|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
DWise1 writes:
No, it's one of the hypothetical weirdnesses that is made necessary by the craziness of the Stratigraphic Column and its Depositional/Erosional Environments, nothing else, just facts that present themselves as one tries to follow out that craziness. I understand that you must fail to appreciate this fact for reasons of your own. When put to you in such straight-forward terms, can you begin to understand how absolutely bat-quano-crazy you make yourself appear? At first blush, you appear to be suggesting such "roam{ing} around from one level to another" is something that you think had happened. Faith, nobody believes such an absolutely ridiculously thing nor would any even-marginally-sane person every believe such a ridiculous thing! Absolutely nothing in geology could ever possibly require believing such an absolutely ridiculous thing. If you truly believe what you just blabbered, then please present a coherent logical case for it!
[ The incomplete quoting left me wondering what you're talking about. --Admin ] DWise1 writes: But upon further inspection, it appears that you think that that is what geologists think. Definitely not. Because they think the stratigraphic column and the depositional/erosional environments and the geo timescale make sense. What I'm doing is showing that they don't. Unfortunately nobody gets it. But ya know what? I'm beyond caring. No, geologists definitely do not think that, because it is absolutely pure bat-shit crazy! You claim that you are showing that they do not believe that, while at the same time claiming that that is what they do believe. Are you just blatantly lying to us?
[ More incomplete quoting. Here's a fuller quote from Message 882: --Admin ] dwise1 in Message 882 writes: When put to you in such straight-forward terms, can you begin to understand how absolutely bat-quano-crazy you make yourself appear? At first blush, you appear to be suggesting such "roam{ing} around from one level to another" is something that you think had happened. But upon further inspection, it appears that you think that that is what geologists think. [ End of Admin insertion. --Admin ] DWise1 writes: No, they most definitely do not think that! You are creating ludicrous strawmen to knock down. Not exactly. It's where the actual circumstances lead me. Not to any place a geologist ever goes because they are too busy avoiding the facts that would lead them there. Lots of general principles are thrown at me, but following out the actual facts, no. What "actual circumstances"? The simple fact that your dogma is contradicted by reality? Perhaps you would care to specify? Geologists avoiding the facts? From someone who adamantly refuses to talk with a geologist? Glenn R. Morton was a young-earth creationist (YEC) who wrote several YEC articles for YEC publications, along with having been trained by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the President of which, Dr. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering), was literally the Father of Flood Geology (even though he had robbed that child from the cradle of Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price). Morton went to work for a petroleum exploration company, so he worked extensively in field geology, which entails looking at the actual rock-hard geological evidence. He hired several other ICR-trained geologists, all of whom had been trained extensively to believe that certain geological facts were not true and could not be true for Scripture to have any meaning. Morton reported that those ICR-trained geologists, when faced day after day after day with rock-hard geological evidence that they had been taught did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning, all suffered crises of faith. After that report, Morton himself was driven to the verge of atheism by YEC. Geologists work with and deal with the actual evidence. Creationists deny it. Creationists have to deny the facts in order to preserve their faith. So just who is avoiding the facts? Edited by Admin, : Insert comments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
DWise1 writes: Who do you think you are fooling with that? Just yourself, that is all. And fooling yourself is your most important goal with all this. Your ability to assess motivation is abysmally bad. Do give it up and find a more useful pursuit. So then, you will have absolutely no difficulty in demonstrating that your motivation has absolutely nothing to do with supporting your dogma. You could start by demonstrating that the very idea that the earth is actually old would have absolutely no effect on your young-earth beliefs. Or by demonstrating that you would follow the truth and the evidence even if it were to contradict your young-earth beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Again, you have blathered so much nonsense that finding the pertinent post is difficult.
