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

[LOki]

Lower strata was not solidfied after millions of years ?

I didn't say or even suggest this.

Your implication that I did is just more evidence of your intellectual disingenuousity, and your general dishonesty.

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

I have been there, and you are clownshoes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lower strata was not solidfied after millions of years ?

I didn't say or even suggest this.

Your implication that I did is just more evidence of your intellectual disingenuousity, and your general dishonesty.

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

I have been there, and you are clownshoes.

I have been there many times and it supports totally what this video presented,I only live two hours from there.

Then answer the questions, if you don't have one for them just say so but don't make crap up.

 

[LOki]

Lower strata was not solidfied after millions of years ?

I didn't say or even suggest this.

Your implication that I did is just more evidence of your intellectual disingenuousity, and your general dishonesty.

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

I have been there, and you are clownshoes.

I have been there many times and it supports totally what this video presented,I only live two hours from there.

Then answer the questions, if you don't have one for them just say so but don't make crap up.

It is you, who in fact are making crap up with your fallacious assertions regarding "what science teaches us." Your questions premised upon those fallacious assertions were answered.

The fact that the dishonest premises of your questions were not validated does not mean that your questions were not answered.

 

[konradv]

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.

No, it's patently false, because lower strat CAN be eroded, when it was the top stratum. You're trying to imply something that's false, i.e. that that couldn't happen. No white flag. Your question is no more answerable than, "have you quit beating your wife?"

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Disengenuous ,the video gave clear pictures of what I am asking you quit deflecting and answer the questions.

 

[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.

So you're admitting that the lower strata was not solidified and this phenomnon was due to lets say exactly what the video said and it was do to a massive flood.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I didn't say or even suggest this.

Your implication that I did is just more evidence of your intellectual disingenuousity, and your general dishonesty.

I have been there, and you are clownshoes.

I have been there many times and it supports totally what this video presented,I only live two hours from there.

Then answer the questions, if you don't have one for them just say so but don't make crap up.

It is you, who in fact are making crap up with your fallacious assertions regarding "what science teaches us." Your questions premised upon those fallacious assertions were answered.

The fact that the dishonest premises of your questions were not validated does not mean that your questions were not answered.

From your view how was each layer of strata laid down ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No, it's patently false, because lower strat CAN be eroded, when it was the top stratum. You're trying to imply something that's false, i.e. that that couldn't happen. No white flag. Your question is no more answerable than, "have you quit beating your wife?"

Then why does lower strata only show erosion on the parts of the lower strata that are exposed ? I have seen enough digs to see each layer of lower strata appearing to be smooth. I have seen no erosion in these digs where the strata above the lower strata just filled in the erosion spots on the lower strata. I have only seen erosion on lower strata that was exposed.

Show me lower strata that has erosion from digs not lower strata that is exposed to the elements that cause erosion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you look around you will find many pictures of strata and you can see they appear to be swirling as if they were filling in by being pushed by water.

Exactly what the video showed.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

more misdirection by Youwerecreated I see. In his usual fashion, the claim comes back to "You can't answer a completely unrelated question about advanced scientific understanding, so therefore I am right that religion is really the answer." It's moronic in multiple ways. Perhaps because my dog can't explain reproduction then I can claim gravity doesn't exist.

 

[LOki]

I have been there many times and it supports totally what this video presented,I only live two hours from there.

Then answer the questions, if you don't have one for them just say so but don't make crap up.

It is you, who in fact are making crap up with your fallacious assertions regarding "what science teaches us." Your questions premised upon those fallacious assertions were answered.

The fact that the dishonest premises of your questions were not validated does not mean that your questions were not answered.

From your view how was each layer of strata laid down ?

I have already provided one of several means these strata were likely established, and the PDF you cited offered some more. What is the exact nature of the malfunction in your reading comprehension?

 

[MarcATL]

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

I can't believe how none of these athiests and/or science-supporters can't seem to answer simple questions.

I've never witnessed such dodging before in my life. Well, let me not say "never."

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.

OK, so then just give one or two or three examples. What's the big deal. You're open to present your case. I don't understand why you won't/don't.

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.

I don't, for the life of me, understand why you simply can't answer any of the questions Veith raised. Even if you present your own situation. Veith proposed that there's questions science can't answer, and he showed why. You are supposed to now counter with your argument, or explain how these questions are, in fact, answered/answered.

Your call of red herring, IS the red herring in this thread.

It is you, who in fact are making crap up with your fallacious assertions regarding "what science teaches us." Your questions premised upon those fallacious assertions were answered.

The fact that the dishonest premises of your questions were not validated does not mean that your questions were not answered.

You are being willfully obtuse. The term "what science teaches us" isn't to imply that it's declaring a law that everyone must adhere to. It's simply a statement of that is what science has come to believe and teach as true at this time.

It seems to me that you are doing everything within your power to avoid having to respond to the LEGITIMATE questions and answers that Veith highlighted about science. In fact it seems pretty clear that that is the case here sir.

 

[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

I can't believe how none of these athiests and/or science-supporters can't seem to answer simple questions.

I've never witnessed such dodging before in my life. Well, let me not say "never."

OK, so then just give one or two or three examples. What's the big deal. You're open to present your case. I don't understand why you won't/don't.

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.

I don't, for the life of me, understand why you simply can't answer any of the questions Veith raised. Even if you present your own situation. Veith proposed that there's questions science can't answer, and he showed why. You are supposed to now counter with your argument, or explain how these questions are, in fact, answered/answered.

Your call of red herring, IS the red herring in this thread.

