Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 886 of 1257 (790239)
08-28-2016 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by Faith
08-28-2016 6:45 AM


Re: You can't solve the puzzle by just making up stuff
DWise1 writes:
When put to you in such straight-forward terms, can you begin to understand how absolutely bat-quano-crazy you make yourself appear? At first blush, you appear to be suggesting such "roam{ing} around from one level to another" is something that you think had happened.
No, it's one of the hypothetical weirdnesses that is made necessary by the craziness of the Stratigraphic Column and its Depositional/Erosional Environments, nothing else, just facts that present themselves as one tries to follow out that craziness. I understand that you must fail to appreciate this fact for reasons of your own.
Faith, nobody believes such an absolutely ridiculously thing nor would any even-marginally-sane person every believe such a ridiculous thing! Absolutely nothing in geology could ever possibly require believing such an absolutely ridiculous thing.
If you truly believe what you just blabbered, then please present a coherent logical case for it!
[ The incomplete quoting left me wondering what you're talking about. --Admin ]
DWise1 writes:
But upon further inspection, it appears that you think that that is what geologists think.
Definitely not. Because they think the stratigraphic column and the depositional/erosional environments and the geo timescale make sense. What I'm doing is showing that they don't. Unfortunately nobody gets it. But ya know what? I'm beyond caring.
WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU SAYING???
No, geologists definitely do not think that, because it is absolutely pure bat-shit crazy! You claim that you are showing that they do not believe that, while at the same time claiming that that is what they do believe.
Are you just blatantly lying to us?
[ More incomplete quoting. Here's a fuller quote from Message 882: --Admin ]
dwise1 in Message 882 writes:
When put to you in such straight-forward terms, can you begin to understand how absolutely bat-quano-crazy you make yourself appear? At first blush, you appear to be suggesting such "roam{ing} around from one level to another" is something that you think had happened. But upon further inspection, it appears that you think that that is what geologists think.
[ End of Admin insertion. --Admin ]
DWise1 writes:
No, they most definitely do not think that! You are creating ludicrous strawmen to knock down.
Not exactly. It's where the actual circumstances lead me. Not to any place a geologist ever goes because they are too busy avoiding the facts that would lead them there. Lots of general principles are thrown at me, but following out the actual facts, no.
What "actual circumstances"? The simple fact that your dogma is contradicted by reality? Perhaps you would care to specify?
Geologists avoiding the facts? From someone who adamantly refuses to talk with a geologist? Glenn R. Morton was a young-earth creationist (YEC) who wrote several YEC articles for YEC publications, along with having been trained by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the President of which, Dr. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering), was literally the Father of Flood Geology (even though he had robbed that child from the cradle of Seventh-Day Adventist George McCready Price). Morton went to work for a petroleum exploration company, so he worked extensively in field geology, which entails looking at the actual rock-hard geological evidence. He hired several other ICR-trained geologists, all of whom had been trained extensively to believe that certain geological facts were not true and could not be true for Scripture to have any meaning. Morton reported that those ICR-trained geologists, when faced day after day after day with rock-hard geological evidence that they had been taught did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning, all suffered crises of faith. After that report, Morton himself was driven to the verge of atheism by YEC.
Geologists work with and deal with the actual evidence. Creationists deny it. Creationists have to deny the facts in order to preserve their faith. So just who is avoiding the facts?
Edited by Admin, : Insert comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 6:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 887 of 1257 (790240)
08-28-2016 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 883 by Faith
08-28-2016 6:45 AM


Re: You can't solve the puzzle by just making up stuff
DWise1 writes:
Who do you think you are fooling with that? Just yourself, that is all. And fooling yourself is your most important goal with all this.
Your ability to assess motivation is abysmally bad. Do give it up and find a more useful pursuit.
So then, you will have absolutely no difficulty in demonstrating that your motivation has absolutely nothing to do with supporting your dogma.
You could start by demonstrating that the very idea that the earth is actually old would have absolutely no effect on your young-earth beliefs.
Or by demonstrating that you would follow the truth and the evidence even if it were to contradict your young-earth beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 883 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 6:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 888 of 1257 (790241)
08-28-2016 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 881 by Faith
08-28-2016 6:24 AM


