What on earth do the Green River varves have to do with the Flood?
Boy have you ever lost the plot. If often seems that you fail to understand something you understood a short time before. I don't know if this means you're forgetting or just changing your mind without telling anyone or never really understood it in the first place, but it makes discussion with you really difficult.
Obviously your varves were not formed according to the timing you have in mind and you have no way of proving they were.
Why would you make such an obviously incorrect statement? Of course the age and timing of the Green River varves can be determined. The varves are deposited in pairs annually and there are millions of them. Obviously this puts a floor on the age of the Earth at millions of years. The age of the formation itself is around 50 million years, dated using stratigraphic methods, radiometric dating, paleomagnetism, and indicator fossils. This puts a floor on the age of the Earth at 50+ million years.
But I've given plenty of reason to chalk up a bunch of points on my side, stuff that undermines all the claims of great age.
If you do say so yourself. You've barely been able to get through a single sentence without committing a howler. You're not making the slightest effort to pay attention to facts. You're just making it all up as you go along.
No, one tree can be reinterpreted, varves timing can be reinterpreted
So reinterpret away. Just don't make stuff up. I don't know why you're so focused on a natural approach. For the kind of stuff you keep proposing you may as well be talking about miracles, because the real world just doesn't work that way.
We know the world was different before the Flood.
You don't even know there was a Flood, let alone what the world was like before this Flood you have no evidence for.
The huge humber of fossils is evidence of incredible fertility and vitality.
The vast majority of fossils are dated millions and millions of years before your supposed flood, and they are spread out across millions and millions of years. Their lives were not crammed into a short period between 6000 and 4000 years ago.
There were no harsh conditions, there were probably not even seasons as we know them,...
And the evidence you have for the lack of harsh conditions? Perhaps the ice layers we have from glaciers from 6000 years ago can confirm how wonderful the conditions were? And the continuous varve records we have going back through the period of the supposed Flood say that seasons then were pretty much like seasons now.
...and in that case the timing of tree rings and varves both can't be explained by today's conditions.
You can't use claims you just made up to reach any conclusions. You have to support your conclusions with facts, not fictions.
If the weather was perpetually warm and moist you could have had many tree rings in a year.
You have evidence that "the weather was perpetually warm and moist." You have evidence that "perpetually warm and moist" weather gives rise to many tree rings in a single year?
And even after the Flood the fertility and vitality could have continued for centuries, just as people continued to live long lives, though progressively shorter.
Do you have any evidence for increased fertility and vitality after the Flood, and longer lives of people?
There obviously weren't ANY locations that weren't flooded.
We already have evidence of locations that couldn't possibly have been flooded 4000 years ago.
Three miles of strata at a minimum is an enormous depth. If it flooded that deep in even one place it flooded that deep all over the earth.
There's no evidence of a flood, so this statement carries no weight. You're building castles in the sky.
And besides, that idiotic six transgressions scenario shows that water had to have covered the earth even on that scheme.
Couldn't find the source of this somment about "idiotic six transgressions." What is this?
I was always taught that in a debate, one must learn and at least understand how the other side thinks. So my question to you is why their continued presentation of evidence does not meet your qualifications for evidence.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
What a joke. You are the one who is always saying things that are physically impossible as I well remember from a couple of classic headbutts with you in years past. Arguing with you is like throwing one's mind down a rathole. And the problem at EvC of course is that contradicting the boss is not something the evo continent here much likes to do, with the occasional rare but very gingerly and insufficient exception. No, the policy at EvC is, the Creationist Is Always Wrong. You don't even need to think about the argument to know that. (So very often too, ridicule and character assassination, despite the supposed Rule against personal attack, presumably inaugurated by yourself, sufficie for a response from the evo side). So far on this thread unless I've missed something not one person here has even addressed my arguments at all. There's no need, cuz The Creationist Is Always Wrong by definition At EvC. Nobody will even consider the problem of paradigm clash as some of the explanation for the disconnect either, cuz The Creationist Is Always Wrong by definition.
First, I've presented my case and nobody is addressing it. That should be the first order of business but instead they change the argument. I've listed four different ways the strata and fossils prove the Old Earth is false, and they come back with varves. This is typical at EvC and I often don't catch it, we just go spinning along on this crazy merry go round from one topic to another before I catch that nobody has even considered my argument.
Second, I don't think I've said their evidence is not evidence, I've even said in some cases it is good evidence for the Old Earth scenario and should be chalked up to that side of the debate (mostly because I haven't studied the topic in question well enough to have an answer to it yet). Of course since much of their evidence is the same as my evidence, though for very different conclusions, if I have a clear different conclusion that is how I answer: the evidence doesn't prove what they think it proves, it proves something else. It doesn't prove the OE, it proves the YE or the Flood etc.
As a breath of fresh air in the context of your ridiculously stupid crazy taxonomic system. LOOK at the trilobites, DUH.