It is you, who in fact are making crap up with your fallacious assertions regarding "what science teaches us." Your questions premised upon those fallacious assertions were answered.

The fact that the dishonest premises of your questions were not validated does not mean that your questions were not answered.

You are being willfully obtuse. The term "what science teaches us" isn't to imply that it's declaring a law that everyone must adhere to. It's simply a statement of that is what science has come to believe and teach as true at this time.

It seems to me that you are doing everything within your power to avoid having to respond to the LEGITIMATE questions and answers that Veith highlighted about science. In fact it seems pretty clear that that is the case here sir.

Very neat how you ignore my direct responses to your questions to assert that I have not responded to your questions.

You're just another intellectually dishonest, superstitious retard.

 

[MarcATL]

Loki, your response(s) did NOT answer the questions posed by Veith. Sure, you pontificated at length, but you did not respond to the questions Veith raised.

Essentially your response amounted to, "I don't have time to respond to such ridiculous claims."

YouWereCreated highlighted two of those questions.

I'd like you to, if you will, please answer them directly.

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 ?

Thanks.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are being willfully obtuse. The term "what science teaches us" isn't to imply that it's declaring a law that everyone must adhere to. It's simply a statement of that is what science has come to believe and teach as true at this time.

It seems to me that you are doing everything within your power to avoid having to respond to the LEGITIMATE questions and answers that Veith highlighted about science. In fact it seems pretty clear that that is the case here sir.

I can't help but notice you are again incorrectly assuming that all scientific questions must be answered by any given "atheist" for all of science to be correct. This is childish reasoning. If you can't tell me what God's favorite pizza topping is, does that mean all of religion is wrong? What on earth do strata layers have to do with ANY POINT?

Despite this complete unrelated topics, Loki has answered you. Twice. And linked to his answers. And you continue to claim he hasn't answered. Are you purposely being evasive and avoidant while claiming he is? Or are you just blind?

 

[LOki]

Loki, your response(s) did NOT answer the questions posed by Veith. Sure, you pontificated at length, but you did not respond to the questions Veith raised.

Essentially your response amounted to, "I don't have time to respond to such ridiculous claims."

YouWereCreated highlighted two of those questions.

I'd like you to, if you will, please answer them directly.

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 ?

Thanks.

I answered this already. As I explained, the strawmen--the various assertions regarding "what science teaches us"--that Veith, YWC, and yourself are challenging with these questions are not valid.

"Science" does not claim that sedimentary deposits, all over the planet, were all deposited on dry land, were all at one time the dry surface of the planet, were all deposited slowly and incrementally, and they certainly do no claim that there were millions of years between successive sediment deposition events (so they later could solidify).

Your (and YWC's) problem with my responses is not that I haven't responded to your questions; it's that I refuse to validate the patently fatuous and intellectually dishonest strawmen you premise your questions upon.

 

[MarcATL]

I answered this already. As I explained, the strawmen--the various assertions regarding "what science teaches us"--that Veith, YWC, and yourself are challenging with these questions are not valid.

"Science" does not claim that sedimentary deposits, all over the planet, were all deposited on dry land, were all at one time the dry surface of the planet, were all deposited slowly and incrementally, and they certainly do no claim that there were millions of years between successive sediment deposition events (so they later could solidify).

Your (and YWC's) problem with my responses is not that I haven't responded to your questions; it's that I refuse to validate the patently fatuous and intellectually dishonest strawmen you premise your questions upon.

OK, seems like this is a valid answer. I apologize if this is a repeat of something you already said.

With that said, what does science claim then? Referring to the above matters?

 

[Youwerecreated]

more misdirection by Youwerecreated I see. In his usual fashion, the claim comes back to "You can't answer a completely unrelated question about advanced scientific understanding, so therefore I am right that religion is really the answer." It's moronic in multiple ways. Perhaps because my dog can't explain reproduction then I can claim gravity doesn't exist.

Answer the question or move on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are being willfully obtuse. The term "what science teaches us" isn't to imply that it's declaring a law that everyone must adhere to. It's simply a statement of that is what science has come to believe and teach as true at this time.

It seems to me that you are doing everything within your power to avoid having to respond to the LEGITIMATE questions and answers that Veith highlighted about science. In fact it seems pretty clear that that is the case here sir.

I can't help but notice you are again incorrectly assuming that all scientific questions must be answered by any given "atheist" for all of science to be correct. This is childish reasoning. If you can't tell me what God's favorite pizza topping is, does that mean all of religion is wrong? What on earth do strata layers have to do with ANY POINT?

Despite this complete unrelated topics, Loki has answered you. Twice. And linked to his answers. And you continue to claim he hasn't answered. Are you purposely being evasive and avoidant while claiming he is? Or are you just blind?

Creationists have explanations why not you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I answered this already. As I explained, the strawmen--the various assertions regarding "what science teaches us"--that Veith, YWC, and yourself are challenging with these questions are not valid.

"Science" does not claim that sedimentary deposits, all over the planet, were all deposited on dry land, were all at one time the dry surface of the planet, were all deposited slowly and incrementally, and they certainly do no claim that there were millions of years between successive sediment deposition events (so they later could solidify).

Your (and YWC's) problem with my responses is not that I haven't responded to your questions; it's that I refuse to validate the patently fatuous and intellectually dishonest strawmen you premise your questions upon.

OK, seems like this is a valid answer. I apologize if this is a repeat of something you already said.

With that said, what does science claim then? Referring to the above matters?

He was not a very good geology student.

Why do they name the strata if that is the case ?

They name them because each layer of strata represents a certain timeframe and that is their measuring stick for how old a fossil is.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.