Re: All gone to layers of rock
Again, you have blathered so much nonsense that finding the pertinent post is difficult.
You have demonstrated great confusion about "landscapes". One of the weird ideas that you seem to repeatedly raise is that landscapes are continuously being destroyed and replaced with new ones. We have tried to explain reality to you, but to no avail.
We have tried to explain to you that the "landscape" (which you have extended to include seascapes) is on and about the surface of the earth, such that most all life we know of lives on that surface, slightly below it, and slightly above it. That is where the "landscape" always is and always remains. Now the surface itself, that can change. Surfaces can get buried or eroded away, but the "landscape" continues to exist on and about the new surface.
Let's try an analogy in which you, Faith, are a landscape. Have you been destroyed repeatedly and had a new copy created? Are the older copies of you lying about somewhere? Are you one person or has there been many of you?
Sure, you will argue that there has only ever been one of you, but is that true? There is a truism that all our bodies' cells replace themselves every seven years. And you deposit parts of yourself all the time. Hair clippings, nail clippings, dead skin cells (purportedly the major source of dust in our homes). Are you truly the same person you were as a child, or a teenager, or a young adult, or a year ago, or a week ago, or a day ago, or a minute ago? Or a second ago (eg, the 1986 episode of the new Twilight Zone series, "A Matter of Minutes" in which instant by instant everything is removed and replaced by the next instant's objects)?
So then, Faith, are you a series of repeatedly reproduced instances of yourself? Or have you always been a single person who is constantly changing?
Isn't every "landscape" the same "landscape" that is changing over time. And all that actually gets buried is the old surfaces of older versions of that "landscape"? Just as we have repeatedly tried to explain to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 6:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 889 of 1257 (790242)
08-28-2016 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 877 by Faith
08-28-2016 1:23 AM


Re: What's imaginary and what's not.
Faith writes:
That evidence works just as well for the Flood.
Faith, you know that is simple a total falsehood and lie. You have admitted that there is no flood model that can explain the biological and geological evidence that exists in reality.
Stop making such claims until you are ready to present the flood model, method, mechanism, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains the evidence that exists and don't even think about claiming you have already done that because everyone knows that too would be a lie.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 877 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 1:23 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 890 of 1257 (790244)
08-28-2016 10:00 AM


If I were moderator I'd put PaulK, dwise and jar out in the cold for a month for accusing me of lying among other things. But since I'm not I suppose the best thing to do is leave myself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 891 of 1257 (790245)
08-28-2016 10:31 AM


