Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2019 4:35 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,030 Year: 15,066/19,786 Month: 1,789/3,058 Week: 163/404 Day: 50/113 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 131 of 740 (734098)
07-25-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Coragyps
07-25-2014 12:03 PM


Re: a partial review
I'll add to your explanation with a personal experience.

Over twenty years ago while driving up to the mountains, I observed the strata exposed along the roadside and got to thinking and questioning. I already knew that "the clock" (metaphoric expression, so no, Faith, there aren't tiny gears in them thar rocks) of radiometric dating is reset by the rock is molten, so if we perform radiometric dating on a rock it will give how long ago that rock had solidified. But how could that work for sedimentary rock, since that's older rock that's been broken down and redeposited? Yes, the relative positioning of a layer with respect to other layers gives us its relative age with respect to those other layers, but how do we get a sedimentary rock's absolute age?

With those questions, I researched for the answer, which I found in a geology textbook. First, my questions were indeed valid and, before radiometric dating, it was indeed the relative positionings coupled with estimations of how long the processes of erosion and depositation would take that were used to approximate the ages of that composite abstraction, the Geologic Column.

It is the igneous layers and intrusions that provide the absolute dates, or at least ranges of absolute dates, by providing us with tie points. That was the term used by the book, though I'm not sure how widely it's used. When an igneous layer lies between two sedimentary layers, then that igneous layer provides a tie point for the two layers surrounding it: the layer above it is younger and the layer below it is older, so we have an upper limit for age of the higher layer and a lower limit for the age of the lower layer. If an igneous intrusion extends through strata, then it provides a tie point for those strata such that they are older than the intrusion. In the top of the intrusion has been eroded away and another layer deposited on top of it, then that layer is younger than the intrusion; another tie point. Add those tie points to our composite abstraction Geologic Column and we improve the dates of the layers.

Very clear and easy to understand. And of course, Faith will be completely baffled and confused and unable to understand it. I believe that is because she believes that her believes will be endangered should she start to understand reality, so she must do anything she can to keep that from happening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 07-25-2014 12:03 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 9:09 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 142 of 740 (734119)
07-25-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
07-25-2014 9:09 PM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
My only argument is that igneous LAYERS aren't part of the Geo Column.

Except that they are. As has been pointed out and demonstrated to you over and over again. All of which you claim to have found so confusing that you simply could not understand any of it. But your refusal or inability or fear of understanding extremely simple facts of reality has absolutely no effect on reality. There are indeed igneous layers in geological columns around the world and also in the abstract compiled Geologic Column. Really, what is your problem? Why do you feel that that simple fact threatens your religious beliefs so much that you have to exercise such a degree of denial?

Igneous rock is INTRUSIVE into sedimentary layers.

Yes, it is, but only where it is intrusive into sedimentary layers. And where it is not intrusive but rather forms layers, then it is not intrusive.

Here's an analogy. Chevrolet makes pick-up trucks. Chevrolet also makes many models of automobiles that are not pick-up trucks. You gaze out the window for a while (assume a window with a street view) and you watch as some Chevy pick-ups drive by. From that, you conclude and absolutely insist that all Chevrolets, without exception, are pick-up trucks. Even though a number Chevrolet non-pick-ups also drive by, you ignore them completely or else rationalize them away with something like, "They don't count because they're not really on the street."

That is exactly what you've been doing. All we need to do to disprove your contention that all Chevrolets are pick-up trucks would be to show you at least one Chevrolet that is not a pick-up truck. And all we need to do to disprove your contention that there are no igneous layers in the Geologic Column, but rather only instrusions, would be to show you at least one igneous layer.

We have done just that, shown you igneous layers in the Geologic Column. In reaction, not only do you continue to deal simple and obvious reality, but you try to change reality by concocting outlandish redefinitions of words. That is a lawyer trick intended to trick and deceive people and not a way to deal with reality.

When Emily Litella would do what you've been doing, everybody could see how ludicrously wrong her rant was and how she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. But, unlike you, at least she was able to listen to Chevy explain it to her, realize her mistake, and say sweetly, "Never mind." You need to do a helluva lot more work on that second part of her act.

