After seeing this photo Message 436, I'm beginning to agree that Faith still does not understand that the unconformity is a surface of no thickness that it extends as a 'sheet' into the layers of rock and is exposed more and more as erosion of the upper layers occurs.
That's my position as well. I tried to demonstrate that with my color spectrum example in Message 271, but the evidence suggests that when something is embedded, contrary evidence gets danced over.
Check "Walther's Law." No need for gaps between sediments.
Tanypteryx writes:
My understanding is that Walther's Law is about a specific depositional situation and does not account for all sedimentary layers everywhere.
Yeah, no expert but I did just spend much of the day researching this thing that Faith throws out seemingly to answer so many different sedimentary questions raised. I'm pretty damn sure it's not the magic bullet that she imagines.
A corollary to that is that if the whole world were flooded there would be no erosion and just deposition.
Is this just a semantics or term thing, because I'm having a hard time believing that the process of moving material from high to low stops at sea level.
All the land surface would be below the lowest energy potential.
And I'm certainly correct to assert that there is energy potential below water level for any object heavier than water.
Clue me in on what you mean here, because I know you know all of the above.
The point would be that erosion would move materials from land to the sea, down the energy gradient. The energy gradients on land deal primarily with erosion while the energy gradients in the ocean would primarily deal with sedimentation.
Why should the Bible contain evidence of volcanism? The people living at the time were far enough away not to have to notice it.
OMG, that's freaking hilarious and just a perfect demonstration of either how ignorant you are of the results of volcanic activity or just don't give a whit about reality.
The most recent Mount Saint Helens eruption was infinitesimal compared to what you are requiring and it dumped ash from the sky 1,500 miles away.
Basic physics says you simply can't get "far enough away" from the sort of volcanic requirement you insist on to have not been destroyed by it, let lone not notice it.
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a great delusion.
You have NOT proved the need for immense periods of time, you have artificially invented the idea.
Nonsense. The need for immense periods of time can be demonstrated by (among near countess other ways) backyard dirt mixed with water in a quart jar.
As long as you claim that basic physics don't apply you get to live in your fantasy, but to claim that you don't need to provide methods and processes because others haven't flies in the face of the near endless established methods and processes that have and can be shown.
You really need a course in the consilience of evidence.
Time periods in strata, it's laughable except that it's bamboozled most of the human race, which really isn't funny.
Unless you can demonstrate a mechanism showing how an undisturbed lower layer can be younger than an undisturbed upper layer, you're laughing at your own joke.
Without this demonstration, strata ARE representative of increasingly older time periods as you go deeper. And yes, plenty of evidence is available for that assertion -- the simplest is called gravity.
Oh don't be silly. I'm talking about time periods in millions of years as per Old Earthism.
Not being silly at all. Once you agree that the lower layers are older, then you must provide demonstrable methods that show the layers can be places in a YE time frame. You are currently failing miserably at this and it's no wonder since you are a operating in the same 'arm chair' manner as George Mccready Price, who started all this "flood geology" crap a hundred years ago. Evidence spells work and he just couldn't be bothered by that when the bronze age text makes it so easy.
The methods showing how long it takes for silt to settle, for evaporites to layer up, for limestone and chalk to form are demonstrable and well established. What do you have? Supposition and proof by absolute assertion.
Evidence requires action. It requires digging. It requires endless samples including bore holes literally by the millions just since the 1950s. It requires testing and demonstrations. It requires applying immense heat and pressure under repeatable laboratory conditions. It requires an understanding of chemistry, acoustics, physics, etc.
It's all been done on the OE side. It simply NEVER happens in any scale on the YE side. NEVER. You're completely unaware of what evidence actually is and so you're blindly continuing a long train of no evidence YEC tradition.
Hutton operated armchair style and so did Darwin really, even though they were out there in the field. Their theories were nevertheless made out of pure imagination which could never be tested.
Yes, and guess what happened next:
Digging. Endless samples including bore holes literally by the millions just since the 1950s. Testing and demonstrations. Applying immense heat and pressure under repeatable laboratory conditions. An understanding of chemistry, acoustics, physics, etc.
That's what you don't seem to get. On the OE side, the grunt work as been done in spades. It's been done so minutely that oil companies bet BILLIONS of dollars on that grunt work (and WIN). You need to get busy if you hope to have any impact.
Does it take millions of years for silt to settle?
In millions of layers separated by relatively course material? Absolutely it does. Silt doesn't horizontally settle in turbid waters and calm water doesn't move course material. It's extremely basic and demonstrable to a grade school class. We only have to know what is required to make one such a layer and then do the math.
The things we can't explain we'll eventually explain, because unlike you we know God tells the truth and science is wandering in dark mental places
Yep, that's what Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, et al. said as well. While they were pounding their bibles calling the astronomers devil possessed, the astronomers were demonstrating the folly of such a position.
... so don't tell me this thread represents the whole of Floodism.
Oh, I never have nor ever would try to tell you that this thread represents the "whole of Floodism". There are TONS of people just like who you present proof by absolute assertion BUT NO EVIDENCE. It's THAT commonality that is represented well here.
You've got Price in your head so everybody is Price. I never heard of Price until you came along.
You should read him since you channel him.
There were lots of bad creationist ideasw waty back thetre too. So what.
So what? If you read the history of this nonsense you would recognize that you are making the EXACT same mistakes Price did. You object to my comparison and yet admit to never have read his works. I have the EVIDENCE for my comparison -- his books and your words.
Don'tr pretend you have some superior ability they don't.
It's not a superior ability Faith, it's a superior model - one that involves: Digging. Endless samples including bore holes literally by the millions just since the 1950s. Testing and demonstrations. Applying immense heat and pressure under repeatable laboratory conditions. An understanding of chemistry, acoustics, physics, etc. The model works so well that oil companies regularly bet BILLIONS on it (and win).
There is no evidence on either side, you are persuaded of either one or the other by your own subjective judgment.
Testable predictions aren't subjective judgement, they are exactly the opposite. OE geology has overwhelmed and destroyed flood nonsense through it's repeatable predictions -- predictions that over the last 100 years have made the industrial revolution possible and give you the ability to sit in your arm chair and claim there is no evidence.
This thread IS the evidence. Without the predictions that OE geology makes every day, none of this (and none of us) would exist.
OK, here's the problem. New subspecies or varieties or races are called "Species" today. They aren't, they are subspecies or varieties or races.
And yet this is how the Bible describes kinds: (Gen 1:11-25
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[snip]
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It is clearly describing "kinds" as those having the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Hmmm ... I wonder what the definition of "species" is in modern biology?
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
So, let's hear more about your wild assertion that biology has got it all wrong and how the biblical "kind" is different than our "species"? Only this time why don't you include some evidence because right now you're just spouting things that even the bible doesn't agree with.
Just wondering: in considering the evidence of shear is the age of the shearing event relevant, and how often is the age actually known as opposed to surmised?
How in the world is that question even relevant to the context of this entire discussion where you claim that ALL of these ages are surmised and that NONE of them can be known.
So if they tell you that the ages can be known, you will merely dismiss them out of hand and substitute your own age. Is there a point to the question?
™ Version 4.2
(1)