|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps you need me to find it incomprehensible, but I think I understand it pretty well. Faith, these are not the posts of someone who understands something pretty well.
WHAT are you seeing in the rock that leads you to infer a particular "depositional environment?" How can a new "depositional environment" form on top of a layer in the strata? And why is all we see when looking at the strata the rock itself and the contact between it and the next rock? I want to know what today's Geologists have to say about it. [...] I'm trying to get the official picture here ... 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. And where and when does the landscape develop in which the fossils in the rock supposedly lived? You are right that I don't see the connection with Walther's Law though, so perhaps you would perform a self-sacrificing kindness and explain it to me? While one of the layers was resting on top of another, both apparently loose sediment according to you, what was going on in the strata below? Were they lithified? I also don't understand how "soil on top of soil" expresses the OE interpretation of the strata Don't you need high compaction and water IMMEDIATELY to bring about fossilization? Well but is there really a consistent progression of differentness through time? How consistent is it? Are those in the lowest strata really much odder than those in the Jurassic or in some cases those today? What's happened to the seafloor when it's become a rock? What's happened to the landscape when it's become a rock? What happened to the marine life that populated that seafloor; or to the land life that populated that landscape? Where did they go? The life that lived in that landscape that is now deeply buried? What sort of environment sustains them now? How many life forms can live on mere sediment? Or are we now growing a new landscape? But I still have the question what happened to the creatures that were still living from the previous landscape after so many of them were buried with it? There had to be a period when they were still living, but without their landscape and no new landscape, where would that have been? On top of the sediment you say. How do they survive on mere sediment? Well, I'm still trying to account for how a rock was once a landscape that became a rock. Sorry, I still don't get what you are trying to say. I also don't care. --- But then you go on to write:
Dating methods have convinced you that a particular rock is very old. They also tell you that the strata can be dated in succession from most ancient at the bottom up to recent time at the highest levels. You are comfortable with hundreds of millions of years for the construction of the whole stack of strata. You find certain kinds of fossilized life in a rock, maybe both flora and fauna. Some are recognizably of marine origin, some of land origin. Many of them bear little resemblance to living things we are familiar with, which fits with the idea that they are very ancient. Especially since the higher you go in the stack of rocks the more like living things we are familiar with they become. The apparent ordering of the fossils convinces you that they are evidence of evolution. You suppose that those in a particular rock lived at the time in the past the rock dates to. You associate particular time periods with particular kinds of life forms. You are familiar with rock from a certain kind of source today so when you find the characteristics of that sort of rock in the strata you understand the rock to have originated from that kind of source or environment, perhaps a shallow sea, perhaps a river or lake, perhaps a sand dune. This all adds up to an idea of a landscape with the features of the source of that kind of rock, and populated with the plants and animals you find fossilized. You examine each rock in the stack of strata and ascertain its age, its origin or depositional environment and the sorts of life as indicated by its fossil contents that lived there, so that you end up with a comprehensive idea of the whole geological column and its useful information about the past, biological evolution and the ancient age of the earth. What's the difficulty? Yes, Faith, where's the difficulty? You have finally managed to say something clear, straightforward, and sensible, and it is a summary of the view that you wish to attack as ridiculous. But perhaps the bit you think is ridiculous is the bit you still don't understand, the bit you have all these questions about, the questions that you are still unable to understand the answers to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
BARE sediment, BARE sediment, BARE sediment that stretches or miles. As so many of the strata do. NOI LANDSCAPES which provide sustenance, but BARE SEDIMENT. Small amounts of sediment deposited on soil become soil, because organic material is available to mix with the sediment. How can that not be clear to you, if you are making any effort whatsoever to understand what people are actually saying. You've also denied that soil can become rock under soil. It is quite clear that you are simply denying what folks are saying. I cannot tell whether your errors are willful or if you are simply incapable of understanding. But from start to finish your position in this thread has been completely untenable. 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 I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Is there something wrong in my sketch of scientific processes as used in constructing ancient time periods? It is tempting, and pretty close to correct, to say that you have never been right about anything pertaining to science.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8
|
After seeing the complaint Faith registered yesterday at Message 503 I read this thread forward from Message 547 to the end. I think the sense people have is correct, that despite many varied explanations Faith still doesn't understand geology's view of how a living landscape becomes part of the geological column. Dr Adequate's list of Faith excerpts in Message 601 makes clear how poorly it is understood how a landscape (such as the one I'm looking at now from my porch of trees and underbrush and dead leaves and birds and squirrels and chipmunks) becomes a minute part of a possibly miles thick layer of rock.
