|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Faith in Message 1071 writes:
Oh, I certainly noticed that statement.The "oldest" layers have no more signs of decrepitude than "younger" layers, no more erosion, no more appearance of any kind of breakdown or sagging or dissolution whatever, no more crumbling or surface erosion, nothing at all. This hasn't received any attention, but it deserves some. There seem at least several things about basic geology that Faith is missing here. I'm not sure what Faith means by 'decrepitude', but I might say just the opposite. Most old rocks are still around because they are much more strongly lithified or metamorphosed than younger rocks. The 'decreptitude' of a rock has more to do with weathering than anything else. In other words, a young rock that has been exposed to weather can be just as, or more decrepit than an older rock And yes, I feel pretty adept at telling the age of a sedimentary rock by looking at it, particularly if it is in the field. So, I would say that Faith is wrong in more than one way with this statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
(No, you do NOT see "sand dunes" in a rock. You see a rock with sand grains that follow a particular pattern. No you do NOT see a 'delta" in a rock: you see certain chemical and physical properties that you associate with that sort of environment.)
So, we should just ignore that pattern?
The problem with that Wikipedia dogma is that it treats interpretations as facts, but then that's what all the historical/interpretive sciences do. It reifies them, that's another word for the epistemopathy involved. Why can't *science* just honestly describe the observed phenomena and stop mistaking interpretation for fact? The assumptions of Old Earthism are bad enough, but there are worse examples when you get into descriptions of evolution based on fossils.
So then, all you need to do is prove that the interpretations are not factual. Why aren't you doing that? Hey, all YECs say the same thing, but no one does anything about it.
Yes I suppose I should go look some up. Oh I know I should, and in another frame of mind I could list dozens, but sorry, right now my head hurts, my eyes hurt. I couldn't get anyone to see any of this anyway. What is needed is a maverick geologist (or evolutionary biologist) who can properly diagnose the epistemopathy. Since I'm not a geologist my efforts are a lost cause.
So, have your professional creationists let you down? This shouldn't be your job. Why haven't they laid all this out so that you could slay the old earth dragon? In fact, why aren't they here in the first place?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
So, we should just ignore that pattern?
I don't see interpretations as a problem. In fact, that is how we make scientific progress.No, you should make it clear that it is an interpretation instead of describing it as if it were a fact. We formulate an interpretation and then we test it. After some degree of confirmation it is logical to treat an interpretation as a fact. I can think of no better way to test an interpretation. What do you accept as a fact? How have you proven it? Do you test your interpretations?
There is no way I know of to prove an interpretation is not factual. It's an interpretation, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Other interpretations can be offered and that's about it. All I'm saying is it's an epistemological error, or even a form of fraud, to describe an interpretation, which cannot be proved, as a fact. And there are other interpretations that could be mentioned too, such as the Flood interpretations of many of the phenomena that are described as ancient as if it were fact.
I can think of several ways to 'prove' an interpretation of old ages (for instance). I call it 'testing by multiple independent methods'. As yet, neither you nor the professional creationists have done so.
Actually that's not true. Partially true at best.
Okay then, a majority of YECs use the same argument and vanishingly few do anything about it.
It would have to be a well known geologist or biologist in good standing, not a creationist. Sigmund Koch who was the critic of Psychology I mentioned, had first established a reputation as a Psychologist at the top of the field, through many papers and projects.
Well, some have tried. All have failed. Obviously.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but revered though EvC is among its regulars, the level of thought here isn't exactly the highest quality.
So, you're on your own. Lots'a luck!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
While I would probably say "show" instead of "prove," this pretty much echos my own feelings. If someone's interpretations of the evidence are wrong then it must be explained how they are wrong.
Heh, heh ... Once again, I slip into the YEC mode of argument. If we have to prove that there are landscapes in the geological record, why not ask the same in return? I used the word 'prove' very intentionally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
From encyclopedia.com.
Walther's law of facies implies that a vertical sequence of facies will be the product of a series of depositional environments which lay laterally adjacent to each other. This law is applicable only to situations where there is no break in the sedimentary sequence. Just a moment...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
ABE: I realized that the situation Stile is describing has nothing to do with Walther's Law anyway, since that applies to sediments deposited by changing sea levels. He is talking about ocean transgressing over, or into, a sedimentary accumulation that was deposited by terrestrial means.
Ummmm, Faith ... A marine transgression IS a change of sea level. And actually, Walther's Law has to do with your questions about environments residing side by side; along with how one environment overrides another by transgression. That's why I brought it up. To help you understand what happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Walther's Law has nothing to do with the problem this thread is addressing. Period.
