|
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) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
You said the world is wrecked, but quite obviously it is not, aside from man-made damage. You're just saying something absurd and ridiculous to divert attention away from all the other things you've recently said that you cannot support.
Responding to a few things you said in your post:
Faith writes: Lucky you to have such a view out your window but trees and ferns and vines and flowers are welcome camouflage for what I'm talking about,... Take away the flora and fauna and you're left with dirt. So you're talking about dirt? What's wrecked about dirt?Remove the dirt and you're left with rock. What's wrecked about rock? ...the tumble-down broken up desolate look of so much of the world. Perhaps you could present a few images?
Piles of gravel,... Granted not a thing of beauty, but wrecked?
...rocks in the surf,... Some of the most spectacularly beautiful and dramatic photos are of rocks in the surf:
...amorphous shapes,... You mean like these:
This all hit me about ten years ago or maybe more. My sympathies.
If you don't see it I'm not going to argue with you. See what? You haven't presented any images or even described what you're talking about. All we know so far is that you think the world is wrecked and that if we don't see it then that's just tough patooties for us. As I said before, back up your words - show us the view out one of your windows and show us how it's a wrecked world out there.
I know what I'm talking about is my own impression and it's hardly typical. Yes, it is very much your own impression, but maybe not so untypical. Have you considered that possibly you're depressed? You replied to only 2 out of my last 7 messages, and of those 2 you barely addressed any of the points made. Basically you've responded to almost nothing. Not addressing points does not make them go away. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Six of the unconformities in the Paleozoic layers of the Grand Canyon are erosional - the erosion is definitely visible.
Show me one picture. If you don't want to I can live without it. It isn't that I don't want to. It's that you haven't responded to most of what I've said, not just today but throughout the thread and across all threads where we've discussed anything. Saying that you've ignored whole swathes of evidence and arguments would be understating things by quite a bit. Convince me you're going to discuss any image presented rather than just dismissing it.
I can't keep up with your voluminous posts anyway that have half a zillion weird misrepresentations and other problems I'd need to answer. What you mean is that you have no answers, but you can't admit that, so you have to invent some problem that casts the blame elsewhere. We should have a list of Faith's best hits, all the most ridiculous reasons you've concocted about why all your shortcomings are someone else's fault. I hope you're enjoying these little off topic diversions you keep introducing.
Unconformities falsify your idea of continuous deposition, and erosional unconformities are visibly undeniable evidence. If there isn't any sign of erosion but just a contact line that doesn't disprove continuous deposition; Of course this is true, but... First, you didn't quote me from the message you're replying to but from a different message. And second, what you quoted is just a summary of a more detailed argument from just a couple paragraphs earlier in that message (Message 751). But I bet we can all safely assume that you're not the kind of person who would ignore detailed arguments on purpose, that you're a person of such honesty and integrity that you will go back and find the detailed argument and post a reply to that. Nah, just kidding. But hey, surprise me.
and if there is some sign of erosion there but not a different sediment that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either; 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. At any given spot if one is taking place then the other definitely is not. While erosion is occurring then deposition definitely is not, so evidence of erosion is also evidence against continuous deposition.
and if there is some portion of a different kind of sediment there that wouldn't disprove continuous deposition either. True. Look, Faith, the world is a big place with a long history, and every type of erosional and depositional sequence can be found in strata somewhere. In some cases the deposition is continuous across strata (e.g., Tapeats/Bright Angel/Muav, which is the Tonto Group), and in other cases it is not (Supai/Hermit).
Angular unconformities falsify your idea that no deformation of strata occurred until all strata were deposited. As I've said umpteen times they are the only exception to that rule. But the fact that they are the ONLY exception rather confirms the rule. And I have an explanation for them that confirms it further. You can call angular unconformities exceptions until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. Once again, from Message 758 that you didn't reply to (if you want shorter messages don't ignore my posts and force me to repeat arguments): Your claim is that strata deform as a unit, except for angular unconformities. So we have this sequence of strata that form a unit and that has no angular unconformities. In your flood scenario this corresponds to after all the strata have been deposited but before the tectonic deformations have begun. These strata are a unit and must deform together:
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. But this is wrong (i.e., this is a proof by contradiction) since we know that strata must deform as a unit. Therefore it's not possible that only the strata from Sixtymile down tilted, and angular unconformities cannot be an exception. And if you still insist that angular unconformities are an exception to the rule that strata deform as a unit, then by the logic above that's the same as saying, "Strata deform as a unit, except when they don't." That's arbitrary and useless. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world.
By what logic do you arrive at this conclusion? The logic that says the strata and their contents were created by the Flood. There's no logic in that sentence. That's a bald declaration.
Everything in the strata is evidence of the pre-Flood world. That's another bald declaration.
We could learn a lot about the original Creation by studying those things in that context. Unfortunately they are absurdly misinterpreted to be evidence of fantastical time periods that didn't exist. More bald declarations. We know you've got your little opinions, but you're unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale. And declaring sometime to be logic doesn't make it so. So once again, by what logic do you conclude that pollen and fossils are evidence of the pre-Flood world, i.e., are evidence that any such thing as a pre-Flood world ever existed. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith, Message 717 is just your subjective impressions. You say the world is wrecked, but you have not presented any images of where the world is wrecked, nor have you described any places where the world is wrecked. If you claim that for you deserts and badlands and hoodoos and buttes are wrecked landscapes then no one would deny that you feel this way, but these are subjective impressions. I think very few would agree with you, and there's no objectivity in the assessment anyway.
