Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
44 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK (2 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 256 of 518 (810911)
06-03-2017 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:05 AM


Re: The Bible is certainly (not) an unreliable source
Song and dance in full swing.

Thanks for ruining another thread with your delusions.

Note you still have not adequately explained the evidence, while your explanation keeps shifting ground.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32683
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 257 of 518 (810929)
06-03-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
06-02-2017 11:35 PM


Re: The Bible is (far from) an unreliable source
Faith writes:

The Bible is accepted as the inerrant word of God by all the Christians I identify with. without contradiction and never false.

Yes, we know you and many others hold that delusion however the reality is that once again your belief is simply fantasy.

The fact is that there are two mutually exclusive creation myths each containing descriptions of entirely different gods; two mutually exclusive flood myths and a host of other false, just silly and also contradictory stories in the Bible.

The Bible is certainly a best a very unreliable witness and one that when it comes to things like the flood or the fall or a young earth simply factually wrong.

You are free to believe otherwise but what is written in the Bible shows you are wrong and simply creating your own fantasy.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 11:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 258 of 518 (810975)
06-03-2017 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by edge
06-02-2017 2:35 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
edge writes:

Faith writes:

I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table,

...

I don't even know what you mean by this.
The 'time table' (assuming you mean the geological time scale) does not 'explain' the strata in any sense that I know. It provides a temporal framework of relative ages of the rocks, but it cannot tell us anything about a rock.

Yes I meant Time Scale. I'm thinking of old threads particularly about the Grand Canyon where I showed that the strata are continuous up through the Grand Staircase without any of the kind of erosion that would show time at the surface of the earth, which would be needed to demonstrate the Time Scale, and which is always claimed to be there even though it can't be seen between any of the layers anywhere. The strata fit deposition by water without a hint of any time gaps. They span great distances, in fact they do cover continents, which means nothing lived at that level of the strata. I don't know how you all go on believing in something like time periods that could not possibly have existed, which is shown by the strata themselves. Other evidence I showed on those old threads is the lack of tectonic disturbance until after all the strata were down -- that disturbance created the Grand Canyon and the Grand Staircase after there were some three miles of strata in place, and before that there isn't one sign of any such disturbance. Lava flows occur at the height of all the strata, not at any other level. Fault lines separate sections of strata that reach the same height. All that shows strata in place before ANY KIND of disturbance whatever. Strata are also shown bending as a block which couldn't happen if there were millions of years between them.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

... that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario, that time periods can't be marked by rocks, ....

And this is exactly what we expect from sediments.

Sediments you've got, they make time periods impossible.

edge writes:

If you core modern lake sediments or just look at the bottom of any body of water, you see flat expanses upon which sediment is being deposited.

This is completely inadequate in comparison with the existing geological column. For one thing lake sediments are NOT as straight and flat as the geo column strata, for another the expanse is minuscule by comparison with the extent of the strata. The best it demonstrates is that strata are laid down in water.

No flood is necessary for 'straight and flat' (your meaning) sedimentary contacts.

Not just any flood of course, but the worldwide Flood that drowned the entire world is the best explanation for the enormous depth and horizontal extent as well as the straightness and flatness of the geological column.

edge writes:

Faitgh writes:

... that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, ...

Utter nonsense.

See paragraph above. It's actually easily proved from the Grand Canyon cross section.

We see angular unconformities all over the planet. By analogy, we live on an a modern unconformity. And theoretically, the supposed pre-flood people lived on an unconformity which, amazingly, shows no evidence of human habitation.

You don't say what the point of this is. The angular unconformity in the Grand Canyon occurs at the very bottom of the canyon. It is absurdly explained as the root of a former mountain or mountain chain. I'm still happy with my idea that such unconformities were formed after the strata were in place by tectonic force from the side countered by the weight of strata from above, causing slippage at the point of least resistance where the two forces are balanced.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

... such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances. Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.

Again, demonstrably no.

We see both erosion and deformation within the stratigraphic column of most places on earth. You may deny it, but you have to ignore a lot of solid evidence against you.

I've shown the utter lack of any kind of erosion that would suggest time at the surface. Compare the lumpiness of the surface today to the flatness of the strata. There is nothing like the actual unevenness and lumpiness and deep cuts and so on that exist in the surface shown in the stack of strata anywhere.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

Supposedly hundreds of millions of years of undisturbed strata as are seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon a mile deep. The Time Scale can't possibly explain all that.

And why not? Why has no one noticed this but you after centuries of geological research?

