. Nothing obvious about it. Please explain how you erode a channel underground, after all sediments have been deposited, and don't affect the strata overlying the channel.
I inferred it from the drawing itself that shows a straight contact line above each filled channel, and I do think it's quite possible for a channel to be eroded underground. Aren't karsts formed underground? Don't salt domes penetrate up through strata from deep underground? Doesn't the chemical-laden water that cements the rocks trickle through the rocks?
Anyway even if I give a better interpretation later, I don't think it's important to this topic whether water ran in these channels at the surface or not since the surface was still just flat sediment and not a landscape.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 8:48 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by PaulK, posted 07-21-2016 9:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 466 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 10:05 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 480 of 1163 (787793)
07-21-2016 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by edge
07-21-2016 12:34 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
What Faith does not get, nor ever will, is that most dinosaur bones are actually found in stream sediments ... sand bars and the like.
Well we could argue about that but it's really irrelevant in the current context. Even if the sediments are stream sediments there is still the problem that sedimentary rock covers all the territory where supposedly there was a landscape with all the necessities to sustain the life of the dinosaur before it got buried in the stream sediments which became the slab of rock that covers all that territory. You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock? And if so how did that happen? And no dinosaurs survived? But wasn't that due to the meteor? And what about all the other living things? Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?
What one needs is the accumulation of sediments (or volcanics) to preserve the fossils. I once found a mammoth femur in a lakeshore environment that was covered by volcanic ash. Or one could look at the La Brea tar pits ... there are a number of ways to manage the preservation in the terrestrial environment. It's just that they are smaller than marine environments and generally subject to later erosion.
Oh, wait! Erosion doesn't exist in the geologic record...
Well, it doesn't, not on the scale that would have occurred were the surface of the rock ever on the surface of the earth for any appreciable length of time, certainly the millions of years ascribed to most of the rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 12:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 10:34 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 484 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2016 3:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 489 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 10:47 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 483 of 1163 (787802)
07-22-2016 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by NoNukes
07-22-2016 1:06 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I see that Faith is proposing a thread to discuss this subject. In her OP she shows a cartoon of some 'strata' dropping onto a brontosaurus.
I wonder if this is how others see that cartoon or this is just your usual odd way of construing things I post. I intended it to be a brontosaurus in its own "time period" poking its head out from between the strata, unhappy because there is nothing to sustain life in the strata. But perhaps the drawing is ambiguous.
This is extremely reminiscent of times Faith has tried to tell us that Darwin's theory does not include variation; just selection.
Certainly a very odd one here. You seem to have turned the idea that mutation is not the source of variation into no variation at all, which is a total misrepresentation of my argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 1:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 3:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 487 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 4:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 486 of 1163 (787805)
07-22-2016 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by NoNukes
07-22-2016 3:32 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I got convinced in that discussion that Darwin did spend time on the question of the source of variation. However my main interest was in his use of the idea of natural selection as the power mechanism of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 3:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 4:50 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 495 of 1163 (787832)
07-22-2016 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by edge
07-22-2016 10:47 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
While a lot of this discussion seems to be a bit off topic, I think some of it is important because what Faith is saying is that the fossil record is irrelevant for, supposedly, geological reasons. I believe that she is saying the entire geological record was deposited in one swell foop, and that the fossil arrangement is accidental, and also irrelevant because it all happened in a one year time frame.
That isn't my argument at the moment, although it represents my viewpoint, yes. But at the moment I'm focused on the strata of the Geo Column each as forming the surface of the earth in its own time period, and since their fossil contents are supposed to have lived in that time period on the very site where they are buried, a whole landscape, or ecology perhaps, is supposed to have existed on that spot and yet all that actually exists on that spot is the sedimentary layer itself. You have to imagine there having been a landscape there originally in which the fossil creatures lived, but that requires imagining a very complex scenario in which such a landscape ends up as a sedimentary rock, EVERY landscape of EVERY time period ends up as a sedimentary rock. This isn't particularly a problem for marine creatures since their habitat is in the water and doesn't form a landscape on the surface, but when we get to the terrestrial creatures their supposed environment becomes something more akin to the surface of the earth we are living on. For every sedimentary deposit that contains terrestrial fossils we have to conjure this supposed environment and then suppose it was eventually all reduced to a flat sedimentary rock. The rocks as observed in the strata, where they haven't been tectonically deformed, are pretty flat, often with pretty tight contacts between them, and yet we are to imagine that there was once a whole landscape on their surface somewhat like the landscape on the surface now? And that makes sense to you? That makes sense to Geologists?