Do you have any place in the world that we can see has been wrecked rather than is just a result of the natural environment? If so, what is it? I agree that places like this are desolate:
But wrecked? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Yes it's my subjective impression, so what? So can this be the last we hear about a wrecked world? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Yes all the fossils in the strata could possibly show us something about the world before the Flood because the Flood put them there. That's a bald declaration.
I've given the evidence for the Flood. That may be your subjective impression, but you really haven't. This is just another of your bad habits, claiming you've already provided evidence when you haven't. If you had evidence you'd be arguing the evidence instead of doing the Faith dodge. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: I don't know. "Subjective" doesn't mean "false" you know. Perhaps others will see it as I see it. This is a science thread. Objectivity, evidence and rational arguments. If you want to argue the world is wrecked then give wrecked a clear definition so that we assess the real-world evidence and determine if the world is really wrecked. If you can't manage objective arguments based upon evidence and well defined terms then you should drop it. What else you should do is address all the counters to your views that have been made recently. Ignoring posts or clicking the reply button and typing a few words is pitiful. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: No the strata full of dead things are major wreckage. There you go again. This is, by your own admission, your subjective impression. It isn't an argument for anything. If you want to attempt a real argument then define wreckage including specific criteria so that we can assess the accuracy of your claim against real world evidence. If you can do this whereby we can objectively determine that the world is indeed in a wrecked state then that would be evidence supporting your view that this is a result of a calamitous global flood and intense tectonism of short duration. But short of that all you have is subjective impressions that don't belong in a science thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Until you're able to offer evidence that the world is in a wrecked state rather than just being the result of natural forces and processes, you should drop this argument, because it's nothing more than you making stuff up again. There are many, many points that you have failed to address, and I've enumerated the ones that I've made. You should be addressing everyone's points that you've ignored.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Discussion has ceased in this thread because Faith is not replying to anyone. She stops discussing with each participant who eventually boxes her into a corner, and at this point that seems to include everyone. Specifically, she has failed to reply to the last post from all these participants:
If Faith still hasn't replied to anyone after a couple more days then Summary Mode might be appropriate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
For this topic Faith invented a problem that doesn't exist: that scientists are hiding their lack of supporting evidence and rationale from the public by not publishing it in the popular press. Never mind that such articles are written by journalists at a level appropriate to the audience.
It is so fitting that in her summary to her own thread in Message 871 that Faith didn't manage to touch on the topic, but she did manage to touch on a couple other issues that don't belong in a summary, but now that she's said them they do deserve a response. First about PaulK she says:
Faith in Message 871 writes: I think it's way past time that PaulK be smacked down for his way of dealing with me, calling everything I say a lie. I say what I think to be true. Members do not get "smacked down" by moderators here, and this thread was unmoderated except for a single comment by Adminnemooseus to stress content and stay on topic. If Faith had any moderation issues then she should have raised them in Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. I'm not going to go through PaulK's messages one by one to see how often he characterized what Faith said as lies.In my moderator role I would prefer forms of the term "lie" be used sparingly and appropriately, preferring instead use of terms like mistaken, false, untrue, erroneous, etc. But the brazenness and frequency with which Faith just makes things up and then insists endlessly that they are true while being unable to connect them to any evidence or rationale or even the physically possible often leaves one at a loss for how to characterize them as anything but lies. I long ago decided I would never call anything a lie here, but the blatantness of some more recent false pronouncements by Faith has left me no choice to occasionally use the word. It doesn't matter that Faith thinks them true because she's made not effort to verify their veracity. Besides, the odds of making something up that just by pure happenstance turns out to be true is vanishingly small. About me Faith says:
Faith in Message 871 writes: Percy should also be smacked down for his attitude to me. Again, members don't get smacked down by moderators, but it's interesting that Faith now believes that low opinions of her contributions should be punishable violations. She wants to place herself in a special category above reproach.
He endlessly comments on my debate behavior as if he had a right to do that in his non-Admin mode. I responded each time Faith went off-topic to complain about other participants and to point out how her behavior was far worse.
If he wants to complain about that he should put on his Admin persona for the purpose. I don't think Faith has thought this through. She really doesn't want me as moderator because my first action would be to require her to support her claims with evidence and/or rationale. Because she ignores most moderation I would make use of the temporary suspension feature.
Otherwise as a participant he is guilty of probably more violations of his rule against personal comments than anyone else on this forum. Faith doesn't like people who speak truth to her lies.
If you want to deal with my violations of rules... Faith is apparently aware that she frequently and flagrantly violates the Forum Guidelines.
...you have to do it officially and not as a mad sniper. Anyone can comment on any part of any message, including those parts that violate the Forum Guidelines. Faith is apparently operating under the misimpression that she makes up the rules here. No Percy summary would be complete without a list of issues Faith has failed to address. Some she ignored, others she typed words in response that made no sense:
And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024