Summations Only

And biology and geology, and genetics and palaeontology and cosmology and molecular genetics and physics.....I think I've spotted a trend.

I think Moose may have misspoke a bit in his second paragraph. He wasn't supporting your flood scenario but introducing a point against it. When he said "life (as fossils) were growing where they were found" what I think he meant to say was that life became entombed and eventually became fossils in the same environment where they lived. I think he used the crinoid fossil as an example because it fit his point so well, an animal that lives in a single place its entire life attached by a stalk to a rock. Here's his image: And here's a page of information about it: HUGE CRINOID FOSSIL - SEIROCRINUS SUBANGULARIS. It was found in shale (just what you'd expect for an animal living in offshore waters) from the Jurassic period. When it died it was buried in silt and mud, eventually buried deeply enough to lithify the silt and mud and fossilize the crinoid. The slab also contains a few belemnites - they're the thin wedge-like shapes. One lies directly across the crinoid stalk near the person's left hand. Moose doesn't describe it, but the crinoid (and the belemnites) lived in an offshore environment within a few miles of the coast. Runoff from land or sediment from streams and rivers flowed into the sea. The heaviest sediment, mostly sand, fell out of suspension at or very near the coast, where beaches form. The lighter sediment such as silt and mud could not fall out of suspension in the energetic water of the coast (the waves), so it was carried further out to sea where, in quieter waters, it slowly fell out of suspension to the sea floor. A common rate of deposition would have been on the order of inches per thousand years.In this environment sea creatures' life was unimpeded by the very, very light fall of sediments, far, far too slow to actually bury anything and preserve it before sea scavengers consumed it, but burials of recently dead life would still happen. I think one common way would be during heavy rains or storms or during spring melt when huge sediment loads could be suddenly swept into the oceans from runoff from land and from rivers and streams, or sediments could be swept up by stormy seas from sea bottoms. Moose and/or Edge might want to comment on how they see burials occurring.--Percy

Re: ""life (as fossils) were growing where they were found"". I have no idea of why I put that "(as fossils)" in there - It indeed makes no sense. Maybe it was a bit of relict text that should have been eliminated in the editing.The main point intended, is that something like that crinoid was too fragile to not be broken up, while alive or after death, by any sort of strong current. It didn't get washed in from some distant place. The pictured specimen is remarkable in its preservation, somehow having escaped destruction by predators and scavengers. As I said before, even if the fossil origin is not obvious, the bulk of limestones are made up of the destroyed calcium carbonate shells etc of critters (disclaimer - Not a carbonate petrologist of a paleontology expert).Surprising to me, was to find that modern stalked crinoids do have a little self-mobility. Not going to outrun much anything though.Corrections to any misstatement I may have made are welcome.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Touch up subtitle.

Well, as you know, my job is to fit it into the Flood. Let me know if any ideas occur.

All that is evo fairy tale/interpretation, like "Tapeats beach" and other such imaginary landscapes that always make my eyes roll so hard they want to jump out of my skull. Facts such as where it was found in this real world, circumstances of its finding, by whom, when, what else was found nearby and so on, would be far more useful. You know, FACTS, real observable things, FACTS, not interpretations and wild imaginations.Oh and information about how fast crinoids grow would be helpful. I've googled it but not found the answer. Others here do much better at that sort of research than I do. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why would the circumstances of its finding and who found it matter?The other items you mention are well known and readily available to anyone interested in truth.

Evo/Geo Fairy Tale Landscape. Reminds me of "Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea ... But they weren't all THAT soft. The rocks got formed fast beneath all that weight of three miles of sedimentary layers and the heat of the friction and the volcano. Geology always imputes way too much time to just about any kind of geological event. If the movement at the GU broke off chunks as I'm supposing happened because of the dampness of the rocks (though pretty hard from compaction), then I'd also suppose some of the chunks got rolled into pebble shapes, you know, the way you can roll damp clay into balls between your hands. Yes I know you say faults can't do that, I'm not even to go there, but since you believe in all kinds of evo fairy tales about imaginary landscapes and seascapes in the unknowable distant past, I can't take your views about what happened in the distant past very seriously. Maybe most faults don't produce pebbles and cobbles, but this movement occurred during the Flood, a whole nother set of circumstances. Not your usual fault.All you've got is imaginary landscapes, at least mine has an independent witness from the time itself to a great event even if it doesn't spell out all the particulars. It spells out enough to contradict the whole Old Earth fairy tale and suggest a very different explanation for the observed phenomena. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Probably. But then they should be the topic and not the fairy tale, since, you know, they are facts and the fairy tale isn't.

