Thomas Sowell
s book, the Vision of the Anointed, is on You tube and I've been listening to it, so far just into the second chapter. It's scarrily perfect as an analysis of the aggressive incorrigible thinking othe Left as they go from creating one social problem after another and never consider their own fault in any of it.
I found a basic stratigraphy presentation that purports to explain how the sedimentary rocks get there in the first place, which is something I've needed to find out, and it's just as unconfincingly as I expected it to be. Sediment is carried by various means from a source such as an eroding mountain. how the mountain produced a single sediment is not explained. And then it is said that the sediment is eroded or disturbed in some way, although the fact is that there is not a hint of a shred of an iota of such disturbance in a single layer of sedimentary rock to bee be seen anywhere that I've seen. What is seen is blocks of strata broken up after it was all in place. And the disturbance is on the surface, not within the layer itself.
They are misled by the fact that much of the existing visible strata are in fact broken up and they misinerpret the erosion or other disturbance seen on its surface to the time period of the layer itself that is exposed. So they interpret the tectonic upheaval thta caused the Gret Unconformity at the based of the Grand Canyon to the precambrian time period, before the layers were built up that can be seen in the exposed walls of the canyon itself.
I spend a lot of time demonstrating from the craosss section of the Grand Staircase to Grand canyon area that there isn't a hint of disturbance shown to any individual layer of rock, but there is massive disturbance after it is all laid down. If there is no disturvance to the individual layers then how tcan they represent time perdios of millions of years on this very active planet? Whether at the bottom of the sea or at the surface of the land or even buried under some depth of land ther is no way they could have formed slowly over time whether millions or thousands or tends of years without being subjected to all kinds of disbturbances.
but they aren't. And I suppose that is acknolwedged for the Grand Canyon area, but not in other places swhere the strata are not preserved in such pristine condition but broken up and twited and so on. however, even in those places a core thrust deep into the land turns up the same kind of layers undisturbed over thousands of square miles. Still if not all thelayers are present they , the scientists I mean, interpret disbturances in relation to whatever part of the column is present at a given location. this is because of their assumptions beult on their dating methods of millions of years. They assume gradual deposition of the sediments so if say a rock of devonian age is exposed soemwshere and ther is a volcanic dike connected with it the volcano is said to have occurred in that time period. And so on.
I do think the absolutely undisturbed appearance of the very deep block of layers on that Grand Canoyon cross section is itself evidence that there was never any disturbacnce whatever during any so called time period. Or it would be inm evidence there as everywhere else. There is no volcano that disturbed the edevonian layer in that area so if it seems to be associated with the devonian somewhere else that is an illusion, it's just that the layers were broken off at that level and so was the dike.
I know I'm awfully cocksure of myself for a nonscientist but that's whthe way it is, I know I've got this right and Im slso sure I'm not going to be able to get it across to anyone who is the captive of the prevailing theory. I say I know that but of course I hope it's not ture.
Anyway, her's what I think happened. I have some of this in agreement with othe creationists bur a loft of it is my own. Most creationists accept the rpevailing idea for instance that the Great Unconformity at the base of the Grand Canyon was there before the strata above it were laid down. this despite the fact that there are layers of sedimentary rock beneath the grand Canyon ajust the same as above it, and ther is really no way to explain the strata at all except by identical processes. You can't say the strata from the Cambrian to the Permian were laid down by the FDlFlood of Noah but not those beneath the Canbrian or above it. Theyh are clearly all formed in exactly the same way whatever that way is.
So I pondered te angular unconformity for awhite a while. I looked at the one at Siccar POint for some time, and many others that you an find on the internet. The standard interpretation is that a certain number of layers were laid down and then a tectonic formce folded them. Then a long time elapsed during which the upper part of the folds were eroded away and smoothed down, and then the enxt layer was deposited horizontally on top of it. And all the rest if any after that in their own time of millions of years per each.
the problem wi this idea in the Grand Canyon is that the strata rise up over the Great Unconformity in a mounded shape and that is not how strata are laid down. They are laid down perfectly horizontal and flat and would not smoothly slimb over even such a gentle slope, let alone a whole stack of them. Yet this is the prevailitng tgheory. they think the unconformity itself is what is left of a great mountain rancge, or some think that. At least it was there a long time before the next layer was laid down, and it had to be eroded flat before that happened.