You have demonstrated great confusion about "landscapes". One of the weird ideas that you seem to repeatedly raise is that landscapes are continuously being destroyed and replaced with new ones. We have tried to explain reality to you, but to no avail. We have tried to explain to you that the "landscape" (which you have extended to include seascapes) is on and about the surface of the earth, such that most all life we know of lives on that surface, slightly below it, and slightly above it. That is where the "landscape" always is and always remains. Now the surface itself, that can change. Surfaces can get buried or eroded away, but the "landscape" continues to exist on and about the new surface. Let's try an analogy in which you, Faith, are a landscape. Have you been destroyed repeatedly and had a new copy created? Are the older copies of you lying about somewhere? Are you one person or has there been many of you? Sure, you will argue that there has only ever been one of you, but is that true? There is a truism that all our bodies' cells replace themselves every seven years. And you deposit parts of yourself all the time. Hair clippings, nail clippings, dead skin cells (purportedly the major source of dust in our homes). Are you truly the same person you were as a child, or a teenager, or a young adult, or a year ago, or a week ago, or a day ago, or a minute ago? Or a second ago (eg, the 1986 episode of the new Twilight Zone series, "A Matter of Minutes" in which instant by instant everything is removed and replaced by the next instant's objects)? So then, Faith, are you a series of repeatedly reproduced instances of yourself? Or have you always been a single person who is constantly changing? Isn't every "landscape" the same "landscape" that is changing over time. And all that actually gets buried is the old surfaces of older versions of that "landscape"? Just as we have repeatedly tried to explain to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: That evidence works just as well for the Flood. Faith, you know that is simple a total falsehood and lie. You have admitted that there is no flood model that can explain the biological and geological evidence that exists in reality. Stop making such claims until you are ready to present the flood model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains the evidence that exists and don't even think about claiming you have already done that because everyone knows that too would be a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If I were moderator I'd put PaulK, dwise and jar out in the cold for a month for accusing me of lying among other things. But since I'm not I suppose the best thing to do is leave myself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Suggestions based upon responses posted to this thread since I posted yesterday:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The "rock record" is a lie. The only real landscapes occur on the top of the strata wherever they are exposed. And those are the only landscapes that ever existed in the strata, all the rest is a bunch of misinterpreted bits and pieces in the rocks.
Your opinion is noted.
Why not provide photographs instead of drawings? Could it be because in reality such irregular surfaces hardly ever occur in a stratigraphic column? And when something like that does occur it's better interpreted some other way?
As noted by others, you have been shown a number of such photographic images in the past. As per usual, you simply denied the interpretation.
Since you are making flat declarations you make it necessary for me to do the same. You said something about having dealt with my "puzzle" but I don't recall seeing what you said about that. If you'd like to stop exchanging declarations and consider my argument please repeat whatever you said about it since I didn't see it.
I don't recall making such a statement.
I'm sorry to hear it. You have my sympathy for your very sick science.
This statement adds nothing to the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
A few different paragraphs from Edge appear to be saying a landscape both can and can't become part of the geological record. Here in Edge's Message 861 he appears to be saying that landscapes can become part of the geological record (and we know they do - paleosols are soil landscapes preserved in the geological record): And here in his Message 862 he appears to be saying that landscapes cannot become part of the geological record because they are never sedimentary environments:
My second statement refers to a gap in sedimentation. There are many elements that go into the rock record that are not sediments, such as faults, fossils and unconformities.
Edge qualifies this when he mentions rivers, etc., but in any case, I think this needs some clarification because my sense is that a landscape can be either "a gap in deposition" and a region of net deposition. Later in Message 869 Edge states that landscapes can be preserved: A landscape (subaerial topography) is, generally speaking, not an area of net deposition. I believe Jar mentioned this quite clearly. While there are (as I have said) local basins that have been preserved within that topography, it is erosional on a regional basis.
Then yet later he calls landscapes erosional:
If they are on land, they have to be erosional on the continental scale. It should be fairly easy to see that some lake beds, sand bars and more rarely paleosoils are preserved.
edge: In general, it doesn't represent a depositional environment. It represents an environment. An erosional one. Percy:I'm finding this confusing, and I think Faith must feel the same way. Edge's statements about landscapes cutting into rock would be helped by some further clarification. This is from Edge's Message 869:
Erosion attacks rocks, sediments and soil and exposes what is beneath them. Like the Grand Canyon cutting through the Kaibab.
