Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 622 of 877 (834911)
06-14-2018 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by Faith
06-14-2018 5:26 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
quote:
Paul bases his case on what he sees in that whole underground area of deformed strata. He claims it shows that the lower strata were deformed and then the upper were deposited on top of it. Since the whole stack is deformed I see no basis for coming to that conclusion
Funny how you can’t see what is obviously there even after it has been explained to you.
quote:
The upper strata are also deformed same as the lower.
But the deformation is not the same. That is very, very clear. We can see that the lowest strata are much more deformed than the upper. We can see that there are large variations in the thickness of some strata where they fill depressions in the surfaces below. We can see strata that bend up and suddenly stop where they meet the strata above - and where those upper strata do not follow that same curve.
Look at the magnified sections posted by Percy in Message 617
quote:
Overall, it looks like all were laid down originally horizontally and then the whole thing tipped over, so to speak, so that what was vertical is now lying horizontally across the whole island.
The Smith cross-section looks like that. This one certainly does not
Look at it!
quote:
The whole thing is now deformed pretty much beyond being able to reconstruct its history it seems to me
In full, perhaps not. But we can certainly see that there were multiple episodes of deformation and erosion while the strata were being laid down. That much is obvious - and that is the real reason you’re insisting that it’s too complex to understand. Because it is understandable and proves you wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 5:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 6:34 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 628 of 877 (834924)
06-15-2018 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by Faith
06-14-2018 6:34 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
quote:
No I CANNOT see that there were "multiple episodes of deformation and erosion," NO, I can see how you think there are but no, I do not see it that way.
Which sounds like you saying that you can see the evidence, but refuse to accept that it can override your opinions. It’s certainly the way you argue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 630 of 877 (834926)
06-15-2018 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 627 by Faith
06-14-2018 11:40 PM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
quote:
This attempt to prove the order of events from severely deformed rocks strikes me as a desperate attempt to prove my simple point wrong at all costs.
That’s an interesting insight into your mind. Looking at the evidence and understanding it + even at a quite basic level - is something you consider a sign of desperation. It explains why you are wrong all the time.
quote:
The simple explanation is that the strata were laid down flat and horizontal and then deformed as seen, period.
I guess it is simple if you don’t care about accounting for the evidence. Unfortunately for accounting for the evidence is a requirement for a worthwhile explanation.
quote:
The strata beneath the UK are parallel in their deformation which is evidence that it occurred as a block all at one time
That is certainly not true unless you have a very weird idea of parallel. Is a stratum that slopes down parallel to one that curves up ?
quote:
And I would guess that those blank unidentified areas to the right are probably schist and granite similar to the situation under the Grand Canyon, which I would guess formed at the same time as all the other deformation in that area too.
Assuming you mean the area under the buried peak rather than off the edge of the diagram it looks like they don’t know what’s there. Certainly there are strata shown which could continue into that region and aren’t marked as terminating.
quote:
But I already said I can't fight this no matter what I happen to think, and said PaulK wins the debate. I do not want to argue things when they get this weird.
There’s nothing weird about it. The evidence clearly contradicts you and you are desperately trying to deny it. That’s entirely normal here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 627 by Faith, posted 06-14-2018 11:40 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 632 of 877 (834930)
06-15-2018 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 631 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:39 AM


Re: Smith diagram showing underground strata
quote:
The erosion that PaulK argues proves that the upper strata were deposited on the already eroded and deformed lower strata is not something I've ever seen on any stack of straight horizontal strata. I think you have to show that it can and does occur that way before you can claim it proves something happened that can't be actually seen on the diagram but inferred.
The fact that you can’t remember seeing examples (like Siccar Point)
is irrelevant to the interpretation. The diagram shows what it shows.
quote:
Trying to make the case from deformed strata about something that supposedly happened before the deformation is a bit, well, devious perhaps
It contradicts an obviously false idea that you made up. That doesn’t make it devious.
quote:
Now Percy seems to be trying to make the same case from my examples of deformed blocks of strata. It's too easy to make a case from the many ambiguities found in such a situation. I say if you can't make it from recognizable horizontal strata then you don't have a case.
Obviously if we are going to say which view a diagram supports we have to deal with the diagram as it is. And you have certainly tried to make such arguments yourself. Moreover we are not relying on any ambiguities but on obvious features of the diagram - and you haven’t pointed out a single case where we are.
quote:
And I think the basic deviousness of this approach is illustrated by the fact that it's only the twisted and bent strata that can be used for such a purpose.
It’s obvious we can only deal with the question of when deformation occurred by looking at deformed strata. To accuse us of being devious on that ground is just laughable. Such a silly smear.
quote:
I also posted strata eroded as a block and those aren't being used because it's so clear that they ARE just eroded as a block.
The main reason they aren’t being used is that they aren’t any of the strata seen in any of the diagrams under discussion. And assuming that your interpretation is correct, they don’t even have much to contribute to the discussion. You are making a universal claim (at least with regard to this planet) - you can’t refute counter-examples by pointing to a few small examples of your own.
quote:
Well, so are the deformed strata just deformed as a block, it's just that the deformation contains enough ambiguities to allow all this mad speculation.