Paradigm-induced blindness I would suppose.

edge writes:

Why could a region not be undisturbed tectonically for millions of years?
Your say so?

Probability if nothing else. HUNDREDS of millions of years. But I believe even geologists have assumed such normal tectonic and other activity before present time. It should come as a surprise that there hasn't been any.

And you consider that to be evidence?

I consider what I talk about in the top paragraph to be evidence.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

But in less than a year the Flood could have laid the strata, and while the layers were still malleable the tectonic pressures could have bent them as a unit. Couldn't happen if there were millions of years between layers.

Why not? We know for a fact that under certain conditions rocks are ductile. Those conditions exist within the crust.

Lithified strata in the upper level of the Grand Canyon should not be able to bend as a unit because of the extreme brittleness of rocks millions of years older than those above them. They would all have to be equally malleable for such bending to occur.

edge writes:

Faith writes:

The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.

Faith, this is silliness on your part. Denial is not evidence and known processes are not miracles.

I believe I've shown a lot more than that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by edge, posted 06-02-2017 2:35 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2017 6:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 261 by edge, posted 06-03-2017 8:46 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2017 2:38 PM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 662 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 259 of 518 (810989)
06-03-2017 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:01 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
Faith writes:

The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.

Actually, none of the other details matter because of the time scale and modern dating methods.

You have admitted that you can't explain away modern dating and choose to accept the bible as superior evidence.

That does not make all of the dating evidence go away. Its still there, inconvenient as it is.

RAZD has posted several excellent threads on the subject, and I have posted evidence from my own archaeological and genetic research showing there was no flood in the ca. 4350 BP time frame. To counter this you have had to move the flood back hundreds of millions of years and deny all modern dating methods.

But again, your denial does not make the evidence go away, its still there and there's more of it each year.


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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 7:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 518 (810991)
06-03-2017 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Coyote
06-03-2017 6:06 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
Dating methods is all you guys have though. And you don't seem to see that they are open to interpretation and are not the hard and fast evidences you think they are. Because the past can't talk back to confirm or disconfirm your conclusions.

What I've shown is that the Flood explains much of the actual geological facts, and shows the impossibility of the Geological Time Scale. The evidence is very clear. That means the dating methods are flawed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2017 6:06 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2017 1:35 AM Faith has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 261 of 518 (810994)
06-03-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:01 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
Yes I meant Time Scale. I'm thinking of old threads particularly about the Grand Canyon where I showed that the strata are continuous up through the Grand Staircase without any of the kind of erosion that would show time at the surface of the earth, ...

Okay, we'll leave it at that. This is blatantly false. No need to go any further, though I've read you post several times. In fact virtually every sentence you write is nothing but baseless assertion, wishful thinking and out outright ignorance.

Statements are not evidence. Stories are not evidence. Your personal incredulity is not evidence.

Sometimes I think you say these things just to be disagreeable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 262 of 518 (811001)
06-04-2017 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
06-03-2017 7:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
quote:

Dating methods is all you guys have though.

You know that isn't true. All the other evidence doesn't go away just because you want to deny and suppress it.

We have the fossil record. We have numerous geological features which speak of long periods of time, or of prolonged dry conditions or of buried landscapes.

quote:

And you don't seem to see that they are open to interpretation and are not the hard and fast evidences you think they are

By which you mean that we accept the strong evidence of their validity - which has been discussed here, notably in RAZD's thread while you reject that evidence solely because the dating methods all prove you wrong.

quote:

What I've shown is that the Flood explains much of the actual geological facts, and shows the impossibility of the Geological Time Scale.

You can't do that by ignoring or by attempting to explain away as many actual geological facts as you do. The real evidence shows the opposite of what you claim.

quote:

The evidence is very clear

Yes, and it shows that Flood geology is false, and that the Earth's geology formed over a very long period of time. This has been known for 200 years now.

quote:

That means the dating methods are flawed.

All you have is an attempt to impose a myth onto the evidence - and to do so you have to deny and suppress or desperately "explain away" the evidence. Obviously your beliefs and methods are anti-scientific and false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 7:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:13 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 518 (811008)
06-04-2017 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by PaulK
06-04-2017 1:35 AM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
PK writes:

Faith writes:

Dating methods is all you guys have though.

You know that isn't true. All the other evidence doesn't go away just because you want to deny and suppress it.

The arguments given have been all about dating.

PK writes:

We have the fossil record. We have numerous geological features which speak of long periods of time, or of prolonged dry conditions or of buried landscapes.