See my previous post and maybe dial back a little bit on the querulous posting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Please repeat whatever you said in the post you want me to review, or better yet, restate what you think I need to know in new terms. ABE: I realized that the situation Stile is describing has nothing to do with Walther's Law anyway, since that applies to sediments deposited by changing sea levels. He is talking about ocean transgressing over, or into, a sedimentary accumulation that was deposited by terrestrial means.
Ummmm, Faith ... A marine transgression IS a change of sea level. And actually, Walther's Law has to do with your questions about environments residing side by side; along with how one environment overrides another by transgression. That's why I brought it up. To help you understand what happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Something is getting confused here.
Nothing is 'getting confused'. It's been confused from the beginning and we have over 1100 posts to prove it.
The "side-by-side" phenomenon described by Walther's Law has to do with the sedimentary deposits brought about by the transgressing sea itself, the vertical layering plus the lateral deposits all as a result of the transgression.
Okay.
The example I'm exploring with Stile is something else entirely: terrestrial sediments being transgressed by the sea, which is a different situation. If it involves Walther's Law it nevertheless has nothing to do with the lateral deposits laid down BY the sea.
The reason that I brought it up was because I though you were having a problem with active sedimentary environments existing beside each other and one of them also overlying the other. If you are restricting the conversation to the first layer laid down by rising sea level, I see you point because the underlying 'layer' (the bedrock forming the land surface) is actually older and not the same age. That would be describing an unconformity, which would take us out on another tangent which has proven fruitless before.
AND I've never seen a stratigraphic column with side-by-side sediments of either source.
Of course you haven't. That's what cross-sections do. However, your statement isn't exactly true either because I have shown you strat columns with schematicized channels cut in older rocks and occupied by younger rocks. The Temple Butte Sandstone would be an example.
I suppose it could happen but I haven't seen it. And again the side-by-side situation in this example is NOT the kind of situation Walther's Law explains.
If we are talking about why a limestone-over-siltstone-over-sandstone sequence exists, then you are wrong. I thought that, in your example with Stile, you were talking about successive layers of sediment.
If there is something more you want to say about Walther's Law please say it.
I consider this post to have done so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I'm sorry, I find all this stuff about Walther's Law to completely miss the point of the discussion with Stile, it's nothing but confusion and obfuscation and I have to ignore it if the discussion is to proceed. If that's suspension-worthy so be it.
Personally, I'm willing to let it go. The problem is that I'm trying to find ways to help you understand how geologists think and why their conclusions make sense. Obviously, we have all failed at understanding your position. But it's not for failing to try. Some people seem to think that doing geology is easy. But I think that Pressie would agree that it takes a long time in the field and in the data to really become competent. And if someone does not want to learn something, it is truly 'impossible'. I wish that Petro was here to help. But then, he's still way ahead of me on these types of rocks, so that might not work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I completely and utterly object to this. We don't get 'chunks' of lead. We do find lead containing minerals.
I think we all know that this is unrealistic. Even Faith, I'm sure.
My favourite is Galena. It's absolutely beautiful. And heavy, too. It's lead grey, it has a metallic lustre and a grey streak; it's opaque in thin section and is white in polished section. It's space group is Fm3m. It' gets decomposed by sulpheric acid.
Wulfenite!
I tend to love lead-containing minerals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
What is this absurd idea you have that every single detail of every event has to actually BE in the Bible to be authentic? There are lots of reasonable possibilities for what happened in the Flood that aren't mentioned in the Bible, but are perfectly consistent with what IS in the Bible.
I thought it was a sin to add to the Bible...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Interpreting the Bible is not adding to the Bible.
Okay, so I was wrong. How do you know what interpretation of the Bible is correct? And please, don't just say 'it's obvious'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
In the case of interpreting what the Flood would have done I don't think we can KNOW any of it is correct, we can only suggest what seems plausible, and of course we have to include what science says about it even if to you it seems we don't.
So, then, it is possible that you are wrong. I mean, you admit that you don't really KNOW about the flood.
Physical facts anyway, not the interpretive baggage of dating and mentally constructed ancient landscapes.
Or the baggage of biblical interpretation without independent support, yes? As compared to actual observable facts, of course. Which can be discounted at will.
There are things about the physical world that you guys DO know that have to be taken into account, but your unprovable interpretations we do not have to take as gospel.
So, you can cherry-pick what you want and ignore the rest, right? For instance, you can reference the existence of Pangaea, but ignore all of the facts surrounding it. Am I right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
But Faith has decreed that the Flood "would be different" from everything we've ever observed and every experiment we've ever done. Yet there was no violation of physical laws and no miracle.
Faith has also suggested, IIRC, that geology has ended. When the flood retreated, we no longer have geological processes except erosion, I guess.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024