Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 2:49 AM
21 online now:
dwise1, Heathen, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 414 of 1257 (788988)
08-09-2016 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
08-08-2016 9:32 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
Faith writes:

WHERE? Where did the living ones move to? Why don't we find their fossils anywhere else but in their own rock/time period?


Precisely. Why don't we find certain fossils anywhere else but in their own rock/time period? Why do we find the fossils in precisely the order that we do find them?

That was also Dr. Adequate's question in the op, Message 1, of his topic, The Great Creationist Fossil Failure. We have a very reasonable answer. Do you have one? Now that you have finally come to asking the same questions as we, are you finally ready to have an honest and open discussion about it?

In your posts, I see a recurring theme of you expressing bizarre ideas about about what you think that geologists say and think, ideas that are completely foreign to what they actually think and say. Yes, by fooling yourself into thinking that that is what they are saying that makes it much easier for you to dismiss those foolish ideas as the complete nonsense that they are. But all those crazy ideas are your own, not the geologists'. By claiming that your crazy ideas are the geologists' own ideas, you are bearing false witness. And your Christian testimony informs us that Christians have to lie about what is said by those they disagree with. Is that really what you want your Christian testimony to say?

I have told you before and I have to say it yet again: learn something about geology and about how things actually work in the real world. You have explicitly refused to learn. You have explicitly refused to even talk with a geologist (so how could you ever know what a geologist thinks?). You insist on keeping yourself ignorant and deluded, which is your witness that your Christianity needs to keep its followers ignorant and deluded in order to survive.

Sorry, but an actual creationist would believe that God had created the world and the universe; in effect, God Wrote the World. In contrast, Man wrote the Bible and devised the theologies which dictate how to interpret the Bible, each in its own way (please also note that you had written of the need to be carefully guided by Man in how to "properly" interpret the Bible, so it is not the Bible that you follow, but rather your own particular Man-made theology). When there is a conflict between what God HimSelf had written in the Universe and what Man has said in his Man-made theology, why do you always side with Man instead of with God? Why do you claim to be a creationist when you by the fact of your deeds and words are not?

Now, stop and think for a moment. And please think in terms of how the real world actually and really works, not in terms of your crazy ideas which have nothing at all to do with reality.

There is a surface which is part of the biosphere, what we are referring to as a "landscape", even though we can also be talking about a sea bottom. It gets covered, either slowly or rapidly. If rapidly (eg, annual flooding), then the organisms that were not buried (eg, adults and/or their larvae in bordering non-flooded areas or larvae still afloat at the time of burial) are still living and can repopulate the new surface. We have sites where we can see entire ecologies (eg, worm burrows) that were buried in situ and then in the layer above it we see another entire ecology of worm burrows et alia, and above that another layer containing an entire ecology. Exactly as we currently observe in the real world. So in your "year-long Fludde", exactly how did it work out that layer after layer of complete ecologies could have established themselves on top of each other?

Learn something about geology. Learn something about the real world. Learn something about the real-world evidence. If you need to, then talk to a geologist! Don't talk to a creationist, because he will always lie to you. But if you do talk to a creationist, then verify everything that that creationist had told you. By learning that that creationist had lied to you, you should hopefully have learned something.

Faith, do you watch any TV? When I'm home alone, I always have the TV on. Do you watch any "science channels"? I put those into quotation marks, since the age of specialized cable channels are long past us. Do you remember Arts and Entertainment (A&E)? The fine arts, concerts, ballet, opera (I still remember an eastern European film set to Dvorak's "New World Symphony"; lovely). The Learning Channel (TLC)? Educational programming, nature shows. Etc, etc, etc, etc ... . And The History Channel providing us with program after program about actual history. Then what happened? Ratings! A cable channel came up with a show that grabbed ratings and then all the cable channels started grabbing the ratings, mainly with "reality shows". And they all became the same. Before my divorce (her choice, not mine, though she turned out to be such a .... ) I would read the comics page of the local newspaper. One strip referred to a set of cable channels as "The Testosterone Channel" since most of their programming was about WWII and other military matters and that comic strip's author was entirely correct.

