The Genesis Conflict - 101 - The Earth in Time and Space

[LOki]

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

Considering the heavy preponderance of verifiable evidence and valid logic that roundly contradicts the intellectually dishonest assertions that Veith makes regarding "what science teaches us" and his fatuous conclusions that have no valid basis in reality; what exactly do you find in these presentations to be so powerfully and awesomely valid?

I didn't notice your answers to any of the questions that Professor Veith raised.

What is your response to them sir?

I saw only rhetorical questions premised upon disingenuous misrepresentations; other than those (some which I clearly addressed), which precise questions do you refer to? I can admit I might have missed them; so provide me with a sample.

Thanks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think I'd like some clarification from you about something.

When you say "Powerful stuff!" and "Awesome stuff!", do you mean powerful and awesome in their validity and consistency with reality ... or do you mean powerful and awesome in the breadth and depth of the deliberate misinformation these presentations bring, and/or the powerful and awesome stupidity of the people who embrace this misinformation?

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

Considering the heavy preponderance of verifiable evidence and valid logic that roundly contradicts the intellectually dishonest assertions that Veith makes regarding "what science teaches us" and his fatuous conclusions that have no valid basis in reality; what exactly do you find in these presentations to be so powerfully and awesomely valid?

What is this evidence you claim ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

were you expecting honest discussion from someone with an education actually in the field being discussed? this is religious misinformation we're talking about.

Who cares his degree is in one field how do you know his experience in the field he is speaking about.

Anyone can read and learn from what they read.

Do you have this same view when let's say, your hero dawkins, speaks on subjects he is not educated in ?

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

Considering the heavy preponderance of verifiable evidence and valid logic that roundly contradicts the intellectually dishonest assertions that Veith makes regarding "what science teaches us" and his fatuous conclusions that have no valid basis in reality; what exactly do you find in these presentations to be so powerfully and awesomely valid?

I didn't notice your answers to any of the questions that Professor Veith raised.

What is your response to them sir?

He will avoid them like the plague because there is no explanation.

He will stick to his rhetoric and referring to people with higher educations and experience as retards.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Belief is the conviction of certainty in the reality of something.

Belief is the intellectual conviction of certainty in the reality of some alleged objective fact. A belief must be something that can be put into words, and it must be in the form "X is true." In other words, belief must consist of a claim of fact, whether justified or not.



No. It is not.

It most certainly is; and is differentiated from rational beliefs (which are based in, and validated by, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic) by their being held in the absence of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and being validated by stoic defiance of contradicting verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Nonsense. Nonsense submitted to obfuscate the patently irrational nature of faith.

Except for the implied (and necessary) premise--the statement of fact--that God exists. That is a faith held fact of reality.

Precisely. And I have not been arguing otherwise. I have just been pointing out that the superstitious are necessarily exercising faith by believing in the supernatural.

I'm not attempting to let the non-religious, or atheists off the hook for faith, but if the belief held (whoever is holding it) is based in, and validated by, verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, it is not faith.

Oh? Dogmatic like me? Which am I Mr. Presumpto? Dogmatic theist or atheist? Dogmatic how?

I look at you and see someone uncomfortable with applying terms precisely when doing so casts so many nice people in an unflattering light. Show me a good reason why you're fabricating this new meaning (i.e. "confidence that allows people to go on living", rather than "a sub-category of belief") for faith, if my perception of what you're up to is wrong.

The dogmatic theists insist these ideas are true. You insist they have no basis. (You're closer to being right than they are, for what that's worth. But you're still wrong; they have a metaphorical basis and become meaningless, rather than false, if interpreted literally.)

I'm actually right; on the "metaphorical basis" you assert--believing that there is meaning in the meaningless is faith: it is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence or valid logic; it is validated by the denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

I feel like I'm on the beach, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." You demonstrate that that bottle is too puny to hold more than a puddle and insist, "There is no ocean."

Meanwhile, I think I'll go swimming. Or maybe surfing.

lulz. You didn't even try to disguise your misrepresentation of my position. Seriously. Your vignette disingenuously requires that I deny the patently verifiable existence of the ocean to come to the conclusion you assigned for me--the precise opposite of my position.

