Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 393 of 740 (734484)
07-30-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Faith
07-30-2014 1:05 AM


Re: igneous layers
I wish you'd keep track of whom I'm responding to and the context in which I'm responding. Tuff's not being an intrusive rock IS irrelevant within the context defined.
Sorry if I missed other relevant examples you say you posted besides the Cardenas.'
Well, the tuffs would be one of them...
Try post #381.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:16 AM edge has replied
 Message 560 by Percy, posted 08-02-2014 5:46 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 394 of 740 (734485)
07-30-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by PaulK
07-30-2014 1:14 AM


Re: igneous layers
The context was your claim that igneous rocks within your "geological column" are always intrusive.
I would say that pointing out that tuffs are never intrusive is very relevant to that.
Thank you for clearing that up. Yes, materially to this discussion, they are no different from lava flows.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2014 1:14 AM PaulK has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 399 of 740 (734490)
07-30-2014 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Faith
07-30-2014 1:48 AM


Re: igneous layers
And within my very carefully defined understanding of The Geologic Column they are, ...
Then I'd love to hear your explanation of why we find fossil tree branches in some tuffs...
... the only exception THAT I'M AWARE of being the Cardenas. Sorry if I've missed others but I don't remember them. All the tuffs are NOT in The Geo Column AS I DEFINE IT.
And yet, there they are. Clearly depicted as part of a 'geological column', regardless of how you define it.
That WAS the context whether you like it or not.
You don't seem to get the gist of the message here. It is relevant because it proves you wrong.
Oh, wait...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:21 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 400 of 740 (734491)
07-30-2014 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Faith
07-30-2014 1:50 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
They are exactly what the Flood and ONLY the Flood COULD produce.
Please document.
How about an example of something that only the flood would produce.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 1:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:37 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 432 of 740 (734529)
07-30-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Faith
07-30-2014 2:16 AM


Re: igneous layers
If the tuffs are one of your examples then they are not examples of what I was talking about within the context given, as I SAID. The tuffs do NOT occur within what I've been calling The Geo Column, and what I've been calling the Geo Column IS the context. The Cardenas Basalt, again, remains the ONLY example that DOES fit my definition.
Well, they were not one of my examples, but they certainly should qualify. Why do you say that they don't?
And simply defining them out of the discussion is not a good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 2:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 433 of 740 (734530)
07-30-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:21 AM


Re: igneous layers
Volcanic ash does that to wood. What's that got to do with my definition of the geologic Column?
I thought you said that the tuffs were intrusive.
My definition may be wrong but the context in which I said there's only intrusive magma in The Geo Column was that definition and if you stay within the definition as I gave it then there are no tuffs there. And again the only example of a real volcanic layer within the Geo Column as I defined it, is the Cardenas.
Why should we discuss a wrong definition?
Look, this is a simple logical point concerning the context. This argument is Nitpickery to the Max. I still have to go on and think about the tuffs too, which is hard to do with everybody insisting they are part of my definition of the Geo Column which they are not.
Maybe you shouldn't make outlandish comments until you've thought about them a little bit more.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 434 of 740 (734531)
07-30-2014 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:37 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
Huge limestone rocks.
Bazillions of fossils all over the world.
Yes, mainstream geology...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 435 of 740 (734532)
07-30-2014 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:09 AM


Re: Nope, not a myth
Well, of course YOU wouldn't, because you think the Bible is a myth, but if it ever hit you that it's not, that it is in fact all true, all real, a revelation of truth you couldn't ever guess at, you'd have a whole different perspective on these things. And if the revelation hit you suddenly I'm sure you'd be knocked to the floor by it and take weeks or months, really years, to get back to anything remotely normal. What it would do to your geological thinking would be interesting to see. Maybe not much at first, but if you really truly recognized the Bible as true as written it would have to affect it eventually. My whole world was turned upside down by my discovery of the God of the Bible, or really I'd say it was turned right side up, having been upside down all my life up to then. I think if it doesn't lay you out flat on the floor (so to speak) you haven't really grasped it. Some of the theistic evolutionists and Genesis allegorizers and others who refuse to take it at face value but bend it to their own worldly opinions don't know what they are missing. But atheists who think it's all a myth certainly don't either.
So, you are basically saying that your primary Geology text is the Bible. Why should I take it the same as you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 436 of 740 (734533)
07-30-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:27 AM


Re: igneous layers
First of all I need a good clear example I can see for myself is what you claim it is. Just rattling off a list of things you think should do it, doesn't.
You asked for examples. If you are not going to pay attention, fine. I won't put so much work into providing you with information in the future.
If you are just going to dismiss our posts, then you are being disrespectful and you fail to discuss in good faith. That's fine with me too, because you undermine your own arguments and everyone can see that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 437 of 740 (734534)
07-30-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:14 AM


