Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 361 of 519 (811778)
06-12-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by RAZD
06-12-2017 6:08 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
All your stuff is open to interpretation because there is no way to know for sure if the past was the same as the present, but the cross sections and the map are straightforward evidence that the Time Scale is a fiction.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 6:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by jar, posted 06-12-2017 7:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 363 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 7:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 364 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2017 7:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 8:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 362 of 519 (811780)
06-12-2017 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Faith
06-12-2017 6:23 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Faith writes:
All your stuff is open to interpretation because there is no way to know for sure if the past was the same as the present, but the cross sections and the map are straightforward evidence that the Time Scale is a fiction.
And once again, a few facts. Change leaves evidence. We can and do know what the past was like because the past left evidence. Lots of evidence. Overwhelming amounts of evidence. As you have been shown in post after post here at EvC for almost two decades now.
The is absolutely no way to explain Oklo Nuclear Reactor in the Young Earth Fantasy.
But again, there is absolutely no way to explain the geological layers by any flood fantasy either.
Edited by jar, : fix time frame re Faith
Edited by jar, : add link to Oklo yet again

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 363 of 519 (811784)
06-12-2017 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Faith
06-12-2017 6:23 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden. Declaring it to be off-topic.

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 361 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 364 of 519 (811785)
06-12-2017 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Faith
06-12-2017 6:23 AM


Desperation and Double standards
quote:
All your stuff is open to interpretation because there is no way to know for sure if the past was the same as the present...
If you are reduced to discounting all the physical evidence - without any cause but the fact that it disproves your claims you can hardly be said to have proof.
quote:
..but the cross sections and the map are straightforward evidence that the Time Scale is a fiction.
Obviously if you are prepared to assume that different physical laws apply to the extent you would need to save a young earth you can hardly make that claim.
But it isn't true anyway. The map hardly supports your case - and I would argue that it undermines your interpretation of the diagram by showing that the actual situation is rather more complicated than the diagram suggests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 519 (811790)
06-12-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Faith
06-12-2017 6:23 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Paraphrased: "If what you know proves me wrong, then I'm going to discount everything you know so that I can still believe what I want."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 366 of 519 (811798)
06-12-2017 9:27 AM


What would it take to open eyes?
The cross section(s) and the map along with tons of other eivdences of the same sort ARE evidence that shows the Time Scale couldn't possibly be true. If anyone would just stop and think, really, just think for a change, you'd have to recognize that layers of sediment cannot possibly represent time periods of millions of years. The diagrams show that the layers were all deposited first, all of them, every last one of them, from Precambrian to Holocene/Eocene, one after another, nothing in between, and in fact nothing coujld possibly have lived when the layers were being deposited, just think for pete's sake, and after all were laid down, all of them, THEN AND ONLY THEN were they tilted and eroded and otherwise deformed. The cross section shows them tilted as a block. all of them from Precambrian to "present" time, and the map shows that they were all laid down and THEN eroded, -- eroded areas expose layers beneath.
Really, all it takes is some honesty and clear thought. But as I said I know it isn't going to happen. You won't think about it, you just won't. The establishment understanding, utterly false though it is, is just believed to be true and breaking that mindset isn't going to happen. Even Smith, the maker of the section and the map believed it.
Anybody here ever going to wake up and see the truth?
Guess not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 9:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 369 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 9:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2017 11:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 367 of 519 (811801)
06-12-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
06-12-2017 9:27 AM


Re: What would it take to open eyes?
Re: What would it take to open eyes?
Indeed, Faith. What would it take to open your eyes to the real world that surrounds you, the evidence that was left that shows an old earth and evolving life. These are real things. You are one lone voice pretending to know more than the combined scientific knowledge of all the world's scientists. That is delusion.
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 366 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 9:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 9:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 368 of 519 (811802)
06-12-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by RAZD
06-12-2017 9:35 AM


Re: What would it take to open eyes?
The problem is that all the OTHER evidences are just a distraction since what I posted trumps them all. IF you would think about it. But you prefer the distractions, can't even get you to focus on the evidence I've presented. You accuse me without even thinking about the evidence. It's the evidence that shows the truth, I'm not believing anything except what the evidence shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2017 7:01 AM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 369 of 519 (811804)
06-12-2017 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Faith
06-12-2017 9:27 AM