I feel like I'm at the beach with you, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up nothing and saying, "I have the mighty kracken right here in this bottle." I point out that that bottle is imaginary and insist, "That's just retarded." You turn to me and say, "How can you insist that this guy's assertion about the mighty kraken is retarded? His belief IN the bottle of ocean water he is holding is not the same as him believing THAT he is holing a bottle of ocean water. His confidence that he's actually holding ocean water in a bottle does not mean that he believes he's holding a bottle of water at all: they're just not the same thing. Besides, the bottle of ocean water that he's holding and the plankton in it are metaphors for the ocean and the kraken respectively; your insistence that there's no ocean is just as retarded." Then you start doing the backstroke in the sand; or maybe what you're doing on dry land is a metaphor for surfing.

To which I reply, "You're both retarded."

You're an Ideologue That don't know squat and a very immature one at that.

 

[Dragon]

I think the problem is that you are using a definition of faith that is personal and not widely accepted (I cannot recall ever seeing someone else define faith as you have, either in person, or on a message board, or in the dictionary).

Think of how the word is used outside a religious context. "I have faith in my friend David; he won't let me down." In this case, there's nothing supernatural about the idea that David won't let me down, but I can't prove it's true, either. There is uncertainty here, and required action, and I take the action in spite of the uncertainty. (And if David does let me down, a crisis of faith ensues.)

That's what faith is: belief in, not belief that (although it may be accompanied by beliefs-that).

In a religious context, belief in God is in a sense a code for the faith that lets you put one foot in front of the other, again and again, in spite of uncertainty. In another sense, it's a way of describing or explaining the inarticulate sense of a personal relationship with the cosmos. It's that sense of connection that's the important thing here, though (IMO), not the concept of God as He is described in Christian, Jewish, or Muslim theology.

At its highest level, that sense of connection or personal relationship is faith. Everything else is either a more immediate manifestation or else window-dressing.

I believe the analogy I used is a good one in that it conveys the limitations of doctrinaire religion (focused on the God that will fit in a bottle), and of argumentative atheism in that the latter is focused on the same God but in a negative way.

 

[Dragon]

It most certainly is

LOL "No it's not" "Yes it is" -- do you realize you're showing yourself to be as dogmatic and rigid as the people you habitually argue with? No, probably not. Most other people can see it, though.

Definitions are merely descriptions of how a word is commonly used; as noted in my last post, this is not a very good one, because the word is used in ways that are not encompassed by that definition.

and is differentiated from rational beliefs

And from irrational and non-rational beliefs as well.

I look at you and see someone uncomfortable with applying terms precisely when doing so casts so many nice people in an unflattering light.

I look at you and see someone who doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about but, unfortunately, thinks he does.

The first step on the road to learning something is to realize you don't already know.

I'm actually right; on the "metaphorical basis" you assert--believing that there is meaning in the meaningless is faith

It's not meaningless.

I feel like I'm at the beach with you, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up nothing and saying, "I have the mighty kracken right here in this bottle."

And this is where you make your mistake. You don't understand at all the reality that underlies his claim, and therefore cannot understand why or how his claim is wrong (THAT it is wrong is correct, of course.)

In fairness, he doesn't understand it, either.

The difference between theistic ideas and what you are describing is that "the mighty kraken" is wholly imaginary, while God is a misinterpretation or flawed explanation for that sense of oneness with or connection to the cosmos which is, in itself, entirely real. It's not like "the mighty kraken," but more like the story of Apollo's chariot in its course across the sky. The story is false, but the sun is real.

 

[LOki]

Powerful and awesome period. So that would be the validity.

Considering the heavy preponderance of verifiable evidence and valid logic that roundly contradicts the intellectually dishonest assertions that Veith makes regarding "what science teaches us" and his fatuous conclusions that have no valid basis in reality; what exactly do you find in these presentations to be so powerfully and awesomely valid?

What is this evidence you claim ?

For one, that "science" teaches anything. There is no Keebleresque elf with some divine halo (in conformance with the superstitious paradigm of the faithful) passing out lessons about reality to his devotionals. Science is a method for gathering information about reality from reality, and then systematically validating conclusions made about the nature of reality through the controlled, repeatable and verifiable testing of the observations made, and the predictions based upon those observations and conclusions. We learn a great deal about reality in this manner, but science doesn't teach us anything. (But Sunday school clearly does.)

Veith is just dishonestly laying the groundwork for an attempt to poison the well, by implying that there is some supernatural (or at least anti-theistic) motive behind the way that verifiable evidence and valid logic so often prevail against the presumptions and prejudices of superstitions. That's just a little bit of evidence of Veith's lack of intellectual integrity.

