Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 1257 (788139)
07-26-2016 1:17 PM


Well, the communication disconnects are way over the top now. No point in continuing.
Maybe I'll come up with a fresh approach to the OP topic. We'll see.

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2016 2:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 1257 (788142)
07-26-2016 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2016 1:18 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
Oh please. There would be successive shorelines as the water rose and then as it receded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2016 1:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2016 3:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2016 5:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 1257 (788148)
07-26-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ICANT
07-26-2016 2:35 PM


I'm really not interested in trying to convince you of the biblical basis of the Flood, ICANT. It's been understood as I understand it through at least three millennia of Bible believers and if their understanding of it hasn't convinced you nothing will. I certainly wouldn't want to try to prove anything from the Hebrew text anyway since I've never studied it and it would be easy to deceive me about it.
I'd really like to try to do a better job on the OP eventually if I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2016 2:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2016 4:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 1257 (788149)
07-26-2016 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by ooh-child
07-26-2016 1:44 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Usually people are trying to prove there IS loose dirt between layers. There's nothing for me to acknowledge that I can see. Everybody has their own take on things. Vimesey's doesn't represent any particular view I'm aware of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by ooh-child, posted 07-26-2016 1:44 PM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 2:54 PM Faith has replied
 Message 194 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2016 3:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 197 by ooh-child, posted 07-26-2016 3:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 1257 (788150)
07-26-2016 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jar
07-26-2016 1:48 PM


Re: and multiple shore lines
What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 07-26-2016 1:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jar, posted 07-26-2016 3:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 189 of 1257 (788154)
07-26-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
07-26-2016 2:54 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
I guess you've forgotten all those tedious arguments about erosion between the layers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 2:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 3:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 1257 (788159)
07-26-2016 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
07-26-2016 2:54 PM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
what statement was silly and wrong? I didn't even really get what Vimesey was saying and I have lots of stuff here demanding my attention so I don't always respond right away to something I don't understand. I may come back to vimesey eventually or he could remind me of it if he wants. There is nothing underhanded in my response or lack of it that I know of so this constant accusation of some such attitude is utterly incomprehensible.
You are certainly not willing to give an inch on anything I say, your remarks are particularly harsh, acid in the face. I don't get this, really I don't. What's this need to pounce on me about every little thing and accuse and accuse and accuse? I don't get it. I hardly ever have anything like the motives ascribed to me. Most of the time I haven't a clue why I'm being trashed and accused. You are the most aggressive one about it but you aren't alone. Most of the time I'm preoccupied with something else than whatever I'm getting smacked around about. I don't get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 2:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 3:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 1257 (788173)
07-26-2016 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ICANT
07-26-2016 4:14 PM


I'm not arguing about the Flood when I argue according to the OP, or in most of my arguments about the scientific questions. I'm completely focused on the physical facts of the argument.
What the "posters here are trying to point out to me" is just the usual false science. Obviously you and I differ on all of this. I really am not at all interested in arguing with you about any of it.
I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from having opinions about my personal motivations. It's enough having to deal with unbelievers without also having to argue with believers who can't tell the difference between arguing about the facts versus arguing about the Biblical revelation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 07-26-2016 4:14 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2016 5:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 201 of 1257 (788175)
07-26-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by saab93f
07-26-2016 4:33 PM


