That is painfully obvious. You have shown that you are completely oblivious to any evidence that contradicts your belief. You appear willing to go to any lengths to deny, ignore, misinterpret, or misrepresent any evidence that contradicts your belief no matter how well-supported it is. In doing so, you come up with the most hare-brained explanations I've ever seen.
Neither do you.
And that is completely false. Science follows the evidence, a trait you might try to emulate.
I come to try to persuade of something I'm convinced is true. Often I do learn things on these threads, however, that help with my argument.
Your grasp of science and the scientific method is tenuous at best, and completely contrary most of the time. Because science has formulated theories that contradict your a priori beliefs, you end up being anti-science while pretending the opposite.
My argument is solid and true, and calling it delusional does not amount to an argument on your part either. So much for the "scientific" mindset at EvC.
False. A hundred times false.
In response to evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you come up with the most outlandish "interpretations." When it is pointed out to you how you have ignored some evidence, denied other evidence, and misinterpreted or misrepresented the rest, you just dig in your heels and proclaim that you are right and science is wrong.
And every once in a while you admit that you are following belief no matter the evidence to the contrary. Then in the next post you claim to be doing science.
I think we can sum up your approach with a line from my signature: "Belief gets in the way of learning."
You're the poster-child for that bit of wisdom. And you're the poster-child for the wisdom of St. Augustine, that I posted earlier:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
One does eventually get tired of being called names all the time.
If the shoe fits...
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
Of course I don't come to learn. Neither do you. ....
But you should.
If you don't have a degree in a field then you do not have the education to discuss that field in depth. You certainly do not have the required knowledge to even pretend to correct people in those fields.
And I do come here to learn, and I learn a lot by following discussions of people more knowledgeable in specific fields than I, and I learn by researching things to post -- most recently about the sloth fossil that disproves your mechanisms for formation of the flood.
And, of course I learn about how intransigent some people can be ... as I have heard said it is easier to fool a gullible person than to show them they have been fooled.
It is a fact that none of the major disturbances occurred until after the strata were all laid down, with one exception ...
But lots of disturbances you don't acknowledge, disturbances that demonstrate time between layers, details that invalidate your scenario.
The fact that you need to distinguish between "major" and all those other inconvenient disturbances is evidence that you recognize - at some level - that there is information that you need to ignore if you want to maintain your belief. Classic cognitive dissonance behavior.
And for the record, they were disturbed by major tectonic events -- they were raised above sea level (when they had terrestrial deposits) and they were lowered below sea level (when they had marine deposits).
But science doesn't require massive earthquakes or many volcanic eruptions at every location and past time around the world, nor are they necessarily a result of uplift or subsidence -- that is misinformation you invented to tell yourself so you could make an old earth unreasonable in order to resolve your personal conflict with the details that both individually and in combination invalidate your scenario.
Science works to discover what happened rather than try to tell the world how it should have behaved.
... and that has big implications for the Flood and against the OE.
Nope. Not one. Nor do the "implications" invalidate the science in any way, instead this just means that there were no catastrophic upheavals during the time that the tectonics caused uplift and subsidence several times. Amazingly catastrophic upheavals were not expected. Geologists are not shocked nor dismayed by these "implications" because they know the geology involved.
My argument is solid and true, and calling it delusional does not amount to an argument on your part either.
Given that you cling to a falsified belief in spite of the detailed and voluminous evidence that shows it is falsified, the classification is just calling a spade a spade.
The reality is that the earth is old, very very old, and there is no evidence of a world wide flood.
As for meanders I know about meanders, what you are claiming is that the canyon itself meanders and I don't know what you mean by that or what the significance of it is.
There is no reason to assume that they'd have ended up at the bottom.
There is very good reason indeed called the law of superposition. Newer strata are stacked atop older strata. Thus deposits from the opening stages of the Flood would be lower in section than those from the later stages. It seems pretty straightforward. I'm pretty sure you don't dispute this principle, but I await your reply for clarification on that point. Think about it though. How would this dinosaur end up near the top of the rock record if it was buried by events at the start of the Flood? Remember that we know it wasn't transported, so it couldn't have been deposited at the start of the Flood then reworked and deposited higher in section at a later stage.
I don't think anybody knows how the layers got to be the way they are.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm pretty sure we do know. One layer was deposited, then another layer, then another and another and so on.
No need to assume it had to occur underwater. Before the water level was that high there would have been mudslides from the soaking rain
I have dealt with this above. You seem to accept that the proposed sand-slide mechanism is a terrestrial phenomenon. This means that to support your model you must argue that the Ukhaa Tolgod dinosaurs were buried at the beginning of the Flood, but to do this you must refute the law of superposition.
As for meanders I know about meanders, what you are claiming is that the canyon itself meanders and I don't know what you mean by that or what the significance of it is.
When I say the GC itself meanders I mean just that. The Colorado river meanders, but if you look at the aerial shots RAZD posted (or this map) you can see that the canyon itself takes a meandering course across the landscape.This is consistent with it having been incised over time by a meandering river but inconsistent with the catastrophic deluge of water you believe is responsible for the canyon.