Secondly, and specifically (as an example, but not to the exclusion of any of his other dumbass claims) Veith claims that science teaches us that all of these flat layers (whoosh!) of sediment that we observe in the Grand Canyon, were at one time the dry surface of the planet, and then he implies (through exclusion) that they must have then been subjected only to the erosive forces of rain and rivers; not wind and not tectonics.

Neither his explicit claims, or those he implies are in fact true. Science doesn't teach any of that. While Veith expounds ad-nauseam on the subject of catastrophic erosion, he entirely ignores (for the purposes of his intellectually invalid point) where, and in what manner, the sediments resultant from such events (and every single less than catastrophic event too) are deposited. In fact, those who make an ingenuous study of such things assert that the evidence suggests that those layers were formed at the (broadly flat) bottom of a large deep body of water; where subsequent layers of sediments were deposited--over great periods of time; where the pressure of the water and subsequent sediment deposits--over more time--served to compress, solidify and harden the once soft materials beneath; and only recently (on a geologic time-scale) have these areas been predominantly above water (due to the phenomenon of plate tectonics) where they have been exposed--over more time yet--to the erosive forces of rain, rivers and wind; revealing, through localized exposure, these flat (whoosh!) sedimentary strata.

He does alot of this nonsense. He spends a great deal of time cherry-picking his data and specific local examples and then presents them as truly and honestly representative of all the data and examples that the broad conclusions he disagrees with are based upon. In fact, he appears to make a point of capitalizing on every opportunity to misrepresent "what science teaches." And I have pointed some of those out earlier and/or elsewhere.

And here's what's more for you ... I'm not going to demand that you just take my word for any of this. I'd rather insist that you don't, and make an intellectually honest attempt to get a good grip on what is being said about reality, and then go out and objectively verify those claims against the verifiable reality we actually live in, rather than the one we might want to hope we live in.

Yet my insistence is meaningless (at least it should be) to you. But if you insist that the superstitious "teaching" of some Sunday School snake-oil salesman trumps everything that the world says of itself, by itself, then you'll just have to get used to me considering you to be a little retarded. It doesn't mean I think you're a bad person; but it does mean that you lack the critical thinking to sufficiently protect you from being easily manipulated, by one witch-doctor or another, into being the kind of bad person who straps a bomb to a baby to save its soul (and the whole world's maybe) from the bogeyman. And as long as you believe that ancient fairy tales are literally true and objective reality is not, you've got nothing that tells me I'm wrong about that.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Belief is the conviction of certainty in the reality of something.

Belief is the intellectual conviction of certainty in the reality of some alleged objective fact. A belief must be something that can be put into words, and it must be in the form "X is true." In other words, belief must consist of a claim of fact, whether justified or not.

Faith is certainly belief; some kind of belief.

No. It is not. Faith is simply the confidence that allows people to go on living. Now, sometimes people may express that confidence in the form of a belief, e.g. "God loves me." But faith itself is not dependent on any such belief statements. One can have faith and be an atheist, or a believer in any religion, or an amorphous sort of theist, or a believer in non-personified cosmic principles (as the Buddha was), or really just about anything.

Frankly, I look at dogmatic theists and atheists such as yourself who make a big deal out of it and I see two sets of people making the same error: becoming fixated on overly-concrete, rigid ideas of the sacred. The dogmatic theists insist these ideas are true. You insist they have no basis. (You're closer to being right than they are, for what that's worth. But you're still wrong; they have a metaphorical basis and become meaningless, rather than false, if interpreted literally.)

I feel like I'm on the beach, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." You demonstrate that that bottle is too puny to hold more than a puddle and insist, "There is no ocean."

Meanwhile, I think I'll go swimming. Or maybe surfing.

I think the problem is that you are using a definition of faith that is personal and not widely accepted (I cannot recall ever seeing someone else define faith as you have, either in person, or on a message board, or in the dictionary).

It's more like you are on the beach, someone is holding up a bottle and saying, "I have the ocean right here in this bottle." Someone else demonstrates that the bottle is too small to hold the ocean and replies, "No, you do not." Then you interject, saying, "That's not a bottle. A bottle is a large dog.".

Sure, by your definition, you may be completely correct; since no one else uses your definition, it's pretty irrelevant.