The diagram clearly contradicts your mad speculation as has been explained. All you can do in response is to deny, to lie and to make false insinuations. And apparently you think that’s better and more honest than actually looking at the diagram as it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:39 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 646 of 877 (834955)
06-15-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Faith
06-15-2018 3:40 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
The point I'vfe been making for days now is that erosion occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers; also that deformation occurs to stacks or blocks or units of strata and not between layers.
I am going to assume that when you say deformation between layers you mean deformation occurring in the time between layers being deposited.
And in that case both assertions have been decisively refuted.
quote:
The point of those photos I posted is to demonstrate that the strata were all in place before the erosion or the deformation occurred.
Even if it is true in those diagrams - for the strata shown - that can’t refute the definite evidence to the contrary we have seen. So those really add very little to the discussion.
quote:
Sometimes as in the Smith diagram the whole range of time periods is present and eroded or deformed as a complete block
As has been shown that is a misleading impression given by the Smith cross-section. The more complete diagram from 1910 shows clear and definite evidence of both deformation and erosion occurring before all the strata were deposited.
quote:
This demonstrates something really very very simple: that the strata are not time periods.
Nobody confuses rocks with time except for you.
However, since the evidence does point to long periods of time - to account for the massive erosion between layers as well as the multiple deformation events that occurred during the time the strata were deposited it doesn’t seem you have much of a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Faith, posted 06-15-2018 3:40 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 659 of 877 (835019)
06-16-2018 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by Faith
06-16-2018 11:12 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
I believe I've not said NONE of the contacts, but VERY FEW, VERY VERY VERY FEW, and I believe they can be explained as having occurred after the strata were deposited. As for missing "time," no, missing layers that often occur at a location but didn't in a particular case, yes.
As we have seen there are quite a few showing significant erosion. None of which can reasonably be explained as having occurred later.
quote:
Again the point is that deformation or erosion as a unit is just one of the many ways it can be shown that the Time Scale is false, and yes of course it's another way of saying all disturbances occur after all the strata were in place and no you have not proved anything to the contrary, what a silly thought, it's obvious in a million places.
You have never explained the idea of erosion as a unit. However deformation as a unit can certainly occur if the geological timescale is true - and we have sufficient examples of deformation occurring before all the strata were deposited to say that your ideas are certainly false,
You don’t have a million examples. So far we haven’t seen any real examples from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:51 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 663 of 877 (835029)
06-16-2018 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Faith
06-16-2018 11:51 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
So erosion as a unit just means exposed cross-sections getting eroded? That’s really not evidence for anything significant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Faith, posted 06-16-2018 11:51 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 686 of 877 (835106)
06-18-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by Faith
06-17-2018 7:58 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
No, the conventional timing of the breakup of Pangaea is incorrect, as evidenced by the continuous laying down of the strata up to Recent time, as shown on the Smith cross section of England. Had the strata since the Jurassic not been deposited at the time of the breakup of Pangaea, it would not be deformed in the same pattern as all the rest were, because that deformation is best explained as the result of the tectonic event we are discussing which came after all the strata were in place.
Faith, this is openly dishonest. You know that the Smith diagram is misleading. You know that there is a complex history of deformation that doesn’t fit in with your crazy nonsense. Yet here you are trying to deceive us with the same old falsehood that has already been exposed.
Here’s the more complete diagram again:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 7:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:22 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 687 of 877 (835108)
06-18-2018 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
06-17-2018 8:35 PM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
quote:
SO unnecessary and unlikely. All the current dog breeds evolved within a few hundred years, if evolution had even a hundred thousand years to work with all living things would be extinct by now.
It’s hardly unlikely.
Current dog breeds were produced by artificial selection, which works faster than natural evolution.
Evolution relies on mutation to supply additional diversity. Speeding up selection without speeding up mutation won’t make it work that much faster. Speeding up mutation produces problems which would need to be dealt with, too.
And if your version of evolution predicts total extinction within 100,000 years that proves that your version of evolution is wrong.
But please go back to existing topics if you really think you can defend this silly nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 06-17-2018 8:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:28 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 691 of 877 (835112)
06-18-2018 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 688 by Faith
06-18-2018 2:22 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
I reject your "complex history," I see it as I described: the strata are deformed according to a recognizable pattern, all at one time, both at the surface and underground.
Of course that isn’t true and you know it. Perhaps you should make up your mind which lie you want to tell. Either the diagram is too complex for you to understand or it obviously supports your claims.
They can’t both be true. (Of course both are false, anyway).
Here’s the diagram again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:22 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 692 of 877 (835113)
06-18-2018 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 689 by Faith
06-18-2018 2:28 AM


Re: Walther's Law is not a process
You’re just being silly and wrong. Mutation is needed to overcome the loss of genetic variation produced by selection and drift. Your own argument admits that.
quote:
And unfortunately a hundred thousand years WOULD lead to extinction, certainly not according to the prevailing paradigm which is massive delusion, but according to the truth...
