Summations Only

This link, if you will only take the time to look at it, explains soil horizons down to bedrock.Soil horizon - Wikipedia

Plants are going to grow in the sediment. Animals are going to live on the sediment.It will look like this:

Well, technically we're all apes. But Lucy could walk upright. They were found together, and there's no duplicates. Morphology. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

I started studying "creation science" in 1981 and, when asked in 1990 on CompuServe why I have my opinion of creationism, wrote the following essay: Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There). In it, I described the first "debate" I saw, which was broadcast on Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN):

quote:

---

I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN. A Tennessean host would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg {CORRECTION: John Ankerberg}). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't know of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.

​

This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature. Now I've begun to suspect that this is but one of many manifestations of the Dark Side of the Farce.

---

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link formatting.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

Even in the context of a very fuzzy topic theme, covering hominid evolution is going substantially off-topic.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit - Also a lot of non-topic snark and blather.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Yet again, your overly loose redefining of words only creates confusion. And creationists do depend on confusion, don't they?.You seem to be using "landscape" to refer to the biosphere, the place on the surface of the earth (including lake, river, and sea bottoms) where life lives. That includes both the surface, a bit below the surface (eg, burrows, root systems), and a bit above the surface (eg, in plants, tree branches, fish swimming above the bottom, maybe even birds etc in flight). Let's use it here in that manner.The landscape covers the entire surface of the earth. The landscape never gets completely buried -- some areas of the landscape do get completely buried, but then life on the neighboring areas that didn't get buried repopulate the buried area. There are always parts of the landscape that continue to support life uninterrupted.The landscape is located on the surface, but the landscape is not the surface. Rather, the landscape has a current surface. The surface changes as it either receives sedimentation or it experiences erosion. In the case of sedimentation (which is what we keep talking about here), the surface gets buried, but the landscape remains on top of the new surface. The landscape never gets buried; only its surface gets buried and then it has a new surface.That is all very easy to understand and blatantly obvious even to young children. Yet you seem to be incapable of grasping any of these very easy and obvious concepts. Is there anything that you do not understand so far? If you don't tell us, then how could we possibly know where you keep getting lost.Now some very difficult concepts. Sedimentation normally doesn't happen very quickly; that link to former-YEC geologist Glenn R. Morton's page and that portion which I did quote extremely accurately (ie, I did a copy-and-paste) described how they calculate the rates of sedimentation. Basically, it involves how much sediment is being kept in suspension and how long it takes for it to settle out -- perform the peanut-butter-jar (PBJ) experiment to get an idea of how long that takes. Normally, that sedimentation happens in millimeters, but let's be extremely generous and call it an inch at a time. What effect would that have on life?That was the easier part, but now we get to the much harder part: live animals move and dead animals don't. Did you catch that? I have to ask, because you have demonstrated your complete inability to understand things that are infinitely simpler. Do I have to repeat it for you? Here it is again: live animals move and dead animals don't. Maybe it's against your religion, maybe not, but it is very important for you to understand that. If you still do not understand it, then please ask me to explain it to you yet again in much simpler terms (not that I can think of how that would be possible).Here's the pay-off. As the sediment accumulates, the live animals move (do you remember that? I'm sorry I can't give you an M&M as a reward (you're not a bear, so a meat pellet would not be appropriate).) That means that the live animals don't normally get buried. But, dead animals don't move, so as the sediment accumulates then they get buried. I'm sorry, are you having problems keeping up? I'll wait a minute for you to catch up.Ah, but what about the plants? Even the live plants don't move! I'm sorry! I am oh so very sorry! You just got lost. Both my sons when they could just barely speak English got that just like that! I'm not used to talking with someone who is slower than a three-year-old (which in half a grand of posts here is what you have demonstrated about yourself with extreme consistency).OK. Plants don't move. But plants also have height. Consider a shrub that's a foot tall --- sorry! sorry! "Consider" is too big a word for you to understand. Sorry! Take a shrub that's a foot tall. You add an inch of sediment. What happened to that shrub? Hardly anything at all.Plus, in the meantime, seeds and spores have been planted in the accumulating sediment. I mean the seeds and spores would have fallen upon the old surface, but then the sediment accumulates and covers them and thus buries them, which is exactly what seeds want in order for them to germinate. And so they grow into new plants rooted higher in the rising surface than their parent plants.Now here is the really hard part to understand: animals and plants only live for so long and then they all die. Nothing lives forever. Little kids could have problems with that idea; I have absolutely no idea about your ability to understand it.Now for the really hard part that I am absolutely positive you cannot even begin to understand. What have we learned? When? How? According to the geological record, that has never happened. According to your theology (Man-made interpretations which are what you actually believe instead of the Bible), that would have been the Noachian Flood, but then there's that damned Mature Olive Tree. If "the landscape is completely buried", then all life outside of the Ark would have been destroyed. The "landscape" is the entire habitable surface of the earth, the biosphere. So if that had actually happened as you want to claim, just where the hell did that Mature Olive Tree come from?So aren't you contradicting yourself here? If the entire landscape was buried and rendered barren, then there was nowhere for that Mature Olive Tree to have come from. If there was somewhere for that Mature Olive Tree to have come from, then the entire landscape could not have been buried and rendered barren. Which is it? Even you cannot have it both ways (though I have to admit that I am not that familiar with divorcing oneself from all reality). We and they have/had all kinds of places to go.Whatever is supposed to happen in your own private Bizarro (reverse-Superman reference where everything is reversed from normal) universe, no normal could ever possibly be able to anticipate.The Landscape endures. Specific conditions (AKA "environments") may change, but the Landscape endures. Parts of it gets buried or burned or otherwise rendered barren, but the other parts live on and move into the barren parts and revive them. The Landscape always endures (at least until we burn it to a cinder).Again, if you had any problem understand any of that, then do please tell us very specifically what your ... problem is.Stupid theological problems need not apply. Unless you are really truly ready and willing to discus them.