Well, that depends. Are you going to repeat something that in the past you've ignored rebuttals? Apparently you are going to repeat an old rebutted claim. So to repeat just one of the many forms of rebuttal, and yet you like forensics, which is the study of evidence left behind in the past. Perhaps you heard about the recent arrest of the Golden State Killer based upon DNA evidence from over 30 years ago. There is no statute of limitations on the age of evidence. Ancient evidence is how we know about ancient civilizations, for instance this Canaanite tomb:

Archaeologists were stunned to discover the tombreplete with burial offerings and human remainsundisturbed for some 3,600 years

So if you believe claims about the ancient Canaanites can't be tested or replicated, why? And if you believe they can, then how old does evidence have to be before you believe it cannot be tested or replicated, and why?--Percy

Still nothing but meaningless noise. Why do you insist on blathering about a subject of which you are incapable of understanding or discussing?And why does who discovered it and under what circumstances matter?

Nothing in the dstant past can be replicated or tested. My complaint about evo/geo interpretations is that they are regarded as fact despite this handicap, though based completely on pure imagination from what, bits of flotsam found in the flat slabs of layered sedimentary rocks.Of course some things can be known from the past, like the tomb, but I'm talking about THEORY, INTERPRETATION, not just facts. All that stuff about "landscapes" such as a beach or a coastline environment and that sort of thing constructed entirely out of bits found in a rock and absolutely nothing else. And then I try to point out that you couldn't have any such landscapes where the rocks now are because they cover way too much territory and are nothing but flat sedimentary rocks which couldn't have formed from a landscape anyway, but the idea is so ingrained despite its impossibility nobody will ever see what's wrong with it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

DNA is very solid evidence, but bits and pieces of stuff found in a rock evoke imaginary landscapes to the Evo/Old Earth paradigm-saturated mind that are unprovable and in fact impossible and actually falsify the whole paradigm. And DNA couldn't tell you about any of that anyway. Neither could radiometric dating.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just as a ballpark estimate, how many thousands of times must we refute this obvious falsehoood?

You might try once. Or refute the usual straw man for the millionth time.

We can understand this to be you engaging in the denial that is your trademark. And now that positive attempts to provide your own evidence have failed, reverting back to that denial is all you have left. In some ways, such tactics are an improvement over flat out lying. But they are no more persuasive.Obviously, we cannot rewind history to see it again. However, that is not the only way to verify a hypothesis about the past. If a hypothesis or interpretation is correct, it leaves evidence. More importantly, if the hypothesis is not correct, that may imply that other evidence should be there. We can find which is the case and generate more confidence in our hypothesis. That process can be repeated to generate more confirmation. If the evidence is present, then there is some confirmation. We can also watch current processes create the same effects. That is additional confirmation.Multiple lines of inquiry leading to the same result provide additional confirmation. Not certainty, but yes confidence that the hypothesis was correct. You want to fit your entire argument into that space between certainly and quite likely true? Be my guest.One problem for you is that geology is only one line of inquiry that tells us that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not an accurate description of the pre-history and early of the earth. Paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, genetics, nuclear physics among other things, all point to the same conclusion. The universe and the earth are billions of years old, and you have nothing to offer as an alternative that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.We can contrast that method with you employ of just making up stuff when you don't have any method whatsoever of confirming anything and then lying that you've settled the issue. We can watch a person with zero experience pontificate about what is feasible all while saying obviously wrong things about geology or even how to establish a breed of dogs when we can look up how those things actually work or were done.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.