Summations Only

Not "on the spot" NOW, but still made up out of nothing because there is no justification at all for the "landscape" or time period interpretation of the rocks. They don't know when the rock was formed, it's all made up. NOTHING happened during the "Jurassic" period because there was no Jurassic period. If sand pipes indicate earthquakes they occurred after the whole geologic/stratigraphic column was laid down.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And so Faith makes a statement that what is being discussed is now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere.Perhaps Faith can explain how the imaginary flood produces this evidence found in reality?

You don't know how those formed either, but they look to me like they were formed by swirling water. When the Flood receded, taking whatever sediments were above those formations, if there were any, leaving some unconsolidated sand exposed, I'd guess that the water did that to the sand that was there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then it should be possible to reproduce them experimentally.

quote:

---

Not "on the spot" NOW,

---

Not on the spot when I quoted them either. In fact they were all written before you misrepresented the article. So, nothing as hoc at all.

quote:

---

but still made up out of nothing because there is no justification at all for the "landscape" or time period interpretation of the rocks.

---

Which is quite irrelevant to your misrepresentation even if it wasn’t a silly falsehood.

quote:

---

nOTHING happened during the "Jurassic" period because there was no Jurassic period

---

In your prejudiced opinion. I’ll stick with informed expert opinion backed by real evidence.

quote:

---

If sand pipes indicate earthquakes they occurred after the whole geologic/stratigraphic column was laid down.

---

You do realise that the things you make up are usually wrong, don’t you?And let’s go over the main point again. You misrepresented the article, pretending that it supported your idiotic straw-man. The quotes demonstrate that. Calling them ad hoc nonsense is just a silly lie - they are evidence of what the article says, and they were written before you tried to misrepresent the article.Trying to change the subject with objections to the content of the article would be dishonest attempt to avoid the issue even if you had a good basis for objecting. And you don’t.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Wrong again Faith. I and many others do know how those formations were created because we can see the same formations being created today. So explain how the flood did that Faith?

Couple of points1. I don't believe anything about geology - or any science - I accept it's conclusions.2. Your 'someday' has been and gone. You had your day for as long as you could make shit up. When science came along we demanded evidence. Evidence showed that the shit you'd made up was very smelly indeed. The people that believed the same shit that you do now, 200 years ago went out to find the evidence that they knew would support their beliefs. They knew that they could prove it because they knew their beliefs were right. After all, their god had told them.But what actually happened was the opposite. They proved that their beliefs about stuff like the age of the earth was wrong and everything that has been discovered since has confirmed it. Everything you misunderstand and misrepresent is evidence produced by science. Nothing - repeat nothing - new has been found by creationists. All they and you do is lie about it what science has discovered. You will never convince anybody but yourself by lying, misrepresenting and being utterly ignorant of the knowledge created by science.Your day has been and gone Faith. You got it wrong and only nut jobs cling onto the falsehoods.

You don't have evidence, that's the point I keep making, you have a lot of imaginative conjurings. Apparently you all don't know the difference. Facts are facts and we share those but the Old Earth interpretations are not scientifically valid, just one speculative guess on top of another called science, big big shuck. You're mistaking general acceptance for genuine science.And for the jillionth time, the early creationist geologists got it all wrong. They did NOT believe what we believe now. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually we do know the difference. We certainly have no trouble recognizing "imaginative conjurings" in what you post, as we see them on a daily basis. A theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts. It needs to explain all of the facts and be contradicted by no relevant facts. That is what we have, and what you are lacking. You have belief in ancient tribal myths and dogma which does not explain all the facts and is contradicted by a huge number of relevant facts. But because what you have is a belief you are not free to change--you must instead try to deny, ignore, or otherwise obfuscate the facts. Unfortunately for you your opinions do not change the facts--they remain the pesky little things they always were.As for different interpretations, certain facts require specific interpretations and can't support alternative interpretations. That is a real problem for YECs as the facts they use don't support their interpretations and the facts they deny, ignore and obfuscate support the standard scientific interpretation.All of this leads to the kinds of debate we are seeing in this thread and elsewhere.

