Hello everyone

You can't get to the next page, that starts with message 271? NWR and I have been having the same problem but only for part of 268 plus 269 and 270.

Show me a lithified beach please that was never buried, or a lithified sand dune that was never buried.And stop being so cutesy about the Karoo formation. I know it contains a bazillion fossils so I regard it as a Flood deposit.

Fine, I don't need your information. Keep it to yourself. Good grief.

No, I don't consider them to be intentionally deceiving us, I think they are deceived but it's got an iron grip on them they refuse to let go. I have nothing against geology as such you see, but I have a lot against evolutionism, and since geologists are also evolutionists insofar as they share the same view of the strata and the fossil record, I call them evolutionists. It's really not such a complicated thing as you would prefer to make it out to be.I'm trying to make a simple point in these last few posts which nobody will think about, including you. You prefer to accuse me of something, anything apparently. It would be very nice, however, if you would think about what I'm trying to get across.Cheers.

Let's see, you play Cat and Mouse and you play Change the Subject and you play Ridicule the Straw Man. Dr. A plays Garble Whatever Faith Says, and Misrepresent and Trivialize Whatever Faith Says, and he's also very good at Change the Subject, also Ridicule the Opponent is one of his staples; and Tangle plays Accuse Accuse Accuse.Meanwhile I've made some very simple points that absolutely demolish Old Earth theory and you all ignore them. Oh yes, Ignore Faith, that's a biggie you all play, and you all play Change the Subject.

Hutton and all that, but I'd rather call them evolutionists anyway if you don't mind because it conveys what I want to convey, which "geology" doesn't. If you don't mind.And by the way I've actually defended Darwin at times, at my blog and I think even here, so you might reconsider your snarky snarly Straw Man. He made some necessary observations and criticized some stupidities that needed to be criticized. He was wrong about species evolving to new species of course, and Hutton's totally subjectively made up Old Earth unfortunately gave him license for that stupendous error.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But I DON'T call chemists, physicists and astronomers evolutionists, and I just said I'm not talking about a conspiracy so it's you who are lying and promoting prejudice and bias. Straighten up.Oh and if you ever do decide to stop lying about me and changing the subject try considering my points about how the Old Earth is a delusional theory since that's my main effort here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wasn't talking about chemists astronomers and physicists., but perhaps I simply missed what you had said. ABE: I went back through this idiotic discussion and found no mention by you of these sciences either until the last post. Again, I don't call them evolutionists, just geologists because geologists are involved with Old Earth thinking. And I was merely answering your ridiculous accusation that I was accusing ANYONE of conspiracy, which I wasn't. And when you made that accusation you didn't mention chemists astronomers and physicists. Your posts so far are just nuisance accusations to change the subject and I apparently didn't read carefully. Get out of this discussion, you are contributing nothing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lithification is not problematic where sediments are rapidly buried under tons of other sediments, lithification is problematic where they remain surface over long long long ages, which one would expect on the old earth theory.Again, the appearance of the strata shows that they couldn't possibly represent long periods of time, implied by the different separated sediments and the flat horizontality. It's ridiculous to call rocks landscapes etc. And the fact that the Grand Canyon didn't get cut until after a supposed billion years or so of strata was already in place absolutely kills the old earth idea.But you are theory-blind and can't see these obvious facts.

Nothing in your pictures answers anything I've said as far as I can see. Unlithified sand is unlithified sand. And a cross section does not show that the ripples of the surface shown in the other pictures were preserved as neatly as they supposedly are in the strata, which I thought WAS your point. But what is your point now? It would take something like the Flood to lithify it, at least the weight of a lot of other sediments compressing it. When you find your unlithified sand in neat horizontal layers let me know, because that is not going to happen under normal conditions on this earth, which disproves your old earth theory of the strata.ABE I went back to find my post you were supposedly answering. So it's caused by the tides you say, fine, then it was caused by the tides during the Flood too. Only there the rapid burial of the sand eventually caused the whole stack to lithify into rock.
' Yes, that is my point, that it doesn't matter about the ripples because my point is that the different sediments, the horizontality, the lack of normal surface erosion, the way the fossils are embedded, all shows that the strata could not have been laid down over long periods of time. And then when we get to the cutting of the Grand Canyon only after a supposed billion years of the relatively undisturbed laying down of the strata we have more proof of that. Which you didn't in this post about the unlithified sand either. You just picked a side issue and made a big deal out of it and ignored my main point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh here's a stupid post where you are accusing me of all kinds of things I never said. What a jerk you are.

What a fat lie that is, fire-breathing hatred, just slander really. You're another jerk just like Tangle.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where on earth did I say otherwise?I've been giving good scientific arguments against some scientific claims. First that whatever you think you know about the past cannot be verified and is therefore untrustworthy, and sorry Mr. Easily Swayed, but the Bible is solid trustworthy witness, God's word, and if science contradicts it, science is wrong. But that hasn't been my argument, my argument is that there is no way to replicate or test the past to verify your theory about it and that's so obvious it's STUPID not to recognize it.And now I've been giving good EVIDENCE why old earth theory is false. EVIDENCE, Mr. Easily Swayed. Simple observation of actual facts, but apparently nobody here has eyes. Where on earth did I say otherwise? The problem is they are FALLIBLE, and they misinterpret their evidence, and when it comes to the PAST THEY HAVE NO WAY OF HAVING ANYTHING BUT THEIR OWN ENDLESS COGITATIONS ABOUT IT BEFCAUSE THEY CANNOT VERIFY IT. Good grielf, can you read?Besides, as I've said before I AM NOT OBJECTING TO REAL SCIENCE. The sciences of the past are just a bunch of mental castlebuilding because they cannot be verified but the real sciences have replicability and testability. Good GRIEF can't you THINK?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've made my point well and many times by now and your answers are not answers. The rippled sand is a red herring.My point is about the stack of strata themselves proving that it couldn't have occurred over long ages because of the characteristics I've listed over and over, and especially the fact that the GC and the other formations of the Southwest were all cut into pristine layers after a supposed billion years of their accumulation. But you don't want to know that, do you? It might rock your world to know that the earth is young. You might faint or something.

The separate strata represent millions of years EACH according to every model out there, I don't care how long it actually takes to accumulate them, that's irrelevant, and the entire stack supposedly took a billion years at least. I have not made up any of this, I've described it as I see it and I've asked you merely to look at what is there, with your Old Earth glasses off, and without having to get up close to detect "erosion" etc."Pristine" means they accumulated relatively undisturbed. There is no evidence whatever of normal surface disturbances between the layers of the strata, which is apparent for instance in the Grand Canyon. Normal surface erosion would be apparent in those walls from the opposite rim, and in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface. It would be a huge jumble as a matter of fact.They could not exist in their actual form visible to the naked eye now as flat layers of rock if they accumulated in any normal time frame whatever. There is no way such discretely separated different kinds of sediments would have accumulated in sequence in a normal time frame. There is no way living creatures in such huge numbers would have died and been buried and been fossilized as they actually were on a normal time frame. There is no way the strata would simply have accumulated over a billion years before a canyon decided to cut through them, in fact a whole bunch of canyons and "stairs" and other formations for that matter, which didn't think of cutting through them until after they were all there. Again, what you are calling erosion between the layers -- of the Grand Canyon for instance -- is not normal surface erosion, in most cases the slight erosion was probably caused by nothing more than water runoff between the layers.The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence but it's enough to point out that the accepted model can't account for it.But the cutting of the canyon is still the biggest proof.Get your old earth glasses off and just look at what is there.I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.