Summations Only

My questions have nothing to do with the Flood. That's a figment of YOUR imagination. The questions come from pondering the strata and the geological interpretations thereof, which I find laughable. The only role the Flood plays in that is freeing me from those ideas.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those that were bare were typically not landscapes: for example, limestone strata formed from calcareous ooze. Those on land, on the other hand, had plants growing in them (at least, after the evolution of land plants). This is why we find fossils of land plants in the fossil record.

Your posts come courtesy of the blinders of belief, as you have told us so many times.You know nothing about real geology and strata and the rest, and you couldn't accept the evidence if you did know it.You really should not try and pretend what you are doing is science, as your posts clearly show otherwise and you have stated time and again that you are following the bible, not the real-world evidence.At least be honest about what you are doing!If you just admit that you are posting your beliefs quite pretending that there is any scientific evidence for those beliefs, I think you would be better off. You probably would be a lot happier as you are reaping a lot of grief in pretending those beliefs have scientific backing.That issue was settled over 200 years ago, and there's no putting Humpty back together again.

... of which you evidently know almost nothing .. Which you find incomprehensible, Faith. Despite the fact that it is quite plain to everyone who has actually studied geology. You're just doing the typical creationist "reasoning": "I can't understand this [subject which I haven't studied]. Therefore this is stupid." Your overweening arrogance apparently prevents you from seeing the alternative (and correct) explanation of why you can't understand it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm not sure what's 'odd' about it. All of this is supported by evidence, including hard radiometric dates. Nothing else make sense.So, of course no one discusses it. It's like discussing where the tooth fairy lives.

Of course. Those are seafloors. And they are not without nutrients, or without fossils from the overlying water column. Take your own advice...Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Perhaps you need me to find it incomprehensible, but I think I understand it pretty well. What's to understand anyway? Dating methods have convinced you that a particular rock is very old. They also tell you that the strata can be dated in succession from most ancient at the bottom up to recent time at the highest levels. You are comfortable with hundreds of millions of years for the construction of the whole stack of strata.You find certain kinds of fossilized life in a rock, maybe both flora and fauna. Some are recognizably of marine origin, some of land origin. Many of them bear little resemblance to living things we are familiar with, which fits with the idea that they are very ancient. Especially since the higher you go in the stack of rocks the more like living things we are familiar with they become. The apparent ordering of the fossils convinces you that they are evidence of evolution. You suppose that those in a particular rock lived at the time in the past the rock dates to. You associate particular time periods with particular kinds of life forms.You are familiar with rock from a certain kind of source today so when you find the characteristics of that sort of rock in the strata you understand the rock to have originated from that kind of source or environment, perhaps a shallow sea, perhaps a river or lake, perhaps a sand dune.This all adds up to an idea of a landscape with the features of the source of that kind of rock, and populated with the plants and animals you find fossilized.You examine each rock in the stack of strata and ascertain its age, its origin or depositional environment and the sorts of life as indicated by its fossil contents that lived there, so that you end up with a comprehensive idea of the whole geological column and its useful information about the past, biological evolution and the ancient age of the earth.What's the difficulty?Perhaps I'm giving only a very superficial sketch of the processes involved, but I don't think you can say I simply don't understand it. You find it insulting that I consider it ridiculous. I'm sorry about that but that's how I see it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think we find it insulting.Rather, I think most of us find it incredible that you can ignore so much evidence that says your ideas are flat-out wrong.Many of us are scientists, and we find there is no value in mistakes and errors. What's the use of something that's just wrong?

Why are you complaining about the Flood again? Is there something wrong in my sketch of scientific processes as used in constructing ancient time periods?

The most interesting parts of your post are what it doesn't say.For one it omits most of the evidence for past landscapes (although that is hardly surprising)More importantly it omits all the daft things you've been saying which show what a poor understanding you have.I think we can safely conclude that you know very well that there are things you don't understand at all well. Some of them very simple.

quote:

---

You find it insulting that I consider it ridiculous. I'm sorry about that but that's how I see it.

---

I find it more insulting that you refuse to pay attention to the answers you've been given - or sometimes even refuse to admit that they exist. Your opinion is so obviously worthless it carries no sting.

That was one absolutely totally useless post. Thanks anyway.

Perhaps then you can explain the omission of any of the contentious points that have come up in this discussion, such as your confusion over the whole issue of burial and lithification.Surely your failure to understand a rather simple point counts against your assertion that you have a good understanding.

I'm not aware of any "confusion" over burial and lithification.

So, you are still unaware that the entire "where does the life go" argument was completely bogus, and that bringing up the deep burial required for lithification in that context was an obvious red herring ?You are unaware that the deep burial required for lithification implies that there would be a considerable depth of unlithified deposits on top of the material "turning to rock"'?Really ?

Well, you finally said something right.