@farmerman,
farmerman wrote: WIthout sounding too elementary, I am saying that we dont see many actual stratigraphic layers in the Grand Canyon (your example) that ARE NOT water laid deposits. There are about 3 sand dune layers that, like the Mediterranean basin, were quickly DROWNED by incoming sediment laden runnoff water.
Don't worry about 'sounding elementary.' As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
I've heard that about the Grand Canyon layers being water-laid deposits, but I forgot whether it was from someone talking about Noah's flood or not, which you would disagree with. No matter, do you mean to say then that land doesn't build up in layers due to sediments everywhere? It has always been my understanding that things get buried deeper over time and that is why archaeologists have to dig for ancient relics.
It's also just logical that all the dropping and sediments, etc. from wind and living ecosystems pile up year after year and millennium upon millennium.
Quote:The rest of your response seems to just be your normal return to snotty retort and insult. So the rest of the readers know, I started my response to LL's question WITHOUT any comment. I mertried to answer him with some factual observations that he should consider in hi "breathing arth" wvidence.
Apparently he wishes to not learn a fuckin thing. He just wants to ridicule anything That, perhaps, he doesnt understand.
Here you go back to provocations and fight-picking.
Quote:I think that, rather than talking down to people and having them insult me for "ridiculing their intelligence" I choose to talk AT the correspondent.
So I get criticized for being "Esoteric".
'Esoteric' is a word with a meaning. I was just analyzing the function of how your previous post seemed to be constructed. There was a part where you included a slew of esoteric facts that didn't seem to be directly related to any point you were making, so it seemed like the point was just to build yourself up as a person who knows a lot of facts in order to be accepted as an authority rather than grounding your point in explanation.
People do what you do a lot. They don't really explain the points or claims they're making, but rather they build themselves up as an authority in order to insist that you accept their claims without them explaining them. If you just explain the reason you are claiming something, then your reasoning should stand on its own without you proving that you know a lot about the subject in general.
Quote:LL, unless you are 8 yrs old and unable to look up those perfectly good geologic and engineering terms, I think you just wish to be spoon fed and then you just want to whine about being insulted(not realizing that it was information directly relevant to your question).
I do look things up when I can see that it is something that is part of understanding an explanation that's valid, or if I'm just personally interested. But you should realize that some people just post a lot of quasi-related terms and then it's not worth going on a wild-goose chase because they decided to spout a load of vocabulary that's only tangentially related to the issue in question.
Quote:I often teach groups of kids that have interests in dinosaurs and geology. I ve been surprised at how well they keep up and actually forge ahead just by being challenged with words that are technical in nature and, when consulted in an on-line encyclopedia or glossary, would exude great amounts of additional and real esoterica. (But the kids quickly picked it up).
And these werent all self proclaimed Ollie's , most were smart and smart enough to larn quickly but not all were gifted.
You're talking about teaching kids/people just generally about a subject without addressing some specific point. If a kid asked you to explain the distributive property of multiplication and you started talking about the order of operations or other tangentially-related math terms, it wouldn't answer the kid's question and it would actually be a way of avoiding the question, while simultaneously blaming the kid for not being receptive to your teaching.
Quote:You seem to hve made a career of just sitting back and hoping everything would be pre chewed for your digestion.
You just want to fight, accuse, witch-hunt, etc. It takes a lot of patience to deal with your posts to get to the parts where you actually respond to something in a scientific way.
Quote:I sorta wish you well, but I dont predict a lot of success in your pursuits. Im beginning to think your just lazy , but smart enough to know the secret of getting answers out of the internet.
I don't think you could take half as much spit in the face as I take from people like you and maintain the patience to get any useful discussion out of them. I may be wrong, though. We'll never know because you have the privilege of sitting on a high horse of institutional legitimacy while I have to work as an amateur intellectual.
Sorry you have so much trouble with respect, though. It will cost you karma points in your next life or even before, maybe, you never know.