Re: What would it take to open eyes?
The cross section(s) and the map along with tons of other eivdences of the same sort ARE evidence that shows the Time Scale couldn't possibly be true.
I reject that statement.
If anyone would just stop and think, really, just think for a change, you'd have to recognize that layers of sediment cannot possibly represent time periods of millions of years.
They absolutely can, and do.
The diagrams show that the layers were all deposited first, all of them, every last one of them, from Precambrian to Holocene/Eocene, one after another, nothing in between, and in fact nothing coujld possibly have lived when the layers were being deposited, just think for pete's sake, and after all were laid down, all of them, THEN AND ONLY THEN were they tilted and eroded and otherwise deformed.
When you get to the point where everybody seems to be unable to get a very simple point that you are trying to make, then it's time to look towards your point, itself, and see if maybe it isn't accually accurate or correct.
Animals can live on surfaces that are getting deposited onto, and after those surface are depositted on through sedimentary processes, they get compacted and smooshed down into their present state. They did not look like they do today when they were on the surface in the past.
Really, all it takes is some honesty and clear thought. But as I said I know it isn't going to happen. You won't think about it, you just won't.
We do; we have thought about it and it just turns out that you are blatanly wrong.
Anybody here ever going to wake up and see the truth?
We already have, and we're waiting on you to join us.
But we won't hold our breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 9:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 9:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 370 of 519 (811806)
06-12-2017 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by New Cat's Eye
06-12-2017 9:45 AM


Re: What would it take to open eyes?
You haven't thought about it at all, you're just spouting the usual party line. I wonder lately if you even know how to think, you've said such utterly foolish things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 9:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 10:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 371 of 519 (811807)
06-12-2017 9:58 AM


Changing the subject is bad debate form
NOBODY has even tried to address the points I made about the cross section (Message 355) and the map. You've all either changed the subject entirely or blasted me with accusations. Not any attempt to address my argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2017 10:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 372 of 519 (811810)
06-12-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
06-12-2017 9:47 AM


Re: What would it take to open eyes?
You haven't thought about it at all, you're just spouting the usual party line.
You're going to lie to me about myself? Trust me, I know more about what I have thought than you do.
I have thought about it: you're blatantly wrong. Your argument is based on claims that are patently incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 9:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 373 of 519 (811811)
06-12-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Tangle
06-12-2017 3:26 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
quote:
It's an odd section of the UK to a Brit's eyes as it's a diagonal drawn through the bottom of England and Wales - missing almost all of the country. Draw a line from London (bottom right) to Wales (slightly higher up on the left) and you've got it.
But maybe there's a geoligical reason for it. But like Faith I haven't a clue about geology.
My point here was rhetorical. Faith says that all deformation was post flood (post-geology, if you will) and yet at Siccar, we have deformed Ordovician rocks stratigraphically overlain by relatively undeformed Devonian rocks. The standard interpretation of this would be that the older rocks were deformed, eroded, and then buried by the younger rocks. Then the entire package of rocks was tilted. But however you look at it, the picture is very different from that on William Smith's cross-section.
But you make a good point. The cross section does not represent all of Great Britain. It is selected data that Faith tries to extend not just to all of Great Britain, but to the rest of the Earth. That is why I brought up Siccar Point. It presents a very different picture.
The cross section's particular orientation is probably due to the fact that that direction is perpendicular to the stratigraphic succession in the region, and it might have been the area that William Smith was most familiar with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2017 3:26 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 10:21 AM edge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 374 of 519 (811812)
06-12-2017 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
06-12-2017 9:58 AM


Re: Changing the subject is bad debate form
NOBODY has even tried to address the points I made about the cross section (Message 355) and the map. You've all either changed the subject entirely or blasted me with accusations. Not any attempt to address my argument.
You mean like the way you have not addressed the evidence showing meters deep layers of marine growth layer upon layer on mountains that could not be from a WWFlood?
Or the evidence shown in Message 350 showing "a period of over 1500 years of mature marine growth" with correlating 14C levels to the dendrochronology, and then extending to ∼14.8 cal kyr B.P.
That subject?
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 371 by Faith, posted 06-12-2017 9:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 375 of 519 (811813)
06-12-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by edge
06-12-2017 10:16 AM


Re: Time Scale is Disproved, Flood is Well Supported, Summary Statement
Siccar has to be interpreted as I've done many times, as tectonic tilting of the lower section while the upper were in place.
But the cross section itself and the map both illustrate my point that the layers were all in place before being deformed or eroded. That plus the fact that nothing could live when the sediments were being deposited is enough to show that the Time Scale is a fantasy and that the Flood is the most likely explanation of the strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by edge, posted 06-12-2017 10:16 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by edge, posted 06-12-2017 10:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024