And yet, wonders of wonders!!!!, the science channels do sometimes deal with science and the history channels do sometimes deal with science. Who'd a thunk?

There are a number of archaeological programs that examine excavation sites. Guess what a common factor of all those sites is! They are all buried!!!!
Another member here had alluded to that. A community is established. Litter, dirt, whatever builds up. A new house gets built atop an old house. Does the old house get excavated out and its foundations removed? No, the new house gets built atop it. So where did the new tenants of that site reside? Atop what they had built atop the former residents of that site. And so on and so forth.

Faith, for eight years from high school through my first college degree, I worked in construction with my father, a master carpenter and general contractor. In our excavations and remodel work, I had seen a lot about old construction. Members here who have worked on actual archaeological sites have seen so much more than I.

The prevailing pattern that I have seen has been a layering of new over old. Over and over and over and over and over again.

The evidence is there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 08-08-2016 9:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 428 of 1257 (789052)
08-10-2016 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Faith
08-09-2016 6:27 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
Faith, if you are going to critique the opposing side's position, then you must at the very least present it honestly.

You complain that when a surface, a "landscape", has been buried, then nothing can live there. Well, duh! But who is claiming that something would still be living there? Nobody that I know of, so when you pretend that "evilutionists" are claiming that, then you are lying. Nothing can live upon a deeply buried stratum except for bacteria, which apparently can live just about anywhere. So why would you want to lie and claim that we would hold such a position, unless the only way you can support your religious beliefs is through lying (I have seen much evidence to support this view!).

Obviously, the organisms that had lived atop a layer that had once been atop the surface but is now buried deeply would not all be dead. Do you realize that? If you would wish to refute that obvious fact, then do please do so. But the generation of organisms that had lived at that time begat the next generation which lived atop the next layer of sediment. And the next generation lived atop the next layer of sediment. For generation after generation. Even after the next generation is completely different from the original generation. Where is the problem?

You seem to believe that any sedimentation would wipe out all life. What do we observe happening on the bottoms of lakes that are building up sediment from the rivers and streams feeding them? What about the river deltas? Are they devoid of all life? The Mississippi River delta. Devoid of life? Show me!

Glenn R. Morton was a young earth creationist. Armed with a BS in Physics, he launched into a career of petrolium exploration with no other geological training than the Flood Geology he had learned from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which had been co-founded by Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering, also known as "The Father of Flood Geology" because of his having co-authored the 1961 book, "The Genesis Flood" (much of which he had apparently stolen ... er, researched, from George McCready Price without giving him any credit). Morton hired several other "geologists" trained by the ICR. They all suffered crises of faith when confronted on a daily basis with rock-hard geological evidence that their ICR training had taught them did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning. In the subsequent decade, Morton himself had been driven to the verge of atheism by "creation science", until he finally found a theological out that in the end saved his faith. Glenn Morton's story circa 1986 was the first time I realized how much and how severely "creation science" threatens the faith of its followers.

Faith, you may want to read this article by Glenn R. Morton, River Channels Buried deep in the Geologic Column. Not only does he discuss a problem for you, buried river channels that could only have been formed on the surface, but also problems with depositation. You see, geologists are not the blithering idiots you believe them to be:

quote:
One thing the YEC leaders don�t tell their people is that post flood catastrophism can�t work because there is a speed limit on the speed of water on land. Water on earth simply doesn�t move faster than about 15-20 mph.

�The highest velocity known to have been recorded with a current meter by the U.S. Geological Survey was 22.4 feet per second in a rockbound section of the Potomac River at Chain Bridge near Washington, D.C., on May 14, 1932. Velocities of 30 feet per second (20 miles per hour) have been reported but were not measured by current meter. No greater values are known."
Luna B. Leopold, A View of the River, (London, England: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 33

This limits the amount of sediment which can be carried and limits how rapidly it can be carried.

