Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

You probably don't mean to be patronizing but that's what you are doing. Please just back off and read a while. Thanks.

Sorry to be so touchy, but your questions ARE patronizing, and I would just ignore them except that then people get on my case for ignoring posts. Just put in some time at EvC for a while. You are new and I know nothing about your posting style.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 04:39 PM

All the geologists appear to have is rocks with certain characteristics that remind them of this or that kind of environment where these characteristics have been encountered before. The rock under consideration is sandwiched tightly in a stack of layers of different rocks that reaches enormous heights in some locations. This is not like digging up an ash-covered city. This requires prodigious imaginative speculation that starts out with all kinds of preconceptions that don't apply to the scenario you are describing. They assume the rock got there in sedimentary form for starters (which is obvious enough I agree), and was laid down over a period of millions of years (not at all obvious), and therefore represents a time period rather than just rock that happens to have some features normally associated with desert origin or marine origin or some other kind of origin. Since they assume those millions of years, that leads them to think the whole region in which that rock formed had to be a "desert environment" or a "marine environment." Sometimes one will encounter a geo-inspired illustration of an "environment" that is assumed to have prevailed over the entire earth based on such hints.There is even an illustration of a blackened earth somewhere online that I found months ago, black trees even, to represent the "environment" supposedly represented by the "Carboniferous" period, as if any life at all could live in such an "environment."There is nothing DIRECT about the interpretations I'm trying to bring up, as there is in the case of an ash-covered city.I don't need a lesson in how to make interpretations from obvious evidence.Again, I'm sorry to be so touchy but for pete's sake, I'm not an idiot. My original post MEANS something. How nice it would be if some time people would just GET THE POINT instead of quibbling over every little detail. Sheesh.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 05:15 PM

It is true, this distinction is so obvious to me I can't imagine how to explain it beyond presenting the examples of it, which I expect others to recognize as I do, but they don't.

What do you think of the idea that the Carboniferous Period was a "landscape" all covered with black carbon, in which trees grew and animals roamed?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 05:49 PM

Actually, I think even in the case of the find of an ash-buried city, the fact that it was found this way is important to the story, and as a matter of fact it isn't usually left out the way the steps on the way to the "desert environment" are often left out.

Maybe I'm just getting too old for this. My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious. It should be obvious upon reading through the examples, so really, I just have nothing more to say.

The point about these conjectures is that they aren't just conjectures of the sort we always build on observations or evidence, they are complete imaginative fantasy scenarios that cannot be tested at all. Yes they are built upon observed phenomena, or "evidence" but because they are just these scenarios they really should never be spoken of in the terms of finality they usually are.

I haven't proposed anything in the way of motivations. I don't assume anything underhanded.

I know, it IS ridiculous, but I did actually find this site that appeared to be quite serious, that depicted such a landscape. I haven't been able to find it again.

Seems to me that coal would have been produced in similar conditions wherever, but that the Flood would have provided beaucoup similar conditions.

Well, imagine THAT, the CARBONIFEROUS layer!! There you have it!!This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:40 PM

Well, tell me how you plan to test the conjecture that a certain rock formation was created in a certain kind of environment. You can show how the conjecture was arrived at, but you can't test it to see if it's true.Or tell me how you plan to test the conjecture that a certain layer of the geo column represents a particular time period that lasted however many millions of years, and was characterized by a certain kind of sedimentary "landscape" and a certain kind of animal and plant life. Again, you can show how the conjecture was thought up, but you can't test it to see if it's true.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:44 PM

Flood theory doesn't need a single layer. Single, multiple, anything is possible from the Flood. Many layers at different depths are quite a reasonable possibility from the flood.So you keep proving the Flood!!The limestone and sandstone were simply transported and deposited by the Flood in sedimentary form. They hardened after the Flood of course. No problem whatever with this fact.The time factor is of course just an evo pipe dream.Your scenario proves the Flood. Nice going!

Yes, that is a possibility too. Thank you Ratel. You're starting to grow on me.