Summations Only

Oh cut the fevered indignation bit. Read anything Coyote has written here, it's ALL about radiometric dating, that's his answer to absolutely everything a creationist has to say, and he ALWAYS presents the age of anything as a FACT, never something there could be the slightest question about.

I guess this still needs to be corrected, you don't seem to have noticed the problem: You misread. The word was "unconsciously" not "uncommonly."And since Coyote's posts were what provoked my comment about how we never hear about the false readings of radiometric dating methods, it's not only relevant it's the whole point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny how nobody gets the point about how you can't verify anything from the prehistoric past. Weird really. You can't even have a "theory" about it, according to Coyote's own page of definitions. But that doesn't stop anybody. As long as the illusion is upheld that it IS a scientific theory that IS substantiated, there's really no point in any of this discussion. There's no hope of ever proving a thing under such circumstances. You can't kill a mental invention, it just keeps re-forming itself like a cloud.Just as a side point, Rox posted a link to an article way back there that described Geology as an interpretive science (Geological Reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science) and made it clear that it's usually regarded as less than a genuine science for that reason. Which is really all I've been saying. The writer isn't interested in my point of view of course, he's actually trying to defend it as a mode of philosophical reasoning, which I find absurd in another way, basing it on subjective interpretation as a scientific method, which is useless for science OR for philosophy it seems to me. Anyway it highlights what I've been trying to say about THE problem with the sciences of the past, it just absurdly tries to defend it as rational.Anyway I'm glad it's been officially NOTICED that Geology, at least Old Earthism, isn't really science as science has always been understood:A couple of quotes from the article:

I've pretty much proved the Flood on this thread already, why are you nagging me about irrelevant side issues? Acknowledge the reasonableness of the Flood as the best explanation for the actual evidence presented. I don't owe you an answer to anything until you do.

Oh brother, there's no point in trying to answer all the nonsense you've written misrepresenting what I've said. You've never understood what I meant about the cracks in the upper strata and you've continued to say the craziest things about what you think I mean, like now you think I have in mind cracks that run the entire length of the current canyon. Earlier you described them as "meandering cracks." You don't have a clue that all I meant was enough of an opening in the upper strata to start the process of water's carving out the canyon whose rim would end up A MILE LOWER. I never said it had to do with a fault or had it in mind. ABE: That COULD have happened but this is a mile above the present canyon, it most likely had nothing to do with anything except letting the water have a path through the strata, a mile depth of which eroded away anyway above the current canyon. The cracks in the Grand Staircase that became canyons and cliffs were not fault lines. /ABE. YOU may have had a fault line in mind but now you are actually saying that's what I said when I didn't. All I've ever described is cracks that would have allowed the water in so that it could work down to cut the canyon. I also got driven to describe it as a huge trench because you kept describing it as too small to do what I had in mind, but a trench the length of the canyon? That is NOT what I had in mind. You just make up your own stuff and pretend it's what I said. It's the worst case of strawmanning I've ever seen even here.I was going to go read your earlier posts but I don't need the ulcer. What small amount I did read earlier was enough to make me scream and tear my hair out.You have the most utterly ridiculous idea of how oil and coal would have resulted from the Flood and you attribute that idea to ME although on this entire thread I hadn't even described what I think about that. I answered you this morning but I'm sure you've managed to garble that too: Plants and animals carried along with everything else and deposited in strata where the weight crushed them eventually into oil and coal. Tectonically buckled formations where oil could collect and so on. It's perfectly reasonable, it makes sense.But the most amazing piece of absurdity was what you imputed to me about the lowest strata being recycled or some such idiocy? Best I could do is figure you mixed up my description of the Old Earth view of the formation of the Great Unconformity before the rest of the strata were laid down, but where you got any idea of those strata being recycled I don't know.I don't know if you're just being stupid beyond belief or malicious. Do you need to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on or should it say liar instead of dunce?I'm sure you've written more insanity about what I've said here, but I'm not up to finding out right now.Too bad there isn't such a thing as a neutral party on this forum, better a neutral committee, who could correct such hideous misrepresentations, but the lone creationist on a thread full of anticreationists isn't going to get anywhere trying to correct you, am I? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS A FAULT LINE. IF FAULT LINES DON'T RUN EAST-WEST THEN IT WASN'T A FAULT LINE AND I NEVER SAID IT WAS ANYWAY. THE IDEA IS THAT IT WAS CRACKS THAT FORMED EAST-WEST BECAUSE THAT PARALLELS THE MOUNDED PART OF THE UPLIFT,. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why are salt beds so often associated with petroleum and to some extent also coal deposits? I understand the salt domes may become traps for oil but that doesn't explain why they occur together in the first place so that the petroleum could so frequently find its way into the domes. I've done some reading on the subject but haven't yet found that question answered.