The wavelength of the meanders is related to the width of the river, the depth of the river and the velocity. Scheidegger, Theoretical Geopmorphology, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1961), p. 188, gives the relationship between the wavelength and the flow as

L = 2b v/sqrt(gamma^2 * g* h � v^2)

Where L is the wavelength, b is the width of the river, v is the velocity of the water, gamma is a constant less than or equal to 1 (depending on the load of silt), and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

Meanders only occur when v < gamma * sqrt (g * h).

This limits the amount of sediment post-flood rivers can carry in post flood catastrophism. And if you limit that, then theories like those advocated by post-flood catastrophists, like David Tyler and Austin et al, will have major problems moving 75,000 feet of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico in a 2,000 year periods like those offered by David Tyler. Tyler has the flood ending when the Ordovician strata are deposited (see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=247901&...)

There are 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters of sediment in the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico forming a pile of sediment 75,000 feet thick. But the Mississippi River and other northern rim rivers can carry only about 175,000,000 cubic meters per year. This means that it would take 138 million years to deposit all the sediment we observe by using post flood rates of deposition. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm)

To conclude, it is absolutely impossible to explain the existence of river channels in flood sediments and it is impossible to have channels and explain the post flood deposition many young-earth creationists advocate. Of course, none of these issues make it to the pages of AIG's Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Acts & Facts, or the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Any idea why these issues don't receive the attention they deserve?



This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Faith, posted 08-09-2016 6:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Faith, posted 08-10-2016 5:16 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 507 of 1257 (789180)
08-11-2016 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by Asgara
08-11-2016 11:15 AM


Re: misusing logic -- yes you are, jar
Faith writes:

But if you want to say the Flood couldn't explain the phenomena of the Geo Timetscale if that is thoroughly discredited, then how about offering another theory instead?


Slartibartfast

Which explains Norway whose fjords give it a nice baroque feeling. But fjords don't work so well now that he's been assigned Africa.

Edited by dwise1, : qses


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Asgara, posted 08-11-2016 11:15 AM Asgara has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 508 of 1257 (789184)
08-11-2016 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Faith
08-11-2016 11:34 AM


Re: misusing logic -- yes you are, jar
Asgara writes:

Faith writes:

But if you want to say the Flood couldn't explain the phenomena of the Geo Timetscale if that is thoroughly discredited, then how about offering another theory instead?


Slartibartfast
Smootiburksnilge

Faith! Asgara just obliged you by offering you a valid answer to your request and you have the disrespect to respond with gibberish!

Follow the Pharisee teaching: "Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself!" You don't want to be treated with disrespect? Well then don't do it to others!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 11:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 510 of 1257 (789188)
08-11-2016 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Faith
08-11-2016 2:25 PM


Re: misusing logic -- yes you are, jar
and I'm waiting for someone to suggest a third alternative. So far no show.

First, that is a flat-out lie! Asgara did suggest a third alternative (Message 492).

Second, there are literally thousands of alternatives despite your trying to hide that fact with your "Two Model Approach" false dichotomy. After bundling all the non-YEC alternative into the "atheistic" "evolution model", including the very highly theistic ones, "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" (Dr. Henry Morris, ICR), you try to create the deception that poking a few pin-pricks into one or two of those thousands of alternatives would invalidate the entire "evolution model" thus leaving your YEC "creation model" as the "only other alternative." That is false and a deception, even when you yourself of one of the people being deceived by it.

By the most simple Boolean Algebra, if a model M has n components, A1 through An such that
M = A1 OR A2 OR ... OR An
then M is true if any single one of its components is true. So when would M be false? If and only if all of its components are false. If even just one of those n components is true, then M is true. In other words, the only way you can prove M to be false is to prove that each and every single one of its components, A1 through An, is false.

