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

All I've done here is state the sfcenario, buster, and that in the teeth of absurd misreadings at every turn, so don't tell me this thread represents the whole of Floodism. You have no idea. You've got Price in your head so everybody is Price. I never heard of Price until you came along. There were lots of bad creationist ideasw waty back thetre too. So what. You fiddle with the same information creatiuonists do. Don'tr pretend you have some superior ability they don't.

Yes, and guess what happened next:Digging. Endless samples including bore holes literally by the millions just since the 1950s. Testing and demonstrations. Applying immense heat and pressure under repeatable laboratory conditions. An understanding of chemistry, acoustics, physics, etc.That's what you don't seem to get. On the OE side, the grunt work as been done in spades. It's been done so minutely that oil companies bet BILLIONS of dollars on that grunt work (and WIN). You need to get busy if you hope to have any impact. In millions of layers separated by relatively course material? Absolutely it does. Silt doesn't horizontally settle in turbid waters and calm water doesn't move course material. It's extremely basic and demonstrable to a grade school class. We only have to know what is required to make one such a layer and then do the math. Yep, that's what Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, et al. said as well. While they were pounding their bibles calling the astronomers devil possessed, the astronomers were demonstrating the folly of such a position.Evidence wins, Faith loses.JB

But science works. The explanations can be used to make predictions and lead to new discoveries. Things do end up behaving in the ways that they seem to scientists, even behaviors that occurred in the distant past but are only discovered these days.If they were all terribly wrong then that couldn't happen.

Oh, I never have nor ever would try to tell you that this thread represents the "whole of Floodism". There are TONS of people just like who you present proof by absolute assertion BUT NO EVIDENCE. It's THAT commonality that is represented well here. You should read him since you channel him. So what? If you read the history of this nonsense you would recognize that you are making the EXACT same mistakes Price did. You object to my comparison and yet admit to never have read his works. I have the EVIDENCE for my comparison -- his books and your words. It's not a superior ability Faith, it's a superior model - one that involves: Digging. Endless samples including bore holes literally by the millions just since the 1950s. Testing and demonstrations. Applying immense heat and pressure under repeatable laboratory conditions. An understanding of chemistry, acoustics, physics, etc. The model works so well that oil companies regularly bet BILLIONS on it (and win).Evidence wins, Faith loses.JB

There actually are characteristics science has that is totally missing from creationism; two major ones are honesty and doubt.Science always questions whether or not it is correct and accepts that it can be in error, changing when that happens to reflect new knowledge and discoveries.That is the strength of science any why it will always be more accurate and useful than belief.When the subject is if one of the Biblical floods ever happened or if the earth is only 6000 years old, science began by belief, believing those were true. However ever bit of evidence, every discovery, every branch of science, every new technology for the last quarter of a millennium has reenforced and confirmed that neither of the Biblical floods ever happened and that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.Young Earth and the Biblical Floods are DeadOnArrival and simply beliefs to be pitied.

SCIENCE works.But Old Earthism and Evolution are just mental constructs that can't be proved.

The point was that I gave only the sketchiest outline of the Flood scenario, and I very much doubt it's Price's. I was merely outlining it and nobody would acknowledge the simplest parts of it so it was a battle just to get it said. Then you come along and accuse me of doing science a la Price. You aren't paying attention either. We'll talk silt when we get to that point.

Old Earthism and Evolution work just as well and the same as the rest of science.

Don't be such a mindless zealot.You know that statement is untrue, so why do you persist in such nonsense?You have been presented with a lot of evidence and you just attempt to hand-wave it away, as if that would make it go away. It doesn't.Your "belief" has been shown to be in error--flat out wrong. OK, you don't accept that.But your denial of evidence is not evidence, it's just laughably and demonstrably wrong.Do you have evidence (other than religious belief) that you can share with us? Do you have any evidence that your belief describes anything approximating reality?

So now we're just slinging slogans. Is too science, is not, is too, is not. But Looked up McCready Price. Reading this critique of creationism at the moment: And this is exactly what I keep objecting to as ridiculous, the whole idea of imputing long eras of time to slabs of different kinds of rock. They say it's evidence for the Old Earth, while all I can do is roll my eyes at such an idea. Just as tney expect it to be intuitively obvious that it implies an old earth and evolution, I regard it as intuitively obvious that the idea is absurd in the extreme. There is no evidence on either side, you are persuaded of either one or the other by your own subjective judgment.

