|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'll say it again. NOBODY on your side has provided evidence. All you've provided is your allegiance to the silly idea that the strata represent time periods. That's just a statement of faith, it is not evidence and please stop claiming it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When I said no evidence I was talking about this part of the conversation not the earlier part, no evidence meaning the ridiculous claim that the strata represent eras of millions of years. That's all we've been talking about today and it's all I ever referred to when I said you had no evidence. Why can't you ever just respond to what has actually been said?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How could scientists have come to that conclusion without any evidence? By ddrawing conclusions from the way things seem to them, things that can't be proved, such as the age of the angular conformity at Siccar Point. Hutton looked at it and decided the lower section had to have preceded the upper by millions of years cuz it just had to be that way according to him, cuz he couldn't imagine any other way, though there's no way to prove such things and it raelly doesn't make any sense that strata would be folded or tilted without something above to resist the movement, if you want MY argument. And that's Old Earthism in a nutshell. And the ToE has the same kind of evidence: first we decide that the strata were laid down millions of years apart because Hutton gave us permission to think that, then we decide the fossils represent things that lived in that imaginary time frame, just those and no others, and there you have it. No real evidence, just a lot of imagining and assuming. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
Does it take millions of years for silt to settle? Bore holes show the order of things, not their age. That's added by imagination. 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. Pressie can't seem to understand that there is nothing about his Beaufort thing tghat proves the Old Earth. He adds thatfrom his own mind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All I've done here is state the sfcenario, buster, and that in the teeth of absurd misreadings at every turn, so don't tell me this thread represents the whole of Floodism. You have no idea. You've got Price in your head so everybody is Price. I never heard of Price until you came along. There were lots of bad creationist ideasw waty back thetre too. So what. You fiddle with the same information creatiuonists do. Don'tr pretend you have some superior ability they don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
SCIENCE works.
But Old Earthism and Evolution are just mental constructs that can't be proved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point was that I gave only the sketchiest outline of the Flood scenario, and I very much doubt it's Price's. I was merely outlining it and nobody would acknowledge the simplest parts of it so it was a battle just to get it said. Then you come along and accuse me of doing science a la Price. You aren't paying attention either. We'll talk silt when we get to that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So now we're just slinging slogans. Is too science, is not, is too, is not.
But Looked up McCready Price. Reading this critique of creationism at the moment:
Scientists believe that the earth is ancient, in part, because of the successive layers of different fossils in sedimentary rocks and the many diverse layers of rock. One major problem that has plagued the young-earth creation model is the large amount of apparent geologic history. The fossil record, for example, consists of hundreds of distinct layers with distinct fossils that have been interpreted to represent different periods of history. And this is exactly what I keep objecting to as ridiculous, the whole idea of imputing long eras of time to slabs of different kinds of rock. They say it's evidence for the Old Earth, while all I can do is roll my eyes at such an idea. Just as tney expect it to be intuitively obvious that it implies an old earth and evolution, I regard it as intuitively obvious that the idea is absurd in the extreme. There is no evidence on either side, you are persuaded of either one or the other by your own subjective judgment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Just more posturing and reciting the Science Creed. Your science is mainly belief too but you recite the Evidence Creed and deny it. Ho Hum.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I own about ten books by creationists, a biography of Hutton, a few of Dawkins' books, Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and two copies of The Origin of Species. Maybe more, that's off the top of my head.
ABE: And a standard Old Earth picture book of the Grand Canyon plus Steve Austin's study of the canyon. The little I've seen of Price so far is of course quite compatible with my views. Lot of good stuff. ABE: SDA is definitely cultish but they manage somehow to hold onto basic Biblical truth at the same time. Buzsaw was SDA and I couldn't fault him on his view of the gospel, despite some strange stuff he also carried around. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Lemme see. I'd guess the feces that got preserved as fossils were dried out for starters, and then got swept up rapidly in the Flood, perhaps packed in mud, ya never know, and then summarily dispatched to their final resting place in the strata, maybe even right on the spot, where being tightly compressed it remained intact, then of course fossilized over the next hundreds of years. Meanwhile I would suppose there were hundreds of thousands of similar items that got dissolved in the Flood water and never got fossilized.
No need to give up at the first obstacle that crosses your mind. Or how about this: "scared s--tless" by the rising Flood the animal delivered the fossilized items on the spot as the animal was being buried. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you are going to accuse me of not understanding something you need to provide more than your assertion. You need to describe or illustrate what you are talking about and quote me on it and show why I'm wrong. At least. I have no reason to believe that YOU understood anything I've said in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Again, the whole point of the Ark was to prevent extinctions. If the Ark story was true, there would be no extinct species in the fossil record (unless they all became extinct after the flood). 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. Whether any actual Species have become extinct I doubt but don't know. Anyway, when they report that over 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct, most of which is based on the fossil record, they are talking really about subspecies or varieties or races, the built-in variations of Species that we get from microevolution. That huge percentage of extinctions of these subspecies, however, can be attributed to the Flood. There were representatives of every Species on the ark, but their cousins and second cousins all died out. No more sabretoothed tigers but still lots of tigers, no more woolly mammoths but still plenty of pachyderms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have NOT proved the need for immense periods of time, you have artificially invented the idea. And the Flood took ONE YEAR with a few years of aftereffects, not 6000 years.
Have you calculated the amount of heat stemming from "super-sonic" tectonic movements? I mean have you never looked at the picture of the Himalayas and thought that there is no frikkin way that has come to existence in just a couple of years? We are talking about something that just cannot have happened - the amount of heat released wouldve boiled the oceans and killed everyone. 1) Ice age after the Flood kept things cool. Ice age also a product of whatever heat is generated in tectonic and volcanic events. 2) I never said tectonic events such as the raising of the Himalayas took only a few years. Sorry if I said something that could be interpreted that way. However I certainly don't think such events took millions of years, a few hundred would be more than enough. 3) There were no people in India for at least that long, and besides all they'd experience would be earthquakes. Excuse me if I feel free to guess about such things, but that's what Science is doing too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024