That is what you are trying to do, "prove" your "creation model" by proving your "evolution model" to be false. In order to do that, you must prove every single model in the "evolution model" to be false. Including all the religious myths which make up the vast majority of the "evolution model", every single one of them. And including all the crazy ideas which are completely divorced from reality that you have concocted here. Including the ideas that we have not yet discovered.

Since all that is an impossible task, the logical alternative should be for you to find and present evidence that supports your "theory". Which it so happens you also cannot do, since none has been found to exist. But you do still need to make an honest to find such evidence.

{ABE: For those lurkers with a background in Boolean Algebra, I used "OR" instead of the standard "+" in an attempt to prevent Faith's mania for becoming confused. I also avoided De Morgan's Theorem for the same reason:

quote:

if
M = A1 OR A2 OR ... OR An
then
NOT(M) = NOT(A1) AND NOT(A2) AND ... AND NOT(An)
meaning that NOT(M) is only true if all the variables are false, and NOT(M) being true means that M is false.


}

Edited by dwise1, : "prove and every single one" -> "prove that each and every single one"

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Steven Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 2:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2016 3:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 5:00 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 544 of 1257 (789236)
08-11-2016 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by NosyNed
08-11-2016 7:41 PM


Re: Apes
Her hips allow her to stand upright (as well as other leg parts). Only our lineage has that. Hers are not as advanced as the genus homo is though.

I started studying "creation science" in 1981 and, when asked in 1990 on CompuServe why I have my opinion of creationism, wrote the following essay: Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There). In it, I described the first "debate" I saw, which was broadcast on Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN):
quote:
I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN. A Tennessean host would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg {CORRECTION: John Ankerberg}). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't know of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.

This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature. Now I've begun to suspect that this is but one of many manifestations of the Dark Side of the Farce.


Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link formatting.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2016 7:41 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 546 of 1257 (789238)
08-12-2016 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by Faith
08-11-2016 4:54 PM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
But comes a time when the landscape is completely buried -- and very deep according to some here. You now have no place else to go, or your great great great great grandchildren don't.

Yet again, your overly loose redefining of words only creates confusion. And creationists do depend on confusion, don't they?.

You seem to be using "landscape" to refer to the biosphere, the place on the surface of the earth (including lake, river, and sea bottoms) where life lives. That includes both the surface, a bit below the surface (eg, burrows, root systems), and a bit above the surface (eg, in plants, tree branches, fish swimming above the bottom, maybe even birds etc in flight). Let's use it here in that manner.

The landscape covers the entire surface of the earth. The landscape never gets completely buried -- some areas of the landscape do get completely buried, but then life on the neighboring areas that didn't get buried repopulate the buried area. There are always parts of the landscape that continue to support life uninterrupted.

The landscape is located on the surface, but the landscape is not the surface. Rather, the landscape has a current surface. The surface changes as it either receives sedimentation or it experiences erosion. In the case of sedimentation (which is what we keep talking about here), the surface gets buried, but the landscape remains on top of the new surface. The landscape never gets buried; only its surface gets buried and then it has a new surface.

That is all very easy to understand and blatantly obvious even to young children. Yet you seem to be incapable of grasping any of these very easy and obvious concepts. Is there anything that you do not understand so far? If you don't tell us, then how could we possibly know where you keep getting lost.

Now some very difficult concepts. Sedimentation normally doesn't happen very quickly; that link to former-YEC geologist Glenn R. Morton's page and that portion which I did quote extremely accurately (ie, I did a copy-and-paste) described how they calculate the rates of sedimentation. Basically, it involves how much sediment is being kept in suspension and how long it takes for it to settle out -- perform the peanut-butter-jar (PBJ) experiment to get an idea of how long that takes. Normally, that sedimentation happens in millimeters, but let's be extremely generous and call it an inch at a time. What effect would that have on life?

That was the easier part, but now we get to the much harder part: live animals move and dead animals don't. Did you catch that? I have to ask, because you have demonstrated your complete inability to understand things that are infinitely simpler. Do I have to repeat it for you? Here it is again: live animals move and dead animals don't. Maybe it's against your religion, maybe not, but it is very important for you to understand that. If you still do not understand it, then please ask me to explain it to you yet again in much simpler terms (not that I can think of how that would be possible).