Buried canyons are no more of a problem for the Flood than buried rivers. I don't know why you all have such trouble with these things. Just exercise a little scientific imagination. I know some here don't have much of that, but others must. You have to get a reasonable idea of the magnitude of the Flood first of course, which seems to be stumbling block for a lot of you. A lot more water than you seem willing to consider.If water can flow underground, canyons can be cut underground. I'd expect it to have occurred in the last stages of the Flood myself.ABE: As for discussing other canyons, you haven't shown that there would be any point. The Grand Canyon as far as I know exposes the strata to a greater depth than any other location on earth, and that's why creationists are interested in it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just to be clear, I concede the point on the known evidence, I can't explain it myself. But it had to be buried in the Flood, there's no other possibility even if I can't say how that occurred. Possibly if I studied it for some time I'd come up with a better idea but I'm not likely to do that any time soon if ever. Sorry to disappoint you. But it would be nice if you'd remain easy to get along with anyway.

Why do you have a quote about buried mountains as if it were a quote from me, although it isn't? That is VERY bad debate form, I ask you please to attribute it properly.I did read the article, but perhaps not all of it. ABE: Sorry, forgot which post this was. I didn't read any of it, it's off topic for me right now. /ABE.My only "reticence" is from so despising the attitude of some here I can't stand reading them, it's not about the information, which is usually interesting. Please stop secondguessing me and putting words in my mouth. I am nothing like you.The problem with the image of the "canyon" is that no facts are given about it, where it was made, how deep it is, what the terrain is like both above and below ground, how large the supposed canyon is. I took your word for it that it is enough canyon like to be called a canyon but it really needs a lot more facts to get a clear idea of it.As for "buried mountains" I don't recall that being said, but then I'm only reading in bits and pieces at the moment. Let me guess: It's a lot of tilted strata seen at some depth? Again many specifics would be welcome, but of course I see no problem with tilted strata underground either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Who said anything about material collapsed from the layers above? The way you attribute idiotic ideas to me makes you the most despicable of my opponents.You simply recite the OE Creed about how it would have taken a long time, when in reality sediments were deposited rapidly in the Flood. So now that I have this new information it clearly isn't a canyon at all, it's apparently an impression in one layer filled in by sediment from the layer above.

I've given lots of reasonable specifics in this discussion about many aspects of the argument. The idea that any nonscientist -- OR scientist -- creationist should try to answer every conceivable objection to the Flood is irrational. In the early part of any science you wouldn't expect that of someone studying it, but you seem to expect it of a creationist, and ANY creationist at that. Obviously I do not impute anything about the Flood to miracle. I'm trying to find physical explanations for it. Your objections are, as I said, irrational.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No of course not.1) I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood, most likely about 4350 years ago but not much longer in any case, there is never going to be any doubt about that.2) Theories about HOW it occurred are always open to question because we are not given enough information in scripture, but the evidence for the Flood's creation of the strata seems to me to be at least about 95% certain. All other explanations for the strata are just plain ridiculous and the Flood had the power to do it. Again, understanding all the ways it occurred is the ongoing work of creation science, why should anyone be expected to understand all of it anyway? For me it's fun to think about. It's NOT fun to argue with nasty people about, but thinking about it IS fun, and despite the constant ridicule I still think I've made GOOD points here.3) If the dinosaur fossil was formed some other way, I'd hope that could be figured out, but since the Flood would have provided the ideal conditions for fossilization, and clearly the fossils in the strata can be attributed to the Flood, I'd still be expecting that eventually the dinosaur would be explained in terms of the Flood as well.\Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would LOVE to ignore your posts but you keep raising such idiotic possibilities you have to be answered at least sometimes.WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS SUPPOSED CANYON ANYWAY? For supposedly scientific minds there's a strange lack of the usual necessary information for making any kind of reasonable judgment of a given subject. VERY BAD FORM.Is it perchance in limestone? What is the evidence for slope retreat in that picture?There is nothing OBVIOUS about a river's forming that shape on the surface. You'd need to give a lot more information to make such an idea plausible. If it formed in SOFT rock then the whole assumption that it would have taken time falls apart.

It was "canyon," singular, in reference to the image you posted.It's the way the quote is presented that makes it appear to be attributed to me. That's how I originally saw it and I still ask you to make it clearer that it's a quote from Morton.That paragraph of Morton's is full of stuff that begs a ton of questions, but it's just typical stuff that delusional OE believers swallow whole.First of all, as usual it's nothing but interpretation. Shouldn't science present what is actually observed, in enough detail for others to investigate the claims? You can't do laboratory experiments on such phenomena so at least you should be careful to give other researchers the information needed to come to their own conclusions. That seems to be a huge failure of evo and OE "science" in general, that it's nothing but imaginative interpretations presented as fact. That makes the claims to even BE science irrational.Thick layers. What EXACTLY is he seeing? We need DESCRIPTION. We need EVIDENCE. How extensive are these layers. How many has he seen, where has he seen them? First don't even call them "layers," just describe the actual facts as observed. That would be the scientific way to do it.What exactly is he seeing that he's calling "mountains" and what does he mean by "erosion." We need careful description of the phenomena themselves, not his interpretations.I see NOTHING in what he's said that requires time. What is the matter with you people that you can't see through this?His remarks about faults lose me. What's the problem here?Karsts are NOT a problem in limestone after the Flood has drained away. To think so is crazy."Erosional canyons." Can't you see this is nothing but interpretation? No wonder you were a pushover for the OE rationalizations. Just like Morton. Fallible intellect and not very sharp fallible intellect either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.