Re: Cretaceous dinosaur fossils in area that was underwater for the whole time period
I don't consider myself to be alone in my views, I share them with the whole creationist community. I do have my own personal take on some of it that I argue here.
Old Earthers ARE deceived and wrong. Sorry, that's the way it is.
And what you are overlooking is that all those scientific institutions I'm "spitting" on are doing far worse: they are spitting on God, THE source of all truth.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by saab93f, posted 07-26-2016 4:33 PM saab93f has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2016 4:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 1257 (788288)
07-28-2016 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by vimesey
07-25-2016 4:38 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Thanks for reopening the thread, Moose.
Since someone complained that I hadn't responded to Vimesey's posts I want to do that first:
====================================
.
.
A landscape doesn't generally form on top of a stratum of rock - that is not how the science works. Instead, layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever, get layered on top of other layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever, and on the surface of this evolving landscape, life continues. Like my example of Romania Britain to modern day Britain.
THEN, over millions of years, as the layers of soil, earth, dust, ash, peat, whatever get buried deeper, sometimes the conditions (pressure, heat) are such that they lithify and turn into strata of rock.
That's the sequence you need to get - first it's strata of living landscape, some of which, millions of years later, then lithify into rock.
..What happens is this - soil strata form on top of soil strata. (Just like the soil on top of the soil that the Roman villas are found in here). All of those strata get buried over time, and then, when the conditions are right, the strata get compressed and turned from soil into rock strata, all together, one on top of each other. Does that make it clearer ? The soil is there, on top of other layers of soil, and they all get turned into rock together, one on top of the other
And to repeat, the strata themselves were the loose soil. They rested, one on top of the other, as layers of soil. (Or sediment, if you prefer). There was no loose layer of soil in between - they were layers of soil on top of each other. They then got lithified into layers of rock on top of each other. Layers of rock are what layers of lithified soil look like.
So I’m trying to make sense of this, vinesey. I can’t.
Soil on top of soil? No landscape? What?
While one of the layers was resting on top of another, both apparently loose sediment according to you, what was going on in the strata below? Were they lithified? Clearly the strata that represent separate time periods had to have lithified long before the next layer did, or possibly even got deposited — because of the many millions of years between the time periods you know.
Some idea of the timeline you have in mind might help. After the soil/rock of the previous time period has been laid down, how long are we talking about before the soil of the next layer starts accumulating?
I don’t even know if that’s an appropriate question though, since I can’t make any sense out of the scenario you are describing in relation to the actuality of the strata.
Also, the strata are usually characterized by differences in sediment from one layer to the next. What you are describing is very much what one would find in an archaeological dig, all those various kinds of material that do amount to soil whereas the strata really can’t be described that way.
We’ve got rocks with dead things in them, flat rocks, thick flat rocks in a stack of rocks. You see them all over the place. Some of them cover enormous distances. Some of them are straight, some of them are bent and twisted, some of them are seen in mountains and cliffs from which a huge volume of the same stack of sediments has been eroded away in the foreground and all around them.
The understanding I get of the geological interpretation of these rocks is that the fossilized living things inside them, as well as the qualities of the rock itself, tell us about a landscape with living things in it that once lived on that very spot. Sketches of such landscapes aren’t hard to find, they show whatever flora and fauna are found fossilized in the rock living in this makebelieve landscape. On that very spot means on top of the slab of rock beneath I assume, which may or may not have been lithified at the time. Somehow or other a landscape had to occur on that surface, had to grow up after that rock slab was already there, whether lithified or not
But if it wasn’t lithified it’s hard to see how it could ever maintain any semblance of flatness as we see in the strata now. It also hard to suppose that a whole landscape formed on it with trees and rivers and waterfalls and so on because all those should have left their mark in it, but didn’t. Some trees put down incredibly deep roots for instance. How come such root systems aren’t common in the rocks that supposedly once supported a whole time period of living things in a landscape? (Don’t try to tell me they’re common; I know they’re not).
But that’s just one of many problems. The thing is we DO have to think in terms of rock-landscape-rock, and in terms of not a shred of that landscape remaining on the surface of the rock either, just some fossilized flora and fauna in the rock.
Nothing anyone has said gives a reasonable explanation of this that I can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by vimesey, posted 07-25-2016 4:38 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2016 12:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 213 by Boof, posted 07-29-2016 12:42 AM Faith has replied
 Message 214 by vimesey, posted 07-29-2016 1:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 219 by vimesey, posted 07-29-2016 7:18 AM Faith has replied
 Message 223 by jar, posted 07-29-2016 9:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 1257 (788290)
07-28-2016 7:10 PM


To keep things under control
I would like to have a policy from this point on of completely skipping any posts that make snarky remarks whether or not they also have something to say that's relevant to the topic. So I'll miss some substantive remarks that way, so if you want me to address them you'll have to leave out the snarky remarks. Fair warning though: I may not even get to all the substantive comments either, just so you know, for reasons I've given before.
I hope this is acceptable to the mods, because if I don't do something like this it's all going to become a morass of bickering and irrelevant barbs.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 210 of 1257 (788291)
07-28-2016 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
07-25-2016 5:27 AM


temporary sidetrack
My intention was to stick to the subject of the OP and not get back into the Interior Seaway topic yet, but I found this quote which is irresistible, in the Wikipedia article Paleontology in Kansas:
Carcasses of dinosaurs like Niobrarasaurus coleii were occasionally preserved after drifting hundreds of miles out into the Seaway.[13] Cretaceous plants left behind fossil leaves in Ellsworth County.[2]
Couldn't possibly be that they were living there at the time, right? Musta drifted there.
Looks like I may have to comment on some other posts on this subject before I get back to the OP too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 5:27 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2016 12:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 1257 (788305)
07-29-2016 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by mike the wiz
07-29-2016 6:25 AM


