Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
I know how you guys weasel around about the word theory and I don't care. It doesn't matter if it's the highest you've got, it's still wrong, it still has no evidence that establishes it and that's the real reason it has to be called theory. it's all fantasy, I gave my definition and I'm off this thread.
Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow. Of course we don't kow how for sure, it's all speculation, just as your stuff is speculation.
Uh, no, we have actual evidence. This is what makes geology different from stuff you've made up in your head.
But the layering makes far LESS sense on the evolutionist interpretation. Why should eras of time be demarcated by any such geological phenomena? Why shouldn't there be a continuous piling up of mixed sediments over those supposed billions of years? In fact why should there be ANY piling up of sediments whatever? Such phenomena occur in the present for particular reasons in limited locations. The idea that the entire earth would be layered makes NO sense except on the basis of the Flood catastrophe which stirred up everything, dissolved everything and redeposited it in layers.
Um ... the entire Earth is not in fact layered.
There's something particularly stupid about creationists' attempts to deal with geology. At least in biology they have some dim idea of what they're trying to explain. Elephants exist, they know that, and then they've got to find an explanation for elephants (goddidit).
But they know so little about the facts of geology that they turn their efforts to explaining things which are not in fact true.
This is the sort of thing that water does. The scale of the Flood was beyond anything we can imagine but we CAN say that WATER ACTS THAT WAY.
You can say it, but it isn't true. In creationist theology water appears to be a sort of magic bulldozer that can do anything. But it can't. A mere global flood would not produce the phenomena we observe (that's the phenomena we actually observe, not the phenomena you've made up in your head). Your own post is a classic example of this. You write: "Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow." I love that "somehow", it says it all.
And again, when you LOOK at the layers in their most undisturbed condition in the Grand Canyon, SO undisturbed for billions of years according to old earth/evolution theory, and THEN subjected to some pretty violent disturbances such as tectonic lifting and twistings (elsewhere, not in the GC) and the cutting of the canyon, how can you even THINK long ages?
I don't follow your argument, which seems to be a succession of non sequiturs, but it seems to be based, again, on a factual error. Haven't you ever heard of the Great Unconformity?
Here's a cross-section of the Grand Canyon. Methinks it has been disturbed at least once.
So, it appears that flood geology can explain why the whole earth is layered, which it isn't, and why the layers in the Grand Canyon are undisturbed, which they aren't. Meanwhile, real geology can explain real things that are actually true.
It would be nice if creationists could get our act together well enough to make some of you have to rethink the foundations you are taking for granted.
Sadly, when creationists get their act together they stop being creationists. It's like the old joke about the farmer who was training his mule to live without food: "... and then, just after I'd succeeded, the durn thing died!"
Well, if you got your act together well enough to talk about geology with any degree of competence, you'd realize that "flood geology" is just so much horse-pucky. But I doubt that this is going to happen. Making stuff up is easier than studying, and appears to bring you greater satisfaction.
No, they are merely in thrall to the accumulated "knowledge" of their discipline.
Yeah, they're "merely in thrall" to knowing that the whole earth is not covered with layers of sedimentary rocks, and that the layers of the Grand Canyon are not perfectly undisturbed. Stuff like that.
I'm not asking for "trust," just a consideration of the evidence as I see it ...
But it's not evidence, and you haven't seen it. It's stuff you've made up. You have not seen that "the whole earth" is covered with layers of sedimentary rocks. No-one has seen this. It isn't. You have not seen a fossil layer which only has nautiloids in it and nothing else. No-one has seen this. It's something you made up.
Well, presumably AFTER they've been formed they could be MOVED and stacked in a layer, couldn't they?
Ah, this must be one of those things that happens "somehow".
What I added was links to Steve Austin's work on the nautiloid layer in the GC and the correction that there ARE other creatures in the layer with the nautiloids, but that nevertheless the nautiloids are found there in prodigious numbers, one to a square meter, or he estimates something like 10 billion over the hundreds of square miles he sampled. Such a dense preponderance of one creature in one layer is good evidence for rapid catastrophic deposition and killing ...