Here's the pay-off. As the sediment accumulates, the live animals move (do you remember that? I'm sorry I can't give you an M&M as a reward (you're not a bear, so a meat pellet would not be appropriate).) That means that the live animals don't normally get buried. But, dead animals don't move, so as the sediment accumulates then they get buried. I'm sorry, are you having problems keeping up? I'll wait a minute for you to catch up.

Ah, but what about the plants? Even the live plants don't move! I'm sorry! I am oh so very sorry! You just got lost. Both my sons when they could just barely speak English got that just like that! I'm not used to talking with someone who is slower than a three-year-old (which in half a grand of posts here is what you have demonstrated about yourself with extreme consistency).

OK. Plants don't move. But plants also have height. Consider a shrub that's a foot tall --- sorry! sorry! "Consider" is too big a word for you to understand. Sorry! Take a shrub that's a foot tall. You add an inch of sediment. What happened to that shrub? Hardly anything at all.

Plus, in the meantime, seeds and spores have been planted in the accumulating sediment. I mean the seeds and spores would have fallen upon the old surface, but then the sediment accumulates and covers them and thus buries them, which is exactly what seeds want in order for them to germinate. And so they grow into new plants rooted higher in the rising surface than their parent plants.

Now here is the really hard part to understand: animals and plants only live for so long and then they all die. Nothing lives forever. Little kids could have problems with that idea; I have absolutely no idea about your ability to understand it.

Now for the really hard part that I am absolutely positive you cannot even begin to understand. What have we learned?

But comes a time when the landscape is completely buried --

When? How? According to the geological record, that has never happened. According to your theology (Man-made interpretations which are what you actually believe instead of the Bible), that would have been the Noachian Flood, but then there's that damned Mature Olive Tree. If "the landscape is completely buried", then all life outside of the Ark would have been destroyed. The "landscape" is the entire habitable surface of the earth, the biosphere. So if that had actually happened as you want to claim, just where the hell did that Mature Olive Tree come from?

So aren't you contradicting yourself here? If the entire landscape was buried and rendered barren, then there was nowhere for that Mature Olive Tree to have come from. If there was somewhere for that Mature Olive Tree to have come from, then the entire landscape could not have been buried and rendered barren. Which is it? Even you cannot have it both ways (though I have to admit that I am not that familiar with divorcing oneself from all reality).

You now have no place else to go, or your great great great great grandchildren don't.

We and they have/had all kinds of places to go.

Whatever is supposed to happen in your own private Bizarro (reverse-Superman reference where everything is reversed from normal) universe, no normal could ever possibly be able to anticipate.

The Landscape endures. Specific conditions (AKA "environments") may change, but the Landscape endures. Parts of it gets buried or burned or otherwise rendered barren, but the other parts live on and move into the barren parts and revive them. The Landscape always endures (at least until we burn it to a cinder).

Again, if you had any problem understand any of that, then do please tell us very specifically what your ... problem is.

Stupid theological problems need not apply. Unless you are really truly ready and willing to discus them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 4:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 08-12-2016 3:51 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 547 of 1257 (789239)
08-12-2016 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Faith
08-11-2016 5:00 PM


Re: misusing logic -- yes you are, jar
Sorry, but I have a policy of calling creationist actions as they truly are.

More than three decades of experience has taught me that creationists lie out of their asses. Those same decades of experience have taught me that those creationists have no other choice.

Do you indeed have another choice than to lie out of your ass?

Please, prove me wrong.

That is truly what I want. Can you rise to the challenge?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 5:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 562 of 1257 (789266)
08-12-2016 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by Faith
08-12-2016 3:51 AM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
Then it is you who are muddying the discussion. And confusing yourself so terminally that you yourself cannot understand the most simple and obvious facts.