Looks pretty obvious to me that the strata were all there already and then the great unconformity occurred as a result of the tectonic forme, which was powerful enough to push up the entire stack of strata immediateloy above it. Look at the cross section. That's how it looks and it makes perfect sense.
And at the very top of that mounded area there would have been a great deal of strain so that I theorize that cracks developed in the upper layers and broke them up down to the Permian layer which is the current rim of the Grand Canyon. It was this cracking that opened up the canyhon itself and is the bcause of the canyon.
Since I believe the strata were all laid down by Noah's flood, I think of this has happeneding at the very end of the Flood while the water was still fully covering the earth. Some great upheaval ocurred at that point that began the processes that caused the Flood waters to drain, perhaps a lowering of the sea floor as some creationists have suggested. There had to be some way for the waters to recede, something had to happen to craete somewhere for the water to go. And some sort of great upheaval deep in the earth would be a reasonable guess.
So the upheaval slamemed into the lower strata and forced the pushing up of the Great Unconformtiy which caused strain at the very top of the geological column, cracking open the layers that started breaking up into chunks and falling int to the cracks to carve out the canyon as the flood was reeding.
The Grand Staircaes to the north on that same cross section is also created at that same time. The land was pushed up there shown at the far left and the strata broke off in the stepwise fashion that created the staircase effect. Those layers climb above the Permian which is the rim of the Grand Canyon, all the way up toto recnet time. they include the cinosuar layers, the triassic, jurassic, cretacious and then the mammals and modern flora and fauna abogve that.
One clue that all this occurred after all the strata were in place is the magma rising up through the entire depth of the strata on the vfarleft of the cross section, all the way from the bottom, beneath the lefvelo f the grand Canyoh tot he very top. This volcano obvoiusly occurred after all wer e in place because it penetrates the entire stack from bottom to top.
That volcano and the Great Unconformity under the Grand Canyon seem to me to be clear evidence that the y were part of the same massive disturbance that occurred right after the strata were laid down and at thee very end of the Flood, causing it to recende3 and breaking up strata over the canyon area.
I also think this upheaval was worldwide. That is was the breaking up of the continentns, the beginning of the tectonic movements that separated the continewnts which ad prviously been all in one great continent which is alled Pangaea. Of course I reject all the timing customarily given to it. I think the continents started to break up and move apart, the Atlantic ridge was the main line of this separation in that part of the world, causing the Americas to move apart from Europe and Africa which of course Wegener eventually identified as having once been connected, evidenced by their fossils as well as the shape of the land, the shorelines that match so well.
So I realized I had a different idea about tht Great Unconformity and about Angular Unconformties unconformities altogether. So my theory is that every angular unconformity found anywehre on the planet was formed tat this time. the massive tectonic movement shook up the entire planet , borke up the recnetly formed strata everywhere, twisted it in some places, updended broekn up parts of it as in the british iseles and strewed them across the entire eisland. Also in the state of Tennessee. And no doubt wmany other places.
The moutnains were all formed or at least begun at this time, the Appalachians and the Alps being clearly folded accordian wise like the borrom parts of angular unconformtiies, the Himalayas and the rockies being more abruptly thrust upward and broken off more sharply. but all caused by the same tetonic event that was worldwide. The volcanoes too wer all triggered at this time, all those in the path of land being pushed over them anway.
When I proposed some parts of theas ideas on the EvC formum I got objectsionas about how such activity would cause so much heat the planet couldn't sustain it, Noah and family couldn't have survied and so on and so forth. Especialy since I think the continents tstarte dourt spearating at a rae must faster than is now occurring, I forgot what I calculated, a matter of feet per some very short period of time.