The rock pre-exists the landscape. The landscape is cut into the rock. For the erosive forces of wind and water and gravity and varying temperature to work, the rock must be exposed and the region must be one of net erosion.
Yes, and?
For what we would normally describe as a livable landscape to emerge the area must become one of net deposition.
So when Hutton observed soils (a livable landscape) slowly moving toward the sea, it was net deposition? What you are talking about is the slow accumulation of sediment, and organic material on the top of an existing soil. Is that correct? The ultimate disposition of that soil is still to base level. The rate may change to zero for a while, but eventually, it will reach the sea. And remember that any sedimentation that occurs in an area is necessarily related to erosion of another area. Think of loess, for instance. You can get huge accumulations of loess, so yes, it is depositional. However, that sediment has to come from somewhere that erosion exceeds deposition.
After a period of net deposition there will no longer be any exposed rock to erode - the cutting into the rock of older sedimentary layers has ended.
If transport is slow, sure. For a while. You can think of erosion being the chemical/physical destruction and transport of a material. Soil is simply an intermediate step aided by biological activity.
When the region becomes one of net deposition then the new sedimentary deposits will gradually acquire more and more life that gradually works the sedimentary deposits into what we would recognize as soil. As the sedimentary deposits slowly accumulate in the region the landscape gradually rises in elevation. The existing top of the landscape becomes buried beneath a new top of the landscape, and life always exists within the top few feet of the landscape.
It's a little bit late now, but the choice of the term 'landscape' is unfortunate. I think that the definition of this term should be clarified.
I think Faith has a point when she complains about nit-pickery. The details of how the bottommost part of landscape began upon a surface of rock might be a helpful correction to something said, but it feels more important to concentrate at this time on how life manages to continue largely unchanged and flourishing on a landscape that is accumulating sediment.
Again, this is a temporary and local situation. That is why terrestrial fossils are simply not as common as marine fossils. As to 'bottommost' part of a 'landscape', you need to recognize that the first step in forming a soil is to weather the rock.
In Message 869 Edge states that the soils of former landscapes are not common in the geological record:
Because soils are products of erosion and are subject to further physical erosion and transport. They are temporary.
It would be helpful if the explanation could be repeated about why this is. My suggestion is to (without snarkiness) present the images again.
Things that take effort and are not appreciated, usually take a back seat to nice easy insults.
The reality is that people have been able to make very little sense of Faith's objections. More effort is needed on both sides at finding clarifications of what Faith is trying to say.
Frankly, I have spent many hours trying to figure out Faith's issues. Every time I present a possibility I get snapped at. That's fine, I don't really care, but it does not encourage a discussion when that happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I appreciate Percy's attitude of fairness, although I've had enough of the accusations and snark for a while. And although I'm glad he recognizes that my posts are sincere, he's wrong that I'm characterizing what geologists believe. As I said in a recent post, that drew a chorus of accusations of lying, I'm trying to show something geologists have missed. I believe that if the "puzzle" I posed was honestly followed it would reveal the essential irrationality of the whole idea that there are depositional/or erosional "environments," or ancient landscapes, indicated by clues in the rocks of a stratigraphic column. This isn't something geologists think, it's something they haven't noticed because they normally stick to general statements about landscapes and environments and don't try to construct how you get from a landscape to a flat slab of rock in the stratigraphic column. And although it's asserted from time to time that the rocks have nothing to do with the Geological Timescale this is easily belied by any number of diagrams that can be found on the web. At best it's a nitpicky academic point.
As for edge's experience of having his hard work go unappreciated, I sympathize, and have to say that I appreciate that he's been generally communicative, informative and fair in his posts; but about being unappreciated think I can say the same for my own experience, probably tripled. I'm on a break, a very long one I think. Considering the extreme misunderstandings of what I'm trying to do in this thread, and I recognize that it's an odd project I'm engaged in, I don't see any good reason to continue it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I stand by my point that you have not dealt with any actual examples, and in fact refuse to produce any actual examples. And you have an odd way of trying to show things. You make a lot of assertions but they don't seem to make any sense - and you fail to present anything like the supporting reasoning that is needed. So, really you are not only failing to show that geologists have missed something you don't even look like you are making a real attempt.
