Summations Only

quote:

---

There is absolutely no evidence in support of the idea of ancient environments, it's all imaginary constructs based on misreading some elements within rocks that are better interpreted in other ways.

---

Unlikely (at best) explanations favouring your views are not "better" in any objective sense. And that is all that you can offer.

quote:

---

And although everybody is resisting my request to test these claims with my "puzzle," my own small effort already shows that the idea is false.

---

And that is an outright falsehood. Nobody is resisting - in fact your "puzzle" has been answered. And in fact you never actually developed it to a point where it was a puzzle at all - and you have refused to even try to do that.

quote:

---

I didn't take into account the phrase about how the question of uninhabitable space is still open because i'd given the scenario that showed how I arrived at my view

---

You neglect to mention that your scenario doesn't actually address the issue.

quote:

---

while the other side hadn't done anything but insist that I'm wrong,

---

You have got to admit that trying to gauge the habitability of a region by completely ignoring the surface is a pretty big mistake.Nevertheless the fact that you have failed to make a case is quite sufficient to refute your argument.Admin - it is time to face the facts. Faith has no argument and is resorting to one of her usual attempts to pretend she won anyway.

quote:

---

Not so. It IS an assumption and there is NO evidence for ianything I've seen along these lines. People have given speculations and guesses, nothing that could be tracked through the puzzle to any kind of certain conclusion.

---

The "puzzle" is a completely general idea, lacking all relevant specifics. It is an assumption that there is nowhere else for life to go - and certainly there is no evidence for that. Replying with reasonable possibilities is entirely adequate.Meanwhile the sediments deposited according to Walther's Law do provide some evidence to the contrary. As does the continued existence of life in present-day depositional environments.

As can clearly be seen, Faiths argument deals only with the previous now-buried surface, but not with the present surface where life would live.Thus it does not deal with the question of whether the region becomes uninhabitable by the occupants of that previous surface, just as I have pointed out.If Faith cannot see that much - even after it has been pointed out - is there any hope that she can understand the topic at all ?

quote:

---

Pondering Stile's post I realized more about a problem I was struggling to get into focus when I gave my first response to it. As I've said, this puzzle situation is unwieldy, it's hard to keep all of it in mind, and I forget even my own solutions at times, especially when I'm trying to deal with a scenario as complicated as Stile's.

---

I find this really bizarre. None of this is that complicated.

quote:

---

I already pointed out some problems with this, in that the rocks in the column point to environments but these don't seem to represent environments, except in their sediments which he defines as ocean sediment or land sediment. He hasn't described them as ever having been environments or landscapes with plants and animals living in them, he hasn't mentioned fossils etc etc etc, though he does describe them as the geological column. So he must have in mind that they will become lithified and end up there.

---

Even the things that aren't explicitly mentioned are very clearly implicit (and the formation of a fossil is right in there) so this "problem" doesn't really exist. And if you find the post too complicated already I don't think that adding additional details would even be helpful to you.

quote:

---

The scenario all along has had the exiled creatures able just to move from one level of accumulated sediment to another, with the plants and trees of the original landscape continuing to reestablish themselves at new levels as well. Which seems perfectly reasonable. UNTIL I remember that each rock in the stratigraphic column represents its own peculiar environment with its own peculiar living things in it.

---

Not really. You have three layers described and no movement between them. Of course there is no reason to think that the creatures living on the original terrestrial landscape cannot retreat from the slowly advancing sea or that their descendants cannot be included among the land creatures expanding into the region when the sea retreats. That is just something that you assume.

quote:

---

This is another barrier to the creatures of the original habitat being able to move into a new habitat. The new habitat belongs to a different set of creatures as determined by the content of the rock that ends up in the stratigraphic column. They CAN'T simply roam from level to level if those levels are sediments that are going to become rocks in the column as Stile seems to be saying in this case they are.

---

If we actually look at Stile's post the nearest thing to that is land creatures reoccupying the region when the sea retreats. That is hardly impossible.Don't forget that his scenario only covers 2,000,000 years, a small part of a major geological period.So, it seems that the "problems" are purely imaginary.

quote:

---

the reason for thinking the sediments would have to be eroded away -- WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE SAID MANY TIMES ALREADY IN OTHER CONTEXTS HERE-- is that they are not in the stratigraphic column from which these scenarios originate,

---

That is a rather strange assumption. They may or may not be - but that is something that the scenario itself will determine (since we are not discussing a real example).

quote:

---

they are just plain sediments added to provide for the lithification of the original environment, and not an environment in itself with fossils which is what we find in the column.

