Summations Only

quote:

---

Monadnocks do not change the basic flatness. There's just no point in talking to someone who brings up objections like that.

---

So your idea of flatness allows for hills 790 feet high. Perhaps then you can explain the difficulty that your flatness supposedly poses. I mean, your objection really sounds like you find that there is no point in talking to anyone who knows that you are wrong.

quote:

---

Look, I don't accept much of anything Geology says about the strata, what I'm doing is trying to show how it's all wrong

---

But your arguments have to start with the physical reality. If you deny that then you are just talking about your own fantasies. And that can’t show that geology is wrong.

quote:

---

I'm starting with how the stack of strata that make up the stratigraphic column appears, their flatness and straightness and uniformity of basic form, and going from there.

---

Your error then is in taking a generalisation as a universal. If you ignore the exceptions - if your argument relies on denying that they even exist then you lose. Demanding that I explain something that you only imagine - as you have done - is hardly fair or reasonable. And if you refuse to provide any real examples it raises a justified suspicion that the problem exists only in your imagination.

quote:

---

I do not accept any "ancient seabed" interpretations or "shallow seas" or any of that. And I'm working from LAND scenarios as depicted in the typical illustrations of what supposedly lived in a particular time period associated with a particular rock or set of rocks, and thinking about the physical problems involved in getting from one slab of rock to the next assuming such a scenario.

---

You don’t have to accept that a stratum was an ancient seabed. But if you want to argue honestly against geology you DO have to accept that geology identifies it as an ancient seabed. If geology identifies a stratum as an ancient seabed then you can’t disprove geology by arguing that it wasn’t land.

quote:

---

I'm sorry you seem to be unable to think about it except in the standard terms. That makes conversation with you impossible.

---

Of course the problem is yours. You have a bizarre and unexplained idea of flatness that you have only mentioned just now - and which seems to actually undermine your argument. You can’t tell the difference between denying the interpretations of geology and misrepresenting those interpretations for the convenience of your argument. Rather than discuss the actual physical reality you want your generalisations taken as facts.If you find it impossible to live up to the requirements of honest rational debate - and all three examples are gross failures - then the problem is yours.

The highest point in Florida is only 345 feet above sea level. I guess that Florida doesn’t count as normal Earth surface to Faith.I have to say I don’t remember all those drawings including hills 800 foot tall or more. As I remember it, most of them were pretty....flat.

quote:

---

Really, Paul, that's just more evidence you don't have a clue to what I'm talking about, simple though it is. Altitude has nothing to do with it.

---

And that is just silly. Altitude is related to relief.In fact the lowest point in Florida is at sea level, so in fact the difference between the highest and lowest point is much less than the height of the buried monadnocks. Florida is flatter.

quote:

---

"Altitude is related to relief?" But what does relief have to do with this discussion?

---

Variations in elevation seem to relate quite obviously to flatness. The larger the variation the less flat the region is.And since you tell us that a region with hills up to 790 feet high is extremely flat how can you describe Florida - where the highest hill is no more than 345 feet high - as anything less ?

quote:

---

Nobody is discussing what I'm discussing, this whole thing is ridiculous. I don't know or care whose fault it is but we're all talking at cross purposes.

---

It is quite obviously your fault and you should care about that. If you introduce your own idiosyncratic ideas into the discussion and refuse to explain them, then how can you expect anyone to know what you mean ? And that is taking your claims at face value.So, again, tell me. How can you regard a region with hills up to 790 feet high as extremely flat and how can this flatness possibly be a problem for geology ?And if you can’t explain what you mean you can hardly expect anyone else to know.

Instead of complaining that people aren’t addressing what you are saying why don’t you explain what you mean ?For the third time Faith.What is your idea of extreme flatness that includes 790 foot high hills, and how does this flatness pose a problem for geology ?And why have I had to ask three times when you should have explained it at the start ? (There is, of course, an obvious answer but I am still being generous)

quote:

---

This is a good question. I honestly can't say that I have any idea what Faith means by some of these statements.

---

I don’t think she knows either.

It must be pointed out that you think that ridiculous falsehoods are reasonable objections. Given your proven failures of judgement even you should recognise that your opinion is hardly reliable. (But of course since you are so determined to rationalise away your own errors you will never admit to it).And so far you have resisted any attempts to get you to even make a reasonable argument which is hardly promising.

Claiming to have a reasonable argument that you won’t share is hardly convincing when we know that you will happily state ridiculous falsehoods. Even you have already admitted that a particular claim was a ridiculous falsehood in the same post.
(And thank you for doing that it really did illustrate the problem you present)And as we have seen today you will make strange claims, refuse to explain them and blame your opponents for not addressing your point. The fact that you won’t say what your point actually is rather makes that impossible, doesn’t it?Or do I need to remind you of your assertion that since you don’t accept the interpretations of mainstream geology you are entitled to misrepresent them ?If you do not understand that much of your output is rationalisation - and often very poor rationalisation at that - you really can’t assess the quality of the arguments here.

Oh really ?Here’s the post where you repeat a ridiculous falsehood shortly after admitting it was a ridiculous falsehood. Message 702Perhaps you can explain why the animals must have to live on bare rock when the process of lithification takes place deep underground?You should realise by now that accusing me of making false accusations is practically begging me to dig up the proof. If you don’t like that, you only have yourself to blame.

quote:

---

I'm not going to read all that, it's up to you to characterize it. Of coruse you misunderstood it whatever it is because you always do and then accuse me of lying as you are doing now

---

It’s your post. If you like you can read my reply which points out your error. But really I said enough for you to recognise it.

quote:

---

Nothing could live on a buried rock, but eventually no matter what the scenario one rock has to lie on top of another to become the stratigraphic column, so there has to be a barren exposed rock at some point and that's when nothing could live on it.

