Summations Only

Actually, no, you have not shown that, and you're ignoring the questions I asked and the points I made in Message 2635. So that you don't have to go back to that message let me repeat the content here: Returning to your current message: How are dogs and cats more different than all the different species of trilobites? Remember you're comparing body plans. I'd agree that the body shape between chimps and humans is greater than between cats and dogs, but the body plans of all four creatures, chimps, humans, dogs, cats, are very similar. Four limbs with all the same major bones, fingers and toes, pelvis, ribs, backbone, clavicle, skull, two eyes, nose, mouth, two ears, teeth.Plus both DNA and the classification system says chimps and humans are more closely related than dogs and cats: As you can see, dogs and cats differ at the family level, while chimps and humans don't differ until the genus level. Humans and chimps share a very high percentage of DNA. Actually humans have a much more flattened face than a chimp - chimps have a muzzle. I agree there's a difference, but you've got it backwards. Zoo much? What do these have to do with body plan? The chimp ribcage is not big. It does have a different shape than the human ribcage. Nothing to do with body plan. Length of arms has nothing to do with the body plan. There are arms with all the same bones and fingers as humans. Length of legs has nothing to do with the body plan. There are legs with all the same bones and toes as humans. Chimps have prehensile toes, the same toes humans have. Everything you said above, at least the parts that were correct and relevant, contradicts this bald declaraion. The concept of species includes all the ambiguities of the real world it attempts to define. For sexual species the concept is pretty clear, an interbreeding population, but in the real world what about the adjacent population that can interbreed with the first, but not as well with a lower mating success rate (success is producing fertile offspring). Are two populations the same species when the mating success rate between them is 90%? How about 80%? What about 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? At what point do you declare them different species? Who can say?It's probably a safe bet that cows and snakes are 0% interfertile, so they're definitely different species. I'll also bet that dogs and cats are 0% interfertile, so they're also different species. Lions and tigers can mate to produce ligers and tigons which are usually but not always sterile - are lions and tigers the same species? Coyotes and wolves can freely interbreed, though they usually don't, and I don't think the fertility rate has ever been measured? Are they the same species? Maybe.What we see in the wild is a spectrum of interfertility between populations. Ring species are an example of interfertility decreasing the further around the ring you go. A good general rule would say that the closer the genetic relationship between two species, the greater their interfertility. You still haven't defined kind. Basic shape isn't what governs species. By your measure of what is different enough it certainly wouldn't work for dogs and cats. And if you did decide that any creatures as different as dogs and cats were different species, then those two trilobites shown above are definitely different species. By making things up as you go along you're only arriving at contradictions.--Percy

If you've done such a good job then how come I've got pages and pages of posts you've never answered or answered with just two or three content-free lines? Why do you have to keep abandoning threads? Why is the vast majority of what you write just redeclarations of your views? Why do you argue by insult instead of from the facts? Why do you exert so much effort avoiding certain topics? Why can't you address fossil order or radiometric dating or sediment sorting, to mention only a few? Why can't you understand important concepts like Walther's Law or how angular unconformities form? Why do you think you're doing science when you know so little of it and when you've declared that science is subordinate to what you think the Bible says?--Percy

The quote you're probably thinking of is from Thomas Jefferson: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them. If you think people here are offering unintelligible propositions, have you considered the possibility that the fault might be in your capacity for understanding? After all these years you still don't understand radiometric dating, Walther's Law, sedimentation, how sediments are still adding to stratigraphic columns, how erosion levels landscapes, how life lives atop landscapes experiencing sedimentation all over the world, how the geologic column is conceptual, how angular unconformities form, how speciation occurs, how erosion is a surface phenomenon, how matter can't disappear into thin air, how strata cannot move without affecting adjacent strata, how making things up will always fail as science, etc. If you're only weapon against facts and explanatory frameworks is ridicule then you are unarmed. You do realize that you're giving everyone a license to ridicule your almost every word? The reason your landscape arguments fail is because they're incoherent.--Percy