And just why do you find igneous layers in the Geologic Column so threatening to your theology?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 9:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 11:28 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 11:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(4)
Message 151 of 740 (734128)
07-26-2014 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
07-25-2014 11:28 PM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
No, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, how on earth could it.

That's what I'm trying to figure out! Normally when you go this bull-headed deep into denial you claim that you're defending what the Bible says. So why are you so deep in denial this time?

I just don't see how there could be actual lava layers among the sedimentary layers.

Well then learn some geology! In this forum you've explicitly refused to learn geology and when I suggest it to you before you tried to flood me with emails filled with hysterical screaming. Obviously you are dead set against learning anything, but that does not eliminate the very real need for you to learn some geology. Not only would you finally understand the very basic processes that have to be understood and discussed when discussing geology (isn't that what you're supposedly trying to do here?), but you won't have to resort to ludicrous complaints about not being able to understand what somebody posted because he used normal and basic standard geological terminology. Plus, you'd be able to think through and describe your ideas so that people could finally understand it!

Learn some geology already!

SHOW ME AN ACTUAL LAVA LAYER THAT IS NOT INTRUSIVE INTO SEDIMENTARY ROCK.

IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY! REPEATEDLY! READ THE MESSAGES INSTEAD OF WILLFULLY IGNORING THEM!

I'm not going to do your work for you. Especially since you will just ignore what you don't want to see, yet again!

Really, why are you so deep in denial over this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 07-25-2014 11:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 1:50 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 154 of 740 (734131)
07-26-2014 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
07-26-2014 1:50 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
I shouldn't have to explain it to you yet again when it has already been explained to you time after time.

And here again you admit to ignoring the information that others have put together for your benefit. You are being willfully ignorant. And you are guarding your ignorance as if it were something very precious, which it is for a creationist. Because creationism depends on ignorance. The reason for that is because the actual evidence not only does not support creationists' claims, but it directly contradicts and therefore refutes them. Faced with the actual real-world evidence, the creationist's task becomes one of denying that evidence. That task is approached in a number of ways, including lying about the evidence, denying that it exists, ignoring it, feigning being too stupid to understand the evidence and explanations of it, etc. More important than deceiving others about the evidence, the creationist must deceive himself.

That is what we observe you doing constantly. And it's getting worse. You need to pull yourself out of your downward spiral of denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 1:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:20 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 158 of 740 (734135)
07-26-2014 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
07-26-2014 2:19 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
Yes, you do have an agenda here. Your agenda is to lie about the evidence and attempt to overthrow reality.

Since you don't know what you're talking about and you are abysmally ignorant of the evidence and about the sciences that you are attempt to overthrow, how is your agenda proceeding?

Think maybe learning something might actually benefit your efforts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:27 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 160 of 740 (734137)
07-26-2014 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
07-26-2014 2:20 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
I've been dealing with creationists on-line since the mid-1980's and studying "creation science" since 1981. During that time I have seen the same patterns of behavior unfold. The best I could describe it would be a kind of mental pathology. You are displaying the classic symptoms. It really is painful just to watch your decline.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:32 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 162 of 740 (734139)
07-26-2014 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
07-26-2014 2:27 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
Sorry, Faith, but I'm not the one who is lost.

In the meantime, Faith, get a clue. You may need your ignorance to protect your beliefs and faith from reality, but why should you need to? If for no other reason, you need to learn in order to prosecute your agenda more effectively:

quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.

32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.

33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)



You are ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, which is why you are giving yourself an ulcer (as you described it). Only you can change that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 163 of 740 (734140)
07-26-2014 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
07-26-2014 2:32 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
You are incredibly rude, presumptuous and abusive.

You really must stop talking to your reflection in the mirror. You just described yourself perfectly.

I'm just telling you the truth. Funny how much "true Christians" detest the truth, even though they claim to worship one who had personified himself as Truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:48 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 164 of 740 (734141)
07-26-2014 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
07-26-2014 1:50 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
... a dozen people ... without even bothering to figure out where you're coming from.

That is not true! They have been trying their best to figure out what you're trying to describe. The problem is that, because of your ignorance and your hatred of using standard terminology, what you present is a garbled mess. Nobody can understand what you're trying to say most of the time. I have seen many attempts on others' part (I don't have the time to waste with you) to ask you for clarification or at least to verify their interpretation. At the same time, I have seen you revile them and blow them off.

