Hello everyone

Past events are testable. And actual modes of erosion and deposition are replicable, unlike your magic flood.

That's not true. Start a thread on it.

And a closed mind such as yours is incapable of learning.You and other creationists have demonstrated that very clearly in these threads.

Ok, I see and understand what you are saying.I spent all of May 2013 traveling around the Southwest with my camera. I looked at what you are talking about and a bunch of other places and things too. I walked close and touched the rocks and I stood back and photographed cliffs and canyon walls. I drove through Monument Valley, something I have wanted to do since I was a kid.The route I took through Monument Valley and to Mesa Verde (another life long goal) went by some of the most warped sedimentary layers I have ever seen.


I don't think I had Old Earth glasses on. I was more interested in light and shadow, color, and form, but when you are in these places you can’t help but be curious about when and how they formed and how long it took.Not once, while I was there or when I look at my photos and remember being there, have I experienced a thought or feeling that I was being dishonest with myself.Not once, have I seen any of it the way you describe it, or have my observations led me to the singularly odd assertions that you have made on the subject.My own observations lead me to many conclusions..one of which is, that the Earth is really old, so you can add photographer and entomologist to your hated category of evolutionist. I feel honored to be in their company.CheersEdited by Tanypteryx, : inserted photos instead of just links

Physics and astronomy and chemistry all have evidence in their own fields that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life isn't much younger. You have the same quarrel with them as you have with geologists and biologists.

You didn't do anything I asked you to do: In order to do that you'd have to have thought about the descriptions I gave in OTHER posts; this one was just a sketch.I said you have to understand what I'm saying. You don't show the slightest understanding of what I've been saying about the strata. For one thing you have to be looking at the strata, which are best appreciated in a wall of the Grand Canyon, for some period of time from a distance because the strata are so deep and visible there. You don't describe doing that. You don't describe your thoughts about what you saw anyway, whatever it was you saw in the formations of the Southwest, concerning how you arrived at the determination that it is all old. Clearly you didn't consider what I asked you to consider.ABE: I didn't look at your pictures at the link but now that you have them up it is clear they don't apply to this experiment, which is about the STRATA.The Grand Canyon is the best place for this contemplation but enough may be seen in Monument Valley to get the idea across, if you do what I asked. You need to be able to see the strata and contemplate the fact that they are of different kinds of sediments stacked neatly horizontally to quite a height/depth with neat flat interfaces between them.You need to think about THAT fact for starters. All those intact layers there, which each represent a period of millions of years according to the current theory.You can see the stack of strata in Monument Valley though not anywhere near the depth as in the Grand Canyon, but you apparently did not appreciate this particular fact about them. Appreciating this fact should suggest to you that they couldn't have been laid down over long ages, because of their undisturbed horizontality and the undisturbed flatness between layers, and that they are separated different sediments (which don't just normally succeed one another in normal time), and the way the fossils are collected within them which certainly suggests catastrophic burial......and particularly the fact that no formations, canyons, monuments, hoodoos, stairs or anything else, were cut into them until after the entire stack was in place. You need to stop and think HARD about this, while looking at the intact strata.You could make that assessment even from Monument Valley since the monuments exhibit the strata to some depth, horizontal and undisturbed, obviously all intact until the monuments were cut, right? Their strata were once continuous with a huge area of strata out of which they were carved. You do have to stop and THINK about this fact, and clearly you did not.But the Grand Canyon is a still better place to appreciate this fact of the intact strata out of which shapes were cut after they were all in place, in that case being the canyon itself, and the monuments within the canyon, and you can wander on up to the Grand Staircase and see higher levels of the strata (more recent eras of time according to the OE model) also carved, in that case into huge steps with cliffs of the different colors of the different sediments, and some canyons there too, and at the very top the hoodoos that were also sculpted out of the stack of sediments that remained horizontal and intact.This fact can be seen with your own two eyes in all these different places, the stack to quite a depth just lying there in its horizontality and flatness though sculpted in various ways leaving that horizontality and flatness intact, which implies that there were millions to a billion or more years, according to the Old Earth model, in which the strata stayed horizontal and flat without anything disturbing their upper or lower flatness that can be seen from a distance, that is, millions/billions of years of undisturbed lying around before anything disturbed them except probably some runoff between the layers which you have to get close up to see, and there wasn't enough of that to disturb the layers above or below even in the delicate hoodoos and more delicate parts of the monuments.You haven't described even considering any of that, anything I've pointed out about it.Since you didn't even consider what I asked you to do, let alone do it, you did not do this experiment honestly as you claim.FEELING honest is far from BEING honest.I still recommend the experiment to others. Perhaps those who can grasp my description better, or can be more honest about doing what I ask. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So they make their contributuion to the Big Lie, still their true science IS true science. Biology and Geology also do true science, but they serve the Big Lie more than the others, or so it has seemed to me. In any case the "science" of the past that serves the Big Lie is all I reject. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK you got me. I too am giving explanations about the past. None of it is testable or replicable.That's all one can do with the past as I keep saying. It isn't hard science, it's a matter of speculation and interpretation. And I'm saying YOUR speculations and interpretations are absurd and can be shown to be absurd if you just LOOK at the strata.So I still appeal to you to consider how I arrived at mine, which only requires observation and consideration of the facts I have asked you to consider, which I just described again to Tanypteryx.It really should probably be people with less of a stake in these things doing this experiment. They are less likely to be blinded by the theory and personal pride.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here, I'll make it easy for you: let's start with one piece of observation at a time: Question #1: If you look at a section of the strata in the walls of the Grand Canyon, any place where they are at their most beautifully colorful and horizontal, from say the opposite rim of the Canyon, do you see erosion BETWEEN ANY OF THE LAYERS (above the basement rocks I mean, which aren't usually visible in these views anyway). DO YOU?