Scientifically it isn't that you have low standards but that you seem to have no sense of how the real world actually works. Time after time you propose cockamamie ideas for which you then dig in your heels with absurd defenses. While I'd like to think that the people at EvC are special, when I visit other websites that also host this debate I am as much struck by their knowledge, insight and ability to weave facts and information into effective arguments as I am by the people here. Those who understand and value science, both as knowledge and as a systematic way of understanding the world, are likely the same the world over.You're not going to find science minded people anywhere who are going to forgo scientific knowledge on the say so of someone like yourself who does so much to discredit by her behavior and by the lack of quality and integrity in her arguments both herself and her religion.--Percy

Incredulity is not an argument. What is the rationale behind your incredulity? What are you imagining prevents the erosion of rock by waves, or the deposition of sand upon a beach? Where? Here's the diagram again. I was not calling attention to "deep areas of erosion." You had complained about a lack of examples of "lumpy and irregular" strata, so Edge provided one. The strata are labeled. I hope you were looking at the contact between the Parma Sandstone and the Bayport Limestone, because that's what I called attention to in my message: I believe the irregular topography of the contact is due to a river or stream, though I don't think I've had confirmation of that yet from Edge or Moose. That is of course erosion, but we've always said that flowing water cuts channels into landscapes. Otherwise erosion tends to level landscapes. Which "sunken area" are you looking at?--Percy

On this point the ball is in your court.In fact, there are a ton of balls in your court. You've responded to 54.5% of the messages to you in this thread, and because so many of them were either content free (like this one) or too short to say anything (like this one) or didn't address any of the points in the discussion (like this one) or say anything remotely on-topic (like this one), I bet the actual number is closer to 40%. Doing a great job there, champ.The reality is that you're playing the game you always play, engaging in behavior that swings discussion away from the topic and into what you do best, sling insults at people and treat them in demeaning and hurtful ways.I daily become more and more amazed at your similarity to our president with his loose association with truth, weak command of facts, constant self-praise, proclivity for abusing others while displaying a fragile ego, and insistence on doing things his way no matter how obviously wrongheaded.Why not play things straight and honest and just post about the topic?--Percy

No one has any doubt that you can, and will, and topic be damned. After all, when you can't muster anything of substance for your position then what is left but to engage in distraction? I guess instigating dustups feels much safer for you than learning any geology that might cast doubt on your religion.My God, I'm further behind this afternoon than I was this morning. --Percy

JonF told a pack of lies? Well, then let's expose him for the liar that he is. I'll start quoting what he said in Message 2672: Hmmm, this can't be one of the lies, since you were obviously confusing evidence and interpretation when you said, "Status quo interpretation has no real evidence." In science evidence gets interpreted. It's your approach that has interpretation seeking evidence. Hmmm, this can't be one of the lies either, since the Earth really is the evidence of geology. And this can't be one of the lies either, since it's the geological interpretation you take issue with. This doesn't seem like a lie either, since your great reluctance to address so much data and reasoning or to respond to so many posts combined with your inability to comprehend so much of what is said or know much of what you're talking about does seem to make it a reasonable conclusion that you're incapable of comprehending or discussing that material. And this isn't a lie either, since you do seem to have a strong proclivity for juvenile behavior.So it turns out that JonF didn't tell a single lie, which would make you a...liar.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hey, a post about the topic! Congratulations! Well, yes, but not just normally - always. In the middle of a stratigraphic column there is a huge amount of weight of overlying material, so removing any material from there would cause the overlying material to sag into it. There's no "normally" about it - that's what will always happen. Are you saying you still believe that removing material from the middle of a stratigraphic column will not cause the overlying material to sag into the empty space and that you're seeking some other explanation than the one you originally offered? If so then that would be a big fat no. Just for an example, a cubic mile of sedimentary rock weighs at least 10 billion tons - if you open up an empty space a mile down then the overlying material *will* collapse into that space.You need some other explanation, one that doesn't pretend that holes can open up in buried rock. 14174dm already provided that explanation in Message 2674: Putting this in my own words in the hope seeing it phrased in two different ways will serve as an aid to clarity, while the layer is at the surface streams and rivers will cut channels into it. If the area becomes one of net sedimentation, perhaps because it subsides suddenly below sea level (say because of an earthquake), then the channels will fill with sediment. Sediment always seeks the lowest level, so the channels will accumulate sediments the most rapidly and will fill up with sediment first. Once the channels are filled in there is a flat surface which will continue to accumulate sediments. It's hard to decipher this. Are you saying that when a space opens up in the stratigraphic column that the hardness of the layers above means the overlying material wouldn't slump into it? No, this is wrong and impossible.And where are you imagining that the softer sediment that filled the channels came from? There's no soft sediment in the stratigraphic column. It's hard rock, or maybe consolidated sediments at best. And when it fills the empty space it will leave a hole in the space it just vacated, so the rock above it will fall into that space. And that rock will in turn leave behind an empty space, and so the rock above that will fall into that space. And this will happen all the up to the top of the stratigraphic column. We would see the slump of material in the stratigraphic column not just at the level where the empty space was created, but right up through all the strata to the very top of column. Every layer above the empty space would show that slumping. I'm unable to make sense of this. Please provide an example of one of the "saggy places." Why is the flood that deposits thousands of square miles of flat sediments in the American Southwest and that you insist is what floods do suddenly depositing saggy places in Michigan? Why are you assuming "there was lots of salt"? How could the stratigraphic column sag as a unit without leaving evidence behind at its boundaries with adjacent stratigraphic columns that did not sag?--Percy

