Really, this is silly. I can read, and am well read. It doesn't take a PhD in geology to "know" that one can fold layers of soft, wet, mud, sand and silt. You can't fold a solid rock. Even if you could, how would you maintain the fairly uniform layers? Over millions of years, wouldn't you expect to find thicker deposits of newer layers at the bottom of the folds? Those sedimentary layers I mentioned are uniform in thickness were folded while they were wet and soft. I said nothing that violates physics.
'I notice everywhere you make any evidence you don't like by saying "conjecture," or "supposition."'
Well, are you able to look at a piece of evidence without viewing it through the eyes of an evolutionist? When you see a fossil, what to you see? Is your view of the existance of the fossil not affected by your presupposion of the truth of evolution?
I've already said that I see the fossil differently. I do not deny it's existance. For me, I believe the fossil got that way differently than you say it did. You are either unable or unwilling to see it as I do, but I have seen it your way and it left me with too many unanswerable questions; to many things of necessity attributed to divine "evolution".
I can see your attitude is deteriorating. If we don't stop, you'll soon be calling me names (wait a minute, there was that "professor" crack), so I suggest we end this now. I didn't hop in here to fight with you or anyone else. I've been trying to explain why we see things differently; not "convert" you. In all honesty, I don't care what you, or anyone else, believes. I was loking for a little intelligent dialouge, and I thought I had it for awhile. But, since it looks like you're dealing with multiple people which, even under the best of circumstances, can be annoying, I suppose your testiness is to be expected.
Bottom line: I will not change your way of thinking and you will not change mine. You've given me some interesting things to look at, and you may not believe it, but I do appreciate you taking the time. Nevertheless, we will have to agree to disagree on this. It's not the "facts" we clash over. Our respective worldviews are diametrically opposed to one another and that affects how we interpret the facts. It's how we divine truth. That is the problem.
Anyhow, I'll stop bugging you now.
| You can't fold a solid rock. You most certainly can. |
Lecture 11 Structural Geology |
| CRETIGO: B (Personal Incredulity) | |
I probably did get a little testy last night. My apologies. I shouldn't post to other people while I'm posting to AndrewC.
Yes, you can fold solid rock. You don't need catastrophism (and catastrophism produces wrong results anyway) because we can observe and measure the very tectonic forces that moved the continents around still moving and warping them today. The Himalayas are still measurably rising right now, just as fast as they ever were. The sea floors are measurably spreading, right now. Over geologic time scales, the rates of change we have now are enough to produce the history of continental drift and collision you see on pages like this one. The links on the left of the page give you a map series from the late Precambrian.
Well, are you able to look at a piece of evidence without viewing it through the eyes of an evolutionist? When you see a fossil, what to you see? Is your view of the existance of the fossil not affected by your presupposion of the truth of evolution?
I assume the fossil is the surviving physical trace of some ancient life form.
I've already said that I see the fossil differently. I do not deny it's existance. For me, I believe the fossil got that way differently than you say it did.
This seems rather cagily phrased. Are you saying the fossil was created in the ground--faked?--as opposed to being what it looks like? I've heard of the Omphalos hypothesis, frequently satirized as Last Thursdayism. You can go there if you want. It can't be disproven, but they'll teach it in science classes over my dead body.