The fossil record is irrelevant if what I've shown is true, that the strata clearly show rapid deposition by water and absolutely no evidence of time gaps suggesting millions of years for time periods. "Buried landscapes" are also easily understood to be features carved underground by running water. If time periods are eliminated so are buried landscapes.

PK writes:

Faith writes:

And you don't seem to see that they are open to interpretation and are not the hard and fast evidences you think they are

By which you mean that we accept the strong evidence of their validity - which has been discussed here, notably in RAZD's thread while you reject that evidence solely because the dating methods all prove you wrong.

I grant the logic of the claim but the logic breaks down when it can't be confirmed, which it can't because it reaches into the unwitnessed past where things may be different enough to invalidate it.

But I'm not rejecting it for reasons concerning dating itself, but on the grounds I spelled out in the previous post, that the strata show features that make time periods impossible, and if time periods are impossible the dating methods are wrong.

PK writes:

Faith writes:

What I've shown is that the Flood explains much of the actual geological facts, and shows the impossibility of the Geological Time Scale.

You can't do that by ignoring or by attempting to explain away as many actual geological facts as you do. The real evidence shows the opposite of what you claim.

I believe the actual evidence I've given explains the geological facts and shows the standard interpretation's to be wrong. The strata support the Flood and clearly do not show any evidence for long ages between layers. This is not ignoring anything or explaining away anything, it's answering it with a more reasonable interpretation based on the actual observable facts.

PK writes:

Faith writes:

The evidence is very clear.

Yes, and it shows that Flood geology is false, and that the Earth's geology formed over a very long period of time. This has been known for 200 years now.

The problem is that I just showed how this is wrong and all you are doing is asserting the contrary. Speaking of ignoring evidence that's what you are doing since the evidence as I spelled it out in the previous post demonstrates the Flood and offers no support whatever for any long period of time. That really hasn't "been known," it's been put together from an inadequate assessment of the evidence. The physical facts of the strata do not support long ages at all; they support rapid deposition which supports the Flood.

PK writes:

Faith writes:

That means the dating methods are flawed.

All you have is an attempt to impose a myth onto the evidence - and to do so you have to deny and suppress or desperately "explain away" the evidence. Obviously your beliefs and methods are anti-scientific and false.

Everything I said is based on observation of the geological facts, the strata as seen in the Grand Canyon, and not on any prior belief. I described what I see in the strata, the lack of the kind of erosion between layers to show time at the surface which the Time Scale needs to be true, the lack of disturbance through all the laying down of the strata, which invalidates long ages, including lava flows and faulting occurring after all the strata were in place; the bending of rock supposedly millions of years old in tandem with much younger sedimentary deposits, which is impossible and suggests that all were equally young and malleable at the time of the bending. All this is actual evidence against the idea of an old earth, it's not something imposed on the facts, it's there IN the facts. And all that was only a brief sketch based on my memory of former threads, so I'm sure it could be much better argued. But still, it's based on observed facts, not on any prior belief.

And again, when the evidence on this level is so clear, that makes other evidence wrong, such as the dating methods.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2017 1:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2017 7:25 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 265 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2017 8:28 AM Faith has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 264 of 518 (811012)
06-04-2017 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:13 AM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
The fossil record is irrelevant if what I've shown is true, ...

and since what you have shown isn't true the fossil record is relevant. See how easy that is?

I grant the logic of the claim but the logic breaks down when it can't be confirmed, which it can't because it reaches into the unwitnessed past where things may be different enough to invalidate it.

Curiously I only need tree rings and carbon-14 levels correlations that can only occur if they show the same thing -- age -- to invalidate YEC fantasy earth ages. You have admitted you can't explain the correlations.

The earth is OLD and denial of that fact is delusion.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 265 of 518 (811020)
06-04-2017 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:13 AM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
quote:

The arguments given have been all about dating.

Oh please, these issues have been thoroughly discussed in previous threads and all the matters referred to have been at least mentioned in this thread

quote:

The fossil record is irrelevant if what I've shown is true, that the strata clearly show rapid deposition by water and absolutely no evidence of time gaps suggesting millions of years for time periods. "Buried landscapes" are also easily understood to be features carved underground by running water. If time periods are eliminated so are buried landscapes.

You haven't shown any such thing. Refusing to admit the evidence hardly shows that it doesn't exist and daft attempts to explain it away hardly helps your case.

quote:

I grant the logic of the claim but the logic breaks down when it can't be confirmed, which it can't because it reaches into the unwitnessed past where things may be different enough to invalidate it.

