Summations Only

Gosh coyote, what can I say? I can't prove the dating methods are wrong, all I can do is collect other evidence that contradicts them, which I've done a pretty good job of. I'm sure eventually we'll understand why the dating methods are wrong, and some creationists have done work on that, but I'm not trying to answer all the Old Earth claims, I'm focused on the ones I know I understand best and I think the evidence I've collected strongly suggests your dating methods are going to have to go.

And you have been shown that your imaginary layers have as little connection to reality as your flood. The layers are NOT always flat and there are definite signs of erosion between the layers and all you have is nonsense and the dogma of your Cult.

I never said the layers were ALWAYS flat, I've said they were all ORIGINALLY flat and there's plenty of evidence of layers that are still flat. Where they aren't flat the deformation in some cases can be shown to have occurred after they were all laid down, and I believe that's how it happened for all of them but the others are too deformed to demonstrate that. And not far back on this very thread there was general agreement that MOST of the contacts between layers are very tight with no signs whatever of erosion. The few places that erosion is seen can be explained as occurring between the layers after they were laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, you have made that claim many times and it is still simply not true.

Long time ago I heard from some creationist source that the layer we call the Redwall limestone is also found in the UK, but I just realized it can't span the ocean itself because the continents weren't yet split during the Flood. So I take it back: no layers of the geo column on the Atlantic floor at all. Any layers you find have been laid since the continents split. Perhaps there are some to be found on the Pacific floor, but the fountains of the deep should have stirred it all up beyond any hope of layers forming there. Layers still form, never said they didn't, but the Geological Column began and ended with the Flood.

You don't mean "stirring up the sediments" do you? Because that would mean the sediments got mixed together and that is not what we see. Instead we see sediments sorted into discrete units, but not in the order expected of flood waters. So maybe instead of "stirring up the sediments" you mean these turbulent fountains "sorted the sediments." Shrug? Or not. Have you never been in a wetland? Of course there is tracks left. What do you think is under that vegetation... very soft mud? Funny but scientists don't think that. That is your own musing based on your faulty and imaginary thinking of the situation. I for one have shown you buried landscapes - termite mounds and paleosols for example.The standard account does not have landscapes on top of flat rock surfaces. Rather landscapes are inundated with water, sand, mud, etc. and the current landscape is replaced with new landscape and sometimes remnants of the old landscape are preserved by the new sediment that is forming over the old. We see that happening today. We see the evidence of that in the geological record (termite mounds and paleosols).What is bizarre about all this is that the scenario you seem to be imagining seems more like what we would expect if the earth experienced a global flood but then you impart that on the old earth and declare it impossible. Then you make up an even more bizarre scenario to explain the flood. I mean, the narrative you provided in this message is "Not Even Wrong". It is so far from reality, there is no way to even evaluate it and argue against it.I have already pointed out several times that you can't have the land being stripped bare of the sediment, animals running around on sediment that isn't there, sediment coming up out of the ocean basin to be deposited on the land surfaces high above, animals still running around, sediments being stirred up by turbulence, sediments being sorted according to some unknown principal, water so powerful it can move hundreds of cubic miles of sediments in a matter of days, water so powerful it preserves nests, footprints and creates tight contacts between layers, and so forth...This mix of conditions is so implausible that you are the only one who can even imagine what is going on, how it could possibly work. The rest of us can barely evaluate it because it is so far from reality.Arguments like this are basically a Creationist Escape Hatch and allow you to basically just make up anything you want. Of course, it is you alone who is enlightened and can understand the science clearly. HBD

Oh they are flat flat flat to the naked eye and even Edge the geologist calls them "tabular," so stop with the misrepresentations.

Question... how could they be deformed BEFORE they were laid down. This argument seems to me to be another of your trivially truisms that you have extrapolated to explain everything. And when we show you areas where layers were deposited and then deformed and then more layers were deposited on top of them, you deny and make up ridiculous stories about sliding, rotating blocks where huge amounts of material just disappear.And this is what you get "I believe even though I can't demonstrate it" Exaggeration. Made up, no connection to reality.HBD

Yes I do mean stirring up the sediments in the oceans, of course they were stirred up. But they were sorted when they were deposited on the land. What's the problem?I don't know what this fallacy is called, it's at ;east a form of straw man argument, and you are resorting to a very common one here: exaggerating what I've said to the point of justifiably arguing that it's impossible. Why do you have to read that scouring off the land means to absolute perfect baldness? Obviously most of the land HAD to have been turned to mud by forty days and nights of rain, HAD to, so that most of it ended up washed into the ocean. Obviously if some animals survived it was not eroded down to baldness.So Capn Stormy got it wrong about what the scientists think about in situ landscapes when he said the tracks were laid on a beach or a wetland? And so many others here besides him have the same impression, not to mention people who ought to know affirming the idea in countless threads. Oh right, when I show how absurd the idea really is then you decide that isn't what was really meant.I believe I've answered well enough all the claims of "buried landscapes" and paleosols and so on. It's all illusory, the product of believing Old Earth theory and not anything actually provable from observation.

See... how could we possibly evaluate this statement. "Layers still form but the Geological Column began and ended with the flood." That's not even wrong.If layers still form and layers make up the Geological Column...Your logic astounds me.HBD

ExCUUUUSE me, but that is a STUPID question. The word you are leaving out is "ALL" as in "ALL LAID DOWN, the entire stack of layers, the complete Geological Column from Tapeats to Claron, from Cambrian to Holocene. I proved it over and over and over YEARS ago. NO TECTONIC DISTURBANCE SHOWN IN THE GRAND CANYON UNTIL AFTER ALL STRATA WERE LAID DOWN, NO CANYON CUT UNTIL; THEN, NO GRAND STAIRCASE CLIFFS CUT UNTIL THEN, NO EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS BUT PLENTY OF IT ON THE SURFACES EXPOSED AFTER ALL THE LAYERS WERE IN PLACE.Slay those dragons, HBD, they are corrupting your mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's impossible, that's the problem. And you cannot explain how waves rising over the land could sort not only the sediments but also fossils and radioactive isotopes as they were depositing. I would call it pointing out how silly you arguments are It is impossible, not my fault. I never said "perfect baldness" - you are exaggerating my arguments.But there are thousands of cubic miles of sediments that are going to be deposited on the land when the forty days (or whatever time frame you imagine) is up. I only expect that all the sediment that is deposited came from somewhere and you have suggested it was stripped from the land. Think about all these deposits that are so extensive that you can't believe they could have come from millions of years. But instead they are generated from forty days of rain scouring the land.I can't help uit your scenario is impossible. I have no idea what you are going on about here. No you haven't Faith. You said they were transported from somewhere. That's impossible (not my fault). How are in situ root systems illusionary? How are in situ termite nests illusionary?Your argument that everything but your scenario is illusionary is a rather dishonest tactic. It is nothing but dismissal. Hand-waving away evidence. Those features deserve an explanation.HBD

The Geological Column is an identifiable stack of layers that were all laid down at the same time.

No its not. Its conceptual.

I've answered it all very very well. Sorry you are in thrall to the lies.