Next you'll be claiming you're the most brilliant and modest person in the world. You shouldn't even be discussing the Bible in this thread. You *are* like Trump. Your posts are chock full of gems showing you don't even know what wrong is, just like Trump's tweets are chock full of tidbits revealing he doesn't even know what illegal is. There's a lot of things you need, evidence and comprehension being two of them.--Percy

My, so hostile. You know far too little to hold an opinion, let alone one strong enough for an eye roll. As the link I provided would have told you had you clicked on it (HUGE CRINOID FOSSIL - SEIROCRINUS SUBANGULARIS), the fossil was found in the Posidonia Shale near Holzmaden, Germany, an extremely fossil rich area - it's famous. I don't know when it was found, but I suspect it wasn't in winter. I don't know who found it, but his name was probably Rolf. I don't know what was found nearby, but it was likely other fossils. Here are people seeking fossils in a Holzmaden slate quarry: I guess this is what passes for intelligent discussion for you. The facts you requested aren't relevant and you have no idea what to do with them. You're just a fraud wasting people's time. Oh, sure Faith, let me fetch some more information for you to ignore. Why don't you check out this section of information I found about crinoid reproduction and life cycle at this incredibly obscure website called Wikipedia. It'll tell you that it takes 10 to 16 months for a crinoid to reach reproductive maturity.--Percy

Must be passing through your second childhood. You know, FACTS, real observable things, FACTS, not interpretations and wild imaginations.Does the above line look familiar? It should. They're your words from Message 2690. So come on, Faith, facts this time. How do you know how soft they were? And what facts are telling you this? And what facts lead you to this conclusion? But you just finished telling us that "The rocks got formed fast beneath all that weight of three miles of sedimentary layers." At that depth, in fact at much less than that depth, almost all water would have been forced out of the interstices between sedimentary particles. There would be no dampness. This is just like a Goldilocks fairy tale - you don't have any facts, but everything was just right. Whatever you need, that's the way it was. The pressure at 3 miles down is at least 13,000 pounds per square inch. There is nothing damp, and definitely nothing rolling around into pebble shapes. You're way off. Still can't seem to carry on a scientific discussion, I guess, so you just fall into your usual content-free schtick. This would be the time to start presenting some of that evidence you keep telling us you have. You said that already - look up a few lines. Amnesia much? Could you go practice your religion somewhere else?--Percy

How distant is the distant past, and how do you know? You're just trying to distract attention from your inability to discuss anything that hasn't been adulterated by your religious beliefs. So evidence from the tomb from 3600 years ago can be known. How about evidence from 5000 years ago? 6000? 10,000? A million? Whatever your answer, how do you know? Mostly you're talking nonsense. You let us know when you're ready to tell us how you found the expiration date on evidence. You're repeating the same mistakes even though correct information has been provided to you many times, probably because you ignore so many messages. You put a lot of effort into your ignorance. You keep repeating what you believe but are never able to show how it is true. Tell us about the problems with radiometric dating. Really get into the details. Blow us away with your knowledge. Yeah, that'll happen.--Percy

