Summations Only

quote:

---

You are repeating what has already been answered by me, don't pretend you won the debate just because you made some silly rejoinder to my argument

---

That is untrue. You have NEVER made any serious analysis of fossil abundance, not attempted to show that the Flood is a better explanation for it.In your edit you quote a figure of 43% more land space - although there is no sign that figure is based on anything more than assumption. Even if it had a solid basis it is meaningless until related to the actual fossil abundance, which you have not done.

quote:

---

This debate has been argued over and over and over because you refuse to acknowledge my claims, and I certainly refuse to acknowledge your silly stuff.

---

In other words you expect us to accept your assertions even if you cannot support them and even if we have solid grounds for rejecting them.Pointing to an observed fact, like the order in the fossil record is not silly. Calling it an illusion or a made-up concept - without any support whatsoever IS silly. Very silly.

quote:

---

What you are saying about crinoids is so nonsensical I have nothing to say about it

---

Really ? What is nonsensical about the fact that crinoids are very common fossils or that they lived on the sea floor ?

The 43% more habitable land mass pre-Flood is based on the estimate of 57% UNinhabitable land mass estimated for today's planet due to our deserts and high mountains, an estimate given in Message 662. I didn't make it up, it's apparently a reasonable sound estimate so you have to question that, not me. Then I added the fertility factor to that additional 43% of habitable space and conclude that there was more than enough abundance of life to account for all the fossils. Really all the calculations aren't necessary, the sketch of the differences alone should be enough to make the point.Since you have no idea what number of fossils can be supported by what amount of fertile land mass, or even what number of fossils actually exist anyway, you had no right to even suggest that the current count couldn't have been produced by the Flood in the first place. There is plenty of reason to think that whatever number you imagine should exist can be multiplied many times over for the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The 43% more habitable land mass pre-Flood is based on the estimate of 57% UNinhabitable land mass estimated for today's planet due to our deserts and high mountains, an estimate given in Message 662. I didn't make it up, it's apparently a reasonable sound estimate so you have to question that, not me.

---

As I said, it’s based on assumption. You haven’t shown that there were no deserts or high mountains (and where would species adapted to those environments live if there were none ?)

quote:

---

Then I added the fertility factor to that additional 43% of habitable space and conclude that there was more than enough abundance of life to account for all the fossils.

---

So you jumped to a conclusion without checking the facts. This is supposed to help your case ?

quote:

---

Really all the calculations aren't necessary, the sketch of the differences alone should be enough to make the point.

---

It’s enough for you because you aren’t interested in the truth of the matter. If you were then of course you would need to consider the actual abundance of fossils.

quote:

---

Since you have no idea what number of fossils can be supported by what amount of fertile land mass, or even what number of fossils actually exist anyway, you had no right to even suggest that the current count couldn't have been produced by the Flood in the first place.

---

You are making assumptions about the state of my knowledge, ignoring past discussion and displaying a remarkable degree of hypocrisy. Unless you know these things - and you clearly don’t - what right do you have to claim that the Flood is a good explanation of fossil abundance ?

quote:

---

There is plenty of reason to think that whatever number you imagine should exist can be multiplied many times over for the Flood.

---

Really ? What reason would that be ?

As I said, the lack of uninhabitable deserts and mountains is an inference from a few biblical descriptions that imply a milder fertile more life-enhancing planet at the Creation and a hostile environment afterward. It's a very reasonable assumption.But I realized while about to go to sleep that I got the 43% wrong, it would be the current 57% of the land mass that is uninhabitable that would have been habitable and much more fertile in the pre-Flood world. That increases the abundance of living things quite a bit which would account for an even greater abundance of fossils left by the Flood.You made the rash claim that the Flood couldn't account for the great abundance of fossils, and you made it without a clue to how many fossils you are talking about. I simply answered that you are underestimating the differences between today's fallen world and the pre-Flood world as inferred from biblical passages that suggest an enormously greater habitable land mass (as well as oceans for that matter) with enormously greater fertility before the Flood.Assumption isn't the same thing as reasonable inference from biblical clues.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I said, the lack of uninhabitable deserts and mountains is an inference from a few biblical descriptions that imply a milder fertile more life-enhancing planet at the Creation and a hostile environment afterward. It's a very reasonable assumption.

---

I don’t think that relying on highly questionable inferences from the Bible is at all reasonable in the context of this discussion. Not that it matters when you still have no figures anyway.

quote:

---

But I realized while about to go to sleep that I got the 43% wrong, it would be the current 57% of the land mass that is uninhabitable that would have been habitable and much more fertile in the pre-Flood world. That increases the abundance of living things quite a bit which would account for an even greater abundance of fossils left by the Flood

---

But they are not uninhabitable by animals at all. They may be less hospitable but animals do live in mountains and deserts today, and the fossil record certainly shows animals found in desert environments in the past. The guy you quoted was very likely referring to human habitation - and likely large-scale human habitation at that.

A few animals adapted to hostile spaces hardly compares to the huge numbers that could live easily in the fertile spaces of the original Created world. It doesn't help your argument to split hairs and ignore the salient point of the argument.

quote:

---

A few animals adapted to hostile spaces hardly compares to the huge numbers that could live easily in the fertile spaces of the original Created world.

