Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Wading doesn't help.

Topic: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group (Read 9216 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1250
And what is THEIR source for this "knowledge" ?
Duh. The bible. Except where the bible is faulty and then their asses.
Indeed.
The bible has very little - really, nothing, to be exact - to say about geology.
So ALL of this crap about sedimentary strata, fluid dynamics, tectonic dynamics, fanciful critiques of radiometric chronometry ... ALL the "evidence" that constitutes Hawkins's wishfully-fantasized "elephant in the room" - is pulled straight out of their asses in a pathetic attempt to reconcile reality with their Sunday school fables.

:sad:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1251
Yes well. Creationists are not known for their useful contributions to science.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1252
Hey Dave, I found a new source of creotard. :clap:

Noah's Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.


Holy moly that's some seriously condensed Creotard.  It's a Gish Gallop on steroids.

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1253
Hey this is funny. :grin:

I ran a search for stromatolites on AiG and, sure enough, they have recognised that they have a problem. They have (or at least Snelling has) even admitted that stromatolites are confirmed as far back as the Lower Archaean, around 3.5 billion years ago on the Evilutionist Global Conspiracy Timescale. And, they have admitted that stromatolite reefs take a long time to grow, and they only have about 1600 "pre-Flood" years to deal with all the pre-Cambrian strata. So, what to do?

Well, and hold onto your gasters here lest they be flabbered out of reach, they have decided there is only one way to deal with the situation: make shit up! :cheer: They have done this very enthusiastically, to the point where they're arguably committing heresy.

They want the pre-Cambrian sedimentary strata to be laid down in "the Day 3 Great Regression", which is what they call it when God supposedly raised the land out of the water, and lotsa water ran off, causing massive erosion in the process. The early stromatolites are in these strata, so the stromatolites have to come first.

The result of this clusterfuck is that they are now proposing that God created complete stromatolite reefs, with real live cells, on Day 2. They can't fit them in anywhere else, so Day 2 it has to be. This is in spite of the Bible clearly saying that God did not create life in the oceans until Day 5.

Answers in Genesis no longer cares what the Bible says. They have gone and jumped the shark, and are now writing their own creation myth in direct contradiction of the Bible.

 :stopper:  :cheer:  :happydance:  :parrot:  :happydance:  :cheer:  :stopper:
Any comments on this, Dave?

AFDave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1254
Yes well. Creationists are not known for their useful contributions to science.
Actually you're wrong.  Creationists founded modern science.   Recently there have been a fair number of  professional scientists reject Darwinism and adopt what they call "the third way."  One major cause of this is the work of creationists.

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1255
 Also the gradual shift in geology from strict uniformitarianism to catastrophism has been the direct result of the work of creationists.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1256
Yes well. Creationists are not known for their useful contributions to science.
Actually you're wrong.  Creationists founded modern science.   Recently there have been a fair number of  professional scientists reject Darwinism and adopt what they call "the third way."  One major cause of this is the work of creationists.
Also the gradual shift in geology from strict uniformitarianism to catastrophism has been the direct result of the work of creationists.
Wow.
Every single sentence there is dead wrong.
Quite an accomplishment!
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1257
If any of that were actually true you might have something there, As it is you're just snatching up phrases you don't and won't try to understand, as if everyone else forgets all the prior threads where such things were endlessly explained to you.

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1258
Yes well. Creationists are not known for their useful contributions to science.
Actually you're wrong.  Creationists founded modern science.  Recently there have been a fair number of  professional scientists reject Darwinism and adopt what they call "the third way."  One major cause of this is the work of creationists.
Also the gradual shift in geology from strict uniformitarianism to catastrophism has been the direct result of the work of creationists.
Wow.
Every single sentence there is dead wrong.
Quite an accomplishment!

Nah.  I've seen him go whole weeks posting nothing but incorrect lies and bullshit.

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1259
Also the gradual shift in geology from strict uniformitarianism to catastrophism has been the direct result of the work of creationists.

(cough cough) Missouri geology.  Dave's still too much of a coward to discuss it.    :yes:

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1260
A geology text book would be fine.
That's what I thought you meant.  Probably ain't gonna happen for the reason I mentioned earlier ... "Regional Provincialism" ... as explained by Bill Hoesch here ... http://www.icr.org/article/3342/

But ... Derek Ager seems to be a bit of a rebel and it would be interesting to see what he actually wrote on this topic (referred to in the Snelling article I posted)
Why is Ager no longer your "buddy"?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1261
He IS my buddy.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1262
He thinks you're a fuckwit.
Truth is out of style

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1263
He IS my buddy.
::)  Right. And the only reason he wrote
Quote
in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."
... was to make sure he wasn't uninvited to those academic cocktail parties, right?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1264
Hey this is funny. :grin:

I ran a search for stromatolites on AiG and, sure enough, they have recognised that they have a problem. They have (or at least Snelling has) even admitted that stromatolites are confirmed as far back as the Lower Archaean, around 3.5 billion years ago on the Evilutionist Global Conspiracy Timescale. And, they have admitted that stromatolite reefs take a long time to grow, and they only have about 1600 "pre-Flood" years to deal with all the pre-Cambrian strata. So, what to do?