Moderator Suggestions
Suggestions based upon responses posted to this thread since I posted yesterday:
  • Again, let's end the snarkiness. Faith is describing her sincere impressions of what geology is saying, and if they are wide of the mark then she is not alone in this. We've all gotten things wrong about geology I agree that she sees problems that don't exist, but in my own experience difficulties I had understanding something were because I was inventing non-existent problems. Probably we all do this.
    It looks like after a period of asking sincere questions that Faith felt forced into a more inflexible position around Message 874. This is apparently how Faith sees it from Message 878:
    Faith in Message 878 writes:
    Since you are making flat declarations you make it necessary for me to do the same. You said something about having dealt with my "puzzle" but I don't recall seeing what you said about that. If you'd like to stop exchanging declarations and consider my argument please repeat whatever you said about it since I didn't see it.
    If you can't deal with Faith's posts without become snarky then stop posting. If anyone would like a vacation from discussion for a few days, keep it up.
  • And again, please reexplain as necessary. No "I've already explained that."
  • A few different paragraphs from Edge appear to be saying a landscape both can and can't become part of the geological record. Here in Edge's Message 861 he appears to be saying that landscapes can become part of the geological record (and we know they do - paleosols are soil landscapes preserved in the geological record):
    Edge in Message 861 writes:
    It [the landscape] is not a part of the older rocks but a temporary location for life to exist and also setting the table for new sediments (later to become rocks) to be deposited, thereby preserving the landscape as a primary sedimentary feature.
    And here in his Message 862 he appears to be saying that landscapes cannot become part of the geological record because they are never sedimentary environments:
    Edge in Message 862 writes:
    The landscape is actually a gap in deposition. It does not represent a sedimentary environment, other than if there might be rivers or lakes or other subaerial deposits.
    Edge qualifies this when he mentions rivers, etc., but in any case, I think this needs some clarification because my sense is that a landscape can be either "a gap in deposition" and a region of net deposition. Later in Message 869 Edge states that landscapes can be preserved:
    Edge in Message 869 writes:
    I have always said that landscape is preserved in the rock. Like a fossil or a crack.
    Then yet later he calls landscapes erosional:
    Edge in Message 869 writes:
    Faith writes:
    Besides which, what does it mean to have ONE landscape in that stack of rocks since each rock represents a depositional environment?
    In general, it doesn't represent a depositional environment. It represents an environment. An erosional one.
    I'm finding this confusing, and I think Faith must feel the same way.
  • Edge's statements about landscapes cutting into rock would be helped by some further clarification. This is from Edge's Message 869:
    Edge in Message 869 writes:
    The rock pre-exists the landscape. The landscape is cut into the rock.
    For the erosive forces of wind and water and gravity and varying temperature to work, the rock must be exposed and the region must be one of net erosion. For what we would normally describe as a livable landscape to emerge the area must become one of net deposition. After a period of net deposition there will no longer be any exposed rock to erode - the cutting into the rock of older sedimentary layers has ended.
    When the region becomes one of net deposition then the new sedimentary deposits will gradually acquire more and more life that gradually works the sedimentary deposits into what we would recognize as soil. As the sedimentary deposits slowly accumulate in the region the landscape gradually rises in elevation. The existing top of the landscape becomes buried beneath a new top of the landscape, and life always exists within the top few feet of the landscape.
    I think Faith has a point when she complains about nit-pickery. The details of how the bottommost part of landscape began upon a surface of rock might be a helpful correction to something said, but it feels more important to concentrate at this time on how life manages to continue largely unchanged and flourishing on a landscape that is accumulating sediment.
  • In Message 869 Edge states that the soils of former landscapes are not common in the geological record:
    Edge in Message 869 writes:
    Sometimes true soil is preserved, as under a volcanic rock, but these are not large parts of the geological record.
    It would be helpful if the explanation could be repeated about why this is.
  • Please keep presenting information as many times as necessary. This is from DWise1's Message 880:
    dwise1 in Message 880 writes:
    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?
    My suggestion is to (without snarkiness) present the images again.
  • In her Message 883 Faith states her belief that she's shown that stratigraphic columns and the geo timescale make no sense:
    Faith in Message 883 writes:
    Definitely not. Because they think the stratigraphic column and the depositional/erosional environments and the geo timescale make sense. What I'm doing is showing that they don't.
    The reality is that people have been able to make very little sense of Faith's objections. More effort is needed on both sides at finding clarifications of what Faith is trying to say.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 893 by edge, posted 08-28-2016 12:27 PM Admin has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 892 of 1257 (790251)
08-28-2016 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
08-28-2016 3:03 AM


Re: All gone to layers of rock
The "rock record" is a lie. The only real landscapes occur on the top of the strata wherever they are exposed. And those are the only landscapes that ever existed in the strata, all the rest is a bunch of misinterpreted bits and pieces in the rocks.
Your opinion is noted.
Why not provide photographs instead of drawings? Could it be because in reality such irregular surfaces hardly ever occur in a stratigraphic column? And when something like that does occur it's better interpreted some other way?
As noted by others, you have been shown a number of such photographic images in the past. As per usual, you simply denied the interpretation.
Since you are making flat declarations you make it necessary for me to do the same. You said something about having dealt with my "puzzle" but I don't recall seeing what you said about that. If you'd like to stop exchanging declarations and consider my argument please repeat whatever you said about it since I didn't see it.
I don't recall making such a statement.
I'm sorry to hear it. You have my sympathy for your very sick science.
This statement adds nothing to the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 3:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 893 of 1257 (790252)
08-28-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 891 by Admin
08-28-2016 10:31 AM


