|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. The evidence in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 shows otherwise. The consilience of the data from different sources, the concordance with known historical dates back to
quote: 2660 BCE is 4677 years ago, a validated observed historical record date. That leaves you very little room to bring all other dates crashing into your believed ridiculously young age of the earth.
All your stuff is open to interpretation ... Any alternative "interpretation" must mean madness (delusion) or magic (joker god/s). Until you can falsify the data in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 you cannot claim to disprove an old earth. Enjoy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden. Declaring it to be off-topic.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1707 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024