Sorry, but I have a policy of calling creationist actions as they truly are.More than three decades of experience has taught me that creationists lie out of their asses. Those same decades of experience have taught me that those creationists have no other choice.Do you indeed have another choice than to lie out of your ass?Please, prove me wrong.That is truly what I want. Can you rise to the challenge?

Flood geology proposes that the entire world was suddenly deeply buried in sedimentMainstream geology does notRemember that and maybe this discussion will have one fewer problem.

I've been very very specific about how I'm using the term "landscape" -- words often have multiple meanings and applications and I'm not using it as you define it so all you are doing is muddying the discussion. Yes it's all the features that sustain life, a whole environment of living things, an ecology perhaps, but as I'm using the term it is continuous with the space of a particular layer of rock in the geo column, and the reason for that is that it's from the rocks that Geology takes the information that defines the lay of the land in a particular time period represented by that rock. My Message 333 gives typical illustrations for these landscapes. It is that landscape and only that landscape I am talking about.

If a year is "suddenly," yes, and everything died. Remember? Thank you for your helpful reminder. Have no clue what the point is but thanks anyway.

quote:

---

If a year is "suddenly," yes, and everything died. Remember?

---

Not according to you - you have trees somehow managing to survive.But that is not the main point. According to you the surface of the planet should be completely uninhabitable at that point, and - even if we except a relatively small area -somehow it has to recover quite rapidly for the rest of history - or even your Bible stories - to be possible.

quote:

---

Thank you for your helpful reminder. Have no clue what the point is but thanks anyway.

---

It means that when you start to talk about deep burial of the landscape leaving nowhere to live, you are talking about the Flood, not mainstream geology.

There was no idea of the Flood's killing plants, just all living things "with breath in them" which means those living on land. There was also no idea of all sea life being killed, though obviously much of it was.I already explained the rest. I expect great vitality in anything that lived before the Flood, just as the people born before the Flood lived many hundreds of years afterward. So recovering rapidly is to be expected of any surviving living things. Plus all the other helps I mentioned, provisions remaining on the ark, sacrificial animals for food, seeds to plant, etc etc etc. No, I've very specifically addressed the conditions set up by mainstream geology's claim of finding a landscape/"depositional environment" in particular contents of a rock. To get a rock from a landscape requires its burial, but if it's buried there is no more landscape to sustain life. You all keep imagining there is nevertheless, without sufficiently answering the fact that there couldn't be if it's been buried. You go on imagining a landscape anyway, although it's been buried. Dr A has animals eating from trees although trees and everything else in the landscape would have been buried -- leaving so little trace of it in the rock you need a microscope and an excessively active imagination to find it.If you have a succession of landscapes in mind, the way settlements keep building on top of settlements in a tell, then you have to account for how these didn't all become rock. Also, the layers in a tell only took a few thousand years to accumulate. In a Geo Timeline stack of strata you have millions of years for a given time period. But there's only one segment of strata that represents a given time period. One set of clues gives the illustrations for each time period such as those in Message 333. How many landscapes? If many or only one then once it's buried or they are all buried there's no more sustenance for many of the living things from that period. Seems to me there are lots of questions that need to be answered that so far haven't been despite all the claims to the contrary.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm calling you out on this Mike.You have raised this Ichthyosaur lie several times now and each time I have given you a link to the scientist who descibed the fossil's comments on the claim. He totally debunks the crude creation lies which you continue to repeat. They're utter garbage Mike.You haven't even read it have you? So you repeat the lies. Have you no shame? Doesn't it bother you that by contuing to repeat lies when those lies have been explained to you several times that that makes you a lier too? How do you think this affects your reputation? Do you think that it makes you more convincing or less?You're doing terrible harm to the reputation of Christianity by behaving in this way. By you're own beliefs, you're offending your own god. How wrong can you get?

quote:

---

There was no idea of the Flood's killing plants, just all living things "with breath in them" which means those living on land. There was also no idea of all sea life being killed, though obviously much of it was.