Maybe it would go smoother if you were to try to work with them instead of making it even more impossible to figure out what the hell you're talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 1:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 166 of 740 (734144)
07-26-2014 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
07-26-2014 2:48 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
Which is why you keep heaping them on the people you meet here?

I'm providing constructive criticism. You are doing many things very wrong. You need to know that if you are ever going to take any corrective action.

Or do you prefer that nobody says anything to warn you that you are about to drive off a cliff?

BTW, complaining loudly about having been insulted in order to change the subject away from the evidence is another creationist tactic. I've even seen them lie about having been insulted. I've even seen you use that dishonest tactic on others here far too many times, like when someone patiently tried to explain to you a geological concept that you obviously knew nothing about and you reviled him for being patronizing. That was a case where you just made up the insult.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 2:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:02 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 168 of 740 (734147)
07-26-2014 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:02 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
I am working on the evidence for the universal situation of the laying down of strata followed by tectonic, volcanic, faulting and other distortions of the strata.

Then learn some geology and how geological processes work!

Maintaining your current state of willful ignorance can only hinder you in your efforts. Plus you would be incapable of communicating your findings to anyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:27 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 185 of 740 (734192)
07-26-2014 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
07-26-2014 3:27 AM


Re: dating by magma sills and dikes
For all the carrying on about how I need to learn geology I have NO idea what you would have me learn.

That is a very telling admission that you just made there. You have no idea what you don't know. You don't even know that there is something that you don't know. That is the height of ignorance!

There is one thing that is learned by everybody who actively seeks knowledge, who seeks to learn. And it is the same thing regardless of what field they study and of how extensive their knowledge in that field is. And it is the same thing that even the foremost expert in that field, the possessor of the vastest amount of knowledge in that field, has learned and keeps foremost in mind. There is always something that we don't know.

No matter how much you learn about a subject, there's always something that you still do not know. And it is very important to keep that in mind for very practical reasons. Because your studies and your research are what points out to you what you still do not know. And with the knowledge of what you still do not know, you have a direction to follow in gaining that knowledge you lack. And in the process you discover even more things that you do not know, which provides the direction of your continued research. That is why "goddidit" is the worst possible "answer" to give, not only because it poses as the ultimate answer while actually not answered a damned thing, but because it not only provides no new questions but it also blocks the asking of further questions. In science, finding new questions is just as valuable as gaining new knowledge, if not more valuable.

You admit that you are in that sorriest of ignorant states. You don't even know that you don't know anything. That not only leaves you with no clue of where to start learning, but it also removes from your mind the need, motivation, and desire to learn. Coupled with your devotion to creationism, which depends on maintain carefully guarded ignorance, that puts you in an even sorrier state as you feel that you must guard against learning, against losing your ignorance. Pitiful.

I've learned a LOT of geology over the years here and I'm continuing to learn whatever I can learn to deal with the issues I want to deal with. I don't see how I could do other than that.

Yes, you've picked up a few isolated facts along the way, but that doesn't make you the big expert that you pretend to be as you brag about knowing more than real practicing geologists do. It would be like me, having mastered the Greek alphabet, proclaiming that I'm now the foremost expert on the entirety of all forms of the Greek language. Sheer idiocy.

We've observed you here as you have repeatedly displayed your ignorance of geology. The predominant reaction has been both to point out that what you say is wrong and to explain why it is wrong while at the same time providing you with the correct information. A perfect learning opportunity for you, which you invariably reject and douse liberally with human waste.

A perfect example of this was in Message 83 where you reject the information that edge had given by complaining about him trying to "bury {you} under a mountain of jargon and obscure geological concepts." I had read through the same posts and it certainly didn't look like too much information, it used normal geological terminology that a basic student of geology should be familiar with, nor were the geological concepts at all obscure, at least not to someone with a basic knowledge of geology.

Of course, the first complaint of the willfully ignorant will be about "jargon". Every discipline has its own specialized vocabulary. The purpose is not to bewilder outsiders, but rather to promote rapid and accurate communication with other practitioners. Geologists have the terminology of geology which they use to accurately communicate the ideas of geology. That is the language of geology. If you want to join that conversation, then learn the language. Don't complain and moan and make up lame excuses about "jargon", but rather learn the language. If you encounter a term that you do not know, then look it up and learn it!

