|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Is a poor substitute for detailed study. Modern geology is the produce of centuries of detailed work, and subjective interpretations are not an inadequate response. Better than fabrication and innuendo and misrepresentation, I will admit but still hardly adequate.
Indeed the idea of massive erosion as evidence of a destroyed world sits poorly with your own ideas. According to you all that was ruined to form those features was featureless horizontal sediment full of dead things. Hardly perfect. According to you it was not the Flood but the run-off from it that carved these features, even when it makes no sense at all. The Grand Canyon with its sinuous form being a prime example. So, your subjective impressions don’t even agree with your own ideas. How then can you think that they have any value as evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: There’s nothing weird in pointing out that your subjective impressions are misleading.
quote: It it is implicit in what YOU said. The features you take as evidence of ruin were - in your view - carved from those strata, not from features of the pre-Flood world. So when you say:
All of it speaks to me of something that was formerly perfect now ruined
You must bear in mind that the thing ruined by the erosive forces that created the Monuments and all the other things you list was the strata full of dead things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I realise that your problems understanding opposing viewpoints and your revisionism get in the way of communication. Maybe you should do something about that.
quote: But the features you point to AREN’T ruined perfection. All you have is a subjective impression divorced even from your own ideas of what actually happened. That is not evidence. Yet you claim that it is. That is the point that you are failing to get.
quote: The strata are proof that the Flood didn’t do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You call it wreckage but according to your own views the prior condition was hardly superior. You might as well call it sculpture as wreckage. Not to mention that there is quite a lot of the planet that doesn’t looked wrecked, and parts that are mainly wrecked through human activity.
quote: That’s been shown to be false. That is why you have to deny most of the erosion between the strata, make up nonsense to try to explain angular unconformities, claim that strata are paralell when they are close to orthogonal, reject all scientific dating methods, call the order in the fossil record an illusion and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
That’s before we deal with the fact that the Cardenas lava erupted through the surface while the sediments of the Dox formation were still being deposited.
The Grand Canyon Supergroup just keeps on contradicting Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You should have read on
In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger
Or more sensibly you should have realised that the definition is consistent with erosion being present at every example Percy mentioned, and so doesn’t help your case at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As i’ve pointed out before according to your ideas the things that give you the impression of a wrecked planet didn’t even come from wrecking the planet.
To call them evidence thst the planet was wrecked, then, is simply false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: By your own admission your main evidence doesn’t favour your views over the mainstream view. There is much evidence that you ignore or invent crazy bullshit to explain away. And then there’s the lying and calling people crazy when they dare to disagree with you. You’ve made it very obvious that your ideas are a ridiculous fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Yes we know. You don’t trust people who tell the truth.
quote: That isn’t what you are calling wreckage though. You’re calling the things that happened to those strata - the erosion and the deformation - wreckage. That’s my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But the Monuments - one of your biggest examples - are the product of erosion. The geological sins that are supposedly hidden beneath unwrecked landscapes would be the result of deformation and maybe erosion, too. I’m at a loss to find an example that looks wrecked and isn’t the result of erosion or deformation - or human activity.
quote: I don’t think that differences with your imagined pre-Flood world can possibly count. They aren’t an appearance for a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That doesn’t really make a lot of sense. What wreckage is seen by erosion ? When you say that the Monuments look like wreckage why would anyone think you were talking about anything but the eroded forms of the Monuments themselves ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Where did you say you didn’t mean that ? (Whatever that is)
quote: I have to say that smooth flat strata aren’t really my idea of wreckage. The rest, as I have pointed out is all things that happened to the strata.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It’s a bit hard to consider something that we have no way of knowing. We can’t even know if there is a God to have an opinion. But I’m pretty sure that if there is He’d prefer us to honestly investigate the evidence instead of inventing lies to support false dogma. But if you feel differently please make the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So much for sticking to things you can prove. Need is irrelevant although long-term evolution - and even short term evolution require longer than you assume. And since the evidence tells us that it has been that long your uninformed theoretical speculations can and should be rejected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I was thinking of inventing evidence, such as the assertion that there is no sign of disturbance before all the strata were deposited.
quote: Of course we could. Even you could honestly investigate evidence if supported your claims. Well, perhaps not in your case. The problem for you is that honest investigation of the evidence shows no Flood and an old Earth. And that gives rational people plenty of reason to doubt a literal reading of the Flood story.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024