Summations Only

Maybe you are not being very clear. Do you actually read out posts for content?

Considering how you have abused science and the brain that God gave you, you are getting a fairly gentle treatment.

Faith does not seem to grasp that maybe 'eventually' has already arrived, and she is just denying it.

But no one says that it must be active at all times in all places. So, you admit that erosional activity might have been occurring elsewhere? Yes, I'm sure there are places and times where relative quiescence had been the rule. Are you saying that the enormous number of miles on my truck might have occurred in the last month or so?What you are saying is that this is a valid conclusion. Never mind that I have maintenance records. Actually, we have evidence for it. Pretty clear-cut stuff like stream channels.And just why is it so bad when we assume something, but it's all okay for you? No one said it was 'enormous', we said it was erosion.For someone who claims to abhor misrepresentation, you seem to be quite good at it.

Hopefully some questions are not off limits to you.The "?" character appeared 9 times in my post. Which question are you referring to, your ambiguousness.--Percy

I hope we're not assuming anything of consequence. We can be fairly certain that the same forces and processes active on the Earth today were active in the past, because what we see in ancient strata makes that clear. And we can be very certain that the laws of the universe that we know today were the same in the past because that's what the evidence in the light from ancient stars tells us.--Percy

A hiatus of a few hundred million years is a bit excessive, especially on an "active planet," don't you think? I would expect it to have occurred in the same locality myself, over those hundreds of millions of years. NOTHING AT ALL for all that time and then whammo ALL that massive erosional activity all at once hits me as unlikely although apparently it doesn't bother you.As for "elsewhere," of course I assume erosional activity occurred elsewhere, and as a matter of fact I would expect the same massive amount of erosion to have occurred elsewhere in "recent" time too, and not during the previous (imaginary) hundreds of millions of years. TOTAL quiescence, though, for a few hundred million years just seems a tad excessive for an "active planet." I'm glad, a hardworking geologist needs to keep good records on his truck.No, the comparison is absurd. The enormous erosion DID occur in "recent" time, unlike the mileage on your truck, and it is the fact that it occurred ONLY in "recent" time that I think invalidates the Old Earth explanation. Fine, the occasional "stream channel" too. But nothing anywhere near the massive erosion under discussion. I don't mind if you assume things as long as you don't talk about them as if they were established fact. True, you didn't say it was "enormous." I'm the one who said the fact that it isn't is peculiar, that all the enormous erosion happened only in "recent" time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is a good summary of every single thread Faith is in. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the only reason she is still here is because without Faith, EvC becomes a wasteland. Every single thread she takes part in devolves into the same. exact. thing. Every single time. 15k posts and 13 years here and nothing changes. But since she is the only creationist around, she stays or is allowed to stay.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

So you've found buttes like those in Monument Valley and enormous cliffs like in the Grand Staircase and canyons of the size of Zion and Grand Canyon in the "ancient strata" whatever those are?

Yes, after some five or six active years here (the rest of the thirteen I wasn't here) I'm still trying to make the same points because those are the points I want to make, those are the points that matter.It is sad but true that when I leave the place does become a sort of ghost town.ABE: But on that note I think I'll leave again for a while.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not sure why it would be. Do you think that the entire world was on leave at the time? No, there was plenty going on elsewhere as I tried to show you in the last thread.So, what would be acceptable to you?A hundred million years?Fifty million years?Ten million years?One million years?Arbitrary? Of course.Face it, Faith, you would find no geological age acceptable to your myth-based belief system.In reality, there is no requirement for any particular location on earth to be 'disturbed' in any particular time frame.For instance, I had my first flat tire on my truck in 12 years last week. Isn't that amazing? In fact, I don't believe it. It must have been a miracle. Every truck should have a flat tire every two years.No, make that one year...Don't you see the silliness of trying to do science on what you wish it would be? Does it ever dawn on you that you are trying to force reality to conform to your religious beliefs?

Why? What if I said I would expect massive erosion to be going on in the abyssal plain of the North Atlantic? Would you say I was crazy? You are being hyperbolic here here and it wrecks that last shred of credibility that you have. No one says that 'NOTHING AT ALL' happened, but you.In one post, you say that there was no massive erosion, but here you are complaining that there was not activity at all. Which is it? Stop changing your premise.Please tell us what principle you use to derive the idea that this part of the Colorado Plateau should have undergone 'massive erosion' at any particular time in the past. Show us your reasoning other than what you 'would expect to happen'. No... at the same time as the quiet period on the Colorado Plateau. You are evading. I showed you that the Uncompahgre Uplift was going on at the same time as the quiet, continental sedimentation was happening in the Grand Canyon area. Your only reaction was to go into a frenzy.The point is that on an active planet, not all areas are necessarily active, and there is no time-frame in which they must be active.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

"Seems a tad excessinve," to whom?You keep saying this but never say why, other than the fact that you simply cannot believe it.Do you call that 'evidence'?

Good points. I think that the best service that Faith's posts provide is bullet-proof confirmation that YEC is intellectually bankrupt. They remind us that science is the correct instrument for viewing the universe.But, these periods of hiatus where nothing happens on EvC that occur between the massive bombardments 'seem a tad excessive'. I'm beginning to think they are designed for some nefarious purpose ...

I think Faith is particularly bad at explaining YEC. I don't judge them by what I see from her.