Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 1:29 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 84 of 1939 (752965)
03-15-2015 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by kbertsche
03-15-2015 12:22 AM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
I am not questioning the veracity of God's word, of course. Not even in Genesis. Rather, I am questioning--and rejecting--the YEC interpretation of God's word.

Faith has explicitly declared that her intrepretation of the Bible is infallible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by kbertsche, posted 03-15-2015 12:22 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 3:45 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 112 of 1939 (753009)
03-15-2015 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
03-15-2015 3:45 PM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
I'm not going to bother to find the several places you have claimed to be infallible. Your opinion of your interpretation is obvious in every post.

But I did ask, twice, in the last GC thread, if your interpretation was infallible and you responded in the affirmative.

Will you now declare that your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong? That when you claim to be promulgating God's word it's just the opinion of a fallible human?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 3:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:37 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 133 of 1939 (753044)
03-16-2015 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
03-15-2015 9:37 PM


Re: Bible truth vs. Science
I couldn't possibly claim that I understand the Bible infallibly, I'm sure you've misconstrued something.

I asked you explicitly if your interpretation of the Bible was infallible and you sid yes. More than once. Can't find those right now but I do see that someone else noticed:

Faith writes:

She has started several times that her reading of the Bible is infallible.

Never said any such thing.

JonF pointed out where you said exactly that in another thread, and in this very thread you stated that the Bible is the final word, that you and others like you have the correct interpretation, and that though there are differences among you that you all concur on the important points, and that religions whose interpretations differ on important points (like the Roman Catholic church) are false churches.

Your rule seems to be, "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong." The rule everyone else is following is, "If you can't support your arguments with evidence, please go find some evidence before continuing the discussion." By the way, the evidence has to be connected to the arguments. You *have* cited a great deal of evidence, but almost none of it connects to your arguments. It's all non sequiturs as bad as, "I'll be faster if I carry Usain Bolt sports cards in my back pocket."

You always emphatically insist that everything you say is correct, but only until the absurdity of something you've said finally dawns on you, at which point you switch to delivering a lecture on how we willfully misinterpret or exaggerate or overliteralize everything you say. Lecture time again, I presume?

--Percy

It's obvious that you think your interpretation of the Bible cannot be wrong, and you continually state that what you write is God's words. to me that means infallible.

As I wrote before and you ignored, will you now declare that your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong? That when you claim to be promulgating God's word it's just the opinion of a fallible human? If you can't declare that you think your interpretation is infallible.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-15-2015 9:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-16-2015 10:30 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1056 of 1939 (755865)
04-12-2015 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by ThinAirDesigns
04-12-2015 2:45 PM


Re: Best evidence for the title of this thread yet
Faith makes up her own definitions and insists that geologists have it wrong. It takes forever to figure out what she's trying to say for that and other reasons.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-12-2015 2:45 PM ThinAirDesigns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by Faith, posted 04-12-2015 4:59 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1059 of 1939 (755869)
04-12-2015 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by Faith
04-12-2015 4:59 PM


Re: Best evidence for the title of this thread yet
Totally substanceless posts attacking a poster are supposed to be against the rules.

Ironic.

This time I'm going to ask you for evidence from the last hundred or so posts on this thread to support your accusation

Your insistence that a stratum is defined as sedimentary rock deposited horizontally. And edge's post just above this shows that others interpret your words as I do. Any confusion in communication is at your end.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by Faith, posted 04-12-2015 4:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1068 by Faith, posted 04-13-2015 12:10 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 1075 of 1939 (755897)
04-13-2015 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1067 by Faith
04-13-2015 12:06 AM


Re: Best evidence for the title of this thread yet
First of all it's a LAYER among other layers, which the Wikipedia definition you posted affirms:

"In geology and related fields, a stratum (plural: strata) is a layer of sedimentary rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers. The "stratum" is the fundamental unit in a stratigraphic column and forms the basis of the study of stratigraphy." (bold added) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum)


Gee, I don't see any mention of "horizontal" in there.

I've redefined nothing.

I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally.

Those two statements of yours contradict each other. The definition of stratum does not include "horizontal".

LOOK AT THE PICTURES ON THAT WIKIPEDIA PAGE: HORIZONTALLY DEPOSITED ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, AND MORE ROCK

I see several strata in that picture which are not horizontal.