Um, Faith? No. If the fossil nautiloids were killed and deposited in a single catastrophe, and they are one per square meter, then this would require that in life they were one per square meter. The large number of fossils is actually a case against catastrophist doctrines. If all the creatures in the fossil record lived at the same time than it would have been standing room only on planet earth. A dinosaur could hardly have turned round without stepping on a dozen trilobites and knocking over a giant ground sloth.
People are always trying to explain SOME of the layers, or just one, as formed by the Flood and the others by other means. There is no difference in their appearance one from another when you see a deep stack of them, such as in the Grand Canyon especially where the stack is a mile dee ...
Excuse me, did you just claim that the different layers in the Grand Canyon are all identical?
They're not. They're different. Some are limestone, some are sandstone, some are shale. The very names of the formations give it away. Obviously the Coconino Sandstone looks different from the Muav Limestone. The names are a big clue.
Different mechanisms for the formation of identical layers makes no sense.
Well, how about different mechanisms for different layers?
For example, real geologists say that there was one mechanisms for the Coconino Sandstone, which is made of sand, which is whitish in color, which contains cross-bedding, and which contains the footprints of land animals and no marine fossils; and another for the Muav Limestone, which is made of limestone, which is gray in color, which is which does not contain dunes, which contains marine fossils, and which contains no footprints.
Whereas apparently you clever clever flood geologists can explain why all the layers are identical, which isn't true. It's as I said before, it's not just that your explanations are bad, they're explanations for things which aren't remotely true. You have no idea what it is you should be trying to explain, so of course your explanations aren't any good.
And then you say that your explanations are as good as those of the experts. Well, they can't be. A non-expert explanation of why pigs have wings can never be as good as an expert explanation of why they don't, because pigs don't have wings. To even have a hope of claiming parity, the expert has to explain why they don't have wings, not why they do.
Oh for pete's sake, I know the layers are all different sediments, for crying out loud.
What I'm saying is that their general APPEARANCE, their CONDITION, is identical.
Then given what I have just explained to you, if that is what you are saying, you are a goddamned liar.
Look up the Coconino Sandstone. Look up the Muav Limestone. Their "general APPEARANCE, their CONDITION" is as different as two sedimentary rocks can be. One is sandstone, the other is limestone. They are different colors. One has footprints in it, the other has no footprints in it. One exhibits cross-bedding, the other does not. One contains no marine fossils, the other contains many.
I defy you, I defy you, to name me any two sedimentary rocks that are more dissimilar.
And yet what you say to me about the rocks of the Grand Canyon is that "There is no difference in their appearance one from another", and you tell me that real geology can't explain why there is no difference between them (which there is) whereas you tell me that flood geology can explain why there is "no difference in their appearance".
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR APPEARANCE.
Now if you didn't mean to say what you said, then take a deep breath, think again, and say what you wish that you had said. But what you actually said is the stupidest thing that anyone has ever said about geology since the last time you posted.
I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.
"Inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur"? "Fantastic scenario-building nonsense"? My dear Faith, the "old earth explanation" of the layering is that it happened in the way that it happens now, before our eyes. We do not need to speculate on "how layering could occur"; we watch how it does occur. We do not need to "build" scenarios --- we observe them.
In any case they are not "records of regions" of anything as if time has a way of laying itself out in flat slabs of rock. They are sediments that were mechnically transported and lithified in layers. The idea that they represent scenarios and landscapes is ridiculous in the extreme.
Except to people who've actually studied the rocks.
As I keep saying, just LOOK at them (in the walls of the Grand Canyon where they're so nicely visible), they are FLAT SLABS OF ROCK that show NO differences between them in CONDITION so there's nothing to demonstrate AGE differences.
What is this "NO differences between them in CONDITION" even meant to mean? Is it the same as "completely different in every conceivable respect apart from merely being sedimentary rocks"?
