|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Percy, there are many reasons I can't deal with your posts, one being their sheer volume -- your debate method of burying your opponent alive -- but also that you just don't get anything I say. You say I don't make sense on this or that point though I know it does make sense but it's just futile to argue with you about those things. And here you are saying something utterly nonsensical:
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile down deform by tilting, and the layers above it do not deform. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit The tilting forms an angular unconformity which is an example of the exception I'm talking about. Though I must comment that it's odd to find you describing the order of events I argue for rather than the establishment sequence of tilting, mountainbuilding, erosion, deposition of Phanerozoic strata. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: By your own admission your main evidence doesn’t favour your views over the mainstream view. There is much evidence that you ignore or invent crazy bullshit to explain away. And then there’s the lying and calling people crazy when they dare to disagree with you. You’ve made it very obvious that your ideas are a ridiculous fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know what you're drinking, but same sediment or not, if there was erosion then there couldn't possibly have been continuous deposition. They're opposites and mutually exclusive. Erosion occurs between strata.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. My eyeballs are fit to jump out of their sockets they're rolling so hard. You SHOULD be arguing that angular unconformities aren't the ONLY exception, not that they aren't an exception. Oh my aching head. You actually fault me for not answering your pages and pages of such absurdities? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You must bear in mind that the thing ruined by the erosive forces that created the Monuments and all the other things you list was the strata full of dead things. too absurd, why do you keep saying this? It's so absurd it proves your thinking is not to be trusted on any subject, which is what I was already thinking might be the case. No the strata full of dead things are major wreckage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yes we know. You don’t trust people who tell the truth.
quote: That isn’t what you are calling wreckage though. You’re calling the things that happened to those strata - the erosion and the deformation - wreckage. That’s my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But I'm not objecting to the wreckage of the strata, I'm objecting to the general appearance of wreckage and desolation. The whole world is wrecked in ways I don't think we can ever really grasp. The strata are what is left of the sediments from the original world, the fossils are the dead creatures the Flood killed. The world of today is built on top of that worldwide cemetery and although God has allowed a great deal of recovery (well, considering all the inhospitable places not really that great) there can never be anything again remotely like the original Creation with its extravagant fertility and beauty and order.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But the Monuments - one of your biggest examples - are the product of erosion. The geological sins that are supposedly hidden beneath unwrecked landscapes would be the result of deformation and maybe erosion, too. I’m at a loss to find an example that looks wrecked and isn’t the result of erosion or deformation - or human activity.
quote: I don’t think that differences with your imagined pre-Flood world can possibly count. They aren’t an appearance for a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Erosion makes it possible to see the wreckage more clearly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That doesn’t really make a lot of sense. What wreckage is seen by erosion ? When you say that the Monuments look like wreckage why would anyone think you were talking about anything but the eroded forms of the Monuments themselves ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Golly maybe they would pay attention when I say I didn't mean that instead of insisting that I do.
If there hadn't been erosion there would be flat surface on top of all the strata. Tectonic deformation and erosion expose the strata. But it's ALL wreckage, strata plus deformation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Where did you say you didn’t mean that ? (Whatever that is)
quote: I have to say that smooth flat strata aren’t really my idea of wreckage. The rest, as I have pointed out is all things that happened to the strata.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: I've argued the evidence on many threads, including this one. You've never been able to connect the evidence to your arguments in any thread, including this one. Most of your effort is spent distracting attention from your arguments. Like now. Let's just list a few issues of evidence you're currently intent on ignoring, obfuscating or misconstruing, i.e., evidence you're not arguing:
I again predict no reply, or replies of one or two sentences per point. I guess another possibility is an off-topic reply about some made-up complaint. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar and a typo in last point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
Hi Faith,
Putting volcanism under the water to wash away the evidence does not work, because the world's volcanoes are obviously built above the water because they are still here. And not just the volcanoes but the land they are on is also substantially built by volcanoes - think Indonesia, Japan, etc. Ash from historical eruptions in the last 2000 years or so can be found around the world. Where is the massive layer that would be produced by jamming all this volcanism into a short time? Most of these volcanoes are caused by tectonic plate subduction. The plate has to go several 100 km deep to melt and produce magma, which then has to work its way up to the surface to erupt. The sheer physics of this means it takes a long time.For it all to happen at the end of the Flood, picture miles of plate diving underground every day, melting like crazy at a rate that defies physics, and the magma speeding up through 100s of km of rock to erupt out of the way before the next bit comes. Faith, it ain't gonna work!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Instead of just sticking to the topic you make more complaints.