Many strata are deposited horizontally. It's not an absolute requirement, as we know from centuries of study after Steno. "I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally" is incorrect and is your personal definition and you are insisted the geologists have it wrong. Exactly as I said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1067 by Faith, posted 04-13-2015 12:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1076 of 1939 (755898)
04-13-2015 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1068 by Faith
04-13-2015 12:10 AM


Re: Best evidence for the title of this thread yet
This time I'm going to ask you for evidence from the last hundred or so posts on this thread to support your accusation

Your insistence that a stratum is defined as sedimentary rock deposited horizontally. And edge's post just above this shows that others interpret your words as I do. Any confusion in communication is at your end.

Oh, silly me. Of course, THEIR lie about strata is MY fault. Of course, should have known.

Their definition of a stratum is not a lie. Yours is. Of course it's your fault, but you still won't acknowledge it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by Faith, posted 04-13-2015 12:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 1095 of 1939 (755951)
04-14-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1094 by Faith
04-14-2015 10:15 AM


Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
Yup, that's what Steno came up with. And they still are mostly true, but not in all cases. As geologists have learned in the centuries since Steno.

But strata are not defined as horizontal today, because we know better.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stratum:

quote:
stratum: noun stra·tum \'stra-t?m, 'stra-\
a sheetlike mass of sedimentary rock or earth of one kind lying between beds of other kinds

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stratum:

quote:
Geology. a single bed of sedimentary rock, generally consisting of one kind of matter representing continuous deposition.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/strata:

quote:
(usually plural) any of the distinct layers into which sedimentary rocks are divided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum:

quote:
a layer of sedimentary rock or soil with internally consistent characteristics that distinguish it from other layers.

and there's lots more. So your "I'm saying the definition of strata is that it deposits horizontally" is false. It's your own private and erroneous definition, and you are insisting that the geologists who use their definition are wrong.

(Not even going into the fact that "horizontal" is poorly defined and never strictly seen in the field).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1094 by Faith, posted 04-14-2015 10:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 1110 of 1939 (755979)
04-14-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1098 by Faith
04-14-2015 11:07 AM


Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
Actually, I don't see a definition of 'strata' here. Please explain. I thought we had gone over this definition before and it showed that you were wrong, and that the term strata also includes things like soil and gravel, etc.

Did you miss that post?
No, I think it's an insult to Steno, who was addressing strata, rock already formed.

But he was not defining strata. He was addressing the most common way in which strata are deposited.

Just because you "show" me something doesn't mean I accept it. To include loose or unconsolidated gravel etc is wrong in this context. It's not as if Steno had not seen such things, but they aren't strata so he doesn't address them with his principle

OK, that's cool. No gravel strata, at least for the purpose of argument. But...

I don't recall anyone presenting "loose or unconsolidated gravel" as a stratum, I do, however, recall many examples of solid rock strata that obviously were deposited with big bumps in 'em. We know there are other (atypical) non-horizontal ways in which strata are deposited and do not follow the principle of horizontality and we've produced many examples.

That's probably why no modern definition of stratum requires horizontality. Steno was not a prophet producing unchangeable commandments graven in stone. (Fundmentalists see so much as graven in stone). He did produce guidelines which fit most but not all situations. The modern definitions are not any kind of insult or travesty; they are more accurate modifications to Steno's versions. Remember your reference at Principle of original horizontality?

quote:
"As one of Steno's Laws, the Principle of Original Horizontality served well in the nascent days of geological science. However, it is now known that not all sedimentary layers are deposited purely horizontally.

Please stop flogging the loose gravel strawman, drop your personal and incorrect definiton of srtatum, and address the solid rock strata examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1098 by Faith, posted 04-14-2015 11:07 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1123 by Faith, posted 04-14-2015 7:16 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 1159 of 1939 (756081)
04-15-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1123 by Faith
04-14-2015 7:16 PM


Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
You missed the photo edge posted of the gravel on a hill?

OK, you are correct there.

But this entire discussion is about this issue, whether layers could form BY DEPOSITION IN THEIR LOOSE STATE over an irregular surface such as the gneiss in the road cut photo or the monadnocks in HBD's diagrams and just about every other post for days now.

I.e. it isn't about whether strata are loose today, but how they could have formed non-horizontally before they lithified, and your harping on loose layers (strata or not) today is an attempt to evade the real issue.

Most sandstones were not deposited horizontally, and many examples of other lithified sediments that obviously did not deposit horizontally.

There are NO exceptions to the principle of original horizontality in relation to the STRATA.

Repeating your claims doesn't make them true.

