Summations Only

All according to Faith. Hey, I'm convinced. I'm still laughing ...

But you have been shown how the scientific explanation produces everything we see and measure.Meanwhile you haven't even hinted at how the flood could produce any of what we see.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This is a reasonable sounding request if it is true that the current theory is just a made up story. The request would not be reasonable if the current theory were dictated by the evidence.The way to discredit a theory is with contradictory evidence. Nothing else matters including what you believe the Bible says. So it is reasonable to wait for the discrediting evidence before offering a new explanation. So where is the evidence?

Could you explain what you mean by this? I thought it was non controversial that we were all of the species homo sapiens even if we disagreed on our origins. I am sure I have missed your point. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic graphic.

It was pretty clear from her response that Faith did not understand Asgara's post. Perhaps a little slower on the draw?

I just love it when a YEC poses a question and then sets him/herself up as the arbiter of what is reasonable, or acceptable or factual.It's so .... appropriate, and predictable.

You THINK you have done that, yes. In reality there are lots of things that you would not predict nor measure or see. If you are honest Ned, a lot of the time you would consider a conjectural-defence as an explanation, sure - but just because explanations are given, no matter how far-fetched, doesn't mean they happened that way.Ichthyosaurs don't go diving head first into the bottom of the ocean then get their heads stuck in the mud for a million years.We have "seen" a mini grand canyon cut out in days at Mt St Helens. We have seen flume experiments prove that stratification can happen quickly.Simply saying, "all the evidence is on the side of evo and long ages" is an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T spread over the internet.No theory, no matter how factual, would have all of the evidence support it anyway, that would be a fantasy. Science doesn't work like that and you know it, extra-hypotheses are used to explain things that do not fit for starters. I will presume you had a rash senior moment , not thought through properly.You guys spread propaganda but your "explanations" are sometimes frankly DESPERATE, such as the young dino-flesh, and the ludicrous, inventive and imaginative stories they create to try and avoid that it is obvious evidence of youth.Creating tenuous and silly conjectural excuses for the contradictory evidence, aren't "explanations" in my opinion, they are better defined as excuses in order to save the evo-paradigm.Notice it is usually some unfalsifiable gibberish? That is the problem - sure, technically we can't disprove the excuses, but that doesn't make them good explanations over the highly explainable and correct, yecxplanations.

Nor has anyone else Mike. Those are just more lies and misrepresentation from the con-men. No one has seen a mini Grand Canyon cut out in days at Mt St Helen's and to even suggest that shows either wilful ignorance or more likely just lies.You have not seen a quick way to produce anything resembling the Green River varves and to make that claim is either wilful ignorance or more likely just lies.Those are all just examples of the utter crap Creationists present because they know their audience is not bright enough or willing to question such nonsense.

Asgara gave you one in Message 492:

quote:

---

Slartibartfast

---

You should've looked it up:

quote:

---

Slartibartfast is a Magrathean, and a designer of planets. His favourite part of the job is creating coastlines, the most notable of which are the fjords found on the coast of Norway on planet Earth, for which he won an award.

---

But that's because your landscape didn't get buried, leaving you with no place else to go. The insects or the tree you were in the habit of feasting on didn't get buried under a great depth of sediment.Again if a new landscape shows up somehow or other that could only be the makings of the next rock up in the strata, which would have to be of a different sediment, because that's the usual situation in the strata, and contain a different collection of corpses, as is also the usual situation with the different layers, but there may be some millions of years in the standard scenario before we get to that layer and besides, we need a landscape for the creatures to live in long before that and all there is while their landscape is getting buried is sediment -- so far as anyone has revealed. So before they've had time to evolve, after their landscape got buried, and the only environment is this deep sediment that is accumulating over their landscape, where can they live? It's still a question.I still can't see any way you could have a large flat expanse of sediment that becomes rock, that was once a particular landscape that becomes the rock, which gets buried under a LOT of sediment, in which the creatures that supposedly lived in that particular time period/ landscape got buried with the rock -- because that's the only landscape said to exist at that time so all the creatures would have had to die and not pass on their genes to the next layer of landscape/sediment/rock/landscape/time period. You imagine other places they could live, but their fossils aren't found in other places, only in this particular rock associated with this particular time period. This could maybe be explained for a particular time period or two or three (though I'm not sure how), but not for every time period up the whole geo column at that location. The answers I've been getting seem mostly just to assume there's no problem and my description is crazy, because of course you know they didn't all die. But you can't explain how that's possible given the situation you believe existed. Or instead of explaining the actual facts for a particular time period, mainly the rock in the stack of strata, and the buried fossils and the "depositional environment" you have constructed from clues in the rock, some think the situation today can answer the problem. But it can't. The situation peculiar to the rock and the fossils and the imagined landscape is what needs to be answered and it's not like anything today.

I did look it up. I didn't see a third alternative there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are getting quite adept at changing the subject.

Option 1: It was a result of natural processes.
Alternative 1: The Flood did it.
Alternative 2: Slartibartfast did it.
Alternative 3: Satan made it look like that to trick you.
Alternative 4: Ancient aliens specifically designed it to look that way.There, now you have three more alternatives.

But only in the abstract. The actual situation of getting from one time period to the next from nothing but a rock which is imagined to once have been a landscape is not possible, as I keep trying to show, and answering that problem with the usual scientific generalizations totally misses the point.

Landscapes are buried quite slowly, Faith, and a bit at a time. I have often walked around on depositional environments. This did not "leave me with no place else to go". I had places to go. I went.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.