Summations Only

quote:

---

How very strange, dw, that you would allow yourself to make such a deceitful argument, Surely you know that by "time periods" I mean THE time periods such as Cambrian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic and so on. It's a piece of deceitful sophistry to use the term to refer to any period of time from a minute to an hour to a day to millions or billions of years

---

But it is not deceitful. As I pointed out above Message 1804 the time periods are defined by the geological systems. If a geological system turned out to have been deposited in a minute or an hour then the period would be revised to that duration.I hope you will have the honesty to apologise for your false accusation.

quote:

---

Only the historical sciences, not the true sciences.

---

You are wrong. Significant changes to the radioactive decay rate are held to be impossible under any conditions that could be found on Earth, even in the distant past. Changing the rates of different radioactive decays so that they still gave the sample radiometric dates (within the error bounds) is more unlikely still.In short, unless the revision to the ages worked within physics as it is currently understood it would require revisions to physics. And it is very unlikely that that is even possible.

quote:

---

But what happens here is that creationist ideas are often not tested in themselves, other problems not yet understood are often thrown at us instead,

---

This leads to exactly the point. Creationists, since they are not interested in the truth, take the apologetic appraisals ch of dealing with things piecemeal, not bothering to see how things fit together. Scientists, because they are interested in the truth do care about how things fit together. If Creationist ideas run foul of other unsolved problems then too bad for creationists. Objecting to legitimate responses simply shows the weakness of your position.And of course those objections will frequently based in true science so you should accept them as legitimate, right ?

quote:

---

Seems to me the theory is correct enough, but it is encountering unknowns in the past that lead to error.

---

Then you would have to accept the current dates as scientifically valid. Science doesn’t and shouldn’t assume the presence of unknown factors that probably don’t exist and that just happen to mean that you are right.

quote:

---

I know they are wrong because of all the other evidence of a young earth.

---

I didn’t say that you had to believe that they were true, only that they are scientifically valid.And, in fact, since you’ve ruled out changes in decay rate as an explanation for radiometric dates you have to admit that there is very strong evidence against a young Earth there for a start.

quote:

---

While I've been collecting evidence for the young earth in

​

the fact that there is no disturbance to the strata until after it's all laid down, showing that it was rapidly deposited and not over millions upon millions of years

​

the greaqt geographic extent of most of the strata which shows thatnothing could have lived during that "time period"

---

Where by collecting you mean making up.The actual geological evidence clearly indicates that tectonic disturbances have continued throughout the lifetime of the planet. You, on the other hand have only lookevad one relativelynstsnle area and even there the evidence was against you.And how could you possibly conclude that the extent of a stratum - or rather a formation which is usually a much more complex beast - would mean that nothing could live there. The Sahara is pretty big, things still live there.

The geological record is a testament to long ages. The evidence clearly shows multiple tectonic events, widely separated in time, as well as long periods of non-deposition where considerable erosion occurred. Of course, different localities will show different events but it really is clear.(And there are other things such as the time time required for lithification or the time required for magmatic intrusions to cool)

quote:

---

Bald assertion.

---

As are your claims of evidence. Mine have the advantage of being true.

quote:

---

I've given actual evidence against all this many times from various presentation of the geologic column.

---

No, you haven’t.

quote:

---

Not one tectonic or volcanic or erosive event in the whole stack of strata that supposedly represent hundreds of millions of years. The Grand Staircase cross section is enough by itself to show that.

---

The angular unconformity at the Supergroup is strong evidence, alone.

quote:

---

All vastly exaggerated and not demonstrated.

---

Bare assertion. Geologists have been working on these questions, you know.

quote:

---

What I "advocate" is just your way of obscuring the fact that I've given actual physical evidence that has nothing to do with my beliefs.

---

That just isn’t true.In reality the evidence shows a long history of tectonic events.To first this in with your religious doctrine you come up with the idea that they all happened at the same time. It’s not based on the physical evidence - it’s an attempt to deny the obvious implications of real physical evidence.But you go on, and now you are insisting that your apologetic excuse is evidence of a Young Earth, and even an observable fact!In reality you’ve only looked at one small part of the planet, and you haven’t come up with any real evidence that your idea is true even there.That is your physical evidence - a lousy religious apologetic that you try to pass off as a fact.

quote:

---

It's a misinterpretation

---

So you say. But you haven’t even made a reasonable case for that in the examples that have been discussed.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could show one to be sure

---

I’d rather stick to the point than go back to something where we already have made a good case.Why you are you trying to pass off an opinion you hold for religious reasons as evidence? Why are you insisting that it can be shown from the physical evidence when you can’t even do that for the region we’ve discussed most? Let alone the rest of the planet?And why are you evading this point ?

quote:

---

The Temple Butte channel couldn't possibly be something that had ever been on the surface. That's obvious to me, sorry if you don't see it

---

Nobody sees it. You just assume it.

quote:

---

There are many separate observations that go into my view of the Great Unconformity. I'm too sick of arguing about this right now to want to review all that.

---

There are no actual observations that provide any significant support. None.

quote:

---

I don't get what you or anyone is trying to say about the monadnocks and don't know if it's worth hearing more about it.