AND they just lie there quietly too, to that great depth, and nothing happened to them until the canyon was cut through the entire stack. Somehow they were all undisturbed through millions upon millions of years and then suddenly finally this canyon happened to them.
Oh, apart from the tectonic events recorded by the great unconformity, the erosional events recorded by the other unconformities, and the uplift of the frickin' Colorado Plateau.
Really, that ought to alert you all that the old earth scnarios about former landscapes might be a little on the fantastic side.
Things that creationists make up and are plainly contrary to fact alert us that it's the young earth scenarios that are fantastic. 'Cos of being, y'know, fantasies.
There's nothing that would change my mind THAT the Flood happened as described in the Bible although HOW it happened, which is all speculation, COULD change of course. But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.
Yes, apart from all the details, you've got it pretty much worked out. "Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow." Behold flood geology in all its glory!
I think if you guys would just LOOK for a change you'd recognize that there's something wrong with that shallow seas in situ nonsense.
Geologists do look, Faith. They spend their lives looking at rocks. It's their job.
This is why they do not go about saying that "there is no difference in the appearance" of the layers in the Grand Canyon, and that they are "identical". It's because they've looked at the layers. And you do say such absurd things, because either you are the most terrible liar, or because you haven't looked. You haven't even taken a passing interest.
I'll tell you something else geologists look at. They look at sediment being deposited in flat layers in shallow seas. This, which you describe as "nonsense" is what is observed happening by people who actually look.
I've come up with an explanation for the results of the last election.
Yes, how else do you think Sauron became Emperor of Middle-Earth?
That's not actually what -
So much more plausible then your nonsensical speculations about voting.
You didn't notice the lines outside the polling stations?
Apart from anything else, your absurd fantasies of "voting" wouldn't explain how Sauron defeated a much more appealing candidate such as Aragorn.
That much, I will concede without reservation. 'Cos Sauron did not win the election.
If you would just LOOK, you would see that he won because of dragons.
And how, in your view, did dragons influence the result of the election?
Yes, you see, I've nearly got it all worked out.
And, why dragons in particular?
I like dragons. They're in my favorite book.
An absurd conversation, and one you could never have with a Tolkien fan, since they can distinguish fantasy from reality. But alas, we are talking to a creationist, and they can't.
Apart from being real, Faith is painfully like my imaginary Tolkien fan. Let me draw out the parallels.
In the first place, Faith does not know what it is she's meant to be trying to explain. There are certain facts of geology which any explanation has to fit: for example, the fact that the "whole Earth" is not covered with layers of sediment, and that the layers in the Grand Canyon are not "identical". She is pitifully ignorant of these facts, because, obviously, she has never taken the slightest interest in them.
She does know what she wants to explain the facts. It's got to be the Flood. She likes the Flood, it's in her favorite book.
She doesn't know how it could conceivably explain the facts --- either the real facts or the imaginary facts in her head. The furthest she's got is the word "somehow". This word does not really explain how the Flood could produce the geological record any more than it explains how dragons can rig elections.
Meanwhile she dismisses as far-fetched any explanation of geological effects in terms of geological causes which we can actually see causing these effects. Layers of sediment being laid down in shallow seas? Absurd! (It is only what we witness.) Aeolian sand producing crossbeds? Preposterous. (It is merely what we observe.) Sediments forming a record of their depositional environment? Ridiculous! (It is simply what we see in every single depositional environment everywhere.) But of course Faith doesn't know this, because she is no more interested in geological processes than in the outcomes that they produce.
I have not attempted to convey in my satire the sheer level of smug self-satisfaction with which Faith's gross stupidity and bestial ignorance have apparently endowed her. Fortunately, this is unnecessary, as she has done so in her own summation. How am I even to begin to describe the monstrous scale of her misplaced vanity? One thinks of the Elephant Man putting on a pink satin ballgown, preening in front of a mirror, and murmuring to himself: "How ugly and unfeminine all other women are when compared with Me."