Because "the laws of physics must have changed so as to affect multiple independent dating methods in the same way, but leaving absolutely no trace" is a rational position. I don't think so.

quote:

But I'm not rejecting it for reasons concerning dating itself, but on the grounds I spelled out in the previous post, that the strata show features that make time periods impossible, and if time periods are impossible the dating methods are wrong.

Which amounts to nothing more than the rejection of all contrary evidence.

quote:

I believe the actual evidence I've given explains the geological facts and shows the standard interpretation's to be wrong. The strata support the Flood and clearly do not show any evidence for long ages between layers.

And you do so by ignoring or "explaining" away large amounts of evidence for long ages.

quote:

This is not ignoring anything or explaining away anything, it's answering it with a more reasonable interpretation based on the actual observable facts.

If it was reasonable you wouldn't have to deny or "explain" away so much evidence. Angular unconformities, the huge monadnocks buried in the Grand Canyon, a boulder from earlier rock embedded in more recent strata. And so on.

quote:

The problem is that I just showed how this is wrong

The problem seems to be your unwillingness to admit to the existence of the contrary evidence. That is the whole basis of your argument. Not surprisingly it can't be taken as showing anything about geology.

quote:

Everything I said is based on observation of the geological facts, the strata as seen in the Grand Canyon, and not on any prior belief

Because pretending that evidence doesn't exist is "based on observation".

quote:

the lack of the kind of erosion between layers to show time at the surface which the Time Scale needs to be truE

Which can be seen if you look for it.

quote:

the lack of disturbance through all the laying down of the strata,

Which can be seen in many places.

quote:

the bending of rock supposedly millions of years old in tandem with much younger sedimentary deposits, which is impossible and suggests that all were equally young and malleable at the time of the bending.

Which is in fact entirely possible. I've seen photographs of fossils deformed by tectonic stress in the same way as the enclosing rock. Slow motion backed by massive force - which is exactly what tectonic stress Is observed to produce - can force rock to flow.

quote:

All this is actual evidence against the idea of an old earth, it's not something imposed on the facts, it's there IN the facts.

Saying that we don't see things which are there to be seen is not "actual evidence". It is not "in the facts". It is falsehood and nothing more.

quote:

And again, when the evidence on this level is so clear, that makes other evidence wrong, such as the dating methods.

When you are so clearly wrong about everything why on earth should we discard evidence which better fits with the real facts ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:45 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 518 (811077)
06-04-2017 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by PaulK
06-04-2017 8:28 AM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
I've answered the evidence, not ignored it. Rapid deposition of the strata is evidenced in what I've said and that means that the millions of years per time period is wrong. I believe it's clearly shown in the facts I've given. I also believe the monadnocks and the boulder are easily explained in terms of rapid deposition followed by tectonic disturbance.

It is not refusing to admit contrary evidence when that evidence is being answered with a better interpretation.

I've also seen the deformed fossils. The extreme pressure of tectonic twisting of the rock can do that, and of course ALL the rock in the strata were not completely lithified at that time, being recently laid down in the Flood, which is what the evidence for rapid deposition shows. I believe the tectonic deformation of rock all occurred at the same time after the Flood, including the raising of mountains, the works. I certainly believe it occurred much more rapidly than you do but it still could have taken as long as hundreds of years, and it is still going on as seen in the continued raising of Everest and the continued movement of the continents.

You accept what is only an assumption based on OE geology that the rock was millions of years old when deformed. But my example is just of a gentle bending, the bending of different layers to which conventional Geology assigns a difference of millions of years between them, all being deformed together identically and that is not possible. Try it with clay some time, try folding completely dry strips with a damp strip.

You say the erosion can be seen if I look for it. If I have to look for it that proves that it is not the sort of erosion that would occur if a layer existed at the surface of the earth. A bit of rubble between layers is far from what we see at the surface of the earth everywhere. Give us hills and valleys, a canyon, a gorge, even an eroded grassy meadow. Nothing anywhere near that scale is found between layers.

Yes I do claim the evidence is there in the actual facts and can be seen by eyes not biased by the OE paradigm.

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 265 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2017 8:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2017 11:02 PM Faith has responded
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2017 12:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 274 by edge, posted 06-05-2017 1:59 PM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 662 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 267 of 518 (811082)
06-04-2017 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
I've answered the evidence, not ignored it.

Not so. You have "reinterpreted" much of the geological evidence from a biblical bias, and all of your answers have been based on that. When approached from a real-world perspective you are completely wrong.

And the dating issue, that underlies and disproves all your claims, you just attempt to hand-wave away. You can't explain why (nor can any other creationists) but you dismiss it anyway. That's the exact opposite of science.

