Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
26 online now:
AZPaul3, jar (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 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
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 346 of 1257 (788785)
08-04-2016 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
08-04-2016 3:46 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Are you now suggesting that the strata containing tracks were the original pre-flood surface rather than being laid down in the receding stages of the flood ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 3:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 4:55 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 347 of 1257 (788787)
08-04-2016 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by PaulK
08-04-2016 4:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
I agree that is one strange bug; and putting "Burgess Shale creatures" into Google Image turns up a bunch more. But then just putting "strange bugs" into Google image turns up quite a collection of bugs living today, including the ones Dr. A posted on a while back, that may very possibly rival the fossil bugs. (A few I suspect of being human inventions but I don't know) So I'm not so sure the fossil record has anything more outlandish than today's bug world.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 4:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 5:08 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 351 by edge, posted 08-04-2016 8:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 348 of 1257 (788788)
08-04-2016 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by PaulK
08-04-2016 4:07 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
No. I'm trying just to picture the very forefront of the rising Flood, assuming it's building the strata with each new wave. But if the strata were precipitated out after the Flood was at its full height that would be a completely different scenario I'm also considering.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 4:07 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by PaulK, posted 08-04-2016 5:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 349 of 1257 (788789)
08-04-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Faith
08-04-2016 4:52 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
That's why taxonomic classifications are important. They are more objective and rely on more detailed observation than a subjective impression of "strangeness"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 4:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 350 of 1257 (788791)
08-04-2016 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Faith
08-04-2016 4:55 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Footprints are an obvious problem for you. You need dry (relatively speaking) land that will later be deeply covered and you need living animals. Those obviously point to very early stages of the flood, and ideally the original landscape. But that ends up creating other problems for you - it becomes very difficult to explain anything lower down in terms of the flood.

The mainstream scientific view has no such problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 4:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 351 of 1257 (788800)
08-04-2016 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Faith
08-04-2016 4:52 PM


Re: The Imaginary Time Period Landscapes
I agree that is one strange bug; and putting "Burgess Shale creatures" into Google Image turns up a bunch more. But then just putting "strange bugs" into Google image turns up quite a collection of bugs living today, including the ones Dr. A posted on a while back, that may very possibly rival the fossil bugs. (A few I suspect of being human inventions but I don't know) So I'm not so sure the fossil record has anything more outlandish than today's bug world.

The problems is that those creatures are not 'bugs' as we know them. These are marine creatures and are not insects.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 08-04-2016 4:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 9:22 PM edge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(5)
Message 352 of 1257 (788801)
08-04-2016 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by edge
08-04-2016 8:51 PM


The Actual Landscapes
The problem is slightly different.

If we look at the geology what we find is unordered layers of similar materials. We find sedimentary layers and igneous layers and organic layers and marine layers and aeolian layers all stacked vertically with different ordering depending on the location examined.

But when we look at the fossil evidence we find an entirely different pattern.

Biological samples are ordered and in a non-repeating pattern whether we are discussing animals or plants. What we see is a clear evolution of lifeforms that is similar across the whole record. We never find latter forms mixed with earlier forms. The ordering of the biological samples, the record of landscapes, is laid out like a storyboard, like a series of time lapse pictures. The oldest samples show no critters with skeletons. Next we find exoskeletons, then backbones. The first plants are all asexual, then we find sexual reproduction by spores then seeds then pollen.

The ordering in biological samples always is evolutionary, changing over time; the types of materials seen in the geological samples are pretty constant over all time. Sedimentary rocks are made the same way they always were. Shale, limestone, lava, ash... the processes simply repeat.

The fossils are absolute evidence of a succession of landscapes over vast periods of time where the geological processes continued and repeated but the biological processes themselves changed producing new and unique specimens.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by edge, posted 08-04-2016 8:51 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 1:16 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 353 of 1257 (788808)
08-05-2016 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by jar
08-04-2016 9:22 PM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Beautifully told standard propaganda. Not a hint that it's physically impossible for there ever to have been the landscapes invented out of the rocks in which the so-nicely-ordered former life forms supposedly lived. It's all quite plausible in a Just-So sort of way if you don't think about that extreme implausibility of turning a landscape into a slab of rock. All you've got is rocks, nothing but rocks, and you make up whole worlds to have existed within those rocks. The absurdity is staggering, but it's more staggering how it is rationalized away.

So let the denials begin.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 08-04-2016 9:22 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by foreveryoung, posted 08-05-2016 1:20 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 355 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 7:46 AM Faith has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 354 of 1257 (788809)
08-05-2016 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
08-05-2016 1:16 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
How do you think rocks come to be?

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 1:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 355 of 1257 (788819)
08-05-2016 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
08-05-2016 1:16 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Faith writes:

Beautifully told standard propaganda. Not a hint that it's physically impossible for there ever to have been the landscapes invented out of the rocks in which the so-nicely-ordered former life forms supposedly lived. It's all quite plausible in a Just-So sort of way if you don't think about that extreme implausibility of turning a landscape into a slab of rock. All you've got is rocks, nothing but rocks, and you make up whole worlds to have existed within those rocks. The absurdity is staggering, but it's more staggering how it is rationalized away.

