Hello everyone

Jesus was saying that we have to choose between him and our families and all other loved persons and things, and that means hating those we all too easily love more than him.

I have given ample support, but you are incapable of following the argument.

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'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.

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.

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.

Golly gee, they can "CLEARLY IDENTIFY EROSIONAL SURFACES" but as usual you are simply refusing to grasp my simple meaning. They obviously have to work hard to identify those erosional surfaces because they are nothing like the erosion we see on the surface of the earth, all they are seeing is some rivulets between the layers and other minor disturbances that show runoff between them.THAT IS NOT THE SORT OF EROSION THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAD ANY OF THOSE LAYERS EVER BEEN EXPOSED AS SURFACE FOR ANY LOENGTH OF TIME. STAND BACK FROM THE WALL FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, and consider that the CANYON ITSELF is the ONLY ACTUAL REAL SERIOUS EROSION the strata have undergone since they were laid down. Stop playing your stupid obfuscating games. What I'm saying is OBVIOUS.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

For some reason I can only get part of message 268 without any of the buttons needed to reply to it and I don't get messages 269 or 270 at all. Probably due to a problem I've been having with my browser.\But to answer what I can see of 268, the usual obfuscating idiocy from Dr. A., yes the layers are THE SAME as to form, and that is obvious to the naked eye too. Good grief stop your game playing. They are the same in that they are all horizontal flat layers of rock. They are different in that they are different KINDS of rock with different fossil contents.And unless you really are a blithering idiot you knew that already but your entire style of posting seems to be to make sure you garble up everything I say.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, it's lithified and apparently it looks like some beaches. Beyond that there's no reason to think it's any more ancient than about 4300 years old, and was somehow created in the Flood, probably between waves.Getting it lithified should be a problem on your model, though it's not a problem on mine, since such a pattern could have been created as a wave receded or the tide was out for some period of time, and then it would have been filled in by new sediments brought in on the next wave, which would preserve its structure, and the incredible height to which the strata rose would explain how it was all eventually solidified.You aren't going to get lithification if such a pattern sat on the surface for very long. Go on, show me one of those beaches that exist now with that pattern that has lithified in place or even preserved its pattern over a short period of time. Ha ha.But again, these things are red herrings once it has already been shown that the structure of the strata as a whole couldn't possibly have been produced by long ages. Also, go think about the Grand Canyon being cut into a mile deep stack of them, all remaining so nicely horizontal don't you know, if they are supposed to be a billion years old at that point. What a joke. At the very least that fact absolutely destroys uniformitarianism, but really it destroys the whole OE theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can't HAVE a lithified sand dune for pete's sake. Every sand dune on the face of this earth is NOT lithified. What you are seeing in the rocks is the grains of sand that form sand dunes all collected in one place which causes them to lie the way they do in dunes because of how the grains got shaped, but there is no such thing as a LITHIFIED SAND DUNE. It is an impossibility. The only lithified beach you could possibly see is one that was rapidly filled in by new sediments to preserve its form. There is no such thing as a lithified beach on the surface of the earth. The footprints are of course footprints, rapidly filled in and preserved between tides during the Flood.But again all this is red herring stuff once you appreciate the fact that the very structure of the stack of strata as I have been describing it, and the cutting of the Grand Canyon after a mile depth of them were laid down with no other disturbance of a sort that would show any of them was ever actually earth's surface, all that proves the Old Earth theory is delusional.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh really, and where did you find this lithified sand dune? Buried in the strata, no? Or once buried in the strata perhaps? Like the Coconino Sandstone layer which gets called a lithified sand dune, but is just a very deep layer of sand grains that solidified into sandstone. It is NOT a lithified sand dune.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are being of course as vague as possible, but the Karoo system is full of fossils and therefore represents the Flood deposits which would include lithified sediments. As I said, which you apparently ignored, you will not find lithified beaches or dunes on the SURFACE of the earth, only in the strata and wherever lithified sediments with fossil contents are found, that is, where they were rapidly buried so as to become lithified and the buried creatures fossilized. That describes the Karoo.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.