Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 331 of 380 (713090)
12-09-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Past events are testable. And actual modes of erosion and deposition are replicable, unlike your magic flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 PM Faith has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 332 of 380 (713094)
12-09-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
That's not true. Start a thread on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(8)
Message 333 of 380 (713095)
12-09-2013 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
The strata are also evidence of the Flood
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
Except, as I say above, it isn't "desert" strata, it's a lot of sand that was transported on waves or currents of water and deposited as a layer among the layers.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
all those nautiloids in one humongous layer that stretches for miles in all directions. That makes no sense on the theory of long eras of time over which the creatures just died normally.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
I don't care if the sand was formed in wind or water, it was certainly no desert landscape
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
there is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna. If you just LOOKED at the rock, really looked at it, instead of imposing your idiotic theory on it, that should be immediately apparent.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
The actual formation of the strata STRONGLY SUGGESTS DEPOSITION IN WATER ALL AT ONE TIME.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
Long time spans are not going to layer sediments to such prodigious length and breadth as we actually see.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
periodic water inundations and risings and fallings of land, which is just a Rube Goldberg attempt to accommodate your idiotic theory, couldn't possibly accomplish what is actually seen
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
I do believe the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the presentation of the strata, the evolutionist explanation is ridiculous as I have shown.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
Again your disquisition on Aeolian deposits is irrelevant since there is no way they could have formed in situ. And I expect this to be recognizable if you just consider the appearance of the rock itself
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
my main point was that if you look at the rock and its contents reason should tell you the theory that it was once a desert landscape, which is what "desert deposits" implies, is ridiculous.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
It would take a massive amount of water to form the strata with their separated sediments in horizontal layers and their familially assembled fossil contents.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
the actual condition and appearance of the rock is sufficient proof that we cannot possibly be talking about former landscapes, desert landscape, any kind of landscape, that existed in some former time period.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
it's obvious from the appearance of the stack of strata that they couldn't be time periods.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
ALL of that must have been laid down in a very short period of time [...] You can tell by LOOKING AT THE WALLS OF THE GC.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
THAT IS NOT THE SORT OF EROSION THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAD ANY OF THOSE LAYERS EVER BEEN EXPOSED AS SURFACE FOR ANY LOENGTH OF TIME.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
The footprints are of course footprints, rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
the Karoo system is full of fossils and therefore represents the Flood deposits
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
Again, the appearance of the strata shows that they couldn't possibly represent long periods of time
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
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.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
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.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
My point is about the stack of strata themselves proving that it couldn't have occurred over long ages
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
They could not exist in their actual form visible to the naked eye now as flat layers of rock if they accumulated in any normal time frame whatever. There is no way such discretely separated different kinds of sediments would have accumulated in sequence in a normal time frame. There is no way living creatures in such huge numbers would have died and been buried and been fossilized as they actually were on a normal time frame.
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE
Faith writes:
in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface
Faith writes:
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 6:39 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2184 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 334 of 380 (713096)
12-09-2013 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
And a closed mind such as yours is incapable of learning.
You and other creationists have demonstrated that very clearly in these threads.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 PM Faith has not replied

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


(4)
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

JonF
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 336 of 380 (713108)
12-09-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
12-09-2013 12:32 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Physics and astronomy and chemistry all have evidence in their own fields that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life isn't much younger. You have the same quarrel with them as you have with geologists and biologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 12:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 6:26 PM JonF has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 337 of 380 (713113)
12-09-2013 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tanypteryx
12-09-2013 3:53 PM


Looking at Carved Strata without blinders on
You didn't do anything I asked you to do:
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.
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.
ABE: 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.
The Grand Canyon is the best place for this contemplation but enough may be seen in Monument Valley to get the idea across, if you do what I asked. You need to be able to see the strata and contemplate the fact that they are of different kinds of sediments stacked neatly horizontally to quite a height/depth with neat flat interfaces between them.
You need to think about THAT fact for starters. All those intact layers there, which each represent a period of millions of years according to the current theory.
You can see the stack of strata in Monument Valley though not anywhere near the depth as in the Grand Canyon, but you apparently did not appreciate this particular fact about them. 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...
...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 could make that assessment even from Monument Valley since the monuments exhibit the strata to some depth, horizontal and undisturbed, obviously all intact until the monuments were cut, right? Their strata were once continuous with a huge area of strata out of which they were carved. You do have to stop and THINK about this fact, and clearly you did not.
But the Grand Canyon is a still better place to appreciate this fact of the intact strata out of which shapes were cut after they were all in place, in that case being the canyon itself, and the monuments within the canyon, and you can wander on up to the Grand Staircase and see higher levels of the strata (more recent eras of time according to the OE model) also carved, in that case into huge steps with cliffs of the different colors of the different sediments, and some canyons there too, and at the very top the hoodoos that were also sculpted out of the stack of sediments that remained horizontal and intact.
This fact can be seen with your own two eyes in all these different places, the stack to quite a depth just lying there in its horizontality and flatness though sculpted in various ways leaving that horizontality and flatness intact, which implies that there were millions to a billion or more years, according to the Old Earth model, in which the strata stayed horizontal and flat without anything disturbing their upper or lower flatness that can be seen from a distance, that is, millions/billions of years of undisturbed lying around before anything disturbed them except probably some runoff between the layers which you have to get close up to see, and there wasn't enough of that to disturb the layers above or below even in the delicate hoodoos and more delicate parts of the monuments.
You 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.
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.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-09-2013 3:53 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-10-2013 9:33 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 338 of 380 (713115)
12-09-2013 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by JonF
12-09-2013 5:55 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
So they make their contributuion to the Big Lie, still their true science IS true science. Biology and Geology also do true science, but they serve the Big Lie more than the others, or so it has seemed to me. In any case the "science" of the past that serves the Big Lie is all I reject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by JonF, posted 12-09-2013 5:55 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by xongsmith, posted 12-10-2013 1:41 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 339 of 380 (713117)
12-09-2013 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Dr Adequate
12-09-2013 3:13 PM