The possibility of erosion within that time frame attacks her concept of a concentrated geological record. Hence, we have a discussion of landscapes and streams.
You keep saying erosion is a problem for me and I don't get what you mean. For my "concept of a concentrated geological record?" You mean for my concept of rapid deposition? Exactly what erosion is a problem for that? I look at strata in hundreds of pictures from all over the world and I don't see any problem. Sometimes there is some loose gravel or rubble between strata. Is that what you mean by erosion? How would it be a problem if it is? There are lots of ways such loose rubble could occur. But I may not be getting what you have in mind.
"Landscapes and streams" is simply what is suggested by the idea of the surface of the strata having once been the surface of the earth which could support living things as represented by the fossils within the layer. What erosion has to do with this escapes me completely. It seems to be what is implied by the whole Geologic Timescale.
edge writes:
Faith writes:
Well we could argue about that but it's really irrelevant in the current context.
As I said, the details of the fossil record are irrelevant to Faith.
Didn't I say that in regard to the water channels cut in the layers you posted? It's irrelevant to the question of how a whole landscape -- or perhaps ecology is more accurate -- could have formed on the surface of any given buried layer. How is that about the relevance or irrelevance of the fossil record?
Even if the sediments are stream sediments there is still the problem that sedimentary rock covers all the territory where supposedly there was a landscape with all the necessities to sustain the life of the dinosaur before it got buried in the stream sediments which became the slab of rock that covers all that territory.
Hard to make sense of this, but it seems that Faith is equating terrestrial deposits and their fossils to the extensive marine strata that we all think of in layer-cake geology.
Well, we are still not communicating. I really don't know what you are saying. I'm trying to keep the focus on the strata, and the strata aren't limited to marine strata, they include terrestrial deposits as well.
Such as those in the Grand Staircase where there are huge numbers of fossilized dinosaurs:
And it's the terrestrial strata that inspire the landscapes in which the fossilized creatures supposedly once roamed, which I'm saying could never have existed, because all that ever existed for all those "time periods" represented by all those strata, is the strata themselves, with their fossilized contents.
What Faith does not seem to understand is that landscapes are subaerial, allowing land animals and plants to exist.
How could I fail to understand that? It's at the very heart of what I'm talking about. Since all there is and ever was in the locations of the strata is the strata themselves, the sedimentary rocks of the geo column, there were never any landscapes, meaning subaerial environments in which living things could exist. Seems to me I keep saying this over and over and yet you think I fail to grasp it?
Because of transgressions and temporary dams, etc., a largely erosional landscape can become depositional. Furthermore, this can happen repeatedly resulting in 'cyclothems' present in a lot of coal fields. A major point is that terrestrial deposits do not have the lateral continuity of marine sediments being deposited according to Walther's Law. Sediments are deposited in smaller basins than the ocean, but they do occur as alluvial fans, lakes and river sediments, as well as in volcanic deposits of various kinds.
I've read up on the strata in the Grand Staircase illustrated above, which are terrestrial strata containing enormous numbers of fossils, including huge numbers of dinosaurs in the Mesozoic layers, and found that some of them cover five or six states; one of the formations is considered by some to cover as many as a dozen states. How these deposits could be thought of as confined to alluvial fans or lake and river sediments, is a puzzle to put it mildly.
While marine deposits are different, Faith neglects that there are trace fossils within those extensive marine sheets that are hard to explain by transport from another location and time. For instance, I showed a set of Cambrian trilobite tracks in a siltstone in an earlier post. My question would be: "How does your flood transport tracks and deposit them in a different location and layer where trilobites supposedly could not live?"
There are lots of questions about how the FLood could have done this or that, but at the moment the subject is how OE theory invents landscapes that couldn't possibly exist, so that the strata is all there is, rocks with dead things in them, period. I don't think there's any other possibility than the Flood to explain this if the Geo Column/Timetable is overthrown, but maybe you can think of one?