Well, and hold onto your gasters here lest they be flabbered out of reach, they have decided there is only one way to deal with the situation: make shit up! :cheer: They have done this very enthusiastically, to the point where they're arguably committing heresy.

They want the pre-Cambrian sedimentary strata to be laid down in "the Day 3 Great Regression", which is what they call it when God supposedly raised the land out of the water, and lotsa water ran off, causing massive erosion in the process. The early stromatolites are in these strata, so the stromatolites have to come first.

The result of this clusterfuck is that they are now proposing that God created complete stromatolite reefs, with real live cells, on Day 2. They can't fit them in anywhere else, so Day 2 it has to be. This is in spite of the Bible clearly saying that God did not create life in the oceans until Day 5.

Answers in Genesis no longer cares what the Bible says. They have gone and jumped the shark, and are now writing their own creation myth in direct contradiction of the Bible.

 :stopper:  :cheer:  :happydance:  :parrot:  :happydance:  :cheer:  :stopper:
Any comments on this, Dave?
AFDave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.
I find their approach utterly bizarre, even for AiG.

The Genesis creation story is obviously structured to divide the creation process into clear and well-defined stages, according to the perceptions of the authors. Their perception is obviously anthropocentric, which accounts for the story having life created on land before it was created in the ocean, and there is a lot they were ignorant of, but as far as it goes it's quite well-structured. You can see a kind of primitive or child-like consistency to it.

Stromatolites, or any other life in the ocean, on Day 2 is obviously not what the story was intended to convey. Destroying them the next day doesn't fit either. It doesn't pass the sniff test, and I think it's the sort of thing that would bother their target audience. Dave is an example. It obviously bothers him, or he wouldn't be so determined to avoid the matter, so it seems that AiG are putting themselves on even shakier ground than usual.

Which gets me wondering why they decided to nail their colours to the mast on this daft bit of overreach. It would have made more sense to reluctantly admit that pre-Cambrian sediments had to be Fludde sediments. They have already extended the Fludde timeline back to cover the Edicaran period, because they could see they had no choice, so they're already in the pre-Cambrian. That being the case, it would be logical to extend things to account for the stromatolites too. At least then they'd have a somewhat consistent position that didn't involve directly contradicting Genesis.

Instead, they have gone full batshit.
Truth is out of style

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1265
Yes well. Creationists are not known for their useful contributions to science.
Actually you're wrong.  Creationists founded modern science.   Recently there have been a fair number of  professional scientists reject Darwinism and adopt what they call "the third way."  One major cause of this is the work of creationists.
You are an idiot of rare vintage. Third wayers don't reject Darwin you moran.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1266
If any of that were actually true you might have something there, As it is you're just snatching up phrases you don't and won't try to understand, as if everyone else forgets all the prior threads where such things were endlessly explained to you.
Which adds to the weird humor when he opens a new gambit by stating that "we" don't understand a thing he only knows from a creationist quote mine of the original source. Like Shapiro or Ager.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1267
Hey this is funny. :grin:

I ran a search for stromatolites on AiG and, sure enough, they have recognised that they have a problem. They have (or at least Snelling has) even admitted that stromatolites are confirmed as far back as the Lower Archaean, around 3.5 billion years ago on the Evilutionist Global Conspiracy Timescale. And, they have admitted that stromatolite reefs take a long time to grow, and they only have about 1600 "pre-Flood" years to deal with all the pre-Cambrian strata. So, what to do?

Well, and hold onto your gasters here lest they be flabbered out of reach, they have decided there is only one way to deal with the situation: make shit up! :cheer: They have done this very enthusiastically, to the point where they're arguably committing heresy.

They want the pre-Cambrian sedimentary strata to be laid down in "the Day 3 Great Regression", which is what they call it when God supposedly raised the land out of the water, and lotsa water ran off, causing massive erosion in the process. The early stromatolites are in these strata, so the stromatolites have to come first.

The result of this clusterfuck is that they are now proposing that God created complete stromatolite reefs, with real live cells, on Day 2. They can't fit them in anywhere else, so Day 2 it has to be. This is in spite of the Bible clearly saying that God did not create life in the oceans until Day 5.

Answers in Genesis no longer cares what the Bible says. They have gone and jumped the shark, and are now writing their own creation myth in direct contradiction of the Bible.

 :stopper:  :cheer:  :happydance:  :parrot:  :happydance:  :cheer:  :stopper:
Any comments on this, Dave?
AFDave's Fourth Law: Unanswerable questions are invisible.
I find their approach utterly bizarre, even for AiG.

The Genesis creation story is obviously structured to divide the creation process into clear and well-defined stages, according to the perceptions of the authors. Their perception is obviously anthropocentric, which accounts for the story having life created on land before it was created in the ocean, and there is a lot they were ignorant of, but as far as it goes it's quite well-structured. You can see a kind of primitive or child-like consistency to it.