Faith writes: Percy, there are many reasons I can't deal with your posts, one being their sheer volume... I don't think you really meant so say "sheer volume" regarding my posts. In that I can't hold a candle to you. You've posted 288 messages to this thread, me only 158. I think you meant to refer to the length of my posts. This is your doing because I have to repeat everything you've ignored.
-- your debate method of burying your opponent alive -- The more you ignore and/or misunderstand and/or misconstrue arguments, naturally the longer and more detailed the evidence and explanations will become. Make an effort so that we can begin checking off settled issues.
...but also that you just don't get anything I say. In not getting anything you say, how am I any different from anyone else here? Except that perhaps I take on more of your nonsense than other people.
You say I don't make sense on this or that point though I know it does make sense... Name someone here who thinks you're making sense? When you're the only one who thinks you're making sense, guess what?
...but it's just futile to argue with you about those things. If your goal is success in debate without evidence or rationale, then I agree that it is futile for you.
And here you are saying something utterly nonsensical:
Now the strata of this unit from Sixtymile down deform by tilting, and the layers above it do not deform. Obviously this falsifies your claim that strata deform as a unit The tilting forms an angular unconformity which is an example of the exception I'm talking about. And I continued on to explain why that's nonsense, which you've completely ignored. Forcing me to repeat my explanation. Making my post longer. Which you then complain about, even though you're responsible for it.
Though I must comment that it's odd to find you describing the order of events I argue for rather than the establishment sequence of tilting, mountain building, erosion, deposition of Phanerozoic strata. Clearly you don't read what is posted to you. Of course I described things from your point of view. I set the context to your point of view by saying things like "Your claim is that..." and "In your flood scenario..." I see that just one response to my message wasn't enough for you, that you posted 2 more. Responding to your Message 783:
Faith in Message 783 writes: I don't know what you're drinking, but same sediment or not, if there was erosion then there couldn't possibly have been continuous deposition. They're opposites and mutually exclusive. Erosion occurs between strata. This is a bald declaration and is self-evidently impossible, as has been explained before, for example in thread Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. in Message 885. You ignored the explanation in your response. Please respond here to what that message says about erosion occurring between strata, otherwise we'll consider this issue closed. Erosion does not occur between strata. Erosion occurs to exposed surfaces. And whatever happened to "strata erode as a unit"? You still haven't explained what that means. Responding to your Message 784:
Faith in Message 784 writes: You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. My eyeballs are fit to jump out of their sockets they're rolling so hard. All you quoted was my introductory sentence, not my explanation. If you're not going to respond to my explanation then I'm going to have to repeat it, making my message...you guessed it...longer.
You SHOULD be arguing that angular unconformities aren't the ONLY exception, not that they aren't an exception. Oh my aching head. Well, yes, of course your head aches, you're filling it with nonsense. Why would I argue for additional exceptions to the self-evident fact that, as you've expressed it, strata deform as a unit. What this really means is that tectonic forces are distributed to all the strata in a column, dissipating into tension or compression or faulting over distance. There are no exceptions to the transmission of tectonic forces through solid rock. Tilting is just one of the shapes that deformation takes. Let's look at your favorite diagram of the Grand Staircase again:
In the center of the diagram the Kaibab is roughly level, then as we trace to the right it bends gradually upward, then it's in an upward tilt to the right, then it bends to roughly level again. If the tilting is an exception to your rule that strata deform as a unit, then the bending must also be an exception, since it's all part of the same deformation. In the end your rule becomes that strata deform as a unit with the exception of deformation, making your rule completely useless.
You actually fault me for not answering your pages and pages of such absurdities? I guess those with nothing of substance to argue have no alternative but to engage in meaningless name calling. Sad. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024