Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,566 Year: 4,823/9,624 Month: 171/427 Week: 84/85 Day: 1/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 301 of 380 (713034)
12-09-2013 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
12-09-2013 12:00 AM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
I've been on many beaches, they don't look like that.
Those are beaches. Those are actual photographs. They look like that.
But it doesn't matter. All you are talking about is what happens to sand under certain wet conditions.
Specifically, beaches. Only the tide does that.
Again, as I keep saying, it doesn't really matter, it's all a bunch of red herrings, because the reality of the strata, the different sediments, the horizontality of the layers, the lack of anything like erosion of the sort we see on the surface of the earth, let alone a humongous canyon before they were all in place, the way the fossils are grouped and tumbled within the rocks, and so on and so forth, which I've been trying to bring to your attention, absolutely defeats the idea of long periods of time per layer.
Again, if you would just think about what I'm pointing out you would have to recognize that your theories are delusional. I'm sure that's why you won't think about it.
I have thought about it. So have geologists. This is why they know you're talking crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 12:00 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 302 of 380 (713036)
12-09-2013 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Tangle
12-09-2013 9:48 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
I wasn't talking about chemists astronomers and physicists., but perhaps I simply missed what you had said. ABE: I went back through this idiotic discussion and found no mention by you of these sciences either until the last post. Again, I don't call them evolutionists, just geologists because geologists are involved with Old Earth thinking. And I was merely answering your ridiculous accusation that I was accusing ANYONE of conspiracy, which I wasn't. And when you made that accusation you didn't mention chemists astronomers and physicists. Your posts so far are just nuisance accusations to change the subject and I apparently didn't read carefully. Get out of this discussion, you are contributing nothing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 9:48 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by JonF, posted 12-09-2013 12:01 PM Faith has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 303 of 380 (713037)
12-09-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
12-09-2013 12:26 AM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
You aren't going to get lithification if such a pattern sat on the surface for very long. Go on, show me one of those beaches that exist now with that pattern that has lithified in place or even preserved its pattern over a short period of time. Ha ha.
Sure. Pick any sandy beach. Dig. You don't suppose, do you, that the sand is just on the surface? A beach is where sand accumulates.
Here is a picture of a cross-section through unlithified sediment from the past few hundred years.
Note the ripple marks.
But again, these things are red herrings once it has already been shown that the structure of the strata as a whole couldn't possibly have been produced by long ages.
You'd better get on with that then.
Also, go think about the Grand Canyon being cut into a mile deep stack of them, all remaining so nicely horizontal don't you know, if they are supposed to be a billion years old at that point. What a joke. At the very least that fact absolutely destroys uniformitarianism, but really it destroys the whole OE theory.
Some reasoning would be nice.
---
As a bonus, here's a side view of unlithified aeolian sand.
See how the cross-beds get buried by more aeolian sand?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 12:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 10:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 304 of 380 (713038)
12-09-2013 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Atheos canadensis
12-09-2013 8:05 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Lithification is not problematic where sediments are rapidly buried under tons of other sediments, lithification is problematic where they remain surface over long long long ages, which one would expect on the old earth theory.
Again, the appearance of the strata shows that they couldn't possibly represent long periods of time, implied by the different separated sediments and the flat horizontality. It's ridiculous to call rocks landscapes etc. And the fact that the Grand Canyon didn't get cut until after a supposed billion years or so of strata was already in place absolutely kills the old earth idea.
But you are theory-blind and can't see these obvious facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-09-2013 8:05 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-10-2013 12:34 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 305 of 380 (713042)
12-09-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Dr Adequate
12-09-2013 10:33 AM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
Nothing in your pictures answers anything I've said as far as I can see. Unlithified sand is unlithified sand. And a cross section does not show that the ripples of the surface shown in the other pictures were preserved as neatly as they supposedly are in the strata, which I thought WAS your point. But what is your point now? It would take something like the Flood to lithify it, at least the weight of a lot of other sediments compressing it. When you find your unlithified sand in neat horizontal layers let me know, because that is not going to happen under normal conditions on this earth, which disproves your old earth theory of the strata.
ABE I went back to find my post you were supposedly answering.
I've been on many beaches, they don't look like that. But it doesn't matter. All you are talking about is what happens to sand under certain wet conditions. There was sand transported in the very wet conditions of the Flood that we assume rose and fell as waves do. So your "beach" affects absolutely nothing I've said.
So it's caused by the tides you say, fine, then it was caused by the tides during the Flood too. Only there the rapid burial of the sand eventually caused the whole stack to lithify into rock.
'
Again, as I keep saying, it doesn't really matter, it's all a bunch of red herrings, because the reality of the strata, the different sediments, the horizontality of the layers, the lack of anything like erosion of the sort we see on the surface of the earth, let alone a humongous canyon before they were all in place, the way the fossils are grouped and tumbled within the rocks, and so on and so forth, which I've been trying to bring to your attention, absolutely defeats the idea of long periods of time per layer.
Yes, that is my point, that it doesn't matter about the ripples because my point is that the different sediments, the horizontality, the lack of normal surface erosion, the way the fossils are embedded, all shows that the strata could not have been laid down over long periods of time. And then when we get to the cutting of the Grand Canyon only after a supposed billion years of the relatively undisturbed laying down of the strata we have more proof of that.
Again, if you would just think about what I'm pointing out you would have to recognize that your theories are delusional. I'm sure that's why you won't think about it.
Which you didn't in this post about the unlithified sand either. You just picked a side issue and made a big deal out of it and ignored my main point.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 10:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 11:42 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 306 of 380 (713045)
12-09-2013 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tangle
12-09-2013 2:18 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Oh here's a stupid post where you are accusing me of all kinds of things I never said. What a jerk you are.