As I ponsdered all this, God helping me I know, or even leading me as far as I know, I realized that the Flood itself had begun with the breaking up of the water camopy indicated to have been put in place at the creation over the earth which would have kept it warm and moist and made it very lush and green. this iw aht broke up with the rain began. It had never rained before but then the whole thing just collapsed and it rained all over the earth for fort days and forty nights. A thte same time something deep in the ocean broke up , the foundaints of the deep, and the flood roase to a great height in a matter of months.
So that canopy of moisture would have been gone by the end of the flood and the planet would have been exposed to cold outser apaced as a result. So I figure that whever headt wqas generated by all the activity of the tectonic movementg and the volcanoes was rapidly dissipated into the into that speace tsince there was no layer of greenhouse gasses there to impede it.
This would have brought on an ice age. I figure that is when the eatrth became smowball earth as someone dubbed it. And this one idce age, there has only been one over the last forty five hundred years since the flood, has been advancin and retreating little by little, more retrating than advancing until we now have the warming that is getting called Climeate Change and blamed on humanity rather than these natural forces.l
Oh and metors would have been pounding the earth and the other planets during this upheaval which must have affected the entire solar system so that the iridium that is taken to be the cevidence of the detero that killed the dinocasuares was just one of many parts of the great upheaval that occurred athte end of the Flood.
Noah and family must have been fairly well protected in the ark stuck on the side of Ararat durin gall this walthough they must have been arearware of earthquakes and asmokyh atmosphere and so on and so forth. But the open sky would have dissipated the smoke. But they woudl have had to cope wit h the cold now. And I suppoe that's whast they did. Although perhaps there are climat e cidfferences in different part os fht eearth in spit of all this to be taken into account.
I think all this lays out the work o future scientists if theyu would lonly come to their senses adn see that something like this iw hat must have ahappeneed, and that were aawe are living int he end part of the world ravaged by the Flood and subject to disease and death as a result of the Fall.
Added laterr: Ididn't explain how the angular unconformity gets created. I ifigure that the main force of the tectonic push came from the idea and buckled the strata from the side rather than beneath. It buckled beneath some depth of flat lying strata above it. Ififigure the two sections would hav split at some point of weakness where the great force from the side below would push something heavy underneath a layer of a certain texture that would allow it to slide fairly easily beneath it. I picture this as somewhat akin to the parlor trick of pulling a tablecloth out from under a complete table setting without disturbin g the dishes and other things on the surface. But it had to be that the force beneath was very sltrong and from the side and the upper strata ere very heavy and there wouas some point of eakness between the two that was a at a balance point between the two forces.
I also want to asdd that after having listented back to this post as I always try to do using the read aloud function, as ususal of course I recognize my own many typos, but Ialso suspect the usual intrference from some external influence as some of the words are just not something I couwould ahve created even making my usual mistakes. Just have to keep reporteing it because it's very disturbing that someone else would be interfering with my writing, or even a program maybe that could attched to my blog.
Before I got back to the post on stratigraphy I cam across a video of a creationism-evolutionism debate, which I think helps me flesh out some of my points. The main thing for me is that the creatinonist position isn't convincing to me. I get the argument, I thinki in the end it is true, but it doesn't work for the debate. The presenter, A Dr. Wile, I hope that is how he spells his name, unless it's Weil, which is possible, argues that the incredible complexity and efficientcy of living systems is evidence for a deisigner and that random evolutionsry processes could not accomplish it. I'm sure this is true but as I said I don't think it works for the debate. Evolutionists doen't have any evidence for their case but all they have to do is say Oh Natural Selecion brings about wonderful adaptations that look like Design and that's the end of it.
dr. Wil also argued that so called vestigial organs are ctually functionint organs and not remnants of former evoltuionary stages. Same with Junk DNA, he claims functions have been found for it so that it also is not the discarded genes from former evoltuionary stages. I've argued here lready against the latter two positions, but then he goes on to mutations and there I agree with him that they do nothing but destroy function and add nothing to it.
he then points out the experiments which show that sedimentary layers can be deposited simultaneously such as the bgBerthault study in the nineties. I think all that is very good and I was impressed with it at the time. Nevertheless I prefer my much simply approach to all this stuff as far as making a case in the debate goes.
