Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,285 Year: 5,542/9,624 Month: 567/323 Week: 64/143 Day: 7/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 313 of 380 (713054)
12-09-2013 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tangle
12-09-2013 2:18 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Very well said.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 2:18 AM Tangle has not replied

Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(4)
(1)
Message 335 of 380 (713097)
12-09-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
12-09-2013 1:10 PM


Faith writes:
All you have to do is understand what I'm saying about how the strata and the Grand Canyon are evidence for a young earth, look at what I'm asking you to look at, and consideer what I'm pointing out about it. I believe anybody could verify what I'm saying but you have to get your Old Earth glasses off and you have to be honest about it.
Ok, I see and understand what you are saying.
I spent all of May 2013 traveling around the Southwest with my camera. I looked at what you are talking about and a bunch of other places and things too. I walked close and touched the rocks and I stood back and photographed cliffs and canyon walls. I drove through Monument Valley, something I have wanted to do since I was a kid.
The route I took through Monument Valley and to Mesa Verde (another life long goal) went by some of the most warped sedimentary layers I have ever seen.



I don't think I had Old Earth glasses on. I was more interested in light and shadow, color, and form, but when you are in these places you can’t help but be curious about when and how they formed and how long it took.
Not once, while I was there or when I look at my photos and remember being there, have I experienced a thought or feeling that I was being dishonest with myself.
Not once, have I seen any of it the way you describe it, or have my observations led me to the singularly odd assertions that you have made on the subject.
My own observations lead me to many conclusions..one of which is, that the Earth is really old, so you can add photographer and entomologist to your hated category of evolutionist. I feel honored to be in their company.
Cheers
Edited by Tanypteryx, : inserted photos instead of just links

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 6:25 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(3)
(1)
Message 352 of 380 (713149)
12-10-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
12-09-2013 6:25 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
In order to do that you'd have to have thought about the descriptions I gave in OTHER posts; this one was just a sketch.
I said you have to understand what I'm saying. You don't show the slightest understanding of what I've been saying about the strata. For one thing you have to be looking at the strata, which are best appreciated in a wall of the Grand Canyon, for some period of time from a distance because the strata are so deep and visible there. You don't describe doing that. You don't describe your thoughts about what you saw anyway, whatever it was you saw in the formations of the Southwest, concerning how you arrived at the determination that it is all old. Clearly you didn't consider what I asked you to consider.
Faith, I thought about you quite a bit while I was travelling. And just because I didn't write about all my observations and all my thoughts doesn't mean I didn't make them or think about them. I visited parts of the Grand Canyon and spent a couple days there photographing and waiting for thunderstorms to develop. I saw the walls on the opposite side of the canyon. In some places the layers were stacked neatly with level, horizontal boundaries.
In many other places along the wall the layers were not stacked so neatly. They were slanted or warped or disappeared or got fatter.
This is a part of the Grand Canyon called Marble Canyon and Vermillion Cliffs.
These are the Vermillion Cliffs.
Your argument is not that hard to understand, but it does not describe what I saw. There are lots of places where the layers are not all neat like you want them to be. No one but an idiot would look at the Grand Canyon and think that all those layers were deposited at the same time.
Appreciating this fact should suggest to you that they couldn't have been laid down over long ages, because of their undisturbed horizontality and the undisturbed flatness between layers, and that they are separated different sediments (which don't just normally succeed one another in normal time), and the way the fossils are collected within them which certainly suggests catastrophic burial...
You are wrong! That is only how they look in some places where erosion has cut through the layers and they were flat and horizontal. But there are just as many places where that just is NOT true.
Have you ever visited the Grand Canyon? You do not seem to be describing reality, reality that anyone can go there and see.
...and particularly the fact that no formations, canyons, monuments, hoodoos, stairs or anything else, were cut into them until after the entire stack was in place. You need to stop and think HARD about this, while looking at the intact strata.
You are right.....in some places you do not see those features, but you can only see the edges of the layers that have been exposed by erosion. There is no way to tell when you are standing there what feature lay still hidden within the layers. In other sections you can clearly see that erosion happend to a layer before the next one way deposited.
I didn't look at your pictures at the link but now that you have them up it is clear they don't apply to this experiment, which is about the STRATA.
You are right, they don't fit into your "thought" experiment, because they show that your experiment is a fantasy.
They show STRATA that was clearly disturbed before the next layers of STRATA were deposited.


ou haven't described even considering any of that, anything I've pointed out about it.
Since you didn't even consider what I asked you to do, let alone do it, you did not do this experiment honestly as you claim.
You are right, I did not describe all my thoughts about your experiment and my observations. My observations show that your fantasies are wrong, so I am not going to describe every nuance of thought I had about someone who is so idiotic as to look at a few photographs and never actually visit a place in person and who has the inflated ego to tell hundreds of thousands of geologists and other scientists who actually visited the place, that they are all wrong.
FEELING honest is far from BEING honest.
I still recommend the experiment to others. Perhaps those who can grasp my description better, or can be more honest about doing what I ask.
My My, aren't you sanctimonious. If there was ever anyone who would know that FEELING honest is far from BEING honest
it would be you.
I should have known better than to try and engage you. True to form, you tell us that we don't understand your argument whenever we disagree with you.
Your arguments are easy to understand, they are simple minded and they are wrong.
This could go on and on, but it will not, because there is no point in engaging you any further.
Cheers

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 6:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:31 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 355 of 380 (713154)
12-10-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Dr Adequate
12-10-2013 10:17 AM


It's harder to see what the rocks look like if you look at them from further away; hence easier to entertain dumb creationist fantasies about them.
In Faith's case she has been looking at them from a lot further away....in her living room, the capitol of Creationist Fantasyland.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2013 10:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 375 of 380 (713198)
12-10-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
12-10-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
Instead of changing the subject, instead of looking elsewhere in the canyon for other kinds of formations, instead of evading the point, can you just accept as something that could actually have happened in Reality the fact that no disturbance occurred to those layers until the canyon cut through them after a billion or so years?
I didn't evade the point. I just told you that your point is wrong. It is a fantasy you made up in your mind and if you were honest you would admit that.
can you just accept as something that could actually have happened in Reality the fact that no disturbance occurred to those layers until the canyon cut through them after a billion or so years?
I don't what you are saying or asking here. It is laughable that anyone would look at any of the sedimentary layers anywhere in the Grand Canyon and think they were laid down in a short period of time, in one big flood.
And no one but you thinks we are saying that the flat horizontal parts of the layers just sat there exposed for a billion or even a million years without erosion happening. That is not what happened or what we are saying happened. It is just your silly fantasy that we think that is what happened.
You should just publish your geology textbook and be done with it.
Cheers
Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:21 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024