Summations Only

I don't say you have NO evidence, I've often said you have various kinds of dating evidence but no other kind of evidence.As I just got through explaining to Tangle, YEC was NOT "abandoned" because YEC was never practiced, and what "creationists" were doing was unbiblical.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dating is all you have though, and it will eventually be shown to be full of error. Meanwhile the REASONABLE evidence is in favor of the Young Earth. The Geological Timescale with its time periods pretending that anything could have lived on a sea of wet sediment, or that evolution needs millions of years to produce a simple trilobite variation, is scientifically preposterous and is going to have to go.

I don't know if you missed my Message 2320 or just don't consider it worth answering, but this is in case you missed it and want to answer it.

Perhaps you missed this from Moose's Message 2306? I'm sorry you find me so difficult but besides your death grip on the status quo theories and inability to grasp a different point of view, your attitude makes me even less interested in trying to deal with anything you post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What point didn't I get? I'd like to know, but only in as few words as possible please.abe: I doubt I didn't "get" it, I merely came up with a way what you were saying might not apply. So are you saying it would make no difference to your point to consider that the rock was just formed and still wet?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "fountains of the deep" are not MY idea, they are the biblical description of something that occurred at the start of the Flood. I don't know what they were but I know some people think they were volcanoes.

It's a ROCK in a STACK OF ROCKS, it's not a "time period." If there is evidence of an earthquake in those rocks it did not occur in that "time period" because there is NO Jurassic time period.

My views are based on observation of the physical world, including the view that there was no Jurassic time period or any other time period. The physical realities deducible from the the Geological Column say so, not Genesis.

Well, are they or aren't they? You don't say.

Anything on the surface inhabited by life would have been lumpy and irregular and composed of all kinds of mixed sediments and gravel of all sizes and organic matter, and if buried would never turn into a flat slab of sedimentary rock and find itself neatly stacked among other such slabs of rock. Unless you believe in the Good Fairy who turns puppets into boys and could probably turn this lump of shapeless stuff into a slab of flat single-sediment rock if necessary.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gotta rewrite thisEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do need an explanation, and it's hard to read that chart I'm afraid. Too much white.But Percy (and others too), describes an ordinary land surface with animals on it, the kind we all see every day, and then acts like that lumpy variegated surface, to some depth of course, could just turn into a flat sedimentary rock if only enough dirt got piled on it. This hits me as utterly impossible, and I don't see how your chart addresses this.

Of course nobody thinks of them that way. I'm the one saying that's what's really going on here. I get the impression nobody has thought about it at all because if anyone did think about it I don't see how it could be avoided and the absurdity should become apparent.Many have clearly said they picture the whole time period landscape on the site of the rock itself; others come along and deny it though how they could avoid that idea I can't fathom, and in any case what they think they think is not at all clear. But on a rock that covers most of North America, for instance, thinking it through back to the supposed time period has a flat thick layer of wet sediment where the rock now is, and even if it supposedly took aeons of time to form, the thing is ONLY a flat wet layer of sediment that nothing could live on and that displaces any possible living surface. If such a surface existed anywhere during any of that period it doesn't show up in the massive thick single-sediment rock that now represents it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree. Sad to say but this centerpiece of historical geology is indeed literally insane, and yes I'm sure that's why people avoid noticing it. It's like the idea that God invented fossils as "sports," that is it's an example of that old style pre-scientific way of thinking that still rules in the historical sciences. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was trying to say why movement between wet rocks might not produce "slickensides."Of all the things I say that you could call snark I'm surprised to find these included. I did look up slickensides and even used it later, but thrust fault and shear fabric seemed too much. I haven't spent any time thinking about faults and didn't even think of the Great Unconformity as a fault in my scenario, but I suppose I have to start. Anyway the terminology related to faults hasn't yet become part of my argument.Sometimes I get the impression edge likes to try to trip me up by using terms or concepts he knows I wouldn't know, but apparently in this case he did try to find other terms and wasn't able to, so I feel bad about making an issue of it.As for the other statements I had just figured out that the fact that the rocks were still soaked might make a difference in how a geologist would think of movement between them. I'm always hoping to find an explanation for an idea I like in a way a geologists isn't just going to dismiss. The basic scenario I keep describing of movement at the GU keeps getting dismissed as not having the marks of shearing which are apparently absolutely necessary if my scenario is correct. Well, I've been growing fonder and fonder of my scenario over time so I'm trying to find a way it could have occurred without leaving those marks. It just hit me yesterday that he may not be taking into account the idea that the rocks were just formed and still saturated with water though highly compacted. I'm picturing a block of clay that's wet but has all the excess moisture squeezed out of it so it's as solid as it can get in that condition. I tjem si===================
ABE...drat I posted this without noticing I must have typo'd a bracket by mistake so I lost at least half of what I'd written. I'm not up to trying to repeat it right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.