Summations Only

You're supposed to grasp the argument and think about it, but nobody is doing that.

Wish to thank caffeine for his sane and fair post on the Discussion Problems thread {Message 624}. It's astonishing that anyone on the evo side would take the trouble to point out this obvious flouting of the rules.He does assume I misunderstand though, and I don't, I actually do have a reasonable objection to the impossible physical situation Geology imposes on the strata, but as with all the arguments I've presented here it will not be recognized, ever.And here comes PaulK just repeating the usual accusations on that thread: I do forget arguments and it is underhanded of people not to repeat them when I do, but it is usually the case that I've forgotten them because they are irrelevant, they do not successfully refute my views at all, and I am not lying about anything, I disagree and I accuse you of being biased because you are and you have not defeated anything I've said."\Absolute misrepresentation.
"I am sticking around on the thread just to keep saying that as usual my opponents are misunderstanding and falsely accusing me in just the way PaulK did. Caffeine is right that that's pretty much all that is happening on this thread and that it shows a crowd of evos disobeying the rules. It's nice to get that acknowledged once in a great while, but it doesn't matter much in the end since it's not going to stop.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It must be pointed out that you think that ridiculous falsehoods are reasonable objections. Given your proven failures of judgement even you should recognise that your opinion is hardly reliable. (But of course since you are so determined to rationalise away your own errors you will never admit to it).And so far you have resisted any attempts to get you to even make a reasonable argument which is hardly promising.

It's wasting my breath to do more than object to the irrelevance of the arguments against me. I've produced so many thoroughly detailed arguments on this forum that are answered in stupid irrelevant ways I no longer have any reason to keep doing it. As so often happens, I'm again just looking for the right time to exit this crazy place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Actually, ...not.No one said that the sea floor is all anything. The geologic record actually reflects the present sea floor. Some places are wide expanses of flat-lying sediments, and others show relief including erosion. The point is that both are possible despite your absolutist approach.

Dr A implied it was mostly flat and Tangle took him seriously. I had nothing to do with it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Claiming to have a reasonable argument that you won’t share is hardly convincing when we know that you will happily state ridiculous falsehoods. Even you have already admitted that a particular claim was a ridiculous falsehood in the same post.
(And thank you for doing that it really did illustrate the problem you present)And as we have seen today you will make strange claims, refuse to explain them and blame your opponents for not addressing your point. The fact that you won’t say what your point actually is rather makes that impossible, doesn’t it?Or do I need to remind you of your assertion that since you don’t accept the interpretations of mainstream geology you are entitled to misrepresent them ?If you do not understand that much of your output is rationalisation - and often very poor rationalisation at that - you really can’t assess the quality of the arguments here.

Nothng but the usual false accusations.

Oh really ?Here’s the post where you repeat a ridiculous falsehood shortly after admitting it was a ridiculous falsehood. Message 702Perhaps you can explain why the animals must have to live on bare rock when the process of lithification takes place deep underground?You should realise by now that accusing me of making false accusations is practically begging me to dig up the proof. If you don’t like that, you only have yourself to blame.

I'm not going to read all that, it's up to you to characterize it. Of coruse you misunderstood it whatever it is because you always do and then accuse me of lying as you are doing now.Nothing could live on a buried rock, but eventually no matter what the scenario one rock has to lie on top of another to become the stratigraphic column, so there has to be a barren exposed rock at some point and that's when nothing could live on it and at that point there wouldn't be any possibility of anything living at that location at all.You never get anything right but you sling the accusations freely anyway. You should have been suspended LONG ago.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm not going to read all that, it's up to you to characterize it. Of coruse you misunderstood it whatever it is because you always do and then accuse me of lying as you are doing now

---

It’s your post. If you like you can read my reply which points out your error. But really I said enough for you to recognise it.

quote:

---

Nothing could live on a buried rock, but eventually no matter what the scenario one rock has to lie on top of another to become the stratigraphic column, so there has to be a barren exposed rock at some point and that's when nothing could live on it.

---

There are times whenparts of the surface are bare rock - but that is a consequence of erosion, or lava flows solidifying, not the lithification of sediment. But there doesn’t HAVE to be bare rock, and in the case of continuous sedimentation there never would be. The geological column would just build up incrementally one layer after another, each layer eventually lithifying as the pressure of burial builds up with the sediment accumulating on top.

quote:

---

You never get anything right but you sling the accusations freely anyway

---

That is more like you, as you are demonstrating.

In that scenario it is certain that animal life would just have to disappear with the formation of rock out of its landscape. That is why there have been all these speculations about deep burial of a landscape with some other kind of material than a sediment that becomes another rock on top of it. Because it would take DEEP burial to lithify the sediment.But the whole thing absolutely absurd no matter how it is imagined. At some point you have to have rock on rock and nothing could live on it.quote:Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In that scenario it is certain that animal life would just have to disappear with the formation of rock out of its landscape.

---

By the time the landscape is deeply buried enough to become rock the animals that lived on it are long dead. They aren’t exactly going anywhere then.

quote:

---

That is why there have been all these speculations about deep burial of a landscape with some other kind of material than a sediment that becomes another rock on top of it.

---

Wrong. That’s the product of scientifically studying how sedimentary rocks would form based on observation of nature.

quote:

---

But the whole thing absolutely absurd no matter how it is imagined.

---

Because animals that died many thousands of years ago are need somewhere to live.I really must thank you for your help in proving my point.

You are the one denying that there is ongoing sedimentation that is producing flat deposits, no global flood needed.

Why would animals buried in soft sediments suddenly disappear when the soft sediments were buried even deeper and lithified?