Within the strata we can indeed identify the old surfaces where the "landscape [u]used[/u] to be at that time. And traces of that old "landscape" can still be seen in terms of root systems, burrows, fossils, etc. But while that old surface was being buried, the "landscape" remained on the then-current surface and continued to do its thing.

You keep claiming that the "landscape" stopped to exist and had to wait for a new one to come into existence to replace it. That stupid idea is dead wrong. As you have been informed over and over and over and over again.

What is your problem? Outside of your obviously false theology requiring you to be incapable of understanding the simplest and most obvious facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Faith, posted 08-12-2016 3:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 765 of 1257 (789765)
08-19-2016 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 752 by Faith
08-18-2016 3:11 PM


Re: Square One continued
I start such threads to try to prove my case, what else?

But of course. But then what happens when your case turns out to be utterly worthless?

We all form hypotheses. That's how science works. We observe what's happening, we formulate a hypothesis of what's happening, and we test that hypothesis. If it works, then we keep it, but if it doesn't work, then we eliminate it ... or modify it and test it again. But not for you, Faith, the dogmatic.

Here's an example:

quote:
The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

(reportedly from an essay by Carl Sagan)



Faith, what happens when your case proves to be worthless?

I thought there would be more substance coming from the other side, but so far not.

Perhaps the only saving grace of this entire abortion of a topic that you have created is the collection of superlative responses to your inane misunderstandings.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Faith, posted 08-18-2016 3:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by Pressie, posted 08-19-2016 8:30 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 802 of 1257 (790030)
08-24-2016 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
07-24-2016 2:42 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
I'm not in a debate with your primary school teacher, I want to know what today's Geologists have to say about it.

So then why do you absolutely refuse to talk to any geologists about it?

I remember your personal emails to me about your ideas.

I remember advising you to talk to geologists about your ideas.
'
I remember you flying into hysterical screaming at that very simple and obvious idea.

So then why have you still not talked to any geologists about your ideas?

Edited by Admin, : Fix typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 803 of 1257 (790031)
08-24-2016 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 795 by Faith
08-23-2016 1:57 PM


Faith, you have made absolutely no case whatsoever.

Please refer back to my message, Message 765:

quote:
The Physicist and the Metaphysicist
In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

(reportedly from an essay by Carl Sagan)



Now actually read it this time!!!!!!

You had an idea. You thought it had something going for it. So you presented it, put it to the test.

It failed that test.

So now what?

What parts failed that test? What parts maybe didn't?

You total idiot! That's how the scientific method works! You have an idea that might explain something. So you present it. The first iteration gets most of the things wrong, so you regroup and attempt to reexplain.

Reread that quote. You got some parts wrong, so don't repeat them! How simpler could it be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by Faith, posted 08-23-2016 1:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2016 9:37 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 829 of 1257 (790127)
08-26-2016 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 818 by Faith
08-24-2016 4:56 PM


Yes I can't make the case because it's too unwieldy, ...

I earned my BS Computer Science in 1979 and have worked as a software engineer from 1982 to the present (I had to complete my active duty military obligation first). That should establish that I know whereof I speak.

Software projects are truly massive Ours are relatively simple yet they amount to over a hundred files of source code. The interactions within that code can be baffling and, to the limited human psyche, often baffling. We do what we can to organize the internal structure to be comprehensible to us mere humans.

We have been taught an approach called "Divide and Conquer." You have an enormous software task to accomplish. So divide it down to smaller tasks. For example, there are devices with which you will need to communicate. So some of those smaller tasks will be how you communicate with those devices. Those communication tasks divide further down in terms of the hardware communications and the higher-level communications. In one real-life project, we started our top-down design from the upper-most levels and defined everything down to the lowest levels, then we started designing those lowest levels and testing them and worked our way up to the top.

So when faced with a massive software project, do you try to write everything in sequence, or do you break the task down to its smallest components, then work your way back up solving each smaller (ie, lower-level) component up to the top?