Re: Flood timing versus OE Time Scale timing
No, you are wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a presupposition, it IS an observation and if it turns out that there is volcanic activity during the Flood that is NOT a big deal, it's just a shift in the timing of things.
Nonsense. You have said that the Bible is your guide to geological interpretation. If that is not a presuppositonal position, then there are none.
Volcanism, tectonism etc all seem to have occurred at or near the end of the Flood, but pinning down the actual time has not been possible for me yet.
More nonsense. We have shown you numerous examples where that is not the case.
And yes I know volcanism is associated with plate movement, that's why I expect them to occur in the same time frame.
Then you know that it happened while the sediments were being deposited during the Paleozoic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 438 of 740 (734535)
07-30-2014 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:16 AM


Re: An important admission
The Young Earth does have to be assumed because I see no way to get anything else out of the Bible without doing violence to it. But the strata and the fossils apart from everything else HAVE to be explained by the Flood, the other explanations are ridiculous.
That's interesting.
Then who wrote this?
"No, you are wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a presupposition, ..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 439 of 740 (734537)
07-30-2014 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:05 AM


Re: An important admission
I'm not just claiming something because I believe ni the Bible. I think it's just plain glaringly obvious that the strata and the fossils HAVE to be explained by the worldwide Flood.
There are a few glaringly obvious things we can take away from your posts, but this is not one of them.
It is clear that you presuppose a biblical flood and then endeavor to fit all of the facts to that model.
However, your contortionist logic collides with reality when we look at all of the data, not just the sedimentary sequence of just the Paleozoic rocks of just the Grand Canyon. Then, true to form, you resort to denial and YEC redefinition of terms. This does not make for a credible argument.
I have always said that when a YEC declares that something is 'obvious', you should be prepared to tax your imagination, but when it is 'glaringly obvious', that sets a whole new standard for cognitive dissonance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 448 of 740 (734551)
07-30-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Faith
07-30-2014 3:21 PM


Re: crabs and trilobites
I can't take such specific incidentals as your idea of where crabs and trilobites should be in the stack of strata as all that damning.
So you can't explain it, right?
You keep repeating it, but there are lots of little oddnesses in the strata that one might think couldn't be explained by the Flood.
"Little oddnesses"? That's certainly one way of describing the inconsistencies of YEC. At what point to the little oddnesses add up to an invalid theory? Or does on have to be a little odd to ignore the oddnesses?
But that's nothing but your subjective supposition, you don't know how things would have been sorted, it's all just interpretation you know.
So, accepting odnesses is not subjective?
Pesky details....
You know, it would help your argument if you could address them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 3:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 451 of 740 (734554)
07-30-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
07-30-2014 3:39 PM


Re: Cardenas
It never fails to amaze me how rare it is for anybody here ever to put a positive construction on anything I say, ...
Did it ever occur to you that there is a reason for this?
but always come up with the sleaziest possible interpretation.
Please tell us what is sleazy about providing you with a mainstream explanation for virtually every argument you make.
I HAVE tons of evidence for this order of things.
You have nothing but your own personal incredulity for old ages and evolution You have provided no evidence for you scenario other than "it must be because the Bible says so!"
One doesn't abandon a hypothesis the first time a knee-jerk objection comes from the opposition with a vested interest in "proving" me wrong.
Ummm, Faith? We are WAY beyong the 'first time'.
I haven't yet given the Cardenas a careful think-through; that whole bunch of rocks beneath the GC is a very complicated situation and it's going to take time to sort it all out, WHEN I'm finally able to get to it.
Why bother thinking about it? You haven't done that about the other occurrences that we have provided you with.
And I don't ASSUME there is only one such supposed extrusive event, so far the evidence is that there is only one.
This has been amply proven wrong. It is a mystery to me how one so hopeless can be named Faith.
The objections I've been getting to my view of the geo column, for just the most recent example, tell me nobody cares to understand anything from my point of view, I HAVE TO accept theirs, the sooner the better, as soon as they've posted them for the very first time, or I'm being "evasive" or "lying" or "denying" or whatever. And that's all you're doing here, putting anything I think in a bad light which is all from your own assumptions.
Oh, I feel sorry for you.
If there's one thing I've learned from EvC it's to expect a great screaming chorus of objections to ANYTHING I post, that eventually will show themselves to be irrelevant if I just take my time to think through the issues. Which of course isn't easy when you're being deluged with objections before you've even begun to grasp the particular issue.
Again, we are WAY beyond the beginning here.
So, you think I should just fold up because the Cardenas is supposedly a killer objection.
How many exceptions to your rigid interpretation do you want? Seems like one should do it, but we have provided many that you simply dismiss.
Sorry, not when I know I'm on the right track on this issue from other angles. The Cardenas will have to wait, and I expect it will eventually fall into place.
I'm sure it will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 3:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:49 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 452 of 740 (734556)
07-30-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Faith
07-30-2014 4:07 PM


Re: New depositions strangely different from old strata
You're blind to the evidence for the Flood like everybody else here who has a vested interest in denying it. And of course it starts with denying that the Bible is God's word. All the assertions that I have no evidence can easily enough be answered that I do. Might as well give it up.
This is getting to be comical.
All we have is your impression from 'looking at cross sections' that it's 'glaringly obvious' (to you) that the rock record depicts a biblical flood and everything tectonic or igneous happened afterward.
That's it.
A monumentally uninformed opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 4:07 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