I haven't said it often enough? Plants carried along with the sediment in the Flood waters and deposited as a layer wherever they happen to be found.
Tangle has already asked my follow-on question, and you haven't addressed it (which I can understand, because the gaping hole is obvious, even without a lot of expertise in the field), so let me ask it again:
If terrestrial plants were carried along with the sediment in the flood waters, why are there no marine fossils mixed in with the terrestrial plants ?
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
I'm well aware of the law of superposition, but when creatures died doesn't necessarily determine where they ended up in the stack. I can't explain the order of the layering. In a way I can't see how the strata are explainable at all, on either theory. They were laid MILES deep. Over two miles deep and possibly even three or four miles deep in the Grand Canyon area alone.
But how do you explain a huge dinosaur graveyard of tumbled fossilized remains such as is seen at some dinosaur museum sites. In I think Colorado there's a famous one but I've never been there. The pictures show a tangled bunch of bodies. And these things end up in a layer that has an Old Earth name to it.
I see the map of the canyon and have NO idea what you think is a problem for the Flood. I would expect the deluge to have simmered down to a river by stages, including a stage where it was very deep and very fast and capable of cutting deep meanders.
That's a kind of question that should be a big problem for Old Earthers too. Apparently the water sorted things, apparently water is capable of doing that. That's the only answer there is. The plants got their own transportation system. But I would think there would be a big problem for Old Earthers having to explain why a layer should have a characteristic collection of fossils in any particular time period as well, a collection that emphasizes what is taken to be that era's signature creature as it were, but without also including what are considered to be that creature's ancestors along with it, and a whole array of other living things that had been evolving right along with it as well. Why is there this odd and rather limited specificity in the layers? It's just too neat. Oh here's the dinosaur era, but where are all the dinosaur precursors. They should be in the same layer shouldn't they in just as great numbers shouldn't they?
At the beginning of this thread I said I didn't want to be here, didn't want to get into all this, but I nevertheless ended up getting into it. I don't want to be here now either but I always get tempted back to answer something or other so I can never just decide to leave and stick to it. Got to be sure I get a good quota of put downs and insults, get called delusional and a whiner and a hypocrite and a liar and arrogant and dishonest, got to rack up as many of those as possible don't I? So since I so enjoy all that I may not leave now either but here's another attempt to summarize as if I am going to leave.
RAZD called delusional the evidence of this cross section that the major disturbances occurred after all the strata were in place, but there it all is. Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that RAZD doesn't know how to interpret the cross section, however, since he also misread the picture of the Great Unconformity (and so did Percy. I got it right, however. So much for the scientific mindset.)
The only thing on that cross section that could be disputed as having occurred before the strata were laid down is the tilted Supergroup at the very bottom under the canyon. I personally believe that occurred at the same time as all the rest of the disturbances, as part of the tectonic and volcanic activity that came at the end of the Flood, and I reject the OE explanation of angular unconformities. They think a block of layers was tilted and then new layers were laid down horizontally on top of the tilted block. I believe the block was tilted beneath a deep stack of layers that was already in place above it. But since I can't prove this I'm conceding it for now. But all the REST of the disturbances shown in the cross section clearly occurred after all the strata were in place.
That means the uplift came afterward, that rounded surface of the Kaibab into which the canyon was cut, and of course the canyon itself, which clearly cuts through the whole stack. Also the whole Grand Staircase, all the cliffs and canyons. The magma dike at the north end of the Grand Staircase goes from the bottom of the stack through all the layers and spills out over the very top, showing all the strata were already in place there. The fault lines, two of them shown in this diagram, also split the entire stack bottom to top. The tilted block of layers at the very north end of the Staircase contains all the same layers as the rest of the formation and clearly occurred after all were in place.
All that tectonic and volcanic and earthquake activity happened only after all the strata were in place, not during their laying down.
Now, it would be nice if somebody would just acknowledge this fact instead of denying it and calling it delusional etc. You know, Gee, Faith, that's a really good observation there, that all that happened later, I really don't think that's been taken into account. I wonder what the implications of that are. Right, NOT going to happen. No, I've got to be delusional and arrogant and of course Wrong for being so convinced of this fact that is visible on this cross section. No, the creationist is the one who has to learn from the scientists, it couldn't possibly ever be the other way around.
Dr. A's pictures were supposed to prove me wrong but for the most part they prove me right, although that really didn't get discussed. The evidence in those pictures is that the tectonic and other disturbances occurred to the whole stack and not to individual layers, which is the point I've been pursuing. Even after I said I'd conceded the point about the Great Unconformity for now he nevertheless put that one up as if it refuted me. Even there the contact lines in the visible layered area are awfully neat and straight if you want evidence of that. And beyond that, there are a couple of pictures that are hard to decipher, but overall they do prove my point and not his.