Rapid deposition of the strata is evidenced in what I've said and that means that the millions of years per time period is wrong. I believe it's clearly shown in the facts I've given.

Again, wrong, for the reasons I outlined above


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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 11:18 PM Coyote has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 518 (811083)
06-04-2017 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Coyote
06-04-2017 11:02 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
You have "reinterpreted" much of the geological evidence from a biblical bias, and all of your answers have been based on that. When approached from a real-world perspective you are completely wrong.

This is simply not true at all. I studied the situation of the strata and drew my conclusions from that alone. Nothing else entered into it. Since you don't bother to debate my points I think you are guilty of nothing but bias without the slightest "real-world" observation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2017 11:02 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2017 11:25 PM Faith has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 662 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 269 of 518 (811084)
06-04-2017 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
06-04-2017 11:18 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
Since you don't bother to debate my points I think you are guilty of nothing but bias without the slightest "real-world" observation.

I'm not a geologist, but the geologists here have refuted your points quite well.

But one of the things I do is radiocarbon dating, and you have not bothered to debate my points on that--you just claim the dates are wrong, somehow.

This has been a standard creationist answer to the dating issue--they can't refute it so they hand-wave it away. But it doesn't go away, it just gets stronger all the time.

And the dating issue alone disproves the global flood during historic times and the young earth belief.


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.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 11:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 10:32 AM Coyote has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16338
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 270 of 518 (811085)
06-05-2017 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
06-04-2017 7:45 PM


Re: Just the Usual Fantasy Flood Scenario
When you say that you "answered' the evidence you mean that you "explained" it away. And your explanations are somewhat less than convincing.

quote:

I believe it's clearly shown in the facts I've given

Falsehood aren't facts.

quote:

I also believe the monadnocks and the boulder are easily explained in terms of rapid deposition followed by tectonic disturbance.

In the absence of any such explanation - or even the likelihood of any such explanation that's not exactly something that you should believe, let alone anyone else.

quote:

It is not refusing to admit contrary evidence when that evidence is being answered with a better interpretation.

If the "better" interpretation is only "better" because it fits with your views - and is worse by any sensible standard I would call it a refusal. And that is the case here.

quote:

I've also seen the deformed fossils. The extreme pressure of tectonic twisting of the rock can do that, and of course ALL the rock in the strata were not completely lithified at that time, being recently laid down in the Flood, which is what the evidence for rapid deposition show

Then you are misinterpreting the evidence. Obviously an unfossilised shell would not be soft - it would be brittle and break rather than be deformed. The process of fossilisation can only harden it further, yet if it were somehow much harder then the sediment surrounding it, it would not deform. This is pretty clear evidence that the rock and the fossil were fully lithified when the distortion occurred.

And let me point out that it is observed that the Himalayas are still growing. Are they made of your soft sediment or is actual rock being slowly deformed right now ?

quote:

You accept what is only an assumption based on OE geology that the rock was millions of years old when deformed. But my example is just of a gentle bending, the bending of different layers to which conventional Geology assigns a difference of millions of years between them, all being deformed together identically and that is not possible. Try it with clay some time, try folding completely dry strips with a damp strip.


If it can't happen with clay then how can it possibly happen with your recently deposited sediments ? It's weird that you think an experiment that resembles your ideas more than those of conventional geology can somehow refute the latter but not the former.

And what about the layers that are NOT deformed ? You have yet to offer any reasonable explanation for that. And I have to point out that inventing nonsensical ideas about friction hardly helps your case there.

quote:

You say the erosion can be seen if I look for it. If I have to look for it that proves that it is not the sort of erosion that would occur if a layer existed at the surface of the earth. A bit of rubble between layers is far from what we see at the surface of the earth everywhere. Give us hills and valleys, a canyon, a gorge, even an eroded grassy meadow. Nothing anywhere near that scale is found between layers

Of course, we have examples of canyons. Which you explain away. Personally I'd count the monadnocks as "hills and valleys". And how could you identify an "eroded grassy meadow" ? You reject the identification of paleosols, so you can't even find that the surface material was soil.

Not to mention that those features are somewhat atypical of the environments that we should expect to see preserved. To point out just one issue, high areas are almost always subject to erosion, not deposition.

And that doesn't change the fact that we have evidence of a good deal of erosion occurring which you discount.

quote:

Yes I do claim the evidence is there in the actual facts and can be seen by eyes not biased by the OE paradigm.

Given the amount of bias needed to claim that your "facts" are indeed facts your claim is, I am afraid, sonething of a joke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 06-04-2017 7:45 PM 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 © 2020