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

ringo
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 307 of 380 (713046)
12-09-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
12-08-2013 4:17 PM


Re: Some apology
Faith writes:
Jesus was saying that we have to choose between him and our families and all other loved persons and things, and that means hating those we all too easily love more than him.
He was saying we may have to choose between our families and Him - and note that choosing Him means loving our neighbours. He wasn't talking about the kind of fire-breathing hatred that you demonstrate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 4:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 11:06 AM ringo has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 308 of 380 (713047)
12-09-2013 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by ringo
12-09-2013 11:04 AM


Re: Some apology
What a fat lie that is, fire-breathing hatred, just slander really. You're another jerk just like Tangle.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by ringo, posted 12-09-2013 11:04 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by ringo, posted 12-09-2013 11:14 AM Faith has not replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


(1)
Message 309 of 380 (713048)
12-09-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Coyote
12-08-2013 1:02 AM


Well said!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 12-08-2013 1:02 AM Coyote has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 310 of 380 (713049)
12-09-2013 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
12-09-2013 11:06 AM


Re: Some apology
Faith writes:
What a fat lie that is, fire-breathing hatred, just slander really.
So sue me. Use your posts at EvC as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 11:06 AM Faith has not replied

scienceishonesty
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 12-02-2013


(2)
Message 311 of 380 (713050)
12-09-2013 11:15 AM


Faith, I wish you could see that science is simply a method of truth seeking regardless of what that might be, it is not a set of beliefs supposed to be true.
Scientists don't decide to come to certain conclusions to make the Bible look false, they just uncover the evidence and discuss it as it reveals itself.

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 11:22 AM scienceishonesty has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 312 of 380 (713052)
12-09-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by scienceishonesty
12-09-2013 11:15 AM


Faith, I wish you could see that science is simply a method of truth seeking regardless of what that might be, it is not a set of beliefs supposed to be true.
Where on earth did I say otherwise?
I've been giving good scientific arguments against some scientific claims. First that whatever you think you know about the past cannot be verified and is therefore untrustworthy, and sorry Mr. Easily Swayed, but the Bible is solid trustworthy witness, God's word, and if science contradicts it, science is wrong. But that hasn't been my argument, my argument is that there is no way to replicate or test the past to verify your theory about it and that's so obvious it's STUPID not to recognize it.
And now I've been giving good EVIDENCE why old earth theory is false. EVIDENCE, Mr. Easily Swayed. Simple observation of actual facts, but apparently nobody here has eyes.
Scientists don't decide to come to certain conclusions to make the Bible look false, they just uncover the evidence and discuss it as it reveals itself.
Where on earth did I say otherwise? The problem is they are FALLIBLE, and they misinterpret their evidence, and when it comes to the PAST THEY HAVE NO WAY OF HAVING ANYTHING BUT THEIR OWN ENDLESS COGITATIONS ABOUT IT BEFCAUSE THEY CANNOT VERIFY IT. Good grielf, can you read?
Besides, as I've said before I AM NOT OBJECTING TO REAL SCIENCE. The sciences of the past are just a bunch of mental castlebuilding because they cannot be verified but the real sciences have replicability and testability. Good GRIEF can't you THINK?
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 311 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-09-2013 11:15 AM scienceishonesty has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by ringo, posted 12-09-2013 11:49 AM Faith has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4500
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 314 of 380 (713055)
12-09-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
12-09-2013 10:48 AM


Re: uniformitarianism / strata; GC
Nothing in your pictures answers anything I've said as far as I can see.
You wrote:
Go on, show me one of those beaches that exist now with that pattern that has lithified in place or even preserved its pattern over a short period of time. Ha ha.
Here we see the pattern being preserved.
And a cross section does not show that the ripples of the surface shown in the other pictures were preserved as neatly as they supposedly are in the strata, which I thought WAS your point.
You can see the ripples. Can't you?
So it's caused by the tides you say, fine, then it was caused by the tides during the Flood too.
That wouldn't work. You have to have shallow-water sediment so that it's affected by the wave base. As you'd know if you'd bothered to study sedimentology instead of making stuff up.
Only there the rapid burial of the sand eventually caused the whole stack to lithify into rock.
There are other causes of lithification besides rapid burial by magical processes. Such as non-rapid burial by non-magical processes. And in the case of sandstone, cementation also.
Yes, that is my point, that it doesn't matter about the ripples because my point is that the different sediments, the horizontality, the lack of normal surface erosion, the way the fossils are embedded, all shows that the strata could not have been laid down over long periods of time.
Some of those are things you've made up, the rest don't show what you say (without a shred of argument) that they show.
Which you didn't in this post about the unlithified sand either. You just picked a side issue and made a big deal out of it and ignored my main point.
You have a point? It looks more like a set of unsubstantiated assertions and crap you made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 10:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 11:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 315 of 380 (713056)
12-09-2013 11:44 AM


The problem is they are FALLIBLE, and they misinterpret their evidence, and when it comes to the PAST THEY HAVE NO WAY OF HAVING ANYTHING BUT THEIR OWN ENDLESS COGITATIONS ABOUT IT BEFCAUSE THEY CANNOT VERIFY IT. Good grielf, can you read?
Besides, as I've said before I AM NOT OBJECTING TO REAL SCIENCE.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024