Summations Only

Yup. Except those of course who very reasonably know that "the number of fossils everywhere in the world found in stratified rock is so enormous ... [any other cause] ... invoked to explain them is laughable." Plus the fact that you couldn't possibly tell there's any difference in age by looking at them, let alone the nundreds of millions of years' difference ascribed by conventional "science" or by looking at the rocks themselves either, which you'd think might show just a little difference in wear and tear over a few hundred million years. Sometime take a look at Siccar Point where the upper horizontal strata are said to be many millions of years younger than the lower vertical strata and where the whole formation has obviously been subjected to severe weathering. Funny, if anything the lower strata may look a bit less battered.

To you who from your post clearly has no clue even what arguments I've made here? If they're ridiculous to you they were already ridiculous before you heard one word of them and will obviously remain ridiculous to you after you've not heard one word of them.

Have you ever heard even ONE creationist argument against any of your objections? Not just from me but from anyone? They aren't hard to answer.

I'm sure there is only I'm not up on it. Again I'm sure there is. There were no polar caps before the Flood; they formed as a result of the Flood. The glaciers also didn't exist before the Flood but formed afterward. Noah was of the early men who lived nearly a thousand years, still with extraordinary health and vitality even after the Fall. All kinds of diseases we are vulnerable to were unheard of for them, but began to proliferate after the Flood. What concerns me is how someone like you could be brought to see reality.

No, I don't follow those arguments.

Only if you can send the entire core down to the bottom. Another puzzle to solve. Very very cold. Wouldn't the Ice Age have been very very cold? Glaciers all the way down into the temperate zones etc. Wouldn't you just suppose the glaciers retreated leaving their signs behind them? I mean it was very very cold then, but it stopped being that cold and the glaciers retreated. God didn't create any new thing after the Creation Week. They may have been present in the human beings in some small number but without causing disease because the people were immune to them, or they may have been benign and microevolved later. In other words, I might as well forget it.Well, if God wants to save you He'll save you and you'll know it. Maybe we all will. It can't happen. I KNOW there was a worldwide Flood. I may come to see particulars about the Flood differently than I do now, but I'll never come to believe there was no Flood. That's because I know God's word is God's word.But also there IS evidence for the Flood:

• The strata the strata the strata. Nothing else could have made the strata.
• The incredible abundance of fossils around the planet.
• The wrecked condition of the planet.
• The lack of tectonic effects for some hundreds of millions of years as seen in the unruffled strata for that period on OE diagrams. Proves those hundreds of millions of years didn't exist.
• Flat slabness of the sedimentary rocks in the strata: proves they were laid down in water, all of them despite claims they couldn't have been, and that none of them was ever at the surface for any great length of time. We'll just have to explain the angle of repose somehow.
• The absurdity of the OE scenarios of time periods attached to sedimentary rocks.
• Junk DNA (Massive genetic death as a result of the bottleneck) Also the percentage of heterozygosity in the human genome is no doubt much lower than it was before the Flood, but unfortunately there's no way to prove this. (It's probably evidence more for the Fall and against the ToE than the Flood anyway)
• These things may not be evident yet but I'd predict: Increasing genetic diseases, increasing mutations, increasing species extinctions.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dear DW: You aren't thinking and this gets awfully tiresome. If the rocks deny the written Word it's the rocks that are wrong. But the rocks don't deny anything, it's fallen human minds interpreting the rocks that deny God's word, and I don't have to listen to fallen human minds. If you interpret the rocks to contradict the Word you are wrong about the rocks.It's a terrible mistake not to appreciate the amazing fact that God gave us revelation in written form, which is suited to help our darkened fallen minds understand His creation and everything else of importance, which otherwise we get wrong.

ABE: Hundreds of thousands of drownings don't say anything about the huge numbers of fossils all over the world; what's to fossilize all those drowned animals? /ABE Predators are going to get them in short order.I don't get your question about rapid burial being required for fossilization. Of course it's required. You have to show that other circumstances provide the conditions, and provide them for a sufficient number of victims.ABE: You've also got to get them embedded in identifiable layers.Edited by Faith, : Reworded first paragraph for clarity

The cracks I'm talking about OCCURRED IN THE UPPERMOST STRATA A MILE DEEP ABOVE THE CURRENT RIM OF THE GRAND CANYON. THOSE CRACKS NO LONGER EXIST. THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN BREAKING UP THE STRATA WHICH ALL WASHED AWAY, AND I THINK ALSO INSTRUMENTAL IN ADMITTING THE WATER WHICH WOULD HAVE CARVED THE CANYON. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO LONGER ANY EVIDENCE OF THEM TO BE FOUND, EXCEPT IN THE GRAND STAIRCASE AREA WHERE THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF STRATA DIDN'T ALL GET WASHED AWAY AND IN WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF EAST-WEST CRACKS TO THIS DAY. There is no point in trying to compare them to existing faults.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : better choice of words in a couple places

The point I'm making is clearly illustrated on that cross section and everything else being brought up here is about other things. Forgive me for trying to get across a particular thing and not all the other things you are all bringing up. The particular thing I'm talking about happens to be illustrated on that cross section: the EAST-WEST cracking of the upper strata. I guess you can all go on bringing up irrelevancies forever of course, seems to be a special talent around here.

