Summations Only

Perhaps a very basic Q&A might be helpful at this point.For example, if I specify a surface environment to get buried what type of rock would we see in a geological column?If the surface is a marsh, what should we see?If the surface was an ash flow from a volcano what would we see in the geological column.If the surface was a shallow lake with limited inflow and out flow what would we see?If the surface was a coral reef what would we later see?If the surface was a riverbed what would we see millennia later?If the surface was a grassland, a savanna what rock would get produced?

So, you never read my earlier message?Perhaps you can tell my why my claims are unscientific.

The TRVTH of the matter is they are unscientific because they contradict an interpretation of the bible.Its as simple as that.

You mean 861?I read it. I even partly answered it, figuring maybe I'll get to the rest later. But I don't get what you think is so important about it.The whole idea of former landscapes or depositional/erosional environments either, is purely imaginary, THAT's what's unscientific. And it's what I'm trying to get at with my puzzle because I believe you cannot scientifically/honestly get from your imaginary landscape to the rock that represents it. You come up with all kinds of principles you think accomplish it. They don't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are permanently stuck in that rut I fear. You really ought to stick your head out sometime and see how wrong you are.

Except of course that once again reality shows you are wrong, the idea is certainly not imaginary as you have been shown time after time after time after time, it is evidenced. The evidence is the samples and the samples show conclusively what produced them. Dinosaur tracks were produced by living dinosaurs, leaves were produced by living trees. The geological column is not imagined but rather absolute and conclusive irrefutable evidence of change over time. The ordering of fossils is not imaginary but rather absolute and conclusive irrefutable evidence of change over time.It really is that simply Faith.Only a Young Earth and Biblical floods and Garden of Eden and special creation are imaginary.

That evidence works just as well for the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "rock record" is a lie. The only real landscapes occur on the top of the strata wherever they are exposed. And those are the only landscapes that ever existed in the strata, all the rest is a bunch of misinterpreted bits and pieces in the rocks. Why not provide photographs instead of drawings? Could it be because in reality such irregular surfaces hardly ever occur in a stratigraphic column? And when something like that does occur it's better interpreted some other way?Since you are making flat declarations you make it necessary for me to do the same. You said something about having dealt with my "puzzle" but I don't recall seeing what you said about that. If you'd like to stop exchanging declarations and consider my argument please repeat whatever you said about it since I didn't see it. I'm sorry to hear it. You have my sympathy for your very sick science.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The whole idea of former landscapes or depositional/erosional environments either, is purely imaginary, THAT's what's unscientific.

---

So you say. However the basis for that claim seems to be somewhat questionable to say the least.

quote:

---

And it's what I'm trying to get at with my puzzle because I believe you cannot scientifically/honestly get from your imaginary landscape to the rock that represents it.

---

Because when you try to think about it you come up with objections like:When the landscape is lithified, the creatures that lived there millions of years ago will lose their homes.Seriously, Faith ? You think that is a problem for us ?

If I am not mistaken, those photographs have been presented to you, several of them repeatedly over the span of several years. Have you been sound asleep all those years? Or have you merely been keeping your hands clasped firmly over your eyes in order to block out reality?In addition to photographs, there is also seismic imagery. such as is used by petroleum exploration companies. They are very highly motivated to find petroleum deposits and far too profit-driven to waste all that time and effort of supporting an International Jewish Communist Conspiracy of Bankers and Lawyers ... sorry, wrong paranoid conspiracy theory. Seismic imagery does show the strata that lie beneath the surface along with buried river valleys. Again, there is no motivation for them to engage in any conspiracy to hide young-earth-flood evidence. Oil companies are pure capitalists, not ideologists.Faith, you have been shown the evidence repeatedly. The evidence conflicts with your preconceived dogmatic beliefs. You choose to ignore the evidence and reality in order to preserve your dogmatic beliefs. That tells everyone exactly how much your dogmatic beliefs are worth.As I said, you have a highly vested interest in standard geology making no sense to you. We have repeatedly witnessed you making great effort to avoid understanding standard geology. We all know full well what to expect from you and yet we continue to try to deal honestly and truthfully with you. Think about that, if your dogma were to allow it (please note the use of the subjunctive mood there).

If you have something to say or offer on the topic, please do so. Otherwise your comments on me personally, which is about all you've had to offer in post after post for some time, are out of line.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, that is quite correct. In fact, it is the basis of the topic, The Great Creationist Fossil Failure, that had spawned this very topic. The one that, as I recall, you were unable to respond to so you started this topic.To summarize, we have very good explanations for that observation, though it involves a long and complicate geological history. Your young-earth flood-geology ideas completely fail to explain anything. Yes, that is correct (though your own thought processes must understand your statement differently). And just how does one stay in one's own time period? It just happens. It's the opposite that is difficult and exceptional. Lacking an operational TARDIS (or any other time-travelling methodology outside the standard one of inching ever so slowly into the future), how could anyone ever possibly move outside of one's own time period?When I first read that, I thought that you were proposing exactly that, that the fossilized organisms had wandered about up and down through the "levels". I wanted to challenge you to do the very least that you were demanding of those creeping crawler, since you as a human are so superior to them, that you wander down to a level buried 50 feet down without benefit of any excavating equipment (since the creeping crawlers had none). Or to wander up to that level 100 feet up from the surface.When put to you in such straight-forward terms, can you begin to understand how absolutely bat-quano-crazy you make yourself appear? At first blush, you appear to be suggesting such "roam{ing} around from one level to another" is something that you think had happened. But upon further inspection, it appears that you think that that is what geologists think. No, they most definitely do not think that! You are creating ludicrous strawmen to knock down. Who do you think you are fooling with that? Just yourself, that is all. And fooling yourself is your most important goal with all this.