---

They were clearly formed by surface erosion - like the ones herebedragons showed pictures of. They were there when the Tapeats was being deposited.

quote:

---

No I have not arrived at the judgment that there was no disturbance to the geo column from presuppositions but from actual evidence. I worked on it a lot back when. I clearly clearly demonstrated what I was seeing in the Grand Canyon.

---

That is an obvious falsehood. You would have had to have looked at a great many locations to determine that, not just one. And you are almost certainly wrong about the one region you did look at. It’s obvious that you just made it up, and it isn’t exactly hard to guess the motive.

quote:

---

But everybody's usual denial is just getting too tiresome. I wish I'd written it all out somewhere independently of this place where it's so hard to find anything. .

---

Don’t worry, you aren’t missing anything. Just more irrational nonsense.

quote:

---

Look, I'm thinking this through honestly, I don't have anything "religious" in mind as I'm thinking it through, I'm thinking only of layers of rock around the world and time labels assocfiated with them.

---

And edge and I have been explaining it to you. But you don’t seem to like that. I don’t really see any honest attempt to understand - you seem to be far more interested in finding excuses - even false excuses - to dismiss the standard view.In fact this seems to be what is going on. You don’t understand, you jump to the conclusion that it must be mainstream geology at fault and you resist explanations *because* they make sense.That’s not trying to honestly understand.

quote:

---

After having thought about these things for so long it has become habitual to me to see things as I do and it does make me wonder how intelligent scientists can just take such truly weird contra-natural things for granted.

---

You see, you can’t even consider the possibility that what they really believe is not contra-natural. You can’t see that the systems and the periods identified from the systems are our classification system, derived from the ordering of the strata and the differences in the fossils they contain. There’s nothing magic there.

quote:

---

Why shou8ld any particular collection of living things be found in a particular layer of rock?

---

As jar has said fossils will almost always be buried at or relatively close to the surface. How would it happen otherwise ?

quote:

---

Why aren't fossils found buried willy-nilly instead of in neat rock layer graves?

---

Because they were buried over very long periods of time and the life on Earth changed over time. We worked that one out long ago. It’s only a problem for people like you who insist that they were all buried at about the same time.

quote:

---

Why aren't they buried at different depths just becaue the earth is usually lumpy with hills and valleys in any time span.

---

Now you are just getting confused. We are not talking about the actual physical depth at any one location. The Earth’s surface is not that stable, deposition is uneven and so is erosion.We are talking about the relationships between the strata, the order of deposition. Where strata from two different periods are both present they will be in the same order - those from one period will always be above the other (in the absence of relatively rare disturbances like thrust faults).It will not always be the case that strata from both - or even either - period is present. There are regions where the surface rocks are Precambrian (and, therefore, no other periods would be represented at all).Even if both periods are present then strata from intervening periods may or may not be present and there is no set thickness of rock for any period.So, physical depth is not very useful in this discussion. It can only really be applied to fossils at the same location and even then all we can say is that one assemblage will be found deeper than the other.So, what we are really talking about is the relative ordering of the strata produced by correlating the rocks at many different locations. An effort which goes back to the early days of geology, before Darwin.

quote:

---

I mean even if you insist that they had to be buried at different levels because of evolution, why in identifiable straight rock layers? Representing what looks sort of like a clear order of living things over the taxonomic system?

---

As I hope I have explained the order of the fossil record is explained as the order in which various species - and larger groups - appeared and flourished and disappeared over the long history of the Earth. This was settled before Darwin came along and was accepted by scientists like Cuvier without any influence from evolutionary theory (even the pre-Darwinian ideas current in Cuvier’s lifetime).Evolutionary theory, however places constraints in the order in which species could appear. And in fact these constraints are met by the order of the fossil record. So if you accept that the known processes invoked by geology can produce distinct rock layers (and there is the obvious example of transgressions sequences where it clearly makes sense) there really isn’t any problem.

quote:

---

And it certainly seems that if a creature, say a rabbit, were to be found out of "place" (or "time") it would be over the supposed millions of years assuming earthquake and tectonic displacements.

---

The effects of earthquakes and tectonic displacements - where even relevant - are detected and accounted for in the cross-correlations of the strata. Geologists and Palaeontologists do take account of things that could affect the order. If remains are found in caves, for instance the question of how they got there is considered.

quote:

---

This is all way too pat, and, really, unnatural.

---

It’s a simplified view and you seem to be reading far too much into the simplifications.Edited by PaulK, : Tidy up typos

quote:

---

Strata and fossils, strata and fossils, strata and fossils.

---

So the Flood is a lie.

quote:

---

Strata miles deep with no erosion between layers, no magma that begins or ends except at the very bottom and the very top.

---

Where ? None of these things are true of the Grand Canyon region we’ve been talking about.

quote:

---

...I've seen so much evidence that serious disturbances did not happen until the entire geological column was laid down from Cambrian to Holocene, I have no doubt that what is shown in that diagram also happened after it was all in place.

---

You have ? Why haven’t you posted about it ?

Then why have you kept quiet about it ? What is this evidence?