GeologyRocksSheer stupidity
I stumbled on a post by a creationist on another website.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64512
I thought to myself "Ah, I'm not going to change this fellow's mind, but at least I can put forth a coherent argument, which is more than the others on the site are doing". Hey, it's Sunday and I'm procrastinating - I'm entitled to think like that 
I registered an account and wrote a nice bit about Siccar Point:
I realise this is unlikely to persuade IceAge due to inertia of belief, but I thought I'd post a pretty picture anyways...
This is Siccar Point, famous as James Hutton, father of modern geology visited it way back in 1788, i.e. when most of the world believed in the "Deluge" (see ). There is no clear solution to explain the juxtaposition of these two sedimentary rocks using "Deluge Thoery".
The image is from: /images/unconformity_at_siccar_point
The lower rock is Silurian greywackes: mass debris flows formed under the sea. The red rock on top, is Devonian continental sedimentation. This is probably a wadi type deposit. The Silurian rocks are 70 degrees from horizontal. The Devonian sediments are about 4 degrees from horizontal. Both sets of sediments have different flow directions: the currents that formed the Silurian rocks flowed roughly to the south. The Devonian rocks show north-easterly flow direction. This is easily picked up by imbricated breccia.
I know this isn't going to change your mind, IceAge, but you belong to a different era, some 200 years ago. The rest of the world has moved on; do keep up.
Problem is, you need 20 "points" to be able to post links in this site...WTF!? I'm surprised they have any members...
- Jon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Send to friend
Comments
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Hi Jon, I have tried
Sun, 03/25/2007 - 20:15Hi Jon,
 I have tried registering for sciforums but have not yet received my verification e-mail. [I registered at about 4pm-ish - how long did it take for your account to be validated?]
I was going to post the following, feel free to copy and paste it if you'd like [with any alterations you feel necessary]Â as I think the thread is moving on and I would like to have had a say!
Anyway, here it is:
Hi IAC,
Could you tell us whether you are claiming a specific sequence as supporting Deluge Theory, or simply any and all fluvio-marine sedimentary deposits on Earth?
If the latter, any stratigraphic sequence displaying a change from fluvio-marine deposits, to terrestrial, and back again would seem contradictory to your assertions.
I’m not up on the Bible, in fact I haven’t read it since primary/elementary school, but remind me again exactly how many “Deluges†were there? How many Arks was it that Noah built?
In the case that you are claiming the former, could you provide us with details so as to rescind the veracity of your statement?
Thanks
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Please don't feed the trolls!
Sun, 03/25/2007 - 21:48Please don't feed the trolls!
Geologists like a nappe between thrusts
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
No
Sun, 03/25/2007 - 23:08Please don't feed the trolls!
Why not? It's quite amusing to see what rubbish you can make them come up with!
 In fact, I might take it up as a sport: Troll Baiting - 10 points if they tell you your closed minded/ignorant/foolish etc, and 100 if you get a personal insult!
Ben.
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
but
Mon, 03/26/2007 - 14:49Please don't feed the trolls!
There's a few problem I see with not discussing science with creationism...this may turn into a rant at some point - I apologise in advance
You are never, ever going to change a creationists mind: they have it all worked out. Even if you point out the gapping holes in their logic (of which there are many), they will always have the "faith" that "God did it". This of course could be phrased in a number of ways, or simply be the method of picking at the problems with "mainstream" geologic theory - which scientists are aware of an don't deny, but try to solve - that's what science is after all.
Given the above point, you might might ask - why bother? Well there might be someone reading (listening) that isn;t a creationist, but is not knowledgable to see the gaping holes themselves. Example; imagine a creationists putting forth the argument "If we evolved from apes, where are there still apes today?". A layperson with a modicum of science education (e.g. a GCSE) and hasn't really read anything on the subject since they were at school, might say "hey! they're right!". Of course the creationists are not right, as we quite rightly know. You can extend this to anything a creationist might argue. Because they are fundementally lacking in something (it looks like our Earth logic, but it is warped in some strange way) they come out with bizarre arguments. However an innocent layperson-bystander might not see the bizarreness. GeologyRocks is my way of countering creationism - I'm not going to waste my precious time by countering each argument that they might produce, rather try and educate folk by providing interesting bits of writing and other media. The problem I'm having is getting people here!
What would happen if no-one argued? They creationist will claim "victory" - "aha! no-one can answer my arguments. I am right and rule the world!". Ok, they might say the last bit unless they happen to be a megalomaniac. Can't win by doing that then. As I attempted to point out above, if we argue, we might - just might - prevent someone else being "turned". It's tricky though. By arguing we are giving the creationists some "validity".Â
The dig on SciForums was to a) publicise GR (failed, cause I can't link - not spam though as I was contributing) and I have a side interest in trying (although ultimately, I think I will fail in this) to understand how a typical creationists' mind works. The title of the post was aimed at the creationist and sciforums for their policy on links
Geologists are gneiss!!
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
However
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 19:21... the problem is that the original author is quite obviously trolling rather than having a discussion about creationism. I've no problems at all with your original post (in fact I entirely agree with it).
But the author's follow-up responses are wilful misunderstandings, material deliberately taken out of context, going of on tangents and without any attempt to answer the points made. The guy is a troll and on the wind-up. I would suggest that you save your energy for genuine debate - you weren't going to get it with him.
Geologists like a nappe between thrusts
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Got to agree with that!
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 09:31After posting a bit, I have to agree - this guy has no desire to discuss; simply obfusticate and confuse. Having been "saved" he (actually, could be she, but for some reason I'm thinking he) clearly lost some capacity to think in a form approximating that of a human being. I will save my energies and redirect them - fun for a while though
Geologists are gneiss!!
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
IAC is a joke. I gave up
Thu, 04/05/2007 - 13:11IAC is a joke. I gave up trying to have a debate with the fellow a while ago. As I'm sure you've found he is immune to evidence and reason, but I applaud your valiant efforts against him. The 20 posts rule is annoying, but that is sciforums' solution to the kind of spamming problem we had here. I'm registered on there as Matthyaouw by the way.
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Rejoice!! the pitiful fellow
Thu, 04/26/2007 - 00:00Rejoice!! the pitiful fellow has been banned from the website!!!
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Sorry to burst your bubble,
Thu, 04/26/2007 - 18:08Sorry to burst your bubble, but only for 9 more hours Matt - he had 54 active infringement points (whatever that means!).
 You should google his name James I Neinhuis [sp?], the guy is a religious freak - but I might also add, is probably making a mint from the absolutey inane drivel that he tries to pass off as science.
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
What a shame... I was quite
Sat, 04/28/2007 - 17:24What a shame... I was quite enjoying the peace around there. I've seen his website before- I had to laugh at his claim of a geology degree from a major US university!
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
Might well have a degree
Sat, 04/28/2007 - 18:26I had to laugh at his claim of a geology degree from a major US university!
He might well have. He said he was "saved" some years after his degree...
Geologists are gneiss!!
Rank:
Roles:
Contact:
I just would have expected
Sat, 04/28/2007 - 18:45I just would have expected someone formerly of reasonable competence in geology to be able to form at least some form of arguement against the principles he should know so well. He doesn't even seem to understand the basic principles of geology.