Re: R. Forrest: common rat

On 1 Jul, 05:29, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:15 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Ray, I have identified very clearly instances in whichSeanhas lied -
his own words betray him, as he has made mutually contradictory
statements. I have also identified numerous falsehoods in creationist
sources.

You accuse me of being a "liar" based on your own misinterpretations
of what I've said, which are not at all contradictory, your gross
misunderstanding of the evidence, and your outright strawman building
of seemingly deliberate misrepresentations.

Sean:
You stated that you had carried through a statistical method of
determining if granite objects are the product of "deliberate" or "non-
deliberate" forces.

You stated that you have carried out "thousands" of measurements on
granite objects.

You also stated that you had written nothing down in doing this study.

So either you have the most prodigious memory and mathematical ability
of anyone in the history of mankind, or you are lying when you say
that you have carried out such a study.

The fact that you are not able to tell us which parameters you
measured suggests that you have not measured anything.

I see no other interpretation of these facts other than that you are
lying.

How do you interpret these fact?

Beyond this, this "falsehoods" you've identified on my website are
nothing more than amazing twists of logic on your part - more
gymnastics than I've seen from most anyone else.

So why not address the statement on your web site I've identified as
false, and demonstrate from the evidence that they are true?

Let's start with these:

1) One of the very foundations of evolution and popular science today
is the "geologic column".

This is categorically false. Evolutionary theory is not built on the
fossil record, but on the evidence from living organisms we see around
us today.

What can you offer as evidence that it is founded on the "geologic
column"?
If you can't - and there are no reputable sources which will support
you on this - you are wrong.


2) This column is made up of layers of sedimentary rock that
supposedly formed over millions and even billions of years.

The geological column is a theoretical construct based on rock
formations from many different geographical locations. The geological
record is made up of rocks of many different types, including igneous
and metamorphic rocks deposited within sedimentary structures and
intruding through sedimentary structures.

3) Although not found in all locations and although it varies in
thickness as well as the numbers of layers present, this column can be
found generally over the entire globe.

The geological column is a theoretical construct, and rocks of all
ages *cannot* be found "all over the globe". In fact, most of the
surface rocks of the globe are those of ocean floors which are
generally much younger than sedimentary rocks on continental plates.

4) As one looks at the geologic column, it is obvious that the contact
zones, between the various layers, are generally very flat and smooth
relative to each other (though the layers may be tilted relative to
what is currently horizontal or even warped since their original
"flat" formation). Many of the layers extend over hundreds of
thousands of square miles and yet their contact zones remain as smooth
and parallel with each other as if sheets of glass were laid on top of
one another (before they were warped).

This is complete and utter nonsense, as anyone who is familiar with
field geology can tell you. Generally sedimentary layers are not
uniform in thickness over large areas, and many sedimentary structures
vary considerably in thickness even over short distances.

5) And yet, each layer is supposed to have formed over thousands if
not millions of years?

The rate at which layers form varies widely. In some sedimentary rock,
such as volcanic tuffs, several meters thickness can be formed in a
single catastrophic event. In other formations, deposition rates are
very slow and it may take thousands of years to form a few millimeters
of rock.


6) But this expected uneven weathering is generally lacking (see
illustration).1 Just about all the layers have un-weathered or at best
very rapidly weathered parallel and smooth contact zones. Long term
erosion always results in uneven surfaces and this unevenness is only
accentuated over time. How then are the layers found throughout the
geologic column so generally even and smooth relative to each other?

We frequently find erosion surfaces in sedimentary structures.

Here are some photographs of erosion surfaces:

http://www.uta.edu/paleomap/homepage/Schieberweb/Picture%20Pages/shph...
http://www.uga.edu/~strata/sequence/erosion.html
http://www.gly.uga.edu/speleoatlas/SAimage0605.html
http://www.severnichthys.co.uk/geology03.htm
http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/charlier/currentprojects/pics/tie...

Your statement is categorically false. Erosion surfaces, some of them
cutting across distorted sedimentary structures, are common.

Here's a photograph taken as Siccar Point, one of the classic
geological sections, and one which demonstrates that the earth is very
ancient:
http://www.winona.edu/geology/dynamicearth/Images/SiccarPointCloseup.jpg

If you look at the image, you will see that the strata in the lower
part are rotated so that they run vertically, not horizontally. Rock
can only distort in this way under conditions of high temperature and
pressure, and this process takes a long time. So these rocks were
formed, overlain by a large amount of additional sediment, and
distorted under pressure. They were then exposed by erosion. Then
there was a further deposition of sediments on top of the eroded
surface which in time became hard rock. Then there was more erosion of
this hard rock to form the coastal exposure we see today.

This is one of many geological structures which falsify a young
earth.

You will ignore it, of course, because you ignore anything which
demolishes your facile arguments. But I will simply take that as
another example of your moral and intellectual cowardice and
dishonesty, as will all the lurkers watching you squirm.

RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.