No, it's one of the hypothetical weirdnesses that is made necessary by the craziness of the Stratigraphic Column and its Depositional/Erosional Environments, nothing else, just facts that present themselves as one tries to follow out that craziness. I understand that you must fail to appreciate this fact for reasons of your own. Definitely not. Because they think the stratigraphic column and the depositional/erosional environments and the geo timescale make sense. What I'm doing is showing that they don't. Unfortunately nobody gets it. But ya know what? I'm beyond caring. Not exactly. It's where the actual circumstances lead me. Not to any place a geologist ever goes because they are too busy avoiding the facts that would lead them there. Lots of general principles are thrown at me, but following out the actual facts, no. Your ability to assess motivation is abysmally bad. Do give it up and find a more useful pursuit. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Finding your specific post would be difficult, so I will use this one.What did I tell you, Faith? Build your edifice brick by brick, stone by stone! You even said you loved me for that. In this topic, you have taken all your bricks (nowhere near enough for the job) and thrown them all out at the same time hoping that your edifice would rise up. Well, it doesn't work that way. All you created was a mess, a big confusing mess that confused us as to what you were rambling about but more importantly it confused you about what you were trying to think. Structure and organization! I am a software engineer. Computer science students almost never write any programs that are more than a few source files in size, whereas professional projects typically consist of hundreds of source files. Those students are able to keep the logic of their entire programs in their heads. So-called "super-programmers" are able to do the same with several source files. But when the program grows to hundreds of source files, then no human mind can keep track of everything that is going on, which is why software engineering practices need to be followed.You have been trying to hold the whole of geology in your mind and that has failed miserably. By attempting to do so, you have rendered yourself terminally confused and, in your own confusion, you continuously confuse the rest of us as to what you are babbling on about.In software engineering, there is the concept of "divide and conquer" -- I may have mentioned it before. You have before you an enormous task, an impossible task. So you break it down into smaller problems, and those smaller problems into ever smaller problems. And so on until you have before you several problems which are each easy to solve. At that point, since you have solved the lowest-level problems already, you can solve the next-higher-level problems, etc.So then please apply those principles.Start with landscapes. Landscapes exist on or about the surface as I and several others have already described to you. Life lives in a landscape (to which we had agreed to apply also to the seascape, the bottom of an aquatic environment).So then what happens to landscapes? Several scenarios are possible depending on the particular properties of a specific landscape. Depositation, erosion, both. List all the possible landscapes and their properties. Then describe everything that can happen to each landscape and determine what the consequences are for that particular landscape. In other words, generate a series of scenarios and analyze them!Then extend specific scenarios. What kinds of depositational patterns would they generate? Do not confuse one scenario with another!Faith, you repeatedly confuse one scenario with another and generate nothing but confusion. Stop it!

quote:

---

No, it's one of the hypothetical weirdnesses that is made necessary by the craziness of the Stratigraphic Column and its Depositional/Erosional Environments, nothing else, just facts that present themselves as one tries to follow out that craziness. I understand that you must fail to appreciate this fact for reasons of your own.

---

Faith, it is not a fact, it is crazy nonsense that you made up. And that is why we don't believe it. What more reason would we need ?

quote:

---

Definitely not. Because they think the stratigraphic column and the depositional/erosional environments and the geo timescale make sense. What I'm doing is showing that they don't. Unfortunately nobody gets it. But ya know what? I'm beyond caring.

---

It is quite obvious that you don't get it. You don't get what geology says - and even you don't understand your objections.Faith, if what you were saying was at all true you would be showing that your objections made sense - but you don't even try to present any reasoning to support them.

quote:

---

Not exactly. It's where the actual circumstances lead me. Not to any place a geologist ever goes because they are too busy avoiding the facts that would lead them there. Lots of general principles are thrown at me, but following out the actual facts, no.

---

The first sentence is a lie - you don't look at any actual circumstances, so how can they lead you anywhere ? When we ask you to point at real examples you just refuse. Since you insist on keeping your argument on the level of general principles, is it surprising that the answers mostly do the same?It is obvious that you hate the ideas that you are discussing to the point where you can't bear to really think about them or understand them - and will throw out any nonsense as an excuse to reject them, but that is hardly going to convince anyone else.