There's another point I've seen alluded to several times over the past 150 messages that I also think is important, that the fate of most terrestrial landscapes is obliteration through slow erosion, explaining why most layers in the geological column are marine. The soil in much of my state is just passing through on its way from the mountains to the sea. As long as the mountains exist then the net of incoming and outgoing soil is in balance and our landscape changes little across the centuries. But when the mountains are gone millions of years from now this chunky hilly landscape will disappear, worn down to a plain and possibly even disappearing beneath the waves. i'm still in a busy period, so my moderation efforts will be slight. I see Adminnemooseus has been looking in and keeping discussion on-topic. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You've also denied that soil can become rock under soil. Sigh. All I'm aware of denying is anything that isn't found in the geological column, which is mostly composed of discrete sediments, not soil. This isn't to deny that soil can become rock, just that all I am talking about is what ended up in the geo column as we find it today / strata/ stacks of rocks wherever they are found that are the scaffolding for the geo timescale. Soil may be part of some layers, but most oif the layers don't have much organic mix in them, being mostly composed of a particular sediment such as sand, clay, calcium carbonates, and so on; but do correct me if I'm wrong. So I'm picturing the situation of the sediments as first laid down before they became the rock in the geo column, that would not be a livable landscape for living things. I'm using the term landscape to describe an environment that can support living things, but a bare sedimentary expanse as not a livable landscape, whether before it became a livable landscape or after it was buried and becoming rock, or was the burying sediments that buried the landscape. Any time in the processes where the landscape was not the surface but only bare sediments. And snce we have rocks in the geo column that stretch across a lot of geography I'm talking about any point before or after they were rock but not a livable landscape, making a surface for animal life that was not livable (including sea life though inadvertently I may not always include them). Much of the discussion has been about how it could have been livable anyway despite having buried the livable landscape. As the discussion has proceeded it's seemed to me that there has always been a point where there must have been an absence of livable landscape and nothing but an unlivable bare surface of sediment. This I'm judging simply from the fact of the rock in the strata today and considering what events must have occurred to get from a landscape to a rock. That's ALL I'm trying to do here. In trying to juggle the events in this hostile atmosphere I'm most likely getting things out of order at times. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is tempting, and pretty close to correct, to say that you have never been right about anything pertaining to science. But you don't want to prove it by commenting on what I said in that particular post for some reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, Faith, where's the difficulty? You have finally managed to say something clear, straightforward, and sensible, and it is a summary of the view that you wish to attack as ridiculous. But perhaps the bit you think is ridiculous is the bit you still don't understand, the bit you have all these questions about, the questions that you are still unable to understand the answers to. Most of those statements got resolved in the course of the discussion, being responses to things others said. What do you think I still don't understand? Even the idea that a landscape forms on top of a layer wasn't wrong, it has to do that, though it is the layer that represents the previous time period and not the rock that the landscape became. In a stack of strata the next time period would start out as sediment on top of the previous sediment/rock of the previous time period. However, since that was confusing I started talking about the landscape in relation to the rock it became rather than what it built on. Both are correct but I was trying to find the clearest way of saying it. There may still be things I don't completely get. So what? What point are you trying to make? Do you have any idea what point(s) *I've* been trying to make? At least you seem to be saying the post where I laid out the processes as I understand them was "clear, straightforward and sensible" but I keep thinking I must be misreading you. If not, at least thanks for that much acknowledgment. But I still am not sure what you think I'm still not understanding and what it has to do with this discussion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: As the discussion has proceeded it's seemed to me that there has always been a point where there must have been an absence of livable landscape and nothing but an unlivable bare surface of sediment. And, as been pointed out to you many, many, many, many, many, many, many times even in just this thread that is simply incorrect, utter nonsense and absolutely false. As pointed out to you back in Message 8 all the evidence shows the layers of what is now rock also contain absolute positive conclusive evidence that at one time the layer was at the surface and under conditions similar to those seen today. The process was explained to you in Message 19 and is repeated yet again here.