You have your own personal definition of stratum and keep insisting that the geologists are wrong. "Horizontality" is not part of the definition of stratum, as you would have it.

Per the geologists definitions, some strata are deposited non-horizontally.

Steno's laws cover almost all, but definitely not all situations we see in the rocks. As has been demonstrated over and over. Steno's laws are not the final word, today's definitions are what real geologists work with. Those definitions differ from Steno.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1123 by Faith, posted 04-14-2015 7:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1161 by Faith, posted 04-15-2015 11:13 AM JonF has responded
 Message 1168 by edge, posted 04-15-2015 11:54 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1160 of 1939 (756082)
04-15-2015 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1126 by Faith
04-14-2015 7:28 PM


I CAN'T STAND THIS. YOU ARE ALL VIOLATING THE SIMPLEST FACTS OF REALITY AND PRETENDING YOU ARE THE ONES WITH THE EXPERTISE. YOU'VE ALL LOST YOUR MINDS!

And you complained about my relatively mild criticism.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1126 by Faith, posted 04-14-2015 7:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 1172 of 1939 (756117)
04-15-2015 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1161 by Faith
04-15-2015 11:13 AM


Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
Steno's laws cover almost all, but definitely not all situations we see in the rocks. As has been demonstrated over and over.

That has not been demonstrated at all. You claim sandstone. Have you ever noticed the amazing horizontality of the Coconino?

There's oodles of cross-bedding in the Coconino. Deposited at about 25-35 degrees and lithified. From Coconino Cross Bedding:


quote:
This image taken along the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon clearly shows cross bedding in the Coconino Sandstone layer exposed by the canyon. The tan colored Coconino sandstone is one of the most dominant features of the Grand Canyon. This erosion resistant layer forms a spectacular cliff of 300-500 feet ( 90 – 150 meters) not far below the Canyon’s rim. Dating to approximately 260 million years old, the Coconino is composed of nearly pure quartz sand. The cross bedded features indicate that the Coconino Sandstone is basically petrified sand dunes. Formed through aeolian (wind) deposition, sand dunes slowly migrate down wind. Sand grains are carried up the windward side of the dune then deposited near the peak. Angled layers are formed as the newly deposited sand avalanches down the leeward side of the dune. The strata of the Coconino Sandstone show some of the most distinct examples of cross bedding on the planet.

But even if we could play billiards on the Coconino, that would not give any significant support to your claim that all strata are deposited horizontally, that's one of the many millions of strata we see and the many millions more we don't see because they are completely buried.

Steno's laws are not the final word, today's definitions are what real geologists work with. Those definitions differ from Steno.

That's for sure, they've denied the clear meaning of Steno and gone from sane to innsane.

They have expanded on Steno's findings and made them more accurate. You have not provided any smidgen of an attempt to support your claim of "gone from sane to innsane." You just keep repeating it. Over and over and over and over again. And over again.

To address our responses you need to demonstrate with evidence and logical analysis that all the examples of lithified strata we've presented did originally deposit horizontally. Your uninformed opinion alone does not suffice.

Then you also have to establish with evidenced and logical analysis why Steno's original formulation is better than the many modern definitions of strata we've provided. "All strata are deposited horizontally" is not a fact in evidence and cannot be used to support your claim, that's circular reasoning, just another unsupported assertion.

Got any evidence or analysis?

Didn't think so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1161 by Faith, posted 04-15-2015 11:13 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1280 of 1939 (756376)
04-19-2015 9:02 AM


I'm surprised that nobody's pointed out that mudslides consist of previously eroded material. There's no creation of sedimentary material in a mudslide.
  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1430 of 1939 (756609)
04-23-2015 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1425 by Faith
04-23-2015 2:25 PM


Re: draped sandstone continued
Those are overhangs, not separations. The layers are resting directly on each other, whether or not you they are neatly or messily stacked
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1425 by Faith, posted 04-23-2015 2:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1434 by edge, posted 04-23-2015 5:36 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 1436 by Faith, posted 04-23-2015 9:03 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5036
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1431 of 1939 (756610)
04-23-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1428 by Faith
04-23-2015 3:02 PM


Re: draped sandstone continued
Sedimentary environments can't be sloped? Tell all the ponds and lakes and oceans they're doing it wrong.

Oops, I forgot that you don't define a sedimentary environment as a place where sedimentation is taking place but rather as something else altogether.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1428 by Faith, posted 04-23-2015 3:02 PM Faith 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