Re: Moderator Suggestions
A few different paragraphs from Edge appear to be saying a landscape both can and can't become part of the geological record. Here in Edge's Message 861 he appears to be saying that landscapes can become part of the geological record (and we know they do - paleosols are soil landscapes preserved in the geological record):
And here in his Message 862 he appears to be saying that landscapes cannot become part of the geological record because they are never sedimentary environments:
My second statement refers to a gap in sedimentation. There are many elements that go into the rock record that are not sediments, such as faults, fossils and unconformities.
Edge qualifies this when he mentions rivers, etc., but in any case, I think this needs some clarification because my sense is that a landscape can be either "a gap in deposition" and a region of net deposition. Later in Message 869 Edge states that landscapes can be preserved:
A landscape (subaerial topography) is, generally speaking, not an area of net deposition. I believe Jar mentioned this quite clearly. While there are (as I have said) local basins that have been preserved within that topography, it is erosional on a regional basis.
Then yet later he calls landscapes erosional:
If they are on land, they have to be erosional on the continental scale. It should be fairly easy to see that some lake beds, sand bars and more rarely paleosoils are preserved.
edge: In general, it doesn't represent a depositional environment. It represents an environment. An erosional one.
Percy:I'm finding this confusing, and I think Faith must feel the same way.
I might have misread Faith's statement, but my point still stands: a landscape is generally erosional. While rocks represent depositonal environments, landscapes represent an erosional environment.
Edge's statements about landscapes cutting into rock would be helped by some further clarification. This is from Edge's Message 869:
The rock pre-exists the landscape. The landscape is cut into the rock.
Erosion attacks rocks, sediments and soil and exposes what is beneath them. Like the Grand Canyon cutting through the Kaibab.
For the erosive forces of wind and water and gravity and varying temperature to work, the rock must be exposed and the region must be one of net erosion.
Yes, and?
For what we would normally describe as a livable landscape to emerge the area must become one of net deposition.
So when Hutton observed soils (a livable landscape) slowly moving toward the sea, it was net deposition?
What you are talking about is the slow accumulation of sediment, and organic material on the top of an existing soil. Is that correct?
The ultimate disposition of that soil is still to base level. The rate may change to zero for a while, but eventually, it will reach the sea.
And remember that any sedimentation that occurs in an area is necessarily related to erosion of another area. Think of loess, for instance. You can get huge accumulations of loess, so yes, it is depositional. However, that sediment has to come from somewhere that erosion exceeds deposition.
After a period of net deposition there will no longer be any exposed rock to erode - the cutting into the rock of older sedimentary layers has ended.
If transport is slow, sure. For a while.
You can think of erosion being the chemical/physical destruction and transport of a material. Soil is simply an intermediate step aided by biological activity.
When the region becomes one of net deposition then the new sedimentary deposits will gradually acquire more and more life that gradually works the sedimentary deposits into what we would recognize as soil. As the sedimentary deposits slowly accumulate in the region the landscape gradually rises in elevation. The existing top of the landscape becomes buried beneath a new top of the landscape, and life always exists within the top few feet of the landscape.
It's a little bit late now, but the choice of the term 'landscape' is unfortunate. I think that the definition of this term should be clarified.
I think Faith has a point when she complains about nit-pickery. The details of how the bottommost part of landscape began upon a surface of rock might be a helpful correction to something said, but it feels more important to concentrate at this time on how life manages to continue largely unchanged and flourishing on a landscape that is accumulating sediment.
Again, this is a temporary and local situation. That is why terrestrial fossils are simply not as common as marine fossils.
As to 'bottommost' part of a 'landscape', you need to recognize that the first step in forming a soil is to weather the rock.
In Message 869 Edge states that the soils of former landscapes are not common in the geological record:
It would be helpful if the explanation could be repeated about why this is.
Because soils are products of erosion and are subject to further physical erosion and transport. They are temporary.
My suggestion is to (without snarkiness) present the images again.
Things that take effort and are not appreciated, usually take a back seat to nice easy insults.
The reality is that people have been able to make very little sense of Faith's objections. More effort is needed on both sides at finding clarifications of what Faith is trying to say.
Frankly, I have spent many hours trying to figure out Faith's issues. Every time I present a possibility I get snapped at. That's fine, I don't really care, but it does not encourage a discussion when that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Admin, posted 08-28-2016 10:31 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by Admin, posted 08-29-2016 7:39 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 894 of 1257 (790269)
08-28-2016 4:52 PM


