Summations Only

When the soil becomes rock, it is already deep in the earth. Above it we have soil and above that landscapes. Rinse and repeat.Example: Your floors get dusty so you get your broom and sweep it all into the back yard. Tiny amounts, right? What does the "landscape" do? It simply moves upward a millimeter (most likely much less).You do the same thing for a few dozen years and you might add a quarter inch of dust to the back yard, by which time that dust has become soil. What does the "landscape" do? It simply moved upward a quarter inch, but otherwise stayed the same.If the same process repeats for a million years, you have the gradual accumulation of soils, and beneath those soils you may have a gradual lithification process. The "landscape" and all its critters on top couldn't care less. They're (its) going about their business, same as always.And, over time, those critters on top gradually evolve into slightly different critters, and then over more time they evolve into much different critters. And all the while the process of tiny amounts of soil are added, both moving the "landscape" upwards and increasing heat and pressure on lower layers until they become rock.This is a process that has been documented, and can be seen even today in a small scale--your back yard.Do you have some religious reason that is preventing you from accepting this well-documented process? If so, perhaps if you shared it we could better understand where you are coming from.When you attempt to phrase things in scientific terms, all the while coming to conclusions diametrically opposed to what scientists have found, things just get confusing.

Good idea. I think I will also.

The TRVTH of the matter is they are unscientific because they contradict an interpretation of the bible.Its as simple as that.

I assume you mean "They aren't TRVE history though..." That is, they don't conform to what you think the bible says.This is one of the silliest of many silly creationist claims of the past decade. Its right up there and pretty much equal to, "You weren't there!"Rather than posting this kind of nonsense, you might take the following into consideration:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to [post] and remove all doubt.

THEN GIVE ME THE TERM FOR WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT...Nonsense.You are approaching all of these scientific threads with the idea that scripture is the only thing that matters, and that scientific evidence that contradicts scripture is wrong.And no evidence we provide will change any of that. So, you're talking nonsense.You really should stop pretending you are doing science--you are doing the exact opposite and those of us here who have studied science know it.You really should start each of your posts with, "I believe..."You would gain a lot of respect that way.When you pretend that what you post is supported by science, which it is not, it may make you feel better, but it really is the equivalent of claiming the moon is made of green cheese.Evidence really is important!If you have any, let's see it. Otherwise you really should start each of your posts with, "I believe..."

Scientific dating methods say you are wrong.

Sure we do. You're trying to make the geological record match the biblical flood, and to do so you have to deny a large part of geology and quite a few related sciences, in particular dating and paleontology.Your insurmountable problem is that the geological record does not match the biblical flood, so you end up tying yourself in knots trying to twist evidence around--and deny a lot of evidence--in a futile effort to show that it does.

As Heinlein noted a few decades back:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning; a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness. To be valid a theory must be confirmed by all the relevant facts...

​

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.

Not all "interpretations" are of equal value.In particular, why should someone interpret one when the evidence shows four? And when the evidence contradicts one?

So, perhaps we're in the Early Plasticine era...