Summations Only

I won't reply to any of PaulK's messages since all he does is criticize me personally and never understands anything I'm saying. In fact he should be banned from the thread.I'll answer the question AGAIN when Stile comes back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Admin wants me to answer a post by PaulK. I won't read posts by PaulK, for reasons that I think should be easily understood. Admin doesn't even think a rock I'm talking about exists. This is so absolutely hopeless there is no point in continuing. I don't know what the problem is so there is no hope that I can do anything about it. It's all quite clear to me what I'm trying to do and the incomprehension of others is beyond me. I can't solve this and apparently nobody else can. There is no point in continuing. This thread needs to be shut down. PLEASE.

I know it's a lost cause so why am I trying once again to answer you? There goes another clump of hair.Why "terrestrial? Aren't there also clues in strata to marine environments, of which rocks in strata are also the final result and evidence? Sigh.There is no other evidence, but there is also no "environment that existed at one time." The evidence is misleading. I'm trying to show this by tracking the assumption that there is an environment it supposedly points to by starting with the (imaginary) landscape, treating it for the moment as if it DID exist, and working from there to the rock in the strata that represents it. Sigh. I guess I wasn't clear enough. Yes I know the Grand Canyon's strata are mostly marine. I meant it only to be an example of "layers in a stack of rocks" as I said, and nothing more, the reason for giving the example being that you said a stratigraphic column contains ALL rocks, but it clearly does NOT contain rocks that are not LAYERED, such as big fat boulders that tumbled down a mountain. Yikes why is this so difficult? I am ALWAYS talking about the same thing: you are READING something else in place of it. Are you referring to the term "extensive" now? If so, why are you always giving me grief about it when I apply it not only to marine strata but also terrestrial? NOW and ALWAYS, and NEVER ANYTHING ELSE. Yes, this is the communication problem right here: You can't NOT think in terms of your time periods. I knew this would be a problem, I know it IS a problem, but I keep underestimating what an impenetrable problem it really is.Shall I try again? Do I have any hair left that hasn't been pulled out? Are there any terms in the English language I can use that won't be misconstrued?Well, I'll repeat it for starters: The problem begins with "...having lived in the environment you think the rock indicates..." which you take as fact although to me it is merely conjecture, speculation, imaginary, and so on. At best it's theory. YOU think it's real. You think, as you say, that the environment DID exist, and since it existed of course the fossils HAVE to represent life that actually lived there, and died there and left remains there. I'm trying to give the view that it's not real, it's purely imagined, that the only actual observable reality is the ROCKS of the strata where you get the clues that make you believe it is real, forgetting that it's just something you THINK is real because of the things in the rock you take to be clues. What's not real is the idea that there are these separate TIME PERIODS in which there are separate landscapes or environments all stacked one on top of another. The clues in the rocks are real in the sense that they point to former environments but not in separate time periods at separate levels that become separate layers of rock. Aaaargh. Oy. Groan. Is it REALLY as hopeless as this makes it seem? Probably, so why do I keep trying? And another thing I guess you won't get is that in this thread I'm not arguing from YECism or the Flood, I'm trying to argue strictly from the facts I glean from YOU GUYS.No, you won't get it will you? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thinking I'm wrong is one thing. The problem here is that nobody even knows what I'm saying.

Well here we go again. You seem to think I'd have to agree with those things to be arguing strictly from the facts I glean from you guys? That makes no sense. I'm arguing AGAINST those things, but I guess not in a way you can recognize.I am trying to show that you can't physically get from your imaginary landscape in your imaginary time period to the rock in the strata that represents it. Since it IS all imaginary, however, it may nevertheless be possible to do it, that's what I think Stile might accomplish. But we'll see, because whenever i've tried to track it out I run into major glitches.It would make a nice proof of the imaginary nature of the time periods and the weird idea of stacks of landscapes/environments if I could do it but if I can't even get it across it's a lost cause for which I'm losing a lot of hair.As usual you've got your contexts mixed up about what I meant about what Geologists think and don't think but right now my head is spinning so explaining it is going to have to wait.REALLY, all it would take to make some progress in understanding what I'm trying to say is just to assume I'm not stu*pid and not likely to be contradicting myself in all the glaring ways you impute to me, and I am saying something that would make sense if you'd just put the brakes on your first nonsensical way of misreading me and consider that it's probably wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are so far out in La La Land it's not funny.

