Jump to content


Photo

Angular Unconformities


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:55 AM

 

My interpretation of your chart is that the entire Paleozoic and Mezozoic rock record is laid down by the flood (the usual YEC view). The Siccar Point rocks are Silurian and Carboniferous (Paleozoic) so that makes them flood laid sediment. Am I misunderstanding something ?

 
 The flood was possibly around the time of the KT layer, so all that is before that was pre flood. You do realize there was over 1600 years from the garden till the flood? The layers you mention then would be post flood.

 


You're confusing me. Your post is contradicting itself. Was your flood responsible for the Paleozoic-Mesozoic sedimentary rock record or not ?
 
 

That is what the record of the bible alludes to. The future also will be different. Science doesn't know in either case. So believe what you like. Why assume they were the same?

 

There is no evidence for a same state in the past. What evidence is there to ignore??

 
 

?? Looking at stars makes you think nature on earth was the same long before anyone looked also??

 
Yes. We have the ability to do things like analyse absorption lines from distant quasars which tells us that the fine structure constant (which if changed would alter radioactive decay rates) has not significantly changed for at least 10 billion years. Supernovae billions of light years away produce isotopes emitting gamma rays with properties consistent with present day decay rates.

This is the type of evidence you are ignoring.

 

Of course claiming all sorts of things being different in the past just because your belief does not fit the laws of nature as we see them today is just special pleading anyway.



#62 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 24 January 2018 - 07:36 AM



You're confusing me. Your post is contradicting itself. Was your flood responsible for the Paleozoic-Mesozoic sedimentary rock record or not ?

 

 

No, my current guess is that the flood happened somewhere around the KT layer. Of course we should remember that this was around 4500 years ago also. The dates science uses are very wrong and completely based on the belief that nature was the same. So science puts that time at something like 70,000,000 years ago.
 

Yes. We have the ability to do things like analyse absorption lines from distant quasars which tells us that the fine structure constant (which if changed would alter radioactive decay rates) has not significantly changed for at least 10 billion years.

 

 

No. You have no such ability whatsoever. To know distances to stars or SN you need to know time exists there as it does here. You do not know that. Science has only assumed it had to be so for no real reason. To the light that we see HERE in the area of the earth and solar system, that comes from stars IS IN time. That does not mean it is also in time, and the same time THERE! That means that how much time here anything takes cannot apply to the far universe, including of course how much time light takes to move here. In other words, a light year here is not a year there. Nor would the distance in space light moves in a day, week, or year be the same there unless time was the same. You don't know, so cannot claim any sizes/distances/mass etc for any star!

 

Supernovae billions of light years away produce isotopes emitting gamma rays with properties consistent with present day decay rates.

 

 

 There IS no billions of years that is a religious belief with no evidence. The distances are not known, nor the times. Your so called years and distances are wholly belief based and cannot be supported, and according to the bible are not correct.

Yes, some stuff we see in the light from stars is the same stuff as here, no need to ignore that. However what you ignore is that we do not see time. Nor do we know it exists the same in the far universe. Nor do we know what else is out there ALSO, besides the things we can see! Remember, science simply declared 95% of the universe to be unknown dark stuff. They admit only seeing a fraction of what is there.


 

 

Of course claiming all sorts of things being different in the past just because your belief does not fit the laws of nature as we see them today is just special pleading anyway.

 

 

You claiming the state was the same in the past is special pleading actually.



#63 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 January 2018 - 09:22 AM

Yes, some stuff we see in the light from stars is the same stuff as here, no need to ignore that.

Why not? If we can't assume that time works the same way everywhere, why would we be able to assume that matter and energy work the same way everywhere?

#64 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 24 January 2018 - 10:49 AM

 

Why not? If we can't assume that time works the same way everywhere, why would we be able to assume that matter and energy work the same way everywhere?

 

 

 

 Then stick to what you know I guess. Energy would exist a certain way also here. 

 

"In physicsenergy is the property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

 

 

We would not really know if what we see here was transferred!



#65 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 January 2018 - 11:06 AM

Then stick to what you know I guess. Energy would exist a certain way also here.

What do you know if you can't assume that what you knew over there and in the past is still valid here and now?

#66 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:12 PM

 

Then stick to what you know I guess. Energy would exist a certain way also here.

What do you know if you can't assume that what you knew over there and in the past is still valid here and now?

 

 

 

Certainly not enough to rewrite the creation of the universe and life!



#67 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 24 January 2018 - 05:07 PM

 

You're confusing me. Your post is contradicting itself. Was your flood responsible for the Paleozoic-Mesozoic sedimentary rock record or not ?

 

No, my current guess is that the flood happened somewhere around the KT layer. Of course we should remember that this was around 4500 years ago also.

 


So then what was responsible for the often miles thick layers of sedimentary rock that we observe, according to your timeframe ? There is relatively little consolidated rock formed since the KT boundary.
 

