Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
468 online now:
nwr, PaulK (2 members, 466 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,011 Year: 6,123/6,534 Month: 316/650 Week: 86/278 Day: 8/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deposition and Erosion of Sediments
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 757 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 127 (230032)
08-05-2005 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Jazzns
08-03-2005 2:53 PM


Reconnoitering the thread
Just want you to know I am reading through the thread, taking some time with the information at the various links, still have work to do outside EvC, am trying to avoid the seduction of other threads, and will get to this soon I hope.

I don't know yet to what extent I want to do it quite as you outline. My original and continuing perspective is that the long ages explanation for the building of each layer and certainly the whole stack is untenable, and mustering reasons for that view is what I want to try to stay focused on. The erosion factor is one of those reasons. While I hope to be able to follow geologists' arguments for the most part, I still think it's more a matter of logic and visualization than sophisticated science. We'll see.

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 06:43 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Jazzns, posted 08-03-2005 2:53 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by deerbreh, posted 08-15-2005 5:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 757 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 127 (233127)
08-14-2005 7:26 AM


Just for the record, I continue to come back to this thread and read through various posts and links, which often take me off on long chains of related investigations, not always relevant to this topic. I appreciate that the thread remains open.

Just one comment. I much prefer my first topic to the ones later added by the admins:

As Moose put it in Message 1:

{Edit note: I have changed the proposed topic title from "Objections to Evo Time Frame Deposition of Strata #2" to "Deposition and Erosion of Sediments".... - Adminnemooseus}

The general focus substituted here brings in too many purely geological factors that are beyond my focus or knowledge. My focus is on the TIME factor, and that does require me to get into some of the geological issues opponents bring up, but I don't think they should be the centerpiece of this thread.

Percy in Message 79 defined the topic as:

Does the evidence of sedimentation and erosion found in the geological record support a young-earth viewpoint?

Again, the topic that concerns me is my original, Objections to Evo Time Frame Deposition of Strata. The young-earth viewpoint enters in from time to time, and the flood explanation too, but my thinking is all about what's wrong with the geo time scale, and alternative models are side issues.


Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Admin, posted 08-14-2005 8:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 123 of 127 (233133)
08-14-2005 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
08-14-2005 7:26 AM


You can't discuss geologic time frames without geological issues being the centerpiece.

The change in title was only a minor clarification, since geological strata both deposit *and* erode. All Moose did was change "Deposition of Strata" to "Deposition and Erosion of Sediments". The deleted "Objections to" portion was mere window dressing, since it is assumed you object. I don't see the change of title as modifying the thread's focus.

When you think it's okay to discuss Christianity without the Bible being the centerpiece then let me know and I'll reexamine my opinion that you can't discuss geologic time frames without geology being the centerpiece.

What you're actually struggling against is your unwillingness to confront the fact that one can't debate issues one is uninformed about. You want your naive ideas given as much consideration and respect as those of people who have studied for years. As long as you continue to hold such unreasonable expectations you will continue to struggle here.

By the way, it's also okay, at least in my opinion, to learn while you debate, as long as you understand that your preconceptions may turn out to be wrong. Persistent insistance that your preconceptions are right when there's an absence of supporting evidence and the presence of contradictory evidence is looked on as being unconstructive by the moderators. That doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you can't keep arguing if you can't support your point of view with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Arguing just to argue doesn't play well here. Find what you need to support your views, then post. Reversing the order will only bring you grief.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 7:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2205 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 124 of 127 (233488)
08-15-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
08-05-2005 6:01 AM


Re: Reconnoitering the thread
Faith writes:

While I hope to be able to follow geologists' arguments for the most part, I still think it's more a matter of logic and visualization than sophisticated science. We'll see.

In fact, Faith, sedimentation and sedimentary rock formation is sophisticated science and "logic and visualization" is not really going to get you very far, particularly if colored by creationist dogma.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 6:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 8:18 PM deerbreh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 757 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 125 of 127 (233533)
08-15-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by deerbreh
08-15-2005 5:05 PM


Re: Reconnoitering the thread
This is a great debate thread deerbreh, not open to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by deerbreh, posted 08-15-2005 5:05 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by deerbreh, posted 08-15-2005 8:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2205 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 126 of 127 (233538)
08-15-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
08-15-2005 8:18 PM


Re: Reconnoitering the thread
Well I am getting in and the "Great Debate" header says
"Replies: All registered users may post replies."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 8:18 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by AdminJar, posted 08-15-2005 8:49 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 127 (233541)
08-15-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by deerbreh
08-15-2005 8:44 PM


Not here.
Once a thread is moved into the GD forum participation is limited to the two posters. In this case it's Faith and Jazz IIRC (it's been so long I may have forgotten).

Do not post anymore replies here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by deerbreh, posted 08-15-2005 8:44 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022