|
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: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Woopsy, changing the subject again. No idea what theory could replace the Geo Timescale of course. Because there isn't one. Only the Flood. Yet another utterly stupid assertion from Faith. Until there is any reason to replace the conventional theories of course no one can suggest what that new theory might be. Except of course those folk who want to promote mythology. But I am not trying to change the subject it seems; please look at the actual content of the post to which you are replying?
quote: Again, have you finally realized that your topic really is unsupportable, false, futile, absurd and jess plain silly?My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
MtW writes: Ichthyosaurs don't go diving head first into the bottom of the ocean then get their heads stuck in the mud for a million years. We have "seen" a mini grand canyon cut out in days at Mt St Helens. We have seen flume experiments prove that stratification can happen quickly. Nor has anyone else Mike. Those are just more lies and misrepresentation from the con-men. No one has seen a mini Grand Canyon cut out in days at Mt St Helen's and to even suggest that shows either wilful ignorance or more likely just lies. You have not seen a quick way to produce anything resembling the Green River varves and to make that claim is either wilful ignorance or more likely just lies. Those are all just examples of the utter crap Creationists present because they know their audience is not bright enough or willing to question such nonsense.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It was not I who brought up the absolute falsehoods and lies published by those claiming to be creation scientist so I do not see how I could be said to be the person changing the subject.
So have you realized yet that your topic "The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock" is not simply wrong but silly and unsupportable?My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The actual situation of getting from one time period to the next from nothing but a rock which is imagined to once have been a landscape is not possible, as I keep trying to show, and answering that problem with the usual scientific generalizations totally misses the point. Well, no Faith, you simply keep asserting that which is quite different than trying to show.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: YOU ARE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT. The problem for the standard theory is NOT recovery, the problem is getting from a landscape to a rock to a landscape to a rock to account for all the time periods. Uh, NO Faith, that is simply not a problem as has been explained to you many, many, many times.
Faith writes: The Flood does not have that problem. The earth is destroyed and a new landscape grows up on top of the whole stack of sediment. There would be a period of recovery, boosted by the pre-Flood vitality among the other things I mentioned, (probably begun and even well along before Noah and all exited the ark) so rapid enough to sustain what was preserved on the ark. (Dinosaurs apparently needed more than that and eventually died out. The fact that they no longer exist for whatever reason suggests to me that getting rid of them completely was probably a major goal of the Flood.) Again, sorry Faith but reality says that too is simply wrong and nothing but dogma and proselytizing. All of the evidence (and it is massive and conclusive) shows there was no pre-flood vitality just as there was no Biblical Flood. But as has also been pointed out to you that is irrelevant, as irrelevant as the mythological floods to this topic.
Faith writes: Because of the peculiar situation of the strata -- enormous slabs of rock BETWEEN WHICH these landscapes are postulated, and which are assigned great blocks of time. There wouldn't be any problems then either as long as the landscapes persisted (though of course I regard them as totally imaginary anyway), it's getting them down to rock that poses the problems, as it would today too if any of this had any reality at all. Again Faith, you are simply once again misrepresenting what everyone has explained to you in as simple a fashion as possible. No one is postulating that there are landscapes between two slabs of rock except you.
Faith writes: The answers are woefully inadequate. Again, reality simply shows you are once again wrong. The conventional theories adequately explain all of the geological and biological samples that have been found. What you might have meant to say is "Faith will not accept those answers" and if so, we understand and it is your right to be willfully ignorant and continuously wrong.
Faith writes: But that means a persisting landscape, or a constantly regenerating landscape like the settlements on top of settlements in a tell. 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. You want to think in terms of continuous gradual change, landscapes changing, living things changing and adapting, but you are having to impose that idea on the actual facts: the STACK OF ROCKS. And yet once again reality insists on intruding into Faith's fantasy. The Rio Grande Valley is a vast sediment plain formed by shallow seas and rising land with all the meandering rivers that resulted. Folks live on that sediment. Plants live on that sediment. There is a good chance the oranges you eat grew on that sediment.
Faith writes: I know this is an artificial problem, but that's because the geo theory is based on a false idea that you can have a stack of rocks signifying time periods that are in themselves the landscapes / depositional environments they represent. There is no other record of a particular time period than a particular formation of rocks at a certain level in the stack of rocks, no record of any intervening landscapes or new forms of creatures between formations or rocks, only the just-so appearance of particular collections millions of years apart in rock that IS the landscape/depositional environment it represents. But this is a different problem I guess. (There's no end to them really). Damn. Reality intrudes again. If we look at what is in those rocks and at the composition of those rocks we find that they are the product of landscapes and landscapes that can be dated to particular distant past times. Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: You can "explain" what is nothing but your own misinterpretation forever and it will never be anything but your own misinterpretation, so you might as well stop that particular drumbeat. Once again, reality intrudes into Faith's fantasy. What I "explain" is really the same stuff everyone else is trying to "explain" to you and unfortunately for your fantasy, the explanation really does explain what is seen in reality. What you need to do is come up with an alternative explanation that also explains what is seen. The Biblical Flood simply fails miserably at explaining anything found in reality so that is a non-starter, DOA line of inquiry. My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: And it shouldn't have been too long after the Flood that plants were growing everywhere, keeping in mind that there would still be a great deal of the pre-Flood vitality that would produce more plants faster and better than ours today for the first hundred years or so, and animals could spread out across the planet. There you go again posting absolute nonsense. There is absolute conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as Pre-Flood Vitality. There is also absolute positive evidence that plants, soil and animals from tens of thousands of years before the date of any Biblical flood were very much like those after such a date. Stop claiming stuff that exists only in your imagination.
