Summations Only

I'm talking about the Flood only because somebody brought up points that have to be answered in terms of the Flood. Otherwise, no, that's not what this thread is about. Sure, I CAN talk about it when necessary, but no, that is not what this thread is about. The argument about how you get from a landscape to a big flat rock in the stratigraphic column has nothing to do with the Flood. In that argument I do my best to stick to what I understand standard Geology to say about how environments form, including marine environments, how sediments accumulate and lithify and all that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I'm not calling anyone stu*pid, as I said. Edge's recent posts show that he can't think about things except in terms of standard Geology, that's what I said and that's what I meant. I don't know whether jar could if he tried, but everything he says is an assertion of the standard explanation for everything, quite as if he can't consider any other possible interpretation, and it may be that he can't. That's what I mean by a paradigm cramp. It's not a lack of intelligence at all, it's a habitual interpretive point of view that is set in concrete.

I've tried to use your proposal but I'm not coming up with a plan. Also I'm not confused, I'm waiting for Stile to get back to resume the topic.I'd really appreciate your leaving out the personal comments. I can ignore you too if necessary.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evolution over millions of yearsMy reasoning for why millions of years would kill off all life is that microevolutionary changes only need a few hundred years and in some cases such as the Pod Mrcaru lizards less than thirty years, to effect dramatic changes. I've many times argued how evolution can't continue beyond the boundary of the Kind, but if it could, even those changes shouldn't need more than some thousands of years. You should be able to get mammals from reptiles within some such time frame, oh give it tens or even hundreds of thousands, though even that is overkill, but millions is ridiculous. I suppose if things did go on living and changing that long none of them would even remotely resemble anything living today. I mentioned the trilobites that are found in several strata in different forms. The usual idea is that they changed over millions of years. On something like the Pod Mrcaru time frame a few decades at most should do it, oh give it a few centuries if you must. But of course the layers do not represent time periods at all, just the deposition of sediments according to the movements of the waves and tides in the Flood. (And the reason nothing would go on living for millions of years is that the Fall has brought about the progressive deterioration of the entire Creation. If you want evidence for that consider the number of extinctions being tallied)Walther's Law and the FloodWalther's Law explains sedimentary layering by increasing depths of sea water, that makes it a very useful concept for the Flood whether the order is perfect or not. However, RAZD put up a post a long time ago showing how it accounts for the layers in the Grand Canyon. But it may not be necessary for the order to be perfect to account for the Flood or phases of the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I appreciate your idea and I appreciated it when you first gave it. I don't really know where to start to break it down although I like the idea very much. Maybe I'll eventually be able to do that. Right now I'm letting Stile's scenario determine the stages of the problem. Depending on where that goes when he gets back I may make a bigger effort to do as you suggest.

Absolute screaming nonsense, just the usual ridiculous flat-out assertion without the slightest bit of actual evidence. The way all evolution and Old Earth stuff is presented. It's announced as fact, not even a "geologists believe..." to give it a veneer of credibility. This is how the public is treated by this kind of science, meaning the kind that CAN'T be proved, the historical stuff that is all imaginative guesswork. Even the hard sciences aren't presented with this degree of flat-out dogma. See, just flat-out statement as if it were fact. It isn't fact and it can't be fact, it's the current idea based on a whole bunch of ponderings and iffy measurements, none of which could possibly be proved but have to be taken on faith as it were, on the say-so of *Science.*As I pointed out there isn't the slightest observable evidence in the strata of any degree of difference in age whatever. The "oldest" layers have no more signs of decrepitude than "younger" layers, no more erosion, no more appearance of any kind of breakdown or sagging or dissolution whatever, no more crumbling or surface erosion, nothing at all. Even after the first few million years you'd expect SOME kind of changes, even before the layers of the next "time period" were laid down. But no, look at the straight-edged flatness of the Tapeats where it is most exposed for instance. Stand back and look at the layers as a unit. THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME AS FAR AS FORM GOES. Bla bla bla bla bla. The "warm shallow seas" are determined by the sediment of the rock and perhaps fossil contents. If the sediment was simply transported and dumped you'd never figure it out would you? If there is reason to consider the sea shallow (and for some reason most of them in the GC are considered to have been warm and shallow) perhaps it's because the sediment was deposited by the encroaching part of the Flood which WOULD have been shallow. And warm? Well, the pre-Flood world is considered to have been rather lush and tropical. HOWEVER, the whole idea is nonsensical because it's based on the kind of sediment and the assumption that it was deposited in an ancient time period. If none of that is true the whole idea of warm shallow seas disintegrates. It's a flat rock, not dunes.You all try to tell me my beliefs have no credibility compared to your exalted *science,* but this stuff is nothing but a flimflam put over on us credulous human beings. The credibility of this kind of flat-out indefensible assertion ought to be ZERO. You claim EVIDENCE. Boy is that a delusion. Some tea leaves in a rock basically. You don't WANT to believe in the Flood, that's the real explanation for all this hoo-ha. Scripture SAYS the Flood is denied out of Willful Ignorance. You all turn that around to claim the ignorance is on the other side. Lies and blather. Wake up.