I saw the trilobite picture but didn't read the post yet. How about the possibility that the trilobite survived the Flood long enough to make tracks in the latest deposit of sediment before being buried by the sediments carried in the next wave? Or something like that.
You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock?
A landscape cannot become a rock. But it can be buried by sediments, resulting in a fossil landscape.
I have NO idea what a "fossil landscape" could possibly be. but this scenario seems reasonable to you? Era after era landscapes form and get buried by sediments? Which harden into rock with flat surfaces on top of which eventually another landscape forms and gets buried and so on and so forth? This IS what Geology seems to be saying, which is such a monumental absurdity it is extremely hard to account for how you all fail to see it.
And if so how did that happen?
It happens when an area becomes inundated by water, wind-blown silt or sand, a debris flow or one of several volcanic materials. This process occurs repeatedly in the geological record.
Oy. Interpretive madness it seems to me. You're talking about ROCKS here, that you are calling the "geological record" in which you supposedly can see all those events with water and silt and debris? Oy.
And no dinosaurs survived? But wasn't that due to the meteor?
I have no idea why you bring this up now. What do you mean?
It was just a quip about how the dinosaurs couldn't have been killed by being buried by sediment or whatever we were talking about, because supposedly they were killed by the K-T meteor. Just an aside.
And what about all the other living things? Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?
Well, if they didn't get eroded or destroyed first (since they lived on a landscape), they were incorporated into the sediment, an example would be coal.
I really find it very hard to believe that a normal intelligent person could believe such stuff, that anything like the surface of the earth we are living on today could end up as a slab of rock.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 10:47 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2016 2:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 501 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 503 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 504 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 505 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 4:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 506 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 5:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 512 by Pollux, posted 07-24-2016 2:15 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 509 of 1163 (787884)
07-23-2016 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by edge
07-22-2016 2:49 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I'm posting this just to point out that I've been quoted saying something I didn't say. I tracked it back and can't find where it originated. What I think happened is that quotes got put around your own statement by mistake:
Well, the implication is that since these landscapes are subaerial, they are subject to erosion.
I couldn't have said this because at the time I didn't get what erosion you were talking about. It's not a big deal, it's just that I didn't happen to say it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:49 PM edge has not replied

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


(1)
Message 513 of 1163 (787950)
07-24-2016 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Pollux
07-24-2016 2:15 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Let me have a try.
I am not a geologist, so I welcome correction from those who know more than me, but here goes.
You seem to not understand how a slab of rock is the environment, well in most cases the rocks we see are not THE environment, but show EVIDENCE of it.
Oh I understand all that, all right, I reject it with every sane cell in my body.
Most sedimentary rocks are laid down in water - such as lakes, deltas, seas, river flats.
Today, yes, but the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries. The strata are commonly enormous, huge, flat flat flat thick thick thick blocks of rock.
Consider a lake. On its bed it will have remains of critters and vegetation growing in it, but also animals - or more usually bits thereof - living on the nearby land and washed in by streams or local floods. Along with that there will also be pollens and pieces of vegetation from the land. As streams wash in mud and silt the bits on the lake bed get covered.
Eventually with changes in the area like uplift or sea transgression the lake bed will become stone.
Theoretically, it could happen, but there is no way a lake is going to turn into the huge flat rocks of the strata.
Millions of years later geologists examine the rocks and see evidence of what the land was like alongside the lake, and infer a landscape with plants and animals in it.
The rocks are not the landscape, but they show what it was like.
You think I somehow failed to grasp this? In the case of the strata, however, I'm afraid there is every reason to say that the rock IS the landscape. It's where the whole scenario of the "time period" had to have been played out. There is no separate land "alongside" the rock, all there is is the rock, in many cases spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, and that's where the imagined landscape had to have been.
In addition to exposed rock layers in streams and rivers, there must be millions of bores that have been drilled into land, lakes, rivers, and seas in the last 200 years which also show the ordering of the fossils talked about here, and you are no nearer explaining that than GRI is. Remember their unsolved questions? There is one easy answer for them.