This is one of those posts I have to keep coming back to so I hae to post what I hae already fincished as I go. Sorry bout that.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Great fun for me, at least when he finally gets to the Grand Canyon and all the unconformities and disconformities and so on, because I thought so much about all that and have my own theories about it all that golly gosh disagree with the stuff he's teaching.
This is all in the first section of the class and there are to be eight altogether. Unless he's already been moving through them and I just can't tell when he moves from one to another, that's quite possible. In which case he must be up to about number four.
Ayway, earliy onhe covered Steno's Laws and Steno is my guy for sure. the Principle of Superposition of course, followed by the Principel of Original Horizontality ,, eveyr important, and the third is the Principle of Lateral extension, meaning the layers extend for quite some distance laterally.
Stratitgraphy is the study of those tstrata I keep talking about, in case that wasn't clear.
Of course there is no mention of the imposssibility of such a laywr existing either on the sea borttom or on the usrface of the land as I keep arguing. He says all were deposited under water though, at the bottom of the sea, but the sea bottom is not tabletop flat while these layers are and he just slides right on by that fact.
POST IN PROGRESS
I don't disagree with all of it of course, but the tiiming comments I do disagree with for starters. The principel of uniformitarianism for instance.
ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT_iFrjzWN0&list=PLZzjCZ3QdgQDzE7Xaxas3J11tFImpXcjB&index=4
Sometimes I think I'm going to take a break from my blog for a while, and sometimes that does happen, but most of the time I just run into something else right away that I want to write about. I write way too much I guess, and now it's hard to find so many of the blogs I've written in the past because I can no uslonger use some of the functions I used to depend on to track my posts. And since Google rearranged their algorithms or whatever it is they did so that nobody can find my blogs any more I'm just writting into the wind as it were anyway.
Enought of that. The point is that I did just run into another topic to write about. It just showed up at the top of the You Tube page and without knowing what it was I clicked on it to find out and oh wow, a panel discussion on abortion with three doctors who formerly performed aboritions and three women who had had abortions. They had all become Christians and that is probably the main reason they all had had a change of heart about what they had done.
It made me cry of course just as I cried he first time I realized that the abortion I had had at the age of twenty was the killing of my own child and not just a medical procedure to eliminate unwanted tissue from my body. Even as I say that I realize I didn't beleive that even at the time, or I did but I didn't. I knew it was a child if only because I had a dream that made it clear it was a child, a little girl waving at me from the back of a hearse as it drove away. I marveled at such imagery in my dream but I didn't cry then. I cried thirty or so years later when I was with a group of women in church after having becoome a Christian watching a film about abortion. They showed the tiny human being being aborted by a prove chasing it around the womb trying to get away from it. And then I cried, and I criy now just thinking about it again.
How they le to us. And some enormous number of women today still believe those lies and are angry that Roe v Wade got thrown out by the Superme Court even though they can still get their precious murder done it's just a little less convenient in some cases.
I shouldn't mock them, they are deceived just as I had been, they don't know what they are doing.
this video I've just been watching is starkly realistic about the mental state of each memeber before and after the point where they realized they could no longer do or have an abortion and regretted doing it in the past.
I don't know if I succeeded in capturing the URL or not, but I've posted it below. The title of the discussion is
Abortion p[roviders Meet Women Who Regret Their Abotitons
so it can be found without the URL on You Tube.
Abos://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGnUG61f_2A
Of course they think they have evidence for evolution. They've coopted it from ordinary variation within the genome of a species, simply included that as a phase in evolurtion from species to species to species although there is no evidence for that, only for the variation we all know existds within a given speciea.
