Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 446 of 1304 (731704)
05-28-2014 1:34 PM


Re: my summation
Faith writes:
... try thinking outside your box for a change....
Nice mantra. But before you can think outside the box you need to understand the box. You're sitting on a bicycle and fantasizing about how to fly a 747.

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 527 of 1304 (731785)
06-29-2014 3:46 PM


Faith writes:
That's about 5000 feet in ten million years for the sandstone. Pretty much takes care of that, shouldn't be any left standing without even multiplying the "tens" of millions.
If it erodes 5 feet in ten thousand years and it's five feet in radius, we'd expect it to be gone in ten thousand years. We can extrapolate backwards to estimate how long it's been eroding. I don't know why you think you can tell that there "shouldn't" be any left. You don't know when it started eroding.

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by edge, posted 06-30-2014 6:43 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 529 of 1304 (731787)
06-29-2014 3:51 PM


Faith writes:
Percy said it began eroding tens of millions of years ago.
And it will be gone in a few thousand years. How do you get that it "should" be gone already?

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 4:21 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 624 of 1304 (731982)
07-02-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by Faith
06-30-2014 4:21 PM


Faith writes:
It didn't just start eroding, which would mean it would be gone in ten thousand years from now, it started eroding tens of millions of years AGO, what aren't you getting here?
It eroded at a certain (average) rate for a certain period of time . It has been eroding long enough to be almost gone but not completely gone. What aren't you getting here?

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 695 of 1304 (732120)
07-03-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by Faith
07-03-2014 12:32 PM


Re: massive erosion after 100s of MYs of no massive erosion
Faith writes:
Just once it would be nice if someone acknowledged that I said something that makes sense.
I will.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 801 of 1304 (732337)
07-06-2014 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by Faith
07-06-2014 4:50 PM


Re: Imagination rules in the sciences of the unwitnessed past
Faith writes:
The creation scientists are also exploring questions about mechanism....
They're really not, though, are they? All they're doing is speculating what coulda/woulda/shoulda/mighta happened, to reverse-engineer a Flood from evidence that doesn't support a Flood.
And you're telling us that those speculations can not be tested, so there's really no "exploration" involved, is there? You're drawing a map of what could/would/should/might be there and at the same time you're telling us that there's no way to go there to confirm your map.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Faith, posted 07-06-2014 4:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 804 of 1304 (732343)
07-06-2014 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 803 by NoNukes
07-06-2014 5:47 PM


Re: Imagination rules in the sciences of the unwitnessed past
NoNukes writes:
... the arrangement of fossils requires Creation proponents to put forth inane explanations that do not work.
I recall somebody suggesting that birds are higher in the geological column than dinosaurs because they might have been riding on dinosaurs.
Henny Youngman must be spinning in his grave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 803 by NoNukes, posted 07-06-2014 5:47 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by NoNukes, posted 07-06-2014 6:59 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 842 of 1304 (732422)
07-07-2014 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 838 by Faith
07-07-2014 1:16 PM


Re: Imagination rules in the sciences of the unwitnessed past
Faith writes:
I must have missed the advice you say you gave about how to do YEC scientifically. Would you mind repeating it?
The key word there is "do". You have to DO science. Science isn't sitting in your armchair dreaming up scenarios that might match the Bible. It's testing scenarios and rejecting the ones that don't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 07-07-2014 1:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1019 of 1304 (732922)
07-12-2014 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1018 by Faith
07-12-2014 1:53 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
Meanwhile if sediments are collecting somewhere else entirely such as at the bottom of the ocean far from the stack in question, they are clearly not and never will be part of the Geological Time Scale OR the Geological Column.
How is that clear? It sounds like you're saying, "Black is clearly white."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 1:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1020 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 2:09 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1022 of 1304 (732926)
07-12-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1020 by Faith
07-12-2014 2:09 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
Whole stack assumed even where gaps.
When I look at a set of books and notice that volume 6 is not there, I don't conclude like you do that the number 6 has ceased to exist. I conclude that the book has been removed. So if we have layers 1 to 12 elsewhere in the geological column but layer 6 is missing here, I likewise conclude that layer 6 has been removed here, say by erosion. Everyday logic.
Faith writes:
Sediment depositing elsewhere is not the Geological Column OR the Geological Time Table.
How is sediment being deposited on top of the geological column not part of the geological column? How is the present time not part of geological time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 2:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1024 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:01 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1026 of 1304 (732930)
07-12-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by Faith
07-12-2014 3:01 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
May I respectfully suggest that you read through the whole sequence of posts on this subject starting at Message 898.
I don't see how reading through your befuddled posts again will make them clearer. Can't you just answer the simple question? How is sediment deposited on top of the geological column not part of the geological column? How is the present time not part of geological time?
The deposition didn't stop. Time didn't stop. What stopped?
Edited by ringo, : Added a silent but not invisible letter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1029 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:12 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1030 of 1304 (732934)
07-12-2014 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1029 by Faith
07-12-2014 3:12 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
Deposition ON the column stopped.
How is that possible? Where is sediment deposited if not on top of the geological column?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1029 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1032 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:37 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1034 of 1304 (732938)
07-12-2014 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1032 by Faith
07-12-2014 3:37 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
Well, show me where it is depositing on top of the Holocene somewhere.
Is the Holocene on the top of the column? All deposition is on the top of the column, regardless of when the last layer on the top of the column was deposited. The Mississippi delta is being deposited on top of whatever was there when the Mississippi started to flow.
So where is the "stop"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1032 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1036 of 1304 (732940)
07-12-2014 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by Faith
07-12-2014 3:46 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
Well what WAS there? Do you even know?
The geological column was there. It doesn't matter which specific layer was there. Anything that deposits will deposit on top. How else could it be?
Faith writes:
It is certainly NOT depositing on top of the Geological Time Table unless what lies beneath the Mississippi delta is a Holocene layer.
Forget about time for the moment. Do you or do you not understand that everything that deposits must deposit on top of what is already there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:59 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1039 of 1304 (732943)
07-12-2014 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Faith
07-12-2014 3:59 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Faith writes:
The point is that it has to deposit on top of the most recent layer identified as the Holocene or "Recent" time in order to continue the Geological Time Table.
Why? Why on earth? Why by any stretch of the imagination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 3:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 4:31 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024