Stromatolites, or any other life in the ocean, on Day 2 is obviously not what the story was intended to convey. Destroying them the next day doesn't fit either. It doesn't pass the sniff test, and I think it's the sort of thing that would bother their target audience. Dave is an example. It obviously bothers him, or he wouldn't be so determined to avoid the matter, so it seems that AiG are putting themselves on even shakier ground than usual.

Which gets me wondering why they decided to nail their colours to the mast on this daft bit of overreach. It would have made more sense to reluctantly admit that pre-Cambrian sediments had to be Fludde sediments. They have already extended the Fludde timeline back to cover the Edicaran period, because they could see they had no choice, so they're already in the pre-Cambrian. That being the case, it would be logical to extend things to account for the stromatolites too. At least then they'd have a somewhat consistent position that didn't involve directly contradicting Genesis.

Instead, they have gone full batshit.


You have to realise that AIG and the other creo 'science' entities aren't really intending to do 'science', nor are they writing for people who accept mainstream science as the bet knowledge we currently have. They are writing to shore up the faith of the doubters in the ordinary creo churches. Those are people with the barest grasp of even the science of everyday life. Just knowing there are 'smart' people with letters after their names somewhere working to back up the Word of the Lord is comforting. They don't need to understand it. They just need to know it's there.

Dave's an outlier, because he wants to spread the word and sound smart while doing it.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1268
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You have to realise that AIG and the other creo 'science' entities aren't really intending to do 'science', nor are they writing for people who accept mainstream science as the bet knowledge we currently have. They are writing to shore up the faith of the doubters in the ordinary creo churches. Those are people with the barest grasp of even the science of everyday life. Just knowing there are 'smart' people with letters after their names somewhere working to back up the Word of the Lord is comforting. They don't need to understand it. They just need to know it's there.

Dave's an outlier, because he wants to spread the word and sound smart while doing it.
I understand that, but IMO it only reinforces the point. The target audience likes the Genesis story because it's clear and simple. God spent six days making things, and he did it in an orderly fashion. As you say, they find it comforting.

Although AiG has no interest in doing science as such, they do write their articles for their target audience, and they do expect them to be read. Consequently, it seems to me that directly attacking the core mythology that they rely on is a very risky approach. If I were in their shoes, and thought it necessary to come up with a bullshit obfuscation for Archaen stromatolites, and particularly if I was working for an organisation that calls itself "Answers in Genesis", I would not choose an approach that basically says Genesis is wrong.
Truth is out of style

  • JonF
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1269
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You have to realise that AIG and the other creo 'science' entities aren't really intending to do 'science', nor are they writing for people who accept mainstream science as the bet knowledge we currently have. They are writing to shore up the faith of the doubters in the ordinary creo churches. Those are people with the barest grasp of even the science of everyday life. Just knowing there are 'smart' people with letters after their names somewhere working to back up the Word of the Lord is comforting. They don't need to understand it. They just need to know it's there.

Dave's an outlier, because he wants to spread the word and sound smart while doing it.
I understand that, but IMO it only reinforces the point. The target audience likes the Genesis story because it's clear and simple. God spent six days making things, and he did it in an orderly fashion. As you say, they find it comforting.

Although AiG has no interest in doing science as such, they do write their articles for their target audience, and they do expect them to be read. Consequently, it seems to me that directly attacking the core mythology that they rely on is a very risky approach. If I were in their shoes, and thought it necessary to come up with a bullshit obfuscation for Archaen stromatolites, and particularly if I was working for an organisation that calls itself "Answers in Genesis", I would not choose an approach that basically says Genesis is wrong.
They know their audience is not good at the evaluation that's necessary to detect bullshit obfuscation. They read it, they see it contains science words, it supports their position, therefore it's true. End of story. It never occurs to them to compare it to any other knowledge or reality.

Viz. our Davie.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1270
Traditionally they have approached it by putting the bullshit obfuscation in the sciency words. They have extrapolated from Genesis, but they haven't directly contradicted it. For instance, God says he will destroy the world, so they can happily make their Flood as destructive as they like. No problem.

This is a new level of desperation on their part. It doesn't depend on truthy scienciness. If the Bible says God made life in the ocean on the fifth day, and if AiG says he did it on the second day, any five year old with an average brain is likely to wonder why AiG says the Bible is wrong.
  • Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 04:56:55 PM by osmanthus
Truth is out of style

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1271
He thinks you're a fuckwit.
Yes I know but he's still my buddy because he's a catastrophist.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1272
In that case we're all your buddies, because we're all catastrophists in the same way that Ager is.
Truth is out of style

Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1273
In that case we're all your buddies, because we're all catastrophists in the same way that Ager is.

Plus we all think Dave's a fuckwit. 

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group
Reply #1274
Hey I just found a nifty page on the Sauk sequence. It has pictures, so Dave won't have to read any Reverse Swahili Pig Latin.

This one shows southwestern Colorado at the peak of the marine transgression. IOW, the edge of the water here is also the limit of the Tapeats in that area. The red circle is Baker's Bridge.



And this one shows the North American and Canadian areas covered by the complete Sauk sequence.



IOW, this would be the limits of any Tapeats-equivalent layers in that part of the world.
Truth is out of style