Word mai, just difine things according to your prejudcice, which begs the question and eliminated your competition which defines them differently, and voila, a whole scientific field treated as establsished dogma. Yep, evolution.
They defne evolution as change in a population over time. Golly gosh, but creationists know there is change in populations over time, we know it to be variation within a species and only within a species and it's not evolution.
the one thing the purveyors of this intellectual fraud don't do is provide evidence that it is possible to turns turn a enome into another genome, that is, turn one species into another. They don't need to pbother, there's so much they can csay about the variations that we know occur all the time within a species and as along as they are calling that evolution they never have to bother proving that there are actual changes that lead to new species.
Of the sily fine species in a way that cooptes the point. Speciation is the simply inability to interbreed with a former population that can ovccur when two populations of the same species get isolated from each other for some great noumber of generations. The genome can undergo enough change to make repruduction impossible between the, and this they define as speciaition which they regard as a step to evolution, a step on that very path.
This is intellectual fraud. Perhaps in a way more or less innocent since they really believe this stuff, but it's false and they never do anything to deal with the fact that they haven't shown and can't show any change on the order of magnitude that they claim to be the case in say the fossil record. they get only as far as two species of bird simply because although those two birds look almost identical they can't interbreed so they call it evolution. or two species of frog or anything else that has been separatied longenough from others of that species to have lost the bability to interbreed.
This is not evolution and it's a fraud to claim that it is.
You need to show that it's possible for a change to occur...EVER...that could change traits in a genome to such an extent that it is no longer the genome of the species it started out to be.
This is impossible but they will deny it and just go on in their delusion while at the same time vilifying us creationists for daring to point it out.
Dawkins, Clyne, all of them, are guilty of committing this fraud.
Gene flow is called a mechanism of evolution. This is ridiculous. You've got a dooo dog breed and a bunch of them get loose and migle with the dog populationin general. that's gene flow and it doesn't produce evolution, it causes the breed to revert to something more like the original dog population whatever that was. Gene flow doesn't add anything, it merely ireintroduces what was orignally there.
And so on and so forth. I could write a book if I were thirty years younger and not legally blind.
Don't remember who burt someone I heard recently quoted Milton Friedman, popular economist a few decades agao, on the subject of inflation saying that it is caused by only one thing and nothing else, which is government spending and the printing of money to cover it. Period. of course Democrats don't like friedman and prefer their own economic opinions which of course are going to bury the country
in their inflationary excesses.
and then Kamala blames big corporations like the big food chains for price goucghing and promises to bring that to an end. But they aren't price gouging, they are barely keeping afloat on this tidal wave of inflation that her own administration has let loose on the country. If they have to bring their prices down any more they could go out of business and many no doubt will.
Friendman also criticized the minimum age as hurting young black people just entering the work force because businesses can't afford to pay high wages and cut back on their employees when forced to pay them, and are not going to hire anyone for the menial staring positions at such high wages that they would otherwise offer young people just starting out. Liberals are just irrational about economics but very aggressive oabout it at the same time.
Tjeu a;sp tjoml tje wea;tjoest [ep[;e are mpt [auonmg tjeor faor they also think that the welathiest people ar enot paying their fair share as they say ofver and over and over again, but the highest income bracket pays forty percent, which sounds pretty outrageous as a percentage of income to pay in taes to eme. They earned their wealth so why aren't they allowed to do with it as they please? Decomracts don't like tletting them have such control over their own money.
but when ty do have control over it, such as wehn their tazxes are reduced they contribute a ctgreat deal to the welath of the nation as a whole, explanding business, hiring more employees, raising wages among other things and this increases the tax revenue overall , sometimes even doubling it as I understand was the case under Reagan.
But liberals have no clue.
I keep forgetting the numbers but the upper incoeme brackets contribute more than half of the taxes already, and the lowest income bracket pays no taxes at all but even gets money backfrom the government. I'd say the rich are paying their fair share at leas, and anyway if you tax them more they are just going to leave the country and we'll get no tax money from them at all.