Replicable vs nonreplicable science
OK you got me. I too am giving explanations about the past. None of it is testable or replicable.
That's all one can do with the past as I keep saying. It isn't hard science, it's a matter of speculation and interpretation. And I'm saying YOUR speculations and interpretations are absurd and can be shown to be absurd if you just LOOK at the strata.
So I still appeal to you to consider how I arrived at mine, which only requires observation and consideration of the facts I have asked you to consider, which I just described again to Tanypteryx.
It really should probably be people with less of a stake in these things doing this experiment. They are less likely to be blinded by the theory and personal pride.
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 333 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 3:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 340 of 380 (713118)
12-09-2013 8:01 PM


Here, I'll walk you through my experiment
Here, I'll make it easy for you: let's start with one piece of observation at a time:
Question #1: If you look at a section of the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon, any place where they are at their most beautifully colorful and horizontal, from say the opposite rim of the Canyon, do you see erosion BETWEEN ANY OF THE LAYERS (above the basement rocks I mean, which aren't usually visible in these views anyway). DO YOU?

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 8:41 PM Faith has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 341 of 380 (713119)
12-09-2013 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
12-09-2013 8:01 PM


Re: Here, I'll walk you through my experiment
Here, I'll make it easy for you: let's start with one piece of observation at a time:
Question #1: If you look at a section of the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon, any place where they are at their most beautifully colorful and horizontal, from say the opposite rim of the Canyon, do you see erosion BETWEEN ANY OF THE LAYERS (above the basement rocks I mean, which aren't usually visible in these views anyway). DO YOU?
Here, I'll make it easy for you: yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 8:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 9:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 342 of 380 (713121)
12-09-2013 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Dr Adequate
12-09-2013 8:41 PM


Re: Here, I'll walk you through my experiment
Dr. A has lied about erosion being visible between the layers from across the Canyon on the opposite rim.
Anybody else like to consider the question?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-09-2013 10:24 PM Faith has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 343 of 380 (713124)
12-09-2013 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
12-09-2013 9:17 PM


The upper contact of the Redwall Limestone consists of a deeply eroded disconformity characterized by deeply incised paleovalleys and deep paleokarst depressions that are often filled by sediments of the Surprise Canyon Formation. --- WP
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 9:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 2:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 3076 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 344 of 380 (713131)
12-10-2013 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Faith
12-09-2013 10:39 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.
So here you're assuming that the old earth theory assumes that no deposition occurs to bury sediments over the course of "long long long ages". This is an obvious mischaracterization of the theory. It's easier to pretend a theory is nonsense when you rewrite it until it is, but it's not a real argument.
It's ridiculous to call rocks landscapes
I assume by this you mean what you said in other posts, i.e. that the rock record does not contain evidence of any depositional environment. So how can the rock record be evidence for the Deluvian depositional environment?
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
You've made 115 posts on this thread, a large proportion of which are about this topic. Yet in all those posts you have not once provided an argument more substantive than the one above. You provide no citations or evidence that what you state is true, nor even an explanation for why the horizontality of the strata prove that they were deposited by the Flood. I guarantee that you can't link a single message here that explains your argument in any more detail than what you've posted here.
And you are still avoiding responding to my point. You sit on your high horse, telling us we all have our blinders one while you tie on a blindfold. So again, if all strata were deposited by the Flood, why do we find strata that contain all the physical features of aeolian deposits, features that would not be produced by aqueous deposition? I'm sure you've scrubbed these features from your mind so you don't have to deal with them, so I'll reiterate quickly:
Features of aeolian deposits found in rock record:
1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water)
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossils
As you've pointed out, those first two could have been the result of aeolian sediments being redeposited by the Flood. That explanation does not account for the rest of the list. So go ahead and explain how it is logical and honest to conclude that the presence of all these features that are characteristic of aeolian deposition are actually evidence of the Flood. I'm 99% sure you will fail do even try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 10:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Faith, posted 12-10-2013 3:08 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 345 of 380 (713133)
12-10-2013 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Faith
12-09-2013 6:26 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
The TRUE YEC Protestant continues to surge forward:
So they make their contributuion to the Big Lie, still their true science IS true science. Biology and Geology also do true science, but they serve the Big Lie more than the others, or so it has seemed to me. In any case the "science" of the past that serves the Big Lie is all I reject.
My, my, my. So now, ALL science is perpetuating a "Big Lie" that you reject.
There are only 3 possibilities here:
one:
A mass conspiracy the likes of which has NEVER been seen before, cutting across all manner of cultural, religious, racial and geographical groups of scientists. They must have all been given a secret handshake?
two:
the conspirator is God to make it look like the scientists say it looks like, while letting his True Protestants in on the real shit, or
three:
you are WRONG.
I vote for door number three.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 6:26 PM Faith has 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