This is spot on. It's the age-old argument of "well this is what it means to me so it must be true everywhere." It's crap.

It's how religious nuts try to equalize objective or verifiable support with complete blind opinion. They try to level the playing field of an otherwise mountainous terrain. How could they begin to make a claim without such underhanded misdirection? If person A has a wealth of reproducible knowledge on a topic, and person B has NOTHING, of course person B will try to bring down person A. When you treat a life-threatening infection, we don't put our faith in herbs or guessing or prayer. We use antibiotics.

Even the people who believe in the power of prayer will still take the antibiotics. That should tell you something about their faith.

 

[LOki]

It most certainly is

LOL "No it's not" "Yes it is" -- do you realize you're showing yourself to be as dogmatic and rigid as the people you habitually argue with? No, probably not. Most other people can see it, though.

Definitions are merely descriptions of how a word is commonly used; as noted in my last post, this is not a very good one, because the word is used in ways that are not encompassed by that definition.

It's not dogma. Words have meaning. Verifiable meaning that can and should be applied accurately and precisely. They are symbols for real things, and certainly in the context (religion and such) within which the term is being used, I am using the term thoughtfully and correctly.

Your refusal to accept this patent fact of reality is dogmatic.

and is differentiated from rational beliefs

And from irrational and non-rational beliefs as well.

No. Faith can be irrational and/or non-rational, there are certainly distinctions to be made between kinds of faith, but faith is still a distinct type of belief--not different than belief.

I look at you and see someone who doesn't have a clue what I'm talking about but, unfortunately, thinks he does.

The first step on the road to learning something is to realize you don't already know.

Look here douche, I admitted that I might not know what I was talking about here, and so I invited you correct me.

Apparently you actually saw nothing to correct me for, and you apparently remain too uncomfortable about it to say so.

I'm actually right; on the "metaphorical basis" you assert--believing that there is meaning in the meaningless is faith

It's not meaningless.

You clearly said it was.

You see, I can keep up with your half of this, even when you can't.

I feel like I'm at the beach with you, and some theistic dogmatist is holding up nothing and saying, "I have the mighty kracken right here in this bottle."

And this is where you make your mistake.

You need to go back and carefully re-read my counter vignette. I made no mistake. And you are about to confirm why. All the various subjective realities you're injecting are irrelevant.

You're really just going to point out that when superstitious retards are wrong, they're not necessarily lying. I'm not saying they are; nor will I affirm that not lying makes a superstitious retard any less retarded.

You don't understand at all the reality that underlies his claim, and therefore cannot understand why or how his claim is wrong (THAT it is wrong is correct, of course.)

In fairness, he doesn't understand it, either.

It's not relevant to my point why he's wrong, I'm making no claims as to why he's wrong, I'm pointing out that what he believes (based on what he is saying) is retarded, and demonstrably so--and the same goes for you.

Let me throw you this bone. Your reasons for making the claims about God and our needs regarding our place in the cosmos that you do, might not make any logical sense, or have any basis in verifiable evidence, but you could still hold the correct (i.e. consistent with objective reality) belief--but it's still faith. The right or wrong of it is not my point.

You see, I'm not claiming that beliefs held in faith are categorically wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'll affirm the assertion that faith-based belief can be perfectly accurate and precisely correct; but put all the reasons this holder of an imaginary bottle, with the ocean and the Mighty Kraken in it, is wrong all together into a grand unified explanation for why this he is wrong, and he'll still be wrong (hence retarded)--and he'll still be superstitious whether he's right or not, if his beliefs are unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That is just what faith means.

The difference between theistic ideas and what you are describing is that "the mighty kraken" is wholly imaginary, ...

Nonsense. God is "wholly imaginary." Ok. If you don't like that, let me put it this way: The Mighty Kraken is not "wholly imaginary" in any verifiably greater sense than God is.

God or the Mighty Kraken, whether you like it put one way or the other, there's no difference between theistic ideas and what I'm describing.

... while God is a misinterpretation or flawed explanation for that sense of oneness with or connection to the cosmos which is, in itself, entirely real.

You clearly do not believe in the Mighty Kraken. Heretic! Burn in hell unbeliever!