quote: The reality was also pointed out in Message 352 and that is:
quote: and yet again in Message 433 quote: The real issue is that on the side of science is all the evidence, every study, every branch of science, every discovery and on your side nothing but stories written by man that contain multiple contradictory descriptions, factual errors and impossibilities. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin in sub-title fixedMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I no longer pay attention to long insulting lectures that start out with how I've been told this or that many times. I couldn't care less what I've been told if it doesn't seem to address what I've been trying to get across and I assure you that most of what I get told here doesn't. Your long long post probably impresses those who share your convictions but I'm not reading it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: As the discussion has proceeded it's seemed to me that there has always been a point where there must have been an absence of livable landscape and nothing but an unlivable bare surface of sediment. This I'm judging simply from the fact of the rock in the strata today and considering what events must have occurred to get from a landscape to a rock. And you're flat out wrong. At the moment I'm at my parents place overlooking a wide estuary. 20 years ago the sea came in against a man-made Victorian promenade. In the 1800s there was a pier and ferry terminal to the other side of the bay. When the tide was out there is a wide expanse of sand and it's possible to walk the several miles across if you know what you're doing. Today though there's a quarter of a mile expanse of various grasses in place of the sea and sand. One terrestrial environment is replacing another in real time. I've watched it grow outward over the years. It's now so terrestrial that it's grazed by sheep. In a few thousand years, if you dig down you'll find the boundary between a sea bottom landscape and the terrestrial landscape. Both sustained a huge amount of life. What's the problem?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What's YOUR problem?
Stating the uniformitarian party line using examples from the present does absolutely nothing to clarify the issues I've been trying to talk about, which are based on the facts as I find them in the strata and encountered in the discussion. Most of the posts here are irrelevant in exactly this sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What do you think I still don't understand? That would be your call.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As the discussion has proceeded it's seemed to me that there has always been a point where there must have been an absence of livable landscape and nothing but an unlivable bare surface of sediment. But in fact where we find terrestrial sediment we tend to find evidence of terrestrial plants and animals (at least from the Silurian onwards, i.e. after they evolved.) Even if you could find an "unlivable bare surface of sediment" somewhere after the Silurian, there'd be no reason to think that everywhere was like that at the same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: Stating the uniformitarian party line using examples from the present does absolutely nothing to clarify the issues I've been trying to talk about, which are based on the facts as I find them in the strata and encountered in the discussion. Most of the posts here are irrelevant in exactly this sense. Jesus Christ Faith. The party line is the fucking evidence. You're not impressed by 200 years of scientific endeavor by hundreds of thousands of real scientists so I'm trying to give you some real life, verifiable, observable, evidence for how landscapes develop and change to back up what we see in the rocks that are finally formed by them.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It dfoesn't deal with the situation as I've been trying to describe it. Sorry.
YOUR PARENTS' LANDSCAPE ISN'T GOING TO BECOME AN ENORMOUS FLAT ROCK ON THE SURFACE AS HAS TO BE THE CASE IN THE GEO SCENARIO OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROCK STRATA FROM LANDSCAPES. THE STRATA SITUATION IS UNIQUE; YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT WITH STANDARD EXPLANATIONS. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024