The problem with imaginary concepts is that they are very flexible and can be bent in enough directions to seem to prove themselves correct. I nevertheless have had the hope that I CAN demonstrate that, because they are imaginary,l the concepts of former landscapes/environments in separate time periods, also imaginary, run into physical obstacles in getting from there to the actual physically real stratified sedimentary rocks that represent them. I still think it may be possible to show this. Even if I could, however, I do doubt the ability of those for whom the concepts of stacked time and stacked landscapes have solidified into concrete and glued their brain cells into an indissoluble mass, to be able to recognize the proof even if I can pull it off.

Oh good grief, the usual question-begging recital of the party line from you. Groan. Golly gee, even the Flood would demonstrate superposition. The odd thing is that all the layers look about the same age, same degree of wear and tear, same degree of erosion. For differences up to hundreds of millions of years that's pretty remarkable. Walther's Law produces an ordered series of alternating layers types and Walther's Law is consistent with the idea of Flood water rising and receding. The Flood probably dumped sediment by many different processes. Except that the idea of different environments in which the different layers were deposited is pure fiction, a misreading of the evidence. So? Volcanoes are considered to have begun erupting along with the tectonic forces unleashed with the Flood. Uh, so? Most of the dating methods are some kind of illusion. For one thing the very idea that it would take more than a few hundred years to get the kinds of varieties of, say, trilobites, from one "time period" to another is absurd. Millions of years would simply wipe out all living things. The huge number of fossils is in itself evidence for the Flood, whose objective was to kill all terrestrial living things; and it's possible to account for the other things during the Flood as well. Well, there's time and then there's time and there are also different interpretations of everything you said. What I'm talking about is the basic absurdity of stacks of time periods, one on top of another with separate environments stacked one on top of another, containing separate collections of living things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As much evidence or more than you have for yours. That's a laugh and a half. The environments and time periods are nothing but fantasy. Or sediment in the process of being transported by the Flood. More likely was uprooted by the Flood and buried in a lot of sediment. Or more likely was killed in the Flood and carried along with a bunch of sediment in which it was finally buried, which then turned into a rock.. Which probably occurred between waves of the Flood as it was running to avoid being drowned. Something that probably happened as a Flood wave receded before a new one came in and deposited more sediment onto the rippled surface. The very idea of sand dues ending up as an enormous layer of rock with flat bottom and top extending for huge distances is nutty. The resemblance to DUNES is absolutely nil; it's a flat rock. The sand was most likely transported in the Flood water and deposited in a layer like all the other layers that surround it.

But oh no they aren't there at all. The stack of rocks is there, but there are no stacks of time periods or stacks of environments, just rocks with fossils in them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm talking about what you THINK is a landscape preserved in terrestrial deposits but there is no landscape there, just some bits of stuff you take as clues to a landscape that was there before the deposits were, but wasn't. There are no signs of such former landscapes, the ONLY actual reality is the stacks of rocks. There WAS NO habitat at any time where the rock now is. The rock is on top of another rock which is on top of another rock, etc. etc., very thick flat rocks that often extend for huge distances, all of which were formerly wet sediments containing different collections of stuff you take as clues to different environments, one on top of another, but there is nothing there but the rocks, the habitats or environments are purely imaginary. You are misreading the clues in the rocks. Because they are imaginary lake sediments or sand dunes or swamps that you read into a few clues you find in the rocks. It certainly sounded like it but I'm glad it isn't what you meant. Only imaginary ones though.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If there is anything to the transgressing-regressing seas as seen in the rock record I would suppose that represents long tides or waves during the Flood as it rose onto the land and then receded. That would leave shoreline marks and give time for animals to make a run for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I'm not calling anyone stu*pid, just a victim of lithified bias that has been educated into the brain and can no longer be dissolved or extricated. Or paradigm cramp is another word for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But there is no evidence whatever that any such landscapes ever actually existed, and that's a fact for which I shouldn't have to produce any further evidence than that observation. There are no such landscapes or environments, there is ONLY A STACK OF ROCKS. PERIOD. I haven't been unsuccessful in demonstrating THAT -- it doesn't need any demonstration. If you want to call it speculation or theory, OK, because those are just mental concepts too. The point is these landscapes exist ONLY in the brains of geologists and other science types, nowhere in reality. The rocks exist in reality, but not the supposed environments or the time periods.What I haven't been able to demonstrate is how there are inevitable problems with trying to get an imaginary landscape into a real rock. That is what this thread is about, and if I could demonstrate that it would show that imaginary is the correct term for the landscapes, not theoretical.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You really ought to stay out of a discussion you don't understand.