Hello everyone

Psychoanalyzing your opponent is extremely bad form. What gall. And you don't even give enough information for me to defend myself.And respect is a position one takes toward others as a matter of being a human being. You all need a good slap upside the head.

Thanks, I appreciate your concern, I really do, it's the most thoughtful thing that's ever happened on one of these threads.However, while I may lose it from time to time it doesn't last, and I know with whom I have to deal here. EvC is really just the land of the Barbarians and the Vandals -- well what should one expect of people who think they are descended from animals?*_ -- though sometimes I forget that and make the mistake of thinking someone here might actually consider what I'm saying instead of throwing out their irrelevant kneejerk answers conditioned by their brainwashing at school.*Frankly, animals are usually nicer and better behaved. Smarter too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am 100% certain this is false. Please feel free to link the messages in which you have provided "ample support". Note that your repeated assertions don not constitute such support; you need to provide some citations here. You seem to be loosing your train of thought. You started with the position that what geologists identify as desert deposits are really the result of the Flood. I provided evidence that supports the conclusion of aeolian deposition. This is not at all irrelevant. Now, according to the above quote, your point is that the grains weren't formed in situ. Talk about irrelevant; I never argued that they were. The point is that there are rock strata that contain features that are characteristic of aeolian deposition. Do you understand that for your Flood model to be true we should find no evidence of aeolian depositional environments?Put simply, I have provided evidence that at least some of the rock record was deposited in a terrestrial, not aqueous, setting and this refutes the assertion that the rock record is the product of the Flood. First, this doesn't make any sense. Of course the deposits formed in situ. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that the individual grains were not formed in situ, a point which would be truly irrelevant. Again, my argument is not that the Flood didn't happen because aeolian strata were deposited in situ. My argument is that we have diagnostic features that characterize aeolian deposits and allow us to distinguish them from aqueous deposits. The fact that we can identify aeolian deposits refutes your contention that all strata were deposited aqueously during the Flood. I don't recognize this "fact" because it is no more than a baseless assertion you keep repeating. Provide some evidence for this claim and I will take it seriously. So far all you've done is say "Strata have flat contacts so the must have been layed down by the Flood". Provide evidence that the nature of the strata a) disprove non-Flood models and b)support a Flood model. You haven't (and I daresay won't) provided such evidence. So again, what about that dinosaur on its nest? How does that square with the Flood? Try less evasive handwaving and more explaining. You have to no degree shown this. Again, link me to the messages in which you present your compelling evidence. You have not supported the statement that the Flood is a reasonable explanation for the rock record nor the statement that the "evolutionist" explanation is wrong. So you're being respectful of fellow human beings when you repeatedly refer to proponents of evolution as idiots? Interesting. Again, look at that thread on cetacean limbs and you will see that respect is given to Aaron because he tries to support his arguments. All you've done is claim you're right without ever citing anything beyond your own assertions and this is what makes you the target of scorn.

Too funny.You are an animal Faith. You are descended from animals. If you ever had children, they would be animals.

Tiny, weeny little point here Faith that I wouldn't normally bother about, but when you're talking about rocks, it's geologists not 'evolutionists' you have a problem with.I only mention it because you tend to think that 'evolutionist' is a synonym or satan so I'd just like you to spread the evil around a bit.

I'm sorry, the argument is a matter of logic and honest observation, not citations. No, my point was that a rock can't be a landscape. I believe it was deposited by the Flood, yes, but my main point was that if you look at the rock and its contents reason should tell you the theory that it was once a desert landscape, which is what "desert deposits" implies, is ridiculous. I see, then perhaps you are open to the possibility that they were transported on currents or waves of the Flood waters. No, I have no idea why we shouldn't. But a rock is NOT a "depositional environment" except in Evo Fantasyland. If you are talking about the shape of the grains there is no reason to think they weren't shaped in a terrestrial setting and transported to their present location where they were obviously deposited by water in their current horizontal layered condition. Wind won't layer things that way, nor will normal weathering, nor erosion, nor normal processes of any kind that we observe in the world today. It would take a massive amount of water to form the strata with their separated sediments in horizontal layers and their familially assembled fossil contents. Sorry, no citations, just observation. OK, sorry if I misspoke, yes of course I mean the GRAINS were not formed in situ. You can identify aeolian SHAPING of the grains, but you can't tell where they were shaped. If the already-shaped grains were more or less passively carried in the water to their current location your diagnoses would not detect that. There are, however, creationist studies that refute the claim that you can tell the difference as you claim. I doubt I'm going to bother to go look them up though because as I've said, I believe the actual condition and appearance of the rock is sufficient proof that we cannot possibly be talking about former landscapes, desert landscape, any kind of landscape, that existed in some former time period. The theory is ridiculous. So whatever shaped the grains is irrelevant. Laid, not layed. Well, I think that's pretty obvious to an honest observer, but actually my main point was that there is no way they represent landscapes, which is even more obvious. Really, SOOOOOOO obvious. Really. I do wish you would stand back from a nice view of the strata, say in a wall of the Grand Canyon from some distance for starters. If you distrust photographs, get yourself a chair and a thermos of coffee, and since it's winter probably some warm clothes, and sit there on the canyon rim thinking about those strata for a LOOOOOOOOONNNNNG time. Take some notes on what you see. Just your observations, not your theory. You know, reddish layer beneath whitish layer beneath grayish layer or whatever, relative height, interface line sharp etc. Consider the absurdity of the theory that they represent time periods with identifiable "horizons" and "landscapes."It don't take no CITATIONS, man, it takes THINKING. No, I reverted to my own barbarian past, sorry. But I will continue to refer to the THEORY as idiotic. Because it is.I feel sorry for people who try to address these things with scientific citations when it's so simply a matter of clearheaded observation.By the way I've said a lot about the Flood on other threads, and about the formation fo the Grand Canyon, and I don't care to repeat it all here. And I don't care what you think about it either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah I know it's geologists, but the thing is the geologists and the evolutionists are in cahoots about the ridiculous interpretation of the layers and their fossil contents, and they ARE evolutionists too you now.