That works both ways, BTW. Until you learn the language, you cannot understand the conversation. But at the same time as long as you don't know or use the language, nobody else is able to understand you. For example, there's the most recent posts between Percy and herebedragons in which they're trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about. Learn the language and use it so that others can understand you. Yes, I do realize that creating and exploiting confusion is a primary tool of creationists, but please try to rise above that.

So, since you don't have a clue what you don't know about geology, take advantage of the replies to you. I'd say that that edge's "mountain of jargon" and "obscure geological concepts" would be a very good place to start. Study up on those concepts, which as I recall are pretty basic concepts. And learn the terminology that he used. And treat all other posts as similar opportunities for learning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 3:27 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 10:42 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 195 of 740 (734209)
07-26-2014 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
07-26-2014 5:52 PM


Re: Layer / Sill
And I would have thought my constant refrain "a sill not a layer" would have done it, but no.

What "constant refrain"? In this topic, you didn't even start to mention the word "sill" until last night at 8:48PM PDT in Message 147: "we're talking a layer laid down in order, right, not a sill that penetrates between sedimentary layers already in place, right?" For that matter, that was the first time that the word "sill" appeared in this topic.

Before that, you did mention it once on 15 July in Message 1287 of the Continuation of Flood Discussion topic:

Faith writes:

When lava IS found as a layer in the Stratigraphic Column it is nevertheless an intrusive sill, a younger rock, and not a layer like the sedimentary layers that are the main identifiers of the Column and form the basis of the Geologic Time Scale.

And you mentioned it one more time in Message 1281, though that message did not appear in the search list. You had apparently gotten the term from NoNukes in Message 1270 where he quoted from a Wikipedia article on "layered intrusion".

So all this time you had been arguing about igneous layers, not sills. At least not until last night, less than 24 hours ago. So much for expecting any honesty from you.

Sills are intrusions that form a layer between pre-existing layers. Igneous layers laid down atop the ground, as in a lava flow, also form layers completely in . The former is an intrusion whereas the latter is not. And geologists can tell when a layer is sill because the layers that it intrudes into are deformed, fractured, partially melted, and suffer whatever effects arise from close contact with molten magma. Of course, from a lava flow on the surface, only the ground beneath the igneous layer would have suffered from the heat, but not from having been displaced since it would not have been displaced.

Again, learning something about geology and geological processes and the evidence that those processes leave behind would be more than worthwhile. Perhaps you should obtain a standard first-year textbook and work your way through it.

{ABE}For one thing, those processes leave behind evidence, that e-word that we have always been asking you for and which you have not been able to provide. If you learn about those processes and the kinds of evidence they leave behind, then that would enable you to actually look for the evidence that you need. And the evidence that one of your ideas is wrong, which will allow you to correct your ideas.

At this point, it appears that you are still trying to assert that all igneous layers in the Geologic Column are sills. That is clearly and obviously not true.

Yes, the whole argument was insane from the beginning. But you are clearly the source of that insanity.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE: processes leave behind evidence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 5:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 07-26-2014 8:57 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(6)
Message 475 of 740 (734591)
07-31-2014 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Faith
07-31-2014 1:38 AM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
If science contradicts God, so much for science.

But science doesn't contradict God, just your fallible human-made theology that has serious issues with reality.

Your beliefs and dogmatic assertions have nothing to do with God nor with the Bible. Rather, they revolve around your theology. While you maintain dogmatically that God wrote the Bible, that is only because of your theology. And while you maintain that your theology is also infallible, that is seriously and tragically wrong. Theologies are purely Man-made. Fallible human assumptions about God and about the Bible, fallible human interpretations of God and of the Bible, fallible human interpretations about God and the Bible, fallible human pronouncements based on their fallible human theology.

God wrote the rocks; that is the true Word of God. Science reads and listens to the rocks and follow the evidence that they provide. Your theology blinds you to the true Word of God as you chose to replace it with the Word of Man. Your theology misleads you to reject reality and to reject the evidence. You repeatedly and stubbornly refuse to look at the evidence, hence refusing to listen to the true Word of God.