---

And this is just a weird misunderstanding. Of course they form an environment - with the rate of deposition, how could they not ? Maybe if you dumped several feet of sediment all at once you could say something like that.Also, they are not deposited just to "provide for lithification" - Stile has chosen a scenario where this deposition happens because he is describing a scenario where the lithification occurs, and that is the closest to what you are describing.Now maybe you are thinking - again - that nature only does what you think necessary and that "providing for lithification" is nature's purpose in depositing those sediments. If you think so, you are wrong.Or maybe you think that they only serve that purpose in Stile's scenario and therefore Stile must choose a scenario where they are removed. But that would be both incorrect and irrelevant. Stile should be attempting to represent what occurs in nature and therefore should choose a likely scenario rather than one restricted by ideas of narrative purpose.I think that the problem - the real problem in this discussion - is that you are far too determined to vindicate your own ideas to wait for understanding. Your "problems" are riddled with assumptions that range from being questionable to obvious falsehoods. And that is why you are wrong to imagine that they are inevitable to anyone who does not share your mindset.Indeed, your "puzzle" about where the inhabitants of the landscape go is a prime example - it is so obviously a peripheral issue that should be set aside until you understand what is going on, it is obviously badly confused and it is rather clearly an attempt to rescue an earlier argument (which seems to be the main cause of the confusion, and why the confusion is so strangely resistant to correction)

quote:

---

THE TERM FOR WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS "GEOLOGICAL COLUMN," FOUND IN ALL KINDS OF GEOLOGY TEXTS MEANING EXACTLY WHAT I USE IT TO MEAN. EDGE SAID THE CORRECT TERM IS STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN SO I'VE BEEN USING THAT. NOW HE SAYS STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN REFERS TO ALL ROCKS, NOT JUST THE SEDIMENTARY STRATA. THIS IS SOME KIND OF UNCONSCIONABLE RUN-AROUND.

---

Faith, pointing out the truth is not "SOME KIND OF UNCONSCIONABLE RUN-AROUND"
Writing in all-caps will not change that.

quote:

---

AM NOT READING ANYTHING PAULK WRITES BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH ACCIDENTAL READING TO SEE HE'S SAYING NOTHING USEFUL.

---

It explains the major problem with this thread - and it would be very useful to you to understand it.

quote:

---

I DO KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO LET ME DO IT. THAT MAY BE MY FAULT TO SOME EXTENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A NORMAL GEOLOGICAL TOPIC

---

It is in fact almost entirely your fault. See my previous post.

quote:

---

I'LL STICK AROUND TO SEE WHAT STILE HAS TO SAY BUT AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES ALREADY I THINK THIS THREAD HAS BEEN AT AN END FOR A LONG TIM

---

Since your entire case rests on aggressive misunderstandings that you refuse to correct it is hard to see any other outcome. If you correct your behaviour maybe things could be different.

quote:

---

YOU HAVE NOT SAID ONE TRUE THING ON THIS THREAD.

---

Yawn. You can't shout down the truth. Not here.

quote:

---

I'VE SAID WHAT I MEAN AND I'VE SAID IT CLEARLY ENOUGH. TAKE IT AS IS OR SHUT DOWN THE THREAD.

---

OK, so you can't think about the processes that produced the strata, because every time you try you find yourself making up spurious "problems". That really is not much of an argument that you are correct, nor is it reasonable for you to expect others to have the same problem.You cannot hope to come up with real problems with an inadequate understanding. Just as you misread the Triassic map because of your lack of understanding and an unwillingness to consider the fact that you were very likely mistaken (and no, I am not referring to your poor eyesight). Learn a little humility, learn to be intellectually honest, respect the limits of your knowledge, recognise your biases. Do that and you might just get to be a more effective debater here - instead of trying to shout down people who dare to disagree with your mistaken opinions.

quote:

---

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

---

Of course, there is a huge amount of evidence - river channels with associated deposits, eroded surfaces, trace fossils - and in marine environments coral reefs.

quote:

---

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

---

The evidence is there to say otherwise. The fact that you make dubious attempts to dismiss it rather imdicates that you know it is there.

quote:

---

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.