I rightly decided not to read your posts some time back. Unfrotunately I haven't stuck to that promise, but I think I'll go back to it. Who needs to read this kind of stuff: Ugh.

It's more than denial. That dogmatic declarative way of telling us what we're supposed to believe, about something that couldn't possibly be proved although it's mere science, ought to be rejected by all, including you. It's an abuse of language and intelligence and even you should see that. It's a bamboozle, it's a way of forcing us to believe something without any effort even to try to persuade us. It's one thing to preach God, since there's nothing else that one can do but preach God, it's another to preach Science as if it were God, especially considering all those sanctimonious appeals to Evidence you all aiffirm.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure they work. That's because you consistently confuse the physical level of a rock -- or its depth or position in the geologic column -- with the ridiculous ancient age you assign to it. The level is all you need to know, the age is a lie.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn't the thread for it but if you want to start another to defend your contention that what you are calling a delta was ever really a delta, and why it matters whether it was a delta or not, I'd be interested.

Epistemopathy. That’s a term that was used by a "maverick" psychologist back in the sixties with the wit and the insight to expose the field of Psychology as generally sick with "epistemopathology, " suffering from symptoms that would in any other context be considered schizophrenia. The term just popped into my head to describe historical geology. Psychology of course is an interpretive science that can't be proved, just as historical geology is (not physical geology, but historical geology), and although I don't recall that fact being described as such, it has to be the cause of the tendency to dogma in any scientific context about stuff that can't be known, only interpreted. (No, you do NOT see "sand dunes" in a rock. You see a rock with sand grains that follow a particular pattern. No you do NOT see a 'delta" in a rock: you see certain chemical and physical properties that you associate with that sort of environment.)The problem with that Wikipedia dogma is that it treats interpretations as facts, but then that's what all the historical/interpretive sciences do. It reifies them, that's another word for the epistemopathy involved. Why can't *science* just honestly describe the observed phenomena and stop mistaking interpretation for fact? The assumptions of Old Earthism are bad enough, but there are worse examples when you get into descriptions of evolution based on fossils.Yes I suppose I should go look some up. Oh I know I should, and in another frame of mind I could list dozens, but sorry, right now my head hurts, my eyes hurt. I couldn't get anyone to see any of this anyway. What is needed is a maverick geologist (or evolutionary biologist) who can properly diagnose the epistemopathy. Since I'm not a geologist my efforts are a lost cause.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to be demonstrating yet another species of epistemopathy though I'm not sure what to call it. Confusion of revelation with science perhaps?

No, you should make it clear that it is an interpretation instead of describing it as if it were a fact. There is no way I know of to prove an interpretation is not factual. It's an interpretation, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Other interpretations can be offered and that's about it. All I'm saying is it's an epistemological error, or even a form of fraud, to describe an interpretation, which cannot be proved, as a fact. And there are other interpretations that could be mentioned too, such as the Flood interpretations of many of the phenomena that are described as ancient as if it were fact. Actually that's not true. Partially true at best. It would have to be a well known geologist or biologist in good standing, not a creationist. Sigmund Koch who was the critic of Psychology I mentioned, had first established a reputation as a Psychologist at the top of the field, through many papers and projects. See above. Sorry to have to tell you this, but revered though EvC is among its regulars, the level of thought here isn't exactly the highest quality.

Of course I can't help myself, I have to think in terms of shorter time periods about everything, and I suspect that rocks that are said to require great heat and pressure requiring huge amounts of time, probably don't need that much time. For instance, I believe the schist and the granite at the base of the Grand Canyon probably formed quite rapidly during whatever tectonic disturbance upended the Supergroup and sent magma intrusions into the lowest rocks. I also think the Flood did deposit sediments to quite an enormous height, over six miles at the Grand Canyon for instance, and that it all eroded down to the level of the Kaibab with the receding Flood waters. I'd give it a few years max to get the job done. Even more than that could have been carried off at other locations. Getting your amphibolite to the surface might also entail volcanic force? I mean, the explanation that first occurs isn't always the only explanation possible. Certainly not the OE idea of "some time" if the Flood did it. One advance and retreat brought about by the Flood makes sense. Whatever the evidence is that is interpreted as four of them most likely should be reinterpreted in terms of one. Oops, there you go assuming the standard OE time spans. It isn't all that vast and complicated if the Flood explains as much of it as I think it does.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are calling a general critique of the thinking in a field "name calling?" Am I in the Twilight Zone? That absolute nonsense plus some other remarks by you and others are my cue to take another long break. Good grief.