Summations Only

As you know, I've argued for a different explanation of angular unconformities, and you'd need to explain the rest of your list for me to get your point. I have no idea what you mean to be suggesting with the last example. And I've said a million times that I see this as a matter of both sides having the same facts or evidence but different ways of explaining it.

quote:

---

As you know, I've argued for a different explanation of angular unconformities, and you'd need to explain the rest of your list for me to get your point.

---

I know you have an ad hoc explanation of angular unconformities. I also know that it is riddled with problems and you haven’t any evidence for it over the far more sensible standard view. Even the basic form - the sudden transition from steeply tilted to pretty much flat strata obviously fits mainstream geology far better before we start to think about anything else.Deserts and evaporites should be obvious. You don’t get many years of dry conditions during a year long-flood.You don’t have time for landscapes to form, either. That’s why you insist that they don’t exist.And if you have a sensible explanation of how you could get a buried forest with in-situ remains - covered by volcanic ash and sandwiched between layers of coal I would like to hear it. Don’t forget to explain why the remains - plant and animal - are typical of the Permian system (consistent with the order in the fossil record).

quote:

---

And I've said a million times that I see this as a matter of both sides having the same facts or evidence but different ways of explaining it.

---

But you only say that to answer our evidence (or try to) - you never consider it when presenting your own. If we disagree with your idea of the implications you call us blind - even we are obviously correct.

Creationists only very recently have been trying to accumulate evidence and explanations to counter the current paradigm which has at least a couple hundred years head start on us. After you've elaborated your paradigm for that many years of course it looks like all the evidence is on your side because you've got explanations for every little thing, but even the small amount YECs have put together in such a short time STRONGLY indicates that the whole conventional paradigm is a house of cards. But for people immersed in that paradigm the interlocking habits of explanation are hard to break, not to mention that motivationally nobody wants to break them, for the reasons mentioned even on this thread: it would supposedly mean the collapse of all "science."Your buried forest could very well be explained by the Spirit Lake example of trees that have sunk into a lake in an upright position after the forest was destroyed by a volcano, so that they appear to hve been growing there but actually weren't.

I wish you'd all stop making up motivations for me instead of dealing with what I've actually said.

I don't blame you. Wonderly's work is long and full of information somewhat more detailed than you're accustomed to. In case you change your mind here's a link to the PDF: NEGLECT OF GEOLOGIC DATA: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings.Since the way you've "sorted it out" doesn't rely upon evidence, you are of course free to "rethink the timing to some extent" (and everything else, for that matter) as often as you like.--Percy

My conclusions DO rely on evidence. I just don't happen to have the particular evidence of the ice sheet penetration. And at my age I'm not going to become a geologist or even be able to read much of the literature. I think I do very well to keep up as well as I do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Creationists only very recently have been trying to accumulate evidence and explanations to counter the current paradigm which has at least a couple hundred years head start on us.

---

Since creationism was the dominant view when we started accumulating evidence that is slanting the picture more than somewhat. Creationists had a chance right at the beginning, and a strong position. And the time since then to the start of the modern Creationist movement - in the early 20th Century - is well under your 200 years.

quote:

---

After you've elaborated your paradigm for that many years of course it looks like all the evidence is on your side because you've got explanations for every little thing, but even the small amount YECs have put together in such a short time STRONGLY indicates that the whole conventional paradigm is a house of cards. B

---

It’s not just little things, it’s pretty much everything. The order of the fossil record is not little or new and there is no still sign of Young Earth creationists explaining it. There are no great achievementd, there are no arguments half as good as those against a Young Earth.In reality you pretend to have evidence, pretend to have present proofs, dismiss and ignore large amounts of evidence. Because on a fair assessment you really have very little beyond an insistence that your favourite myths must be literally true.

quote:

---

Your buried forest could very well be explained by the Spirit Lake example of trees that have sunk into a lake in an upright position after the forest was destroyed by a volcano, so that they appear to hve been growing there but actually weren't.

