Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
334 online now:
jar, nwr, PaulK, xongsmith (4 members, 330 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 117 of 1257 (788049)
07-25-2016 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
Faith writes:

I'm going to remove that cartoon because it isn't conveying what it was meant to convey,...

Isn't it some creationist hypothesis that the earth was flatter before the magic flood?

Your cartoon represented their 'thinking'. Then you pretended that was 'scientific' thinking.Then you put up a straw man pretending that it's 'science'. No wonder you took it away. You're very dishonest, Faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:20 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 119 of 1257 (788051)
07-25-2016 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-25-2016 4:03 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
Faith writes:

Second, there are no mountains in the Triassic

There were huge, huge mountains during the Triassic in parts where South Africa is now. For example, the mountains of the Cape fold belt were a lot higher during the Triassic than they are now. We only see the remnants still around today. And they still are quite high.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 123 of 1257 (788055)
07-25-2016 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
07-25-2016 8:10 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
Faith writes:

Probably many times. I don't always get to read every post and if it doesn't make sense to me right away the less likely it is that I'll read it but go on to one I can deal with more immediately.

It's because you have no idea what geology entails. You think that the Jurassic is a "slab" of rock. It isn't.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:46 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 124 of 1257 (788056)
07-25-2016 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
07-25-2016 8:20 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
This one is funny.

Faith writes:

The cartoon of the dinosaur peering out from the strata was meant to represent my own conclusion that there couldn't have been landscapes during any time period

He-he-he. Elephants don't peer out of rocks during our own time periods and are around on the landscapes we all experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:20 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:44 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 127 of 1257 (788059)
07-25-2016 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
07-25-2016 8:46 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
You call a time period a slab of rock?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 222 of 1257 (788310)
07-29-2016 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by mike the wiz
07-29-2016 6:25 AM


mike the wiz writes:

I'm not sure who said this but it is a prime example of an untested conditional probably based on an strawman version of the flood.

Which magic flood? There's absolutely no evidence for magic global floods on earth during the last 4.5 billion years. But, the evidence left from magic floods could have any magic properties, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by mike the wiz, posted 07-29-2016 6:25 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 274 of 1257 (788551)
08-02-2016 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
08-01-2016 5:16 PM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
Faith writes:

It's funny how people just take the dating system for granted...

I don't. Luckily for me I had one of the foremost Geochronologists in the world, being one of my undergraduate lecturers, explaining very patiently how he dated some of the "rocks" found in the Barberton Greenstone Belt. Over many years going through the basics from formation of "rocks", crystallography, geochemistry, metamorphisism, physics, etc, etc,

Faith writes:

... as if you could know how old something is yourself and agree out of your own knowledge.

But, Faith, I certainly can know that. Old earth models work. Very, very well. That's why old earth models work for every single one of the exploration and mining companies in my country. Geology works. Old earth models work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 275 of 1257 (788553)
08-02-2016 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
08-01-2016 11:26 AM


Re: Time-stratigraphy vs Litho-stratigraphy
Faith writes:

However, there does seem to be an observable difference between the rocks deposited below the Permian and those above it, that I've wondered about.

No need to wonder about it. The Permian is not a rock layer.

You still don't get it. The Permian is not a layer. Get it into your head. The Permian is not a layer. The Permian is not a rock layer. The Permian is not a rock layer. I know that it's not something you can try to do after all the years of indoctrination by creationists, but try to get it into your head. Here we go again. The Permian is not a rock layer. The Permian is not a rock layer. The Permian is not a rock layer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 11:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 432 of 1257 (789057)
08-10-2016 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by Faith
08-10-2016 5:16 AM


Re: Where did the seafloor/landscape go?
This one was funny.

Faith writes:

When a landscape gets buried...

Like it happened at a place called Pompeii.

Faith writes:

... the point is that anything still living would have no place to live because there is no longer a landscape to support life.

Except for in other places in the world. And they will move around and populate the area again. Above the old population. Just like what happened at Pompeii. And we can dig out the remains of the original population of that area later!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Faith, posted 08-10-2016 5:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 558 of 1257 (789259)
08-12-2016 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 556 by PaulK
08-12-2016 7:14 AM


Re: A helpful reminder for Fa
Faith writes:

Nothing lives on the surface of sediments, a landscape is necessary, and you are imagining such a landscape without accounting for it or facing the problems I keep raising about it.

I actually live on a landscape of sediments. A landscape formed by sediments. Rivers and plains and deltas and lakes. A huge basin. With mountains and hills and flat areas formed during the Vaalian and Mokolian and Namibian and Cambrian and Permian. And now.

I'm really not too sure why Faith thinks I can't live on sediments. Sand and soil, hey. I'm quite happy living on sediments. So are the mielies I'm growing.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by PaulK, posted 08-12-2016 7:14 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 736 of 1257 (789698)
08-18-2016 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by Faith
08-18-2016 12:58 AM


Faith writes:

The thing is they don't LOOK LIKE different things, they simply look like strata, layers.

I'm really not to sure why Faith wrote this. They look different. They are different things. After all they are different layers. Easy to see. Even in photo's different strata are different layers. They even do LOOK LIKE different things.

Faith doesn't make any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 08-18-2016 12:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 766 of 1257 (789767)
08-19-2016 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 765 by dwise1
08-19-2016 5:30 AM


Re: Square One continued
I think that, after all of this, Faith still thinks that Palaeoarchaean "is a rock layer", the Mesoproterozoic "is a rock layer", the Neoproterezoic "is a rock layer", the Paleoproterozoic "is a rock layer", the Mesozoic "is a rock layer", etc. Faith got his/her information from always lying creationists who pretend that their definitions are scientific.

Faith will always believe their lies. No matter how many times their lies are pointed out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by dwise1, posted 08-19-2016 5:30 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 768 of 1257 (789777)
08-19-2016 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 760 by Faith
08-18-2016 7:06 PM


Re: Back to Square One
Faith writes:

Defining a time period by layers of sediments/rocks is also nonsensical.

Exactly. That's why only creationists pretend that geologists do it. Creationists always tell untruths. A time period is not a layer, Faith. It's very basic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by Faith, posted 08-18-2016 7:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 769 by jar, posted 08-19-2016 9:37 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 946 of 1257 (790392)
08-30-2016 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 938 by Faith
08-29-2016 11:00 PM


Re: a review of past lessons
This one is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Faith writes:

But your problem is that you assume the environments you see in the rocks are real and behave the way the world behaves today.

Oh, I dont know about that. I just "assume" that thin sections of those rocks I can study under a microscope are real...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by Faith, posted 08-29-2016 11:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 991 of 1257 (790577)
09-01-2016 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 990 by Admin
09-01-2016 8:39 AM


Re: Moderator Questions and Comments
Faith thinks the views of modern geology require that fossils be found in strata that do not represent where they lived.
Faith is not too bright. Some fossils found today are not found in the strata where they lived. For example those fossils fossils of unicelluar organisms found in the Dwyka. They were transported in the matrix from earlier rocks and redeposited in what is the Dwyka Group now.

On a couple occasions Faith said the fossils would have to move around after burial.
True. Some do. For example those unicellular fossils found in the Dwyka. That's why paleontogogists take specialist geologists on those rocks when they excavate those fossils. Some fossils, together with the surrounding matrix get deposited and buried somewhere else. Along with everything else. I'm really not too sure why Faith thinks that it is a problem for geology.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 990 by Admin, posted 09-01-2016 8:39 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 995 by edge, posted 09-01-2016 11:03 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 1000 by Admin, posted 09-02-2016 7:30 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021