Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
4 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat (3 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,469 Year: 1,350/14,231 Month: 274/1,076 Week: 7/376 Day: 7/78 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils, strata and the flood
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3793 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 76 of 163 (558541)
05-02-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
05-01-2010 8:28 PM


The depths of ignorance
Hi Faith, I know there are a lot of posts here but it would be helpful if you could take note of where the evidence has contradicted you in this thread alone.
Evidence against geo theory: no similar strata on other planets which there should be if geo theory were correct.
A few posts up in Message 51 I gave you a link that shows that you are in error. Though what this is supposed to show one way or another about a Biblical flood, I am not sure.
And Apothecus asked you in Message 66 what I asked you in Message 53:
So why, when we look at strata around the world, do we consistently see fossils in the same order (unless the strata have been locally disturbed)? Why do we always find trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs above those, and human remains at the top? Never mixed together. And those heavy animals like elephants and rhinos, even they somehow consistently, all over the world ended up above those tiny trilobites in the hydrological sorting. Don't you think it's more likely that we would find diplodocus in the bottom strata, since they were so big and heavy? How does your alternative theory explain all of the above?
This really is a crucial point that needs addressing because it would seem to shoot a great big cannonball of a hole through your hydrological sorting assumption. You might also explain why there are aeolian (dry wind-deposited) layers of sediment and paleosols (ancient soil layers) mixed up with your alleged flood layers, as in the Grand Canyon.
And ultimately, as Dr. A says above,
Go on, read a geology textbook. A basic one. It'll have the word "Geology" in the title, or maybe "The Earth".
For fuck's sake,why don't you try to know about a subject before you talk about a subject? Why?
This. You're embarrassing yourself in this thread because you are arguing against basic principles you clearly know nothing about. If you were willing to learn then people's time would be justified here trying to teach you. At the moment, from what I can see, you are simply keeping people entertained with your jaw-dropping ignorance of geology.
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-01-2010 8:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:54 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 163 (558543)
05-02-2010 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 6:28 AM


Re: The depths of ignorance
This. You're embarrassing yourself in this thread because you are arguing against basic principles you clearly know nothing about.
It's not just that. It's that she wants the "basic principles" to explain made-up-"facts" that she and her creationist pals have invented. Whereas geology explains what the rocks actually look like.
It's not just that Faith is ignorant of the principles of geology. She is ignorant of the facts that those principles are meant to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 6:28 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 7:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3793 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 78 of 163 (558544)
05-02-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
05-02-2010 6:54 AM


Re: The depths of ignorance
If you are referring to the bit you quoted,
Evidence against geo theory: Ridiculous fact that layers were untouched by normal events such as canyon cutting, erosion by wind and weather and rivers, buckling and raising up by tectonic forces, until ALL were neatly in place. Evidence all over the earth.
. . . I had to read it several times to understand what this was trying to say. Because this is just bizarre. It saddens me that someone could have lived so much of life as Faith has and instead of learning the most basic things about the earth she lives on, or taking a hike and looking around her, she just swallows stuff that people like Kent Hovind say. Surely the only reason someone would do this is because the real-world facts are a threat to deeply-held beliefs and never the twain shall meet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 6:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 7:33 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 163 (558546)
05-02-2010 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 7:22 AM


Re: The depths of ignorance
Because this is just bizarre. It saddens me that someone could have lived so much of life as Faith has and instead of learning the most basic things about the earth she lives on, or taking a hike and looking around her ...
Yes.
It is so sad that someone can pass through this world and never bother to look at it. It is so full of amazing things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 7:22 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12870
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 80 of 163 (558547)
05-02-2010 8:09 AM


Moderator Request
I know some people invite it upon themselves, but please keep the focus of discussion on the topic and not on any of the participants. I recognize that in this case it's like ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room, but still, please stay on topic. Take the discussion of personal styles and such to a peanut gallery thread in Coffee House.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 163 (558549)
05-02-2010 8:24 AM


Strange. I'm apparently the only one here who HAS actually looked at the strata. Certainly never read a word of Kent Hovind about it. Odd that nobody here can even understand what I wrote in order to think about it. But really you must simply be refusing to think about it.
Or you should be able to see with your own two eyes that if the geological explanation were correct the strata all over the world would have to have been laid down quietly without a glitch, all neatly horizontally, and stayed in place for millions of years per layer, without any tectonic disturbances or deep erosion or the like for all those billions of years. How do you get a deep stack of strata if they undergo such disturbances?
All over the world, remember, not just forming in the ocean or a lake here and there. As if you could get a mile's deep worth of layers in such a circumstance anyway. Two miles if you take into account the upper strata to the north of the Grand Canyon. So after they were all in place, in what is laughably distinguished as "recent" time from the lower strata, then we get the erosion that carved the formations of the Southwest and not before.
Still can't see it? Amazing.
Why won't you just think about it? How did the strata stay so neatly parallel over billions of years if the same kinds of events were always going on as go on today? I mean you can SEE the neat horizontality of the strata to a great depth in some places, and in other places you can at least see how they maintain their parallel form under recent-time buckling, you can see the strata in all the high mountains too. All neatly parallel. All in place before the mountains were raised.
So again, think, children, how come it was only after the entire stack was built, in what geologists call "recent" time, that the mountains were raised, that the hoodoos were carved, that the Grand Canyon was cut? Come on, I know you can think that well. Come on.
And then there is that ridiculous idea that sediments that were laid down slowly over millions of years could compress living things enough to fossilize them even under water, before they rotted away or were eaten. Surely at least as an hypothesis you can see that a rapid build-up of the layers would create a compression that COULD fossilize all those things that slow deposition just couldn't.
No? Odd.