As things stand at the moment
I appreciate Percy's attitude of fairness, although I've had enough of the accusations and snark for a while. And although I'm glad he recognizes that my posts are sincere, he's wrong that I'm characterizing what geologists believe. As I said in a recent post, that drew a chorus of accusations of lying, I'm trying to show something geologists have missed. I believe that if the "puzzle" I posed was honestly followed it would reveal the essential irrationality of the whole idea that there are depositional/or erosional "environments," or ancient landscapes, indicated by clues in the rocks of a stratigraphic column. This isn't something geologists think, it's something they haven't noticed because they normally stick to general statements about landscapes and environments and don't try to construct how you get from a landscape to a flat slab of rock in the stratigraphic column. And although it's asserted from time to time that the rocks have nothing to do with the Geological Timescale this is easily belied by any number of diagrams that can be found on the web. At best it's a nitpicky academic point.
As for edge's experience of having his hard work go unappreciated, I sympathize, and have to say that I appreciate that he's been generally communicative, informative and fair in his posts; but about being unappreciated think I can say the same for my own experience, probably tripled.
I'm on a break, a very long one I think. Considering the extreme misunderstandings of what I'm trying to do in this thread, and I recognize that it's an odd project I'm engaged in, I don't see any good reason to continue it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2016 5:11 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(5)
Message 895 of 1257 (790271)
08-28-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 894 by Faith
08-28-2016 4:52 PM


quote:
As I said in a recent post, that drew a chorus of accusations of lying, I'm trying to show something geologists have missed
I stand by my point that you have not dealt with any actual examples, and in fact refuse to produce any actual examples.
And you have an odd way of trying to show things. You make a lot of assertions but they don't seem to make any sense - and you fail to present anything like the supporting reasoning that is needed.
So, really you are not only failing to show that geologists have missed something you don't even look like you are making a real attempt.
quote:
This isn't something geologists think, it's something they haven't noticed because they normally stick to general statements about landscapes and environments and don't try to construct how you get from a landscape to a flat slab of rock in the stratigraphic column.
Firstly, you are the one who sticks to general statements - you are the reason we haven't discussed any actual examples in this thread. And since you obviously "see" what you claim to see by dealing only with general statements it can hardly be the reason why geologists do not see it - even if it were not the case that geologists do look at actual examples.
Also you ignore the fact that preserved landscapes are often more than flat slabs of rock. Which is par for the course for you.
And quite frankly I find my efforts to avoid treating you with the unreserved snark you deserve are quote severely under appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 894 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 4:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 896 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 10:34 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 896 of 1257 (790276)
08-28-2016 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 895 by PaulK
08-28-2016 5:11 PM


I barely managed to get anything said about my argument. Every time I got a post out about it, just a bare beginning, instead of anyone addressing its points I'd be buried in snark and accusations and other kinds of objections. I also many times said it's a hard argument to make, but that didn't lead anyone to make it any easier. If I were a mod you'd be gone for a LONG time, but I'm not, so I'm the one leaving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 895 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2016 5:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 897 by Riggamortis, posted 08-28-2016 11:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 899 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2016 2:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2391 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 897 of 1257 (790278)
08-28-2016 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 896 by Faith
08-28-2016 10:34 PM