So let the denials begin.

Once again Faith, reality show you are wrong.

What we have is not just rocks but rather rocks that contain the absolute proof of those other landscapes. Where the leaf fell a tree grew. Where the critter died the critter lived.

It is that ordering of Biological samples that you must explain.

Edited by jar, : hit wrong key


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 1:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 11:09 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 356 of 1257 (788826)
08-05-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2016 11:47 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
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.

No amount of compaction would change "all the normal surface conditions" of any surface on the earth now or ever into straight flat rock. Hills, valleys, riverbeds, lake basins, deep tree roots, no.

Same answer to your Message 266 where you say compression would have made the strata appear flatter. Not unless the compressing weight was flat itself, and that would be true of the strata themselves whose weight would certainly have enormously compacted lower layers. But not if the sediment being compressed had any of the lumpiness of a normal surface of the earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2016 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:03 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 362 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2016 11:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 367 by edge, posted 08-05-2016 2:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 357 of 1257 (788827)
08-05-2016 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
08-05-2016 10:54 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Faith writes:

No amount of compaction would change "all the normal surface conditions" of any surface on the earth now or ever into straight flat rock. Hills, valleys, riverbeds, lake basins, deep tree roots, no.

Same answer to your Message 266 where you say compression would have made the strata appear flatter. Not unless the compressing weight was flat itself, and that would be true of the strata themselves whose weight would certainly have enormously compacted lower layers. But not if the sediment being compressed had any of the lumpiness of a normal surface of the earth

It's a good thing no one but Creationists make such silly claims then isn't it Faith.

And once again reality shows you are wrong. One great piece of evidence totally refuting your silly depiction is the Appalachians.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 10:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 358 of 1257 (788828)
08-05-2016 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by jar
08-05-2016 7:46 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Good start on the Denial Brigade. Changing the topic to put the creationist in the hot seat is often an effective tactic too.

What we have is not just rocks but rather rocks that contain the absolute proof of those other landscapes. Where the leaf fell a tree grew. Where the critter died the critter lived.

Yes, what we have is not just a stack of drawers as it were, but drawers with socks in them or knives and forks or loose change and rubber bands, which is absolute proof that where the drawers are now there used to be a whole level of the building occupied with socks or cutlery or loose change and rubber bands.

Y'all look at the layers, the slabs of rocks in say the walls of the Grand Canyon, which appear as a stack of layers to a great depth. You dig in one or another of them and discover fossilized marine life, or a leaf from a tree of a certain type and you imagine those things are indicative of the surface of the earth in the time period associated with that rock, and you mentally construct that surface or landscape out of the once-living things peculiar to that rock. At least a tell in which a series of settlements have been stacked one on top of another contains the actual remains of those settlements, but these rocks are rocks, with the most minuscule "clues" to your imaginary former landscape contained in them.

Sorta like reading tea leaves at the bottom of a teacup.

I would think if you stood back again and once again saw the wall of rock slabs from a distance you'd have to consider it just as absurd as I do that any given rock in that neat stack was EVER part of such a landscape.

But it's become too ingrained in Geology for that disillusionment ever to happen. And it's more fun to make creationists jump and dance anyway.

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 355 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 7:46 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:22 AM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 359 of 1257 (788829)
08-05-2016 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Faith
08-05-2016 11:09 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Faith writes:

Yes, what we have is not just a tier of drawers as it were, but drawers with socks in them or knives and forks or loose change and rubber bands, which is absolute proof that where the drawers are now there used to be a whole level of the building occupied with socks or cutlery or loose change and rubber bands.

Fortunately no one but a Creationist or a four year old would say such a silly thing.

Faith writes:

Y'all look at the layers, the slabs of rocks in say the walls of the Grand Canyon, which appear as a tier of layers to a great depth. You dig in one or another of them and discover fossilized marine life, or a leaf from a tree of a certain type and you imagine those things are indicative of the surface of the earth in the time period associated with that rock, and you mentally construct that surface or landscape out of the living things peculiar to that rock.

You or some Creationist might think something that sill but not the rest of humanity.

What people have done is look at what is actually found and honestly keep track of what is found. What is found is as I have pointed out to you before, an orderly progression and evolution of biological samples beginning at the earliest samples and changing over time to what is seen today.

The question is how can such an orderly evolution of biological samples be explained?

Conventional theory has an explanation and that is evolution over long periods of time. Interestingly the conventional theory also explains the unordered repetitive geological samples found.

Unfortunately no Creationist or Biblical Flood supporter has ever been able to present any other theory which explains what actually exists.

Faith writes:

I would think if you stood back again and once again saw the wall of rock slabs from a distance you'd have to consider it just as absurd as I do that such neatly stacked rocks were EVER part of such a landscape.

You might think so but the rest of humanity actually steps back and looks and also gets closer and looks and realizes that what you claim exists is just ignorance and denial.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 11:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Faith, posted 08-05-2016 11:30 AM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 360 of 1257 (788830)
08-05-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by jar
08-05-2016 11:22 AM


Re: The Actual Landscapes
Righto. Good one. Belittle the creationist, that will work.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:22 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by jar, posted 08-05-2016 11:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019