The strata WERE all laid down flat, in fact that is a principle of Geology, HBD, original horizontality. What the cross sections show is that they remained horizontal in that there were was no TECTONIC disturbance to them, and that WOULD have been depicted because they depict it where it DID occur.And what people have "shown" me, such as frako's last, are all the usual misunderstandings of what I'm saying, or refusals to get it or whatever, answering with a knee jerk mindless picture or two which in fact confirms what i've been saying, because the disturbances "shown" to me all occurred AFTER the time period in question, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. There are some ambiguous ones that should have been discussed, but the way this thread has galloped along that's just never happened although from time to time I've SAID they merely confirm what I was claiming. But nobody's paying attention really.The visible erosion occurred AFTER the strata were laid down too, HBD.Nobody has really answered any of my points about the overall situation of the strata.THE CANYONS AND CLIFFS OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE RUN EAST-WEST. GO LOOK AGAIN. The "stress cracks" have NOTHING to do with what I'm trying to talk about, that's just imposing somebody else's stuff on me.This is all nothing but an exercise in obfuscation. You all make up objections to any point I make but you've never actually ANSWERED my points. You think you've answered me when you've only answered a straw man, your own misunderstanding. If in small details you've answered this or that, and I'm not sure, there has never been an opportunity to discuss it in enough detail to work it out. Meanwhile the absolutely irrelevant straw man objections just keep getting trotted out, and some from Percy for one are so offensive it's enough to make a person sick. And if you think you'd be up to what I have to deal with here think again.I'm sick of being told that I've been told this or that when it's all ridiculous misconstructions. You don't know what you're talking about. The cross section is quite adequate for the purposes for which I'm using it and I resent your telling me stuff any child would know about a diagram.I wanted off this thread before it really got started, and I want off it again, but ignoring the stupidities is hard to do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're splitting hairs -- to what purpose? "Flat" means they have not been tilted or broken or otherwise altered in some OBVIOUS way. All that happened after a few hundred million years' worth of strata were laid down (on the Old Earth theory of course).The mere fact that you are assuming I mean some kind of perfection means you haven't grasped a thing I've been trying to say.Oh well, there really is no point, is there? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, frako, I don't usually get into all those issues, I'm trying to make a few points I thought were pretty simple. Should have known better I guess, 'cause this is Evo Wonderland where anything a creationist says will be so garbled and twisted and obscured beyond recognition within moments there's certainly no point in trying to say something that's less than simple.I think I can say, however, that the animals may not have had "homes" to "get back to" after the Flood but simply dispersed in all directions, even to great distances. The whole climate is supposed to have changed rather dramatically so whatever "home" had been would probably have been unrecognizable anyway. If the continental plates didn't start moving immediately then there must have been enough time for them to disperse to those great distances, including into the areas that became the new continents that were moving away from the original.

GOOD GRIEF, FRAKO, HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING I'VE WRITTEN HERE? VERTICAL LAYERS WERE THE RESULT OF TECTONIC FORCES THAT OCCURRED AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE LAID DOWN. HAVEN'T I SAID THAT ONLY ABOUT A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD? BUT YOU ALL THINK YOU CAN POST A PICTURE OF TECTONICALLY AFFECTED STRATA AND THINK YOU HAVE ANSWERED ME. AS I SAID, SOME OF THE PICTURES ARE AMBIGUOUS ENOUGH TO NEED DISCUSSION BUT THE POINT, AGAIN, IS THAT THE TECTONIC DISTORTIONS OCCURRED AFTER THE STRATA WERE ALL IN PLACE. ABE: YOUR PICTURE SHOW STRATA THAT WERE UPTILTED AS A BLOCK, RIGHT?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't believe it. You're the one taking a diagram way too literally. I am unable to draw freehand on my Paint program. The strata would be completely unintelligible if I tried. So I had to use the straight line to show the layers. I made no attempt to be exact about anything. The point of the diagram was to indicate the depth and overall horizontality of ALL the strata right after they were laid down.You're all nuts.