What is so funny is that the signs show sand blows which do not form in floods but during earthquakes. And so I went back and checked the source and there are no earthquakes recorded in either of the Biblical flood myths.Seems simple. No earthquakes during the Biblical flood so the Navajo sandstone was not deposited during either of the Biblical Flood accounts.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

NOTE: I ORIGINALLY WAS POSTING THIS MESSAGE LAST NIGHT ABOUT THE TIME THE FORUM WENT DOWN FOR THE NIGHT. I THOUGHT IT HAD POSTED, BUT i WASN'T SURE. TURNS OUT IT DIDN'T MAKE IT THEN.----- My impression is that Faith is misusing Walther's Law less than Percy is misusing Walther's Law.Walther's Law states the geometric relationship between vertical and horizontal sedimentary sequences from migrating depositional environments. Walther's Law is NOT really a depositional model (despite often being used as such at evcforum.net), and time (long or short) is not part of Walther's Law, despite Percy's repeated insistence that it is.Walther's Law was originally formulated to describe the sediment geometries resulting from migrating stream. It also applies to transgressive and regressive sea deposits, which is the relevant thing in the here "flood" discussion.Essentially, Walther's Law states (related to changing sea levels) that if you find a clastic sedimentary stratigraphy (stratigraphic column) at a given location and it is getting progressively finer in the upward direction, you are seeing deposits of a transgressing (rising) sea. If you find that it is getting progressively coarser in the upward direction, you are seeing deposits of a regressive (falling) sea. How fast the sea is rising or falling is not relevant.In the old Earth model, new clasitic sediment is slowly being added as the sea rises over a long time period (thousands to millions of years). Over this long time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.In the young Earth model (aka Faith flood model), new clastic sediment is quickly being added as the sea rises over a short time period (a year or less?). Over this short time period, a lot of sediment can accumulate.Either model could result in the same or similar clastic sediment geometry. Note that I'm considering clastic sediment. Accumulating a lot of chemically/biochemical sediments (eg. limestone) is a whole another issue, in that a lot of time is required.Other young Earth problems of course are, where do you get all this water so fast and where do you get rid of it. Also something I want to pursue further - What's the fast supply of all that clastic sediment.Mooseps - Re: Percy's message 2278: I'm had that message open in a tab all this time and I very much do intend to eventually do a reply (but I'm a very slow moose). My reply will center on the two major unconformities. Percy is certainly also welcome to do a reply

But you don't, coyote. The interpretation of strata as representing time periods is absurd, so it doesn't "explain all of the facts." There cannot have been any kind of landscape where there is now a layer of sedimentary rock, all there could have been is the wet sediment that eventually lithified. and you're just wrong about different interpretations being used to support the same facts: the OE interpretations are ludicrous, but the Flood interpretations truly do explain the geological column.

So you believe.

Thank you.For reference, our favorite illustration of how Walther's Law works: This has never made any sense to me. Limestone is one of the layers illustrated for Walther's Law and it is presented as exactly the same kind of layer -- same size and shape --as the sand and clay and so on. If it has to be created in place why would it look the same as the others? And why in any case can't the ingredients of limestone be transported like the ingredients of sandstone or mudstone or siltstone or any other stone anyway?ABE: Another thought: Since the Flood was killing things by the bazillions, not only on land but in the oceans, the creatures that contribute to the formation of limestone under normal circumstances would in the Flood be dying by the bazillions and deposited the same as usual only now by the bazillions over the land where they would become the limestone layers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't misuse the ordinary term "believe" coyote. It isn't defined by religious belief and it certainly isn't a synonym for "wrong" as you like to use it. It describes your belief in radiometric dating just as it describes my belief that the strata were laid down by the Flood.