Here, I'll make it easy for you: yes.

Dr. A has lied about erosion being visible between the layers from across the Canyon on the opposite rim.Anybody else like to consider the question?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So here you're assuming that the old earth theory assumes that no deposition occurs to bury sediments over the course of "long long long ages". This is an obvious mischaracterization of the theory. It's easier to pretend a theory is nonsense when you rewrite it until it is, but it's not a real argument. I assume by this you mean what you said in other posts, i.e. that the rock record does not contain evidence of any depositional environment. So how can the rock record be evidence for the Deluvian depositional environment? You've made 115 posts on this thread, a large proportion of which are about this topic. Yet in all those posts you have not once provided an argument more substantive than the one above. You provide no citations or evidence that what you state is true, nor even an explanation for why the horizontality of the strata prove that they were deposited by the Flood. I guarantee that you can't link a single message here that explains your argument in any more detail than what you've posted here.And you are still avoiding responding to my point. You sit on your high horse, telling us we all have our blinders one while you tie on a blindfold. So again, if all strata were deposited by the Flood, why do we find strata that contain all the physical features of aeolian deposits, features that would not be produced by aqueous deposition? I'm sure you've scrubbed these features from your mind so you don't have to deal with them, so I'll reiterate quickly:Features of aeolian deposits found in rock record:1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water)
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossilsAs you've pointed out, those first two could have been the result of aeolian sediments being redeposited by the Flood. That explanation does not account for the rest of the list. So go ahead and explain how it is logical and honest to conclude that the presence of all these features that are characteristic of aeolian deposition are actually evidence of the Flood. I'm 99% sure you will fail do even try.

The TRUE YEC Protestant continues to surge forward: My, my, my. So now, ALL science is perpetuating a "Big Lie" that you reject.There are only 3 possibilities here:one:A mass conspiracy the likes of which has NEVER been seen before, cutting across all manner of cultural, religious, racial and geographical groups of scientists. They must have all been given a secret handshake?two:the conspirator is God to make it look like the scientists say it looks like, while letting his True Protestants in on the real shit, orthree:you are WRONG.I vote for door number three.