Yes. We have the ability to do things like analyse absorption lines from distant quasars which tells us that the fine structure constant (which if changed would alter radioactive decay rates) has not significantly changed for at least 10 billion years.



No. You have no such ability whatsoever. To know distances to stars or SN you need to know time exists there as it does here. You do not know that. Science has only assumed it had to be so for no real reason. To the light that we see HERE in the area of the earth and solar system, that comes from stars IS IN time. That does not mean it is also in time, and the same time THERE! That means that how much time here anything takes cannot apply to the far universe, including of course how much time light takes to move here. In other words, a light year here is not a year there. Nor would the distance in space light moves in a day, week, or year be the same there unless time was the same. You don't know, so cannot claim any sizes/distances/mass etc for any star!

 


Without the universal constants as they are, atoms and life would not be possible, which is one of the arguments put forward by theistic apologists. Now you’re claiming they can be changed, not because you have evidence but for the pure reason you need a magical alteration to fundamental physics to shoehorn in a belief system founded by unknown authors 3000 odd years ago because reality does not conform to that belief.

You’re not even attempting to provide evidence for your claims, but prefer to indulge in a pile of wishful thinking. What a deceptive God you believe in.

 

There IS no billions of years that is a religious belief with no evidence.


No that’s just what you want to believe. If you opened your eyes you would know there is overwhelming evidence from the decay rates of various radionucletides that yield mutually consistent dates. How is that a religious belief without evidence ?
 

The distances are not known, nor the times. Your so called years and distances are wholly belief based and cannot be supported, and according to the bible are not correct.


As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not just wishful thinking off the top of your head. We have multiple overlapping yardsticks to measure astronomical distances. It is you who just has 'beliefs' with no evidential reasoning to back them up. The sole reason for your irrational stance is the last part of your above quote, the bible does not allow for it. Your belief is wholly dictated by circular reasoning.


  • piasan likes this

#68 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 24 January 2018 - 06:26 PM

 


So then what was responsible for the often miles thick layers of sedimentary rock that we observe, according to your timeframe ? There is relatively little consolidated rock formed since the KT boundary.

 

 

 Name an example. It is not a one size fits all.


 

Without the universal constants as they are, atoms and life would not be possible, which is one of the arguments put forward by theistic apologists.

 

 

 Not true. You don't even know what those constants are. The way they determine that is belief based. Atoms are quite possible in another nature actually, as far as the bible goes...unless you think there are no atoms on earth in the coming millennium? Just because an atom may have one more or less electron, or behave differently does not mean there is no atom.

 


 

Now you’re claiming they can be changed, not because you have evidence but for the pure reason you need a magical alteration to fundamental physics to shoehorn in a belief system founded by unknown authors 3000 odd years ago because reality does not conform to that belief.

 

 

You claiming nature cannot change? Evidence? Science doesn't know either way. The bible is pretty clear. So we believe what we like.
 


You’re not even attempting to provide evidence for your claims, but prefer to indulge in a pile of wishful thinking. What a deceptive God you believe in.

 

 

 No, what a flawed sense of what is or should be provided you have. What should be provided other than a risen Christ to prove the bible is true? What science do you think should exist to show that heaven is different and the future will be different on earth...and conversely that the past was? Science is out of the lop. Incapable of dealing with it. In the dark. Incompetent. Ignorant. So don't pretend either that the bible is not evidence or that science has any either way.
 


 

No that’s just what you want to believe. If you opened your eyes you would know there is overwhelming evidence from the decay rates of various radionucletides that yield mutually consistent dates. How is that a religious belief without evidence ?

 

 

 Religious nonsense. No present decay rates matter even in the least! Prove there was any decay at all in the unknown nature of the past? You have believed. Assumed.


 

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 It is no more or less extraordinary of a claim as far as science goes to claim any nature or state existed in the far past. God gave many many extraordinary evidences all through history for Scripture. However YOUR extraordinary claim of a same state past has NO evidence whatsoever. It is simply a belief you foist onto evidences in a circular reasoning frenzy. 

 


 The sole reason for your irrational stance is the last part of your above quote, the bible does not allow for it.

 

 

 

 No. The reasons includes the clear and demonstrated inability of science to know either way. Have a problem admitting it?



#69 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 January 2018 - 03:53 PM

 

So then what was responsible for the often miles thick layers of sedimentary rock that we observe, according to your timeframe ? There is relatively little consolidated rock formed since the KT boundary.

 
 Name an example. It is not a one size fits all.

 


Why are you being so evasive ? You have stated that the entire Paleozoic - Mesozoic rock record was not laid by your flood, thus implying it was all laid down in the prior 1600 yr period since the creation event. Ok, I'll give you an example of Paleozoic rock - the Silurian and Devonian layers at Siccar Point. You previously said that rapidly moving continents (presumably associated with the Flood) could have created the angular unconformity there but that can no longer be your claim since the formation is pre flood in your view. How did it form ?
 

Without the universal constants as they are, atoms and life would not be possible, which is one of the arguments put forward by theistic apologists.