Unfortunately for you we know that there has been much longer than 100,000 years so your truth is quite obviously false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 2:28 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 701 of 877 (835139)
06-18-2018 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by Faith
06-18-2018 9:51 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
I spent way too much time trying to take PaulK's views of the underground portion of that Smith diagram seriously.
In other words your time was wasted because you couldn’t pick any holes in it. If you actually cared about truth you’d know that understanding the evidence isn’t a waste of time.
quote:
It was all deformed as a unit or a block and the distortions seen there where the strata encounter those blank areas are most probably where the strata were intruded and displaced by the usual underground rocks such as schist and granite, like the situation in the Grand Canyon, some of the strata being turned into schist as a matter of fact.
But I guess you have to resort - again - to making up bullshit to avoid admitting that the evidence is firmly against you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 4:57 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 703 of 877 (835148)
06-18-2018 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
06-18-2018 4:57 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
The "evidence" you were giving just never made any sense though I kept trying to see it as you seemed to see it.
It will never make sense if you think that a line that curves up is parallel to one running across.
This detail shows a nice example of the cut-off strata.
From the middle of the left hand side, there is a thin shaded formation (I assume it is something bigger than a single stratum given the scale)
Before it reaches the centre of the diagram it curves up to meet a dotted region, which slopes down - showing no sign of following the upward curve at all. Clearly the deformation of the upward curve did not affect the upper strata.
quote:
I finally realized it's all an attempt to make something out of nothing
In other words you couldn’t refute it. The evidence is quite clear.
quote:
You can't explain the history of the formastion of the strata after they are that extremely deformed,
See above. We can certainly see enough to tell that you are wrong.
quote:
The strata on the surface follow a pattern that clearly demonstrates deformation as a unit, and so do the strata underground.
Interesting how you suddenly claim that you CAN work out the history of the deformation. And you do it by ignoring the evidence and declaring yourself right. The dishonesty is so obvious.
quote:
The areas you try to make into evidence for deformation before deposition are really just distortions brought about after the deformation.
That is hardly plausible - aside from the fact that the distortion would also count as deformation we have the fact that the strata clearly did not deform as a unit. And the problems of deformation occurring underground and affecting some strata but not those above them are severe as you certainly ought to know. It’s not something that can be blithely assumed.
quote:
And besides, this would be the only example on the planet of what you are claiming for it. That alone falsifies it.
Of course you are in no position to know that, you just assume it because it’s convenient to you. And at present we have NO examples of places where there was no tectonic disturbance until all the strata were deposited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 4:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 5:35 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 714 of 877 (835172)
06-19-2018 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 704 by Faith
06-18-2018 5:35 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
The line that curves up was distorted after deformation probably by encountering the metamorphic rocks underground.
The problem with that is it makes no sense. How could it encounter anything which had been there all the time ? Why are you trying to make an apparently meaningless distinction between distortion and deformation ?
quote:
The underground strata were deformed as a unit of parallel layers and then further distorted afterward.
quote:
The underground strata were deformed as a unit of parallel layers and then further distorted afterward.
To any sensible person it is obvious that there was plenty of deformation going on long before all the layers were deposited. You just refuse to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 5:35 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 715 of 877 (835173)
06-19-2018 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 707 by Faith
06-18-2018 9:14 PM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done with
quote:
Not strange at all since you all are quite eager to make as much something out of as much nothing as you can, you don't care if you have to find it in a deformed mess or hallucinate it or whatever you have to do
By which you mean we allow ourselves to see the obvious because we don’t care about pretending that your nutty ideas are true.
quote:
Since you all are capable of believing that a time period can become a slab of rock and you believe in hundreds of millions of totally unnecessary years for something that should take a few thousand at most, and you believe a reptile ear can evolve into a mammalian ear, and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion
None of us believes that a time period can become a rock in any way that is at all silly. That’s just one of your lies.
Your ideas about evolutionary timescales are ridiculous and founded in false assumptions. It’s true we don’t have any problem in rejecting them but that’s because of their obvious faults and because we have the evidence on our side.
There are plenty of transitional fossils covering intermediate states between reptilian and mammalian ears so there is no reason why any sensible person should have a problem with it.
quote:
and you believe there was a sedimentary layer in a super tight contact that shows not a shred of erosion,
Which should be the case if there was continuous deposition. Erosion can only occur when deposition stops.
quote:
I'm sure it wouildn't be hard to come up with unconformities long after the rock had been deformed even though there are other possible explanations for it.
You seem to have great difficulty coming up with anything that makes sense even though you are quite prepared to invent elaborate ad hoc scenarios without a shred of evidence for them.
quote:
And you believe some salt in a layer is proof positive of a warm climate some ridiculous number of millioins of years ago and so on and so forth.
The fact that you choose to minimise and misrepresent the evidence only shows that you are dishonest.
In short you think we are crazy because we don’t care about worshipping your lies even though you slander us.
And we think you are crazy because you expect us to worship your lies. You even think that people who have never heard of you should worship your lies! I assure you that most working geologists have never even heard of you, let alone feel any fear of being slandered by you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Faith, posted 06-18-2018 9:14 PM 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