Yeah, look at the trilobites, DUH:
These are not the same species. Trilobytes are a class. To get to species you have to go through class => order => family => genus => species. You can't just throw away the classification system because it contradicts your Biblical beliefs.
Perhaps it says I'm one of the honest few here, and someone who can see reality...
...where the ToE makes a confusing mess of it.
I agree that what you understand about geology and the ToE is a confusing mess.
I've also made the case, as I'm sure you recall, for microevolution's necessarily decreasing genetic diversity (sometimes known as "information"} down to the hypothetical inevitable point that evolution must become impossible.
You've made this case ad infinitum, and it's been rebutted the same number of times. You've repeatedly made the point that diversity decreases to the point where evolution becomes impossible, and we've repeatedly responded that mutation maintains diversity and provides opportunity for species change. Unless you've got complete Alzheimers you must remember all these times when we've mentioned mutation. Responsible discussion demands that you move on to address the responses about mutation, instead of repeating your original claim from scratch as if it hadn't already been rebutted a zillion times. Discussion isn't rocket science. Get a clue.
I put all my theories and observations together, of course, so that if this is true, the trilobites are all trilobites,...
Well, yes, of course trilobites are all trilobites, just as mammals are all mammals. And just as all mammals are not the same species, neither are trilobites all the same species. Again, not rocket science.
It ought to be clear just from looking at them without any other argument,...
You want to look at the trilobites again? Fine, let's look at them again:
Those are definitely not the same species of trilobite.
It all hangs together,...
It doesn't all hang together. It doesn't even have anything that is true or that corresponds to reality.
Truth and Reality say the Creationist is always wrong.
No, the policy at EvC is, the Creationist Is Always Wrong.
No Faith, it is truth, facts, honesty and reality that say the Creationist is always wrong. But ignorance can be cured and everyone here will try to help any Creationist who would like to not be always wrong.
They are not the same VARIETY of trilobite, or "race" which is probably the more correct term, but they are both trilobites, a species or a Kind. A three-lobed creature that is found in many varieties or races up the Geological Column. Like different breeds of dogs or cats, "dog" and "cat" being the species, the breed being the variety or race; that is what is seen in the fossil record of the trilobites. Yes we could argue semantics forever and in fact that is often all the debates here amount to, but that is typical in a paradigm conflict.
Eh whut? Whoever said these varves formed DURING THE FLOOD? What an utterly ridiculous idea. They had to have formed afterward, over the millennia SINCE the Flood.
Assuming we're talking about the Green River formation, don't forget about turning to rock. You have to get 6 million layers and then turn them to rock.
Faith, if you're not going to invoke miracles then you have to invoke the same natural laws and processes that govern the world today and that governed it in the past. If you're going to do that then you need to learn something about how natural laws and processes actually work. If you're just going to make up your own rules of nature then you may as well be invoking miracles.
Re: Truth and Reality say the Creationist is always wrong.
You're so funny jar. "Ignorance" is Evospeak for disagreeing with either the Old Earth or Theory of Evolution.
No disagreeing with the fact of Old Earth or the fact of evolution or the fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the fact of the reality that exists in the biological samples ever found is actually called Willful Ignorance and that cannot be cured.
What on earth are you talking about? I take the position that the varves support the Old Earth as usually presented, and don't try to address that particular issue except to conjecture that they are not a yearly phenomenon but occur much more frequently.
But your "conjecture" is not founded upon evidence, or even upon anything that is true or consistent with anything else.
But from the Flood perspective, which I prove by many other means,...
The only means that exist to prove anything is through supporting evidence, of which you've been able to muster exactly none. The only thing you've been to prove is how little you know about natural processes.
Don't throw this opaque pseudoproblem at me, spell it out if it matters so much to you.
In other words, you don't understand what he's saying, but you're sure he's wrong anyway.
The arguments I've given are quite solid.
It's not how solid you think your arguments are that counts, it's how solid others think they are. Probably the wrong analogy for a woman, but as Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." Your ideas have not survived in the ring. It's almost inhuman the way you keep sending these ideas out to get massacred time and again.
You can't answer an argument about one thing with an argument about another. Address MY arguments if you can instead of changing the subject. I've given what, four or five arguments that should be chalked up to my side.
You not only haven't given a single argument that hasn't been rebutted, you don't usually even get through a single sentence without getting something or another wrong. You've literally offered nothing of merit.
You can have the varves and the tree rings on your side until further evidence is available to explain them better.
The varves and tree rings by themselves falsify the possibility of the Flood.
As I said, put varves on your side. I do not have an answer and don't normally attempt one except to suppose they had to have occurred far more frequently than you allow.
The value of your supposin' is less than worthless.
But all you are doing is changing the subject and distracting from my good arguments against the OE/ToE. If you can't answer those then chalk them up to my side.
I haven't noticed RAZD changing subjects, so that's just more misdirection from you. And you haven't offered any good arguments. Almost every single thing you've said has been rebutted, disproved, invalidated, refuted and dispatched.