Not true. You don't even know what those constants are. The way they determine that is belief based. Atoms are quite possible in another nature actually, as far as the bible goes...unless you think there are no atoms on earth in the coming millennium? Just because an atom may have one more or less electron, or behave differently does not mean there is no atom.

 


What’s not true ? Have you not heard of the fine tuning argument put forward by people who want to prove God ? If all sorts of different constant values are compatible with atoms and life then that’s no longer an argument. What qualification in theoretical physics do you possess that allows you to tell generations of the greatest minds that they are completely wrong about our understanding of the Universe ? I’ve no idea what you are on about with atoms in the next millennium and atoms with one more or less electrons – that would just be an ion, so what ?

In fact I can’t be bothered to respond to the rest of your empty assertions. You choose to pretend scientific evidence doesn’t exist (even though I’ve told you about some of it such as the measurements of the fine structure constant) and assert that the Bible provides the evidence instead. How can words by themselves written in an old book be classed as evidence ? Do you think the story of a global flood and consequent excuses of friction or decay rates magically being altered to remove otherwise terminal problems for your story become evidence just because the words are said ? How about providing something independent to back up your bald assertions or are you somehow satisfied with circular reasoning ?



#70 dad

dad

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Age: 00
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • western world

Posted 25 January 2018 - 10:04 PM



Why are you being so evasive ? You have stated that the entire Paleozoic - Mesozoic rock record was not laid by your flood, thus implying it was all laid down in the prior 1600 yr period since the creation event.

 

 

 

Correct. What about it?

 

 

Ok, I'll give you an example of Paleozoic rock - the Silurian and Devonian layers at Siccar Point. You previously said that rapidly moving continents (presumably associated with the Flood) could have created the angular unconformity there but that can no longer be your claim since the formation is pre flood in your view. How did it form ?

 

 No. The continents probably moved after the flood! The change in nature was likely the time when the plates moved fast. In the former nature, a lot of things were different. Probably the consistency of rock (or what is now rock) as well and what temperature was needed to melt rock, etc. Looking at a link about the formation I see it was a pillar in the old age belief system adopted by science.

 

"Hutton inferred from the sharp junction between the two sets of rocks that an enormous interval of time was required for the underlying strata to be folded and eroded before the overlying sandstones were deposited.."

 

http://edinburghgeol...siccarpoint.pdf

 

No great time actually was needed for folding, since it was all in the former nature. At first glance I suspect that the uplift and folding etc was largely due to the rapid continental movements.

 

It turns out that Hutton's belief in a same state past was a foundational moment in modern geology..

 

"Hutton’s discoveries fulfilled a tremendous mission: placing geology in a much wider time frame than the popular belief that the Earth was created in 4004 BC (as calculated by Bishop Ussher in 1650). This enabled geology to become a science in its own right with Hutton as its founding father"  -same link
 


What’s not true ? Have you not heard of the fine tuning argument put forward by people who want to prove God ? If all sorts of different constant values are compatible with atoms and life then that’s no longer an argument. What qualification in theoretical physics do you possess that allows you to tell generations of the greatest minds that they are completely wrong about our understanding of the Universe ? I’ve no idea what you are on about with atoms in the next millennium and atoms with one more or less electrons – that would just be an ion, so what ?

 

 

 

 However fine tuned creation may be that does not include the so called fine structure constant of modern science, or our current laws being constant etc etc. If those people that want to 'prove God' think everything is so constant on earth, how do they explain the stars and sun going out and heavens vanishing one day forever?

 

and assert that the Bible provides the evidence instead. How can words by themselves written in an old book be classed as evidence ? Do you think the story of a global flood and consequent excuses of friction or decay rates magically being altered to remove otherwise terminal problems for your story become evidence just because the words are said ? How about providing something independent to back up your bald assertions or are you somehow satisfied with circular reasoning ?

 

 

At least the bible is proven over and over through ages. Believing that nature was the same in the past is just an empty belief.

 


 

. You choose to pretend scientific evidence doesn’t exist (even though I’ve told you about some of it such as the measurements of the fine structure constant)

 

 

 

Look, they used Oklo to tune up that so called constant...and changed their mind a little later. The list of things needed for the FSC includes the speed of light.

 

 

"

 

The speed of anything is only known for the solar system and area. Why? Because we need time to exist, and we do not know that time exists outside of our earth and solar system area as it does here! You looking at how fast things move in time here does not tell us how fast things move in the far universe. Then there is the Planck constant, where again, we talk about energy here and etc etc. 

 

In all ways the so called constants are 100% belief based. Not known. Not any real science.

and assert that the Bible provides the evidence instead. How can words by themselves written in an old book be classed as evidence ? Do you think the story of a global flood and consequent excuses of friction or decay rates magically being altered to remove otherwise terminal problems for your story become evidence just because the words are said ? How about providing something independent to back up your bald assertions or are you somehow satisfied with circular reasoning ?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users