Faith writes: Does anything live on the Great Salt Lake? Of course things live on the great Salt Lake.
quote: Faith writes: But at each time period in the geo scenario there has to come a point where there is nothing but sediment/rock on the very site where there had been a landscape with life flourishing in it. Has to end there, with the flat featureless horizon in my OP cartoon, because that's what we see in the strata. Once again reality intrudes into Faith's fantasy. As pointed out in Message 380 every geological column has a surface at the top. The is and has never been the scenario of your imagination.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: But if I'm wrong, point me to the article or textbook where the questions I'm raising have been considered. Often textbooks simply fail to address the really Edited by jar, : soften languageMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: As the discussion has proceeded it's seemed to me that there has always been a point where there must have been an absence of livable landscape and nothing but an unlivable bare surface of sediment. And, as been pointed out to you many, many, many, many, many, many, many times even in just this thread that is simply incorrect, utter nonsense and absolutely false. As pointed out to you back in Message 8 all the evidence shows the layers of what is now rock also contain absolute positive conclusive evidence that at one time the layer was at the surface and under conditions similar to those seen today. The process was explained to you in Message 19 and is repeated yet again here.
quote: The reality was also pointed out in Message 352 and that is:
quote: and yet again in Message 433 quote: The real issue is that on the side of science is all the evidence, every study, every branch of science, every discovery and on your side nothing but stories written by man that contain multiple contradictory descriptions, factual errors and impossibilities. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin in sub-title fixedMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I no longer pay attention to long insulting lectures that start out with how I've been told this or that many times. And that willful ignorance on your part will only result in your continued ignorance. Try to actually learn a little.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
On point 1: You can say "livable landscape" but unfortunately experience has shown that almost any landscape is livable. There are almost no known landscapes where we do not find life.
On point 2: There is a problem there as well since there is no particular order or type of material that is unique to any period of time. On point 3: Nope, you cannot say that a particular rock is a time period. The problem is that any given rock is the result of what has happened to it over all of the period of time since it was originally at the surface. On point 4: You can say whatever you want but the reality is that the layers and intersections between layers are not like you see when viewed from a great distance. Your claim of flat or even relatively flat layers simply is not true most of the time if ever. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Edited by jar, : last ---> originally...many locations have been buried and lithified but are now back at the surface.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I did not address point 5 for some unknown reason so let me try that how.
Remember Steno lived a fair time ago during the Medici period before geology reached the level of knowledge we have today. His four principles are good basics and hold true "generally" but only if the fact that they are generalities and not specifics is understood. What is called the "Law of Horizontally" means that those layers of sediment that you might find in lakes or sea bottom were laid down horizontally. The reason is that the deposition is mediated by material falling through water. It meant that they would be flat. Of course we have learned a whole lot more then Steno knew about the conditions on sea floors and even on lakes. We now know that while the mechanism is generally correct the reality is slightly more complex. Just as Steno's Second Law does not hold true for land as opposed to water sedimentation deposition there are similar surfaces in lake and sea beds that prevent the simple flat deposition Steno envisioned. Where Steno's Second Law does hold true is seen in varves and similar deposition. Where it does not hold true is in deposition on slopes, aeolian sedimentation, marine sedimentation created by flow such as ripples. It is precisely those details that help geologists determine how a particular sample was originally produced. Trying to apply Steno's Second Law to all examples simply does not work. Edited by jar, : add "is understood" in 2nd. paragraph.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: We all agree that you cannot live on rock. Kinda, sorta, maybe, sometimes, some folk ... Then there are the endoliths that live inside rocks and the mosses and lichens that live on bare rocks. AbE: This is important because pioneer critters like these are a big part of returning colonization. Edited by jar, : see AbE:My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I would just like to have a way of referring to the phenomena of strata wherever they are that are assigned a time period name and date in the Geological Timescale. The way to do that is to simply refer to the time period. All you need to do for that is then show proof that that time period did not exist. AbE: Let me try to expand for you. What you need to do would be to show the evidence that the material surrounding an Abydosaurus find actually dates to about 4500 years ago instead of 150 to 100 million years ago. Edited by jar, : see AbE; Edited by jar, : t0 ---> toMy Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: But then I don't assume as you do that the upper strata were deposited on the lower as presented. Remember that guy called Steno; when you tried to use his Second Law? Well he actually proposed four laws and the very first one is the Law (or principle which is closer to what it really is) of Superposition. It pretty much says that at the time a lower layer is being deposited an upper layer does not yet exist.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024