Just more posturing and reciting the Science Creed. Your science is mainly belief too but you recite the Evidence Creed and deny it. Ho Hum.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One thing you have to get used to is that creationists are extremely poorly read. Whereas we take care to research our material, they have no idea where their bat guano comes from. Many times I would immediately recognize the source of a creationist's claim (since he had repeated it absolutely verbatim) and comment with something like, "Oh, I see you like Kent Hovind.", only to face the response of "Never heard of the guy!" Creationist claims spread like urban legends, such that except for the very few exceptions it's impossible to trace how they had spread. Even now, you will find countless websites repeating Kent Hovind's lies verbatim without acknowledging the source, so that countless more creationists will regurgitate the same lies without any knowledge of their source (which most certainly was not the Bible! Nor God even!).Similarly, Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering, AKA "The Father of Flood Geology", had obviously borrowed most of his Fludde ideas from George McCready Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist (which most fundamentalists consider to be a cult -- I wonder what Faith thinks of SDAists), albeit without properly crediting his sources.We do not know what Faith's ultimate sources are (certainly not God nor the Bible, but rather channeled by the arbitrary and false requirements of her theology). Perhaps she had suckled at the teat of Dr. Henry Morris or of any of the Legion ("our name is Legion, for we are many!") of vectors of that particular virulence, so that she would be totally unaware of the source of that poisoned milk. At any rate, she has proven herself quite adept at spinning her own particular brand of bat guano.

I own about ten books by creationists, a biography of Hutton, a few of Dawkins' books, Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and two copies of The Origin of Species. Maybe more, that's off the top of my head.ABE: And a standard Old Earth picture book of the Grand Canyon plus Steve Austin's study of the canyon.The little I've seen of Price so far is of course quite compatible with my views. Lot of good stuff.ABE: SDA is definitely cultish but they manage somehow to hold onto basic Biblical truth at the same time. Buzsaw was SDA and I couldn't fault him on his view of the gospel, despite some strange stuff he also carried around. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, and how to feces become fossilized? By being buried! Even dessicated (ie, dried up) feces. In a Flood?Did you ever see that movie from a couple years ago, Marley and Me. Based on a true story about a dog, Marley. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston with Kathleen Turner in an unrecognizable role as the woman running the dog obedience class that Marley absolutely fails. At one point, Wilson buys his wife a gold necklace, which Marley immediately eats. For the next few days, Wilson followed Marley around in the back yard and every time Marley pooped Wilson would dissolve his feces with a garden hose. Finally, there came a time when Marley had passed the necklace and his feces dissolved away to reveal it.Feces cannot withstand a garden hose and hold together against it. And yet many instances of feces were able to withstand and hold together against your All-Mighty Fludde which is so much mightier and unlike any other flood that we have ever witnessed? Is a garden hose truly so much mightier than your All-Mighty Fludde?Really? How could any turd ... er, fecal instantiation ... possibly have been able to withstand a Fludde that could have scoured whole continents as you have described?Plus, many of these coprolites had dessicated before having been fossilized. How could that have ever been possible under the conditions of your Fludde?And if you don't believe me, then please watch the movie. It is quite enjoyable, though sad at the end when they have to put him down -- if you're not a dog person, then you wouldn't understand anyway. I grew up picking up the poop with a shovel and never knowing otherwise, but it's right there on film before your eyes. Garden hoses obliterate dog poop. Why are garden hoses so much more powerful than your measly Fludde?

Lemme see. I'd guess the feces that got preserved as fossils were dried out for starters, and then got swept up rapidly in the Flood, perhaps packed in mud, ya never know, and then summarily dispatched to their final resting place in the strata, maybe even right on the spot, where being tightly compressed it remained intact, then of course fossilized over the next hundreds of years. Meanwhile I would suppose there were hundreds of thousands of similar items that got dissolved in the Flood water and never got fossilized.No need to give up at the first obstacle that crosses your mind.Or how about this: "scared s--tless" by the rising Flood the animal delivered the fossilized items on the spot as the animal was being buried.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.