No.See, this is why you should look at stuff, like geologists do, instead of making stuff up, like creationists do. There is actually a way. It involves the lithification of sediment. That would explain why sedimentary rock looks just like lithified sediment. So for example one reason why this looks just like a section of beach could be because it is in fact a section of beach. Though I await your bizarre otherworldly explanation with interest. Same with this: This would be one of those flat layers you were talking about, yes? In what sense is it flat? We can see, right now sediments being deposited over prodigious breadths --- or rather geologists can see this 'cos they actually look at sediments rather than making up dumb crap like you do. Clearly if this deposition went on for a long time, this would also produce prodigious depth.

That doesn't look like a section of beach to me, and I'm talking about flat to the naked eye, small narrow rivulets not changing that fact. Flat ENOUGH, Dr. A., but you don't care I'm sure. Assuming that tilted rock is a piece of a layer, which you don't explain. And many of the strata are very very flat, tabletop flat with knife-edge close contact between them. Which you can SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE in, say, a wall of the Grand Canyon. I don't expect to answer everything, I just go back to the fact that it's obvious from the appearance of the stack of strata that they couldn't be time periods. Obvious. So your interpretation is wrong.And I'd like to remind you about the Grand Canyon too, the implication of which always escapes you, but it's a killer for the theory of successive long ages: ALL those strata were in place before that canyon was cut. SEE??? LOOK!!! And not just those to the rim of that particular canyon, either, which is the Permian, but all those that were originally stacked above the canyon too in the same event, all the way to the height of the top layer of the Grand Staircase to the North. That's something like a depth of two miles of the strata covering an area of thousands of square miles.ALL of that must have been laid down in a very short period of time, a rather rapid sequence I suspect, days, weeks, months? and THEN the Canyon was cut, THEN the Staircase was cut etc etc. THEN!!! Nothing happened to the strata before, there were no canyons cut, there wasn't even anything you could call erosion, some rivulets, some runoff between the layers, some disturbances of a very minor sort, nothing like what happens on the surface of the earth.You can tell by LOOKING AT THE WALLS OF THE GC.I'd ask you to think about the implications of that but you won't or you don't know how because you're blinded by theory. I'll get you an urn of coffee if you'll go sit on the canyon rim and contemplate the reality before you, try to get the cobwebs out of your brain and try to be honest for a change.First you will object that not ALL the length of the canyon walls is so horizontal. So think about the horizontal parts.You will then of course change the subject to the foundation rocks. I've given you my theory about those too, but let's pretend that they were a separate event and were already there when the rest of the stack was laid down. They weren't, they were all part of the same event, and I disagree with most creationists about that, but let's pretend they were already there, you know, the Great Unconformity etc. You STILL have to reckon with the fact that the rest of the stack above that, which supposedly represents -- gee I forget, a billion years or so? -- was laid down in succession from that point to the height of the Grand Staircase, BEFORE any of the canyons or other formations were cut.THINK ABOUT IT!But I won't hold my breath.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.

