Hello everyone

Those are beaches. Those are actual photographs. They look like that. Specifically, beaches. Only the tide does that. I have thought about it. So have geologists. This is why they know you're talking crap.

I wasn't talking about chemists astronomers and physicists., but perhaps I simply missed what you had said. ABE: I went back through this idiotic discussion and found no mention by you of these sciences either until the last post. Again, I don't call them evolutionists, just geologists because geologists are involved with Old Earth thinking. And I was merely answering your ridiculous accusation that I was accusing ANYONE of conspiracy, which I wasn't. And when you made that accusation you didn't mention chemists astronomers and physicists. Your posts so far are just nuisance accusations to change the subject and I apparently didn't read carefully. Get out of this discussion, you are contributing nothing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure. Pick any sandy beach. Dig. You don't suppose, do you, that the sand is just on the surface? A beach is where sand accumulates.Here is a picture of a cross-section through unlithified sediment from the past few hundred years. Note the ripple marks. You'd better get on with that then. Some reasoning would be nice.---As a bonus, here's a side view of unlithified aeolian sand. See how the cross-beds get buried by more aeolian sand?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Lithification is not problematic where sediments are rapidly buried under tons of other sediments, lithification is problematic where they remain surface over long long long ages, which one would expect on the old earth theory.Again, the appearance of the strata shows that they couldn't possibly represent long periods of time, implied by the different separated sediments and the flat horizontality. It's ridiculous to call rocks landscapes etc. And the fact that the Grand Canyon didn't get cut until after a supposed billion years or so of strata was already in place absolutely kills the old earth idea.But you are theory-blind and can't see these obvious facts.

Nothing in your pictures answers anything I've said as far as I can see. Unlithified sand is unlithified sand. And a cross section does not show that the ripples of the surface shown in the other pictures were preserved as neatly as they supposedly are in the strata, which I thought WAS your point. But what is your point now? It would take something like the Flood to lithify it, at least the weight of a lot of other sediments compressing it. When you find your unlithified sand in neat horizontal layers let me know, because that is not going to happen under normal conditions on this earth, which disproves your old earth theory of the strata.ABE I went back to find my post you were supposedly answering. So it's caused by the tides you say, fine, then it was caused by the tides during the Flood too. Only there the rapid burial of the sand eventually caused the whole stack to lithify into rock.
' Yes, that is my point, that it doesn't matter about the ripples because my point is that the different sediments, the horizontality, the lack of normal surface erosion, the way the fossils are embedded, all shows that the strata could not have been laid down over long periods of time. And then when we get to the cutting of the Grand Canyon only after a supposed billion years of the relatively undisturbed laying down of the strata we have more proof of that. Which you didn't in this post about the unlithified sand either. You just picked a side issue and made a big deal out of it and ignored my main point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh here's a stupid post where you are accusing me of all kinds of things I never said. What a jerk you are.

He was saying we may have to choose between our families and Him - and note that choosing Him means loving our neighbours. He wasn't talking about the kind of fire-breathing hatred that you demonstrate.

What a fat lie that is, fire-breathing hatred, just slander really. You're another jerk just like Tangle.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well said!

So sue me. Use your posts at EvC as evidence.

Faith, I wish you could see that science is simply a method of truth seeking regardless of what that might be, it is not a set of beliefs supposed to be true.Scientists don't decide to come to certain conclusions to make the Bible look false, they just uncover the evidence and discuss it as it reveals itself.

Where on earth did I say otherwise?I've been giving good scientific arguments against some scientific claims. First that whatever you think you know about the past cannot be verified and is therefore untrustworthy, and sorry Mr. Easily Swayed, but the Bible is solid trustworthy witness, God's word, and if science contradicts it, science is wrong. But that hasn't been my argument, my argument is that there is no way to replicate or test the past to verify your theory about it and that's so obvious it's STUPID not to recognize it.And now I've been giving good EVIDENCE why old earth theory is false. EVIDENCE, Mr. Easily Swayed. Simple observation of actual facts, but apparently nobody here has eyes. Where on earth did I say otherwise? The problem is they are FALLIBLE, and they misinterpret their evidence, and when it comes to the PAST THEY HAVE NO WAY OF HAVING ANYTHING BUT THEIR OWN ENDLESS COGITATIONS ABOUT IT BEFCAUSE THEY CANNOT VERIFY IT. Good grielf, can you read?Besides, as I've said before I AM NOT OBJECTING TO REAL SCIENCE. The sciences of the past are just a bunch of mental castlebuilding because they cannot be verified but the real sciences have replicability and testability. Good GRIEF can't you THINK?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Very well said.

You wrote: Here we see the pattern being preserved. You can see the ripples. Can't you? That wouldn't work. You have to have shallow-water sediment so that it's affected by the wave base. As you'd know if you'd bothered to study sedimentology instead of making stuff up. There are other causes of lithification besides rapid burial by magical processes. Such as non-rapid burial by non-magical processes. And in the case of sandstone, cementation also. Some of those are things you've made up, the rest don't show what you say (without a shred of argument) that they show. You have a point? It looks more like a set of unsubstantiated assertions and crap you made up.