If your religion cannot deal with reality and hence contradicts God, then so much for your religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 1:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:16 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 734 of 740 (735462)
08-16-2014 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 723 by Percy
08-08-2014 8:56 AM


Re: Discussion Can Continue
Faith said she'll be responding at her blog.

Which means that she'll be ignoring what she easily can. Which is cool, kind of, since that's the only way she can avoid the corner that she keeps painting herself into. Or rather that her theology keeps painting her into whenever she makes any attempt to reconcile her theology with reality.

... but she's caught in a very difficult place that we cannot understand, trapped between two irreconcilable views. On the one hand there is her unwavering faith in the truth of her interpretations of the Bible that tell her the world is young and that a global flood produced all the geology we see today, and on the other hand is the evidence from the real world that says the world is ancient and that the geology we see today took a very long time to happen.

We all agree these two views cannot both be true. Those of us on the science side find the real world to be persistent, uncompromising, and in many ways comprehensible through scientific study. It drives anyone willing to painstakingly follow a chain of evidence toward inescapable conclusions.

Faith believes those who follow this process to conclusions inconsistent with her Biblical interpretations are wrong but can offer no scientific reasons why they are wrong. She says the reasons are obvious to anyone, and she begins by citing a number of reasons, but as each reason is shown to be scientifically untenable she is eventually left only with the declaration, "It's clearly obvious," or sometimes with the dismissive, "Oh, science, blah blah blah, science is wrong." (These quotes are, of course, paraphrases.)

Faith blames us for our refusal to properly consider her evidence and our intractable rejection of the obvious, while we blame her for, well, where does one start?


We have seen oh so many go down that path. Faith has chosen to bail out in order to not face the truth, an anticipated path since the preservation of one's own ignorance is paramount in these situations.

Another case was Glenn R. Morton who hired several creationist geology graduates who had been trained by the Institute for Creation Research, hence directly or indirectly by the very Father of Modern Flood Geology, Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering. Later, Morris' son, John Morris, challenged Morton's presentation at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism, presenting himself as a petroleum geologist solely on the basis of having once taught a class on the subject at the University of Oklahoma. Remaining safely enveloped within academia's distance from the real world, one can feel safe in ignoring everyday realities. But Glenn R. Morton and the creationist-trained geologists had no such luxuries to buffer them from reality. Every single day, they had to deal with the multitude of rock-hard geological facts that their teachers, the ICR, had repeatedly taught them did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning. Oh, yes, Faith can run away from those facts and maintain her precious ignorance -- she will not believe this of me, but I fully realize how exceedingly valuable that ignorance is to her religious beliefs. But what of those who do not share her luxury? Every one of those creationist geologists Morton had hired suffered severe crises of faith. Not because of geology, but rather because of creationism. Morton himself was driven to the verge of atheism, only able to pull himself back because of an unorthodox harmonization.

And I have presented a view that Faith completely poo-poo'ed away, that since creationists must believe that God created the earth, then God also created the geological evidence. So ignoring or denying the rock-hard geological evidence in favor of a Man-written document (namely, the Bible) should be considered a form of apostasy.

And, of course, I have hard-earned experience with Faith's blog entries, in which she lied about our email exchange.

She approached me with geological questions, mainly concerning her misbegotten notions of mud drying out to become rock. I strongly recommended that she turn to microscopic examination of rocks, along with talking with actual geologists about that kind of information. Her response was to scream at me hysterically, as evidenced by the very greatly enlarged font sizes, colors, etc.

Later, I visited her blog and found her reference to our "correspondence". She mentioned a "question that she had asked me" about the composition of a rock layer and made much to do about my "inability to answer that question." That question and its answer are trivial, but it turns out that the lying ***** had never ever asked me that question. How could anyone ever possibly be able to respond to a question that they are never ever asked?

To quote the thoroughly lamented late Robin Williams from his infamous late 70's Roxy performance in front of John Ritter, when in improve-mode Ritter told Williams to kneal before him:

quote:
Oh,no, I did that once before and you taught me oh-so-well!

That was followed by Ritter having been splattered with the contents of a water bottle, whereupon he exclaimed, "I'm wet!", to which Robin Williams exclaimed, "Then you must be ready!"

Faith, we know all too well what kinds of dishonest tricks you pull on your blog.

We do not expect the leopard to change its spots.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by Percy, posted 08-08-2014 8:56 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019