Summations Only

But you've been told all this several times in the few years I've been here. The explanations don't change, the text books and websites are still there for you to read.The problem is not that the information isn't there or that you're hearing it for the first time, it's that you simply refuse to try to understand it. You reject everything you're told so you never get to even understand what the science says. I'm not saying you need to accept it, but you do need to understand it. You can't repeatedly and indefinately argue from ignorance and expect to be taken seriously.What I find facinating is that you do this with all the science that contradicts your beliefs. Here it's geology, before it's palaeontology, evolution, dendrochronology, archaeology, radiometric dating, molecular biology, astrophysics etc etc.You don't understand any of them, have never studied any of them, have no qualifications in any of them, yet are convinced that they are all wrong. This despite the millions of man-years of research effort by highly qualified researchers that has confirmed them.The hardest thing for you though is not that the individual sciences tell stories of a very, very old earth and universe, but that they ALL AGREE. Each part of earth and biological science is consistent with the others. Results of observation and experiment match. No matter where we look, to fossils, rocks, DNA, radioactivity, space, trees, ice samples, varves, stalagtites, caves, wherever....we find the same results.You can't overturn that with your pre-school understanding of each component.And then we have the problem of what you want to replace that hard earned knowledge with. A myth. A childish story in a 2,000 year old book of stories. That's just absurd.What's really daft is that you can't evidentially defend the thing you believe in. Instead of saying that it's all just a miracle you're forced to explain how the evidence of reality matches your story. And of course it doesn't. You can't even provide us with a mechanism that would explain the things we see like the sorting of fossils in the geology. You have absolutely nothing on your side of the discussion and nothing at all to contradict science's explanation.I don't get it Faith, it doesn't make any sort of sense.Let me rephrase that, of course I get it, you have a fixated belief that can't be shifted by any amount of evidence. As classic a case of delusion that it's possible to see. I just find that particular reality really hard to believe even though I'm looking at it. But unlike you, I can't ignore the evidence.

You didn't read the scientific explanation did you? You just took what the creationist said as correct without trying to find out what the science actually said. Basically, they lied and misrepresented what the science says.You can not read what the fossil's describer says about these claims again here if you don't want to. Which you won't, because it spoils your silly story.http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/analysis.php?artiID=20

It's pure bullshit. Quelle surprise.http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/analysis.php?artiID=20Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Surely you're not questioning the method by which sedimentary rock is formed?You seem to have a picture in your mind that sediment gathers, then stops gathering and hardens into rock therefore changing the sea floor into rock with nothing on top of it; is that the case?

You still appear to hold the view that a landscape drops out of the sky in one piece 1,000 feet thick burying everything on it.Can't you understand that landscapes build millimetre by millimetre over time so life goes on while it's happening? There are stone age sites near where I live that are now underground. The sky did not drop 10 feet of earth on them - it built up over 5,000 years. Meanwhile life went on ON TOP of the building landscape.What is your problem???

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?

But Faith we know how what you call a landscape turns to rock and how there are 'landscapes' on top of rocks. What on earth is your problem? You are missing something absolutely fundamental. God knows how and why. What you are saying about geology is totally screwed up, you simply don't understand the process.Btw, I can see how a 'landscape' is being laid down in my own back yard. 12 years ago, I laid a path level with the lawn so I could mow over it. Last week I had to relay it because the lawn was over an inch higher. The root mass and earthworm work combined with sediment flowing down the hill is rising the land.This is why archaelogical works are called digs. You have to dig down through accumulated sediment to find what you call the landscapes below. At every point in time there was a landscape with stuff living on top of it. Just as I lived on top of my lawn 12 years ago, but now I'm living on top of it an inch higher. It's a gradual process.Time is what you're missing. An inch in ten years is 83 feet in ten thousand. In some places that will be faster and in others there will be an erosion. If nothing changes, in 1 million years my lawn will be 8,333 feet under the 'landscape'. At each point in time something will be living on it.Eventually the pressure on the old 'landscape' will begin the lithification process and form rock. That's all there is to it."Essentially, lithification is a process of porosity destruction through compaction and cementation."

Well, you finally said something right.

And you're flat out wrong.At the moment I'm at my parents place overlooking a wide estuary. 20 years ago the sea came in against a man-made Victorian promenade. In the 1800s there was a pier and ferry terminal to the other side of the bay. When the tide was out there is a wide expanse of sand and it's possible to walk the several miles across if you know what you're doing.Today though there's a quarter of a mile expanse of various grasses in place of the sea and sand. One terrestrial environment is replacing another in real time. I've watched it grow outward over the years. It's now so terrestrial that it's grazed by sheep.In a few thousand years, if you dig down you'll find the boundary between a sea bottom landscape and the terrestrial landscape. Both sustained a huge amount of life. What's the problem?

Jesus Christ Faith. The party line is the fucking evidence. You're not impressed by 200 years of scientific endeavor by hundreds of thousands of real scientists so I'm trying to give you some real life, verifiable, observable, evidence for how landscapes develop and change to back up what we see in the rocks that are finally formed by them.

Now you have to explain why not because what I've explained is how sedimentary deposits are formed. It's a necessary first step to forming sedimentary rock. Correct No it's not. Yes we can.

Are you genuinely surprised by this? You're taking on 200 years of knowledge and research by hundreds of thousands of scientists without training, you do no fieldwork and have an inability to accept facts that deny your dogma. You can't do this from your armchair and Wikipedia. Science is rather detailed and all joined up. It's a web of interlocking knowledge. You haven't even touched it. You don't have the faintest clue the work that's gone into amassing this knowledge, yet think you have an insight that no-one else has. You probaly do, but it's a thoroughly wrong one.You attempt to do the same in molecular biology, radiophysics, paleontology and god knows what else.At some level you have to be admired for the effort, but you have no idea how utterly deluded it makes you look.Ah well.

Can someone remind me what the counter to the flood 'geology' dating problem is - if the geological column was created all at the same time any/all of our normal dating methods would produce the same result for each layer.And if the YEC ideas were correct, they would all read <10,000.If you believe that the dating methods are broken - for whatever daft reason - they would each have to be broken in different ways for them to read different dates from the same age rocks.

So we have YECs claiming that the earth's rocks are all the same age; c6000 years.But we have multiple, different and independent dating methods which says that they are not, all of which must be wrong in different ways for their daft ideas to be true.And the different dating methods all corroborate each other, which would be impossible if they were all broken.This just piles impossibilities upon each other.And it ignores other evidence - lack of genetic bottleneck in all living species, lack of fossil sorting mechanism, lack of flood evidence etc etc.The human mind's ability to deceive itself is quite extraordinary.