The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

And by mountains and valleys. So you say. Geologists say different. The evidence agrees with them.

Right. So aeolian processes imply a desert; riparian processes imply a river; lacustrine processes imply a lake ... There are the sedimentary rocks which look exactly like what you'd get if you lithified the sediments deposited by a river. Being sane, I take this as being evidence of a river rather than of a magical impossible flood that didn't happen. Rivers have sediment on their beds, usually. It is this sediment that I expect to survive the removal of the river. A river will deposit sediment in its bed, at its delta, and on its floodplain. So you say: geologists say differently. Their ideas make more sense, because of fitting the evidence, which the thing you have made up does not. So you say: geologists say differently. Their ideas make more sense, because of fitting the evidence, which the thing you have made up does not.When we find what looks like trees, with what look like roots embedded in what looks like paleosol, then a normal person would say that this is evidence that trees once grew in what once was soil. If you have ideas as to how the same phenomenon could be produced by Flooddoingit, this thread is actually meant to be devoted to creationist excuses for the fossil record. That's an interesting thing you've made up, but it appears to be supported only by your vehement assertion, and experience tells me that such things are invariably false.

Faith. It is not only possible, but normal, to live on top of sediment. And that's what makes the cartoon such a steaming heap of crap.Perhaps in future you should look at evidence, like geologists do, instead of at cartoons, like creationists do. For example, read the description of the Morrison Formation.

But this is something you have made up, Faith. Apart from the you should have said "prove" rather than "suggest" (and "geological record" rather than "geological column, but I've pretty much given up on that as a lost cause) this is perfectly true. Yes, the rivers themselves do not remain after they vanish: only conclusive proof of their existence remains. If they no doubt existed, then they're not so much "imaginary" as real, and it's not so much "mental conjuring" as correct inference. But this is something you have made up, Faith. Oddly, you're the only one here descending into gibbering, barking madness.This would explain why you have arrived at a different conclusion from all the people who've actually studied the rocks and know what they look like. Faith, at any given point in the history of the Earth, it has had a surface.I am having considerable difficulty imagining what sort of mental confusion you are suffering from that makes you write nonsense like this. When only some of the strata were laid down, that was also a landscape.Again, I do not know what is going on in your head, but it seems bizarre and other-worldly. But ... it ... would ... have ... when ... it ... was ... alive.Have you hit your head on something? Uprooted is actually the opposite of rooted. And as with all your beliefs, this one is so droolingly halfwitted it's a wonder you're smart enough to get out of bed in the morning. But perhaps I overestimate you, perhaps a nurse wheels you to the keyboard, gives you your morning injection of LSD, and you begin to type whatever crazy shit starts going through your head.

The roots of your insanity are becoming clearer. Do you suppose that the strata were rocks when they were laid down?They were sediment, Faith. Sedimentary rock is formed from sediment. Hence the name.---Landscapes can have flat bits. For example: It is therefore not surprising that we can find evidence of flat bits in (for example) the Jurassic as well as evidence of Jurassic mountains.

Inferred, not imagined. Just as we infer a dinosaur from its bones. We can tell the difference. One is a rive, the other is evidence of a former river. Well, some facies cover great distances. But the remains of lakes cover smaller distances, which is one way we can recognize them. The remains of rivers are, y'know, river-shaped. Could I once again point out that most livable landscapes are in fact sedimentary deposits. It is actually harder to live on bare rock. If you dug beneath your own house, it is highly probable that you would hit dirt. That dumb cartoon is not a fact, Faith It is dumb shit that you have made up in your head which is contradicted by all the evidence in the geological record, and which everyone who has studied that record would dismiss as the retarded product of a deranged mind.

As we all know, the Flood can do anything. In this case it took rocks out of a real river, suspended them floating on top of the flood water for a bit while it shoveled in other sediment underneath of them, and then put them carefully down in the shape of a river, thus faking up the evidence for a river in order to fool geologists. (You note the devilish cunning of faking the evidence for a river by using just those rocks which, if left in situ, would actually have constituted evidence for a real river?) Fortunately Faith saw through the Flood's subterfuge because she's smarter than hyperintelligent mischievous water.

Here are some pictures of things living on flat sediment. You will see that it is perfectly possible. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is common.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

(Except in a magic flood.) No, Faith. Lots of mountains are still right there. And have been for millions upon millions of years. They have not all been eroded to flatness. They have certainly not "collapsed down into a flat slab of rock". They just stand there being mountains.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Namely? I wonder who wrote it and why he didn't mention the mountains. Do you have a reference, maybe some quotations? Well, for example, here's a pretty relief map of North America in the Jurassic Period, when we had the Interior Seaway ...

Whereas when we look at the actual terrestrial sedimentary rocks we find abundant evidence of plant life. This is another reason why we should look at the fossil record, like scientists do, instead of looking at cartoons, like creationists do. Huh?No, it didn't.That's just ... weird. Some of them are preserved as fossils; most of them are not. Which is what you'd get as the landscapes in the photographs got covered over by further sediment, buried, compacted, cemented, lithified ... they too will become sedimentary rocks one day, so long as they continue to be in depositional environments.I don't see what it is you're finding hard to understand here. Are you absolutely incapable of concrete thought? I can understand how you might get confused by genetics, but here we are talking about very basic material stuff that everyone's seen: mud; sand; water; grass; trees.

And all the geologists.Funny, you'd think that studying geology would make them know more about geology than you do. If only your unique ability to "get it" went hand in hand with some rudimentary capacity to explain it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why do you think dinosaurs couldn't have lived in the highlands?

The dinosaur beds are just the places where (a) there was a nice depositional environment where bone stood a good chance of being buried by sediment (b) there is a nice lot of exposed rock today so we can spot the bones. Sure. You get vegetation on mountains.

Not necessarily. Just that it was above sediment at one time and later covered with sediment. Well, point me out the specific locale, and I'll tell you. The answer will probably have the words "sedimentary basin" in it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.