But if the global flood story is true, we should see highly organized sediments and fossil sequences that are structured into discrete, systematic units
I'm not sure who said this
Hi Mike,
Sorry if the reference wasn't clear but I didn't say it so please change your post so it doesn't look like I did. It was written by herebedragons (HBD).
Thanks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 1257 (788308)
07-29-2016 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Dr Adequate
07-29-2016 12:28 AM


Re: temporary sidetrack
Couldn't possibly be that they were living there at the time, right?
Dinosaurs were definitely land animals.
This is typical Dr. A oh-so-cutesy-clever obfuscation I'm going to try to ignore. The problem is some people probably think he's saying something meaningful so I feel obliged to correct it.
My point, which ought to be obvious in the context of this discussion, is that I'd expect to find land animals fossilized in an area supposed to have been covered by water, because I expect that ALL the fossils were the result of the Flood. They may or may not have lived in the area where they died but they died when it was covered by water in any case. Claiming that the dinosaurs died and their corpses drifted into the seaway where they were ultimately buried and fossilized is just a clever interpretation designed to deny the Flood. Not terribly likely either since the corpses would have been severely scavenged and probably not buried or fossilized at all, the conditions not being conducive to that scenario. I wonder how many of these corpses they're talking about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2016 12:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2016 7:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2016 11:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 1257 (788333)
07-29-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dr Adequate
07-29-2016 12:34 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Dr A writes:
Faith writes:
Soil on top of soil?
Yes.
Nonsense. "Soil on top of soil" is not any kind of reasonable description of what we see in the strata, which represent different time periods and are characterized by different discrete sediments, which is misrepresented by the term "soil"
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
No landscape?
Obviously a landscape
Not at all obviously a landscape. Nothing Vimesey said implies a landscape. He's got "soil" up against "soil" on top of each other that then got lithified.
vimesey writes:
There was no loose layer of soil in between - they were layers of soil on top of each other. They then got lithified into layers of rock on top of each other.
Where's the landscape?
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
Were they lithified? Clearly the strata that represent separate time periods had to have lithified long before the next layer did, or possibly even got deposited — because of the many millions of years between the time periods you know.
There is no time between two consecutive time periods.
Oh screaming nonsense, semantic foolery: There is certainly plenty of time between two different strata dated to within two different time periods, many millions of years in most cases or there is no point to the assigned dates at all. In a very specific case you COULD claim that one rock belongs to the very last part of a time period while the one above it belongs to the very earliest part of the next, but then you've multiplied the years between the rocks above and below those two. And in that case you've got two entirely different eras according to Old Earthism with two supposedly widely separated evolutionary contents, which kind of blows the idea that evolution takes a long long time.
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
After the soil/rock of the previous time period has been laid down, how long are we talking about before the soil of the next layer starts accumulating?
0.0 seconds.
Well, Walther's Law could accomplish that but the problem is that the previous and later depositions would also follow that pattern, which implies a very very short time period from one to the next, certainly not the OE-assigned multiple millions of years, even if you allow for depositions miles deep. So if you want to claim that, what you have is the model of a continually rising sea, in which case why not recognize you just gave evidence for the Flood?
DrA writes:
Well, a lot of the time tree roots rot, you know. Most things do, which is why most things aren't fossilized. But in conditions in which tree stumps are preserved, the tree roots are often found attached to them.
If you've ever looked at any of those illustrations of the imaginary landscapes in each "time period" you'd know that there are often LOTS AND LOTS of trees presumably putting down roots. And given that we're talking about FOSSILS in ROCKS, the thing you ought to find surprising is that there aren't LOTS AND LOTS of deep tree roots FOSSILIZED in the rocks that supposedly represent such a time period, even quite a few that penetrate through the rock into the lower rock, since of course that rock was there when the upper sediments were in place with the trees growing thereon.
DrA writes:
Faith writes:
Nothing anyone has said gives a reasonable explanation of this that I can see.
We have said clearly, distinctly, and repeatedly that the scenario you have just sketched out didn't happen, couldn't happen, wouldn't happen, and is directly contradicted by all the evidence. We are not obliged to produce a "reasonable explanation" for imaginary things in your head.
Ah yes, perhaps you have indeed said such things clearly and repeatedly, but I am under no obligation to take anything you happen to make up in your head as a reasonable explanation for what I'm trying to describe.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2016 12:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024