quote: Firstly, you are the one who sticks to general statements - you are the reason we haven't discussed any actual examples in this thread. And since you obviously "see" what you claim to see by dealing only with general statements it can hardly be the reason why geologists do not see it - even if it were not the case that geologists do look at actual examples. Also you ignore the fact that preserved landscapes are often more than flat slabs of rock. Which is par for the course for you. And quite frankly I find my efforts to avoid treating you with the unreserved snark you deserve are quote severely under appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I barely managed to get anything said about my argument. Every time I got a post out about it, just a bare beginning, instead of anyone addressing its points I'd be buried in snark and accusations and other kinds of objections. I also many times said it's a hard argument to make, but that didn't lead anyone to make it any easier. If I were a mod you'd be gone for a LONG time, but I'm not, so I'm the one leaving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Riggamortis Member Posts: 167 From: Australia Joined: |
I for one, am unable to determine what your argument is. In a depositional environment, old landscapes are being constantly replaced, by new sediment that now sits atop the old landscape, forming the surface of the new landscape.
Eventually, if this process is uninterrupted, new landscapes are deposited on to the old continually and the old landscapes are eventually buried deep enough to form rock. Everything in that layer of sediment has been dead a long time and does not need anywhere to go. I don't see the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All the landscapes and depositional/erosional environments have to end up in the rocks of a stratigraphic column. Forget the generalizations, take it step by step, see if it's possible.
ABE: A stratigraphic column is a stack of rocks that may extend for thousands of square miles, flat slabs of rock one on top of another, each being understood to represent a former environment based on characteristics of the rock and its fossil contents. There are no rocks in the column that are merely sediments. See if you can trace the events that would turn all those environments into such a stack of rocks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Simply untrue. In fact you often get people asking you to explain - and you don't.
quote: And how could we do that ? You make claims that seem nonsensical but won't give us any hint as to how you reached those conclusions even when we ask. I advised you to deal with a real example, but you refuse to do that, sticking to entirely general claims. Dwise advised you to break the problem down but you haven't produced any attempt at that either. You tell us that if we try to reconstruct the events required - in a purely abstract general sense - we will found what you "found". But if you had actually produced your own reconstruction you could just present it, with an explanation of your reasoning. So obviously you have not done what you tell us to do, and have no idea what we would really find.
quote: Yes, you would abuse your moderator powers. Fortunately for debate here the moderation is honest and largely fair - even if you are given a huge amount of leeway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Edge,
Thanks for the clarifications. I'm going to attempt to clarify a bit more. In response to Faith's concern that life could not live in a region of accumulating sediments, part of the discussion is about the accumulation of soil to greater depths upon a landscape. It is understood that across the fullness of time terrestrial landscapes, being above sea level, average out to net erosion and that most of them won't be preserved in the geological record. What I think is confusing is statements that appear to saying that soil landscapes can only be regions of net erosion. Not everyone is going to understand that this only means on average across the fullness of time. Soil regions must have been regions of net accumulation of sediments, otherwise they couldn't have formed in the first place. However much sediment was flowing out, more must have been flowing in. I'm living on soil that is about a hundred feet deep before you hit rock (we know that from when our well was dug), and all that soil was built from sediments from mountains upstate, with life living upon the sediments continuously turning it to soil. When the mountains are worn away millions of years from now then where I live will no longer have a net accumulation of sediments and it will likely eventually disappear. Whether we're in a state of net deposition or net erosion right now I have no idea, but obviously this was a terrestrial region of net deposition for quite some time. Part of the discussion has been attempting to explain how life survives on a landscape of increasing depth with the surface gradually rising in elevation. It should also be explained how the slow erosion of a landscape also does not present a problem for life. It's important to address this, because Faith believes that these slow and gradual geological processes of erosion and deposition must destroy the environments where life lives. She reasons that since life is preserved in these layers the environments must not have been destroyed, and therefore geology is wrong about erosion and deposition. Some other process must be responsible for what we find in the geological record. Edited by Admin, : Grammar. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024