I for one, am unable to determine what your argument is. In a depositional environment, old landscapes are being constantly replaced, by new sediment that now sits atop the old landscape, forming the surface of the new landscape.
Eventually, if this process is uninterrupted, new landscapes are deposited on to the old continually and the old landscapes are eventually buried deep enough to form rock. Everything in that layer of sediment has been dead a long time and does not need anywhere to go. I don't see the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 10:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 898 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 11:51 PM Riggamortis has not replied

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


Message 898 of 1257 (790279)
08-28-2016 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 897 by Riggamortis
08-28-2016 11:03 PM


All the landscapes and depositional/erosional environments have to end up in the rocks of a stratigraphic column. Forget the generalizations, take it step by step, see if it's possible.
ABE: A stratigraphic column is a stack of rocks that may extend for thousands of square miles, flat slabs of rock one on top of another, each being understood to represent a former environment based on characteristics of the rock and its fossil contents. There are no rocks in the column that are merely sediments. See if you can trace the events that would turn all those environments into such a stack of rocks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 897 by Riggamortis, posted 08-28-2016 11:03 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 899 of 1257 (790282)
08-29-2016 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by Faith
08-28-2016 10:34 PM


quote:
I barely managed to get anything said about my argument. Every time I got a post out about it, just a bare beginning, instead of anyone addressing its points I'd be buried in snark and accusations and other kinds of objections.
Simply untrue. In fact you often get people asking you to explain - and you don't.
quote:
I also many times said it's a hard argument to make, but that didn't lead anyone to make it any easier.
And how could we do that ? You make claims that seem nonsensical but won't give us any hint as to how you reached those conclusions even when we ask. I advised you to deal with a real example, but you refuse to do that, sticking to entirely general claims. Dwise advised you to break the problem down but you haven't produced any attempt at that either. You tell us that if we try to reconstruct the events required - in a purely abstract general sense - we will found what you "found". But if you had actually produced your own reconstruction you could just present it, with an explanation of your reasoning. So obviously you have not done what you tell us to do, and have no idea what we would really find.
quote:
If I were a mod you'd be gone for a LONG time, but I'm not, so I'm the one leaving.
Yes, you would abuse your moderator powers. Fortunately for debate here the moderation is honest and largely fair - even if you are given a huge amount of leeway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by Faith, posted 08-28-2016 10:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 900 of 1257 (790293)
08-29-2016 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 893 by edge
08-28-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Moderator Suggestions
Hi Edge,
Thanks for the clarifications. I'm going to attempt to clarify a bit more.
In response to Faith's concern that life could not live in a region of accumulating sediments, part of the discussion is about the accumulation of soil to greater depths upon a landscape. It is understood that across the fullness of time terrestrial landscapes, being above sea level, average out to net erosion and that most of them won't be preserved in the geological record.
What I think is confusing is statements that appear to saying that soil landscapes can only be regions of net erosion. Not everyone is going to understand that this only means on average across the fullness of time. Soil regions must have been regions of net accumulation of sediments, otherwise they couldn't have formed in the first place. However much sediment was flowing out, more must have been flowing in.
I'm living on soil that is about a hundred feet deep before you hit rock (we know that from when our well was dug), and all that soil was built from sediments from mountains upstate, with life living upon the sediments continuously turning it to soil. When the mountains are worn away millions of years from now then where I live will no longer have a net accumulation of sediments and it will likely eventually disappear. Whether we're in a state of net deposition or net erosion right now I have no idea, but obviously this was a terrestrial region of net deposition for quite some time.
Part of the discussion has been attempting to explain how life survives on a landscape of increasing depth with the surface gradually rising in elevation. It should also be explained how the slow erosion of a landscape also does not present a problem for life. It's important to address this, because Faith believes that these slow and gradual geological processes of erosion and deposition must destroy the environments where life lives. She reasons that since life is preserved in these layers the environments must not have been destroyed, and therefore geology is wrong about erosion and deposition. Some other process must be responsible for what we find in the geological record.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 893 by edge, posted 08-28-2016 12:27 PM edge 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