---

Even if that were true - and it would take evidence to show that - it doesn’t explain why they fit with the order of the fossil record, and I doubt that Spirit Lake would have the same animal remains. Also, the trees in Spirit Lake had been growing nearby which hardly helps you.

quote:

---

I wish you'd all stop making up motivations for me instead of dealing with what I've actually said

---

Well you certainly don’t deny the presence of buried landscapes based on the evidence. As usual you never bothered to investigate it and refuse to accept evidence when it is presented.

Old style "creationism" was as much a crock as the current paradigm, though even less rationalizable. And it also contradicted the Bible which made it wrong for starters. Darwin had to answer some pretty ridiculous unbiblical AND unscientific explanations for various phenomena, and geology ran into similar irrationalities. So no, there never was a true creationism in either context.I wish I had the time and the energy to put together all the evidence I've already assembled in one place.The "fossil order" can't be explained because it's a big fat illusion that there IS any real order to the fossils.There is a supposed "petrified forest" in the Yellowstone area that looks just like the layers of "forests" in Spirit Lake. I don't know anything about your example except that it sounds like a similar situation as it is described.

For the umpteen jillionth time, once I've assembled as much evidence as I have against the prevailing paradigm and for the young earth, all I have to do is interpret new examples in accord with what I already know, I don't need to start all over reinventing the wheel.

quote:

---

Old style "creationism" was as much a crock as the current paradigm, though even less rationalizable. And it also contradicted the Bible which made it wrong for starters. Darwin had to answer some pretty ridiculous unbiblical AND unscientific explanations for various phenomena, and geology ran into similar irrationalities. So no, there never was a true creationism in either context.

---

You say that, but there was nothing against a Young Earth or a worldwide Flood. And Biblical arguments would even have been accepted by some. And don’t forget that the creationists of that time were trying to deal with the evidence, too.

quote:

---

I wish I had the time and the energy to put together all the evidence I've already assembled in one place

---

It would save a lot of time if you restricted yourself to things that are actually true, instead of things you made up. Which really shows how weak your case is.And don’t forget that this sub-discussion started because you claimed to have evidence you didn’t have.

quote:

---

The "fossil order" can't be explained because it's a big fat illusion that there IS any real order to the fossils.

---

And there you go making baseless claims to dismiss evidence you don’t like. And don’t forget it wasn’t so long ago you were claiming you never said that and complaining bitterly when it was pointed out that you had.But the order of the fossil record is observed fact, and I have pointed to a dramatic example of it. On top of all the others that have been given.So much for interpreting the evidence differently. Outright denying observed facts is not an interpretation.

quote:

---

There is a supposed "petrified forest" in the Yellowstone area that looks just like the layers of "forests" in Spirit Lake. I don't know anything about your example except that it sounds like a similar situation as it is described.

---

Or so creationists say. I don’t know so much about those but you can bet that they fit with the order of the fossil record, too.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

For the umpteen jillionth time, once I've assembled as much evidence as I have against the prevailing paradigm and for the young earth, all I have to do is interpret new examples in accord with what I already know, I don't need to start all over reinventing the wheel.

---

Since you have - to be kind - very little evidence, and we have more and better then presumably we should be able to do the same without being accused of blindness. The more so since we aren’t dismissing actual evidence out of hand or calling it an illusion for no good reason.But maybe you think pretending to have evidence beats really having it.

You mean that motley collection of fossils found in separate layers that are misinterpreted as some kind of order from primitive to modern but aren't.I'm sorry I have too many different things on my mind to be expected to remember anything you call "a dramatic example of it" so if you have any interest in real communication, which I'm afraid it's pretty clear you don't, but if you'd at least like to appear as if you do, you'll have to repeat yourself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You mean that motley collection of fossils found in separate layers that are misinterpreted as some kind of order from primitive to modern but aren't

---

I mean the fact that there is a distinct order to the fossil record regardless of its interpretation. An order that is not reasonably explained by habitat or hydraulic sorting or differential escape, even in combination.And since you have added more of your usual nastiness, I mean the fossil forest in the Naturalis Historia link. A very good collection of fossils, all nicely preserved - and all consistent with the known order.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The "actual order" has no real order to it at all. just the imposed daydreams of evolutionists.