What the bore holes demonstrate above all is the enormous area covered by the strata, as well as their depth, and the order of the rocks and the fossils, however hard to explain in terms of the Flood, just isn't all that important in the light of all the problems for OE theory --although I think the many creationist theories about it must all go some way to explaining it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Pollux, posted 07-24-2016 2:15 AM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by mike the wiz, posted 07-24-2016 10:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 515 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 12:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 527 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2016 7:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 528 by ringo, posted 07-25-2016 11:45 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 517 of 1163 (787967)
07-24-2016 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by mike the wiz
07-24-2016 10:45 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Thanks, they did a good job. It seems so obvious, how could the evos not get it, or at least an evo here or there? I guess I'll never learn. I know we're all spiritually dead before we're saved* but I don't remember being that stu/pid before I was saved, so I keep expecting one of these smart evos to get it, and they never do, all they do is multiply weird excuses.
*What's even more depressing is the Christians who don't get it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by mike the wiz, posted 07-24-2016 10:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 518 of 1163 (787969)
07-24-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Tangle
07-24-2016 2:00 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I tried reading through that and somehow managed not to get what you think it's revealing. Partly due to my bad eyes which require me to get through it as fast as possible. Perhaps you could translate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 2:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 520 of 1163 (787974)
07-24-2016 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by PaulK
07-24-2016 12:51 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Oh I understand all that, all right, I reject it with every sane cell in my body.
Rejecting obvious facts is not usually considered a sign of sanity.
Calling an interpretation a fact isn't very sane either. I reject the idea that the clues in the rock prove an actual environment.
quote:
Today, yes, but the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries. The strata are commonly enormous, huge, flat flat flat thick thick thick blocks of rocK
So if a stratum was said to have formed in a lake you would reject the idea because other strata are a lot bigger. That doesn't really make much sense.
You can't get a stratum, a thick flat rock that extends over a huge area, from a lake. Strata would not form in a lake. You'd get a rock but not a layer. Of course it doesn't make sense to you. You're used to accepting the weird idea that if there are any signs of anything reminiscent of a lake environment in the rock that means there was a lake right there in that "time period."
quote:
You think I somehow failed to grasp this? In the case of the strata, however, I'm afraid there is every reason to say that the rock IS the landscape. It's where the whole scenario of the "time period" had to have been played out. There is no separate land "alongside" the rock, all there is is the rock, in many cases spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, and that's where the imagined landscape had to have been
It's weird. First you argue that we don't have the landscape, only evidence which we use to infer it (and you try to pretend that most of that doesn't exist). Now you are trying to say otherwise.
The problem is that you apparently can't tell when I'm characterizing the opinion I disagree with rather than stating my own opinion, so you think I'm saying both and contradicting myself. How you could make such a mistake after everything I've said is hard to understand but anything to confuse things I suppose, no point in stopping to make sense of something you don't want to make sense of.
Now obviously the effects of compaction and lithification and sometimes erosion are going to change what was there. That's why we find fossil tree stumps rather than living trees.
Eh?
quote:
What the bore holes demonstrate above all is the enormous area covered by the strata, as well as their depth, and the order of the rocks and the fossils, however hard to explain in terms of the Flood, just isn't all that important in the light of all the problems for OE theory --although I think the many creationist theories about it must all go some way to explaining it.
Again, not all strata are so extensive and making foolish generalisations hardly helps your case.
Your usual display of grace and generosity. I keep having the core samples from the Midwest in mind that cover the ENTIRE midwest, that Thin Air posted some time ago. And the problem here is your refusal to give me the credit for knowing that the strata cover different areas, since I've said it often enough. All it takes is not saying it occasionally for you to turn it into an accusation -- the usual cheap shot from you.
[qs]
You've yet to demonstrate any serious problems for the scientific view - which should surprise nobody.
I don't expect anything to surprise you. It could take a big bite out of your butt and you wouldn't get it.
Creationist explanations for the order of the fossil record fail miserably - but I invite you to argue otherwise since it actually is on topic.
OE has been defeated over and over again; there's no actual order in the fossil record to consider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 12:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 3:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 526 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2016 1:07 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 522 of 1163 (787982)
07-24-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by PaulK
07-24-2016 3:14 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Poor William Smith; poor James Hutton; poor Charles Lyell. A legacy of Wrongness in spite of their obvious talents, but it's their wrongness that has misled generations. Very sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 3:14 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024