Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

Again faith, you need to provide a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain what does exist that does not require immense periods of time.We are waiting on you.

Nope. I just told you what's found in the various "rock layers" in parts of South Africa. And the relative ages of those "rock layers" to each other. Nope. I just told you what's found in the various "rock layers" in parts of South Africa. And the relative ages of those "rock layers" to each other. I don't have a problem. I just told you what fossils are found in various "layers" of rocks in South Africa and the relative ages of rocks to each other. The Beaufort is younger than the Ecca and the Dwyka and the Transvaal and the Wits and the Barberton. And that the lower parts of the Beaufort are older than the middle parts and older than the upper parts of the Beaufort. And the fossils we find in the lower parts and middle parts and upper parts of the Beaufort. All just from outcrops and boreholes...Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I noticed. So, where are the houses that once existed before the flood? Can you show us one sitting on the Great Unconformity? How about an arrowhead or pottery shard?This isn't rocket science, Faith. If there were people around at the beginning of the flood, then their artifacts should be found in the first phase of the flood, not just at the 'top' of the geological column. They did not just 'run uphill'.

edge, to me coprolites are always very interesting. Those guys just had a dump or two around their houses...

Well, not to \[b\]you/b. Most reasonable people agree that old ages make more sense.They understand that the house of ad hoc cards you are building is pure fantasy. And your supporting evidence?

You WAY underestimate the destructive power of a worldwide Flood.However, sometimes I think there may be artifacts from the pre-Flood world that are misinterpreted by Science as usual. Don't know, maybe all perished.Of course your biased interpretation must be better than mine because it's yours, right?

Right, old ages just subjectively "make more sense," they just FEEL more right, don't they? That's why I laughed when I realized the earth was really only a few thousand years old. We just FEEL LIKE it should be a lot older. Yeh, that's sad because it's the Old Earth that's the fantasy, and they believe it only because they've been told it and because it just SEEMS like it must be right although the evidence claimed for it is utterly ridiculous.And the "ad hoc" here is the manufactured proofs of this invention that just FEELS like it must be right.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Heh, heh, heh ...So the evidence we ask you for was destroyed!!! Amazing. And convenient for you.So, then, Faith, why do we have fossils at all, particularly in the lower flood sediments? How were delicate soft-bodied creatures preserved, and how did we get things like footprints in soft sediments? Well, if you think so... I'd say that pretty much everyone here has a better interpretation than you. At least, they have provided support for their arguments.

Yeah, I was thinking about those also. I guess dinosaur feces were more durable than human feces...There's always a reason, eh?

How did the flood only sort grass pollens into certain epoch layers and not into others?

Once again the "support" is pathetically nothing but senseless mental constructs and inventions. Time periods in strata, it's laughable except that it's bamboozled most of the human race, which really isn't funny.

Gosh I don't know, why don't you interview them?

In the face of radiometric ages (that would be 'evidence' to most of us), yes, it seems more sensible. And we can discuss rates of other geological processes also if you want. But I'm pretty sure you don't want to. That would be supporting evidence after all... Even to people who don't know about the evidence, yes. Who is sad? Yes, when one considers the evidence, it sure does seem to be that way. "Proofs"?What on earth are you talking about? But yes, when one actually studies the rocks, there is a certain confidence in the consilience of evidence.

Magic can do anything. That's why creationism is not science.You do know that the Beaufort Group contains fossils of reptiles in the oldest deposits; then various degrees of fossils of mammal-like reptiles a bit higher up, then degrees of fossils of reptile-like mammals a bit higher, then mammals at the top, don't you?The theory of evolution can explain that sequence of fossils scientifically. Magic fluddies can't.

Coprolites are FOSSILS. If human beings were found fossilized in great numbers then we could expect to find human coprolites. But it appears that humans along with some of the higher mammals, escaped fossilization and got eaten up by sea creatures or bacteria. Maybe they lived in grass huts that got destroyed too.