---

It is rather telling that you haven't been able to think of any reasonable objections.And equally telling that you try to blame us for your failure.On the other hand we really do have good evidence which you are reduced to calling an illusion even though that claim makes no sense at all.

quote:

---

The problem with imaginary concepts is that they are very flexible and can be bent in enough directions to seem to prove themselves correct

---

This is hardly an issue in the present discussion. It is, of course, relevant to discussions of the Biblical Flood. In the hands of Flood geologists it has gone from a simple flood that drowned everything (excepting those on the ark) to depositing massive amounts of sediment everywhere (except for some unidentified location, which somehow escapes) repeatedly uncovering and recovering at least some areas of land where large animals that somehow survived the catastrophe so far can roam - and even nest long enough for the eggs to hatch - and somehow created the order (or illusion of order if the idea made any sense) in the fossil record.

quote:

---

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

---

Unfortunately your main argument is your main problem. When you attempt to think about the issue you start producing objections before you have even understood the subject. Unsurprisingly the objections are nonsensical and only show muddled thinking.

quote:

---

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.

---

I am sure that none of us have forgotten your usual retreat into nastiness and insult whenever your arguments are defeated. It really does. Itching to persuade us that you are right. It does however rather damage any claim you have to be a "Real Christian"

I am afraid that those demonstrate the real reasons for your problems here.The fact that evolution has apparently proceeded very quickly in one single case is certainly not a reason to think that millions of years would kill off all life. Aside from the mistaken idea that an atypical case should be taken as typical there is the much larger problem that there is no connection to the conclusion. You simply don't give any way of getting from this rapid evolution to the loss of all life.

quote:

---

Walther's Law and the Flood

​

Walther's Law explains sedimentary layering by increasing depths of sea water, that makes it a very useful concept for the Flood whether the order is perfect or not.

---

More correctly Walther's law explains certain sequences of sedimentary layers by the environmental changes associated with changes in water level. But you say that those are an "illusion" so obviously Walther's law must also be an illusion. After all if the Flood is dumping literal tons of sediment without any relation to the local environment then obviously Walther's law isn't going to apply.So, no, Walther's Law counts far more against the Flood than for it.

quote:

---

At the Grand Canyon it is fact that the proportions of various radiometric elements vary in a consistent and ordered fashion from layer to layer, and great age along with increasing age with depth is a scientific explanation that fits the facts

---

I believe that this is an oversimplification - generally sedimentary rocks are not datable by radiometric methods. The dates are obtained from igneous rocks, and the age of sedimentary rocks is inferred from the relationship between rocks.Edge's point about intrusions being younger than the rocks that they intrude into is relevant for this reason. If an intrusion is dated, we know that the surrounding rock must be older.But this still does not change the fact that the dates are based in observable evidence - much of it quite obviously so. But what can we expect of someone who calls the order in the fossil record - which is clearly an observable fact - an "illusion" without explains how that could even be possible ?

Every fact about the observable world is an interpretation.Nobody - not even you - sticks to purely relaying fact without interpretation.So - at best - your claim simply amounts to the assertion that the evidence is insufficient to justify conclusions - inevitably conclusions you don't like.But the claim needs to be justified. Simply dressing it up with labels is far from adequate. Especially coming from someone who has severe problems presenting rational arguments.Indeed, the whole diagnosis is - an extremely dubious - interpretation presented as fact.

Presenting interpretation as fact: And: And: Is this dishonest ? Bearing in mind that the assumption of an error was unlikely in the first place ? And that the poster here was guessing, based on a map that they had difficulty reading:

I believe that Edge's point is, that when you say:

quote:

---

What forms on top of it has to be a rock too, all one sediment being the usual case. You can't have two sediments side by side forming on this rock. I don't think I've ever seen such a situation in the strata anywhere.

---

You are flatly denying Walther's Law.It should be quite obvious that Walther's law does describe different sorts of sediment being deposited side by side. And it should not take much thought to see that the divisions between these sediments will move inland during a transgression and back out during a regression.