---

Regardless the number needs to be taken into account (and not just with convenient guesses)

quote:

---

It doesn't help your argument to split hairs and ignore the salient point of the argument.

---

What salient point ? You certainly haven’t produced any figures for fossil abundance or offered any reason to think that the actual abundance is better explained by the Flood. You would think that after repeating this claim for so many years you would have something more than a guess.

Once again you retreat from discussion into spouting your cults dogma.That response is not a model, process, procedure, mechanism or method that would allow a flood to sort either the geology or fossils into the order that exists in reality.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin allow has a "w"

So, all of these organisms lived at the same time.In that case why do we not see one hippo fossil mixed in with dinosaur fossils, or one tree preserved in Cambrian rocks. How about a blue whale in the Precambrian seas?I'm sorry but the aftermath of a flood does not look like nicely ordered sediments, clean, finely layered preserving the details of life.And what about subaerial volcanic rocks of all ages?You really need to think about your story before defending it among knowledgeable people.

Yup. I'm sure even you could guess at all that based on my creationist principles. Hippo simply hasn't been discovered. You haven't dug into every fossil bed yet, right? Trees got buried higher up, probably something to do with hydrodynamics. Perhaps blue whales didn't make it up onto the land and all perished in the sea -- or maybe even a lot of them survived. They wouldn't have fit on the ark you know. There are plenty examples of layers created by running water, and as ought to be obvious, and indeed has been emphasized enough times to make you aware of it in any case, a worldwide Flood that covered every bit of the planet, remaining at its peak for a couple of months, wouldn't be anything like "A flood" on the usual scale and certainly would not leave the same kind of evidence. Oh I may be wrong about this or that, but you certainly must be too, because although I'm sure you do honest geology you are unfortunately doing it without regard to the God who made it all. My guesses may miss some of the physical evidence of what God did, but at least I know He did it. Geology would be a very different enterprise if you acknowledged the Creator God. You know, examine all the evidence with the knowledge that it supports the biblical accounts.Edited 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.

That is not a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that explains the order of the geology or fossils as they are found in reality. That is not a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that explains the order of the geology or fossils as they are found in reality. That is not a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that explains the order of the geology or fossils as they are found in reality and it would still leave evidence which is simply not to be found.Sorry Faith but your cults dogma does not trump reality.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Calling historical evangelical/Protestant biblical Christianity a "cult" is one of the most stupid and blasphemous things you say. But you say so many it's hard to prioritize them properly.I'm not claiming to provide a model. I've provided it many times over in the course of this debate over the years. Go on bleating, you're just wasting your breath.The evidence pf the Flood in bazillions of fossils in a miles-deep stack of water-deposited sediments over thousands of square miles is in-your-face evidence. It takes a bizarre level of denial to pretend there isn't any.Edited 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.

The problem with your "evidence" is, and always has been, the dating.The dating clearly shows when those different layers were deposited. It was far from what you keep claiming.RAZD has posted several threads outlining both the evidence and the massive agreement among the many different methods of dating.To counter this all you have is belief and denial. That's pretty thin sauce in the face of the solid evidence for dating.We realize that your belief has overwhelmed logic, evidence, judgement and the rest. You've heard, I'm sure, that a mind is a terrible thing to waste but you're doing just that by persisting in your fantasy make-believe worldview and ignoring reality.

quote:

---

The evidence pf the Flood in bazillions of fossils in a miles-deep stack of water-deposited sediments over thousands of square miles is in-your-face evidence.

---

No it isn’t. And we know that. If you take a very superficial look at the fossil record it looks like something the Flood might have done. But that’s it. And you know that. That is the whole of your case.It’s hardly adequate even as it stands. There’s nothing in it that you wouldn’t reasonably expect if the mainstream view were true. And if you don’t realise that you must be remarkably dim.But, of course taking deeper look at the evidence - which needs to be done if you are to make a real case - explodes your claim. So of course you don’t do that, you refuse to talk about it. Instead you resort to this arrogant bullying deception.

quote:

---

It takes a bizarre level of denial to pretend there isn't any.

---

It takes a bizarre sort of mind to think that this aggressive dishonesty will work here when it has failed so often before.

To have a source for that vast volume of sediments (not all water deposited by the way) one must have a source at a higher elevation. In other words, mountains or at least a lot of substantial hills. Those mountains must be weathered and eroded to produce the detritus that is then transported to the deposition site. Short of a massive miracle (hyper-weathering and hyper-erosion by the will of God), such is going to require a LOT of time - Certainly way more that a one year event.And that is just covering the detrital (rock fragment) sedimentation. The biochemical sedimentation (limestones) is another very time consuming process. To get the Calcium carbonate into solution to then be biochemically precipitated also requires a lot of weathering/dissolving of pre-existing material.These are but two examples of geologic processes that require a LOT of time to happen.I'm not sure if you're one of them, but a lot of young Earth creationists want to deny that those mountains even existed "pre-flood". No mountains, no detrital sediment source.Moose