Seriously. God is no less "wholly imaginary" than the Mighty Kraken, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin, Thor, Zeus or whatever. And this "sense of oneness with or connection to the cosmos" crap is entirely unnecessary, as is some invisible Uber-Pappy to be "a misinterpretation or flawed explanation for" it. Each of our connections to the oneness of the cosmos (which is admittedly objectively real) is patently self evident in our being part of this great oneness that is the entirety of existence. It requires (as I have been saying all along) a denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic for someone to make the claim that some farcical leprechaun is required to validate our sense that we exist. JESUS!

It's not like "the mighty kraken," but more like the story of Apollo's chariot in its course across the sky. The story is false, but the sun is real.

So what? The fact that the ocean is in fact real, just as the sun is in fact real, the basis upon which such beliefs are valid, are the measures by which your little story has it all wrong, and mine has some verifiable validity compared against reality.

You know, I guess I'm really not too surprised that you didn't try to challenge me with someone who denies the evidence of, and valid logic asserting his existence, but still believes he exists.

You're clearly being a fan of faith--a dogmatic fan of faith.

 

[LOki]

I didn't notice your answers to any of the questions that Professor Veith raised.

What is your response to them sir?

He will avoid them like the plague because there is no explanation.

This is an obvious lie. Submitted, I suspect, out of desperation.

He will stick to his rhetoric and referring to people with higher educations and experience as retards.

Add unsubstantiated accusation to the indictment.

You're an Ideologue That don't know squat and a very immature one at that.

"Ideologue" is vocabulary well above your intellectual pay grade, son. Next time use a dictionary to make sure the label you're attempting to apply to others is not already firmly affixed to yourself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I didn't notice your answers to any of the questions that Professor Veith raised.

What is your response to them sir?

He will avoid them like the plague because there is no explanation.

This is an obvious lie. Submitted, I suspect, out of desperation.

He will stick to his rhetoric and referring to people with higher educations and experience as retards.

Add unsubstantiated accusation to the indictment.

You're an Ideologue That don't know squat and a very immature one at that.

"Ideologue" is vocabulary well above your intellectual pay grade, son. Next time use a dictionary to make sure the label you're attempting to apply to others is not already firmly affixed to yourself.

I'll ask the questions again.

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

 

[LOki]

He will avoid them like the plague because there is no explanation.

This is an obvious lie. Submitted, I suspect, out of desperation.

Add unsubstantiated accusation to the indictment.

You're an Ideologue That don't know squat and a very immature one at that.

"Ideologue" is vocabulary well above your intellectual pay grade, son. Next time use a dictionary to make sure the label you're attempting to apply to others is not already firmly affixed to yourself.

I'll ask the questions again.

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

Click

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is an obvious lie. Submitted, I suspect, out of desperation.

Add unsubstantiated accusation to the indictment.

"Ideologue" is vocabulary well above your intellectual pay grade, son. Next time use a dictionary to make sure the label you're attempting to apply to others is not already firmly affixed to yourself.

I'll ask the questions again.

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

Click

You did not answer the questions. Let's establish the truth and see who is being disingenuous.

Look at this PDF file you may have to google it to get the link.

PDF]



5 Sedimentary Rocks - Earth's Dynamic Systems


earthds.info/pdfs/EDS_05.PDF

Ask yourself how do they date fossils ? they date them by the layer of strata each fossil is found in. So each layer of strata according to your side had to be the surface of the earth.

Now answer my questions.

 

[konradv]

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

1. Could be any number of reasons depending on the strata in question. More information is needed to answer this question without going in to every possiblity.

2. Lower strata show erosion all the time. I think you're just spreading misinformation here, so there is no valid answer to this question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

1. Could be any number of reasons depending on the strata in question. More information is needed to answer this question without going in to every possiblity.

2. Lower strata show erosion all the time. I think you're just spreading misinformation here, so there is no valid answer to this question.

Lower strata only shows erosion that is exposed to the enviornment.

So please explain how solid rock from lower strata is mixed in with the layer strata that is above it ?

It's not possible unless all strata was softened by let's say a flood. It also shows they were formed at the same time that not each layer was formed over millions of years separately as some geologist would have you believe.

 

[konradv]

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

1. Could be any number of reasons depending on the strata in question. More information is needed to answer this question without going in to every possiblity.

2. Lower strata show erosion all the time. I think you're just spreading misinformation here, so there is no valid answer to this question.

Lower strata only shows erosion that is exposed to the enviornment.

So please explain how solid rock from lower strata is mixed in with the layer strata that is above it ?