---

There are times whenparts of the surface are bare rock - but that is a consequence of erosion, or lava flows solidifying, not the lithification of sediment. But there doesn’t HAVE to be bare rock, and in the case of continuous sedimentation there never would be. The geological column would just build up incrementally one layer after another, each layer eventually lithifying as the pressure of burial builds up with the sediment accumulating on top.

quote:

---

You never get anything right but you sling the accusations freely anyway

---

That is more like you, as you are demonstrating.

quote:

---

In that scenario it is certain that animal life would just have to disappear with the formation of rock out of its landscape.

---

By the time the landscape is deeply buried enough to become rock the animals that lived on it are long dead. They aren’t exactly going anywhere then.

quote:

---

That is why there have been all these speculations about deep burial of a landscape with some other kind of material than a sediment that becomes another rock on top of it.

---

Wrong. That’s the product of scientifically studying how sedimentary rocks would form based on observation of nature.

quote:

---

But the whole thing absolutely absurd no matter how it is imagined.

---

Because animals that died many thousands of years ago are need somewhere to live.I really must thank you for your help in proving my point.

Well let us look again at some of your thinking.

quote:

---

In that scenario it is certain that animal life would just have to disappear with the formation of rock out of its landscape.

---

What animal life has to disappear? There isn’t any living on the material being turned to rock. That material is deeply buried - it has to be to turn into rock. And there is no reason why any animal life living high above on the (then) present day surface would have to disappear at all.

quote:

---

That is why there have been all these speculations about deep burial of a landscape with some other kind of material than a sediment that becomes another rock on top of it. Because it would take DEEP burial to lithify the sediment.

---

There have been no speculations about deep burial by material other than sediment. Nor has there been any claims about whether that sediment would or would not also turn to rock (and there shouldn’t be, it’s just irrelevant complication). Just references to the fact that deep burial is required for lithification.So, please explain your thinking.

quote:

---

But with the bible, it predicted things before we found them which had to be undoubtedly true, certain evidences.

---

It did ?

quote:

---

The bible says animals reproduce according to kind so if there is a fossil record we expect to find generally, the same types of organisms unchanged.

---

I think that people realised that dogs didn’t give birth to cats by the time Genesis was written.

quote:

---

We would also expect evidence of catastrophe, the bible says every kind of animal perished in the flood, consistent evidence is to find every kind of animal type represented, or close to all of them since all life perished.

---

That’s pretty meaningless, but we can’t find a single event which killed both anomalocarids and tyrannosaurids to choose two items on your dubious list, which would seem to seriously undermine your claim.(I will note that your indisputable pollen claim is quite disputable )

quote:

---

Well, in a manner of speaking. If a book written thousands of years before we discovered the fossil record says a flood wiped out everything on earth, that would mean if there was a record from it, we wouldn't obviously expect to only find angiosperms under the ground, or only jellyfish, but evidence every kind of creature was killed, and evidence they were killed while they were alive, and we find many things consistent with that such as organisms in the suffocation position, giving birth, fossil graveyards, and basically exquisitely preserved forms which even neo-catastrophists may argue occurred not from slow burial.

---

This, of course, is what you would call confirmation evidence - and a very weak example at that. Can you really use a creature killed by a sandstorm as evidence of a flood ? What evidence do you have that these deaths were caused by a single disaster rather than many smaller scale disasters - as we should expect if the Earth is old. The evidence of dates that we have, for instance, is very solid and tells us that you are talking about creatures that died at many different times.

quote:

---

No an bare assertion that it is meaningless, is a thoughtless response, it is very meaningful to biblical claims because if we had only found under the ground, certain types of organism, we would be able to immediately falsify a flood.

---

It is funny that your response is far more thoughtless. If we found only one sort of organism in the ground we would have to look for a reason why - and nothing in modern science could explain it. It is certainly not what we would expect if evolution and an Old Earth were true.

quote:

---

I am not sure what your point is about what is on the list. The list only represents things of which we have the earliest dates, that remain unchanged either between extant ones today and past ones, or between extinct forms which for a time existed, but for the latest and earliest recording, remain unchanged, and they have no ancestors.

---

But it certainly is not that. Modern coelacanths are not identical to fossil coelacanths so you fail on the first example. And it is hardly the only problem.

quote:

---

In other words the list of unchanged organisms shows the evidence we find in the fossils is pretty much unchanged animal kinds. Unless you can provide indisputable transitionals for them? So if we take even one, such as a bat, the earliest representation will appear fully bat, with no transitionals, between say quadruped progenitor and bat, as an intermediate, but rather the same kinds that exist today barring superficial change.

---

No, I don’t need transitionals to show differences between ancient and modern forms. The idea is absurd. Bats have a poor fossil record but the earliest forms are not modern species. How then can you say that they are unchanged ?

quote:

---

getting ANY sediment lithified in the right order between other lithified sediments in the right place, all maintaining a similar flatness, is the problem.

---

Why would the order be a problem ? There is no right order, just the order that the sediments arrive.