---

Obviously your Flood geology is not mentioned in the Bible. However, that is what we are speaking of and your Flood geology features massive erosion to produce massive amounts of sediment which is dumped on the remains of the original landscape, and most of which rapidly turns to rock. Plants - even if they could somehow survive the Flood as the Bible describes it - are not going to survive that.

quote:

---

I already explained the rest. I expect great vitality in anything that lived before the Flood, just as the people born before the Flood lived many hundreds of years afterward. So recovering rapidly is to be expected of any surviving living things. Plus all the other helps I mentioned, provisions remaining on the ark, sacrificial animals for food, seeds to plant, etc etc etc.

---

That hardly sounds like enough, but if you feel that it is then surely the mainstream view has no problem at all, since there is far less damage and far more time to recover.

quote:

---

No, I've very specifically addressed the conditions set up by mainstream geology's claim of finding a landscape/"depositional environment" in particular contents of a rock. To get a rock from a landscape requires its burial, but if it's buried there is no more landscape to sustain life. You all keep imagining there is nevertheless, without sufficiently answering the fact that there couldn't be if it's been buried

---

It has been answered repeatedly. There are animals living now in depositional environments. They do not have a problem - so why imagine that things were any different in the past? Your claim is false and obviously so and the t has been pointed out so often that you have no excuse for pretending that is has not been answered.

quote:

---

If you have a succession of landscapes in mind, the way settlements keep building on top of settlements in a tell, then you have to account for how these didn't all become rock

---

No we do not. You keep mixing up two things that are almost entirely separate despite the fact I have already pointed out the problem more than once. It takes deep burial - and significant time - to turn the sediments into rock. But that has nothing to do with the "problem" of finding somewhere to live because the burial is so slow that animals can just go on living on the surface, as they do today.

quote:

---

But there's only one segment of strata that represents a given time period

---

I have no idea what you mean by that.

quote:

---

How many landscapes?

---

That is not even a meaningful question. We are talking about slow and gradual changes, not sudden transformations. There is no sensible way of counting, because there is no way to say when one landscape becomes another. Let alone the question of deposition versus erosion - if erosion strips back a landscape do you count it the same as an earlier landscape at the same level or a different one ?

quote:

---

If many or only one then once it's buried or they are all buried there's no more sustenance for many of the living things from that period

---

And that is wrong as we have repeatedly pointed out.

quote:

---

Seems to me there are lots of questions that need to be answered that so far haven't been despite all the claims to the contrary

---

Again an obvious falsehood "seems" true to you. Your judgement seems amazingly poor.

YOU ARE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT. The problem for the standard theory is NOT recovery, the problem is getting from a landscape to a rock to a landscape to a rock to account for all the time periods. The scenario is set up without anticipating any problems in getting from a landscape to a rock etc., the theory isn't prepared to deal with problems inherent in the system itself, or even acknowledge their existence. According to OE and evo theory it's all just a simple matter of things growing and proliferating over aeons of time, there's an endless possibility of growth, of genetic change and improvement, no glitches expected from the system itself.The Flood does not have that problem. The earth is destroyed and a new landscape grows up on top of the whole stack of sediment. There would be a period of recovery, boosted by the pre-Flood vitality among the other things I mentioned, (probably begun and even well along before Noah and all exited the ark) so rapid enough to sustain what was preserved on the ark. (Dinosaurs apparently needed more than that and eventually died out. The fact that they no longer exist for whatever reason suggests to me that getting rid of them completely was probably a major goal of the Flood.) Because of the peculiar situation of the strata -- enormous slabs of rock BETWEEN WHICH these landscapes are postulated, and which are assigned great blocks of time. There wouldn't be any problems then either as long as the landscapes persisted (though of course I regard them as totally imaginary anyway), it's getting them down to rock that poses the problems, as it would today too if any of this had any reality at all. The answers are woefully inadequate. But that means a persisting landscape, or a constantly regenerating landscape like the settlements on top of settlements in a tell. Nothing lives on the surface of sediments, a landscape is necessary, and you are imagining such a landscape without accounting for it or facing the problems I keep raising about it. You want to think in terms of continuous gradual change, landscapes changing, living things changing and adapting, but you are having to impose that idea on the actual facts: the STACK OF ROCKS.I know this is an artificial problem, but that's because the geo theory is based on a false idea that you can have a stack of rocks signifying time periods that are in themselves the landscapes / depositional environments they represent. There is no other record of a particular time period than a particular formation of rocks at a certain level in the stack of rocks, no record of any intervening landscapes or new forms of creatures between formations or rocks, only the just-so appearance of particular collections millions of years apart in rock that IS the landscape/depositional environment it represents. But this is a different problem I guess. (There's no end to them really).