It's not possible unless all strata was softened by let's say a flood. It also shows they were formed at the same time that not each layer was formed over millions of years separately as some geologist would have you believe.

Why should I have to explain that? Its a red-herring, i.e. it means nothing. There are all sorts of reasons and methods by which erosion occurred, after which a new layer is deposited over it. I don't even really get what your problem is. It's just isn't presented coherently enough to give the kind of definitive answer you're looking for, probably because the concept is fallacious from the start.

 

[LOki]

I'll ask the questions again.

1. If a layer of strata is formed over millions of years and each layer of strata was the surface of the earth,and each layer of strata is solid rock, how did this layer of strata get mixed in with the layer of strata laid down on top of it ?

2. How come the layer of strata which is the surface of the earth shows erosion but lower strata does not show erosion only the parts of lower strata that is exposed show erosion ?

Click

You did not answer the questions. Let's establish the truth and see who is being disingenuous.

I did. I just didn't accept the intellectually dishonest premises of your questions.

The fact of the matter is that the conditions under which sedimentary rock formations were formed are neither those you and Veith propose OR those that you and Veith claim "science teaches us."

You are both disingenuous propagators of misinformation.

Look at this PDF file you may have to google it to get the link.

5 Sedimentary Rocks - Earth's Dynamic Systems

Ask yourself how do they date fossils ? they date them by the layer of strata each fossil is found in. So each layer of strata according to your side had to be the surface of the earth.

Now answer my questions.

You should have read your resource before you submitted it for my review. It fully validates my response to your questions.

 

[LOki]

Lower strata only shows erosion that is exposed to the enviornment.

So please explain how solid rock from lower strata is mixed in with the layer strata that is above it ?

Easy. The material in the lower strata had not solidified at the time the consequent deposition occurred.

It's not possible unless all strata was softened by let's say a flood.

There are clearly plenty of other (inconvenient to your disingenuous point) possibilities other than this flood business of yours.

It also shows they were formed at the same time that not each layer was formed over millions of years separately as some geologist would have you believe.

You and Veith simply ignore the conclusions derived from the scientific method of studying sedimentation by claiming that "science teaches us" that a layer of sediment is deposited, it turns in to solid rock, then some millions of years later another layer is deposited, over an over.

Without the intentional application of this intellectually dishonest strawman of yours (or some other disingenuous tactic), you have literally no basis upon which to critique that which "science teaches us" about how these strata were formed, or why there is evidence of mixing at the boundary between strata.

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. Could be any number of reasons depending on the strata in question. More information is needed to answer this question without going in to every possiblity.

2. Lower strata show erosion all the time. I think you're just spreading misinformation here, so there is no valid answer to this question.

Lower strata only shows erosion that is exposed to the enviornment.

So please explain how solid rock from lower strata is mixed in with the layer strata that is above it ?

It's not possible unless all strata was softened by let's say a flood. It also shows they were formed at the same time that not each layer was formed over millions of years separately as some geologist would have you believe.

Why should I have to explain that? Its a red-herring, i.e. it means nothing. There are all sorts of reasons and methods by which erosion occurred, after which a new layer is deposited over it. I don't even really get what your problem is. It's just isn't presented coherently enough to give the kind of definitive answer you're looking for, probably because the concept is fallacious from the start.

It's a legitamate question not a red herring.

Just wave the white flag.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lower strata only shows erosion that is exposed to the enviornment.

So please explain how solid rock from lower strata is mixed in with the layer strata that is above it ?

Easy. The material in the lower strata had not solidified at the time the consequent deposition occurred.

It's not possible unless all strata was softened by let's say a flood.

There are clearly plenty of other (inconvenient to your disingenuous point) possibilities other than this flood business of yours.

It also shows they were formed at the same time that not each layer was formed over millions of years separately as some geologist would have you believe.

You and Veith simply ignore the conclusions derived from the scientific method of studying sedimentation by claiming that "science teaches us" that a layer of sediment is deposited, it turns in to solid rock, then some millions of years later another layer is deposited, over an over.

Without the intentional application of this intellectually dishonest strawman of yours (or some other disingenuous tactic), you have literally no basis upon which to critique that which "science teaches us" about how these strata were formed, or why there is evidence of mixing at the boundary between strata.

Lower strata was not solidfied after millions of years ? you can't be serious.

May I suggest you take a tour down in the Grand canyon so you can see how rediculous your answer is.