You seem terribly confused. The ball is in your court. You're supposed to be trying to explain the invalidity of ancient evidence, such as how far back in time evidence is valid, what is it that causes it to become invalid, and how you know this.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

JonF and NoNukes have already addressed the main gist of your post. I agree with NoNukes that you're not debating with any sincerity or honor, but I think your lack of knowledge, something you actually seem to strive for, is forcing you to make unprincipled choices, leaving you nothing but rhetorical devices to defend your views.We do not accept your views, but most of us are so familiar with them that we can repeat them back to you both backwards and forwards. This is a key point, so don't rush on to the next paragraph but ponder it for a moment. I'm saying that though we don't accept your views, we know them intimately. Most of us would have no trouble in an "exchanged roles" thread where we argued from your viewpoint.The contrary is not true. Even after all these years you do not understand the most simple principles of geology, primarily sedimentation, diagenesis, and Walther's Law. Understand that the criticism is not that you don't accept geological principles, but that you don't understand them. It would be fine for you to understand geology and reject it anyway, because then we could have productive discussions and explore your rationale. But you're instead working hard at not understanding geology and then rejecting what you don't understand. You've constructed a ridiculous parody of geology within your own mind and you argue relentlessly against it, obviously to no purpose since it's only a fiction of your own construction.Some spurious objections you use so often that they've almost become memes, such as words to the effect "life can't live on flat slabs of rock," something that no one here ever said or believes, and that you cannot explain why it is an implication of geological principles. You just say it over and over again as if repetition of lies yields truth instead of garnering contempt. These days there are two memes echoing endlessly in my mind: "There's no collusion" and "There's no life on flat slabs of rock." (The quotes aren't meant to imply you've ever phrased it precisely this way.)Responding to your message's specific content: Do you think possibly, if you rack your brain for just a bit, that this might be something that has been explained literally in the neighborhood of a hundred times over the years? Do you recall any of those answers? Might it be possible to discuss with you aspects of those answers, instead of us explaining this yet again from scratch for the 101^st time so that you can ignore it and we can gird ourselves for having to explain it for the 102^nd time later today?In other words, I'm not explaining this again. Rack your brain, search through previous posts in this thread (maybe the ones you didn't read or understand), think about it, look things up on the web, etc. Given you're astonishingly meager level of knowledge and the many things you "know" that aren't true and that are in many cases absurd and ridiculous, this isn't something you can state with even a modicum of authority. And yet when asked to explain why you think it impossible...crickets. And then a few posts later you say it again. And later again. And later again. It just never stops. You never get beyond square one. We can't prove that the bench at Welcombe Mouth Beach will become a layer of strata in the geological column. Predicting what the planet will do isn't something that can be done with any certainty. But no one was trying to state that one day that specific bench at Welcombe Mouth Beach will absolutely become strata. The point people were actually stating was that that bench represents the kind of conditions necessary to creating a layer of strata. And it would be fair to say that given current conditions that bench might indeed one day become strata, and the contact with the underlying layer would represent an angular conformity. But there's no guarantee.But Welcombe Mouth Beach is not the only place in the world where those conditions prevail. There are probably many (not necessarily with underlying tilted strata), and some of them will go on to accumulate sediments that eventually become deeply buried and turn to rock, and some of them will erode away and disappear from the geological record.But is typing that explanation of any value, or will you just ignore it and then later this afternoon or tomorrow morning ask the exact same question yet again? Has not this also been discussed at length? Do you not recall any of the many times this has been explained? What strange condition in your mind is driving you to reset discussion of not one but two topics to square one as if nothing had ever been said on the subjects before? Again, the paltry knowledge level that you've carefully maintained makes you uniquely unqualified to make such statements.So to sum up with a few questions, why is it that after all your time here, after all the times you've been corrected, why are you still saying that we must believe that fossils are of life that lived on a flat slab of rock? Why are you saying that landscapes cannot become strata? What explains you're inability to comprehend how a simple thing like an angular conformity forms?Learn something. You don't have to accept it, but to discuss it you do have to learn it, or at least start learning it.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.