Summations Only

It makes perfect sense doesn't it? He has already shown us that he knows what the globalist plans are AND his name is Big_Al35.....coincidence? I think not.

Obviously the fossils, those particular fossils, are in the Globalist Museum at an undisclosed location. The lack of giant fossils anywhere is proof that the Globalists have them all (at an undisclosed location).

Pretty funny. I bet you have convinced lots of scientists.You must be really pissed that now that you know all life evolved from microbes, you don't have any room left for any of that useful bible crap.I can see the headlines now......"Australian Man's Head Explodes When He Tries To Cram One More Useless Fact Into His Pointless Mind!"I know you never get tired of hearing it: Evolution, We Have The Fossils, We Win.

I'm glad you noticed. Every time you see me cheering when someone states the truth about you and points out your ignorance, it is really a thousand cheers.It is beyond amazing that you can't understand the simplest concepts of geology or any other science after all the time you have spent at EvC.We have the fossils. We win, again and again.Cheers

Yep, you're right. You know what's as crazy as that? Getting thin flat sheets of paper made out of trees. Getting metal from rocks? yeah, right.

So, what do you think about evolution and the fossils?

Showing a photo of a hundred foot stretch of exposed strata is hardly evidence that the contact is flat and level everywhere. This is not evidence for a single flood, but instead evidence for repeated floods and regressions. We know what evidence a flood leaves and it is not multiple distinct layers of different material (sandstone, limestone, shale, etc.). A flood cannot account for the Navajo Sandstone which is made up of lithified sand dunes, with marine sedimentary deposits above and below that you say were deposited by your flood.How in the middle of a flood do intact sand dunes hundreds of feet thick get deposited?Your scenario has hundreds of flaws in it, that have been pointed out to you repeatedly, that you refuse to account for.Real world geology accounts for all of the evidence, while you make up "problems" for geology that don't exist, like huge swaths of flat, level strata that you say could not possibly exist for millions of years undisturbed, but the only reason you can come up with is your own incredulity. We point out that they are not all level, or flat, or undisturbed, but you brush aside that, because that isn't what you want to focus on.There is no principle of geology that says regions of strata cannot remain intact and undisturbed for millions of years, but it turns out that your claims of non-disturbance or no erosion between layers are refuted by the evidence that can be seen by people who go out and look at actual rock layers.The only part of the evidence that resembles your scenario is that some of the layers were deposited by water, period. That's it, nothing else in your fantasy resembles what the actual strata shows us. Water, that's all, not the strata, not the fossils, just water, and you don't even understand how water deposits sediment.

The reef in the middle of the "flood" deposits is a puzzler that can only be explained by geological science.It seems to me that the Navajo Sandstone, also in the middle of the "flood" deposits, is even more unexplained and impossible to explain using flood fantasies.First off, it's sand in the form of dunes with internal cross-bedding intact sitting on top of the Kayenta Formation with conformable and interfingering contact according to Wikipedia. It is below the Carmel Formation and Page and Temple Cap sandstones, separated by J-1 and J-2 unconformities, also from Wikipedia.

quote:

---

Extent: 102,300 sq mi (264,955.8 km2) - original extent of the Navajo Sand Sea may have been 2.5 times larger than this remaining outcrop that is up to 2,300 ft (700 m) thick. Wikipedia

---

Second, if a flood came along and washed over sand dunes all it would be is loose sand. Sand dunes are not rock or solid. Stuck between layers that were supposedly deposited in a single flood is a major fly in the flood ointment.Third, the Navajo Sandstone is not flat or level anywhere and it never was since it was deposited.

Modern geology can answer these questions, but YOU cannot. We didn't say they were, but your scenario cannot account for the position of the reef, and it certainly cannot account for intact sand dunes supposedly deposited by the same flood that deposited the layers above and below. And yet there it is, obvious, lithified sand dunes sitting plunk on top of the Kayenta Formation. Why do you say it's nonsense when anyone can go and see it? What? I have no idea what this means. What is remarkably identical about the strata? It's all part of the crust of the planet rather than floating up in the sky? Remarkably identical, except different, got it. Really? I guess by identical you mean, gravity caused all the sediments to settle on the bottom of the ocean or on the land. The Navajo Sandstone was clearly not deposited by water. Water just deposits sandstone not intact sand dunes. Get real. Well, your impression is wrong. Does 102,300 sq miiles and 2,300 feet thick sound like it ran out sand? It is between two layers deposited in water. Flood water does not deposit intact sand dunes. These layers could not have been deposited by the same event. Are you daft? Can you show us half a layer? Or maybe a quarter layer?

Yeah, they are rocks. How does that support your fantasy?

Now you are just being silly. You cannot explain them so you deny they exist.We all know you have nothing and you just proved it.We have the fossils, we have the strata, we win.

How did the fantasy flood sort them into "one-sediment rocks?" That isn't how floods deposit sediment. Apparently, to you a medium distance is the distance from your eye to your computer screen. What's ludicrous is to think you know what you are talking about when you have never looked at the actual rocks, never walked on the actual rocks. The only reason you think it is ludicrous is a fairy tale book tells you so. No they are not. There are numerous differences between marine and aeolian (terrestrial) strata, that is how we can tell if they are marine or aeolian. Nope. Only someone who has never studied the actual rocks and who is only interested in maintaining a fantasy, by denying actual evidence could say that. We know what flood features look like and no matter how many times you insist your fantasy flood was "special" none of the actual evidence supports you. I do know that the evidence is out there in the exposed strata and I have actually gone out there and studied the actual rocks.What is sad is someone who thinks an inaccurate not-to-scale drawing of a hundred + mile cross section is evidence.

Ok, now I see where you went wrong.

And when a normal person realizes that ALL the details show they are wrong, they abandon their failed paradigm.