So I think this view of the canyon area as a whole raises some uncomfortable questions for the Old Earth point of view. Of course we're still disputing whether the evidence of erosion between some layers proves some layers were ever on the surface of the earth, but still they have to account for some hundreds of millions of years during which no tectonic or volcanic activity occurred, which ought to be regarded as quite unlikely, speaking of reality.
So, knowing my track record at trying to leave this may not be my last post even if I'd like it to be. But in case it is, Happy New Year to all my devoted enemies here.
Not "enemies", Love, but opponents. Intellectual and philosophical.
Unlike the christians want so often, your opponents here do not seek to kill you. For some reason christians see those of different opinions as enemies and opposition as a capital offence. It really isn't.
Good grief, look at one of the plate movement animations. The Arabian plate starts out on the east side of Africa and moves north into its present position. Short distance to move, certainly compared with the distance across the Atlantic.
WHich plate animation? And over what period of time does minstream science say that plate moved?
It's not a short distance compared to the distance across the Atlantic. It's what we call "on the same order" as the distance across the Atlantic; more than ten times less and less than ten times more. In your scenario you compress tens of millions of years of movement into a few thousand. That is not on the same order of speed, and that's what matters here. All the earthquakes of those millions of years squeezed into a few thousand and nobody noticed that they couldn't build a city 'cause earthquakes knocked it down before they got going.
In case you can't tell I've stopped caring about this thread and anything anybody says which is the usual drivel
Yup. Running away from the insurmountable problems.
Jon and Pollux want to make a federal case out of the fact that I calculated the timing of the Atlantic movement without attending to their thousand and one other issues
This is a science forum. In science we deal with all the issues no matter how many there are. In fantasies like yours you can ignore the show-stopping issues.
What's the point of trying to have a discussion here.
To learn something, to hash out the problems with your scenario, lots of reasons.
Faith, if I was looking at that graphic without knowing anything at all about geology or the Grand Canyon except some generic things ( which is actually the case) I'd see the layers first and think that one of two things must have happened, either
1. The layers were put down carefully one at a time on top of each other like the bottled layers of sand you get in some seaside towns a souvenirs.
Or
2. A pile of loose sediment was shaken up in water and left to settle creating the layers composed of different size sediment.
I could check which was the case by looking at what's in the actual layers. If there's larger particles on top of smaller ones, I know for certain that 2. Is wrong. And if 1. Is correct it must have taken a long time to build up those layers.
I also see that the horizontal layers appear to have been raised up to the right of the picture. It even looks as though there are a couple of lumps of rock underneath lifting it, that don't belong there, as though they aren't part of the original layers. I don't know how they got there.
I can see that the uplift has caused a crack in the centre where the layers have shifted out of alignment and I can also see that the river on the right has cut into the rocks through the layers almost to the level of the non-uplifted layers.
Without knowing anything at all about geology, I say that something lifted the land there, bent the layers and cause the river to cut into the rocks as they rose. It couldn't have happened quickly because the river would just have diverted to lower land probably into the small valley caused by the fault. So again I'm thinking a long period of time because the layers had to first form, then slowly uplift and equally slowly get cut into.
The left of the picture has several other features.
The first is 8 or 9 more layers on top of the ones I've just been looking at. From the angle of the exposed layers, it looks like they've been eroded right to left, I'd assume that was prevailing wind direction - but it's a guess.
The vertical black line severing all the layers looks like some form of volcanic activity, you can see how something - i'm assuming larva - has seeped sideways between layers and something has been forced up through those layers and I'm wondering whether at least some of those extra layers are formed from larva and the mound is actually an old volcano.
Then on the very far left there's another fault, I've no idea what that is, but it's another disturbance that's gone through the entire stack.
So, i have a few hypotheses, some of which I can prove just by checking simple facts and some that may remain a mystery to me - but it would be fairly easy to do.
I could go on and look at dating methods, fossil layers, chemical compositions, other canyons elsewhere and so on and see whether there's still a consistent picture. After all, a single fossil out of place would make a mess of the whole thing.
But no matter how I look at that picture, I can't see how a single catastrophic flood created those features. I'm trying to but it just doesn't fit with what we can see and go on to test.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
The shape of the canyon, top to bottom, is the shape of meanders.
what the significance of it is
Well, you've certainly been told often enough and it's really , so it must be willful ignorance. But one more try.
Executive summary: Catastrophically fast-moving water did not cut the Grand Canyon.
Details:
Surface meanders are formed when a somewhat slow-moving river cuts into soil or soft sediment and is moving slowly enough that the vertical erosion is less thant the horizontal (bank) erosion. Surface meanders are not formed by fast moving water because the downstream motion and vertical erosion overwhelm the cross-stream circulation.
Incised meanders are formed when a meandering river cuts down into solid rock without ever moving fast enough to cause significant sidewall erosion as it goes around each meander, and the rock is solid enough to support near-vertical walls. Incised meanders are not cut by fast-moving water as found in ordinary floods, much less your fludde.
It's jsut one of the thousands of falsifications of yuor fantasy that you continue to ignore.
™ Version 4.2