Heh, I see now why you get no respect here. You are posting on a forum whose rules explicitly state that

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions

---

So when you make posts that are merely "bare assertions" without either "evidence or reasoned argumentation" you are obviously not going to get respect from people who take the time to support their points. Simply saying that your point is so obviously right that you don't need to support it is laughable. Providing credible citations that corroborates your statements demonstrates that your "logic and honest observation" are actually logical and honest. You're basically saying that your lack of supporting points is actually a laudable quality in your arguments. And then you get all huffy about how people don't take you seriously. You say things like this: And then you expect me to just accept that as a logical and honest assessment because you say so? Please explain what about the rocks' contents prove that it must be a flood deposit. Is it the dinosaur on its nest? The one that "shows no evidence of transportation after death" (Norell et al 1995)? How do such contents support the hypothesis of the Flood depositing the surrounding sediment? How do such contents prove ridiculous the conclusion that the rocks record the product of aeolian, not aqueous deposition? I know you won't (and can't) provide citations for your assertions, but you haven't even been able to explain your reasoning. It is of course conceivable that grains weathered in a desert environment could be redeposited elsewhere by water. But when you try to argue that such reworked sediments also contain a clearly in situ dinosaur on a nest it strains credulity that they were deposited in the Flood. Add to this the bedforms (not grain weathering pattern) described in the paper I linked that are found only in aeolian deposits and your fantasy becomes less plausible still. Plus there's the angle of repose, which you haven't been able to explain away. Sand deposited in dry conditions has a 34 degree angle of repose. Sand deposited in water has a 45 degree angle of repose. Therefore when we find cross-bedded sand with a 34 degree angle of repose we can logically conclude that the sand was deposited under aeolian conditions, not aqueous conditions. Unless you're prepared to argue that physical law operated differently at the time of the Flood and allowed wet sand to be deposited with an angle of repose characteristic of dry sand. You'll have to argue that certain deposits are composed of grains that display signs of aeolian weathering and are bedded in a way characteristic of aeolian environments and contain in situ terrestrial fossils all by coincidence because they are really reworked sediments deposited by the Flood? Is that the logic that you feel is so iron-clad that you don't need to provide citations? I have provided sources that corroborate my statement that aeolian deposits are identifiable and present in the rock record. The best you can manage is this: Wow, what a shock. You not providing a source for your assertions? Do you realize you're contradicting yourself? If a rock does not record a depositional environment then how can it also be evidence of the Flood? You seem to be making the (at least to me) novel argument that the rock record contains no evidence of any depositional environments (false) but that it shows the depositional environment was the Flood (false and contradictory). Maybe it's because I'm new, but I can't believe you're really trying to pass off your complete lack of support for your assertions as a virtue.I see you've also abandoned your contention that it is their relative positions in the rock record that allow us to group fossils in a way that supports evolution. This is good because any amount of honest research would tell you that the organisms' morphologies are generally much more important for assessing relatedness than are their relative positions. You would then be stuck with going to the thread I started and providing your answer to the question there and I suspect, based on the caliber of your posts thus far, that you would that task a bit beyond your ability.

How could that be anything else but the lithified remains of an ancient beach?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Have you really never seen a beach?Here are some pictures of what a beach looks like, so you'll recognize one if you ever see one. Now you know what a beach looks like, here are some rocks. Thing is, geologists, who have looked at the walls of the GC, say that this is bollocks, and that they can clearly identify erosional surfaces. So can I, by looking at photographs. The implications of the crap you made up in your head are not so interesting as the implications of real things that actually exist.

Funnny thing, there's another creationist on these forums, also called Faith, perhaps you've met her, who insisted (on this thread) that the layers are all the same. Now she seemed to think that this was an argument against reality-based geology, writing: If you should ever meet her, perhaps you could explain to her that I was right, that the different formations are in fact "all different" as you say, and not "identical" and having "no difference in their appearance" as she said; and that her argument against real geology therefore fails --- as I told her at the time. It's rare to find you agreeing with me, but since you do we can unite in putting this Faith person in her place.Edited by Admin, : Remove text improperly inserted by board software.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh I've given sufficient support, it's called Reasoned Argument based on Simple Observation which any idiot could do if they weren't blinded by theory. You want me to post pictures of the Grand Canyon too? Would that help?Just think about what I've said (It's obvious you can't, won't, whatever, maybe I didn't get it worded quite right, or maybe you just have a brain cramp from all your theoretical assumptions). But you don't need more information than I've given to think about what I'm claiming. It's all there, all the information you need to realize the theories of the old earth and the strata as representing long periods of time are a laughable delusion.

I've been on many beaches, they don't look like that. But it doesn't matter. All you are talking about is what happens to sand under certain wet conditions. There was sand transported in the very wet conditions of the Flood that we assume rose and fell as waves do. So your "beach" affects absolutely nothing I've said.Again, as I keep saying, it doesn't really matter, it's all a bunch of red herrings, because the reality of the strata, the different sediments, the horizontality of the layers, the lack of anything like erosion of the sort we see on the surface of the earth, let alone a humongous canyon before they were all in place, the way the fossils are grouped and tumbled within the rocks, and so on and so forth, which I've been trying to bring to your attention, absolutely defeats the idea of long periods of time per layer.Again, if you would just think about what I'm pointing out you would have to recognize that your theories are delusional. I'm sure that's why you won't think about it.