Another analogy would be building a gothic cathedral. Do you just throw every block of stone out there and hope it will still stand in the final stage? Or will you start with a plan, a "master masonic plan"? Place one stone after another in the right place. Realize partway through the construction that the plan was weak, so you go back and reinforce the weak points (I have seen such mid-construction corrections in cathedrals).

Do you not see a kind of iterative method being applied? What are the odds of everything just falling into place by chance? Practically nil. What are the odds of an iterative process doing it? Practically inevitable.

But your problem is different. You have an idea. It has many components and very quickly becomes confusing. Because of that confusion, you cannot explain it properly and you only succeed in confusing everybody who tries to work with you.

OK. Divide and conquer! Take your overall idea and break it down into its lower levels. Then tackle those lower levels. Does your model require that sediments become solid rock on the surface? Then determine whether that is the case. Then determine whether that would happen or be expected to happen. As in the case of the builders of the cathedrals, if you or your predecessors had made a fatal mistake, how would you have corrected for it?

In other words, if your original ideas turn out to be false, are you able to correct for that? Or are you just going to stand out there screaming that reality is not relevant?

So then basically, what I am asking of you FAITH, is that you at least make the attempt to build your model. You want to build a wall, so build it already. Brick by logical brick. Don't complain that the task you have set for yourself is too difficult. Divide and conquer! Work your way down to the lower levels and show us that we have something that we need to think about. That is when you'll get our attention.

Just in case you got lost in the midst of all those pearls:

quote:
Divide and conquer! Take your overall idea and break it down into its lower levels. Then tackle those lower levels. Does your model require that sediments become solid rock on the surface? Then determine whether that is the case. Then determine whether that would happen or be expected to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by Faith, posted 08-24-2016 4:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by Faith, posted 08-26-2016 3:17 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 832 of 1257 (790140)
08-26-2016 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 830 by Faith
08-26-2016 3:17 AM


Very frankly, Faith, I do not believe that you will ever make an honest attempt at creating an actual model for what you're thinking. Your entire position depends on you remaining ignorant of actual geological processes and the only way you can maintain that ignorance is to keep yourself terminally confused about all kinds of aspects of reality. It is sad to have to say that and painful to have to watch, especially for such a protracted length of time. It's like watching Emily Litella over and over again on Saturday night after Saturday night, but at least there was something endearing about her (except to Jane Curtin) and she at least had the common sense to realize when she was wrong so that she could say, "Never mind."

I really really hope against all hope that you will prove me wrong. But I am not at all optimistic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by Faith, posted 08-26-2016 3:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 880 of 1257 (790232)
08-28-2016 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2016 3:03 AM


Re: All gone to layers of rock
Why not provide photographs instead of drawings?

If I am not mistaken, those photographs have been presented to you, several of them repeatedly over the span of several years. Have you been sound asleep all those years? Or have you merely been keeping your hands clasped firmly over your eyes in order to block out reality?

In addition to photographs, there is also seismic imagery. such as is used by petroleum exploration companies. They are very highly motivated to find petroleum deposits and far too profit-driven to waste all that time and effort of supporting an International Jewish Communist Conspiracy of Bankers and Lawyers ... sorry, wrong paranoid conspiracy theory. Seismic imagery does show the strata that lie beneath the surface along with buried river valleys. Again, there is no motivation for them to engage in any conspiracy to hide young-earth-flood evidence. Oil companies are pure capitalists, not ideologists.

Faith, you have been shown the evidence repeatedly. The evidence conflicts with your preconceived dogmatic beliefs. You choose to ignore the evidence and reality in order to preserve your dogmatic beliefs. That tells everyone exactly how much your dogmatic beliefs are worth.

As I said, you have a highly vested interest in standard geology making no sense to you. We have repeatedly witnessed you making great effort to avoid understanding standard geology. We all know full well what to expect from you and yet we continue to try to deal honestly and truthfully with you. Think about that, if your dogma were to allow it (please note the use of the subjunctive mood there).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 3:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 881 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 6:24 AM dwise1 has 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