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 163 (558550)
05-02-2010 8:39 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 05-02-2010 2:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 1903 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 83 of 163 (558551)
05-02-2010 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by hooah212002
05-01-2010 8:39 PM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
hooah sarcastically writes:
Smarter, more complex organisms ran faster to the safety of the hill tops.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? I LMAO when I first heard that's why "modern, fast" organisms are up at the top.
I understand velociraptor was probably pretty speedy, yet (surprise!) no fossils exist contemporary with other "modern, fast" mammals at the same level of fossil strata.
Curious, eh Faith?
BTW Faith, I see Kitsune asked the same question I did and you've dodged her as well.
I see a pattern emerging, here ...
Have a good one.
ps. Now, back to Chess!!!!

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by hooah212002, posted 05-01-2010 8:39 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:02 AM Apothecus has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3793 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 84 of 163 (558552)
05-02-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-02-2010 8:24 AM


Well what I said to you in my post above still applies. There are some questions very pertinent to this thread that for some reason you seem to be consistently overlooking. I would also be interested in seeing a reply to Message 71 by Coragyps, where he explained the geology of his area of Oklahoma to you. For some reason you skip all of these relevant points in order to make even more general posts about your lack of understanding of geological processes.
Or you should be able to see with your own two eyes that if the geological explanation were correct the strata all over the world would have to have been laid down quietly without a glitch, all neatly horizontally, and stayed in place for millions of years per layer, without any tectonic disturbances or deep erosion or the like for all those billions of years. How do you get a deep stack of strata if they undergo such disturbances?
Sediment is eroded from rocks and deposited in new layers elsewhere. This is what we see today and this is what has been happening for a few billion years. Are you seriously saying that you think it is supposed to magically appear out of nowhere, collect for millions of years and then suddenly get eroded? No you haven't been reading Hovind, he's too clever to have fed you this hooey. An area that exists today, which has been eroded down to the bedrock, is the Canadian Shield. The erosion has occurred mainly due to uplift -- strangely, the reason why the Grand Canyon was eroded also.
You will also notice, if you go study some rocks, that certain strata within the geologic column for any given area will almost always be eroded or missing. This is because, between periods of deposition, there were periods of erosion. Yet hilariously, this is the very thing that creationists like to harp on as being "proof" that geologists are wrong or lying -- the fact that there are few places in the world where the entire geologic column is intact.
Of course, mixed in with the sedimentary layers you will also have igneous layers. These in turn get eroded too. You do realise that as rocks get eroded and subducted back into the earth, new rock emerges in the form of lava? Plate tectonics.
This is basic, basic stuff Faith. Please. Get yourself some level of education on this topic or admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 8:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:05 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:22 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 163 (558553)
05-02-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Apothecus
05-02-2010 8:45 AM


Re: Flood evidence is everywhere you look
There's nothing to dodge, dear. The obvious glaringly conspicuous point I'm making about how the strata had to have been formed makes all such questions irrelevant.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 8:45 AM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Apothecus, posted 05-02-2010 10:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 163 (558554)
05-02-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 9:01 AM


Coragyp's post was one of those typical interpretive sallies that is mistaken for evidence. You think if he just proclaims that such and such happened in the past that it DID happen in the past. You guys don't know the difference between a fact and an interpretation. Truly sad.
You even think you "see" something happening when you've merely bought a particular interpretation and aren't seeing anything at all, are blind as a bat.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:01 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3793 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 87 of 163 (558555)
05-02-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
05-02-2010 8:39 AM


Mars has sediment
Sheesh, for the third time:
Quasi-Periodic Bedding in the Sedimentary Rock Record of Mars
Why is it that you keep ignoring stuff in this thread that shows you are wrong (i.e. pretty much everything)?
(ABE) The post below really just begs the above question again. Ignore the evidence that contradicts the claim and move on . . .
Edited by Kitsune, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 8:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:08 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 163 (558556)
05-02-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 9:07 AM


Re: Mars has sediment
Why don't you actually look at the picture of the valle marineris? There are no strata. The Grand Canyon has strata. Why do you believe everything you read?
Why don't you actually think? The geologists have this theory they have to defend so they are trying to do that even as the evidence goes against them. There is NOTHING on Mars even remotely similar to the strata of Earth. Nothijng.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:07 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by lyx2no, posted 05-02-2010 9:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 3793 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 89 of 163 (558557)
05-02-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-02-2010 9:05 AM


Coragyps' post was one of those typical interpretive sallies that is mistaken for evidence. You think if he just proclaims that such and such happened in the past that it DID happen in the past. You guys don't know the difference between a fact and an interpretation. Truly sad.
No. This is a science forum, not a pulpit. Please stop making vague posts about how everyone is wrong and you are right and start addressing the evidence people have presented, and offer some of your own to shore up your own claims. If you can't, which I suspect is the case, might I suggest again that you find a geology for beginners book and spend your time more productively in that pursuit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 05-02-2010 9:12 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 937 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 163 (558558)
05-02-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Kitsune
05-02-2010 9:10 AM


Honey, sweetie, I've presented the evidence which you are all ignoring. You can't deal with it, you can't wrap your mind around it. Everything you are calling evidence is irrelevant in the light of what I've pointed out to you. It is really pathetic what you are all doing, saddest thing I've ever encountered.
And by the way I don't read the creationists, but I have read quite a bit about geology. I can think independently, which obviously you can't. I read a bio of Hutton too. Interesting how 18th century thinking simply became the standard. He looked at a formation and said it had to be old. And geo science hasn't progressed any since then.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:10 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 05-02-2010 9:21 AM Faith has replied
 Message 110 by Architect-426, posted 05-07-2010 10:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 120 by roxrkool, posted 05-22-2010 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023